Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 204.116.6.232 (talk) at 00:14, 17 October 2015 (→Pound Sterling and {{user|N0n3up}}: new section). 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:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Strivingsoul disruptive editing and soapboxing

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

Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for battleground editing after a report by Kudzu1, and later reported again by Ian.thomson. Already at that time there was understanding that the user is WP:NOTHERE, as the user has since effectively admitted to by stating that they "never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion". The user constantly enters edit wars and off-topic discussions to promote Irano-Islamist views in article space and talk space.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, I already admit my fault at getting caught in a few edit wars early during my past activities on Wiki. And I have done my best ever since to stick to the three-edit revert rule and settle the disputes in the talk pages as my knowledge of Wiki policies grew.

However, what prompted this user to make this complaint in particular is not really my past performance. What we have here is a clear case of diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. Andres Feder apparently comes from a very strong atheist persuasion which has already prompted him to attack and ridicule beliefs of muslim contributors several times, which has indeed caused offense in the past for some users and has apparently led to WP:CIVILITY warning for him in a past ANI.

But beyond his continued violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can also identify the very same ideological prejudices behind his repeated allegations aimed at discrediting Iranian sources such as PressTV even in subjects where having Iranian official POVs are crucial for maintaining WP:NPOV. I have already dedicated my time a few times countering his arguments such as here and here, arguing for various ideological, political and financial biases of Western sources that he uses to suppress Iranian POVs reported by the official media outlets of the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the pretext that "Iranian media are controlled by the theocracy". So here's the real controversy that has led to his complaint against me. But he apparently wants to condition the users here against me by deflecting attention from the root cause of the difference. He wants to frame a random statement of mine where I said "I never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion" to imply that I want to push my personal opinions into Misplaced Pages content. But that's not whatsoever the case and you can clearly see that if you examine the context of that statement. There, I was not whatsoever making that statement in violation of Misplaced Pages policies. That was basically a statement of my personal belief that came at the end of a discussion about the legal foundations of the Islamic Republic of Iran with a fellow Iranian! It was never made and never meant as statement standing against any Misplaced Pages policy. In keeping with Wiki policies, I had already explained in length by citing information and sources to counter his repeated allegations of bias against Iranian sources based on Orientalist charges of dictatorship against a very distinct form of theocratic-democratic political system that has emerged out of Shia political philosophy. Admins can already see my record on Islam/Shia/Iran-related topics to appreciate my contributions which has the effect of improving WP:BIAS against Iran/Shia/Islamic topics some of which remain highly underrepresented not just in Misplaced Pages but in the greater world as well. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Strivingsoul, you go beyond simply advocating inclusion of the Iranian or Shia points of view to vigorous denouncing of those who oppose you. We can include accurate summaries of any point of view regardless of how unreliable, in a general sense, a source may be. You are correct that you are entitled to indefinitely advocate for an Islamist point of view with respect to any Misplaced Pages policy or content, but you cannot be disruptive in doing so. You need to totally reexamine the way you are conducting yourself. Better behavior on your part will not solve the behavior problems of others or resolve content issues, but is a minimum requirement for continuing to edit effectively. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But in opposing I put forward evidences and cite information for legitimate reasons. Please note that the primary counterpart of this controversy has always been Anders Feder alone. He continues to bring up the same POVs that are controversial and he tries to render his claims as a factual, objective ground to remove Iranian POVs from nearly whatever Iran-related topics I participate in. I don't know why he is so adamantly opposed to Iran. I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel that is Iran's adversary. I can't find other explanation for a user who repeatedly desecrates my religion and attacks my country based on his personal persuasions. I'm not saying he should not disagree as he has every right to, but to fixate on repeated allegations regardless of repeater counter arguments is what bothers me and is truly disrupting. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel" Jew-baiting, who should have thunk? I have no particular sympathy for Israel or anyone else, and readily act against Zionist POV-editors such as this one too. The reliability of your Iranian sources have been debated extensively here, including by yourself.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

His discussion of issues is also inappropriate, and he may be handling Iranian sources improperly. He is not wrong, as he strongly points out, and has good sources for, when he claims Iranian media is both controlled by the state and propagandistic. You don't have to be a Zionist to get that. The question is how to handle inclusion of the point of view without incorporating "facts" from an unreliable source. This is not easy. Denial of the unreliability of Iranian media is not a viable tactic; there are even claims, by Iranian leaders, that strong expressions of opinion by other Iranian leaders are not to be taken at face value. Nevertheless, assertions of opinion in Iranian media may be included as valid expressions of the point of view of the state. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying that Iranian media are "controlled"? All media in the world are controlled but I don't see BBC for example being undermined for being funded and controlled by the UK government! And whether this or that media is "propagandistic" is quite subjective and depends on one's political stance! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean that the state determines the content. The content of the BBC is determined by the British state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the BBC be reliable. That is not the case in Iran. Such a determination does not depend on one's political stance but on knowledge of the international media. If you chose to edit using Iranian sources (or Russian or Chinese, or American, for that matter) you need to have some sense of what is simply factual, possibly factual, or just plain made up. We do use highly questionable sources, for example, the rate of growth of the Chinese economy, as reported by the Chinese government. Likewise, some Iranian material can be used, but not all. Determining what is appropriate is a matter of editorial judgement. It should not all be excluded, nor should tendentious assertions be accepted as reliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly the same can be said about Iran. "The content of the PressTV (for argument's sake) is determined by the Iranian state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the PressTV be reliable. That is not the case in Britain...." but it seems that somehow Western governments are inherently superior to Iran even if they are lead by hereditary monarchs whereas Iran is lead by a modest religious scholar who is appointed and monitored by an elected body of legal experts. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Iran could choose to have a free reliable media. There is an overwhelming international consensus that much of the controversial information in Iranian media cannot be trusted and is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia other than as the opinion of the Iranian state. Feel free to advocate for its inclusion, but please don't be disruptive about doing so. That includes ascribing motives such as Zionism to other editors, beating on them, or repeatedly making edits against the general consensus. Please try to find the best Iranian, Islamist, or Shia sources and consistently use them. I'm not that familiar with Farsi media, but I know there are excellent, mediocre, and poor sources in English. Consistently advance the best. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, Great Britain is led by its Prime Minister and a democratically elected assembly, as is the Netherlands, etc. , with hereditary monarchs playing a ceremonial role but with no real power. And the BBC's content is not controlled by the state - it's also funded by a license fee, not the government. Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But still the Monarch apparently appoints BBC's Board of Trustees in Council. The licensing is also mandatory for citizens. And there's been all sorts of criticisms of biased reporting against the corporation. The most notorious bias undoubtedly effects BBC Mid-Eastern coverage which has been the target of UK imperialist policies and its alliance with the state of Israel which has been been a source of plight for muslims for more than 6 decades. But we don't see anyone seriously questioning BBC's reliability at least on Mid-Eastern/Muslim developments. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

