Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 21 June 2015 (→Bulk Delete Action by Robert RMS125a AT yahoo.com: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Skyerise

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is obviously very passionate about LGBT issues, but I'm afraid has suffered some sort of meltdown, judging by their recent edit history. The main area of contention relates to Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce, for those under a rock), and which name should be used on articles before her transition. Skyerise was warned yesterday for violating 3RR, and things settled down a little bit, with a discussion opening at WP:VPP. This discussion has drawn large numbers of editors; both Skyerise and I have contributed there and in other fora. And yet, today…wow. Skyerise has:

1. resumed edit-warring;
2. attempted to bully new IP editors by warning them for "vandalism" for perfectly legitimate edits Special:PermanentLink/665345041 Special:PermanentLink/665345537;
3. reported me for "vandalism", when they know full well that good-faith edits are not vandalism (and have been warned for false accusations of vandalism beforehand);
4. and left four separate warning templates on my talkpage over four separate edits within a period of less than 20 minutes, despite my repeated warning for them to stop harassing me

I think a cooling-off block is in order, as passions are obviously high, but the project mustn't continue to be disrupted. If the ongoing discussion at WP:VPP thrashes out a new consensus that aligns with Skyerise's views, then Caitlyn Jenner and related articles can be changed accordingly. ¡Bozzio! 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And now they've opened up a copy-cat ANI report. How very mature. ¡Bozzio! 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a spurious report. Bozzio is describing as "perfectly legitimate edits" edits to modify wikipedia articles around transgender individuals to refer to them by their previous name, in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY. That is something to warn about. I don't see any warnings from you to Skyerise except edit summaries, and we don't notify people with edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise has made 6 reverts to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon in the last 24 hours. BLP Violations are an exception to the 3rr rule, but I'm not really convinced the edits being reverted here are BLP violations. Just because a policy deals with living people, does not make it's violation a BLP violation under the 3rr rule. 3rr BLP exceptions should be clear violations of the primary WP:BLP policy. But its not clear enough so I don't think think a block without consensus would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: usually I'd agree with you, but I don't think the BLP policy was written with this in mind – in other words, to cover situations where something can genuinely be tremendously hurtful, but not defamatory or libellous, which is the standard we apply. The result is a policy that says "we should respect our subjects" but then provides a specific legal test for whether we respect them enough to enforce that respect with no holds barred. And this is fine, if the law keeps up to date. But: it doesn't. Deadnaming is a tremendously hurtful thing to do to any transgender individual, unless they've said they're okay with it, and the presumption we apply is that they haven't. It's just as hurtful, just as offensive, as what we'd class as "defamation" or "vandalism". It's totally within the spirit of the 3RR exceptions to prohibit it, and to give users some leeway in enforcing that prohibiton. That it isn't in the text is a deficiency in the text as a result of the environment it was created in. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what you say is logical enough to justify not blocking for 3RR right now, but given how obviously controversial the changes are, I think any resumption of edit warring should be met with a quick block. That said, Skyerise appears focused on talk page discussion at the moment, I believe that may prove unnecessary. Resolute 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I think your position may be a bridge too far. I certainly strive to respect transgendered individuals, as well as all subjects of BLPs, and I think as a community we have come to accept your position at least in so far as it applies to an individual's Biography. But when it comes to historical events that the individual participated in, recorded on other pages, I think your position may be going substantially further then the community is willing to support, at least judging by the current state of the RFCs. More to the point, I think we need to be really careful about allowing 3rr exemption creep. There is a lot of good logic behind not trying to decide who is right and wrong when it comes to 3rr violations, and the carve outs should be as small as possible to protect particularly important concerns, such as actual slanderous falsehoods, and where they can be applied with minimal ambiguity. I just don't see the core concerns of BLP policy compelling us here, and again I think the 3rr exemption should be limited to that core purpose. Certainly other policies should, can, and do provide broader protection to BLP subjects, but again, we need to be really careful about when we authorize edit warring. Just waving BLP policy around can't be allowed to give you carte-blanche. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I just had a run-in with Skyerise, who I didn't know from a pile of sand an hour ago, and found their approach to defending an edit very aggressive. In the space of about 10-15 minutes, I had two warnings and an advisory on my talk page, with neither warning needed or particularly applicable. Any comment on their editing, including the spraying of talk page templates, is interpreted as a personal attack, yet I found this heavy-handed approach to be both aggressive, as I noted, and an attempt to intimidate me into backing down. There seems to be a lot of frantic energy expended in an effort to skirt the discussion at WP:VPP and to force name changes in articles listing or describing Caitlyn Jenner's achievements while identifying as the male athlete Bruce Jenner. Skyerise needs to take a deep breath, step away and calm down, and gain a little proportion that appears to be lacking at the moment. --Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, please refrain from repeatedly offering advice in multiple venues. You are coming off as extremely condescending and your advice is unwanted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeat violations of MOS:IDENTITY by User:Bozzio

Bozzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly engaging in WP:BLP vandalism by editing against MOS:IDENTITY on article related to Caitlyn Jenner. They have already received a discretionary santions warning from User:Ironholds yesterday but has chosen to ignore it. They have also engaged in user talk page vandalism by removing valid warnings because they disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. The warnings were valid under that policy. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Please provide diffs of where they have removed warnings from other users' talk pages so that we can evaluate that part of your concern. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sorry. and . Skyerise (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, I've never said I disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. I think it's a perfectly sensible guideline, but you've misunderstood and misapplied it completely. You've tried to make out that everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobic nutjob, I think you need to settle down a bit and actually take in a little of what other people are saying. I know you're pretty passionate about this, but try and work within the Misplaced Pages guidelines rather than fighting. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this is really on the same subject of the above, I have now made it into a subsection. Epic Genius (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bozzio is well aware of the discretionary sanctions these articles are under – sanctions that mandate users "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". It's impossible to look their most recent edits and conclude they're doing anything of the sort. My suggestion would be that an admin block to prevent this situation being perpetuated, although if that doesn't work I suspect a topic ban will be pretty much the only way to de-fang this situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both users arent really acting their best today, so I slapped them both. If both users know what they both did wrong, we can be done with this. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess Skyerise isn't really a fan of fish. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a vegetarian. :-) Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is awkward. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for a bright line WP:3rr violation, with 5 reverts to the same article in the last 24 hours. If someone wants to implement a separate discretionary sanction, I have no objection. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of them

Isn't there a big RFC with heavy participation going on about this right now at WP:VPP? Why is anyone on either "side" changing it in one direction or the other before that RFC is concluded? Is there any reason not to topic ban both Bozzio and Skyerise under the discretionary sanctions? Both are clearly treating this as a battleground, making it less likely that cooler heads will prevail, and both have been warned about the discretionary sanctions. I'm probably going to do this sometime today unless someone can convince me not to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen Skyerise engage productively on the talkpage; they're a consistent voice of reason in discussions. I suspect that banning them will make things less cool and reasoned because it will result in a vast imbalance in the voices. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have participated in the discussion and am thus involved, however my opinion would be that page protection would be better suited than blocking editors. There are just so many people involved that it would likely not stop with 2 blocks. Chillum 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need full protection on Caitlyn Jenner's main page because there are numerous editing disputes there right now. Then, there will only be a need to block people who edit war across multiple pages. Just my two cents. Epic Genius (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the area is under discretionary sanctions, so a 1 revert rule might be a good thing to try. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to try, Monty845. A 1 revert rule has to be well publicized on the talk page as there has been a lot of reverting this week (including two by me on Monday). I hope we have learned some lessons since the Chelsea Manning case. Liz 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who has had a few run ins with skyrise over the Caitlyn Jenner article recently, I do not think that they have done anything which would warrent sanctions at this point. I appreiciate the subject knowledgeable editors who are willing to watch busy artcles even if they do tend to be passionate about it and make some mistakes probably out of frustration with editors who are still on a learning curve with WP policy as it applies to BLP who profess a pronoun change request. ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)—

We still have 1RR sanctions imposed on the article. This should be made prominent at the article's edit notice. Epic Genius (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't find Skyerise's well-intended but ideology-inspired effort to sweep historical facts under the rug on Wendy Carlos constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

..by listing it in the infobox? Yes, that's certainly sweeping it under the rug. Perhaps you could approach Skyerise with the same good intentions you read into their actions, hmn? Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise just plastered a huge "discretionary sanctions" on my talk page concerning my alleged edits to Hebephobia, a page I never edited. These are tantamount to a vague threat, are very ugly, rude, and since I have never, ever edited the page, false. Skyrise then said no, it was my edits to decathlon, where I changed one reference to Jenner to list Bruce, then Caitlin. I did this (with the caption "consistency") in good faith because there were three references on the page, two of which listed Bruce first. Skyrise needs to be more careful when templating the regulars and stop this antagonistic behavior. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, but nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people and that is the basis of their edit. They are not open to discussion and intentionally misinterpret or ignore MOS:IDENTITY. The template is appropriate as how a transgender person is treated in other articles falls under its umbrella. I apologize since it is now clear that your edit was not negatively motivated, but honestly, more editors need to be aware of how we currently are expecting to treat transgender subjects under WP:BLP. Skyerise (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, then tried to get me to self-revert with a veiled threat, and an implication of authority that did not exist, as the information you provided about referring to them by their current identity is still being debated. How could you possibly think that is reasonable behavior? Jacona (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "it is currently being debated" does not invalidate the current guidelines. It's endlessly debated every time a notable transgender individual comes out. Those past debates have not yet resulted in MOS:IDENTITY being changed. Until it is changed, it's proper to observe it. Skyerise (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"...nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people..." Skyerise, you need to dial it back about five notches. --NeilN 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise, what you were doing on my talk page appears to be an attempt to intimidate. I suspect you wanted someone other than yourself to revert because you have a topic ban or some such. That may also be the reason you posted the false article name. Is that it? Jacona (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the damn template, dude. It's worded the way it's worded by ArbCom, I believe. It also clearly states that it does not imply that you did something wrong. Again, ArbCom wording, not mine. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I was not talking about the exact wording of the templates, but your acccompanying verbage. Your behavior was very aggressive, rude, devious, and misdirected. Jacona (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Merged from seperate section Mdann52 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This ANI report follows on from my earlier report, and concerns Skyerise (talk · contribs), in their interactions both with me and with other editors, and their editing behavior as a whole. As a result of the earlier ANI report, I was banned for edit-warring. I have no quibble with that, but it did deprive me of the chance to carry on the discussion there. Quite a bit of what I'm posting here has already been detailed on my talkpage (the only place I could post, obviously), but not in any structure. To sum up, I think Skyerise's editing behavior has been detrimental to the project, and something needs to be done.

Interactions on my talkpage and requested interaction ban

I believe Skyerise's continued insistence on posting on my talkpage, despite repeated requests not to do so, constitutes harassment. This is detailed below:

1. Skyerise's first post to my talkpage was a level-three (?) warning for adding "unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" – obviously false, and an example of warning template use and a violation of Don't template the regulars.
2. This was followed by a "final warning" for violating the BLP guidelines – see above.
3. I reverted both of these edits, and my edit summary for the second reversion would to most editors be an indication to "back off". I do acknowledge that I lost my temper there (and that foul language should be avoided), but I'm sure other editors can understand that being templated without any attempt at an explanation is extremely frustrating.
4. Skyerise then almost immediately posted two more (, ) warnings for "user talk page vandalism". The edits in question were of course not vandalism by Misplaced Pages standards. I do understand many editors have only a faint idea of what actually is vandalism, as opposed to, say, disruptive editing, so I am willing to assume good faith there. The warnings were posted in bad faith, however, again with no attempt to discuss the issue at hand.
5. My next edit summary was again profane (apologies), but I was quite frustrated at that point. Again, a reasonable editor would take that edit summary and the continued reversions as an indication not to continue posting on another editor's talkpage, and to pursue other venues.
6. However, after those edit summaries, Skyerise posted one, two, three, four more times, all of which I reverted. This included one comment gloating over the fact that I had been banned for edit-warring.
7. I issued a further warning to Skyerise to stop posting on my talkpage, and finally a formal note where I stated that I felt harassed and would be requesting an interaction ban.
8. Skyerise's response was that they had chosen to ignore my earlier requests because "edit summaries are not for communicating with other editors", and "I don't take bitchy orders posted in edit summaries". I would take this to mean that Skyerise read my edit summaries, but chose to ignore them and continue harassing me.

For all of the above, I am requesting a formal interaction ban between me and Skyerise, with all the attributes laid out at WP:IBAN.

Editing behavior

1. Ever since Caitlyn Jenner announced her name, Skyerise has been edit-warring constantly. I really can't be bothered going into it, but I think their recent contributions speaks for itself.
2. This behavior is what led to the run-in with me, and various other run-ins with IP editors and especially Drmargi (talk · contribs) (pinging @Drmargi separately, they may wish to chip in).
3. Skyerise is a very aggressive and rude editor, using templates that threaten sanctions or blocks against any editor that disagrees with them (see also use of sarcasm/passive-aggression at , ). This, combined with their edit-warring, can hardly be called conducive to a collaborative environment.
4. Skyerise has also produced a blatant example of canvassing. Another user, @Trystan:, pointed this out and suggested a re-formulation of the canvassing attempt. Skyerise's response was "I'll speak as I like, write as I like".

Threatening the project

Perhaps the most concerning thing Skyerise has said is this:

1. "I will boycott Misplaced Pages and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks" (the last bit is pretty funny, but even funnier to me given that I'm a bisexual man whose username is taken from a 1980s gay icon). Also note the status quo is actually the opposite of Skyerise's position.

I've never interacted with Skyerise before a few days ago, and judging by their userpage they seem like someone who's done a hell of a lot of good for the project (although with four previous blocks). This is what is really peculiar to me, and it's a bit worrying that someone's behavior could change so rapidly. I understand that passions do tend to run very high over LGBT issues, and Skyerise seems to be very passionate. I'm taking a break from editing LGBT topics and cutting back my Misplaced Pages editing as a whole for a short while, and I personally think it would best if Skyerise did the same, in a way that is hopefully self-enforced rather than imposed by the community. Perhaps some sort of mentorship could be offered, or someone Skyerise has interacted with before could have a word. I'd like to hear from others, and I think I've said everything I want to say, so I'll be butting out. ¡Bozzio! 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

Quick, somebody call the wahbulance! Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. I, at least, and I suspect others, would like to see you seriously respond to the complaint here. Please take the time to do so... --IJBall (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, User:Bozzio has either not read MOS:IDENTITY or failed to comprehend it. Due to this, he began to edit-war and I unwisely engaged him. In the process, he exceeded 3RR and got blocked and now holds a grudge. I have not continued to edit war, limiting myself to one revert per day on related articles. That's about it. Not watching this train wreck. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do take a look at the summary of my work on my user page. Feel free to block me or whatever, I don't (usually) get paid to edit here. Of course, be sure to remember: blocks are not punitive but preventative. I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong at the current moment. Discuss me all you want, I've got better things to do. Especially since the OP apparently can't be bothered to stay present in the discussion him or herself. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First, Bozzio, you neglect to mention that you also posted warning messages on Skyerise's talk page. But the number of messages Skyerise posted to your talk page seems like overkill. Skyerise, you talk about a block but Bozzio was asking for an interaction ban...would you have any objections to that? Of course, it would either have to be voluntarily observed or adminstered by an admin. Liz 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed not to post on his talk page once he actually requested somewhere other than in an edit summary. Is that sufficient? Seems like he continues to try to engage me by posting thread such as this, but wants to bow out of the discussion himself. Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, blocked users cannot post on user's talkpages other than their own – you know that and you know very well I was blocked at the time. You've already acknowledged that you saw my edit summaries and made the choice to continuing posting. ¡Bozzio! 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REVTALK. And using profanity in your edit summaries while simultaneously expecting another editor to obey them seems like baiting to me. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, everything I've posted to Skyerise's talkpage is basically mandated – edit-warring warning, EWN notification (regrettable edit summary, my bad), then two ANI notifications. Hence I didn't feel the need to mention them. Also just noticed this relevant discussion on Skyerises' talkpage. ¡Bozzio! 17:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all of your templates were mandated. And if you hadn't started an edit war (and made more reverts than me), the template you just mentioned wouldn't have been "necessary" either. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which templates weren't mandated? ¡Bozzio! 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR warning. You had the option not to edit war yourself. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may not be mandated like ANI, but it's common courtesy to warn someone before going straight to the admins. ¡Bozzio! 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is mandated if one intends to file a 3RR report, since the report from requires a diff of a 3RR notification. BMK (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we can basically agree upon the past. Going forward, can you two stay away from each other? Think hard about this because it means not checking their editing contributions, not lurking on their talk page, just going about your business with no contact with each other. Liz 02:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I wasn't going to say anything further about this matter, having no wish to be part of Skyerise's drama, much less a further target of her sarcasm and vindictive abuse of process. But after seeing the antics of the last few days, her sarcastic responses to advice from a fair few other editors, and her reduction of editors who don't share her views to crass stereotypes, I feel like I must add one final comment. What's regrettable about this whole affair is that it largely escalated because Skyerise doesn't understand or refuses to recognize one critical, fundamental point of human nature: you can't force another person's respect, whether it be of you, or of what you believe. It has to be earned. Spraying accusations of transphobia like confetti at anyone who disagrees with what she wants, abusing all manner of wikipedia templates and noticeboards, ignoring the advise of other editors, making threats, adopting a "fuck you!" attitude, and especially standing on the mountaintop and shouting, "You'll agree with me because I am right or you'll pay the price!" will get her nowhere. Reasonable, calm and respectful discussion will.

Sadly, all Skyerise has done, via her WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and her various tantrums, is to do her cause far, far more harm than good. Calm, reasonable arguments have no effect -- she sees herself as the sole arbiter of truth and what we all must do, and refuses to move from that posture, using it as a justification for confrontational behavior and edit warring. Moreover, she displays a stunning lack of understanding of a range of wiki-policies, a worrying trait in someone who both claims to be the last word on the section of MOS:IDENTITY she wields like a baseball bat, and has edited here for ten years. All the quibbling, nit-picking, and game playing with regard to other editors' behavior won't change the one, problematic common denominator in this sad affair: Skyerise's aggressive editing. How she's eluded another block escapes me. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and personal attacks

This post by Skye is loaded with personal attacks against users they disagree with. It's also a blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS. Calidum T|C 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I mention any names? That's what makes a "personal" attack personal. This is an "if the shoe fits" sort of situation. The only editors who could possibly be offended by it would be those who fit the general description. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't think that's a big deal. Skyerise! Nice to meet you. You got a ton of edits, and yet you don't seem to realize that responding to every single note is counterproductive. If you'd stop pissing people off you'd be much more likely to avoid a ban/block. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is correct. Longevity on Misplaced Pages is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck. Liz 01:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm quoting that... Carrite (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) /// Now snipped on my User page as "Liz's Law of Longevity." Carrite (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Like" Jacona (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not blue link it? WP:LAWOFLIZ? Blackmane (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blackmane, Carrite, you realize of course that the real value of Liz's comment was in the first three words she said. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, credit where credit is due. WP:LAWOFDRMIES then? Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously worried

I may have not exactly been involved this ANI report, but I was following along to see where this would go. I stumbled upon Skyerise's talk page, who made rather worrying (for me, anyways) comments on another user and seems to play a game. After being confronted by AussieLegend about a {{portal}} addition to sections that weren't supposed to be and suggested to add it in External links, the user argued that "Yeah, but I like it better.". Then they went "total bombers". . I would consider this WP:NPA, but that's just me. Then, whilst debuting a wikibreak, they seem to take WP:Content dispute, ANI reports, etc. as a game (which was later edited to ). I have no idea what to make of this, but I find it worrisome and rather disturbing. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a frustrated editor who's perhaps nearing the end of her tolerance for Misplaced Pages and its drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The harassment for being trans and the constant disrespect of women and trans folk on this encyclopedia by editors is enraging, there's a reason I can't bear to argue these issues on the current discussion. People are saying awful things - that have already been hashed out, and are brought up again and again every time someone comes out as trans. I haven't been following this situation at all but there is no doubt in my mind that straight up frustration at people stating that the existing reasonably-good policy needs to be revamped because trans women are "really" men, that our Wiki-compliant system that avoids harm etc. is wrong and that somehow this situation hasn't been revisited with Chas Bono, Laverne Cox, ad nauseum. I can't sufficiently express how stressful it is - and I used to do trans education and outreach in the 1990s. And the moment they find out you are trans, it's off the races with the "you have a COI" crap. So. Yeah. It's a train wreck. Ogress _smash! 20:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I can imagine how frustrating it is, but I don't think it excuses some of the things I'm seeing. There's also a time to step back and take a break, and let others step up for a bit. This kind of aggressive editing and interaction is going to lead to permanent burnout VERY quickly, and WP benefits from having editors like Skyerise here long term. I also wanted to comment on what you said about people claiming trans people have COI... this should not be allowed at all. Period. Nobody would claim COI to try to dismiss women from contributing to topics on women; Canadians on Canadian topics, doctors from articles about medicine, etc. That's just not what COI is. I think it should be clarified somewhere that even implying something like that is, as policy, completely unacceptable. —Мандичка 😜 12:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia I was merely supporting NinjaRobotPirate's comment at the time. You'll note I started with "there's a reason I can't stand bear to argue these issues on the current discussion". I wasn't apologising for anyone, merely providing context. Of course the fact that trans people can't handle the conversations because of the horrible discussions leads to not great outcomes. And the result of ongoing harassment has lead to women leaving Misplaced Pages in great numbers or being banned due to issues like this and GooberGate (I can't say its name or it'll show up and kill me). Ogress _smash! 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You should talk to Lisa...she seems to have gotten along fine as a transgender woman on Misplaced Pages... 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the PSR of Albania

The article affected was: People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Recently, there has been an edit war in this article. The reason was a dispute between what should appear in the country's infobox entry on religion. I think that it should appear, as it has done until a week ago, Religion: None (State atheism). However, there is another user, User:Guy Macon, that thinks that the religion entry should be removed. The consensus they base their edits upon is one reached in Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. Since the PSR of Albania was not an individual, I don't think that resolution applies here, since a person's view on religion is very different from a country's official position on it. To begin with, it is important that the PSR of Albania was state atheist. The infobox should reflect that. How? I think the best way was the former one. I am concerned that if the entry on religion is removed, people won't know if it was state atheist, or just that we forgot to add that information, or maybe that we just don't know.

--WBritten (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

From the closing admin (Guy) -- no relation other than us both having really cool names:

"The result is unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof - i.e. those who either do not identify as religious, or who explicitly identify as non-religious. In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case." (some emphasis added, some is in the original).

"In any article" seems pretty clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think that it should be stated in the infobox that Albania was state atheist. It's a relevant fact. WBritten (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the PSR of Albania, which stopped existing in 1992. In their constitution it was stated that Albania had no official religion. It later pursued state atheist policies, and mosques, churches, and synagogues were used as schools, gymnasiums, libraries... This is why I think that the infobox was right. It said that the PSR of Albania had no official religion (Religion:None), and at the same time added that state atheism was enforced. Nowhere in the infobox it was stated that atheism was the official religion (because it is not a religion, to begin with). WBritten (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Was the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? Genuine question. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The PSR of Albania had no official state hobby. --WBritten (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By the same token, it had no official state religion. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Iran (for example) has no official state hobby, but does have an official state religion.--WBritten (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the actual answer here, and the "Not Collecting Stamps" thing is a valid point. But surely the question should be whether Albania simply had no official religion or whether it was officially atheist, and those are two very different positions (the former is equivalent to not collecting stamps, but the latter would be the equivalent of antiphilatelism). I don't know the answer, but that seems to me to be the question. Mr Potto (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, "not collecting stamps" as a state hobby would be like having "Not Sikh" as a state religion. It does not work for me because it's too specific. Okay, if you don't mind me doing a thought experiment, what if PSR Albania did not allow stamp collecting, but modern Albania did? What if PSR Albania did not allow its citizens to have any hobby? I think that that is different that not having a specific hobby as state hobby. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. But the reason I am so persistent is because the PSR of Albania was officially state atheist. That's why that was reflected in the infobox in the first place. It wasn't simply a non-denominational country, it was an atheist state, and actively fought against religious institutions. WBritten (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not see that the results of the RfC, which focussed explicitly on articles about individual persons, have any direct and automatic applicability on the article on a state. There are no doubt very good reasons for generally omitting that parameter on most individual people, just as there are no doubt good arguments for omitting it on many states. However, whether or not the well-known policies of socialist Albania, which were not merely non-religious but quite explicitly anti-religious, are notable and salient enough as a character trait of that state to justify inclusion in the box, is a matter of editorial decision that ought to be decided through open discussion on the talkpage. I notice that there actually has been some reasonable talk there. There definitely can't be any justification for the type of edit-warring that has been going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"State atheism" is a very nebulous concept and doesn't belong in the infobox. The German Democratic Republic was officially atheist, and one might find citation that say that atheism was enforced by the State. The truth is somewhat different: Religious people were not admitted to the leading party (SED), were not promoted in their jobs, if they got a good job outside the churches. On the other side, both Catholic and Lutheran churches remained open, some people (about 1 or 2 % of the population) went there to celebrate the Mass, and church dignitaries were used in inofficial diplomatic negotiations as intermediaries. Under the circumstances, it is better to remove the parameter from the infobox, cease the edit war, discuss what exactly happened at the time in Albania (a content dispute, possibly) and then re-evaluate the facts according to the closing statement of the RfC: "...In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case..." (which extends the validity of the closure to states and countries, stating a good reason) and "Another issue is noted: those who prominently self-identify as having a philosophical position on religion, but one which implicitly or explicitly rejects faith. In these cases in my view it may be legitimate to mention secularism or atheism as a philosophy, and that would have qualified support according to the debate, but it is clear that they are not religions and it is both confusing and technically incorrect to label them as such." The question is then "Did the PSR Albania introduce a religious system to be used to oppress the previous existing religions, or did they State maintain a philosophical/sociological position to reject religion officially? If it was the former, the name of the new (pseudo-)religion could be mentioned, if it was the latter, the closure of the Rfc sustains omitting the parameter. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things: 1) That the PSR of Albania had no official religion (like many countries today), and 2) That state atheism was enforced. If you want the facts, state atheism was actively pursued especially during the Cultural and Ideological Revolution of 1967. I think that if we remove the parameter from the infobox, readers of that article won't know that the PSR of Albania was state atheist, and may be think that it was just like any other country, or even that we don't know what its official religion was. The position of the PSR of Albania was not only philosophical/sociological. It was a political position. That's why I think it should be included. Maybe we could have an alternate parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist" or something along those lines. I still think that in no way did the former infobox claim that atheism was a religion, and I'd bet that most readers of that article understood that the official stance on religion of the PSR of Albania was state atheism. It was not a new religion, it was not a pseudo-religion. It was a state policy, proclaimed and actively pursued by the government. --WBritten (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., as far as I can tell, your opinion on the content dispute (or mine, or WBritten's, or Kraxler's, etc. ) is completely irrelevant, especially considering that ANI is supposed to deal with user behavior, not article content disputes. This content dispute has been settled already. I posted an RfC. I asked for and got an uninvolved and experienced administrator to write a closing summary and close the RfC. I specifically asked the closing admin to specify whether I needed to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox), and was told that there was no need to do that, and that the RfC applies to all articles. I believe that I did everything correctly.

On a related note, I just got the following notice on my talk page: I have never edited the Balkans page itself, so I assume that this concerns People's Socialist Republic of Albania. If so, could we please post a notice on that article's talk page? I generally limit myself to 1RR and to uncontroversial edits on articles with discretionary sanctions, but I was not aware that People's Socialist Republic of Albania was under DS.

As long as the can of worms is open and we are discussing the article content dispute, here is how I think religion on pages about countries should be approached. I think it should be treated the way we treat it at England#Religion. That page gives the reader a true understanding of the religion in that geographic area in a way that no one-line infobox entry every could. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"? I think not.

BTW, in case anyone missed the main point, Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

Also, for those who REALLY don't get the point, putting X after the "Religion =" in an infobox is claiming that X is a religion. Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Trying to get around it by saying "Religion = None (X)" does not change this. That was the clear consensus from the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is what the admins ruled, I'll have to comply. However, I think that "Religion:None (state atheism)" did make it clear. If the consensus is to remove it, so be it. But, since it's an important fact (for this and many other state atheist countries), what do you think about including an alternative parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist"? WBritten (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is not what infoboxes are for. Anything that cannot be completely and uncontroversially summarized in a word or two should be in the article and not the infobox. I realize that you believe that anything important should be in the infobox, but this has come up again and again rewarding a wide number of parameters and the community has always decided that the standard for inclusion in an infobox is not importance, but rather lack of needed explanation and lack of subtle details. Things like birth dates, college degrees, maiden name, etc.

Getting back to the point, you have reported me at ANI. Please present evidence that I have misbehaved or withdraw your ANI report. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any controversy about this. The old infobox presented information in a neutral way. I don't think the consensus reached can't be applied here, since state atheism is important enough to be highlighted in the infobox. You misbehaved by removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBritten (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I behaved entirely properly. I posted an RfC, waited for an admin to close it, and followed the instructions in the closing statements.

Regarding Future Perfect's accusation of edit warring, here is a timeline.

• April 2007 Article created with "religion = declared atheist state" in the infobox.
• December 2012 changed to "religion = None (State atheism)"
• 04:25, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon removes the religion entry.
• 05:16, 02 June 2015 124.148.222.41 reverts 1RR
• 09:14, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts 1RR
• 10:17, 02 June 2015 WBritten reverts 1RR
• 17:56, 09 June 2015 RfC closed with closing summary saying it applies to all articles.
• 09:45, 10 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC 1RR
• 22:10, 10 June 2015 WBritten reverts 1RR
• 22:16, 10 June 2015 WBritten posts to Guy Macon's talk page, Guy Macon noves it to article talk.
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon replies on article talk page
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC 2RR
• 09:41, 11 June 2015 WBritten replies on article talk page
• 09:51, 11 June 2015 WBritten posts to ANI

So, nobody went past 2RR. As I mentioned before, if there had been a talk page notice letting me know I was editing an article under discretionary sanctions, I would have limited myself to 1RR as is my standard practice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd let the DS thing slide but Guy Macon is overgeneralizing the RFC in my opinion. The comparison with England isn't valid since nobody really cares that Anglicanism is England's official religion (people there practice whatever religion they like), unlike PSR Albania that had bloody crackdowns. As JzG put it in the RFC close, there's a difference between someone who self-identified as atheist in an interview, and someone like Richard Dawkins. And the RFC clearly says "This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures." So it's better to have a specific discussion on the PSR Albania talk page about what to put in that article's infobox. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: " And the RFC clearly says 'This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures.' ", your selective quoting is deceptive. In the praragrahps that you had to have read before reaching the part you selectively quoted, the same RfC clearly says...

"NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR: The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful."

and the closing administrator responded by answering that question with...

"In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc."

...and...

"Religion=none would almost certainly be wrong, in any article on Misplaced Pages."

I have now exhausted my supply of WP:AGF on this issue. I could accept the first two or three times as honest errors, but from here on, if anyone claims that they read the RfC and that it claims to only apply to individuals, I am going to assume that the "mistake" is deliberate and that the person making the "mistake" made it on purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but I take that part of the close to be advisory at most, since it addressed an issue that explicitly wasn't part of the RFC. Just use some common sense instead of campaigning for encyclopedia-wide diktats about anything. Does JzG want to comment? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you said in the "Note to closing admin" on 6 May 2015 " The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful" , which to me indicated that it was undetermined about entities other than BLP subjects, but you personally thought there were grounds for omitting it, and that another RfC would be needed to settle the matter: I'm not going to get involved further here, but I think the only way of settling this would be the other rfc you suggested. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is just about PSR Albania, then the best way to settle that is on the article talk page, maybe with an RFC there. Reasonable uninvolved analysis on a specific article page is almost always more convincing than running an abstract RFC and scraping its limited quantum of consensus across 1000's of articles whose issues can vary considerably. (Note: I'm about to take off and might not be able to edit again til next week). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone can give me a policy-based reason to do otherwise, I intend to continue removing the religion parameter from all articles where the region is listed as "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof, including our article on the PSR of Albania.

If someone posts an RfC asking about the religion entry on the infobox on the PSR of Albania article or asking about the religion entry on the infobox on articles about countries in general I will delay my removals pending the outcome of that RfC. I am not going to post such an RfC myself. I asked if I needed to do so and got my answer. Anyone who disagrees with that answer can take it up with the closing admin. Anyone who wants me to do other than what the closing instructions tell me to do can pound sand, because I refuse to do that.

And unless some admin wants to explain to me exactly how I allegedly misbehaved in this matter so we can discuss the specifics, this should be closed as a content dispute (a content dispute that was settled by RfC, to be specific) and thus inappropriate for ANI. I did nothing wrong, and WBritten did nothing wrong. There is nothing for ANI to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to JzG, who is generally a highly competent admin, in this aspect of his closure he simply made a mistake. The RfC was not only initially posted as affecting only individual people, it remained exclusively focussed on them right to the end. You, Guy Macon, brought up the additional question of states and organizations only in the very final state of the RfC, when everybody else had had their say, and there were only a handful of additional comments and !votes trickling in between that date and the date of the closure, none of which (as far as I can see) addressed this issue. Therefore, there is no way this RfC could be reasonably claimed to have established consensus for this aspect of the issue – it simply wasn't discussed in it. I have no problem if you want to proceed on the default assumption that removal of the parameter from other articles will be consensual, but I strongly warn you against taking this closure as a license for edit-warring if you should encounter reasoned objections or local consensus on individual articles. Even a perfectly valid RfC consensus would not be a license for edit-warring; much less a dubious consensus such as this. You did edit-war on the Albania page (4 removals in the space of a few days is edit-warring whichever way you look at it, no matter if you did or didn't cross the bright line of 3RR); don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You think that reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once is ... edit warring? And you are warning me not to do it again? I would like to request a second opinion from another, uninvolved administrator regarding whether I am guilty of edit warring.

I also find this to be troubling. So far I have had five people make the same mistake, and (other than you), they all thanked me and accepted the consensus once I pointed out that they had missed the first paragraph of the closing summary. The Misplaced Pages community has accepted my removal of the religion parameter from over 600 articles (exactly one is still being discussed). It is time that you do so as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will tell you that it is fairly common practice for individuals who post giant font bold ALL caps messages with exclamation marks at the top of an RFC to be reverted. Do you really need bold, large font, all caps and exclamation marks? Do you think it makes it easier for people to read? Chillum 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea was to make it easier to notice. It was intended for readers like the five people who somehow didn't manage to notice the very first paragraph of the closing summary but instead read the title and stopped reading there. That being said, the fact that a single person has expressed the opinion that they don't like the formatting is reason enough for me not to do it that way.

So, does anyone here support the accusation of edit warring for me reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once? I take administrative warnings very seriously, but as far as I can tell the only possible way to obey this one is to never exceed 1RR and/or to never post an RfC and then act on the consensus from that RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about edit warring per se, but this begins to look like battleground editing and an effort to right great wrongs. I agree with FPAS that you are overstating the scope of that RFC. The part of the close you're trying to rely on simply is not backed by the comments of the RFC partipants, since the RFC itself explicitly excluded every type of article except BLP's. JzG basically added his own view about other types of articles, but I think he is wise enough to know that he can't impute that view to the other commenters. It's reasonable to make a BOLD edit to PSR Albania completely independently of the RFC, but as FutPerf says, you can't use the RFC to backstop an edit war over it. It's subject to reversion followed by discussion on the talk page just like any other content edit. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there was no edit warring on either side. That was and is a false accusation. As long as fut.perf. does not attempt to act on that warning, I am not going to "try to right great wrongs" and insist that another admin tell him that (thus causing unneeded friction between them), but you won't see any other admin supporting the accusation any time soon, because the facts don't support it.

Secondly, what you are suggesting above is that editors analyze RfC closing statements by uninvolved administrators, and if they decide that the admin was wrong, act as if the content dispute was not, in fact, settled by RfC. That may seem like an inviting prospect when you are on the losing end of the RfC and it is you who thinks the admin got it wrong, but I assure you that you would not be happy if both sides were allowed to do that any time there is an intractable content dispute. When an uninvolved administrator closes an RfC and writes up a closing summary, that is, by definition, the consensus. And local consensus on an article talk page cannot override the global consensus of the RfC. See WP:LOCALCON.

Of course admins do make mistakes, and you do have options if you think the admin made a mistake in this case. They are:

• Post a more specific RfC on the same page as the existing RfC that covers the exact situation that you are claiming the closer was wrong about the first RfC covering. More specific RfCs override more general RfCs. I would note that the closing admin himself suggested this as an option for you in his closing summary.
• Ask the closing admin to reconsider on his talk page. This is a required first step if you are claiming that the admin made a mistake in an AN or ANI filing.
• Post a request at WP:AN asking if any other uninvolved admin is willing to vacate the closing and replace the closing summary.
• File a case with the arbitration committee.

What you are not allowed to do is to behave as if there isn't a global consensus or that the consensus is anything other than what the closing admin, right or wrong, said it is. Sometimes Misplaced Pages has content disputes. I regularly mediate them in my role as a WP:DRN volunteer mediator. Sometimes agreement cannot be reached on the talk page, at DRN, or anywhere else. We need some way of settling these disputes, and that way is the RfC. We don't want the disputants arguing about what the result of a hundred or so RfC comments mean, so we ask experienced and uninvolved administrators to close the RfC and make a determination as to where it applies. In this case the determination was that it applies to "all articles". You need to either accept that or dispute it using the steps outlined above.

TLDR: Sometimes Misplaced Pages has content disputes. Sometimes agreement cannot be reached. We need some way of settling these disputes, and that way is an RfC closed by an uninvolved administrator. This settles the dispute. We do not continue arguing about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was pretty clear for natural persons, and equally so for non-natural persons such as companies, according to examples provided. It did not address states. If I may quote:

In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case.

I can't think of a way of clarifying this. Anyone taking that as explicit support for a change in respect of countries, is going well beyond the intent or the letter, it pretty obviously applies only to the examples actually discussed and would immediately be void if (a) someone did provide an obvious reason or (b) a second RfC was started. Either of those outcomes is fine by me. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have posted an RfC at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

I did ask specifically for "additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc.", so I assumed that "etc." and "in any article on Misplaced Pages" included nations. Again, thanks for clarifying that it does not and that we need an RfC to assess community consensus. Of course all article edits by me concerning religion in infoboxes of nations have stopped pending the result of the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone may be impersonating me

User Michael thomas 89 has contacted me about being approached off wiki be someone claiming to be me. He said that the person had claimed to have checked their declined draft article Draft:New_Net_Technologies and directed him to my user page “I am a Wikipedian with high privileges, check my user page:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Sarahj2107 ” . The person then offered to rewrite the article and get it approved.

Michael thomas 89 claims that they took the person up on their initial offer and the page was published. The person then demanded $300, said they had requested the page be deleted and it would only be reinstated when the money was paid. He didn’t think that was right so he then contacted me on my talk page and forwarded some more details to me via email.

New Net Technologies Ltd was created by blocked user user:Coralbatch on 22 May 2015 (the same day as the first email sent to Michael thomas 89), only edit by them and then deleted on 10 June by Guerillero under WP:CSD#G5.

I would really appreciate some help in dealing with this. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know if he was sent a copy of the article to be approved prior to its use? If so, I would like that emailed to me for further evaluation. It may be possible to tie this in with certain paid editor groups.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, two other sock accounts are in play and should be checkusered against the already blocked editor as well as the one who is conversing with you.

• (draft history) by Neilmacleod (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (revision history) by ECooke1804 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Michael thomas 89 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (already blocked by Guerillero) Coralbatch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This may be related to an existing SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute a criminal offense? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this scam has been pulled before (possibly impersonating other admins as well) and just hadn't come to light because the "customers" hadn't followed it up or the articles they paid for did get created and have so far slipped under the radar. It's quite worrying. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: He was sent a link to User:Coralbatch/sandbox asking him to review the draft and let them know when he is ready for it to be published, along with payment details. I will email you what was sent to me. He is also saying that Neilmacleod is just a customer who created a page when they found there wasn't already one, and Emmacooke is someone from the companies PR department. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been pulled a few times before theres as OTRS ticket about one we dealt with earlier in the week that resulted in a CU block of an account. I wasnt privvy to full details on the reasons behind the block unfortunatley. The blocking admin may be able to endulge other CU's though. Amortias (T)(C) 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm I have handled at least two of these through OTRS. The modus operandi I am aware of involves creating an article in mainspace, then contacting a representative of the company and demanding money. If not paid the original author requests deletion via G7. I raised the issue at AN but it never came to anything unfortunately, because it would have required to go fishing with CU at the very least (or there simply wasn't any interest). §FreeRangeFrog 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See this. §FreeRangeFrog 17:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm having seen this in relation to another user, though I can't currently find the email I sent them about it. It was very similar (I'll help with your article for a fee, I am this user), and received by a user who came onto IRC rather angered by it. I'll post again if I remember/find out who they were impersonating. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've remembered a little more about the case I saw and it was slightly different from this one. A user was contacted about an AfC draft they had started from someone claiming to be an administrator who could accept the article for them for a fee. The user they were impersonating hadn't edited in a while and was neither an admin nor an AfC reviewer. Sam Walton (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That matches the case I dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen what I suspect to have been similar, --see . I have heard rumors of many others. I'm not aware of any case where an actual administrator has been doing anything of the sort. (Arb com will of course as always be interested in any admin who does use admin powers to support any article they have written, paid or unpaid) I've alerted WP:LEGAL about this discussion. At the very least, the WMF ought to make public statement that a/nobody has the authority to promise that a WP article will be accepted or will be given a particular quality designation. and b/ that anyone offering to write WP articles without giving full disclosure of that fact on Misplaced Pages will be in violation of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For those with OTRS access and interest in this, #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121 should be interesting reading. I know of at least one company in the UK possibly involved with these. §FreeRangeFrog 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree wih DGG; this kind of thing needs to be escalated as it could be happening on a global scale. I would like to assume that nobody would fall for it, but they must have had a few bites if they keep trying. I don't believe these are "legitimate" paid editors, but are impersonating people because they're scammers out to get credit card numbers. Is there a way to put any kind of overall notice warning people of this? —Мандичка 😜 11:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DGG was right to notify legal, and they do need to get involved. It's not only an organizational issue, it's also a personal issue which can have unpleasant consequences for the editors who are being impersonated. This impersonation may have affected other editors as well, but it just hasn't come to light. I frankly doubt it's a scam to get credit card information, though. Writing Misplaced Pages drafts on boring businesses, is not terribly efficient way of doing that. But for people desperate for a bit of cash, it's a fairly quick $300, if you get someone to take the bait. Sarahj2107, did your correspondent say what method of payment the impersonator had asked for? Have any of the other OTRS tickets specified the payment method? Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Voceditenore. Payment details have been sent up the ladder although I'm not sure if they are in an OTRS ticket or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I dug out the IRC logs from the day the user came in regarding this and have some more details regarding the case I saw. The user had a draft that they had been working on for some time and were contacted by someone claiming to be a particular Misplaced Pages user. They claimed to be a Wikipedian with "high privileges" who was a "member of Article for Creation review department" - the person they were impersonating had only autopatrolled and reviewer rights and had not reviewed any AfCs. They were told that they "will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone and get it approved" and "it will cost you $150 pay me when page approved and published." Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning notices?

• Maybe we could use a template for userpages. Something roughly along the lines of "This user is NOT a paid editor and does not contact or solicit anyone for paid work on Misplaced Pages. If someone has contacted you claiming to be me, please use this email link or post on my talk page so that we may clarify. Thank you."
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• User page notices can help on the personal level. But we need notices at the organizational level too. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is the ideal location for scammers to find potential clients. About 75% of the help requests there concern rejected "advertorial" drafts about non-notable companies, their founders, their products, etc. One person actually wrote "I hired a gentleman from India on fiver to create this page and I fear that he has abandoned me... Please help." The draft was indeed created by an IP that traces to India. The IP's first edit produced a remarkably "finished product". It might help to have prominent warning notices on that page as well as on Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation, Misplaced Pages:Article wizard, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation. Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - also think we need a general template message. It reminds me of the old days in the 90s when AOL had all these scams, and they had to put up messages reminding people that no AOL employee is going to contact them and ask to confirm billing information. I also think, even if these people were not all scammers, they're certainly not legitimate businesses. —Мандичка 😜 09:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with this concept. Mdennis (WMF) can you ask WMF Legal to craft a fraud warning about illicit content creation services that could be sent to the possible purchasers of those services? The notice should include an explanation about the proper and transparent ways to have content added to Misplaced Pages in compliance with our COI requirements. Also, the functionary email lists should be informed, and depending on the scope of this problem, it may also be appropriate to post a watchlist notice and centralnotice. --Pine 02:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser Results

Here are the results of a fresh checkuser:

• Coralbatch (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Neil and Michael. Please note that this account appears to be editing through a botnet so checkuser is worthless here. (CU shows that they are connected to Faulkerfod (talk · contribs), who started the page, as well as Cameronag (talk · contribs), JennaelkinsTA (talk · contribs), Jacelegan (talk · contribs).)
• Neilmacleod (talk · contribs) and Michael thomas 89 (talk · contribs) are  Possible but I think they are innocent people who are on the same network.
• ECooke1804 is too old to CU

This behavior truly concerns me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Thanks. My guess is this might be just the tip of a WikiPR-like iceberg, and I think there's more than one group of people or companies involved. §FreeRangeFrog 22:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Neil and Michael blocked indef as spam/advertising accounts by JzG.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I received an email from Michael questioning his block. Since he did not receive a block notice, he had no recourse for filing an appeal so I have left a note on his talk page. Although he hasn't filed that request yet, I will state that blocking a whistleblower isn't necessarily in WP's best interests.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's not a whistleblower, he's a person frustrated in trying to pay for an article on his company. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's true, JzG, but an insta-black for anyone who complains will hardly encourage others to come forward and might make it harder for WP get to the bottom of this or at least learn its true extent. If others in this situation are blocked, they need a clearly worded block notice and an explanation of their options for further communication concerning the problem. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But he was approached by what he thought was an admin so he thought that he was complying with WP in his actions. See this. He brought it forward after smelling a rat and did the right thing. He has cooperated by sending information via email for the investigation. Sarah and Handpolk have been helping guide him in the right direction and he has only posted material on his talk page to supply sources. It isn't as if he is trying to hide his conflict of interest. I'm not sure that it would hurt if he is allowed to work on the draft.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll chip in that Michael should probably not be blocked, or at the least should have a clear way forward handed to him on a way to get unblocked. It seems likely he felt he was following the rules and got conned by someone. I would like to get a clear statement that he now has read and understood WP:COI (which is not the easiest thing to understand I'll grant you). Hobit (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock Michael thomas 89 per Hobit. He seems like he was primarily ignorant about how articles are created and fell for a scam and now is being blackmailed. Definitely doesn't warrant an indefinite block. Liz 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now unblocked User:Michael thomas 89 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Extortion and identity theft

Is anyone following up the extortion (holding articles to "ransom") and identity theft issues, to report them to relevant law enforcement authorities? These are real world crimes, not merely Wiki-offences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia's legal department has already been alerted by DGG. If anyone has the ability to do that with any authority, they do, but don't expect them to be public about it until something is set. —Jeremy v^_^v 09:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had this happen to me (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Fake e-mails). Three editors have contacted me replying to a supposed e-mail that I had sent offering to fix up their pages. I asked one user for the text of the e-mail and it also used the phrase "high privileges", so it is likely the same faker.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:DGG alerted WMF Legal on the 12th, and as of yesterday (five days later), he hadn't even received an acknowledgement. I'm going to ask Maggie Dennis (aka Moonriddengirl) for some input here. Maggie is the Senior Community Advocate at the Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps she can fill us in as to whether the WMF even considers this within their purview, and if so what advice and help they can give. My own impression is that impersonation of editors for the purposes of committing fraud and extortion is a legal issue. But perhaps WMF doesn't consider it their legal issue. Perhaps they don't care what's going on or have decided to give a very low priority, despite the clear violations of the Terms of Use and damage to Misplaced Pages's (and thereby the WMF's) reputation Either way, it would be good to know. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the inbox and logs and don't see User:DGG's email anywhere in WMF Legal. :( It may have gotten lost, unless, DGG, you sent it to an individual lawyer or another email than legalwikimedia.org. If you sent it to WMF Legal, can you resend and perhaps cc me at mdenniswikimedia.org? I'll give you an instant confirmation (as soon as I see it) and see what I can run down. If you sent it to an individual attorney or another address, if you let me know who, I'll see what I can do to faciliate! (In terms of it being "their" legal issue, User:Voceditenore, I'm honestly not sure - the ethical requirements for WMF attorney representation is complex. They are not permitted to represent users - which is why they can't demand takedown of misused Wikimedia content, for instance - but when the line between user-issue-they-can't-touch and WMF-issue-they-can is crossed would be their determination. It's beyond me. :) In any event, they acknowledge inquiries.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I sent it to an individual, and meant to resend properly to legal. I'll do that. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I confess, I am behind impersonation of different Misplaced Pages administrators. I abused total 6 accounts. I wasn't aware that it is illegal. I ensure you it won't happen again. Wikiconfession (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the above person for likely being a troll. If they are telling the truth then they are blocked for impersonation and abuse of 6 accounts. Chillum 14:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Another case at WP:Help Desk#Promotion- someone called "Allison Lardo" is claiming to be Misplaced Pages employee, and asking for money for a lottery. The IP has been told to send details to WMF legal about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose spamming accounts

Several times a day over the past few weeks, a new user account is set up, and makes a single edit, adding a spam link to an unrelated article. The only obvious connection is that the edit summary is always the same: "Added informative link". Examples: ], ], ], ] - any suggestions as to how these edits can be traced and dealt with? . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

1. Revert and block the offending account as a first step. (There's no need for escalating warnings or short initial blocks for editors whose first edit is a promotional link; such steps just waste the time of constructive editors.)
2. If particular websites are being repeatedly spammed, have them added to the spam blacklist.
3. If particular articles are regular targets for spam, consider semi-protecting them.
4. If the frequency of this type of spam seems high (or you've identified reasons to believe a particular group of accounts are linked), consider asking a CheckUser to look into it to see if there's a blockable underlying IP range (or open proxy) responsible.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I second taking this to SPI -- the similar usernames, edit summaries and behaviour should be enough to get a checkuser. MER-C 13:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

SPI filed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesm.martinez21 with checkuser requested. Deli nk (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter which catches the edit summary could also be helpful? Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• These are domains of no conceivable utility to the project, spammed by sockpuppets, so I have blacklisted them. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• If we put an edit filter for the edit summary, they will use a new edit summary for future links, it is not a long term solution Spumuq (talq) 09:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a reason the edit filter is hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

More accounts

Sorry to reopen this thread, but using Special:Linksearch on the links spammed by the previously blocked socks, I have found another two dozen accounts. They follow the same behavior, have similar names, spammed the same links, and used the same edit summary. I suspect there are still more. I have reopened the SPI as well. More accounts may need to be blocked and more links may need to be blacklisted. Deli nk (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that this seems to be quite widespread, I've created an edit filter to detect these editors. Sam Walton (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blacklisted another 41 domains added by this new batch of socks and cleaned the domains... but found another batch of socks. MER-C 03:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If the new socks are taken to WP:SPI, the updated name for the casefile page is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Craytonconstanceb for reference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at the SPI, it looks like this has ballooned into an incident involving over one hundred accounts spamming dozens of links. This would suggest the involvement of a commercial organization. Is there any way of identifying the organization (without outing individuals) responsible for this? Deli nk (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Connect the dots. User:Boistonpublic used the same distinctive edit summary but was the only account to create a user page, so it is special. What was the link it inserted? www.areyouonpage1.com, which is apparently an SEO company. That site is registered to Paul C Leary of Westford, MA. The domains that are being spammed are probably all registered through a proxy registration service, but I would guess that most or all of them belong to the same person. This isn't a crisis, it's just another small-time spammer getting ambitious. Corpesawoke (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Even more accounts

The edit filter caught more accounts over the past couple of days. Will add them to the SPI, can someone with more knowledge of how the blacklist works blacklist the URLs that aren't already there? Sam Walton (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Spamming is still continuing, but perhaps at a lower frequency: ], ], ], ]. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've improved the edit filter to catch the edits that it was previously missing, based on the examples linked here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have blacklisted two additional domains from the accounts listed at the SPI. MER-C 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Can a checkuser determine whether it is possible or appropriate to rangeblock underlying IPs? Deli nk (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

More of the same

The latest spamming blitz consists of a new account adding a one-word greeting to his user talk page such as "hey" or "ola!", a nationality template to his user page, then adding a spam link masquerading as a reference to a single article. Examples ; ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, this sockfarm may be a different set and a separate SPI has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Imsess. Deli nk (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

3 x IPs from Different Locations Editing Same Articles with the Same kind of Info

82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
114.134.89.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
78.146.41.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
The above IPs have been engaged in editing a certain articles only as can be seen in their contributions since the past 48-72 hours. Surprisingly, they are from different locations but they have synchronized their editing habits and edit/add/undo exactly the same info to the same articles. They have been talked with at the respective talk pages and explained that their actions are against Wiki polices by leaving comments during reverts, however they have failed to pay any heed. Instead, few senior editors have come to their rescue indicating socking. PakSol  13:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So?! If different people disagree with you on the same point, it dosen't make them sockpuppets or violators of any policy. I have no clue as to who those other IPs are. You're the one who is repeatedly violating standards of neutrality and historical accuracy by misrepresenting sources. You're user ID suggests you are associated with the Pakistani military. Then your POV-pushes in 1971 articles have a serious conflict of interest.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So, yes, different people can always agree on the same point, but the way three of you have been synchronizing your efforts and have ganged up on me to commit reverts thus leading to 3RR warning. It is indeed surprising that all three of you instead of reverting the changes that have been reverted by other editors add in exactly the same sources and the words that the other IP have added. Coincidence? My user ID suggests nothing, this again shows that you have a habit of misinterpreting things to your own favour, nothing else. PakSol  15:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When you're pushing an outrageously biased and controversial POV not supported by any credibility, it's only but natural that people will try to stop you.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) PakSol, which article(s) are you referring to? Erpert 00:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be Balochistan, Pakistan. Blackmane (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And this one too: Balochistan—TripWire  17:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

92slim and Indian foeticide article

92slim (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive edits to an artice he/she has proposed for deletion, Female foeticide in India. User wants article deleted because of POV pushing over abortion.. After AfD discussion, I fixed the lede so it was more clear that all abortion is not female feticide (). However, 92slim continues to change the lede to his POV to get the article deleted: "Female foeticide in India is the act of killing a female fetus outside of the legal channels of abortion, for assumed cultural reasons." This is UNSOURCED and completely factually incorrect; female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion. I have warned 92slim multiple times and have now hit the 3RR on this. User is also trying to get Femicide in China deleted btw. —Мандичка 😜 04:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly ignored the deletion discussion with personal attacks and repeatedly vandalised my talk page. "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" No, it's not. Sorry, find a source to back this up, as it's requested. --92slim (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not vandalize your page - I put warnings on there. I also don't see how I personally attacked anyone. Yes, female feticide is possible legally: Woman finds out she's pregnant with a girl, woman has legal abortion. This meets definition of feticide (killing a fetus) and is why the 1994 law banning ultrasounds was put in place. If you want to argue that abortion is not feticide, take it somewhere else. Your attempts to get this article and the Chinese article deleted suggest a topic ban might be a good idea. —Мандичка 😜 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You did vandalise my talk page, because you blatantly ignored the deletion discussion and went towards pointing fingers. Feticide (a legal term) is not a type of abortion. This is not an eBay bidding. --92slim (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To try and end this back and forth about content before doing anything else, do either of you have reliable sources that support what you claim to be true? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here. --92slim (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

PhantomTech: The definition is pretty straight forward—92slim is trying to introduce a definition into this article that is not even at the feticide article—it's destruction or abortion of a fetus. See definition at MW dictionary, Oxford dictionary, medical definitions, law book, and in Law & Medicine book by Indian doctor. Adding information that feticide excludes abortion done within legal channels is WP:OR and in this case, POV-pushing. Btw, I feel I'm very neutral about this subject personally, and encountered this article only when user proposed for deletion. —Мандичка 😜 05:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:OR. The definitions you have included are medical . For the legal (and etymological one, provided this is the English Misplaced Pages): At the pages 1852-1853 of the article I provided, which you haven't taken the time to read obviously, it's stated that "Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion,and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty" Note another's and with exceptions for abortion. You're the one pushing blatant POV. --92slim (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The definitions are general, medical AND legal. The link you provided refers to Indiana's criminal code; it does not change the definition of feticide but says people who engage in legal abortion in the state of Indiana are not to prosecuted for feticide. By the way, I would suggest you try to change the definition at feticide and see how that goes! Good luck! —Мандичка 😜 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For example, Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion, and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty. seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide. It is also about the legal definition in the United States, whereas the article is about India. Wikimandia's sources seem to indicate that the definition they are supporting is more widely used, is there a reason a legal definition should be used over the seemingly more common one? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No, they're only medical: your "law book" says "medical"generic definition; the rest are the same. As explained above, the term has important legal distinctions from abortion. I suggest you stop reverting without proper reasons. It's written in English, not in Indian, so no it has nothing to do with India. @PhantomTech: "seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide" No, it doesn't. Another's pregnancy is not an abortion. --92slim (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When you terminate another's fetus, you are performing an abortion and the wording in the source seems to indicate that, without exclusion of legal abortions, those abortions would fall under feticide. Without having to agree on what Indiana's legal definition is, is there a reason why Indiana's legal definition should be used over what seems to be the common English definition in an article about India? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to intentional termination of another's pregnancy refers to abortion in as such that medical workers who perform abortions are excluded from prosecution under this statute. And it's not written in "Indian"? LOL. Which of the 7,000 languages in India is "Indian"? Are you aware English is the primary language of the Indian government? You may feel the term has "important legal distinctions" and you are entitled to your opinion; however, we apply WP:NPOV here. I have no problem if you want to put in the article on feticide that some feticide legislation allow exemptions for legal abortion, but that doesn't mean you can change the actual definition, nor is it justification for deleting the feticide in India article. —Мандичка 😜 05:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No comments on that rant. @PhantomTech: Have you read the source provided? In sum: feticide is both a legal and medical term. There is no "common English definition" as you said. There is a law on feticide in India from 1994, but equating the word feticide with abortion means that either abortion is a crime or feticide is abortion, neither are true nationwide in the United States at least. I don't understand why India is even mentioned here; this is not the Indian Misplaced Pages. Feticide is not a Hindi word. --92slim (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read the source, I've also read the many dictionary sources provided by Wikimandia which are where the "common English definition" comes from, most Misplaced Pages readers are not doctors or lawyers and are therefor likely to use the more common definition. If we are to use the legal definition, you should provide a source for India's legal definition and explain why it should be preferred, also keep in mind that it cannot be assumed that definitions in the United States have any influence on legal definitions in India. English, in "the English Misplaced Pages", refers to the language it is written in, not the scope of the content, and, as was pointed out, there are English speakers in India. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, English IS an official language of India. FYI PhantomTech, here is how the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, defines it: "Female foeticide or sex selective abortion is the elimination of the female foetus in the womb itself." 2006 Handbook on Pre- Conception & Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 and Rules with Amendments . I don't know how anyone can actually argue with that source. —Мандичка 😜 06:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thus this Indian handbook conflates abortion and foeticide, as opposed to US law which makes a clear distinction. Great start; at last the discussion is over. Well, I will make a clause later in the Feticide article (notwithstanding Wikibandia's blanket reverts), as this is a diametrically contrary definition to US law. As you can see, there is no POV pushing; I am only arguing legal definitions (which do matter), not medical. --92slim (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not arguing any definitions but your own POV. A U.S. state's penal code is not relevant to an article on India, even if it was "diametrically contrary" which it isn't (it's pretty clear to the rest of us that it DOES refers to abortion as feticide). That you don't seem to understand/accept this reinforces my opinion that you would be more helpful editing articles where you can be more neutral. Look forward to you withdrawing the AfD. Many lulz over "Wikibandia." —Мандичка 😜 06:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: I highly recommend you use the talk page of feticide before editing it. Based on what's happened here I expect there to be some resistance, if I'm wrong all it will do is delay the change a bit. If the content part of this dispute is complete, it's time to settle the editor issues you've both brought up. Unless either one of you feel no further action is needed against the other and would like to withdraw your complaints:

• 92slim claims Wikimandia has broken 3RR
• Wikimandia claims 92slim has engaged in disruptive editing, POV pushing and breaking 3RR

Can both User:92slim and User:Wikimandia confirm that those are the problems you each feel need to be dealt with, correct any mistakes I've made, or withdraw anything you want to withdraw? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Get a clue, you refused to discuss this issue (the legal definition) beforehand just to have some "lulz" and opted for ANI; I don't think I'm the one pushing POV here. Don't speak for others, thanks a bunch and enjoy your pro-life stance. Nothing to add here. --92slim (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's it. And 92slim has graciously withdrawn the AfD. @92slim: I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift. Obviously I was right to do an ANI, as you were incorrectly inserting unsourced text to support your POV, adding back in text that had been removed as challenged, in violation of policy, as it was your burden to gain consensus first before adding it back WP:CHALLENGE, and you had been warned twice at the AfD and twice on your talk page. And as I said, I'm not even pro-life! GG! Thanks for playing! —Мандичка 😜 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I inserted "unsourced text to support my POV"?????? Maybe you're the one who's challenging my faith in Misplaced Pages, troll. --92slim (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I propose 92slim be topic banned or at least blocked for a short while for POV-pushing, uncollaborative activity, and blatant disrespect at AN/I and the nomination for deletion page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me. I already had withdrawn the nomination so you can go away now. --92slim (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to draw admin attention to this comment that 92slim just left on my talk page, again accusing me of pushing a "pro-life POV." I have already been on the record stating I am in no way "pro-life" but am being as neutral as possible while going by all reliable sources. That this is somehow construed as "pro-life" reinforces that topic ban suggestion. —Мандичка 😜 07:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should just think about your claims of "unsourced text to support POV", because they are unsourced. Btw I don't intend to edit your topic anymore, "pro-lifer". After the last conviction for feticide in Indiana last month (yeah, by the "prolifers"; all she did was to abort), I can safely say you have won the argument. Enjoy the rest. Oh yeah, just for the "lulz", she is an Indian woman from Indiana; sorry if I don't know what language she speaks. --92slim (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, this sentence marks the first time a woman in the U.S. has been convicted and sentenced for attempting to end her own pregnancy. --92slim (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The infant was actually alive....outside her body. But alrighty then. Just stop POV-pushing and were square.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, please just don't stalk me or my talk page again. This is all another excuse for anti-abortion measures at a state level. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, btw, there is zero proof the infant was alive. This wasn't confirmed; nice try though. --92slim (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for three days because of the reverting. If all agree that that's a nuisance (e.g. if you want to improve it while it's at AfD), let me know and I'll unprotect, or if I'm not around ask at RfPP. Sarah (SV) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from anything related to feticide or abortion for 92slim. If they continue to maintain their uncivil attitude toward Wikimandia, a temporary block or interaction ban may be necessary. Noting that 92slim has not yet confirmed they wish to continue to pursue action against Wikimandia. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue action, I already did pursue all the legalese that I could towards people who were uncivil to me in the first place. Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child, just to be pursued back at Misplaced Pages; I'm actually distressed. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Supporting an ethnically Indian woman...'" might be admirable, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Mr Potto (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess the purpose is the lulz. Please, refrain from giving lectures. You know that this is a legal matter if you read it. --92slim (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment upset you, as that was not my purpose. But can I suggest that sarcasm is not helping your case? Mr Potto (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. --92slim (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

92slim's continued behavior seems to show they're unwilling or unable to remain civil, for these reasons I support a block, in addition to supporting a topic ban from feticide and abortion. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not the place for continuing the content argument, so I've search for and added a number of dictionary definitions to the article talk page, which I hope will be of some help. Mr Potto (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Can an admin please remove the AfD template, as the nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator? Done Mr Potto (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Request action against 92slim - besides being generally obnoxious on my talk page, 92slim is harassing me at AfD: I guess I somehow support "jihad" and again with the pro-life accusations. —Мандичка 😜 09:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking the pages I nominated! You are editing in bad faith. --92slim (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

???? I regularly contribute at AfD, as is evident by my history, and many people can attest. Nobody is "stalking" you and my comments on those AfDs were certainly not in bad faith. —Мандичка 😜 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I ignored your little blob about "your history and testament". Also, you are providing pro-life arguments ("it's gendercide, not femicide"; "feticide is abortion" etc) all the time after this topic was settled, essentially just to provoke, just so you know. --92slim (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was gendercide not femicide; I specifically said femicide was the correct term, and I did not say "feticide is abortion." I don't see how my suggestion was provoking, nor do I see how my comment on the redirect means I support "jihad." I'm beginning to think someone is a few Bradys shy of a Bunch. —Мандичка 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, the correct term. Right, but you prefer "gendercide" ; unsurprising. And yes, you did say "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" at your ANI post. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not say I "preferred" gendercide. I was responding to Hithladaeus's statement that femicide was a neologism and that gynocide would probably be the right term; thus I said femicide was correct, that the general term is gendercide and its subterms are femicide and androcide. As I clearly wrote. And anyone can see. And yes, I did say female feticide is possible by means of legal abortion, as is supported by multiple reliable sources, including the government of India. All us AfD jihadists are very particular in our demand for reliable sources. —Мандичка 😜 10:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You blatantly did as per above. Have fun with your "lulz" (per your vocab); come back when you have time to actually read the arguments for deletion, medical vs legal arguments, sources provided and the difference between legal systems. Until then, I can attest that you have contributed nothing to solving our differences on abortion vs feticide (which was the whole reason for this drama you have come up with yourself for your POV political reasons). --92slim (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would personally want you to be banned from interaction with me. You are by far the most obnoxious "user" I have met here, and that's saying something. A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion, a sentence justified with the "feticide". Good luck with your already meaningless life, I'm out of this. --92slim (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Words ending in -cide usually imply murder. If a given abortion is legal, then it is, by definition, not murder. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's from the latin -cidium and denotes killing, not specifically illegal killing (cf justifiable homicide, suicide). Mr Potto (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Mr Potto is right; the -cide prefix actually means killing, thus suicide (you can't murder yourself). —Мандичка 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You're doing it wrong. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Add to that "infanticide". It's not murder - that's why people are charged with that and not murder. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Infanticide is considered murder; it's intentional, unlike homicide. Sorry for that. --92slim (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the word origin, in common usage a term like "homicide" by itself typically means murder: the willful and unlawful taking of life. If it's not precisely murder under the law, it typically has a qualifier, such as "justifiable" or "negligent". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article Homicide doesn't treat it that way. It opens with "Homicide is the act of a human being causing the death of another human being." and makes a distinction for criminal homicide. Mr Potto (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So, the distinction then would be criminal feticide vs. legal feticide? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. The disagreement seems to be about whether the article should be specifically about illegal feticide or about feticide (both legal and illegal) in general, and I think that's something for discussion and consensus at the article talk page if anyone wants to change it from the way it currently is. I personally have no opinion, and only really wanted to help with the definitions. Mr Potto (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Mr Potto: The issue started because 92slim wanted to delete the article Female foeticide in India entirely because of claim that abortion is not considered feticide in many countries, therefore feticide in India is not a real thing. Then he changed the definition of feticide to say that "feticide is the act of killing a fetus outside of legal abortion," even though that's not the definition. Nobody has a problem with including the relevant information that legal abortion is considered exempt under some feticide statutes. Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place. —Мандичка 😜 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The AfD is closed, so that is moot. The article does appear to reflect the view, which is supported by various definitions, that "Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place". Hence my suggestion that any change to the article away from that would need talk page consensus. Mr Potto (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Like your confusion over the meaning of "homophobia", Bugs, you've shown by your comments about "homicide" that you don't seem to understand how the English language actually works.

The most obvious thing is to point out that prefixes and suffixes (like "homo/homi" and "cide") are NOT governed by fixed rules maintained by some authority -- there is not English Academy. Secondly, even given generally observed rules as to the meanings of certain prefixes and suffixes, actual usage -- whether intentional on the part of the coiner, definitional drift, or simply by being idioms -- determines actual meanings. Finally, for actual legal terms, there ARE given specific definitions which may or may not match "logical" combinations, your impressions, or even popular usage. For the last one, I'll point you to the Cornell University School of Law:

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

This is Misplaced Pages, Bugs: words mean what reliable sources say they mean, not what you'd like them or how you've work them out in your mind to mean. If you're going to proclaim you understand the meaning of word, you need to check first. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Common usage supports what I said, which you'll discover if you Google the subject. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, "because I said so" isn't actually an acceptable rationale. I have actual sources, especially to the legal definition -- not to mention an actual understanding of how the English language actually works (hint: do you know the meaning of the phrase "descriptive, not prescriptive"?) -- and you have -- vague handwaving about Google results. See that hole you're standing in? See that shovel in your hand? Now might be a good time put down the implement. --Calton | Talk 08:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should I believe you rather than common usage? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinate block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; relatively new account; repeated personal attacks; made statement of "Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child" along with the uncalled for accusation that I am somehow "A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion" (and all of this regarding the article Female foeticide in India), comments on my talk page that I "obviously don't care" (about this Indiana woman I guess?) and claim that "this is a legal issue" suggest 92slim views WP as a great place to influence people and effect change offline. —Мандичка 😜 11:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support indefinite block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; not only for what is being discussed here but also for POV-pushing and repeated harassment of other users on and in relation to articles relating to Armenia. Thomas.W 13:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked 92slim for 31 hours for battleground mentality and personal attacks. Considering that he had a clean block log, making a jump to indef seems extreme but I'm not opposed to leaving the thread open in case a different consensus forms.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block- 92slim's blatant pushing of his/her POV here and on the articles (whether they made sense or not) are distracting from any progress in actually improving them. Also, by the disregard for civility 92slim shows, with no sign he/she was going to stop, signifies a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather impede it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you Berean Hunter. IMO 92slim's contribs history shows near SPA who edits only about abortion issues/Armenia and genocide/Ottoman Empire and Islam. Huge number of reverts and flippant remarks. In this recent edit, the editor MissionFix is actually correct that officially the Brazilian government has not recognized the genocide ("The Brazilian government has not yet recognized the Armenian Genocide, although the legislatures of Ceará and Parana have." —Armenian Weekly); Slim92 accuses MissionFix of POV pushing and Slim92's argument that the Brazilian Senate basically makes the laws (so I guess they're the state of Brazil?) is flawed and shows the same basic competency issue with interpreting information that we saw in this feticide drama. I know these topics are full of socks and vandals but this comment from IP editor seems familiar. It seems a bit odd that editor would create account in February and immediately jump into experienced user mode with this first edit, and not stop since then. Even creating this article redirect is POV. This is why I'm saying NOTHERE and possible sock of banned/topic banned user. —Мандичка 😜 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Just as a comment, do any comments by User:Wikimandia above deserve a caution about Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition (especially "I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift")? -- Aronzak (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Aronzak, if you look at this ANI, I first mention lulz over him calling me "Wikibandia" (I honestly did laugh). Then he claimed I created this ANI "for lulz." So I said I did not, but it was lulzy. I don't see why I should be cautioned, nor was I aware of any rule saying you can't say lulz, or that saying this was offensive. Additionally, that essay seems to be about ignoring true vandals and trolls (ie don't feed the trolls), which I don't think 92slim is. —Мандичка 😜 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Deny recognition is an essay, the personal opinion of one or more editors, not a policy or even a guideline. Thomas.W 15:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Would Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary_sanctions apply here? Maybe some warning notices are in order. Liz 14:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I think the articles about feticide, infanticide, gendercide etc should be protected under the same discretionary sanctions that abortion and genocide topics have. I don't edit these articles normally but I imagine they are problematic. —Мандичка 😜 15:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've alerted User:92slim to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB, since the abortion sanctions apply to Female foeticide in India. 92slim was previously alerted under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, thanks, but do you think it needs to be clarified somewhere that these articles fall under the abortion sanctions? 92slim's whole argument is that abortion is not feticide, so I think 92slim (and other editors with same POV) might dispute this. I don't have much experience working with sanctioned topics, so I'm not too sure how they work, except for noticing the warning template that comes up that they're protected. —Мандичка 😜 16:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to put a sanction banner on the article. Any edits, anywhere on Misplaced Pages that are related to abortion fall under the Arbcom case. The article Female foeticide in India refers to female feticide as 'sex-selective abortion.' If 92slim is hoping to avoid consequences with his argument that it's not abortion, the matter can be reviewed at WP:AE if he winds up being reported there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I agree it should apply so hopefully nobody will try to use that argument to split hairs. —Мандичка 😜 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership by Sitush

Please can someone review what has been going on at Talk:Babur, certainly from this section onwards. Soham321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly making claims that I have taken ownership of the article, although no-one else seems to be saying so. They've also alluded to possible racism on my part. I have told them that ANI would be the best venue to discuss such a serious behavioural charge, repeatedly made, but they are opposed to doing so. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The racism charge is definitely a serious charge. However, i made this charge based on something Sitush had written, and i gave the relevant diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Babur#Ownership_of_the_article Making crude generalizations about any ethnicity is simply unacceptable.

While investigating this complaint, the concerned Admins should also take a look at the edit summaries in the main articles of the following two pages: Daily News and Analysis, and Open magazine, and also the following talk page: Talk:OPEN_(magazine). I reverted the edits of Sitush on both the Daily News and Analysis page, and the Open magazine page a second time because i wanted to give appropriate edit summaries for future editors. I would not have made a third revert. In the talk page of the Open magazine article, Sitush claimed the reference i had given was an Op-ed. This was not true; it was an editorial (from the New York Times). I am mentioning all this because i have no energy to take Sitush to ANI again and again nor do i have the energy to keep fighting with Sitush. I only wish to make appropriate edit summaries in the main article (which is what i did in the case of Open magazine and Daily News and Analysis articles) or else i wish to make a note on the talk page of the main article (which is what i did in the case of the Babur article) and leave it for future editors to sort things out.

I appreciate the fact that Sitush has done some good work on wikipedia including cleaning up several articles. However, Sitush's repeated tendency of not respecting WP:OWN cannot be condoned because of this even if Sitush were to be an academic.

Again, i am not asking for any ruling on Sitush. I am leaving it for future editors to deal with the Babur article. I will reiterate, though, what i had said in the talk page of this article: A senior editor (Calvin999) had written in an edit summary in the the main article on Babur that he is beginning to think Sitush's edits are making the article worse rather than better. These are the exact words of Calvin999 and they were addressed to Sitush: Hello? Don't you understand that splitting it makes worse? Five paragraphs are too many. I'm beginning to think your intentionally trying to make this article worse...)Soham321 (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, the talk page on which Sitush and i interacted was of Daily News and Analysis: Daily News and Analysis. There was no interaction between us on the talk page of Open magazine.Soham321 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 is in large part the reason why the mess at the Babur article has become so prominent. I'd take their opinion on the matter with a very large pinch of salt but, as it happens, they have not accused me of ownership or racism anyway. Only you have gone down that road. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have said all I that I wish to say on Babur's talk page. Again, Sitush, saying that whatever I say should be taken with a pinch of salt is WP:BADFAITH and rude. I do not want to get involved with any accusations being made that I am reading above and have no knowledge of with regard to racism and ownership, though the recent edit history is not on your side with regard to the latter. If you feel so strongly about Babur's article, why are you only just voicing your opinion on it now, since it's been passed as GA? Because prior to this, as far as the edit history goes, you've never even edited it. You're creating a lot of noise. Stop shouting about things which you deem "wrong" and just improve on what you see. No one will thank you or give you a gold star for moaning instead of doing.  — Calvin999 11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed the talk page and noticed Talk:Babur#Copyright violations where Soham321 claims that Sitush was wrong to revert an edit as a copyvio. Sitush pointed out that the source said:

Thus, Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son, Vikramjit, who was being harassed by his brother. ... Babur received the Rani's envoy with honour.

while Soham321's diff included:

Thus, when Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son Vikramjit, who was in conflict with his brother, Babur received her envoy with honor.

Soham321 argues on the talk page that if Sitush thinks there is a problem, Sitush should fix it rather than reverting the edit. In an ideal world that would be true, but in that ideal world, editors would not copy/paste text from sources into articles. The talk page show other evidence of significant problems with two contributors, one being Soham321, and it is quite understandable that Sitush cannot spend hours fixing other people's problems, particularly copyvios.

There is a claim above that an edit summary by Calvin999 supports Soham321's position: Calvin999's edit joined two paragraphs in the lead, presumably to satisfy the formula that four paras in the lead is good, but looking at that edit shows that Sitush was correct to split the paras as they deal with quite different issues. In summary, Sitush is helping the article, while others are not. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give the relevant diffs instead of putting words in my mouth inaccurately? These are my exact words to Sitush: Even for close paraphrasing you would have to show that the pattern is being consistently maintained throughout the section. While paraphrasing it is inevitable that i would occasionally not do a good job on the first attempt. Also, i was using the american spelling of honor. And this is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Babur&diff=prev&oldid=666864209 Soham321 (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge Johnuniq has never made a single edit on the page of Babur, either in the main article or in the talk page. However, in an August 2013 ANI discussion involving me and Sitush, Johnuniq had supported Sitush and had voted for a topic ban for me. Even though John had not made a single edit on the page under discussion at that time (the page on Digvijaya Singh). (I was new to wikipedia at that time, and had unfortunately engaged in edit warring with Sitush being unaware of most of the rules here and was handed--quite rightly in retrospect--a one year topic ban. This was in August 2013.) I am sure there is no restriction, but in my opinion it is in poor taste for someone to repeatedly offer opinion in an ANI discussion on a wikipedia page on which one has never made a single edit, particularly when the problem involves a conflict between two different editors who have been making edits on that page. Soham321 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a good enough reason of have a five paragraph lead, with two of which being one sentence long. It doesn't matter that the issues are different, if it did, we'd have 20 paragraph leads, all one sentence long, otherwise. Point is, why is Sitush suddenly so concerned with this article? In fact, why are all of you suddenly so concerned? None of you look as though you cared before, now suddenly everyone is so interested. A lot is being said, but nothing is being done. If people don't agree with me passing it, improve it. Don't spend days moaning about it.  — Calvin999 11:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnuiq makes a valid point, or many valid points, actually. However, I think we're stepping into a content dispute, which shouldn't be here. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We are, but the accusations of ownership and racism need to be addressed: Soham made them and then expanded on the things 24 hours later. Even their initial accusation was wrong - I've never edited Battle of Chanderi. FWIW, the intention is to improve the article but first we need to eliminate the obvious problems - so obvious that it should never have passed GAN. There are voluminous comments about this on the talk page and elsewhere. I am aware of the material that Soham321 added but prune-and-rebuild is sensible when things are as bad as this. The rebuilding requires reading the heavyweight academic sources that were totally ignored and, as Abecedare notes, But the main issue is that the article does not cite some of the best available sources on the subject, which are currently listed in the Further reading section. Fixing this will take more time and effort. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That has passed. You are focusing on the wrong thing. Okay, you think it shouldn't have passed, we all get that. You've said it countless times. If you feel that strongly, improve the article how you seem fitting.  — Calvin999 11:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to John and Soham re: rephrase or remove the copyvios in the context of demonstrating ownership. Those were added after the GA pass, although there were also some in the article from before the pass. I'm not arguing here that you are unfit to review GANs, though that might be a conversation for another day. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that you were arguing that. And I didn't miss your point. But you have persistently missed mine: you've gone about this the wrong way. Prior to last week, the history shows you'd never even edited Babur.  — Calvin999 11:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I have edited it before last week. I don't know what tool you are using to derive that impression but it is yet another unfounded observation, like the claim from Soham re: Battle of Chanderi. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

May I recommend the "Edits by user" link on the article history page? The scroll buttons don't work, but you'll notice it mentions 208 edits. If you set "Max edits" to a value higher than that, you'll see a list going back to 2011. NebY (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also not hard to look at the entire history which shows 3155 edits: Sitush's first edit was in December 2011, while Calvin999 started in 10 June 2015 and Soham321 in 12 June 2015. Sitush made 109 edits before June 2015. There are two quite separate issues: the first is Soham321's inappropriate editing and personal commentary, and the second concerns Calvin999. The second is a minor distraction—it concerns the three-day review to promote Babur as a good article (GAN permalink and Talk:Babur/GA1) and claims that promotion should not have occurred (examples: Talk:Babur#WP:GAR and Talk:Babur/GA2). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, so having seemingly followed me to Babur and a few other articles up to that point, Soham321 appears to have pounced at Caste system in India almost as soon as I restored a sourced statement pending the outcome of an ongoing talk page discussion. Labs is playing up (yet again timing out) but I'm pretty sure from memory that they've not edited that article before, just as they hadn't edited Babur. I'll also add that if the accusations of ownership at Babur made by both Soham and (sort of) Calvin held any weight then why would I have appealed for help at Talk:Babur and then accepted suggestions made by Aristophanes68, and why would I have thanked Soham for an edit to that article as I did at 18:50 on 13 June. Now I'll slink back into my hole; see you all next week or whenever. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And more of the same accusations now. FWIW, yes, I have checked quite a lot of Soham's stuff. Anyone with experience and time to spare would do so when they have spotted some copyright violations going on. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarded allegations of stalking, it is true that i have been observing what India related pages Sitush has been editing. Having said that, it is also true that Sitush has been observing which pages i have been editing. The record shows that Sitush reverted my edits on the pages of Daily News and Analysis and also Open magazine soon after i had made them, and this was the first time Sitush had made edits on those pages. On the page of the caste system, Sitush is insisting on an edit which is really amusing. As per the edit (which is included in the lead of the article):Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. And i have replied to Sitush's copyright allegations in an earlier post in this section itself. Soham321 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed some trolling by 152.130.7.64 which Soham321 failed to recognize. The technique of apophasis (attacking someone by pretending otherwise) works in the media but attacks are recognized as such at Misplaced Pages—ANI is not a forum where opponents can be poked. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha. It used to be if you wanted to shut someone up you would label them a communist. In 2015, the label used is troll. 152.130.7.64 (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained / POV removal of content by User:Packerfansam

User:Packerfansam has been around for a long time and has accumulated tens of thousands of edits, many focusing on Wisconsin legislative and / or political articles. He has created more than 3300 articles – many of them very short biographies, but a lot by even that measure. With this depth of experience (and a clean block log) it’s perplexing that in the past few days following a several-month editing hiatus, he has begun to remove substantial chunks of content from a variety of articles, accompanied by vague (and sometimes misleading) edit summaries. In many of the cases, the excised material relates to Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or LGBT matters, raising NPOV concerns.

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism

Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject

Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews

Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state

I raised concerns about this on the editor’s Talk page, first in brief narrative fashion, followed by templates when the edits continued without response. See link. Since then the unexplained and apparently POV edits have continued:

John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"

Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.

I am bringing the matter here because the edits are, to my eyes, troubling, and need attention; and the editor is unresponsive. Furthermore the editor has a long and apparently productive history here, and these excisions are not so plainly “vandalism” or disruption that they’re suitable for AIV if they continue.

Thanks in advance for any comments and / or assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary shortened, simplified and removed possible redundant content is not reflective of the edits which are often completely removing all mention of specific groups of people. How can content be redundant if you remove all of it that concerns gays or Jews? These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record. Liz 12:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to purge Misplaced Pages of any evidence for the existence of people who aren't Christian and Republican. In May, he even removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles (and was reverted). I would support an indefinite block for deceptive editing. KateWishing (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block - even though he has a long history and a clean block record, this editor appears to either have become very extreme of late or decided he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia anymore. These edits account for vandalism in my opinion and given the particular topics of his dislike, I don't see the editor cheerfully avoiding them in the future. —Мандичка 😜 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, he's not responsive at his talk page, the last time he responded there seems to be to thank someone over 5 years ago. As for the recent edits, the edit summaries clearly misrepresent the edits, and his removal of content has become clearly disruptive. Despite his constructive edits, these edits suggest WP:NOTHERE. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC was concerned about the wrong citations Packerfansam had added to several Wisconsin Legislators article very recently. I had been looking at Packerfansam's Wisconsin Legislators articles to see if a category, etc., needs to be added. I did add the correct Wisconsin Blue Books citation to the articles that JohnInDC was concerned about. And I was concerned about about Packerfansam removing the political affliations of several Wisconsin Legislators articles with no reasons given. I hope this helps-Thank youRFD (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible this account is compromised ? Considering his long history of productive edits, then this sudden shift ... maybe it's something to look at ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought but in the main, the edit interests seem to have been pretty stable. I guess in the final analysis it doesn't matter - the edits are unacceptable no matter who's responsible. (It is mystifying though.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that he stopped editing in August of last year, and when he returned 24 April, this is when the problems began. The possibility of a compromised account is real, as is a CIR issue. He has never been one to communicate, I didn't see any talk in his contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I thought this was possible but even as of today, he continues to create articles on Wisconsin politicians as he has been doing for years. Please look at his contributions. —Мандичка 😜 02:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A CIR issue may still be at hand. Medication, life events, all kinds of things can change a person's competency, either temporarily or permanently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First things, despite the assumption, I'm a 'she'. Second, to answer people's suspicions, I have numerous health issues that have escalated in recent times. I don't feel it's necessary to go into specifics, but is it possible they can effect my judgment? Sure. That, along with other issues in my life can explain gaps between logging in, such as the last couple days. Now, I think along with some of the other issues being discussed, my not logging in for two days is being exaggerated. It was not because of these accusations, I didn't received a notice of this until I just logged in for this session. Sometimes health and other life issues take my attention. The extended length between updates last year involves family issues that, again, I don't think it's necessary to be specific about. If, during these times, I was hacked and I haven't realized it, my apologies. I have recently changed my password, maybe that would help to stop other possible issues. Now, the concerns about the links to the Wisconsin Blue Book tend to can be tough I understand. Google Books reverts you back to the original page you were on prior. If you were looking as something on page 1 and later decide to post a link for page 2, it decides to take you back to 1. Some of the re-categorizing is simply because it doesn't seem like the article necessarily belongs there, such as with Category:Mayors of places in Wisconsin, where there were some subjects whose job titles didn't match the criteria. Thanks to those who have offered their support. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response here, and good luck with your health issues. Can you please offer an explanation, for example, for this edit to Precursor (religion), where you removed sourced materiel regarding non-Christian religions. This type of POV edit, with no (in this case) or misleading (in other cases) is the heart of my concern, and perhaps others. Was it judgement impairment due to illness, as you suggested some of the unaddressed issues might be? Or, are you asserting that your account was WP:COMPROMISED? The key is to understand (a) which other edits your account may have made, like that, with no or misleading edit summaries, that still need to be fixed, and (b) can you offer an assurance that such editing will not happen again. An acknowledgement of why it really happened will help other editors have confidence in your continued participation. Otherwise, why should you not be topic-banned from editing articles about religion and politics? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Packerfansam: could you please address some of the issues such as Joe's question above?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let me first address that if anything I did seemed to be misleading or deceptive in articles, I deeply apologize. It seems to me, among other things, if you have a certain location (city, state, etc.) where the residents are overwhelmingly affiliated with a certain group or denomination, it bloats the article and makes it excessively long if you go into detail about other groups that make up a microscopic (sometimes like 0.15% or less) portion of the population and the culture. Thanks Packerfansam (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As for being compromised, I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible. Packerfansam (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm unpersuaded. That reasoning would maybe explain removing mention of Jews in Kansas (though it's 2%, not .015%) but it certainly is hard to square with editing out Jews in New York City or mention of the "largest gay and bisexual community in the United States" that is found there. That's just one counterexample - there are several others cited above, and below as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First, let me point out that it was 0.15 not .015, there is a difference. In regards to NYC, there was a section about the city's many, many landmarks and none of the others were mentioned by name, except for I think it was Greenwich, as if it were special or more noteworthy than the others. Without getting into what's right or wrong even, it seems strange to me that one should be especially singled out and recognized apart from the others. Packerfansam (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, but that is an inadequate if not disingenuous explanation for this edit to NYC, where, as you did with many other edits, you removed all mention of non-Christian religions:

Christianity is the most prevalently practiced religion in New York, followed by Judaism, with approximately 1.1 million Jews (יהודי) in New York City, over half living in Brooklyn. Islam ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren, followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism or self-identifying with no organized religious affiliation.

References

1. "World Jewish Population". SimpleToRemember.com – Judaism Online. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
2. "Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011 Comprehensive Report" (PDF). UJA-Federation of New York. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
3. Cite error: The named reference BrooklynJewish was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Marc Santora and Sharon Otterman (March 4, 2015). "New York City Adds 2 Muslim Holy Days to Public School Calendar". The New York Times. Retrieved March 4, 2015.