While the Queen makes the appointments, she has no choice in the matter : "BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publicly advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments." (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html). The British constitutional monarch is titular head of state, but not head of government except for ceremonial purposes. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Anders Feder, I have done what I can in the way of jawboning. As noted above, you too, need to do much better. Keep in mind that all states, and points of view, have their media voice, and that all media is in some sense biased, if only in what they choose to report. It is the controversial tendentious assertions of factual content that seek to advance sectarian objectives that need to excluded, not every fact published. Consider the objectives of the Iranian state while making editorial decisions. For example, they would like to embarrass Saudi Arabia over the Hajj, so they might assert questionable facts with respect to the recent tragedy. Obviously, if the behavior you complain of continues indefinitely User:Strivingsoul must eventually be blocked, or even banned, but please don't make him feel that nothing in Iranian media is acceptable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What about his demeaning statements against the muslim beliefs?! Does he really have to attack our beliefs for working in Misplaced Pages?! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, that past RfC never refuted my rebuttal of argument from control. As I also argued there and again here, if control is the problem then all media outlets are somehow controlled either by governments or corporations. There has been indeed scholarly critique of the hazards of corporate consolidation of mass media which can affect their objectivity and/or reliability. Please have a look at Corporate media. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I go by the closing comment on the RfC linked above. If anyone opens a new RfC on that, I am happy to follow the outcome.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is sound, but you are twisting the knife. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What source have I opposed that I should not have opposed?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

None that I know of but don't be so nasty. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-faith advise. But I am afraid I have to defer! First off, I perfectly knew that David Duke is notorious for his past association with the White Supremacist KKK back in 1970s. But what I also know in addition is that over the last 3 decades Duke has apparently developed a very distinct career which can be described as only a White nationalist. Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism. The reason I'm saying this and I dare to say this is that I personally read his book Jewish Supremacism and therefore I could directly learn about his character and positions from that book. And having read his book I could outright tell that a number of allegations about his views as expressed in the book are totally unfounded. And interestingly those allegations mainly come from such notorious sources as the ADL which has a long history of attacking and defaming even critiques of Zionist genocidal policies and have been exposed for spying on American activists who speak for Palestinian rights! David Duke similarly over the last three decades has been speaking out against Zionist atrocities against Palestinians and for that reason, it is not hard to tell why there is so many vicious libels heaped against him by the ADL and/or other pro-Israeli sources. I know you may find these hard to believe but please before rushing to judgment at least have a look at these two videos where he is given opportunity to speak for himself. In this interview he doesn't whatsoever sound like a White supremacist bigot. He openly rejects any form of racism but also believes that there's a dominant anti-Christian/anti-White prejudice in US media. In his Youtube channel as in this one he deeply sympathizes with the tragic suffering of Palestinians at the hand of Zionist state and is trying to raise awareness. These are some of the alternative sources that paint a much more charitable picture of this person and these alternative perspective supports my claim of bias as per WP:NPOV in the review of the book. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no practical difference between "White Nationalism" and "White Supremacism". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, an IP editor from the UK made the exact same distinction in this edit.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That it is possible in an abstract way does not determine the issue, the attitudes of those organized under the banner do, and anti-Semitism is the touchstone, a non sequitur with respect to any genuine advocacy of European welfare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not listening: you have your wet tongue on a 440 Volt line and you are standing in water. Given this post I would not oppose a permanent topic ban from editing any subject related to Jews or Israel. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy which is defined as a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially rule non-whites according to White supremacy. In the interview I linked he openly condemns slavery and all forms of racism. So please before threatening to ban me for simply pointing out some facts, consider examining the sources that I have suggested. Have I made any unfounded claim or have caused any offense?! And what I suggest in this regard is admitting the bias by ADL in misrepresenting the content of the book, as well as, including Duke's recent positions as per WP:NPOV. And for that I can produce direct quotes from his book that disproves some of the negative allegations against what the book says. I understand these facts may contradict some of the assumptions about this apparently sensitive topic considering the alliance most Western governments have with the state of Israel and as a result a much more positive attitude towards Israel, but in Misplaced Pages we have to be neutral as you all know. If you have lived in the Middle East or if you were a muslim, you would see that sentiments are very different towards Zionism and Israel in this part of the world for obvious reasons. So don't just take your own perceptions as granted and universal. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You've made many an unfounded claim, not the least of which is Duke isn't racist just because he claims he isn't racist. He just happens to think European (non-Jew) whites are genetically superior to every other people on the planet (including your own) and that the U.S. and Europe should be white only. Visit his website where you can see how he laments that Europe is being "invaded" by Muslims. Or how European whites are more intelligent than all other races. That's racism. As of late he's just turned his racism towards Jews because it sells more of his crappy conspiracy books. Duke is a crank and a laughing stock and the fact that you in any way take him seriously shows you have a very bad grasp of which sources would be considered reliable on Misplaced Pages. Capeo (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He claims that every people have a right to preserve their heritage. And that multi-culturalism leads to ethnic tension and conflict and destruction of distinct cultural traits of each people. We may not agree with him but he's making a compelling case for his view, and this is unfair to rush to frame it as racism simply because he is against massive aggressive immigration into Europe and America. He also cites Jewish sources which show how multi-culturalism was promoted by Jewish organizations in order to weaken the Christian culture of America. On a related topic, here is one of the Jewish sources he directly quotes that you can see for yourself. The Jewish author admits and brags about their role in the notorious porn-industry and its dark anti-Christian goals: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. (This is really interesting for me, since this is a pattern I have myself witnessed in another case. Israeli Prime Minister Netanhayu had also advocated regime change in Iran back in 2002 through cultural and moral subversion -- by advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths until they revolt against their Islamic government). Just as evident in this example, his book primarily draws from Jewish sources to present his thesis. Most of the book content are NOT his opinions but just quotes after quotes! He is not also claiming there's a crazy conspiracy theory but that Jews have an enormous influence over US media and politics and therefore deeply influence the US culture and politics. And again he backs up his claim by providing testimony from Jews themselves. Here is one of the testimonies he quotes from a Jewish author: I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood. So we can probably suggest that this guy talking about "total control of Hollywood by Jews" is a self-hating anti-Semitic Jew!!