Try again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please let's don't go through these one by one, arguing whether ".15" or ".015" makes the edits any more defensible. A full-throated denial would be a good start - if Packerfansam doesn't want to go through her contribution history to identify the odious edits that were made by a hacker using her name, the examples here are sufficient to tell her in an instant whether she was responsible for them. Absent a straight-up denial, which we don't have, an acknowledgment or recognition that maybe, perhaps, it's problematic to remove references to, e.g., Jews in New York, Muslims in Michigan, gay marriage from the Republican Party, the Jewish ancestry and civil rights advocacy of a German lawyer, the sexual orientation of a the first gay Republican legislator in Wisconsin, or - by the IP a day ago - the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach. And that's before we even start on the misleading edit summaries that accompanied these changes (for which she offers a conditional apology). So far I see nothing to assure us that Packerfansam recognizes these edits as problematic or that she will not make similar edits going forward. JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued problematic editing that is continuing to occur noted here, together with Good hand/bad hand editing noted here are both of considerable concern. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is what certain people seem to want to see - yes, I made updates that are causing this debacle. You can argue about my judgment and whether it's been altered. To me, in my judgment in what I recall, it seemed proper. I don't necessarily know if it was to the excess others believe it was, so I can't rule out a hack. I don't have plans to go out and make particularly controversial edits, my plan for the imminent future is to continue with legislator bios, creating and updating articles as would be appropriate with that. Packerfansam (talk), 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Response & comment - This is at best a grudging acknowledgment by Packerfansam of the problems she has caused with her POV edits and misleading summaries, not to mention (indeed not mentioned) the edit warring and sock puppetry. It isn't just "some people" who want to see an explanation and assurances, but nearly every single person who has participated in this discussion. I do not believe that Packerfansam appreciates that her edits contravened Misplaced Pages policy, or that that were in any way improper or disruptive. That being said I also believe that the foregoing is about all we are going to get out of her on the subject, and, as halfhearted as it is, it is something. She is, at least, speaking about it. Going forward, which I assume will take place without a block, I personally would like to see something a little more explicit about the ground rules, whether it comes from her, or from us, by rough agreement. Maybe something like, "no edits to remove content from articles re religion, sexual preference or other demographic characteristics" - I don't know. What I do know is that "no immediate plans" to make controversial edits is not reassuring, and isn't very helpful as a standard against which to measure future behavior. Thoughts and / or comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea what can offend some people. To me, for instance, creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like that doesn't seem like it should bother anybody. But I can't be sure what somebody could have a problem with. Can I give 100% certainty that nobody will ever have a problem with something I write ever again? No. Do I want to go through this stress again when I already have enough in my life? Also no. Packerfansam (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If what you mean by that is that you intend henceforth to stick to creating stub articles for Wisconsin politicians, then you are much less likely to run into POV and bias problems. I would recommend including the political affiliation of the subjects, when it is in the sources, and ensuring that the sources you cite actually link to the subject of the article you are creating. I, we, are not asking you to promise you'll never offend anyone again; rather we are asking that you stop removing material from articles because something about it offends you. Thanks. Now let's see what some of the other editors have to say about this. JohnInDC (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I found your response to be very disappointing. I had thought you "got it", and were willing to move forward, but just didn't want to explicitly own up to your mistakes. But your answers, above, make me wonder. Do you really think the issue was a vague, hard to understand "some people" being "offend"ed? Do you really think the issue was anything to do with was "creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like "? If so, you have a serious problem of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and or a problem with competence. Examples were laid out for you very clearly here and on your talk page. You are ignoring those details here, and have repeatedly blanked them on your talk page. As a reminder, the problems include this list and many more:

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

• New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism
• Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject
• Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews
• Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state
• John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"
• Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.
• removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles
• remove mention of Jews in New York City
• removal of the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach
• Special:Contributions/24.178.45.221 most troublesome, was your Good hand/bad hand editing, with your logged out editing all, with 2 exceptions, being reverted by editors as being disruptive

Are you really sure you want to continue in this way? JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close We do not know the full circumstances under which Packerfansam is editing. We know he has health issues and we should leave it at that. He is constructively engaging editors about issues they have, and although we may strongly disagree with some of the edits he has made, he clearly wants to edit constructively and with good faith. Could there be future problems? Sure, but we can deal with them should they arise. Let's assume good faith and encourage Packerfansam to continue editing. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, it's she, either way, much appreciated. Packerfansam (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for getting your gender wrong! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not too much to ask that Packerfansam state precisely what she intends to do, or not do, going forward; or that we collectively outline our expectations of her. Her POV and misleading edits were blockable and while she is now at least discussing them, she has given no indication at all that she appreciates what the problem is (apologizing if she has been misleading; confessing to having no idea which of her edits "might offend some people", as though unpredictably thin-skinned readers were the heart of it) and I would like just a bit of clarity about what is expected of her going forward so that if, three or four weeks - or 5 months - hence, we see a new run of POV purges, someone can point back and say, "that is not what you said you would do". If she does not understand the problem, then she can't exercise meaningful judgment in avoiding it in the future. Other than that - yes, I agree, we are done here. JohnInDC (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is too much at this point. Packerfansam has edited here, without issues, for years. If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them. If the edits in question were due to misunderstandings and/or lapses in judgement, then moving on means she moves on to continued constructive editing. If we continue to push this thing, maybe she says "The hell with this, I don't need this in my life.", she moves on, and we lose another editor. You have accomplished what is important: She is aware of the issues, acknowledged them, stated that she wants to contribute constructively. Now, let's assume good faith and deal with issues in the future if they occur. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block Packerfansam for POV editing, misleading edit summaries and refusal to engage

Given the speed at which matters move up and out of ANI, I’m a bit worried that, a few editors having offered their views, the matter will languish without resolution. Several commenters have suggested an indef block, so I now formally propose it.

• Support, as proposer and per above - repeated removal of content reflecting political / religious bias, misleading edit summaries, refusal to engage. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – given that this is apparently a long-term editor who did lots of good work before, but has maybe gone "off" lately, an indef block against a previously "clean" block record seems like overkill. I could support a relatively long block (e.g. months) here for Packerfansam, but even that seems like it might be overkill. It does seem clear that a block of some duration is probably in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This should surely be more of a cause for concern than an opportunity for a very punative block. I suggest further research is required- surely we also have a some responsibility to WP:ENGAGE...? _Fortuna 18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - He has ignored my attempts at engagement (other than to blank the template warnings) and continues to make the same kinds of edits. If another editor can get his attention, that'd be great. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Modify — A sanction of some type, not indef, and allowing for discussion at the user's talk page or here. But the nature of these edits is such that we need to put some immediate protections in place while we try to engage. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - given this editor's long history of sound edits, I'm distressed to say that we have to do this: but something has gone wrong since early May or so, and we can no long rely on an edit by this account to be a sound one, the way we used to. If they refuse to communicate, a block of at least one month minimum seems called for. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support shorter block, given the editor's clean block log until now; it will get their attention as well as an indef, which is always an option if needed. On a block log, an indef (which I know isn't infinite) looks worse than a block of fixed duration, and this editor may be salvageable. Miniapolis 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I've never seen what function an "attention-getting block" really serves. Either the account is compromised and an indef block is appropriate, or the editor is really an inveterate POV warrior who should not be editing as long as they think that such is appropriate. In the latter case an indef block is also appropriate--a block which can be lifted as soon as...well, fill in the blank, but it starts with "Packerfansam". Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, we can use escalating blocks in an attempt to recover this editor. Something like a week for the first block would be sufficient. Chillum 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  So your premise is that blocking an editor is a good way to recover one? As opposed to alienating them? Strange. Eric Corbett 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Please don't try to explain my premise, you never seem to get it right. We have to weigh damage to the project against keeping the editor. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  If he's taken a sudden turn toward the Dark Side, it's probably too late already. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  It is not hard to reblock if shorter blocks do not work. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, especially as it appears he's never been blocked before. If he's uncommunicative, a reasonable short block might get his attention. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't usually agree with Mr. Corbett, but I do here. As I said just above, I don't believe in attention-getting blocks, and the whole concept of escalating blocks--well, I spent a few years in a place where they believed in something like that, and it never increased my desire to live by their rules. Blocks piss people off, and they should be applied judiciously and appropriately. "Getting attention" is like keying someone's car because they parked it in the wrong place. If it's in the way, you tow it. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The goal is not to get their attention, the goal is to prevent disruptive editing. I suggested escalating block instead of an indef because it give the user a chance to recover while preventing disruption. Remember that communication has already been tried. Chillum 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef Something has gone wrong since May and a user with a clean block log is up for an indef. Please do not hand out indefs so lightly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC))
  • Comment - Just - to be clear, I don't care particularly whether the editor is indef blocked or not. Anything that works is fine with me. As for the scope of the problem, I can add that, at least among the articles he has recently created, he reports the party affiliation of the subject when it is Republican or Independent, but omits it if it's Democratic. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme - these are legislators who served 120+ years ago - but these deliberate omissions are irresponsible at best, and make wholly unnecessary work for others. JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef - I see no reason to suspect account compromise. Editor is STILL creating new articles for Wisconsin politicians. If any reason should be considered, editor can appeal the block and attempt to provide explanation. Regardless of reason, editor is no longer here to contribute. —Мандичка 😜 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Although Packerfansam doesn't respond directly to warnings, his/her behavior has been altered by them. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many What do you mean by his behavior has been altered? He obviously saw the many warnings as he deleted them from his talk page. Then just today he removed the table about religion demographics from a town in Norway that was 1.5 percent Muslim. His edit summary for the removal of the demographics table was "bars were out of place." I really don't know what to make of that. —Мандичка 😜 06:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't make that edit today, but on June 14. He also removed the whole box on religion, so we can't say he was targeting Muslims. Finally, I don't know how to interpret his edit summary, but it could just mean he didn't like how tables lined up, so he removed them. I'll also add that I see no evidence of edit waring when he is reverted. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit summary shows it was made on June 15, at least by Misplaced Pages time, and more importantly was after he had been warned. If he felt the table wasn't properly aligned, he could have moved it somewhere else. It's below another demographic table that was not deleted. Based on his other pattern of removal of information, this is highly suspicious. Additionally he was warned over and over and continued his behavior, as you can see by the activity on his page along with his contributions. If his behavior has truly been altered by being told to stop, this would never have come to ANI. Edit warring is only one form of disruptive editing. —Мандичка 😜 08:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. He doesn't refuse to engage, he just hasn't engaged on this topic this time around. He uses talk pages:
• 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8 but typically blanks messages he receives and then goes to their talk page to reply. He responded here but that editor didn't reply back(!). He traded replies where he blanked and then replied here with another editor...that editor replied back to Packer's talk page so the thread gets lost in the shuffle. Packer is removing posts after he has read them as part of his norm. I would suggest that he isn't talk page savvy but that doesn't mean that he doesn't communicate at all. I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics. This change on his userpage may reflect a change in POV. He hasn't engaged JohnInDC; that shouldn't be taken that he doesn't engage with everyone. Calls for indef above seem extreme to me. The first warning might be construed as a nuisance as he may think his summary isn't off the mark and suggesting he has to play Mother may I and always use talk pages...well, I'd ignore that too. Being templated thereafter doesn't help but kind of has the ring of Don't template the regulars. Apart from John, the only other editor that has attempted to engage him on this is Ed. None of the supporters above bothered to try. This can be characterized as isolated between two editors. A more cordial approach may work.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I noted above, I don't care what's done as long as the unacceptable editing stops. (I am skeptical that his 36 hour editing pause is significant.) I would note further that his disinclination to explain or defend questionable edits is not limited to the immediate non-conversation with me - three times previously, on three separate occasions (beginning here), other editors asked him about and warned him against systematically removing party affiliations from Wisconsin legislator articles. As far as I can tell he did not respond to any of these messages. He did ultimately stop removing the material, but then switched over to selectively omitting the information from articles he was continuing to create. I get that this is a longstanding editor with a lot of good work to his credit, but - you know, so am I, and in all honesty if I started removing content reflecting a clear political bias, and camouflaged it with misleading edit summaries, and refused to discuss it - well, I'd expect to be blocked, at least until I evinced some willingness to acknowledge and discuss the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You've got that a bit wrong. What you link to above was on his talk page but he responded on the other editor's talk page and the last sentence leads me to think that he may have thought that removal of party affiliation may have been trying to correct where he thought that he had "been overdoing it" when he had wrote those in before.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You are right. I missed that. Thanks. That being said, it is a "response" only in the most literal sense. He ignored the first Talk page message on May 12 (continuing to remove party affiliations), responded to a second (rather stern) May 13-14 Talk page message as you've noted, and then started right back up at it on another 20 or so articles (blanking Democrats only!) and didn't stop until a third Talk page message on May 15. I do not dispute that my messages to him were not the best for eliciting a response from him (I wish I'd done that better in retrospect) but: We've been talking here at ANI for a day and a half, and another editor has left a thoughtful narrative message on his page inviting a response, and so far we have nothing. The only thing that gives me pause is that he hasn't edited for 36 hours, so conceivably he hasn't seen Ed's message or the ANI notification. But I don't find his past level of engagement at all encouraging. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
        • The response on Capitalismojo's page here (after Capitalismojo told him to stop being disruptive) was after he removed the Democratic Party from four politicians (, , , ) and oddly just removed the wikilink to the party from another one , in under 10 minutes. And he responds innocently "what did I do that was so disruptive?" Capitalismojo probably did not follow up out of exasperation. —Мандичка 😜 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you realize that he was the one who wrote those articles as well as wrote the particular sentences of affiliation in the first place? Odd that he is called disruptive to edit on this one when no other editor had touched it. I believe that he saw himself as trying to correct perceived mistakes. He removed whole sentences about party affiliation when they stood alone to that fact but as you note with the delinking, he wasn't trying to obscure facts. Note that he didn't remove the categories of political affiliation? Being told that you are disruptive on an article that only you have edited is just a bit bizarre so yeah, I think his question was in good faith. He wasn't really edit warring or anything like that. He reverted once in this history but he was trying to communicate also. He was misunderstood in this thread ("overdoing" wasn't in reference to the reverts he was doing that day but the inclusions in the past). The hard clamp down and admonishment in that light looks bizarre and I imagine frustrating. We should wait and put the pitchforks and torches up for the time being. He really isn't being that disruptive.
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh, but he is being that disruptive. Removing political affiliations is, as I said above, small change. Beyond that little stuff he has been routinely, almost systematically, removing information from articles relating to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays & lesbians and other groups. I didn't provide an exhaustive list at the outset because I figured my examples were sufficiently representative, and distressing, that more would be perceived as piling on. But if there are questions about the impropriety of his edits, here are a few more (still not exhaustive - there are more still) examples from just the past six days:

Todd Novak - removed reference to the subject's sexual orientation (gay) and associated categories. No edit summary.

Madison, Wisconsin - removed text re Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and others with the edit summary of "simplified".

Argus (dab) - removed all dab links to Greek Mythology. No edit summary. I can't see anything particularly biased about this but it is plainly disruptive.

Precursor (religion) - removing non-Christian examples; no edit summary.

What assurance - indeed even what indication do we have that he plans to discontinue these inappropriate edits, beyond the fact that he hasn't changed a page in a day and a half? Maybe the answer is, for now, leave him be and keep an eye on him and see if he continues his POV editing when he picks up the cursor again; fine. But I can't swallow describing these things as "not disruptive". JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters that he created those original articles, there is no WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't see why he would decide to strip them out now unless it's related to his edit that he only works on Republican articles now or he's losing his marbles. I'm rather surpised that anyone would think removing entire sections related to Jews and gays from articles is not really that disruptive, but I suppose it explains why you're defending him. —Мандичка 😜 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In my oppose above I stated "I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics." I too, would like to hear an explanation about those edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Berean Hunter and Drmies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment-I agree with Dennis Brown that medication or some health issues may be involved with Packerfansam. Packerfansam mentioned about some health issues on the talk page. I agree with JohnInDC about keeping an eye on Packerfansam and see what happens. There is a possibility that Packerfansam may ceased editing again for a long time. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong SupportNeutral I am concerned that this editor's contribution history needs to be carefully reviewed for POV edits and unexplained removals with corrections made - I've made some over the past couple of days. Regarding the former, just a brief review of history shows many stub articles of Wisconsin politicians were created by this editor. For members of the Republican party, their party affiliation was included by the editor in the original article and remains to this day. For members of the Democratic party, no party affiliation was included by this editor at any time. Other editor(s) added the affiliation after this odd anti-Democrat etc. POV editing was noted. Regarding removal of content and tags, in addition to the misleading edit summaries noted earlier, most such edits have no edit summary at all. Both of these sets issues I mention come down to fundamental lack of trust regarding this editors contributions. I've looked at several pages of his contributions and found that these issues are consistent. How far back one must go to review and correct these clearly intentional dishonest edits? An indefinite block while such a review and correction takes place, such as what was done with Colonel Henry, is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Once corrected, and after the editor responds constructively in an unblock request, then the editor can hopefully begin editing in accordance with WP's policies. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am switching my !vote to Neutral based on the interactions here User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks- and here . I believe the editor "gets it", and we're not going to get a point-by-point "mea culpa" - which we shouldn't need (but I admit a little more of an affirmative "I understand what the concerns are and will do better" would have been the best response. Nor do I think we're going to get help fixing old problems (everything from their IP is fixed, and going back a month on their contributions I don't see any serious issues that have not been fixed that are left - but there was plenty of fixing required". Those who work in Wisconsin articles should keep an eye on the editor - I'll periodically take a look, too. Future problems should lead to a very swift topic ban from "religion, sexuality and politics, in any namespace, broadly construed". Finally, perhaps the editor would like some coaching or mentoring if in doubt in the future, or just to informally ask some questions. If so, I volunteer to help. Best regards to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in two days and no current disruption is occurring so you have time to review his contribs and make corrections if necessary. He has a clean block log, many articles to his credit and I believe he should be allowed to reply before any decisions are made. If he refuses to engage and starts editing in the same way then blocking may be called for.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he should not have a clean block log. This is very obvious NPOV editing, done in a way to hide his changes. Lacking a response soon, how can no action be a correct response? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll say it this way, if and when he begins to edit again he will need to address this issue within an hour or two - giving him plenty of time to respond after seeing the messages on his talk page and reading through this thread. If he makes more POV edits without responding or fails to respond entirely, my "oppose for now" above will likely be converted to "support indef blocking" and if consensus supports the action, I'll do the block myself. By the way, I attempted to email him but he does not have a specified email address.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That clock just started 15 minutes ago as he is back and blanked the notice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He responded above about 30 minutes ago. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I edit-conflicted and was going to remove my comment when I realized that. :) I was reading my watchlist from bottom up. I haven't read the reply yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. As noted here User_talk:Packerfansam#Incorrect_citation_.2F_reference_in_several_articles , the editor is continuing with problematic creation of and edits to articles, yet has dissembled in response to questions about their edits and not, as of yet, either paused in their edits nor given any effort to identifying or correcting their problem edits to date. A block is designed to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. One is needed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see any disruption here. The only issue is a content discussion that is ongoing, not disruptive in any way. Mentioning that the population of NYC is 1.5% Jewish is negligible, for example. --92slim (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It's more like 15% and, as the largest concentration of Jews outside of Israel, not "negligible" under any sensible meaning of the word. JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I was starting to wonder if I'd been too harsh in recommending an indefinite block until she posted the excuses above, which are just another example of deceptive editing. Worst of all, 30 minutes after "apologizing" for her deceptive behavior, she logged out to continue it. KateWishing (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Summing up thus far: By way of response from Packerfansam, we have:

• Some of those edits might have been made by someone with access to my account, or not – I don’t know. (“I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible.”)
• I apologize if any of my edits were misleading.
• There was nothing wrong with removing mention of non-dominant religions from various articles, nor with my edit to New York City.

She has neither denied making, nor offered to explain, any of the several other examples set forth here.

Whatever happened between August 2014 and May 2015, as of now, someone with access to the Packerfansam account believes (again, just by way of example) that mention of non-mainstream Christian religions makes Misplaced Pages articles too long; that references to a subject’s homosexuality or Judaism are best omitted; that “Playboy” is not a reliable source and that material sourced to it should be removed (from the University of Wisconsin–Madison edit war) – and appears to see nothing wrong with any of this.

Since returning from her 48 hour absence, Packerfansam has made 37 edits, including 6 new articles and 2 new categories. She has had ample opportunity to consider the comments here and respond thoughtfully but has commented here only four times and offered no meaningful explanation. She has a clear history of disruptive and POV editing, and I do not understand why, absent clear statements from her that she 1) understands that the edits are unacceptable and 2) pledges to make no more of them, ever, a block of at least some duration should not be forthcoming. JohnInDC (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• After again blanking their talk page, the editor is engaging in a discussion at my talk page User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks-. I would like to be able to convince the editor to do something to regain our trust. Answering some questions I posed is one way. Perhaps there are other ways. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Please check 24.178.45.221 as a possible sockpuppet of Packerfansam. Examples of similar edits: , , , , , - - - - - . 32.218.32.164 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Same edits, same squishy edit summaries, same time of day, a Wisconsin emphasis, some of the same articles - indeed the same edit war at University of Wisconsin-Madison - no question. Nice catch. JohnInDC (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything inconsistent with WP:VALIDALT. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps not. But it yields several more examples of biased editing, we can add edit warring to the list of problems (odd that I hadn't noticed it before, even Packerfansam alone), and it calls into question Packerfansam's assertion above that she had been away from the computer for two and a half days inasmuch as one of the IP's edits comes in the middle of that period. JohnInDC (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the UW-Madison edit war JohninDC referred to, Packerfansam's POV edits were reverted 4 times, then 24.178.45.221 took over, making the same edits. (See last 6 edits listed above.) That's classic sockpuppetry - using an alternate account to deceive or mislead other editors or to avoid sanctions. The most recent example involved Packerfansam making an innocuous edit at 21:02, then 24.178.45.221 returning almost an hour later (3 minutes after Packerfansam's last edit and after commenting on this board), to make a questionable edit that was reverted by JohninDC. That's a clear attempt to evade detection. 32.218.32.164 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is good idea to stop the mind reading for now. There are good possible explanations for everything that we just don't know right now. First, if he is concerned about others using his account, he may log off every time he leaves the computer and sometimes forgets to log on when he returns. It may be that he removed minority religions based on a good faith assumption, but he will come to see that it is not a good idea. Let's see if we can get this resolved peacefully so that everyone can get back to constructing an encyclopedia and retaining productive editors. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, please look at these edits, clear examples of WP:EVADE, made after these issues have been raised at the editor's talk page and WP:ANI and after the editor responded here:

1. Revision as of 01:32, 2015 June 17 , , Editing Legal issues with fan fiction as 24.178.45.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removes cited information without edit summary or talk page explanation. The 2nd & 3rd edits noted remove sexuality and religion information, edits that are consistent with other problematic edits that have been made by this editor.
2. Revision as of 17:02, 2015 June 17 Editing Fond du Lac, Wisconsin as Packerfansam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adds reference to a Wisconsin political stub article * ], Wisconsin State Assemblyman
3. Revision as of 17:53, 2015 June 17 Editing Fond du Lac, Wisconsin as 24.178.45.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removes referenced information about other than Christianity (in this case, Atheism, but as documened elsewhere, she has been similarly removing Judaism, etc.) 42.7% of Fond du Lac residents do not affiliate with any ].<ref></ref>
4. Latest revision as of 23:58, 2015 June 17 Editing Gottlieb Wehrle as Packerfansam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), makes a minor edit to another Wisconsin political article.

This is not supported by the "I forgot to login" excuse, just as their other problematic edits are not explained by the "I was hacked excuse". Per Special:Contributions/24.178.45.221, this has been going on since May 15th of this year. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxing again at Kenny Loggins

We need a range block because of recent activity by the long-term hoaxer, the Kenny Loggins vandal. IPs involved today are:

• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5413:8F44:17A6:5B40 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:316C:945D:AF85:E19A (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Perhaps we can temporarily rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And now another spate of hoaxing by 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:A1D3:9BE1:C1A2:3BFC (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

15 of the last 16 hoaxer IPs started with 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0, so it would be very helpful to block this range. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And very quickly after that one we have this one: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:7132:4B62:E645:80BE (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Still looking for an appropriate rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• HEY. ADMINS. SOMEBODY GIVE BINKSTERNET A RANGEBLOCK PLEASE. I'd do if if I knew how to. I mean, I can, but I'd probably block a whole state. That still doesn't make me care, as long as it's not my own state, but the Foundation will probably cut my allowance. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Maybe this will help: IPv6 range calculation tool. It was recommended last time this came up here, and I bookmarked it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I really shouldn't be messing with any ranges... Drmies (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The range needed to cover the four above IPs, as calculated from that tool, is 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 - I have no idea if this is a sensible range to block though. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
        • mw:Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 implies that this covers 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, so perhaps not appropriate. That said, that's a fraction of the total possible IPv6 IPs, so I have no idea. Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Pinging Mr. IPv6 Jasper Deng to see if he can help out. And (canvassing) perhaps more admins could put in their two cents here? --NeilN 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Drmies and Samwalton9: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 indeed is the range you want to block. The duration you should use for this is the same as you would use for a single AT&T IPv4 address, although this should be considered more static than a dynamic IPv4. If it's a residential Internet provider, a /64 in IPv6, i.e. having the first four digit groups in common, is easily treatable as a single IP. Do not be deterred by the number of addresses blocked, because by design very few of them will be used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Jasper, I appreciate the note, but I'm just not going to venture there. I wish we had a button we could push that would pull up a list of admins willing and able to make rangeblocks. I'm not one of them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm blocking 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two months. The log shows that the previous rangeblock by User:Monty845 expired on 14 June, which does fit with the dates of the above vandalism reports. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to add a technical note, while a /64 should be, and appears here to be a single user akin to an IPv4 address, the protocol is new enough that we should keep in mind the possibility that it may not always be, with either rapidly changing /64s from one user, or many users on one /64. Also, when this block expires, if we need to extend it again, linking the previous range block log may help get a quicker block. Monty₈₄₅ 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I do have to emphasize that looking at WHOIS is of utmost importance with IPv6; my comment strongly depends on the ISP being residential. It most certainly does not apply to mobile or satellite ISP's.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fairbairn

B. Fairbairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User was edit warring previously with editors on removing political figures on country pages. After the various wars, he " switched sides" and began making pointy edits by adding political figures to pages. Additionally, he constantly blanks his user page making warning tracking very difficult. He seems more interested in disrupting other editors than editing positively to Misplaced Pages. His page history is full of edit war notices. Example of his recent pointy crusade: 1 2 3 Jcmcc (Talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand and agree with his initial point. Pictures of US presidents and the White House were over represented on foreign country pages and should be removed and added to the /relationship pages. That's typical Anglo-American bias (Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus). White Anunnaki (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel one way or the other about it. He simply happened to add a pointy picture to one of the pages I actively watchlist. I started looking through his history and quickly found that he is a problem-user. His actions have been almost all some form of troublesome editing (edit warring, being pointy, or blanking his own page) Jcmcc (Talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block as WP:NOTHERE. His talk page showed he even built a table dedicated to these photos, breaking it down by country. The reason so many of these photos are used is because U.S. government photos are copyright free and thus we can use them. In some cases we have few or no other free images of these world leaders at our disposal to use. This campaign, plus other disruptive edits, shows his purpose is not to build an encyclopedia. —Мандичка 😜 00:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not to get all patriotic over here, but Misplaced Pages has made me a very big fan of the apparently uniquely American concept that almost any image or other document produced by a representative of the U.S. governemt in the course of their duties belongs to everyone and can be used without permisssion. If other countries were so liberal in this regard (I know, I know that sounds crazy, but apparently in this one way we are actually more liberal than most other countries), I'm sure we would all be happy to reuse those images as well. I'd be interested to know if this user is aware of this situation and if that changes their understanding of why we use so many such images. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I know what you mean. If only B. Fairbairn would devote his energy to getting every government to make all their libraries open copyright. —Мандичка 😜 09:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guys, If you go through my long history you will see I have made some useful contributions e.g. putting lists into tables, adding extra information, correcting misinformation. Unfortunately I have also got into the habit of not backing down when confronted by bullies.

For the future it may be best if I stay away from country pages altogether, and make an effort not to wantonly annoy self-appointed guardians. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

People who don't agree with you are not bullies, they simple don't agree with you. All wikipedians are self-appointed guardians of Misplaced Pages. Please read over wp:point. This is not about your disagreements with the other wiki users, its how you go about it. Your list does not contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. From what I understand, its a list for your point. From your contribs, I have concluded that you are Not Here to build an encyclopedia. That is why I put you on the noticeboard. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

People who don't agree with me are not bullies: Agreed
People who continually revert posts, start hate discussions and threaten others with expulsion are bullies.
A guardian helps protect others. The self-appointed guardians I refer to make a point of interfering with all posts they do not agree with.
The one particular list you refer to is mine: that is why it is on my page. If you cannot handle it, remove it, or stay away from there.
You put me on the noticeboard because I argued with your friend. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats a very bold accusation, and unfortunately for you, its wrong. Look at my contribs and you will find that I have been editing the page Albania since before this whole thing started. It was only when you added an out-of-place picture of George W. Bush to the page that I noticed what you were doing, placed a disruptive editing warning on your page and left it be. Recently you appeared on my watchlist due to having other people put warnings up. I then looked into it again and found you had not ceased your disruptive editing. This is not a "hate discussion" its a determination on if you should be removed from the community. Your actions and words are self-condemning. You appear to have no remorse for your disruptive editing and are acting defensive about your *painfully obvious* intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Jcmcc (Talk) 12:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the three edits pointed at earlier in the discussion (on Ireland, Albania, etc.) are completely useless and suggest a misunderstanding of what we're doing here. I have no interest in plowing through all the user's edits; I am interested, however, in seeing if the user understands why those edits are useless (let me state, for the record, that adding a picture of some US head of state with country X's head of state on the page for country X is typically useless, unless some moment of huge historical significance is clearly depicted--one thinks of the Big Three at Jalta, etc.). If they understand that and stop doing it, then we can move on without blocking or banning everyone. They must also understand that they're not being oppressed. I'm also interested in Beeblebrox's assessment. Thansk, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The "adding a picture of some US head of state with country X's head of state on the page for country X is typically useless" is a statement I completely agree with, however after clashes with a few stubborn individuals I tried applying an alternative approach: "If you can't beat them, join them." The idea behind this was to try to encourage somebody else to join a crusade to get rid of the same silly face/faces ungracefully appearing on many country pages.

Unfortunately all it served to do was to present a self-righteous individual with an excuse to start his own little campaign. B. Fairbairn (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of vandalism

Reference this incident of allegations, user Abdulqayyumfsc has levelled serious allegation against me with incivility. This has hurt me as anyone would be. I suspect it to be the case of meatpuppetry or perhaps sockpuppetry as similar allegations were posted after I AfDed the article. He has been canvassing as he cross posted in an attempt to get my edits nuked and blocked. With just 27 edits in English Misplaced Pages and 3 edits in Urdu Misplaced Pages, it is strongly suspected sockpuppetery. User Wikimandia has reverted my edits confirming the allegations in edit summary. Therefore, I request administrator intervention. Regards.  sami  03:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Samee, I truly apologize if I hurt your feelings in my edit summary; however you deleted almost the entire article! Except for the infobox, you cut the article down to two sentences. It is one thing to delete the promotional info, but you chose to remove neutral information such as the section about his education. You even deleted the WP:PERSONDATA, which seems to me the result of someone trying to delete as much as possible and not carefully editing the information. Since you had already nominated it for deletion and it was kept, this is retaliatory editing IMO and if not vandalism, is certainly disruptive. This is not acceptable. Also I don't understand the edit summary that "Removed wordpress reference and another reference that is the main domain www.ptv.com.pk (can't be used as reference)". Wordpress is not a blacklisted site, but if it's self-published it's preferable to just put "better source needed" instead of removing the information. I don't understand why Pakistan Television Corporation can't be used as a reference either. I don't know if this constitutes vandalism, but (as I said above) it seems to me to be rather disruptive. —Мандичка 😜 04:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• • There is no problem in citing Pakistan Television Corporation but does citing the main domain make sense? What if I make a claim and cite only the main domain that does not back the claim. While wordpress is not blacklisted, the wordpress reference used in the article was not acceptable and reliable. My edits were not retaliatory in any sense. Because you're just assuming it a retaliation and not bothering to check references, all my edits to maintain the integrity of the Misplaced Pages would only appear vandalism and disruptive. The very wordpress reference you're favoring refers to the comment made by Mr. Rehmat Aziz and who knows this blog is not self-published but one thing that is confirmed is that the comment made by Rehmat Aziz is self-published. The education section was not cited with references for years and one reference that was cited was the website of Allama Iqbal Open University that did not back his claims. In fact, my edits to the article were in accordance with the policies.  sami  04:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per this rfc PERSONDATA is deprecated and subject to removal. As for the rest, Samee's edits are clearly not vandalism. Vandalism is limited to edits made in bad faith, typically with intent to harm the encyclopedia. Even without judging the quality of the edits, its still clear they were made in good faith. (That doesn't mean they are right or wrong, just not vandalism) Please be more careful in calling other editors vandals; it is extraordinarily rare to come a cross an actual vandal with more then a few dozen edit, and calling editors vandals when they aren't is highly inflammatory. Monty₈₄₅ 04:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ahh I didn't realize that about PERSONDATA. However, I don't agree this was done in good faith, given his desire to delete the article and then basically deleting it through editing. If only promotional things had been removed, then yes, I would agree, but why remove the very first section about the man's education? And he also removed the sections about his awards, including an award from the Pakistan Ministry of Education. Please note that the fact that the article subject had received these awards were among the reasons some gave to keep the article, per WP:ANYBIO. I really don't know how you can look at the before and after edits and say that was done in good faith. —Мандичка 😜 04:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • AfDing the article was not my desire to get it deleted but to have community consensus. I respected the consensus and my edits were in accordance with the opinions held in discussion. Award from the Ministry of Education is again not backed by reliable sources. Do you want me to add {{Cn}} at the end of each sentence. I once again REQUEST you to assume good faith. I am curious to know what is making you believe that I edited in bad faith and the other user in good faith.  sami  04:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that you were seeking consensus; you wanted the article deleted. You stated several times the subject fails GNG, "If the subject is really notable, they should not have spammed multiple Wikipedias just to have autobiographies and biographies," and also argued that his contribution of designing a virtual Khowar keyboard was not legitimate. His article has huge number of sources for his awards at the bottom; they're not properly inline. Yet you deleted the whole award section and all these links describing his achievements., (very specifically mentions the Ministry of Education commendation), . Why are these not reliable sources? Why did you delete them instead of using them to improve the article? I don't know who the "other user" is that you're talking about, since you and I are the only one who has edited this article in the last month; please show me those edits and I'll take a look. —Мандичка 😜 08:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell you're headstrong and not willing to collaborate, engaging in discussion with you is in vain. You have been rightly blocked.