And I'll also be happy if you show me a Duke's recent statement that says Whites are superior to non-whites. There could've been such statements coming from him during his youth where he held more radical views, but I've not seen any statement along that vein in those of his works or articles over the last two decades that I have studied. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Fred, anyone who doesn't see antisemitism in Duke's writing and views should not be anywhere near articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What I am simply proposing is balancing the article and admitting the blatant bias of relying primarily on Jewish/Zionist organizations. You did not address any of my evidences and arguments here but only rush to advocate restriction for no legitimate reason. This is not honest. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You supplied no evidence, just typical antisemitic conspiracy theories. Comparing Iranian state run media to western free press is beyond ridiculous. Yes, certain outlets tend towards certain political leanings but they all have one thing in common: they freely criticize or report on criticisms of their governments and state establishments and report on everything and anything newsworthy no matter how it makes their home country look. Daily. With no fear of repercussion from the government. As opposed to say, IRNA, which sets out guidelines that must be followed by their "journalists" that allow for no criticism of the state or Islam. Please. Next time a Western country throws a journalist in jail for "propaganda against the establishment" let me know. Until then, you have no point and should stay far away from away from articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Western media control is much more subtle and systematic in nature and it is because of the corporate control of the media that is interconnected with others in the rich corporate ruling class. See Corporate media for this scholarly thesis. So the real influential people in the West are not politicians but the super-rich corporations who fund electoral campaigns and lobby for corporate gain and dictate government policies through "non-profit" foundations, promote their commercials for profit etc. Western sources especially in countries like USA, UK, Canada are also notorious for preventing the public from knowing about many dark facts of their foreign policy, e.g. imperialist catastrophic wars against nations driven by corporate grid disguised under "humanitarian intervention" or "democracy promotion" or decade after decade of unconditional financial and diplomatic support for the Zionist regime despite its long hideous human rights record and several acts of massacre committed against muslims. So you can't have a correct assessment of "freedom" in the press if you are not familiar with Political economy critical analysis of the corporate media or have not followed alternative media reporting of the crucial issues that are systematically censored or highly under-represented or misrepresented by a small number of Corporate media conglomerates that control 90% of the media outlets. But contrary in Iran, big money is not dictating news and public opinions but Islamic principles of a muslim nation. In Iranian state media, presidential candidates all enjoy a free and equal time to present their platform without needing to spend tremendous sums on campaigning, but in the West big corporations can practically decide the outcome of the elections depending on which candidates they choose to financially support. In the West big money rules and defines freedom but in Iran it is the Islamic virtues of its committed leaders. And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran. Iran has a constitution that overwhelming majority of Iranians voted for in a public referendum. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why I'm responding, this will be my last, but I can't help myself. I'm aware of all the deficiencies inherent to corporate media and corporate influence on politics. Do you know why? Because these issues are constantly reported on by a vast array of media outlets and politicians in the U.S. You think you're exposing some dark secret yet these discussions and criticisms are at the forefront of debate in the U.S. precisely because we have a free press and the ability to criticize whatever we we wish. This: "And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran," displays a stunning disconnect in regards to what a free press and freedom of speech are. Capeo (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note to mention that I've opened Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Strivingsoul. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Community ban

Proposing an indefinite community ban from Misplaced Pages or a topic ban on anything related to Judaism, broadly construed, per Misplaced Pages:Competence is required and based on the discussion above, especially the claim regarding David Duke that "Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism." Gamaliel (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And what's so terrible about that claim to deserve a topic ban?! Please cite evidence to counter my claim. I can still cite many more evidences to back up my claim. Others have presented virtually non! And what a fair way of conducting an ANI discussion indeed! Rushing to topic ban regardless of any substantial evidences exchanged! I'm not here to cause trouble but work according to WP:NPOV and to minimize WP:BIAS. Is that what warrants such an aggressive measure against me?! I recommend allowing this discussion to proceed further in the mainspace talk pages. It is too early to judge! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I also tag an experienced muslim Wikipedian that I have worked with on Islam/Iran-related topics for arbitration. Some participants in this page seem to be more or less biased against me and the topic, and ignore my explanations. @Sa.vakilian:. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I come here due to Strivingsoul's request and do not want to participate in ideological or religious discussions. @Gamaliel:, As I know, we should judge about the users based on their activities not their ideas. Let's check whether Strivingsoul or Andres Feder have violated the wikipedia policies and guidelines or not. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter that he is Muslim? The issue being discussed is your behavior, not your religion. Being Muslim isn't a justification for being disruptive.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder! You are the one who instigated this whole mess to begin with! You've lumped together so many different issues in your first post that can not be properly addressed here with discernment. The last time I was also banned was also for a similar reason. An administrator rushed to take an unfinished talk-page dispute to ANI while I was still defending my case.

And the reason I brought up religion because as I explained earlier this dispute started out of we coming from diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. You were strongly biased against Iran and Islamic topics hence I needed to counter some of your allegations with alternative information. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying Sa.vakilian is in possesion of some "alternative information" that will vindicate views such as: " are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No! But probably compared to you who are driven with your anti-Muslim prejudices, he has the integrity to recognize that I was basically quoting a Jewish journal quoting Jewish porn-producers saying exactly that: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why were you quoting it? What were you trying to show?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily drag this any further! You can just scroll up some paragraphs or use Ctrl+F to locate where I quoted it and in which context and purpose. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose is clear, and Gamaliel's proposal was made in response to it.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in evidence for my alternative view here is one from Duke's official website: "In truth, as racism is defined, if you believe in mutual respect of all peoples, and you oppose the oppression of a people by another people, you are not racist, but actually anti-racist. The truth is that any race can practice racism, not only white people.". Strivingsoul (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you're so concerned about quotes being used out of context, just pointing out that you omitted The truth is that the real ultra-racists are those who control the media. The Zio Media demonizes whites and incites hatred in blacks toward whites and self-hatred in many whites toward themselves. They do this so they can divide and conquer and control us all. They especially hate whites and seek to demonize whites because they see the 60 percent of the white population as their biggest competitors for power, so they want to weaken and demoralize white people, and create a coalition against white people while they are the true masters of media, finance and government. from that quote. ‑ iridescent 08:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban "The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking." No ethnic group or nation should be subjected to editing this tone deaf. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with basic policies and workings of Misplaced Pages. But the problem is this discussion has become too loaded with various disputes. If it was not for Anders Feder extreme opinions and his taking so many different issues to ANI, I would have been proceeding in relevant talk pages to discuss and settle the disputes with other involved Wikipedians. And I can see you yourself admitted that Anders Feder's behavior was crucial for instigating this whole unnecessary controversies. Let's us just discuss and settle the disputes in relevant talk pages. I understand this thread has already become very exhausting and hard to judge so many disagreements. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

People can have a look at my recent useful contributions to Houthis to get an idea of my good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews." is not ambiguous. See your edit here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't cover up the full facts! Why do you need to cite out of context and ignore alternative POVs already covered in that page which reject the literal interpretation of that slogan?! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban, will accept topic ban from any content relating to Jews or Judaism as a start if necessary - Per , , and his repeated bigotry throughout this thread. StrivingSoul is either incapable of understanding what antisemitism is, or is here to push an antisemitic POV. Either way, his presence is a net loss to the site. He's repeatedly been told that that's unacceptable, and it's time we show it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It is you who doesn't understand what anti-Semitism is! Please stop pushing for your accusations and have a look at Criticism of the Israeli government#Objections to characterizing criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism! Considering our unresolved dispute here, you are by no means an impartial arbitrator! Anders Feder has only canvassed biased users against me to corner me by completely ignoring any of the extensive explanations I have offered so far, and repeating baseless accusations! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll find that most users on this site are similarly "biased" against antisemitism or any other sort of bigotry. There is a huge difference between criticizing the policies of the Israeli government (something Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, does fairly often) and pretending that a known neo-Nazi is somehow not a bigot. If you can't tell the difference, you don't belong here. That dispute was resolved, and everyone found that you were wrong. The only thing that was left unresolved was that we failed to block you as a troll for pretending that a man who headed an organization dedicated to violence against blacks and Jews is somehow a spokesperson for tolerance. When you said that you never saw any evidence of racism on his part, you were lying either to us (as a troll) or to yourself (as a bigot). Either behavior does not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not true! Did you honestly read my explanations for example when I said: I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy. Furthermore, I linked evidences that he openly rejects racism in his statements over the last two decades. My argument is that the charge of racism is true only for the period that he was involved with KKK in 1970s. But at least for the last two decades he does no longer harbor racism against any group. And I have already provided sufficient evidences to back this up if only you care to study them! The problem is this dispute should've been resolved in the book's talk page and not dragged here. This whole controversy started from a disagreement on reliability of Iranian sources. Completely irrelevant to the accusations you posed here. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not like your efforts to bog down constructive editing in rants regarding how mainstream sources are controlled by the Rothschild family, the British queen, etc. are any more helpful to the project than your defense of the views of David Duke.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't twist, generalize, falsify, lie! Have some shame! Produce evidence, context and link for anything you attribute to me next time! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef. WP:NPOV doesn't mean being obliged to give every racist crackpot theorist equal airtime to mainstream views, and given the responses in this thread, this editor is never going to understand that. ‑ iridescent 08:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef. per above. — Ched :  ?  08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Let's just halt this mess for a second, Users here drop in and are simply provoked by the gross appearance of the charges against me and ignore my extensive explanations. But this whole accusatory mess against me started when Aders Feder dragged a dispute over reliability of Iranian sources to ANI and lumped it together with many other unresolved issues in the past such as the dispute over neutrality of David Duke book' analysis to condition the users against me. I should make it clear that I do not advocate anti-Semitism but it is vital to allow legitimate criticism of Israeli government or Jewish pornographers from a Christian point of view such as that of David Duke to be properly represented in the articles as per WP:NPOV, and we can resolve and decide this in the relevant talk pages as I had once attempted here: Talk:Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. This has really become an unnecessary loaded fuss and unfair accusation game against me over so many unresolved issues. Let's us just proceed to settle them in the long run. I apologize for my part for indirectly having contributed to this controversy but like I said I was not the one who started this but Anders Feder! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No one are "ignoring your extensive explanations". They read your extensive explanations and conclude that they amount to nothing.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not "ignoring your extensive explanations". Your "extensive explanations" are predicated on the assumption that the ultra-marginal views of David Duke are mainstream enough that NPOV mandates they be discussed. For anyone unfamiliar with David Duke, just reading his official homepage should speak for itself. ‑ iridescent 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What if those "ultra marginal" views such as ones expressed in his book are exhaustively backed up by +600 scholarly references?! I think WP:BIAS warrants fair representation of his views especially when they are properly backed up. His views are also not ultra-marginal and not even quite marginal! There are many left-wing, right-wing and even Jewish critiques who concur with many of his points in regards with Zionism. Example: Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Robert Faurisson, Norman Finkelstein and Neturei Karta. There are also many Christian Conservatives and Palocoservatives who might not be as outspoken or well-known as him but still share his views on emigration and/or defending Christian values against liberal/Jewish cultural war. Examples E. Michael Jones, Neal Gabler, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and more. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Christian" is not identical to "Right-wing," and many of the authors you list as "Christian" derive their political philosophy from this Jewish atheist instead of the Beatitudes. Most right-wing Christians in America are extremely pro-Israel. Quit trying to play the "you're protecting Christians" card, because you're only going to annoy Christians (and probably atheists and agnostics as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef, or ban (although that seems unnecessary), or topic ban (although that would probably just move the advocacy elsewhere). Supporting Duke is one type of problem, but making the statement quoted above indicates a much deeper issue because editors have to be sufficiently competent to understand basics, particularly when engaging in these areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support siteban (first preference) or topic ban (second choice). Among the things Misplaced Pages does not need, unashamed apologists for white supremacism and antisemitism must surely rank near the top. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Whatever has the greater consensus. Although topic ban should really be attempted first. Reason: RE David Duke, sheesh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support I was waiting till I saw their responses to me from last night before I proposed a siteban myself. Now that I see them this morning. Just... wow. David Duke and the word "scholarly" in the same sentence? There is nothing good that's going to come from Strivingsoul's continued presence here. Capeo (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You just like pretty much everyone else in this page, have no idea about Duke beyond than ADL/Zionist propaganda or his past KKK association back in 1970s! You don't even know the guy has a Phd in history! You have not read his scholarly book that contains 600+ references! So you just jump in the bandwagon to spew out "Ban ban ban ban!" You seem so biased and misinformed about this man that you apparently even can't believe your eyes when looking at several pieces of evidences that I have offered in my lengthy discussions! ### for everyone else supporting "ban ban ban ban"! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You're really not helping your case with your continued insinuations about Zionist propaganda. In any case, people with advanced degrees and published books can still be bigots. One only needs to look at David Duke's website to realize that while he's shied away from the overt bigotry of his KKK days, he still harbors a lot of the same feelings towards Jews. clpo13_(talk) 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