What do you mean by consensus. Consensus does not always mean keep it. Once again you're quoting my comments out of the context to weigh your arguments, which I have already told you on your talkpage. Taken from your talkpage and written by you Fine. Since WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I'll edit anyway, and not this talk page. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:57 am, Today (UTC+5), your statements are self-contradicting. I was referring to the user Abdulqayyumfsc that approached you and cross-posted the same on some other users' talkpages per WP:CAN. Should that user had any objections, the user should have reverted my edits or started discussion on talkpage instead of initiating the proxy discussion and levelling serious, unethical, and uncivil allegations without evidence against me. That's my view. That's quite similar to what an administrator Monty845 has hinted as above.  sami  08:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone is a sockpuppet in this group.Cosmic  Emperor  15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

nazism sidebar

Director called my edits vandalism just because i pointed out we dont have to have Strasserism twice in the sidebar its redundant, whats more is that he thinks that its up to him to decide what logo should be be used on the sidebar despite not having consensus on it Dannis243 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

One I realised that Strasserism is not the same as the philosophy of Alfredo Stroessner, I looked through the page history and could find nothing problematic on DIREKTOR's part. Why didn't you attempt to talk with him about it? Just a couple of minutes ago, he even removed the duplicate link. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

i did not remove anything i moved it to the proper place! i already said that that is not mainstreampart of NSDAP ideology and should be in the related topics in the sidebar not in the ideology section just like neo nazism! Dannis243 (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please do something about this fella? He's been edit-warring and generally being disruptive on the Nazi Germany article and Nazism sidebar, posting fake RfCs, demanding the same changes over and over again, ignoring consensus, etc. This is a good example: he's edit warring to push some flag instead of a logo for a logo entry in a template.. reverted, and not a word on the talkpage. Seems a kind of grudge after he couldn't have his way at Nazi Germany for the fourth time... -- Director (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

you have also been edit warring and ignoring consensus in the TALKPAGE there is no soupport for your version either! i never said it has to do with some south american dictator, i olny said Strasserism (Strasser brothers of germany) was not a mainstream part of NSDAP ideology and therefore should be mentioned in the related section of the sidebar just like neo nazism, also he keeps removing my logo in the sidebar even though his version does not have any consensus either Dannis243 (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This sort of discussion should occur on the "TALKPAGE" Dannis! Yes I changed the logo. A couple weeks ago I replaced the one I myself(!) introduced with consensus years ago. And we introduced the previous logo because there was no simple Nazi swastika to contend for the spot (there was some Luftwaffe decal or something). Now there is a simple swastika, so I introduced it in good faith. Only to have you childishly restore the stupid flag from years ago, with no imaginable coherent rationale. I can't even get my mind around the logic that says "you replaced the old version - so that means I can do what I like!". If you're for the "consensus", then restore that. If you're against it - then seek consensus for that flag. But I will say this: a flag is not a logo, and it looks out of place.

Strasserism was a part of Nazi ideology until 1932. Strasser was a Nazi until 1932. For most of its existence, it was a branch of Nazism. It belongs in the Ideology section, where it stood for years now. -- Director (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

but who gave you the monopoly deciding rights about the logo?!, so has i introduced a new logo in good faith too just us you claim, but your logo does not have any consensus either Dannis243 (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, what has been done to try and obtain consensus on the talk page; it may require a RFC. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The guy went for AN/I instantly... This is just a childish grudge over another dispute, he's just following me around undoing edits. -- Director (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

you know i'm getting pretty tired of your accusations, "he is following me" "childish grudge". Dont you see your making this childish not me. And dont tell me am edit warring and then revert my edits repeatedly without discussion! it easily show who is doing more damage, you say i dont discuss but then i dont see a talkpage or a rfc with several opinions! Dannis243 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere changing every biographical political article infobox to officeholder

Therequiembellishere appears to be engaged in making wholesale changes of infoboxes on biographical political articles to Infobox officeholder, despite being advised otherwise on his talk page by Bagunceiro and I, which he appears to have ignored for the past four weeks despite my best efforts to redirect him to respond to the discussion on his talk page several times in the edit summaries as well as two messages I sent on his talk page.

Therequiembellishere was asked by Bagunceiro on 12 May why he is changing MP infoboxes to "officeholder and going against the instructions for Template:Infobox officeholder which states that the appropriate derived template should be used, and Infobox MP is clearly the most appropriate.

He responded on the same day claiming that he's "been told" in the past that using those titles involves an unnecessary redirect and that "officeholder" was best but understands that it's possible the precedent has changed since then.

I responded the following day, supporting Bagunceiro stance that the template provides clear guidelines on infobox to use. I added, there is no harm in there being a redirect that is the whole purpose of redirects therefore there is no reason for doing this and asked him to please stop doing this.

He failed to respond to this and continued to change the infoboxes on 22, 23, 26 and 28 May.

I reverted these changes back and sent him another message on his talk page advising him again that Template:Infobox officeholder states; "Please use the most appropriate name when placing this template on a page." Therefore, despite previously being advised of this (from Bagunceiro and I), why he is changing every infobox to officeholder? I asked him to either stop doing this, explain why he continues to do this (as per WP:BRD) or the matter can be taken to WP:ANI.

Therequiembellishere decided to ignore this again and on 11 and 15 June continued to WP:EDIT WAR and change the infoboxes to officeholder.

After I reverted these back, he finally responded on 16 June appearing to concede that the most appropriate infobox should be used but then continued to do the same thing. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It says clearly at the top of this page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."

You have not done so; please do so immediately. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. User notified by Robert McClenon, here Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had similiar problems with this editor over a few years, concerning succession boxes. Also note, the editor's talkpage hasn't been archived since 2009. This may be a WP:COMPETENT issue. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in a pretty busy period right now and haven't had time to reply until now. Which is why I've not been terribly available over the past few weeks to answer Tanbircdq's comments. That is, I admit, shitty, but I largely avoided the pages in question until I was more available to answer knowing that I wouldn't be able to competently reply at the time. I finally carved time out to respond after Tanbircdq's reverts became significantly more like wikistalking and I finally addressed him/her on the merits of his contention.

I'll talk about the wikistalking first since it's on my mind. This "dispute" started out with a few frontbench British politicians and he/she followed me to very niche articles like new American ambassadors and federal judicial nominees that he had never had real activity in before. In our recent communication he/she claimed that I couldn't possibly know the usual articles that he/she edits, and condescending said "many editors are involved in editing those articles, not just you" as if I was claiming ownership. I wasn't, I was annoyed that he'd broadened this dispute out to articles that he hadn't previously been attracted to which I know because I've been a part of the federal judge's articles for at least the past seven years and recognize most of the usual editors involved. Tanbircdq is not one of them. Tanbircdq claims he/she only made these edits after receiving an undo notification but, using this as just one example, that's a lie.

As far as the meat of the dispute itself, this is honestly jut so ridiculous to me. Firstly, Tanbircdq is claiming to be a part of some collective action with Bagunceiro, but that it patently untrue. Bagunceiro asked on my talk why I had been changing to officeholder and I replied that under the previous precedent (that I had been hounded for in the past when I was doing exactly what Tanbircdq seems to be obsessed with now), I was told that the specificity of what political office they held created an unnecessary redirect to the standard "Infobox officeholder" and that it was best to use that as the standard. Because, at the end of the day, no matter which marker is used, the information is displayed in exactly the same way every time. I also see additional issues with persons like Tom Carper and George McGovern who serve in multiple roles over their career. Are we supposed to determine which role was most notable to their career and use that as this distinguishing marker when "officeholder" as a neutral mode serves the same purpose? Regardless, Bagunceiro never commented again.

Then Tanbircdq started getting involved and has been hiding behind this, in my opinion, pretty insignificant issue to revert all my work to various infoboxes wholesale. He claims is issue is a technical one (whether to use "Infobox judge" or "Infobox mp" or whatever), but has been making his point by removing the content edits I've made to the rest of the actual box. In particular, many of my infobox edits do serve a technical function make make it easier for editors for finding and editing the infobox by standardizing the information displayed to be in a more columned format (using evenly spaced equal signs between the section header and the information), arranging the sections more like the order they will appear in the box and in removing unneeded and empty sections that amount to bloat that needlessly increase the bytes of the article, often by over 1,000.

After finally replying to Tanbircdq, I went back to all the articles he/she had removed my edits from and brought them back. I said he/she was free to go in and put the "Infobox ..." marker in but my primary concern was just getting the edits back. Which Tanbircdq did, but didn't reply to me in that time I was still at the computer and so I assumed the issue was by-and-large a settled matter. So I have to say I'm honestly pretty surprised this has continued to exist at all, especially going to ANI without me making a single new edit in between. Or in notifying me, which I have to say reeks of trying to get some administrative action put against me without my knowledge, even after being told here to do so, my notification came from Robert McClenon and, indeed, Bagunceiro came in to make it easier to locate. I also have to add that I don't really understand GoodDay's comment here, since the issues are totally separate and my dispute with him was a content issue, whereas this is a technical issue at best. Furthermore, his bringing up of competent, using my unarchived talk as an example is just insulting. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere: I have not made further comment because I did not feel I had anything constructive to contribute and have not been following the matter closely. This should not be seen as tacit support.

For the record my position is as follows:

Your reply to my question appeared to recognise that you were in error but it seems that you have continued to make these changes.

You do not appear to understand templates, or the benefits of indirection and inheritance. There is no shame in that, but it does mean that you should be even more assiduous in following the instructions for them.

Alternatively you may have a deeper understanding than I and although you haven't yet explained what it is, a good reason for these templates to be deprecated. In which case you should discuss these concerns to obtain consensus for changing the instructions. I guess the talk page for the template is the best place for this, perhaps with heads up messages on pages such as Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. If that is not the right place then someone there will be able to suggest where. Unilateral wholesale action is not the right answer.

With regard to what you call stalking by @Tanbircdq. I have no idea whatever of his motives, but his action in reverting your changes quickly was beneficial. Subsequent edits would have made unpicking the mess much more difficult. I imagine the job was a bit tedious. If the two of you have any history of animosity then I would urge you both to put it behind you.

Please stop what you are doing and engage. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin eyes please - Rachel Dolezal, Transracial, Transracial identity, Racial transformation (individual), associated AfDs

Hello all, there is currently an off-wiki campaign in the wake of the Rachel Dolezal case to have an article on the neologism Transracial or similar. The fact that we don't currently have an article on what would be a clearly important medical or sociological condition should tell you all you need to know. Some reliable (and unreliable) sources have used the term (mostly in scare quotes, it has to be said), and some editors have dug up older (as old as 2008!) references to the word. Earlier today I blocked User:Andhisteam for clear trolling on this issue (see Dolezal's talk page and elsewhere for that one), and I have just AfD'd Transracial identity, assuming good faith as it was an established editor who created it (though they haven't edited much recently). Given that this is, for Dolezal, a BLP issue - not to mention a serious issue of WP:OR, WP:V etc., more eyes are requested on all of these articles. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite - I note you've been WP:CANVASSING editors to your AfD of the article I recently created. I'd like to request you not do that. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That accusation is evidently flatly wrong. The article you created is the third article on a WP:HOAX concept that Internet trolls have propagated in the last week, and the third subject of an ongoing AfD over the same term or concept. Obviously users who have participated in the AfDs of the other attempts to get this hoax into Misplaced Pages have a legitimate interest to be made aware of new hoax articles based on the same Internet meme. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please calm down. This is an edit discussion, not the Battle of Waterloo. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you've read WP:CALMDOWN. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Callmemirela. My bad. Comment stricken BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Bloomsday, when everyone should consume calming Guinnesses and kidneys. The Battle of Waterloo is the day after tomorrow. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If I'd wanted to canvass the AfD, I'd hardly have posted in on the Rachel Dolezam talkpage, which is currently habited by people who support getting the whole Transracial issue into the article. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Transracial (2nd nomination), which isn't going anywhere--the discussion isn't, and that DAB shouldn't be going anywhere either, at least not now. I'm tempted to revert the page to an earlier stage, something that makes sense considering that the two recent additions are under discussion, but I'm afraid that will only add to the shitstorm. I suggest we let the two other two AfDs play out. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that is the right decision, Drmies. While I don't think the concept is a hoax, there are clearly some trolls involved in recent editing which you can tell by the gibberish in the edit summaries. There is no deadline and I think when this subject is expanded upon, and I think it eventually will be, there will be sufficient sources to write proper articles. Liz 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, not a hoax, but not ready for primetime. Trolls will need to be handled in the usual way; semi-protection can be liberally applied if necessary. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You won't believe this, Drmies, but I heard on the radio that one of the television broadcast networks has plans to air a series called Transracial. It may not make it past a pilot episode but if it does, I guess there will be an almost completely unrelated article about this sociological concept. Liz 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this WIKI were a dedication to the slang word "whigger" (apologies). The term transracial by definition means "involving, encompassing, or extending across two or more races" in regards to adoption (such as the word (multiracial). The identity issue isn't new, but it is currently popular as media gossip and fodder for social forums. I don't believe the WIKI is a hoax nor should be removed, but I would rather see an interaction in FORUM discussions. It could get very soap-boxy in here. This is a current trend & public interest story, so let's see if there's any longevity to it. Although I agree we'll probably face an editing war, I think it's an interesting enough content to make a really good Misplaced Pages article.--j0eg0d (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Problematic behavior by Seattleditor - Probably COI, personal attacks, disruptive editing.

User Seattleditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing on Roger Libby the past few days. Their edits on the article's talk page indicate a conflict of interest and, up until now, they've mostly keep their editing to that talk page. Today, after I edited the page to reduce its SOAPy nature, they began removing maintenance templates from the page. I attempted to engage the user about it (here). They had done similarly in the past () saying it would negative effect the article subject's customers. After this, the user made this edit on my talk page accusing me deliberate malice that requires admin review and that I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata.

I am requesting admin action on this. It appears that either the user is unable to handle their COI or they are NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed, there's a dearth of sources on that article and those that are there are almost all primary sources, Seattleditor is removing the tags indicating that fact, that's not cool at all. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, their use of "we" in their post on my user talk page makes me think the COI here is strong. Their post was completely out of line. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In Response, EvergreenFir Has Misinterpreted Both Intent and Concerns

I am a practicing journalist, one who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, who wrote an article about this Dr. for a Seattle area publication. There is no COI on my part. However EvergreenFir has several COIs. First, his only authored page, for a Murray A. Strauss, bios a person who is a rival of the good doctor. Most ironically, the two doctors authored a major research paper together on sex and violence (which contradicts the claim of no secondary sources, the editor's own biographical subject was a collaborator.) I mean no personal animosity or offense but the other apparent COI is in the editor's (EvergreenFir) profile where he has elected to make various statements about his own gender issues. Regardless of personal bias, it is not clear to me how a distinguished position title within an organization can be secondarily sourced. Where such attribution exists, it has been provided (such as to membership rosters on publicly accessible pages.) What is curious is why the editor does not choose to actually edit the text which has gone untouched for a great many months, and instead inject uncertainty and doubt. In fact, I had expressed my misgivings that this could do harm if the patients of this practicing sex therapist found that the same page that had been untouched for so long is suddenly pockmarked with multiple assertions of errata. When I "Talked" about that to EvergreenFir I stated that, for my part, I was open to any edits he may like to provide but I requested he did not make the doctor appear unworthy or uncredentialed in light of the concurrent sensitivities of doctor-patient relationships. I presumed he was okay with that so I removed the template(s) for that reason and that reason alone. Please be advised, I did not author the section on the countless TV and radio appearances made by Dr. Libby which EvergreenFir has since removed. The "We" in my writing simply connotes that Dr. Libby sought my help since he was aware I had helped contribute to the original content. I have no COI whereas EvergreenFir 's COI is well documented. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Roger Libby is America's premiere Sex Therapist. If that is disturbing to this editor, he is welcome to call in a colleague. Oh, he actually did that and the colleague acknowledged that the academic credentials (post-doctoral) being beyond reproach. It seems to this relative neophyte that Misplaced Pages needs a way to make sourcing changes, IF necessary "behind the scenes" and not in a shameful, public way that casts doubt on the credibility or authority of a biography, especially in the cases of practicing health care professionals. Seattleditor (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you might be a little confused as to how Misplaced Pages works. Writing an article for inclusion in a magazine kind of skirts the line of WP:NOTWEBHOST. But more importantly, if negative things about your friend can be reliably sourced, I'm afraid that isn't a violation of policy; see WP:BLP. Erpert 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of these personal attacks? How does my gender identity have anything to do with this? And if the subject of an article asked you to come and comment on their Misplaced Pages article, that's a WP:COI (whereas writing articles about criminologists is not)... Seattleditor if you are the author of that article, then you are Searchwriter and currently sockpuppeting... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• The bio is certainly problematic as it contains just one secondary source, and most of it is unsourced. One solution is to remove anything unsourced and slowly re-build it. Seattleditor, if you're editing with two accounts, please pick one and retire the other (or link them in some way). Also, please don't make personal comments about EvergreenFir. Sarah 01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's also an issue with the image, which Seattleeditor added as his own work, but the image is on Libby's website. Unless Seattleeditor took that photograph, it needs a release. Sarah 01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the image, since it appears on the banner of a copyrighted website, I've requested deletion at Commons unless the uploader can show OTRS either ownership or a license to use the image from the copyright owner. BMK (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I whittled down the article quite a bit (diff) which was the apparent impetus for the hostility. Quite annoyed at these attacks and ridiculous claims. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Searchwriter started the Libby article at User:Searchwriter/sandbox on 20 February 2014. The image was uploaded by Seattle24x7 on 21 February 2014, and Seattleeditor says he is Seattle24x7, so the three accounts do seem to be one person. Yes, the attacks need to stop. Sarah 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• It seems from a brief look at Seattle24x7 and related websites that this is SEO/marketing. Perhaps it's better handled at COIN in case other articles or accounts are involved. Pinging Jytdog in case he wants to take a look. Sarah 04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I left a long message for SeattleEditor at their talk page. Too long for ANI. I'd ask that folks give him a chance to reply there. Basically I am recommending that SeattleEditor change course or that we indef him per NOTHERE. Let's see what he says. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you for taking the time to do that. Much appreciated. I hope the user responds favorably. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, ditto, thank you. Sarah 17:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of paid editing

As noted above, the Roger Libby article began in the sandbox of User:Searchwriter, as did the article Lane Powell, about a Seattle law firm. Both of the articles appear to have been intended to be promotional, and have only been rendered acceptable by stripping out large amounts of information which is unsourced or attributed only to primary sources.

The user page for Searchwriter says:

This is the User Page for the editor of Seattle24x7.com, a Seattle news bureau Website. Thanks for your interest and comments. Everything we contribute to WikiPedia is fully "white-hat," attributed, and well-documented and includes citations.

The account name User talk:Seattle24x7 was username blocked in 2010. No edits exist in their contrib list, but their talk page indicates that they wrote an article on a book titled "The High Road Has Less Traffic", which was prodded as being self-published, and subsequently deleted at AfD as being non-notable.

The account User:Seattleditor was created just a few days ago, apparently for the purpose of editing the Roger Libby article. On their userpage they acknowledge that their former user name was "Seattle24x7", the name of their "Seattle-based e-zine". An examinination of the website shows quite clearly that it's a public-relations outlet: many of the articles are written by the CEOs of the companies they're about. This is clearly not a WP:RS, and not even a blog, it is, as its browser tab quite clearly states "Seattle's Internet Business Directory and Calendar".

What we have here is, I believe, paid editing on the part of Seattleeditor aka Seattle24x7 and Searchwriter. Seattleeditor is not " a practicing journalist ... who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists", he's a PR guy for hire, who'll do up an article on your law firm or your controversial medical practise, or whatever for his own "e-zine" or for Misplaced Pages.

I suggest that the unblocked accounts be blocked unless they comply with our requirements for paid editors as outlined on WP:TOU and WP:COI. That means an admission on their user page, and on article talk page of their conflict of interest and their status as a paid editor. It also means that they cannot directly edit the articles, but must make suggestions on the talk page which other editors can implement if they agree. BMK (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, folks should read Seattleditor's reply to Jytdog on their talk page here for an example of how not to write in a comprehensible way, how to hide the true nature of one's publication in convoluted and deceptive language, with phrases such as "pro bono" thrown in to make things look better, and how, in particular, not to answer straight-forward questions in a straight-forward manner. BMK (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Three other items:

• A picture of Dr. Libby was previously uploaded on en.wiki by user Searchwriter, and deleted for permission problems. Admins can look and see if File:Dr. Roger Libby in 2014.png is the same image that's currently in the article, which I have requested deletion of on Commons for the same reason.
• There's no doubt that the three accounts are the same person. After User:Seattle24x7 was username blocked, User:Seattleditor refrerred to it as his previous account. On the talk page of User:Searchwriter the editor reveals his real world name, and on the "Seattle24x7" website, the person of that name is described as "founder, publisher and managing editor of Seattle24x7, the founder of SearchWrite Search Marketing, an SEO, PPC and Social Media Thought Leader, and an SPJ award winner for Seattle magazine." This accords with the information in Seattleditor's response to Jytdog;s inquiry, and also reinforces the suspicion that SEO/promotion is what's going on here -- i.e. paid editing.
• Seattleditor's response on the Commons deletion request is informative.

(Incidentally, my understanding is that my second item is not WP:outing because the user revealed the information on their talk page. If an admin feels it oversteps the bounds, please delete the item.) BMK (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

BMK FYI, in my first iterations of my note to SeattleEditor I included their name in a quote from the "about the author" section of the seattle24x7 profile of Libby, and later redacted it. I emailed oversight and asked them to oversight the pre-redaction versions. They declined, saying it was not a violation of OUTING. So we are OK on using his RW name. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. BMK (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose indef per WP:NOTHERE

So SeattleEditor's reply was not what any of us wanted. They are NOTHERE and appear to be dug in so far that there is no teaching them how to be HERE at this time. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (add missing "no" Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

• Support EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per their response to Jytdog. BMK (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per their response to Jytdog and another response to me. I asked two simple yes/no questions and got more evasive, combative, non-responsive verbal spew. We don't have the time or energy to waste on this gaming of the system. — Brianhe (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I support sanctions against User:Seattleditor. I wish there was a WP:POMPOUS essay, but I'll just have to be left with citing meta:Don't be a jerk (in reference to comments aimed at EGF). (Oh, and is WP:PEACOCK even allowed as an argument against an editor's comments? Well, then, that, too.)

In addition to NOTHERE cited in the title, for the record I also agree that there is a violation of WP:NPOV here that rises to WP:COI. I was hoping for @Jytdog:'s promised WP:COIN post before weighing in, but the original {{long}} comment is incorporated by reference to the reply to it, above.

I also agree that there may be a WP:SOCK issue here (I'd hope EGF will file a WP:SPI if appropriate). I'm not really sure which is worse, COI or SOCK, I feel they are both duplicitous.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Since Jimbo probably wouldn't approve, I'll refrain from suggesting an alternate title for an essay on how to respond to such contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Roger Libby now on AfD

Literally all the sources of the article are primary sources, in the sense of being publications by Dr Libby himself — not "nearly" all, a phrase used above I suppose in honour of the current note 13. That footnote appears to cite a different author, Murray A. Straus, which may mislead the unwary, but it actually references a 1978 anthology which contains an article by Libby; i. e., that too is a primary source. Or not a source so much; it's a publication, an article, which appears in the list of Libby's publications. So, no secondary sources, and none have been offered since Evergreen Fir tagged the article three weeks ago. On the contrary, User:Seattleditor, a single purpose account, has attempted to remove the tags protesting that they're "damaging to the credibility of the doctor" and "deleterious to the patients of the doctor". (That edit was made by an IP, clearly User:Seattleditor logged out accidentally, not attempting in any way to hide.) All this suggests to me that Roger Libby shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. We don't do self-sourced bios, because they can't show notability. I've listed it on Articles for deletion. Seattleditor's understanding of policy does appear to be poor, and the way they answer questions quite evasive, but perhaps we might as well put off the issue of a block until the AfD is done, so that they can take part in it. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC).

New user Kaffeburk using a talk page as a political Forum (rather than an editorial discussion space).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's an editor who by the looks of things has signed up to preach about "Cultural Marxism" on the talk page for the Frankfurt School article. They've been told multiple times to familiarize themselves with Misplaced Pages policy, both by myself and by other editors, both on the talk page in question and on their own user talk page. They've already been pointed to WP:FORUM multiple times by multiple editors, so I think this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU (particularly in regards to policy) and that a cooling off period is required so they can familiarize themselves with policy and come back with constructive editorial discussion once they understand wikipedia a bit better. Some administrative action to drive the point home seems necessary at this point as it's become WP:HORSEMEAT and the talk page is long and aimless as it is. --Jobrot (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well as usual Jobrot put forward his personal opinion as a "fact". He got quite an arsenal of trick he is using against me and others in order to push his bias political agenda. To slander with false accusations of not following Misplaced Pages guidelines seems to be the favorite trick in order to avoid discussions regarding the content of the article. I try to give a few examples:

(1) Input to discussions clearly aimed at improving the article gets by Jobrot misrepresented as the opposite, as "WP:NOTFORUM" and similar. The favorite trick. I can give quite a few examples. The strategy is to first discredit the user in order to discredit the input from the same user. He uses that strategy to close valid sections, witch in effect is close to vandalism.

(2) Misrepresentation of Misplaced Pages Guidelines. Jobrot twists them around to suit his purpose.

(3) Repeatedly avoidance of central issues.

(4) Repeatedly using Non-independent sources.

(5) Repeatedly characterizing subjects not by their basic or core meaning, but by some controversial statement of the effect of the subject, thus creating a straw man.

The basic problem is that this article handles a fringe conspiracy theory from a few biased left wing academics as if it where a fact. When that is brought up the "book of tricks" is opened up and a cavalcade of smokescreens are put in effect. Neutral point of view is ignored, and so is consensus. Its all about "victory" and keeping the page in it current state for obvious left wing propaganda purposes. I would like some more experienced editor to step into this, and if they have left wing (or any other bias) be able to balance this with intellectual honesty. To "win" is not the goal. Kaffeburk (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jobrot just did it again. Look at the section https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frankfurt_School#Conspiracy_or_not.2C_the_heart_of_the_matter. The input is clearly a discussions aimed at improving the article, bur he falsely label it as More WP:IDHT WP:OR, really starting to violate either WP:NOTFORUM or WP:ADVOCACY. Please check the section and see for your self. This is in effect vandalism by Jobrot. Kaffeburk (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? Read WP:VAND before coming back here and calling this vandalism. In no way are the edits of Jobrot vandalism, and More WP:IDHT WP:OR, really starting to violate either WP:NOTFORUM or WP:ADVOCACY was from Ian.thomson, not Jobrot (diff). I'd suggest Kaffeburk read the links he has been given (by various users), and drop the stick. The discussion is over. It should stay that way. Not to mention I don't see much in the way of improving the article in the mess that is the talk page (especially in the hatted discussions). All I see there is a political discussion vaguely disguised as attempting to have impact on the article. -- Orduin 19:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well what can i do? If you all agree that the left wing version is the truth of the universe its noting i can do. I thought it was just a few radical lefties, but if that's the bulk of the editors the fight is over. It is how ever extremely cowardice of you to not even try to discuss the matter but just use brute force in having more numbers, but if you not do have a democratic view of things then you don't. My wikidays are over. Kaffeburk (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that you are here to prove something instead of dispassionately looking at the totality of sources (not just equal numbers of each view or just the ones you like) and summarizing those sources proportionately. This is not about "The Truth", it is about sources, which you've repeatedly refused to bring up beyond copying existing article citations for books you've clearly never looked at.