David Duke got his "Ph.D" from a Ukrainian diploma mill know for its for virulent anti-antisemitism. They handed it to them because he supports their views. He's not a scholar and his book's supposed scholarly references are quote-mined bullshit taken out of context. He's never published in any journals, never cited by actual scholars and is a complete joke. Not to mention he went to jail for bilking his followers. Your "evidence" is, again, quote mined bullshit that in no way examines the context of the quotes and tries to paint said quotes as speaking for an entire people. It's disingenuous trickery used by people with no argument. Can we just ban this person at this point? Anyone seriously arguing that Duke meets reliability criteria or is a scholarly source lacks the competence to edit here. They're here to push their POV and that's it. Capeo (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Known for its virulent anti-Semitism" Yes! Dare to criticize Zionist genocidal policies or point out things like atheist Jewish pornographers' self-declared agenda of weakening Christianity by moral subversion, or US unconditional support for Israel's occupational apartheid, and then be branded as "anti-Semite" by ADL's Stalinist thought policing, to the point of even making the absurd claim of Self-hating Jew for decent Jews who point out the same injustices by their fellow tribesmen! And my evidences prove that there are perfectly legitimate grounds in David Duke's or (others', for that matter,) criticism of extremist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian elements with Jewish background, unless you're advocating the view that once someone happens to come from a Jewish background, he or she somehow miraculously becomes infallible and should not be criticized for anything wrong! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (community ban) While I agree with most of the above discussions about lack of competence regarding the David Duke and related issues, there is not enough evidence of Policy violations. Therefor, I think "topic ban" is enough to punish him and community ban is not justifiable. I wonder how the above comments are made in support of the proposal without trying to show how the editor has violated policies and which policies have been violated.​ The discussion, despite being full of hot comments, is not what an ANI discussion should be.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for some little sense! But about "lack of competence" what's that?! And the only policy that seems I have grossly, badly, awfully violated is ADL's political correctness!! But I didn't know that's part of Misplaced Pages policies, you know! Nobody even told me that! But maybe you can guide me to the relevant Wiki help page! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR is enough. There need not be specific policy violations cited for the community to decide that an editor is a net negative to the project due to soapboxing, POV-pushing and overall lack of a clue. Capeo (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban. This editor, while making a few constructive edits, has engaged in repeated disruption that results in a net negative for the project. Mamyles (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Net negative indeed! I had planned to work on multiple Iran/Shia/Islam-related topics and help other Farsi-speaking editors with English language! But apparently the net negative is really worth it for God forbid disagreeing with ADL or Zionist political narrative! It's you know such an irredeemable crime against humanity! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on anything relating to Jews or Judaism. His continued assertions that David Duke's reputation is merely the result of the "ADL or Zionist political narrative" indicate an unwillingness to be neutral when it comes to this topic. With regards to policy violations elsewhere, I'm not convinced this editor is enough of a problem to justify a complete community ban. clpo13_(talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Merely a result of..." when did I say that?! I already admit that Duke deserves criticism for his past association with KKK! But that's not justification to brand him as anti-Semite for criticizing the grotesque crimes of the Zionist state, or the influence of Zionist lobby on US foreign policy, or atheist Jewish pornographers that have vowed to subvert Christian culture in American by promoting moral degeneracy! And it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as fact! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ad it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as facts! Please show me where I did or said anything of the sort. clpo13_(talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:STOPDIGGING. Support topic ban at least, as per Onel5969. GAB 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The David Duke comments seem to reflect a deeper inability to look at sources/issues and be able to discern propaganda/conspiracy from actuality and that is a massive competence issue. The "... Zionist political narrative!" bit does it for me Jbh 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban as per Gamaliel's nomination. Editor's continued responses to each vote only confirms the underlying assumption which prompted the ban suggestion. Onel5969 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban per nom; nothing more to be said. BMK (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban -- WP:COMPETENCE, complete cluelessness, quite possibly being a troll ("Atheist Jewish pornographers that have vowed to subvert Christian culture" -- how tired), etc etc. EEng (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The most laughable part about that, which shows how incapable this editor Strivingsoul is at parsing sources in an unbiased manner, is that they are using this quote mine: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion to justify the statement. The quote is from an essay exploring historical and current Jewish participation in the US porn industry. The essay, as should be clearly obvious through "by this argument", puts forth multiple arguments to explain said involvement but of course this editor settles only on the one that supports his Zionist-conspiracy-to-ruin-everything theory. Capeo (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The most laughable part is that you are quoting selectively to obscure what that article definitely suggests. So here's a veritable testimony: Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said, ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Still more laughable (or maybe sad) part is your implication that even if some of these people were not promoting porn with that explicit purpose, that would somehow discount the heinous nature of their occupation and its inevitable harmful impact on the society. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, since you're accusing me of discounting something that is immaterial to the point I'm going to respond to you though I said I wouldn't earlier. Again, your comprehension of the essay is lacking. "Pornography thus becomes", makes clear this is a presentation of yet another view, among many presented, that MAY contribute to the understanding of the historical participation of Jews in pornography. You seem not to comprehend that the essay makes no definitive statements and draws no conclusions but only points out what may be contributing factors. You are the one making definitive statements based on the authors hypotheticals and a quote from a Jewish porn producer and trying to paint all Jews with that broad brush as part of a conspiracy to destroy society. I note from your response below you've now moved your target from "Atheist Jews" to "Atheist/Liberal Jews". Well, though you've tried to paint me in a bad light, this Atheist/Liberal non-Jew isn't going to share his personal views about pornography with you as it has nothing to do with your inability to put a source in its proper context. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm NOT and never been "painting all Jews as part of a conspiracy to destroy society" for that's just an unwarranted, unfair generalization! I already have much praise for many decent Jews who have spoken out against the criminality of the Zionist state or the vehement Zionist propaganda and cultural war against muslims and Christians. I have named some of these commendable Jewish personalities earlier above. Furthermore, it is useful for you to know that I personally come from a country where anti-Semitism is banned by state religious law and is home to the second largest Jewish community in the region. Jews have been living in Iran peacefully ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran except for a very short-lived wave of emigration to Israel before Iranian revolutionary leaders had still the chance to publicly declare their acceptance and recognition of the Iranian Jewish minority. See: Persian Jews#Islamic Republic (1979–present). Strivingsoul (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, just for the record, could you modify your comments to make it a bit clearer who "this editor" is? I'd hate for anyone to mistakenly think you were talking about me. EEng (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, EEng. I corrected the above to make clear I was referring to Strivingsoul. Capeo (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I realized that eventually, but for a minute I was trying to figure out how to reach through the internet and smack you a good one. Thanks for clarifying. EEng (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol. No problem. It was rather clumsy wording on my part. Capeo (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban Just keeps digging. Irondome (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I see nothing to suggest Strivingsoul has any interest in following Misplaced Pages's principles, either in his contributions history or this very ANI thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Racism is against Civility, without civility, Misplaced Pages would be a battleground of war and rage. As evidenced by his behaviour, I can tell that he wages frequent edit wars and does frequent personal attacks with anyone he opposes, especially Jews. I reckon that a topic ban would not stop this carnage, as one day, he could abuse us as well. A site ban should be more appropriate for him. Support per above. DSCrowned 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Racism is of course abhorrently uncivil! But even more uncivil is to vilify someone as racist for pointing out things like, the widely recognized racism of the Zionist state, or its hideous oppressive policies or promotion of grotesque moral depravity by Atheist/liberal Jews, or, as also basically relevant to our work in Misplaced Pages, questioning reliability of a Jewish/Zionist partisan thought police organization such as ADL for presenting a book that criticizes that very partisan organization and its shameful practices! Sounds like racism indeed! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin close this? There is a very clear consensus for a topic ban at the very least. GAB 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is in dire need of a close. I personally see a clear consensus for a siteban but obviously that's up to the closing admin to judge. I would note that, in my view, a topic ban would be woefully insufficient. From all Strivingsoul's responses it would seem they'd need to be TBed from anything related to Judaism and Israel for sure but they also seem to use pointed descriptions of Jews in a context that implies they have an issue beyond just Jews. You'll note descriptions like "gay Jew", "atheist Jew", and "atheist/liberal Jew" where the description is completely unnecessary unless the intent is to vilify homosexuals, atheists and liberals as well. Capeo (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with a topic ban "related to Judaism and Israel" is that since, as everyone knows, Jews control everything anyway, that's the same a complete ban on all topics, so let's save time and just go with that. EEng (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) ;)