For your sake, I recommend you avoid political topics, because you are incapable of editing that field dispassionately. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All the sources used to remove the article of Cultural Marxism are non-independent. Martin Jay, Chip Berlet and Jérôm Jamin. They are all members of the New Left, they all support the Frankfurt School's ideology and all have performed Gramsci's "the long march trough the institutions of power". You not only allow them as sources, you even regard their view of their own critiques to be an academic consensus when clearly its not! Its a fringe minority bias conspiracy theory by totalitarian political extremist and you pull every dirty trick in the book to bury the truth. You don't want to defend your position, because you would loose hard and the you would have to reinstate the article about Cultural Marxism. Yes of course it about sources and you cant find a single independent source that supports your fringe conspiracy theory. Kaffeburk (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think WP:DENY needs to be invoked here. But Kaffeburk, Misplaced Pages is far from being left-wing versus right-wing, so if you keep doing what you're doing, don't be surprised if an admin imposes a topic ban on you. Erpert 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

-

Kaffeburk Neither politics nor personality are the cause of this disagreement. Policy is. The facts are that wikipedia holds academia at the top of it's sourcing tree, next are journalistic and other sources proven to have strong editorial oversight. Below that are websites and experts who have attained a small amount of proven credibility in specific niche fields. Seeing as you're trying to prove a relative neologism, finding sources that back up the popular claims will be difficult. On top of this, the popular claims can be dis-proven. For instance, it's claimed by proponents that The Frankfurt School is responsible for feminism, gay and LGTBI rights, civil rights (see stormfront), and atheism - when ALL of these things can be shown to have either existed before The Frankfurt School or find more important seeds before the Frankfurt school (the 1924 Society for Human Rights for instances championed gay rights before The Frankfurt School even existed). Another popular claim of 'Cultural Marxism' is that it's responsible for "Political Correctness" yet the philosopher who coined the modern usage is on record as stating that he wasn't influenced by The Frankfurt School ]. If academia backed up your claims, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That's the core issue. It's not a political issue, it's a sourcing issue. Proving "influence" is notoriously difficult, for instance, were you aware that a number of conservatives including Pat Buchanan have read Antonio Gramsci's The Prison Notebooks? Yet to prove it's "influenced them" is a highly subjective matter, and would most likely require them to go on record saying so (just as to disprove influence, we have Foucault coming forwards and saying he was NOT influenced by The Frankfurt School). On top of that, even if a number of them came forwards as "influenced" this wouldn't suddenly form all those influenced into a unified movement (and this is disregarding that 'Cultural Marxism' and 'The Frankfurt School' aren't the same thing, and the former as a neologism, isn't likely to be mentioned - and the latter already has mention in various places on wikipedia, but that doesn't constitute a unified movement aimed at destroying society. Progressives aim at lifting oppression on targeted groups - not at destroying society). I'm sorry, until your claims find a description in academic sources, nothing can be done. --Jobrot (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Erpert I never claimed "Misplaced Pages is...left-wing versus right-wing", that's a straw man. I do however observe that on some subjects there is a clear left wing bias. Antifeminism and feminism are other pages with a similar conflict and similar behavior.

Jobrot I never questioned the hierarchy of sources. I question the sources independence and the neutral point of view of the article. Academic sources are not excluded from Misplaced Pages's requirement of neutral sources and if reliable sources is used that is non-neutral then they should be balanced by other sources that are not left wing. To claim "academic consensus", in this case to prove there is a conspiracy and at the same time only use academic sources with a clear conflict of interest is problematic. The alleged Cultural Marxists are born in the 1940's, went to school during the 1960's, was part of the radical left wing student movement and did perform "the long marsh trough the institutions of power" as Dutschke reformulated Gramsci. They went to university for a political reason. They did become members of the New Left. According to the concept of Cultural Marxist, then they are Cultural Marxist. To use solely academic sources that are accused of being Cultural Marxist in order to label Cultural Marxism a "conspiracy theory" is to stretch things a bit to far. If You are accused of something, then you are defending yourself and can not be expected to have a neutral point of view. If academic consensus is claimed by Misplaced Pages when academic disagree up on the matter and the only consensus that can be found is by those accused of being Cultural Marxist's, then there is no consensus and the claim must be removed.

So you think it wrong that the "Frankfurt School is responsible for feminism"? Fine, but that does not make it an "conspiracy". The claim is not that the Frankfurt School started all those movements. Its that its influence later dominated those movements. In the case of feminism that critical theory became an integrated part and that woman power, not equality became the core issue. You write "Progressives aim at lifting oppression on targeted groups - not at destroying society". That's your opinion. Perhaps you are right, but what if the effects in the long run did from some perspective destroy society? But it does not matter who is right or who is wrong. What matters is that the article should cover the subject from a neutral point of view. Tho have a non-left wing view of the world is not equal to be insane and have delusional conspiracy theories. Kaffeburk (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTHERE block. Editor will either drop the stick or have it and all editing privileges taken away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block WP:FORUM Kaffeburk your argument is with academia, not Misplaced Pages. WP:NPOV doesn't extend to covering original research as if it were fact. See WP:OR. --Jobrot (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block - Editors who come here with an agenda don't usually last long, and this one is no exception. He's been pushing his agenda from his first edit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So let me then ask a question. A decision have been made to regard some academics's work as a "Conspiracy Theory" (Lind, Buchanan etc) and to not regard some other academics work as a "Conspiracy Theory"(Martin Jay etc), but instead as academic consensus. If I find this decision to be against Misplaced Pages's guidelines, what is the proper way for me to act in order to correct what i see as a mistake? Is there some way I can initiate a vote regarding Martin Jay's view being an academic consensus or not? Kaffeburk (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll answer that on your talk page, as this is not a suitable place to discuss this. --Jobrot (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block I believe Kaffeburk is sincere but WP:CIR with regards to at least assuming good faith and cooperating, in case one is totally incompetent when it comes to gathering sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think that a block is appropriate yet, but it is apparent that Kaffeburk is a WP:SPA editing with an agenda, that he's dealing with Misplaced Pages as if it was a political WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that he's here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and undo what he perceives as a left-wing bias. He is also intent on using talk pages in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. None of this is acceptable, and if he does not take this thread, and the !votes for being blocked, as the voice of the community telling him to stop, and instead continues to edit in the same manner, then a block would certainly be more than justified. BMK (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - based on the editor's postings below. Definitely WP:NOTHERE except to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BMK (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, following this ANI discussion, the editor's first act was to return to the talk page here to start asking about the Cultural Marxism AFD. If there's a move towards re-hashing that, I think that justifies putting a stop to all this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Might a topic ban from politics would be more in order then? Still, this is the only edit he has made that wasn't utterly useless soapboxing. Only one, out of (currently) 47. So, like 2%. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The core of the problem is when those who are accused of being cultural Marxist's or promoters of cultural Marxism defend themselves, this defense is by the article regarded the objective truth in the matter. The concept of cultural Marxism implies betrayal of the western civilization by a designated group. Regardless if the accusation being valid or not, those accused will defend them self and I find it improper that supporters or members of the Frankfurt School and the New Left are regarded as neutral experts in this matter. If Misplaced Pages let the Frankfurt School define itself and lets the New Left define it self, what is the next step? Let the Nazis define the Holocaust? On such an enormous accusation against the New Left, their proponent's can be expected to forcefully retributive the accusation and declare it delusional, a conspiracy theory or likewise. But such an retribution must be carefully exterminated and perhaps classified as a political statement regardless of existing academic formality's. Is there any evidence that a conspiracy theory is at the heart of concept of Cultural Marxism? I never seen any. Is there any evidence of an conspiracy theory at all in any part of the concept of cultural Marxism? This is how Paul Gottfreid himself answer that question: "Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/

I hope this article can be changed so it reflects the standard that Misplaced Pages is using in majority of it articles. There is a political battle between the New Left and the conservatives all over the western world, and Misplaced Pages should remain neutral, should not pick sides. However, in this article Misplaced Pages have chosen to fully endorse the New Left's position, or can anybody show any difference between the Misplaced Pages article and the New Left's position on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

1) The wikipedia page to which that Paul Gottfried article refers (Frankfurt School conspiracy theory) actually no longer exists , and now only serves as a redirect to the current section (IMO the redirect should be deleted entirely, as to kill the link in the article so everyone else knows the page has changed). Also Gottfried is no longer mentioned in the current section (so that information in the article is now irrelevant). 2) I've already told you and explained WITH EVIDENCE (specifically from Lind who is spoken about in that article) why it's classified as a (global systemic) conspiracy theory (using Barkun's model), both on the talk page, on your user talk page, here, and in MULTIPLE OTHER LOCATIONS. Of course proponents of the conspiracy theory don't believe it's a conspiracy theory they just BELIEVE. Much like people who believe in Big Foot, Chemtrails or Reptilians don't say they're conspiracy theories (of course they don't - they believe them to be real). Their belief isn't founded in fact - that's exactly why they SHOULDN'T be allowed to write on those subjects on wikipedia. Because they're wrong about the subject! Much like anyone who is wrong about The Frankfurt School shouldn't be allowed to write about it! 3) lets the New Left define it self, what is the next step? Let the Nazis define the Holocaust? this is your second Godwin on the subject and also shows you have utterly no understanding of Misplaced Pages's function or policies (specifically WP:EXPERT). 4) Misplaced Pages is on the side of facts, as am I. I am not part of "The New Left" - nor is Misplaced Pages. As I've stated before you need to understand Misplaced Pages's role better (we do not report incorrect opinions as if they are fact. This is a fact based encyclopedia Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not), and you should be blocked so you have time to understand this position. Put down the stick. WP:HORSE. --Jobrot (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Your "proof" is this line by Lind? "that the Frankfurt School originated Political Correctness". That as a very strange interpretation or perhaps original research you have done. Most things originate or have influences from other things. Some say that the Catholic Church teaching's have influences from Greek Philosophy. If they are wrong, is it then to create a conspiracy to make that claim? What is your source for the claim that if something wrongly is described as originating from something else, then its a "conspiracy theory". By the way; do You deny that political correctness has strong ties to the New Left and that the New Left ideological roots to a large extent is the Frankfurt School? But regardless of this, where is your source that a wrongful alleged originating equals a "conspiracy theory", or is it your own original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"U are using solely not Independent sources. Misplaced Pages have rules regarding Independent sources:

Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)...."

"Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources. "

You have zero independent, third-party sources for your claim of an conspiracy. You cant even use them according to Misplaced Pages's rules without proper backing by third-party sources. But you not only using them, you present them as factual truth witch violates another rule "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, when you classify the whole of academia biased due to being effected by your conspiracy - then yeah, you're going to read all academic sources as biased (as you have Jerome Jamin for instance. But your rejection of academic standards will not be taken up by Misplaced Pages, not NOW not EVER. As for my proof that it's a conspiracy, it's on the talk page (and is not limited to the claim on Political Correctness, Lind is as I've stated using his own quotes, proposing a global system conspiracy which needs to be "unmasked" and is a deception of the unwitting public (rather than just the public making a free political choice, no, for Lind it has to be 'the commies' or as he puts it in his own words "Old Karl Marx himself"). You can find all this on the talk page (Lind's quotes being used as proof) - you should read it. But if you want the extended version, more can be found here: on my sandbox --Jobrot (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S Good to see you're finally indenting. It helps keep things orderly. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for (at least) a topic ban for Kaffeburk

Kaffeburk has demonstrated zero capacity or willingness to do anything at Talk:Frankfurt School except push the conspiracy theory of cultural marxism, usually using the talk page as a forum instead of actually discussing the article, and usually misappropriating existing citations for books he never looked at when asked for sources. When Beyond My Ken, Ricky81682, and Baseball Bugs (all previously uninvolved) immediately or very quickly responded with "block," Kaffeburk has taken this as a sign to continue posting rants about how we're all a bunch of cultural marxists trying to keep the article from revealing the WP:TRUTH.

To date, this is the only edit he has made that wasn't completely useless or ignorant. It is only for that one edit that I'm suggesting that he simply be topic banned from at least articles relating to the Frankfurt School and "Marxism" (broadly construed) -- if not politics in general. This post demonstrates that he has a crippling conspiracy-imagining problem with anything you can apply the term "liberal" to. It does, however, concern religion, but that is (almost) the only post that discusses religion.

To recap, the suggested options are:

• Topic-ban on Kaffeburk from the Frankfurt School article as well as anything relating to "Marxism" broadly construed
• Topic-ban from politics in general
• Block under WP:NOTHERE

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The accusation of conspiracy are solely based Not Independent Sources, but on academics with a deep conflict of interests as many other than me have pointed out in the discussions. That is against Misplaced Pages's rules. Original research is also used to fabricate that a wrongful alleged originating equals a "conspiracy theory". I suggest we move this to Arbitration to settle if the sources can be used, and if they can how much weight should they carry. I'm confident that i can show that the used sources clearly is Not Independent Sources. Misplaced Pages should reflect both sides of this story, not be used to only push the left wing point of view, and you have a history Ian of taking sides in conflicts like this. Kaffeburk (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to make accusations, you must present evidence -- otherwise your accusations are considered personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Block under WP:NOTHERE This is someone who has asked that hardline conservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich be "recognized" as academic sources, and seems to believe that those in genuine academic positions who write authoritatively and descriptively about The Frankfurt School must therefore be from "The New Left" and hence must be biased on this topic (just as the conspiracy theory would have it). On top of this they have refused to co-operate, read or pay attention to policy when repeatedly directed to (in particular WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOT SOAPBOX & NOT BATTLEGROUND and WP:HORSE)). The bulk of the Frankfurt School article covers the Frankfurt School's genuine views. The coverage of contradictory views (the kind Kaffeburk wants to give more weight to) already has a section in proportion to it's academic coverage as per WP:FRINGE and the AfD on this subject. I see no reason in continuing this farce. WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are WP:NOT WP:GREATWRONGS at least WP:NOTHERE --Jobrot (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you not read the sources i provided? Sure, you can label William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan and so on as right wing, but you can also label Martin ::Jay as extreme left wing. He is not neutral when it comes to the Frankfurt School. "...largely because he sympathizes with the philosophical and political oriantation of the school..." (The Discourse of Domination: From the Frankfurt School to Postmodernism page 22 by Ben Agger.)

The Journalist and photographer Chip Berlett is a member of the New Left. (George, John; Wilcox, Laird M. (1996), American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others, Prometheus Books, p. 295, ISBN 978-1-57392-058-2). He have also compared the first Bush Administration.. with Italian fascism", Ross Perot “provided us with a contemporary model of the fascist concept of the organic leader . . ." On Buchanan “xenophobia” and “isolationism” that “hearkens back to the proto-fascist ideas of the 1930s,” Berlet argues that Buchanan’s 1992 GOP convention speech “eerily invoked Nazi symbols of blood, soil, and honor.” He is also known for attacking those in left who is not left enough and brand them as "fascists".

The claim of an Cultural Marxism is also a claim that those two individuals are Cultural Marxist's. To be accused of being a Cultural Marxist is in my book to have a conflict of interest. They are not neutral. In fact they both belong to the most extreme radical left. A proponent for the Marxist Frankfurt School and a Stalinist. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=15883 Kaffeburk (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Asking for close

For crying out loud, will an admin please look at the unanimous community support for a block before we get more puerile argumentation from this editor? He's clearly WP:NOTHERE except to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, has a terrible case of WP:IDHT, violated WP:NOTAFORUM constantly, has significant WP:CIR problems understanding basic policies, couldn't tell an WP:RS from a political opinion for all the money in the world, and edits from a very specific WP:POV. Please don't let this go on, it's over-ripe for closing, with a block. BMK (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For crying out loud, perhaps let the discussion go a little bit longer? There seems to be 4 people wanting to support some sort of block, so I think the discussion can go a little longer than 4 days. Have a little patience. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Five people, actually (and one more implied but not explicit) - and if the evidence and argumentation for an open-and-shut case such as this (in which one doesn't have to go searching the far corners of Misplaced Pages for the evidence, since it's right here in this thread) isn't sufficient in your eyes for a close with block, could you at least enjoin Kaffeburk from making content arguments over and over again here, where only behavior should be considered? BMK (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kaffeburk: Please refrain from discussing content of specific articles here. This discussion is regarding your behavior, not specific content. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. If I could, I would topic ban Kaffeburk from Frankfurt School and related pages, broadly construed, as they have been making the article talkpage unusable for its purpose. But single admins can only place topic bans in areas under discretionary sanctions. For a topic ban regarding any other area, there needs to be an ANI / AN consensus, and I certainly don't see a topic ban consensus in the discussion above. There is, however, consensus for a block, and as a second-best, I'm blocking the user indefinitely. Many experienced editors have tried to explain to the user about published mainstream academic sources, but it doesn't seem to take nor slow them down. Instead, for example, when somebody (Ian Thomson) tells them about the consensus of published mainstream academic sources, they retort that those sources are all leftwing and another "published mainstream academic" like Pat Buchanan ought to be used to balance them.. Yes, Pat Buchanan. That plumbs the depths of unreasonableness and is a complete waste of time. Wasting useful editors' time is the very definition of disruption in my book. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC).

Antifeminism

I've been trying to improve the Antifeminism article, because I think the current one is very bad for many reasons (it's very biased in tone, it doesn't accurately reflect its sources, and it's sloppy in general). There has been a huge resistance to this from a few editors though, who clearly want to leave the article in its current state, are unwilling to work cooperatively, and instead dismiss all criticism I have of it as original research, which lacks sources. Now I've tried to explain to them repeatedly that I disagree with this, because the criticism I had was criticism of the article, not of which information it should contain, or which sources it should use. They completely ignore this though, and instead keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Now I've been trying to assume good faith, and kept assuming that they were misreading what I wrote, but it's getting so weird that it's becoming really difficult to maintain this. See this thread ], and especially Fyddlestix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) second reply. The section was about something I removed, because it was unsourced, but which got reverted back. I tried to discuss this, and explain why it wasn't supported by the sources, but instead they went on pretending that I was trying to add information, which wasn't supported by sources. There's just no way that such a reply can be made in good faith to the what I wrote above it. It's becoming clear enough that they're just intentionally being impossible, probably either to frustrate me to a point where I would give up, or provoke me into questioning their intelligence, so that they can block me over personal attacks.Didaev (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be basically a content dispute, although it may be complicated by stubbornness and incivility. I suggest that you ask for formal mediation. A mediator may be able to get the parties to explain and work on their differences. If the other editors do not agree to formal mediation, then the next step for dealing with conduct issues would be Arbitration Enforcement under the gender-related sanctions under WP:ARBGG. But I suggest that mediation be tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see this less as a content dispute and more as a problem of disruptive editing on Diadaev's part. This user has been lobbying for changes to the article on Antifeminism for a couple of weeks, but their talk page posts are based on their own subjective opinions & reasoning, rather than on RS (this is probably the worst example). They've been prodded for sources and asked to stop making subjective arguments several times, and they've been given a formal warning for failure to cite sources and disruptive editing.

In the comment Didaev refers to above, I was simply trying to impress upon them the importance of citing sources - I was hoping that engaging with some sources might refocus the conversation and make it less subjective. But Diadev has chosen to raise the matter here rather than do that. So I don't see how mediation is going to help unless Didaev is willing to make some sourced, non-subjective arguments. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, a mediator would insist on citing sources. On the other hand, if User:Didaev is ignoring advice to cite sources, then that may be good-faith editing that is nonetheless disruptive editing. If this is seen as a conduct dispute, it is my experience that Arbitration Enforcement works more efficiently than this noticeboard. Has Didaev been notified of gender-related discretionary sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, it looks like they hadn't been warned about the DS. I added the warning just now. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely Didaev is editing in good faith, but unfortunately is still not getting the point about how all of our work on the article must be based on the summarization of reliable sources. Didaev is offering criticisms of the article which are personal criticisms. This is not helping the situation at all. What is needed is for Didaev to refer to reliable published sources when making arguments about what to change in the antifeminism article. Until that happens there's not much influence that Didaev can have on the article. Lacking any leverage based on what is found in the literature, the talk page complaints by Didaev are ultimately disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the 'reliable source' doctrine is being abused here to skew the page towards a particular point of view. On the original discussion page, Binksternet et. al. have explicitly stated their belief that the only valid sources of information about "antifeminism" are feminist scholars. This must lead to a one-sided characterization. JudahH (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization - as far as I've seen, no one has argued that feminist scholars are "the only valid sources of information" about anti-feminism. Rather, they've argued that there just isn't all that much (or any) academic literature about antifeminism itself that takes a "pro" antifeminist perspective. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Saturne160 and WP:V

This user apparently has poor understanding of WP:V and WP:BLP. I spotted them in Julie Bresset when they added the category Category:Breton people. The article has no evidence that Bresset is Breton (which I know very well, since I have written the article). The user apparently believes that if Bresset lives in Brittany that makes her Breton. They already made four reverts, but have chosen not to react at the message at their talk page, and also not on the message at the talk page of the article. Today I found one more article where they had a similar problem, they reverted me within an hour. For the record, I speak French, so their claim that I can not find in French articles what s written there is not really justified. May be someone can help me with explaining policies to the user. They edit infrequently (not every day) and did not overstep 3RR. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted a note on their talk page, we'll see if it gets their attention. They don't often use their user talk page. Liz 13:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, they prefer reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since they do not reply (their usual tactics, if they have their version, they do nothing), I am going to revert again and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WIKIHOUNDING/Accusations

This is to report 2 x IPs

• 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Who have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING and constantly accusing me of being in the Pakistan Army and hence that's why I was carrying out certain edits even though an investigation by Joseph2302 ruled against their accusations.

9th IoA: Even after being reported here, and because no action was taken by admins, 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) did the same thing he has been already reported for diff

I then simply stopped responding to their accusations as they were false and I didnt care what they said. However, today when I was engaged in an healthy discussion with another editor Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs), 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) instead of giving arguments came out of nowhere and once again declared that "AS member of Pakistani army you should not even comment here" (Diff)!

I mean, why?!

This last accusation prompted me to write this report.

Going by the understanding of these IPs, anybody trying to remove wrong info/info that does not fit the scope of the article/info that has been discussed at the respective talk page and then removed, even though the info was reverted back pending further discussion is a member of Pakistan Army??? Really?! Moreover, conversely, anybody who tried to add info to pages related to Pakistani Military must then also be a member of Pakistan Army? Similarly, going by the same definition, if anybody who remove info regarding the revelations by the Indian Prime Minister on pages like Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Mukti Bahini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as done by 114.134.89.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 78.146.41.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should then also be a member of Indian Armed Forces or have had volunteered for Mukti Bahini in the past? I guess not.

For instance, Faizan (talk · contribs) has done a commendable job while building Zarb-e-Azb , this would then automatically mean that he too is in the Pakistan Army?

Sir, I having understood the policies of Misplaced Pages have stopped from carrying out edits and instead spend more time and effort at talks pages as can he seen here.... so that consensus can be reached before an edit is carried out especially to pages which are controversial. But sir, I beg that I cannot continue if I have to be hounded and accused constantly, and random IPs will continue to follow and disrupt my activity and contributions at unrelated pages and respond to my edits with the same prejudice. Irrespective of the above, is Misplaced Pages uneditable by soldiers or those who have interst in Military History? —TripWire  14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. However, when you start a discussion here, you must notify any editors who are specifically reported. I have notified the two unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, actually I was in the process of doing it, just had been stuck. I have notified both, and then read this msg of yours. I would request you to just give a cursory reading to the report, I am sue you'll understand. Thanks —TripWire  14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User was paksol and he said he was in Pak amy on his user page And on another person's user page he links to his blog which was on his use page as well. So he is in amy and should no delete info critical on army atrocities 82.11.33.86 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You simply dont know that, and I have already clarified here that the blog was of some other. This in no way give you and your pal the right to hound me and disrupt and ruin my discussion especially when you dont have anything worthwhile to add. Lastly, the info you are hell bent in including has been included in the relevant page Balochistan, Pakistan instead of Balochistan and was later reverted by some other editor AFTER the discussion and NOT me, so you dont have any right to accuse me of anything everytime I comment on a Talk Page.

I have NEVER tried to hide that I was PakSol, rather I have myself told this at numerous instances, I have nothing to hide. I even info others that I have changed by username. But it seems as if it is you who dont have anything useful to add to Misplaced Pages and thus are harassing others —TripWire  15:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't really want to get involved in this, but seems I already am. I threw this discussion out of WP:COIN because it was clearly related to a content dispute among multiple users and pages, and there was no evidence presented that there was any conflict of interest, only a claim that someone worked for Pakistani military, which appeared unfounded, and wasn't necessarily an actual COI on the page listed. I then threw all discussion of this off my talkpage, as I hate my talkpage being used for arguments, especially ones in topics I don't edit. I have no knowledge or comments to make about anything else here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, neither your discion at the WP:COIN nor your subtle indication of ignorance to 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) had worked. As can be seen in the refs I have provided, I have tried to clarify all the accusations by the IP, even to extent that I ignored his comments and shifted my focus to another topic. This is despite the fact that he has been disrupting my comments regulary even after you had decided the case. However, even today when 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) again without any reason or provocation barged into a healthy discussion which I have having with Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) and declared )that "AS member of Pakistani army you should not even comment here", I have had enough and decided to bring this issue here. WP:HOUNDING states that:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

And I just didnt come running here at the first instance of accusations, but after it has been done atleast 8 x times and only after I have clearly referred/indicated what WP:HOUNDING is to 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs). Please, get him off my tail. Thanks —TripWire  18:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which lie we believe, you are in army, now you are no? And is fiends blog lol, One cannot change history, and you edits all can see. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 82.11.33.86 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969 misuse of rollback

Diff: 07:08, 18 June 2015 (-1,383)

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted twelve consecutive edits of a fellow editor with an edit summary "Rev npov edits which go against consensus on talk pag", please see diff. The edits were reverted from an actively discussed and edited, contentious article, Americans for Prosperity. The article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions including climate change and the Tea party movement (ds alerts). The edits rolled back included:

1. 00:21, 18 June 2015 "- unnecessary, non-neutral, cherry-picked legal implication of filing status; lede summarizes notability of subject; legal details for body, thanks", an edit intended to trim a recent undiscussed addition to the lede
2. 00:33, 18 June 2015, a neutral, minor copy edit
3. 00:44, 18 June 2015 "add rs ref", a neutral edit to add a high quality reliable source (no new content) reference to unsourced content as per WP:VER
4. 00:52, 18 June 2015 "fix ref, name ref", a neutral edit to add a publisher and magazine name to a reliable source reference (no new content)
5. 00:53, 18 June 2015 "add rs ref", an edit to add a second, high quality reliable source reference to contended content (no new content)
6. 00:53, 18 June 2015 "a very few words of brief description in text for clarity, drawn from lede of target wl, as per WP:LINKSTYLE", a neutral edit, word-for-word from the very lede sentence of our article
7. 01:14, 18 June 2015 "brief description in text for clarity, drawn from reliable source, as per WP:LINKSTYLE", a neutral edit which provides the only context for two highly significant actors in the article
8. 01:28, 18 June 2015 "add noteworthiness of 2010 funding source", a neutral edit, a paraphrase of a highly reliable source The Guardian, which adds a statement of the noteworthiness of contented content, and adds the relevant excerpt from the reliable source to the reference
9. 01:32, 18 June 2015 "+ wl, + highly significant subject of the sentence as stated in reliable source" a neutral edit which adds a wikilink to a highly significant actor in this article on first mention, and paraphrases the highly reliable and noteworthy source The New York Times Magazine more neutrally and accurately by restoring the highly significant subject of the sentence from the source recently deleted without discussion
10. 01:34, 18 June 2015 "ce, nation -> US", a neutral copy edit, word choice
11. 01:43, 18 June 2015 "add excerpt from reliable source to reference", an edit which adds a brief, highly relevant excerpt from a highly reliable and noteworthy source The New York Times Magazine in support of a contended content
12. 01:48, 18 June 2015 "move content to relevant subsection" a neutral edit which moves content to the appropriate subsection, no new content

Our behavioral guideline WP:ROLLBACK restricts rollback to certain specific applications. Clearly, at least some of these edits are good faith edits which cannot reasonably be construed as part of any neutrality dispute. Our policy WP:PRESERVE recommends steps to be taken before deleting the contributions of a fellow editor. Our essay WP:DRNC recommends against deleting content with an edit summary of "no consensus." Thank you for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I see some undoing of edits, but that was not with the rollback tool but with Twinkle rollback. I just thought I'd point that out in case of confusion. Dustin (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, Twinkle rollback. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No misuse of rollback. From the same guideline: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." If proper edit summaries were added, using rollback is accepted. --NeilN 17:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"If proper edit summaries were added, using rollback is accepted." The edit summary is improper. The edit summary mentioned NPOV and "no consensus." The edit reverted 12 edits of a fellow editor, most of which are clearly good faith edits that could not reasonably be understood as non-neutral or contrary to talk page consensus, see comments above. This rollback was reverting an editor, not edits WP:BATTLE, and feels very much like an attempt to reduce an editor's enjoyment of Misplaced Pages WP:HARASS. Hugh (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Onel5969 did not think your edits improved the article so he reverted them. You did not like that so you dragged him here, hoping to disguise a content dispute as a conduct issue. --NeilN 16:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the sequence of edits is another attempt by HughD to assert his non-neutral POV on the article. His edits were in direct contradiction of the consensus on the talk page of the article. This editor has also campaigned on other pages to assist in promoting his POV. This editor has also been counseled in the past about his contentious editing on this page. While some of his edits are valid, his consistent incessant editing makes it impossible to "undo" the edits which are contrary to the talkpage consensus, however in this instance, each of his sequence of edits was in direct contradiction of that consensus, so therefore is not a violation of the rollback privilege. The other editors involved in the consensus were DaltonCastle, Capitalismojo, and Champaign Supernova, and (just recently) Comatmebro. I have asked HughD to refrain from editing the article until consensus was reached, and while I feel it has been reached, I was waiting for more comments from other editors in order to achieve a broader consensus. HughD has been asked several times to wait for consensus, and in spite of the current consensus being against his edits, he made the unilateral decision to edit adversely to the current consensus. This editor, I just realized is just back from a ban on editing from a similar incident on this talk page, and has been banned several times in the last 3 months for similar behavior. It is very wearying and time-consuming dealing with editors like this. Not sure what to do with him at this point. But thank you Dustin V. S. and NeilN for your above comments. Onel5969 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"in this instance, each of his sequence of edits was in direct contradiction of that consensus" Please document your claim by provide links, for all of the above edits, to the specific talk page discussion where a specific concensus against each of the above edits is reached. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Hugh has been consistently editing against a clear talk page consensus, and is continually re-inserting his preferred content despite the fact that no other editors have expressed agreement with these edits. He appears to be engaged in article ownership and since he cannot build a consensus for his preferred edits, he is resorting to filing merit-less incident reports. The community is growing tired of these disruptive antics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Hugh, this is getting old. We see your pattern: ignore community consensus, accuse accuse report, repeat. You dont come out of this looking like a victim. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that HughD has posted "discretionary sanction" warnings like these without any followup or intention of pursuing them is both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BULLYING. Opening this thread, which has so little merit, adds WP:HARRASS and WP:WIKILAWYERING to the mix. When notifying Onel5969 of this thread HughD directed O to AN rather than ANI. I hope that was just a mistake but it does add to the issues that make a WP:BOOMERANG something to be considered. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hello MarnetteD, any editor may alert fellow editors to discretionary sanctions, please see WP:ACDS. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to suggest we close this here as no action with regard to Onel5969. Instead of deciding on a boomerang for HughD here, we can just close it without prejudice to anyone filling an WP:AE request, (or and admin directly invoking discretionary sanctions if they are so inclined) as that seems like a superior venue for dealing with this sort of thing. Monty₈₄₅ 00:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, Monty845, but the WP:AE thing... is that something I should do? Or is someone else going to do it? Bit new to this ANI thing, so I'm unclear. Sorry to bother you. Onel5969 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd wait to see the outcome here first, as you don't want anyone to suggest your venue shopping. If my approach was taken, its something you could do if you think its necessary. We could also just discuss it fully here, but I'd prefer we pass it to AE, as the regulars there are often better at dealing with this sort of behavior. Monty₈₄₅ 01:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Monty845 - As I said, I'm not real familiar with this venue, so wasn't sure how this is "closed", or if I needed to bring the matter to AE. I've only been involved in two "incidents" (both coincidently in the last 2 days), and in the other one the nominating editor was blocked for a year for their nonsense. I'm guessing there will be some decision by which I know this discussion has reached an outcome. Onel5969 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Diff: 19:14, 18 June 2015 (-2,758)

Hours later, Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rolled back 10 consecutive talk page edits from Talk:Americans for Prosperity, reverting the talk page to a previous edit of his. The reverted edits included 8 talk page contributions of a fellow editor. The talk page involved is that of an actively discussed and edited, contentious article, Americans for Prosperity. The edits rolled back included project additions and talk page comments:

1. 18:17, 18 June 2015 "+ project as project member"
2. 18:19, 18 June 2015 "+ project as project member"
3. 18:22, 18 June 2015 "request focus"
4. 18:25, 18 June 2015 "request focus on topics appropriate for article talk page"
5. 18:30, 18 June 2015 "responding to nonsense", a self-revert
6. 18:34, 18 June 2015 "responding to nonsense", a self-revert
7. 18:37, 18 June 2015 a request for focus on content
8. 18:52, 18 June 2015 contribution to talk page thread
9. 18:56, 18 June 2015 "request focus on discussion appropriate for an article talk page"
10. 19:14, 18 June 2015 rollback

Thank you for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

HughD is absolutely correct on this last issue, when I attempted to revert his non-neutral edits, I clicked "restore this version", not "rollback", which not only reverted his incorrect edits, but also included valid edits by both him and other edits. Since he has incessant edits, I accidently pulled other edits in my reversion. I have corrected. Onel5969 (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis block evasion

Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a block evasion using IP address. He is indef blocked by this report. He used this IP address (post edit: I provided bad link) before being blocked and assumed it and now has edited today from this IP adress. Again, issues relating Serbian-Croatian divergences, and see the two IP geolocations, exactly the same, no doubts it is Asdinsis evading his block. FkpCascais (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: your link to the first IP is malformed – can you please correct it? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice.

This is the IP he used before being blocked. And this is the IP he used today. The geolocation is the same. FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

They don't look strongly related to me. Asdisis never edited on football topics. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, beleave me, the fact that FIFA and UEFA recognized Serbia as the only successor of Yugoslavia made Croatia protest. Asdisis anyway never edited anything besides issues related to Serbia-Croatia conflict, and his only reason of involvement at Nikola Tesla was just to add he was Croatian. The geolocation is absolutely the same, the issue is again the same related to Serbian-Croatian disputes, so there are no doubts. Am I in the right place at ANI or should I go to some other noticeboard? Otherwise I would have just told this to Asdisis blocking admin, but he is on vacation. FkpCascais (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence it's the same person. (1) Croatia-Serbia conflict is common. (2) The two IPs are on different service providers: Hrvatski Telekom fixed broadband in Zagreb and Iskon Internet d.d. in Split. (3) No one is going to block for a single edit made eight hours ago. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa OK, this is strange now, because at the time I checked the geolocation of the IP which Asdisis used on my talk-page it gave me the same exact place in the road between Livade and Primišlje as the 78.3.75.119 is giving me (78.3.75.119). But now the IP Asdinsis used at my talk page is giving a new geolation near Zagreb, see 89.164.170.144 (89.164.170.144), exactly the same as from another IP accout that has been active yesterday at Nikola Tesla article, the 141.136.243.205 (edits from IP 141.136.243.205. So he evaded block yesterday anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

89.164.170.144 is definitely him, and the IP 141.136.243.205 is a match for service provider and location. I have blocked that IP 48 hr for block evasion. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Just one question, is it possible that at time when Asdisis made that comment at my talk page, the geolocation gave me one place (the one from the other IP in the road between Livade and Promišlje) and that now it gives a different location, near Zagreb? Cause I swear you I am not crazy lol, Asdinsis IP really gave me a different place then and now. FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope he stops making socks pretending to be someone else defending the same POVs got him indef blocked for. FkpCascais (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Usage of free image in templates

Hello admins, there has been a dispute between me and User:IM-yb regarding the usage of an image in a template. The template is this: Template:Olympiacos sections and the image is this one: . I created this image, it's totally free without any copyright violations or restrictions in usage. It's a mere image of red and white stripes. It's not a fake sports flag, it's not a logo, nor an official emblem. Consequently, it doesn't hint at any of wikipedia's red flags, it doesn't violate any wiki rules and it's free from any restriction whatsoever. Every editor can use it in all articles and templates. User:IM-yb (if I understood correctly what he's suggesting) believes that I can't use this file in the templates, and suggests that it's against wikipedia rules to use this image in this particular template or in any other template for that matter. You can take a look at our entire conversation here User talk:IM-yb#Templates, User talk:IM-yb#Misunderstanding and here User talk:Gtrbolivar#Fake sports flags. We want the admins to give us a ruling regarding that issue. I repeat that this image is free, it's my own work, it merely depicts colours (stripes) and has no usage restrictions. Thank you so much, we're really looking forward to your ruling. Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There should be no copyright problems at all with using the image, in my opinion. It's properly licensed on Commons, and arguably uncopyrightable in any case as an arrangement of simple geometric shapes with no artistic element or selection involved. But I don't think that's IM-yb's objection. Can you ask them what Misplaced Pages policy they think you're breaking by making these edits? -- The Anome (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello to all. My objection for use of this and other similar files, is based in that note commons:Template:Fake sports logo. This Template:Olympiacos sections used only in the articles of the club (Olympiacos). In that articles we have logos with fair use (official emblem). About fake logos and their usage, please read the note of commons. --IM-yb (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion doesn't belong here. It belongs at Template talk:Olympiacos sections so that if it get re-hashed later, people can find without hunting around your talk pages and ANI and wherever you two discuss this. If you want a 3rd opinion or something more, that's for WP:3O or WP:DRN or other places not here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about interpretation of note of wikipedia about logos. Not for consensus. If I'm wrong, correct me.

In this commons:Template:Fake sports logo read:

" Warning!

This flag, as well as other fake sports flags, is fictitious and is useful only to facilitate visual identification of some articles within Misplaced Pages. This flag has some visual elements that are similar to official logos or coats of arms of certain clubs, such as colors or some symbol, but they are NOT official and don't have any direct relation to the crest, symbol or official flag of the club. Thus, even if you consider that this symbol reminiscent of some elements of the club, this image does NOT correspond, and is not even similar to the official symbol.

Official symbols must not exist in Commons because they are protected by authorial rights (copyright); in this way, if you want to localize the club's symbol, crest or official flag, try to make contact with the club: ask for the official symbol and a possible license of use to your purpose.

Note to Wikipedians: use this flag only in a very small size, only to facilitate visually the identity of a club within a context that has several clubs together. To use it in normal or big size may induce the reader to misunderstanding. Moreover, you should use the flag only if it's clear at 20px, which is the size the flags have on many wikiprojects about soccer. "

According to the above, fake flags or logos can't be used in clubs articles. --IM-yb (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This problem is about many templates and articles. Why we don't follow the note of commons? We want problems? It is not about consensus. --IM-yb (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The rules on Commons are not always the same as the rules here, so you can't generalize from one to the other. What problems do you envisage might arise here, on enwiki? -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusion about symbols of the club. Clubs has official logos, flags and other symbols. If someone enter first time in article of a club and see the symbols, it is easy to believe that it is real, official.

About copyright, the Gtrbolivar falls into contradictions (I replaced the white thing with the red-white stripes, trademark of Olympiacos CFP. The image is free with no restrictions and can be used in any template).

Very please to find a substantial solution for all the same templates (like many others Template:Ferencvárosi TC sections, Template:CSKA Moscow sections, Template:Partizan sections, Template:CSK ZSU sections... who built based on that logic). The follow of note of commons (who built based on some logic by other wikipedians) is a real solution.

About policy guideline of enwiki, Misplaced Pages:Logos, read:

" Many images of logos are used on Misplaced Pages and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Misplaced Pages to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. "

Who is the encyclopedic purpose about the usage of fake flags, logos and other symbols in articles? --IM-yb (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Other policy guideline of enwiki, WP:MOSLOGO, read:

" Free images

While legal problems may not be present (no intellectual property right being claimable), all of this guideline's rationales against use of icons as decoration still apply. Generally, addition of logos to article prose or tabular data does not improve the encyclopedia and leads to confusing visual clutter. "

That i say above. --IM-yb (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No matter what, discussions about content don't belong here. You are not going to get a resolution about that here. Take it to the talk page for the MOS then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:danielkueh playing games on Talk:Race (human classification)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Race_%28human_classification%29#Lead_sentence

I noticed this article claims the race concept in humans is entirely social in the first sentence, which can be read as biologically meaningless. I pointed out that some scholars think this, while others, prominent ones, don't. While pointing this out on talk and providing sources, User:danielkueh appears to be stalling by "playing dumb" and deliberately misunderstanding my sources and points. For example I provide a quote from Mayr which is specifically about the word race and how the biological concept it refers to can be applied to humans in the same way as animals. danielkueh claims "Race, as it is used by Mayr, refers to "breed" or "varieties"." He then asks why we have two articles, ie. race (biology) and race (human), if there is one definition. I repeatedly point out that there are several biological definitions of race, which all go in the biological race article, and all of which applied to humans go in the human race article, along with the social definitions and the controversy. Unfortunately he ignores this and repeatedly asks me why we have two articles if there is one definition: "Really? So there is only one definition of race? And one commentary by Mayr trumps everybody else? Interesting. So why do we have two articles again?" This can only be taken as a deliberate attempt to stall discussion. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Captain, WP:ANI is for disputes over editor conduct, not content disputes. Please discuss this difference of opinion on the article talk page and if you find, after substantial discussion, that your dispute is not resolved, go to dispute resolution and get some mediation to help. Also, if you come to ANI again with a complaint, please provide diffs that back up the claim you are making about misconduct. You need to provide evidence, not just your opinion and this is not a place to rehash your disagreement. Liz 21:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a conduct issue. He is clearly deliberately missing the point eg.

It wouldn't be defined differently if the POV pushers on this article put in the biological race concept applied to humans. And we include any other social definitions and POVs, including race is biological meaningless. Multiple definitions and POVs are possible in an article. This is what NPOV is about. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Captain JT, Really? So there is only one definition of race? And one commentary by Mayr trumps everybody else? Interesting. So why do we have two articles again? danielkueh (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point I am reporting you for wilfully misunderstanding me. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute being complicated by incivility. Even if there is incivility, one of the dispute resolution procedures may be able to help you resolve the issue by enabling the parties to communicate. The first step, before any dispute resolution procedure, is discussion on the talk page. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing on the talk page. He keeps mocking me. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you have a very mockable username--"Verity"--and come in with blazing guns, into a highly contentious topic area, with more zeal than wisdom. For the record, I didn't see much mocking, unless "good luck with that" counts as mocking. I did see a Grumpy Andy pointing out some very basic things to you, and you didn't seem to be listening. My crystal ball and my tea leaves both tell me, though, that you are going to run into trouble if you keep this up, this forumming and Ididn'thearthat-ing. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Ididn'thearthat-ing"? Isn't that exactly what we see above? Ironically, isn't that what you are doing now? It's easy to "point out some very basic things" as if the other person didn't know that, to poison the atmosphere against them. However we have a specific incidence of Ididn'thearthat-ing on this specific talk page which is stalling discussion (no doubt on purpose). This is what I would like addressed. I don't want to hear "yeah well you didn't listen to your mom in 1988" or some such diverting tu quoque irrelevance. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone recognize this supposedly new editor from previous now indef-blocked disruptive editors on this topic? As Drmies implies above, the user name is a bit too arch to be an innocent choice. BMK (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to "Captain JT Verity MBA". "Verity", of course, means "truth", and it's been a long-standing observation that editors who choose to include "truth" in their usernames have an agenda, are usually here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and often end up being blocked or banned. I have to wonder if "JT" means "Just The", as in "Just The Truth", and I'm also reminded that one of the editors who was banned from Misplaced Pages because of disruptive editing over race also had "Captain" in his user name. Given all this, I'm wondering if an SPI might be worthwhile to find out if "Captain JT Verity" might not be the return of Captain Occam, or one of his cohort. BMK (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Bizarrely Danielkueh is now following me around accusing me of having a "Napoleon complex". (I'm 6'2" FWIW) Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

He didn't really have very far to go, did he? You must be from a race of giants. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I must express my disapproval of BMK's collapse of this point. It's clearly a behavioral issue, I cannot believe a reasonable person could fail to understand the point I was making so it's stonewalling effected by IDHT and misrepresentation, a behavioral issue. Does BMK have a partisan history in this area by any chance? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It must come in very handy for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Because ANI is not the place to have debates of how to define race. I think BMK is trying to draw this to a close because it might boomerang back on you. Please read up on the policy pages that have been suggested to you so you understand expectations of editors on Misplaced Pages. Liz 21:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to define race. I'm pointing out stonewalling by deliberate failure to address my points, ie. misrepresenting what I'm saying to stall time and annoy me. Do you really not see this? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, Captain, annoying other users isn't a blockable offense unless the editor is editing disruptively. Collaborative editing involves a lot of annoyances because we need to work with other editors with whom we might strongly disagree. You need to find a way to work with others as you can't come to ANI every time an editor frustrates you. If you do this, you will be seen as disruptive and might face sanctions.

What people here are telling you that whatever you judge to be bad behavior is not considered serious enough to warrant sanctions. And if you refuse to drop the stick, it could cause others to see you as the problem. Editing on Misplaced Pages will become easier once you accept that you might not always get your way. Liz 22:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously. But the point is that in this case it's not simply a case of me not getting my way, but a case of the other editor deliberately misrepresenting my statement to stall time, which should be a sanctionable offence. If you or other wiki admins can't or won't see or admit that is what is happening then obviously there is nothing I can do about that. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz isn't an admin, but she is right. Our goal is build an encyclopedia, not a polite online society. If you can't overlook little things, you aren't going to have a good time here. Admin can't block for every little infraction or we'd have no editors left. No admin either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Popping by to support a boomerang if one is being proposed and to comment that The Captain is also causing problems at Talk:Race (biology) - trying to insert material drawn from an article by a German scientist who supported eugenics, and trying to argue (I think) that animal breeds (mistranslated "races") and human races are, basically the same thing... and being tendentious about it. Montanabw 20:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Improper use of template:disputed at Caste system in India

Two editors Human3015 (talk · contribs) and Soham321 (talk · contribs) have taken turns to place an improper disputed tag at the Caste system in India article. The grounds for the tag is apparently that they don't agree with a thoroughly sourced statement appearing in the lead (third paragraph). There has been an ongoing discussion about it initiated by another user. However, a sourced statement cannot be billed as a "factual inaccuracy" based on the whims of the editors. The discussion Soham321 engaged in at Talk:Caste system in India#Disputed content is extremely low-quality and repeats the same biases. I would request Human3015 and Soham321 to be cautioned about the proper use of the disputed tag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute; there is no place for this dispute in an ANI discussion. Soham321 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Furthermore, there was another user--ABEditWiki--who was repeatedly deleting the disputed material from the main page. The disputed material--in the lead--is quite amusing. According to it, the caste system as it exists today is a creation of the British. Aside from some western scholars, there is a solitary Indian scholar whose book is cited, but the page number is not given. Is it because the book is available in its entirety online? Even with respect to western scholars, it should be remembered that there are many cranks--like Koenraad Elst and David Frawley--with Hindutva connections. These people have been repudiated by genuine scholars like Michael Witzel of Harvard university.Soham321 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The disputed tag is not meant for flagging up "content dispute" whatever that might mean. It says clearly that the "factual accuracy" has been disputed. You haven't described any such inaccuracy. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Do i have to give references from the hindu dharmasastras like the Manu Smriti, from epics like the Mahabharata, and even from the Vedas to show that the caste system as we know it today was in existence much before the coming of the British to India?Soham321 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. You really don't have an understanding of Misplaced Pages policy at all Soham321.VictoriaGrayson 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

All right, i can give many secondary sources also. Starting off with History of Dharmasastras by PV Kane. It is a shame that this monumental work by a great Indian scholar is not being cited in the page on the Indian caste system--and i am referring here particularly to the disputed content--and rather Indians are expected to learn about the caste system from mediocre western scholars. Soham321 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your constant racial comments are disturbing.VictoriaGrayson 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

would it be acceptable to put some disputed content on the wikipedia pages (and that too in the lead sections) of the american war of independence or George Washington or Oliver Cromwell or Sir Issac Newton and give references to six or seven relatively unknown Indian or Chinese scholars?Soham321 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stay focused on topic. If there is content that should be added, you are free to add it. But that doesn't make the existing content "factually inaccucate." It is still an improper tag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The existing content of the disputed material is inaccurate as per PV Kane's History of Dharmasastras which is the foremost authority on the Hindu dharmasastras and which describes the origin and evolution of the caste system. That is why you cannot put the disputed material within the lead of the article, although you are welcome to place it elsewhere. Soham321 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources exist with different viewpoints, then all of them should be described according WP:WEIGHT. The existence of different viewpoints does not make any one of them factually inaccurate. You are again bringing up the lead vs. body issue which has been refuted on the talk page as per WP:LEAD. Don't go there again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The comments of Kautilya prove that this is a content dispute, and it was not proper on his part to bring this to ANI. Anyways, my conversation with Kautilya is continuing in the talk page of the article. Soham321 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever "content dispute" there might be, it is not tagged as a "factual inaccuracy." The complaint here is about your misuse of the disputed tag. You haven't said single word about what in the article is factually inaccurate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the tag because of WP:I just don't like it, plain and simple. There are multiple reliable, scholarly sources and the sentence in question is a quote. There are four cites on the quote alone and one of those cites links to four more scholars supporting the quote. This is a content dispute, plain and simple. Ogress _smash! 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• As an admin, this is a fine line to walk. Generally speaking, that tag is used when there is verifiable inaccuracies within the article. If there is a case to be made that there are OTHER viewpoints that aren't being represented, that is a matter of editing and sourcing, not tagging. I can't speak as to the content here, but there is a difference between WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFY. If the claims are sourced multiple times, tagging for inaccuracy is misleading and contentious. There is a tag that says " article lends undue weight to certain aspects of the subject but not others" which may or may not be appropriate, but "inaccurate" seems, well, inaccurate, given the context. I would recommend removing the tag or replacing it with something more accurate. Otherwise, reverting back into the article is a bit disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

is it appropriate to formulate a lunatic fringe theory, give a lot of references to it (some of them without mentioning the page number of the book being cited), and place this in the lead of the article? Note that in the talk page of the article, not only have i given a reference to one of the foremost authorities on this subject who controverts the lunatic fringe theory, but i have also given as a reference a contemporary scholarly article demolishing the new lunatic fringe theory. In the talk page, i also gave reference to a newspaper article which cited hindu fundamentalists in England voicing the same lunatic fringe theory--that the modern caste system is a creation of the British. Soham321 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your use of hyperbole here and on the talk page isn't making your case, and is in fact, undermining it. As to the merits, I simply don't care. My concern is policy and behavior, not the content or dispute. We don't settle content disputes at ANI. I would warn you not to make a WP:POINT with the tag, and instead work on getting a consensus on the talk page, which I don't see at this time. Otherwise, there is no "factual inaccuracy" to tag about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The tag was originally not placed by me but by another editor. I reintroduced the tag since i felt some warning had to be given to the reader of the article. I have no objection to some other tag being placed, but the fact remains that "factual accuracy" of the edit is indeed being challenged. Incidentally, the material under consideration, along with other material, has been challenged in the US and the view being espoused by Sitush and others has not been accepted in the US. For more on this, see here: California textbook controversy over Hindu history, and do a control-F on "caste". Can we still allow Sitush, Kautilya, and others to place the material which was not accepted by the State of California to be accurate in the lead of the article on the caste system? Soham321 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321 clearly does not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit Misplaced Pages. The California textbook controversy has nothing to do anything. And he continues to make racial comments.VictoriaGrayson 00:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This was part of the disputed material in the California textbook controversy case: Once their society had merged with the local population, a late hymn of the Rig Veda described the four castes.Hindu organizations in the US wanted to alter this text to: "A late hymn of the Rig Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes.” Their proposal was not accepted by the two scholars Prof Bajpai and Prof Witzel who represented the State of California. Please see California textbook controversy over Hindu history once again. Soham321 (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, all I know is that you are alone on the talk page. You need to either build a consensus, or accept that consensus is against you, and stop worrying about tags. Otherwise, you will end up getting blocked for disruptive editing. We aren't here to Right Great Wrongs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have tried, and failed, to come up with a reason an admin shouldn't just topic ban Soham321 under IPA DS and be done with it. I'll think about it a little longer, but barring a very compelling reason not to the blatant racism and IDIDNTHEARTHAT is quite enough for me. I'd be perfectly willing to handle it myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 tagged him before I could for IPA. This means that any actions AFTER the tagging can be considered. You can't use actions before the tagging. Hopefully, it will be unnecessary to block or topic ban, but the more I look, the more I understand the community frustration here. Now that the Arb notification is in place, admin pretty much have a blank check in dealing with any future issues, should they come up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm a bit late to this dispute, it would seem, but what brought me here was not Soham321 placing the tag (I don't watch the page) but their behavior on talk pages outside my watchlist was disruptive enough to bring their behavior to my attention indirectly. In addition to the pointy edits and lack of understanding of NPOV, there are the constant insinuations with racial overtones both on this talk page and at Talk:Babur, constant use of hyperbole, edit warring, and this instance of blatant canvassing. I don't know about a tban, but cooling off of some kind is required. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame you Blade. I was contemplating what would be the least amount of force, and was thinking 30 day Tban would be insufficient. Maybe 90 at a bare minimum, but the hardheadedness of this individual doesn't give me hope. Either way, you have more experience than I, so I would be happy to defer to your judgement here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) And i have now removed the tag pending further discussions on the talk page of this article. Soham321 (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note at your talkpage, and it does appear you're taking the feedback on board. Accordingly, I think it'd be best to hold off for a little while and see how it goes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior of editor

Hello,

I want to inform you about unacceptable behavior of the editor Croata concerning the articles Bulgars/ Dulo clan.

During the past 3 months (since the beginning of March 2015) he was constantly removing all my edits on these articles stating that they were "vandalism", "unrelated info", "false positive edits", "fringe theories edits" or simply calling them POV. He denies the reliability of obviously excellent sources as Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank stating that they represent minority point of view. For example on 19 June 2015‎ he removed my edit on the article Bulgars where I have added information about the origin of Utigurs, a major Bulgar tribe, stating that the edit is "false positive" and "unrelated info". On 6 June 2015‎ I have warned him that in his version of the article Dulo clan, his conclusion "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" is not supported by the cited four books - nowhere on the cited pages there is such a conclusion. He ignored my warning and reverted the article 6 times after that without bothering to correct this sentence or to remove it. On the talk page of Dulo clan article I have suggested many ways how to improve the article, for example :

• I have suggested to move the information about the historical rulers of the clan from the section "Research History" to the article's intro where this information should be placed because it is well documented
• I have suggested to removed the information that early rulers of the clan were claiming Attilid descend from the article's intro to "Research History" or to restate it in the form that some historians think they had such a descend. It is not known if they were claiming this.
• I have suggested to improve the article Bulgars by replacing the very first sentence "... semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction" with more accurate statement " The three major tribes were Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, whose origin is still unidentified"

None of these suggestions (and many more) were accepted. The editor Croata doesn't accept any independent additions, he considers his versions of the articles to be final and set in stone. Also he tends to place disproportionate importance of the Turkic theory about the origin of Bulgars and Dulo clan and doesn't accept other theories about their origin to be added to the articles. Such a behavior is unacceptable and it does not help the readers of these articles.

PavelStaykov (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've reformatted. You didn't notify Crovata, and misspelled his name. The very top of this page clearly states you must do this. I have gone ahead and done so. Now to look at the merits.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• This is going to take longer than I have to give tonight, but the other stuff still needed doing. User:Bbb23 is familiar with Crovata, so I would draw his attention here. Looking briefly, it seems more of a content dispute, but there may be some behavioral issues by one or both, so I will leave to B and others to determine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• No promises, but I'll try to look at this tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I experience technical problems and don't know if will manage to actively follow the discussion. However, I neither have time to waste discussing the same thing over and over and over again. The violation of WP:NPOV principles, lack of neutrality and knowledge of the editor PavelStaykov, and in general about the topic and dispute, you can read at his talk page, Bulgars Talk and Dulo clan Talk. The scholars Zuev and Pulleyblank were only lately introduced, not months ago, and their minor claims have no relation to Bulgars. It is related with Utigurs and their article. The Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were not Bulgar tribes, they were different tribes who in periods were part of Bulgar confederation, but whose names etymologically clearly show Turkic origin. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs areas badly written, and currently work on them. He never answered which "four books", and I ask him again to respond. A simple read of the Bulgars article is enough to dismiss his claims, and often personal original research (which he calls "independent"). The Turkic theory is the only theory with verified evidence, and weight per NPOV. It is generally considered and discussed, and does not dismiss other ethnogenetic and cultural influence like other theories, Indo-European or Iranian, which do not have substantial amount of sources, reliability or confirmation for such claims. Not to mention how are ideologically motivated by the Bulgarian scholars during the anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria, considered by unreliable "scholars" (PavelStaykov cited a scholar who is not educated in the historiography or linguistics, but medicine) and a minority. Such a fringe theory also has an article - Kingdom of Balhara.

The editor PavelStaykov denies and called modern scholarship considerations as junk and part of "some Russian propaganda". As far the points go, 1. The list of rulers follows the list of the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans and their names and meaning are discussed in the section 2. There is no need for this, and just for record, previously in March and April he strongly opposed the reshaping of the statement as personally considered it was Attila itself and denied scholars general consideration 3. It is generally accepted they were most prominently of Turkic extraction (with some admixture of Hunnic, Iranian and other Indo-European origin and influence).--Crovata (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get embroiled in a content dispute about which I know next to nothing. Even if I did, the only issue here for me is conduct. I've blocked User:PavelStaykov twice for edit-warring at Dulo Clan, the first time for 48 hours and the second for one week. When I blocked him the second time, I also warned User:Crovata about his conduct. There's been no reverts at that article since June 11. There has been one addition (I assume it's brand new but didn't check) at Bulgars by PavelStaykov and one revert by Crovata on June 19. The two editors have to use some sort of dispute resolution to resolve their content issues. As for their conduct, if I see either editor revert at either article, that editor risks being blocked, and a revert back after a block may also be met with a block. Both of them should stay away from both articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: The problem with the whole issue is that there's no constructive content dispute for Misplaced Pages, yet the fringe theories and personal POV/OR which are forced to be included in the articles which have nothing to do with - the violation of NPOV. I advise all involved to read all three linked talk pages to understand the situation. I cannot agree with the last statement, why someone who defended the articles from unconstructive edits, and rewrote the articles according modern scholarship, must stay away? Since 14 May personally rewrote the Bulgars article and done major constructive edits, and as currently is in the process of GOCE review for GAN review, and there few cites additionally for inclusion, it seeks if not edit activity at least my attention.--Crovata (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's as clear-cut as you state, then the dispute resolution should be straightforward. In the interim, my warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      • @Bbb23: Sincerely, I simply do not know which of the claims, articles and talk pages above should take for dispute resolution. They all were answered here, talk pages time ago, and there probably even more he seeks for. I need your advice, and personal inclusion of PavelStaykov for dispute resolution as he began those disputes. He needs to decide what claims should be brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't want any kind of disapproval from his side if missed to mention some of his claims we dispute. @PavelStaykov: Respond.--Crovata (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I want to answer Crovata's accusation that I have "aversion for the term "Turks"" - this is not true. I am not obliged to share such personal information here, but I will do it. I grew up in small town in southern Bulgaria ( Haskovo ) which is of mixed population - Bulgarians and Turks. One of my best friends during my childhood was a Turk. I live in Sofia now and one of my friends is also Turk, and I value his friendship more than that of many of my Bulgarian friends. So, I don't have "aversion for the term "Turks", nor I have aversion for Turkic people or their culture. What I want is simply these 2 articles to be written in the best possible way. Also before I start the discussion, I want to make some general remarks. It is a common misbelief that Bulgars are extinct, or that they merged with Slavic people 7-10 centuries AD thus forming contemporary Bulgarians. This is not true. Even now three type of faces can clearly be seen on the streets of Bulgaria, all of them of obvious Indo-European origin, but definitely distinct. It is especially striking if someone comes from abroad. The approximate ratio is 1:1:1. I can take photos and upload them to the Bulgar's article. My explanation is that the proposed by scholars merging of Bulgars, Slavs and Thracian's continues even today - after all Bulgaria was a rural country up to 1950-1960 and marriages happened inside small rural communities. One of my friends took genetic tests and he was told that he is of Thracian origin. Personally I don't need to do this to know that I am of Slavic origin - it's enough to look at myself in the mirror.

About the article Bulgars. 1. The very first sentence in its current version states that Bulgars were "tribes of Turkic extraction". This is not known for sure - may be they were, may be not. What is known for sure is that they were nomads. If they were Turks, of Turkic extraction, Iranian, or Indo-European tribes influenced by Turkic and Iranian people is still debated among scholars. Using euphemistic phrases as "Turkic extraction" is not a constructive edit, it is an obfuscation of the truth. It is much better to state that their origin is still unidentified and to enumerate different Bulgar tribes: Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and so on. Crovata's opinion that these tribes were not Bulgars is ridiculous - just type these words in Google and read. Not to mention numerous books and textbooks where this is explained.

2. My second point is to state in the article intro that some of the Bulgar tribes participated in the union of the Huns - this is well documented. Most Roman, Greeks and Byzantines sources used the words Huns and Bulgars indiscriminately to describe the same people. Actually many scholars equate Bulgars and the (European) Huns. This can be done in the 3rd sentence of the article. This will help the reader to understand better the origin of the Bulgars. Stating that they envelop " other ethnic groups and cultural influences, such as Hunnic..." is not accurate. Huns were not ethnic group, they were conglomeration of different tribes, many of them Bulgars.

3. In the section "Etymology and origin" I want to include the identification made by Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank that Utigurs were Yuezhi tribe. Both scholars are renowned and the identification is undisputable. Also it is a base for research among many modern Bulgarian scholars as Pr. A. Stamatov, Dr. P. Tsvetkov, Dr. G. Voinikov and others.