Ironically, when you actually read the source used for advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths, the hedonist and degenerate Hollywood production in question turns out to be that hotbed of depravity, Beverley Hills 90210. ‑ iridescent 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair I'd be ready to revolt if I were forced to watch "Beverly Hills 90210" ;) In fact if it were actually "hedonistic and degenerate" it might have been an interesting show. In all seriousness though, I don't think Strivingsoul's connecting "hedonistic and degenerate" to the producer being gay was unintentional. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what qualifies as hedonism or degenerate in your mind, but to me as a human being and a muslim, a TV-series that features "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ... wonderfully wicked people" produced by an "openly gay Jews" is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Practicing Muslims and Christians (as well as practicing Jews for that matter) would also find it totally inappropriate for their families to watch a TV-series that portrays youth getting involved in things like alcoholism, pregnancy and AIDS. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooooooo.... can we close this now? We're at the point where the idiocy of Melrose Place is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Capeo (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume someone must come from a very terrible upbringing and a very dangerous worldview to question the evilness of "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ...". I think that also makes it clear why admins don't heed your relentless agitations, for attitudes of this sort have no place in making decisions in Misplaced Pages! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And now we've moved onto personal attacks. I guess I've had a terrible upbringing because I'm able to separate a trite 90's melodrama from reality. Oh, and having the basic faith in humanity that they can do the same. Capeo (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a fun thread, but we really should close. GAB 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know of a way to facilitate that though. An admin made the proposal and at least one has voted so there's definitely some admin eyes on this thread. Capeo (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know but maybe that's because they don't see how it is fair and correct to ban a judicious Muslim user that defends his position by citing information and evidences against a majority that just advocate ban based on their preconceived biases. Maybe admins see how this is clearly a case of someone being the most hard hit by Misplaced Pages systematic bias. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. A topic ban is not enough to stop the feuding, personal attacks, and POV pushing. This user is not here to write an encyclopedia. I wish them well in their future pursuits. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Site Ban I don't think that this is going to turn around. I echo Viriditas and wish them well at other places. I'm certain the Farsi Misplaced Pages could use their help.--Adam in MO Talk 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support siteban - Why is this still open? I don't understand how anyone can read this thread and not know for 100% certain that this editor is not here to benefit the project, and/or able to do so. Please close and institute the site ban. Dave Dial (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I tried to read this rather long thread and also paid attention to the comments by participants. To me, some of them think we have a voting process here and almost few of them could say according to which policy and diff they thought he should be banned and why they are supporting a proposal which is based on an "essay" having "no official status." However I do admit his committing in edit warring for example here where I warned both sides (Shazaami was enclosed to be a sock-puppet). Please note that, accepting or denying Anti-semetism (or any other things such as Flat Earth) by editors is up to them and we can't punish them for having a particular belief, unless they try to push their wp:pov. Also, consider that "editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing," and POV-Pushing "generally does not apply to talk page discussions." Mhhossein (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• My two cents Since there has been so many votes for "site ban" my vote wouldn't count either way, as such, I'm offering my two cents. I'm the one who figured out and got Shazaami blocked as sockpuppet I must say Mhhossein is a great editor, as he has plenty of barnstars on his userpage. That said, Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar userpage (except no barnstars on Strivingsoul's user page yet). Yet Strivingsoul's userpage was nominated for deletion. Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar beliefs, editing pattern and often supports each other during conflicts. That said, why is Strivingsoul always being targeted negatively? Mhhossein is getting praised, as evidenced by the barnstars on his userpage--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm being targeted for Anders Feder's continued unnecessary agitations against me as you can see in this case as well. He tries to frame Muslim editors by appealing to the cultural and political biases of mainstream Wikipedians. He had also tried the same thing against Mhhossein in the past but miserably failed to the point of getting WP:BOOMERANG. I also hope he fails this time too. And I wish he is willing to drop or at least moderate his extreme biases against us who are making positive contributions to Misplaced Pages on one of the most underrepresented civilizational areas. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disinformation is indeed an "underrepresented civilizational area" and that is just how it should remain.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only real similarities between the two users is that they are Muslim, edit in areas concerning middle eastern politics, and possibly share some broadly similar political views. Those are not the reasons why people are suggesting that Strivingsoul be blocked. While I've only made a cursory glance through Mhhossein's contributions, even if he does things I would not recommend, he seems to understand that one does not misquote figures neo-Nazi conspiracy fantasies as if they are facts. Editors are welcome to believe whatever they want outside the site -- but attempting to change article content based on those beliefs (especially ones as delusional as David Duke's) is unacceptable per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. StrivingSoul still does not understand that that is a problem.

Also, the barnstars themselves are not protection, but the actions Mhhossein took to earn his barnstars does protect him somewhat. His contributions appear to be overall positive and useful. StrivingSoul has been problematic from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

David Duke is controversial but unless and until we have conducted an objective study of his works and articles we can't dismiss what he says as "conspiracy fantasies" and just opt for the ADL's position on him and his works -- which by no means is a neutral party. And I don't know where I misquoted Duke? To the contrary it seems that Duke's views are heavily misquoted and even falsified by ADL in order to keep up the image of a persisting anti-Semitic bigot, and deflect from many reasonable points and viewpoints that he espouses. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2015 (UT

Strivingsoul, you need to completely drop David Duke as a reliable source for anything on Misplaced Pages. If you do not, you will indeed likely receive a block (probably an indefinite one) for disruptive editing and/or incompetence. I've been willing to give you a lot of rope on this thread, but if you don't learn from your mistakes and drop these WP:FRINGE-pushing behaviors, you will be blocked. It's just that simple. People are tired of arguing with you. I'm sure you believe you are right, but that doesn't matter. You need to abide by Misplaced Pages policies and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I am very grateful for your fair judgement. I understand that this controversy has grown so tiresome, and this apparently because of the very controversial character and career of Duke. Anyways, I thought I could back up my case with reference to WP:NPOV. But if there's no way David Duke can be relied on for anything (even his own opinions!) then I willingly drop this whole case because, then, as you also say, there would be no gain in dragging this any longer other than just more tension. And I'm already sorry for this unintended consequence. Thanks. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Mhhossein doesn't have the same fixation on Jews Strivingsoul (and a certain other wikipedia editor) has. Brustopher (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a fixation on Jews. I'm just discussing a controversial topic that happens to be related to Jews. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)C)

• Oppose. The above-espoused views on David Duke are at least partly wrong and moderately offensive but mostly just foolhardy. One can be an anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. I have not seen clear evidence of antisemitism; the opinion on Duke alone can't vouch for that. The discussion here got off-track quickly, partly because of StrivingSoul, no doubt (though Anders Feder is good at it too). It should have been a discussion about the edits cited in the very first paragraph of this thread but no one is talking about that. From those diffs one can make the case for a ban on Iran-related topics. The talk page discussion on Jewish Supremacism isn't all that disruptive; if we can't handle that on a talk page with a number of decent editors than it's looking bad for all of us. And their editing on Houthis, when they removed "antisemitims" as one of the group's ideologies, wasn't wrong: it's in the article again, with this as the only source, but a careful reading of that article proves this wrong: "Houthi supporters and leaders stress that their ire is directed toward the governments of America and Israel...rather than Americans or Jews as individuals....Anecdotally, at least, this would seem to prove true.