4. Section "History" - the subtitle is Turkic migration. This is misleading and I would suggest to be removed. If Crovata is making such implications, probably he could explain exactly which Turkic tribes practiced artificial cranial deformation? "Further information: Turkic migration and Huns" - this is OK. The second sentence is controversial. What would mean "Interaction with the Hunnic tribes, causing the migration..." if the Bulgars were Huns themselves, to interact with whom? Also the cited source is not available online.

5. Section " History", cited source 40c, pages 127-128 - does not contain such information. Which line ?

6. Section ethnicity, the 3rd paragraph - it starts with "When the Turkic tribes began to enter into the Pontic–Caspian steppe...as early as the 2nd century AD" is also misleading. It is generally considered that Turkic migration started much later and that the tribes in question are of unknown origin, they spoke language similar to proto - Turkic. May be here we could include the explanation given by Zuev that these tribes were actually Wusuns?

7. Section " Anthropology and Genetics" emphasizes too much on the origin of the Turks - paragraphs 2 and 3. What is the point here ? This article is not about the origin of the Turks.

8. Bulgars practiced Artificial Cranial Deformation and this is stated in the article, but I think the discussion here could be extended, it is well known that European Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation and they can be traced (using this) to North China.

9. I want to include research paper (by Voinikov) that modern Bulgarian language contains a lot of Tocharian words. It is published in Bulgarian language but with Google translate it can be read by everyone.

93.152.143.113 (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Futurewiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Futurewiki was indef blocked here about a week ago based on competence issues and failure to communicate. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Competence. He had previously edited as User:Dragonrap2, assuming the Futurewiki moniker after (apparently) losing his password. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive. No one knows for sure because he doesn't say. Evidently however he stumbled across the password again, because no sooner was Futurewiki blocked here that Dragonrap2 resumed editing after a six month break. A new SPI was opened but hasn't gained any traction, and I can't see any reason that Dragonrap2 should be allowed to continue editing in the face of Futurewiki's indef block. Thanks for any help. JohnInDC (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderator intervention needed

Both me and User:Doug Weller have left notes on User:Artin Mehraban's page as well as through edit summaries, that he should stop creating self-formulated maps and making edits on articles that clearly violate WP:OR. Both me and Doug left him a message yesterday asking this again, and yet, even though promising to cease the Wiki-policy violating activities, he still continues to do so. As of just a few minutes ago, he created this; another nonsensical pseudo-historical article about an alleged empire that has never existed, nor any scholar has ever mentioned. I mean, I get that he's (kinda) interested in history and stuff, but he's violating WP:OR over and over now with these self-created maps, articles, etc. ] This is an encyclopedia I believe, not a fairy tale's forum where we create and make up stuff that we want to believe.

Anyway, honestly I think it's been kinda enough right now as it has gone way out of hand, and we have shown enough willingness in order to make him stop doing this (and most importantly to make him understand why his edits are incorrect) and though I left Doug himself a message some minutes ago prior to writing here so that he could look at it himself, Artin Mehraban just continued creating more of those OR articles/maps/pictures (as I've demonstrated above). Thus, in order to have this stopped before it gets even worse, I brought it here.

- LouisAragon (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll get back to this later today, but there is a problem with this editor. I've given him warnings, advice, suggested a mentor, etc. but to no avail. As have others, eg User:WikiDan61 and User:Dr.K.. A number of his uploaded images have been deleted as copyvio. I see he hasn't been notified, I'll do that now. Doug Weller (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I put File:Conquests of Azad Khan Afghan.png up for deletion because it was particularly ill-defined, with no geographic identification at all. I think all of Artin Mehraban's map creations should be looked over, especially by editors with some background in map creation and use along with knowledge of correct map sourcing. Liz 13:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I just got Doug's ping. I recently encountered this editor when s/he tried to replace by edit-warring this detailed map of Macedon by this green-shadow map without any any detail. I knew right at that time that we had a problem. When Doug Weller asked me some time ago if an ANI report should be opened about this user I suggested that perhaps he should be given another chance and also be considered for mentorship. I see that the additional chance has been given but without yielding a better result. I have not investigated the extent of the disruption caused by this user but admin intervention may be required, especially since the problems with this editor continue. Δρ.Κ.  16:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand I should no at OR maps or images and I will be sure to have academic sources. I just have interest in these articles and topics and I'm sorry Artin Mehraban (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Artin Mehraban, it's been a never ending cycle. We've been asking you over and over not to do so, and you repetitively state that you won't do it anymore. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I will no longer make my own images, and if i do upload images they will either be edits on an already existing image or an image not created by me, but created somewhere on the internet. I beleive thats what your asking me to do. But many times you revert my edits when i add a different portrait to a page. An example is when i added a different portrait of shah abbas on the shah abbas I article. There were MANY painters, miniaturists and etc who made various different portraits of shah abbas. I see no reason for that edit to be reverted. Both images were accurate and from that era. And the chances of anyone discussing that is slim, since the only person watchng that article is user: louisAragon who reverted my edits. Lets discuss in good faith, which image should be used, since both are accurate and from that era. Though i realize wikipedia isnt about opinion, ill say it anyway, the colouring reflects persian miniaturist, painting styles and so it should be used.

Artin Mehraban (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Artin, please read Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags. Just because you can copy an image from another website doesn't mean that it can be used on Misplaced Pages. You have to provide a source for where the image came from, it must be free to use because you own it, created it, it is the public domain or the creator has released the right to use the image to Misplaced Pages. Do not add new files to Misplaced Pages that do not satisfy Misplaced Pages's copyright guidelines. If you need assistance, go to Misplaced Pages:Copyright assistance. Liz 22:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

See File:Picture of Karim Hakimi.png uploaded 23:35, 20 June 2015‎, which the editor says is from Pinterest. There he says it's his own photo and writes "I Artin Mehraban allow wikipedia to reuse this image which i own on pinterest under the CC-BY-SA". However, it appears at which was the source of the copyvio in Artin Mehraban's original version of Karim Hakim . Artin Mehraban, can you explain this? Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Image is most probably a copyvio. It is a cropped version of this original from the Canadian Diversity magazine and appearing in this article of the magazine about 2013 award-recipients. Δρ.Κ.  16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kww. Δρ.Κ.  16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oversight some especially nasty vandalism?

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oversight not really needed, Shirt58 RevDel'ed it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I didn't really know the difference between oversight and RevDel. Anyway, there's some still there (the diffs that I've given cover more than one edit).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I went to Shirt58's user talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Mafia Capitale

This article has been deleted twice in the last few days, once for BPL violation and once for copyright violation and now Manox81 (talk · contribs) has recreated it. Now it is up for AfD. This same article was deleted on the Italian Misplaced Pages]. Please look in to this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If the reasons for speedy deletion have been avoided in the current version (and I see no BLP or copyright concerns in it now), then AfD seems like the correct route to me and I don't see that it has anything to do with admin at this stage. Mr Potto (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there might be a copyright problem, depending on http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Mafia_Capitale - is that anything to do with Misplaced Pages? Is it a mirror? But that still seems to me to be within the remit of the usual deletion processes and nothing that needs ANI attention. Mr Potto (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That page is a wikipedia mirror. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I've just paraphrased anyway, but I think that puts the copyvio issue to bed. Mr Potto (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I believe I am being attacked by another editor User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, they seem to not be assuming good faith with my edits. Also they have made an accusation of sockpuppeting here which has no ground, and also a recent personal attack here. The user was warned by JMHamo, here being told that the message left on my talk page could constitute harassment. And finally they have previously served a block for personal attacks here. I don't usually report other users but I do if I feel threatened or I believe I am the target of harassment. I did report a user User:Theroadislong recently but I withdrew it as I realised he was only acting in good faith reverting some of my edits. --TeaLover1996  12:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Somebody should close Fortunata down ,.188.220.96.85 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations should take place at WP:SPI only, nowhere else. I have placed a note on the user's talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Diannaa, but I disagree with your statement, given that you've left no room for exceptions. There's often no need to add WP:DUCK reports to the frequently-backlogged SPI board. A post here or on a talk page of an admin familiar with the situation will get things resolved faster. --NeilN 15:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

True dat. I guess I was trying to make it crystal clear for the user where to take SPI matters. Apologies -- Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Advocating a post

on the talk page of an admin familiar with the situation

is just a way of trying to sneak in conviction without notice or trial. That has never been endorsed by the community and I hope it never will be. 87.115.85.168 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no legal system on Misplaced Pages. And, as I'm sure you're aware (whoever you are), all admin actions are public and can be reviewed. --NeilN 16:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It may not be a legal system, but Newyorkbrad and the others set it up to be as close as possible. You're suggesting the police can file a complaint in the magistrates' court and then appear at a trial which the accused knows nothing about - until, that is, they turn up at his house to haul him off to jail. Did you bother to ping Newyorkbrad before making your claim or is it just something which you personally advocate? 87.115.85.168 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And who are you again? Perhaps you're someone who might benefit from rememebering that simply because IPs can edit doesn't mean that people with accounts can use IPs to avoid scrutiny by masking their identities, which is a violation of WP:SOCK. BMK (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User: Stemoc

After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Misplaced Pages policy outlined at WP:HOUNDING. The edit summary stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the Donald Trump article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at 3RR where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was told to stop previously.

In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of his response was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary here also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from WP:Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in a discussion I created in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at Jeb Bush. The user then personally attacked me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision.

The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in this instance. Here is part of the exchange...

If that isn't a case against WP:Civility then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page.

Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at WP:Disruptive editing, in response to this comment after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles." I would also argue he is acting in a tendentious manner based on his recent edits alone.

Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is.

Here are links to edits where the user has reverted me in a hounding manner.

Calibrador (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. Calibrador (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Before I begin, please remember that User:Calibrador was previously known as Gage Skidmore and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved enforcing his own images into articles and right after usurpation, he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for WP:SELFPROMOTION to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of REMOVING other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even threatened me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation WP:COI and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT Hounding the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either HIS images be USED on those articles or NO IMAGES and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...WP:CIVIL goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our Terms of Use as was discussed in May on my talk page. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Misplaced Pages for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see here and quote

If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--Stemoc 13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Misplaced Pages. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

False accusation?, you accuse me of WP:HOUNDing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Misplaced Pages as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, free publicity..Just admit it and stop lying please....--Stemoc 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

None of what you just wrote is true, I suggest you just stop please. Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Also I'd suggest acting more Civil instead of using Caps lock to imply shouting on the administrator noticeboard. Calibrador (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, it's not clear to me how Calibrador is financially benefiting from Misplaced Pages. You link to his Flickr bio it doesn't refer to Misplaced Pages at all. And then you reference an article where not only is Misplaced Pages not mentioned but it states he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited. and only charges for-profit publications for his work.

I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Misplaced Pages. Liz 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That is how publicity works Liz, let put it this way, his images get noticed, he gets called up by someone famous and they ask him to do a 'photoshoot" for which he gets paid and at the same time he has to insure he gets noticed, Flickr is now ranked 130 odd but Misplaced Pages is STILL one of the top 10 websites in the world, so where are you more likely to get noticed?..Previously, when adding image a to articles, he used to add his name into the captions in infoboxes as well..just search through his edits in 2014 and you will find it which is how i actually noticed him in the first place..--Stemoc 15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I never did that, and I have never booked a photo shoot with anyone. How many times do you have to be told to stop making false accusations? Calibrador (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned it on my talk page many times that i use Caps and Bold for "emphasis" only on certain words, I'm not "Shouting"..and also why would you even accept what i said is fact because if it is , and I know it is, it means you have been violating our policies for years and have been getting away with it and you got your named changed just so that its not directly seen as a WP:COI which it is.Note: I havea shitty internet conenct adn moving to https has MADE IT WORSE so i cannot reply here anymore, i have already had 16 edit conflicts on this thread, please take anything else regarding me to to my talk page..I'm unable to post on pages larger than 150kbs (my net speed on enwiki is about 8kbps)--Stemoc 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You also used caps on your talk page once because someone "needs to get glasses." Calibrador (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• A month ago I reported Gage Calibrador at ANEW so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another I'd end up being blocked, I still believe Gage Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –Davey2010 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. Calibrador (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's great but the image thing is still an issue - No one would have an issue with your uploads if you just uploaded them as say "X at X.jpg" but surely you can see adding your name on the end of every image you upload does come across as self promotion and people are bound to have an issue with that. –Davey2010 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would note that I do not even link to my Flickr when I upload my own photos, like when others upload my images. If anything Stemoc is the one promoting my photos. Calibrador (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm NOT promoting your images, I'm giving you "attribution" which is according to Commons policy regarding image uploads, so this is "attribution" as I have not only uploaded one of your images but given you credit as well as added the image to your private category, there is no need for me to do that but i do it nevertheless cause i go by the rules and follow the policies, you don't...your image uploads are always promotional--Stemoc 15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Calibrador, you are adding photos with file names such as "William Lee Golden by Gage Skidmore.jpg". If you are a professional photographer, I think such file names are advertising your work. Many professional do contribute some of their images to WP, and in a sense it may be a form of advertising , because they are attributed in the meta data--but we have always regarded this as not just permissible, but a good incentive to get some high quality images. However, putting your professional identity in the file name does not seem like a good idea. I do not work all that much with images,and I do not know if it is against our rules for images, but I personally think that it certainly should be. If you want to avoid accusations of promotionalism, you might want to go back and rename them. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me first say that e might have gone a bit off-track. However, having your name in the file name is not against any policies or guidelines (ot terms for that metter). If I wanted I could name a file "File:X at Y (thank you C0mpany Z for this great event).jpg" and intentionally advertise, but that alone isn't proof of any wrongdoing. (In the Creative Commons terms however there is a clause about "titles of works" and that they should be used. If the creator wishes they be names one way...)
Back to the issue at hand regarding if Cometstyles Stemoc is violating multiple policies on civility, I would say that this is a clear case. Even if the edits are somehow justified, they are HOUNDing in nature. This should not be acceptable. (There should be a clause like this in 3RR regarding reverting over multiple articles...) (t) Josve05a (c) 04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Its Ok to do that to a few image but that uploader has added more than 8000 images with that byline, just do a simple "by Gage Skidmore" on commons if you don't believe me. This is PROMOTIONAL. When someone adds an article about themselves or add links to their private websites, they are straightaway reverted, warned and in severr cases BLOCKED for spamming..this is one form of spamming..we may have different rules for articles and images but they both have the same outcome...The problem isn't the use of "by Gage Skidmore" tag in all his images, the problem is intentionally replacing other better and current images with his own on MAJOR article to boost his own stand and even without discussion as one user pointed above about the lack of using 'edit summaries'. Josve05, you are aware of my involvement in cross-wiki related spamming and vandalism and there isn't a day where i do NOT delete spamming on the 2 wikis i have adminship on....I see this as "blatant promotional/spamming" and though my involvement on enwikipedia has been limited since i returned (my own choosing), I will NOT turn a blind eye to it cause you may not see it as such but its blatant abuse of our policies....and again, reverting someone who keeps violating our policies does not make me a "Wiki HOUNDER"..I'm reverting what i see as blatant vandalism..the user has even gone to an extent of getting his name changed to make it easier to add his images without anyone pointing fingers..it would be nice if admins did their job as this user has been brought to this board now 3 times over the last 2 months and still has not faced any consequences to this actions...--Stemoc 14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a case of "everyone but myself" is at fault, and I'm a "social warrior" for trying to save Misplaced Pages from something that is not against the rules, and I'll keep link WP:Selfpromotion, even though none of what is mentioned on that page applies. Could an admin please weigh in on this situation so that falsehoods aren't spread again? Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The self promotion policy may see to be only related for articles but it applies to everything on wikimedia, self PROMOTION is self promotion, either your promote yourself, your company, your interests or your stuff, its Promotion and by deliberately removing other people images with yours IS self promotion...Do I need to make this any more clear?..--Stemoc 15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I would note that Stemoc is also currently reported at 3RR for reverting one of the articles five times within a 24 hour span. They were also warned by an admin for harassment. Calibrador (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

and more lies, I was neither "warned " by an admin (toonlucas22 is not an admin) but it was a mistake on his part as he was not aware of this thread nor the previous identity of Calibrador and on the 3RR one which Gage Skidmore linked above...and also, I have not violated 3RRand nor do I intend too..--Stemoc 15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said I'm an admin. I just came as an uninvolved editor. --TL22 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That part was my mistake, I thought he was an admin. I do have to correct the false statement that was made about 3RR, though, as Stemoc reverted an article to their version five times in a row, within (approximately) a 24 hour span. It was just slightly outside the window, but still applies. Calibrador (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help with mass page protection, or something

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, articles related to the Muppets have been the target of a long-term vandal editing out of the US state of Indiana. IP hops often, most recently to 172.78.98.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I've reported the most recent incarnation to AIV. But if you look at some of the Muppet articles in their edit history, you'll notice some long-term disruptions. For example here you'll notice a number of edits from IPs at 50.*. You'll notice far more edits from 50.* at this article over the last few months, and at Muppets Most Wanted. I imagine the IP ranges are too big to do anything with, plus it looks like sometimes he uses Comcast, sometime Frontier Communications. What's the best approach here? Go through the newest IP's edit history and protect each of those articles? Frankly, I don't want to fill out RPPs for each of those articles if an admin can just go down the list. In some cases, the editor's come back the same day that protection was lifted. Help requested. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think I'd support mass page protection at the Muppets articles if this nonsense with the IP adding irrelevant cameo appearances to these articles is still going on (please see this former ANI report), and the IP is now "hopping" IP addresses. It would probably only require semi-protection for a month or two... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have sp for 1 month all pages edited by 172.78.98.129 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Also, the IP has been blocked for 3 months by Admin DMacks. This can probably be closed now. (Hopefully a bot will come by and add the {{pp}} tags to the articles that Kudpung semi-protected soon...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Futurewiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now using Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs). Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User Cassianto resorting to swear words and abuse on talk page.

After reading a very savage and unfair attack on Baseball bugs talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Baseball_Bugs&oldid=667746419

I decided to issue an advisory on his talk page about conduct that I felt was disruptive to the project and what amounted to a personal attack on a highly respected editor. In response to this, he left a torrent of abuse directed towards my post. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Cassianto&oldid=667827370

Can we get a block on him at the very least. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.18.104 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This template must be substituted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Today, whilst happily minding my own business, this IP has come to my talk page and left me an aggressive message , telling me to leave Baseball Bugs alone. BB and I have had an exchange of words in various places over his involvement in an argument with Caden whilst only armed with one side of the story. It all started when I came across these messages to Rob Sinden and . I asked Caden why he thought it was right for him to dictate to another editor what he can and can't edit. Caden refused, like he is doing here, to answer my question and linked to a video on YouTube entitled "Asshole" which he found to be quite funny. Rightfully, I challenged this behaviour and it went to various places, including Caden's page. BB advised him about interacting with me and my clique - itself uncivil - and so we had an exchange there .

Caden became quite sycophantic towards BB and I left him a picture, illustrating how that conversation was making one feel. The picture, I made clear from the start, was not based on them as people, but the sycophancy which was going on. BB became defensive and went running to Chillum, an admin who dislikes me. BB knew this and thought he'd find some solace by informing Chillum who quickly archived the discussion on his talk page. BB was not aware of the "asshole" video as he chose not to look at it, but relented by relising that this was not OK to do. I gave up and wanted nothing more to do with any of them so I walked away. BB kept responding to me on Caden's talk in order to instigate me into an argument here and here. I then went to BB page to protest at his persistence in trying to get me to argue with him after I told him that I wanted nothing more to do with things. I believed this persistent behaviour to be twatish and I told him so. Things, again, died a death and then a day later this logged out turns up at my talk page, simply to poke the bear, which included a threat. Immediately after, Caden "thanked" me three times for my response to the IP which was designed to provoke me further and was a blatant abuse of the thank facility. I told the IP to fuck off and they have then immediately piped up here asking for me to be blocked for incivility after I told them to fuck off. This, I feel, was designed purely for an ANI dispute. I feel it is my right to tell a troll to fuck off. At the same time, I'm entitled to have this IP account checked out as per WP:SOCK as this whole situation stinks of a honey trap.Cassianto 22:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say calling another editor a "twat" is a gross personal attack any day of the week. I also think that the person making this report would be better served by not logging out to make complaints against others. It is weak and reduces the effectiveness of an otherwise valid point.

Normally I would block for a comment like that myself, but Cassianto is already upset with me so I will refrain from taking action. Chillum 22:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I said that he was "behaving" like a twat. That is an opinion, not an insult. See WP:DICK Cassianto 22:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to be picky about it you said he was "being a twat". Either way it is insulting. You can't just wrap your insults in qualifiers and have free run to say nasty things to people. Saying it is not an insult is wikilawyering at best. Chillum 23:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cass what the hell? I didn't post anything. You're just trying to get me in trouble. Caden 23:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why did you thank me three times then? Cassianto 23:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm innocent ok? I know what you're trying to do Cass. You're lying to get me in trouble. I did not do anything. Caden 23:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For a third time: Why did you thank me three times for responding to the troll IP on my talk page earlier? Cassianto 23:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You were pissed off about someone getting unblocked for using the same type of language less than a week ago. Is "cunt" crossing the line but "twat" okay? Chillum 23:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I was called a cunt directly. I thought Bugs was behaving like a twat. There is a stark difference. Cassianto 23:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no harm in that. Likewise, if someone was being helpful, I will tell them. What works for one, should work for another. Bugs was trying to provoke me, but I walked away. Suddenly, shock horror of all shock horrors, as things have died down, I then get this troll turn up at my talk and do this. Suspicious? Cassianto 23:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Following the reasoning at WP:DICK, telling people that they're being a twat is twat-ish behavior, which is harmful. You do know that WP:CIVIL is a cornerstone of the sight, right? Oh, wait, you're not a new user, nor a twelve year old on Xbox live, you're supposed to know that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm supposed to know a lot of things, but I don't. I don't quite see your point. I'm fully aware of CIVIL, thanks. No need to link to it. Cassianto 23:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the U.S., both cunt and twat are vulgar terms for a vagina which I think most men would take as an insult. Liz 23:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in the U.S? Again, I was called a "cunt" directly, but I opined that Bugs's behaviour was twatish. These are two completely different things! Cassianto 23:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs, please. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop talking in riddles and elaborate which diffs you require? As far as I know, I'm not claiming incivilty. Cassianto 23:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's real simple: do not make any claims about anyone else's behavior or claim some action took place without providing a diff showing that it happened. There's too many unevidenced accusations in this thread, and the past few threads went nowhere in either direction because everyone devolved into bickering without evidence. If everyone provides diffs documenting what happened, it will allow users with no prior involvement to make neutral and impartial judgements. See my post at the end. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not making any claims. I really don't understand what you're talking about. The incident whereby I was called a "cunt" has been dealt with, and you have the diff where I opined that Bugs's behaviour was twatish. Cassianto 23:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore editing as an IP to evade scrutiny is a no-no. This is not some simplistic commentary. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm innocent Casliber. Caden 23:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Caden, you are not answering my question: Why did you thank me for my posts on my talk page towards the IP? I can send screen shots to any interested admin. Cassianto 23:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore Baseball Bugs has been trying to prolong the conflict, thus violating our non-battleground principles. I view this as more disruptive than saying "twat". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to provide evidence for those of us who aren't a part of this drama, please. Otherwise it just looks like a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, to whom are you referring? Cassianto 23:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: True - see here and here (top of thread) for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: I'm not Chillum, but thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want to chime in to say that although the OP might well be a signed-out editor, I've known Bugs for quite a long time (not personally, just here on en.wiki), and I've never known him to sign out to report someone. In fact, I've seen him many times do just the opposite, make clear to others who are obviously signed out in order to criticize other editors anonymously that doing so is a violation of the "scrutiny" clause of WP:SOCK. So if anyone is thinking that the OP is Bugs, I would discourage them from harboring that idea. BMK (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking Bugs, I was thinking more Caden. Even I know that Bugs wouldn't do this. Cassianto 23:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure Cass put all the blame on me as usual. How many times do I need to tell you that I didnt post anything. I'm innocent. Stop lying about me and get off my back. Caden 00:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly Caden, your word means as much to me as a chocolate fire guard's warranty promise. Cassianto 00:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of Chillum (and BMK), I think everyone else here needs to go fishing and then move on. Erpert 23:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support long block for repeated, daily civility and personal attack violations directed against multiple users. Here is a diff to the personal attack I received from Cassianto yesterday: This isn't an isolated incident, it's a pattern of incivility that occurs every day. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Coming from someone whose opinion on your fellow Wikipedians is that "some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address", your finger-pointing on matters of civility are somewhat laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. Per User:Viriditas and per the fact that Cassianto has lied about me and accused me of things on this thread that are not true. Caden 02:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth time -- Did you, or did you not, thank me three times for telling the troll IP to fuck off from my talk page? Why, if you support the block for "this kind of behaviour", would you then "thank" me for it? Would I be right in thinking that you abused the thank button in order to provoke me into messaging you? Do you think that is fair behaviour on your part? Cassianto 07:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Look Cass, you hate me and always have, but I'm telling you I did not open this ANI thread on you. I did not post on your page and I am not the OP of this report. This is the honest truth. Open a sock case if you must but I'm telling you I am innocent. Caden 10:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't "hate" you Caden. The truth is I don't know you. Hate is a strong word for someone whom I don't know. But from what I have seen of you, particularly of late, you do appear to be quite troublesome. Cassianto 10:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The behavior of the OP in this thread is consistent with a type of behavior I've seen from such trolls for about as long as I've been here. It could be called "implied impersonation". Only Caden knows for sure, of course; but my money is on the OP (and the IP's farther down) being an independent troll who's specifically trying to get Caden in trouble and generally trying to accelerate controversy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine Bugs, and I'm coming round to that likelihood. However, Caden is still yet to explain why he thanked me three times, immediately after I told the troll to fuck off. If he thanked me for it, one would naturally assume he would Oppose a block here; but he supported? This behaviour smacks of someone trying to bait a reaction out of me. Caden, would you like to explain this three-thanked action? (I've lost count now) Cassianto 10:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that SchroCat has previously been an accomplish accomplice in Cassianto's incivility, his attempted closure of the thread smacks of WP:INVOLVED. Cassianto has been reported five times previously for incivility (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). If he was provoked, he needs to demonstrate this through WP:DIFFs. If Bugs is misbehaving as well, that needs to be demonstrated through diffs.

If this is going to go anywhere, everyone needs to provide a list of diffs showing undeniable misbehavior. Not "I don't like what he did here," -- pretend you're actually defending everyone else involved and only bring up the stuff that you would still have to admit you can't defend. Nice, neat, chronological lists of each offense, instead of unevidenced accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat:: You are WP:INVOLVED, the closure is disputed, wait for someone uninvolved. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How is he involved? Cassianto 23:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He has been a part of prior reports about you. You're obviously friends, at least on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's continue the pointless dramah, shall we, rather than do something useful like edit a fecking encyclopaedia? I'm not sure what "an accomplish" (sic) is, but best not point to a boomerang thread of a disruptive editor, now topic banned for his actions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchroCat (talk • contribs)

If you'd bother to read my previous statement, I'm for settling this with diffs. In other words, not continuing the drama, but clearly settling whether Cassianto has been uncivil, or whether he's been the victim of some unfortunate drama. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So Ian, what do you think of the diffs I provided above? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to be the one to pass judgement -- I just want all evidence properly presented so that someone with no prior involvement can render an impartial verdict. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you're the one that's pointlessly kept an unconstructive thread open. BTW, Next time, as a reminder, if someone comments on your text, please strike through and replace, rather than overwrite. - SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Behavioral accusations are settled with diffs and uninvolved judgement, not a friend closing the thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ian, but you are really trying my patience now. This whole fucking mess was caused by an IP poking me on my talk page and an immediate report was made by that IP on the back of me telling them to fuck off. The diffs are provided at the top of this thread. Also, you're unqualified to "pass judgement", why don't you leave this to an admin then? Cassianto 00:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I just want all evidence properly presented so that someone with no prior involvement can render an impartial verdict. That actually works with leaving this to an admin. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support temp. block. (NA, NI) Behavior like this is unacceptable. Whether or not saying someone is or is like (synonym with behaves) is not the point. The point is that it goes to character of uncivil behavior by this user. With edit summaries like these , and saying "Why don't you fuck off, Mr brave IP?" is a direct violation of one of the most fundamental values here on Misplaced Pages, to be CIVIL. As I said, it goes to character, and creates a hostile, uncivil environment. I understand someone writing with emotions and "in the moment", but this is not ok. Take a (mandetory) break, and a step back. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, welcome to the show; I have no idea who you are and feel you are unqualified to form opinions on me when we have never even met, but you're most welcome. Have you you even taken the time to read the real reason as to why this report exists? Do you even know what is going on? Do you think it's acceptable for a logged out user to arrive at your talk page and troll you into an argument? As I have said before, telling a troll to fuck off is justifiable. That is the real reason as to why we are here. Cassianto 07:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Where was the mention of the suggestion of a block? BMK didn't mention it, and Viriditas was the first to support. Anyways, my input? Support block. I am honestly sick of Cassianto's attitude and behavior towards other users. Them and Chillum are on such bad terms that one comment Cassianto made me reach my breaking point and I spoke . Cassianto seems to learn nothing at each insult and personal attack. I can handle sarcasm but 99.9% of the time it's filled with uncivility, rudeness and thus personal attacks. I am sicking tired of their uncivility, no matter who it is. You can easily turn an IP or user in for whatever reason but they turn to "Fuck off" and "Get a life" insults. In terms of current edits, yes calling a user a twat or calling their edits being a twat is plain uncivil and it won't get anyone anywhere. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue who you are, and because the feeling is mutual, I feel you are not qualified to hold such views against me. I feel you have only turned up here to stoke the fire. Cassianto 07:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block as punitive at this point and non-helpful. It doesn't address the baiting and battleground mentality of another party that went on beforehand and during. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A block should never be used as a punitive measure, and that's not why it is suggested. It is because the user needs to cool off. If a user is unCIVIL he or she needs to take a break, in order to "make Misplaced Pages more CIVIL". Nothing about wanting to punish the user. It is more for prevention or something like that. (t) Josve05a (c) 04:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What about a user masquerading as an IP to start this? What about a user re-initiating negative discussion about another user that is only going to keep these sorts of exhanges ongoing? - see here and here (top of thread). Hmm? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support blocking Cassianto. Anything from 72 hours to a week or more for the disgusting PA and to prevent further excuses for reapeating foul language. If I had come across the message I would have blocked him instantly without bothering with the tralala of ANI. And FWIW, in this instace I don't care who initiated this ANI case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)