  So no, I cannot support such a topic ban, let alone a site ban. I understand y'all are having problems with this editor, but if they're a troll, not feeding them is helpful. Removing/hatting talk page forum posts is helpful. If they're edit warring, report them for it--they've been blocked for it before. Nothing that normal procedure can't fix. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"though Anders Feder is good at it too" What are you even talking about? Almost all of the few comments I've made are two sentences or less long, and most are replies to comments Strivingsoul or others directed at me. You are the user who closed my report regarding Mhhossein too - I am not surprised you would be so indilligent in processing this one also. As for your wishing others well putting up with Strivingsoul, why don't you do yourself? I sure as heck won't, but then again I guess that is your goal?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with the close of that discussion, feel free to put it up for review. My close is here, and comments addressed to you by Ravenswing, Kingsindian, and Brustopher make for helpful reading--particularly Ravenswing final comment, made a month before I closed the thread, itself a clear indication that no action was to be taken. I'm not processing anything here, just giving my opinion, and I clearly won't close it. Note that it's just me and a few others who are going against the tide, but I don't mind disagreeing with them--and I'm not disagreeing because you have something to do with this. If the community decides to ban this editor, so be it. My opinion of you is formed in part by what happened in the Mhhossein thread but again, that has no bearing on this case. (Note that, for instance, I quick-failed one of their GA nominations: I try to be an equal-opportunity offender.) As for me dealing with their disruption, well, I had to look at a bunch of their stuff plowing through the diffs, and I'm not happy with their behavior, as I indicated above; if I were more active in that area I might take action, or I might have taken action already--but it kind of begs the question (one I cannot answer) of what means of dispute resolution were sought earlier. I mean, WP:AN3 is just around the corner, and previous offenders are not typically regarded kindly there. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity, then his anti-Semitism isn't really in question regardless of his beliefs on Israel or its government. Someone who defends an obvious anti-Semite by playing the "you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic" is treading in dangerous waters as well. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there is strong consensus for a site ban based on your comment. It boggles the mind and begs credulity that at least one admin thinks otherwise. While good people can disagree, this seems more of a case of bias, insensitivity, and disregard for the facts. If there isn't a site ban, we are only going to be back here in a few weeks. The facts show that most editors are indefinitely blocked for far less (see the recent block of User:MusicAngels for only one recent example). I think we are dealing with a small segment of the community that are unable to clearly recognize racism, disruption, and deliberate trolling when it stares them in the face. Clearly, adminship and the responsibility it requires isn't for everyone, so we need to hear from other voices who have a better reality-based view of the situation. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not wanting to ban someone doesn't mean one defends them, Bobby Tables, and I suppose the reference to Malik Shabazz's evenhandedness went right over your head. Viriditas, your vitriol is well known and it really doesn't bother me, though I do wonder in hindsight why I stuck my neck out for you long ago. That you are calling me not good people, but rather biased, insensitive, and whatnot, that's par for the course. Go ahead and call me an antisemite too. No, adminship is not for everyone, but perhaps if you're admin material you can try communicating via Bradspeak and clarify whose comment you're talking about, and if it was me you wanted site-banned. But you have enough !votes to get the site ban you so dearly want, so why badger the poor schmuck who disagrees with you? Drmies (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I miss Malik <sniff>. EEng (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bobby Tables: "When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity," Seriously, if you can so shamelessly pretend that those are what "I think" and deliberately ignore that those are acknowledged, reported facts that I have basically just referenced and quoted, then that casts serious doubt about your integrity and credibility in having any opinion in this ANI. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I thank you @Drmies: for your courage to point out the obvious fact that I'm being unfairly framed here for no real offense. The fact is, if some people are not willing to judge objectively and neutrally, there's no way they can be persuaded otherwise. Despite my persistent patience and restraint here in assuming good faith and supporting my case with facts and references, I continue to be attacked by allegations of anti-Semitism which is obviously unfounded. And when they charge me with being disruptive, they are mostly unaware that the disputes I've been involved with have been mostly with one or two editors who hold very extreme views and have a history of attacking me personally in talk page discussions with the inevitable result of repeated controversies. One can have a look at Talk:Houthis#Disruptive editing/reverts by an "Israeli Jew SunniWarrior" to see what kind of users I have to deal with in areas of my interest in Misplaced Pages. And this is now ironic that a "ban support" has just come from a Pro-Israeli partisan POV-pusher (masquerading as "SunniWarrior") that I have been dealing with fortitude in that talk page. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this is a massive pile-on bandwagon and witch hunt based solely on knee-jerk reactions to the name David Duke and the idea that someone has read his book and found some of it compelling or credible. This is not a reason to site-ban someone. Everything here is totally out of process. The user has not even remotely reached WP:BMB, and we should not even be considering that. As Drmies has said, everything here can totally be resolved via appropriate process. Extreme measures are not needed. The user needs to be given the opportunity to prove he can edit competently, collaboratively, and within policy. If he can't, then there are policies and sanctions in place to handle that. At this moment, this reaction is way over the top, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Softlavender. You know, let me say (not so much to you as to the supporters) that I don't think that Strivingsould is not disruptive. And they're shooting themselves royally in all their feet simultaneously by turning every little think into some enormous discussion of political positions, as if everything is just about content and the opponents' POVs. I just don't think we need to go to this extreme measure. This is another one of those occasions where I sorely miss the presence of Malik Shabazz. I don't really know what Malik would say and I don't presume I can speak for him, of course, but one thing I learned from him is to be very careful with jumping from "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionism" to "antisemitism", and I found that confirmed at least to some extent in the source cited for the Houthis case, linked above. To put it another way, I fear that if Strivingsoul continues to act they way they do, they will run into an indefinite block followed by a half dozen lengthy and bitterly argumentative unblock requests followed by the removal of talk page access. But for now I prefer to hope that this very discussion (are you listening, Strivingsoul?) will help them reconsider their style of editing, and that it will encourage them to keep more of their opinions to themselves. In yet other words, I think ROPE applies here, and that an indef block, if it happens, will clearly be their own doing. Thank you all, and all the best to those who are dealing with Strivingsoul's disruptive behavior. One way or another there will be an end to it, but I'd rather it be done differently than via a site ban. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban Editor is basically acting as a proxy for the Iranian dictator, Khamenei. Maybe working for the Iranian regime--SunniWarrior (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Says the Zionist, crypto-Jewish, "SunniWarrior". Strivingsoul (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Both editors blocked--the one indefinitely for being here only to disrupt, the other for 72 hours for personal attacks. If anyone feels the need to remove Strivingsoul's insult (the one after "Zionist"), go ahead. Or you can choose to let it stand, because if you support the (topic or site) ban, it sure helps your case. Hard to find a clearer case of someone shooting themselves in the foot. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Drmies, I'm not yet convinced that a community siteban is warranted. I do think that Strivingsoul is being disruptive, and there are few surer ways of cementing a reputation as a POV-pushing jerk than to rebut everything everyone posts with "But you're just not understanding that the Zionists are ***RACISTS!!!!*** nonsense. However: it is not a prima facie violation of Misplaced Pages policy to be anti-Zionist or even antisemitic; it is just one to push a POV along those lines in defiance of NPOV, and it sure as frigging hell NOT a ban-worthy offense to hold a view about David Duke that you find disagreeable. Has that level been breached here to the point of warranting a site ban? I don't see it ... yet. For another, I'm bothered that this is the second time in a month that Anders Feder -- a POV warrior in his own right -- has sought sanctions against someone who disagrees with him politically. I don't know about you, but I don't care for ANI being used as Anders Feder's catspaw against editors he dislikes. Ravenswing 08:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being fair and objective, especially for appreciating that this is yet another unnecessary fuss resulting from Anders Feder's agitation and framing. But when you so confidently declare my characterization of Zionism as racism as "nonsense" you seem to be unaware of the fact that this is a popular view that has been even once adopted by a UN Resolution! Please also have a look at Israel and the apartheid analogy. So you see my friend, most of what I have been saying in this thread or elsewhere are backed up by facts and evidences, yet I don't see why there's so much hostility against me other than for a general bias that seems to be common with many Western Wikipedians on Mid-Eastern subjects and views. Don't you think this is a case of Systematic bias against me as per WP:BIAS?! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The determination that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", contained in the resolution, was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86. So you could just as well say, "the UN refuted the notion that Zionism 'is a form of racism and racial discrimination.'" GAB 20:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, it's comments like those that will get you banned, indirectly (as in this thread, since I think a lot of what underlies the support for the ban is irritation with your tendentious commentary) or directly, from some admin who has seen enough of it. Perhaps Anders Feder is agitating and framing, but you should be the last one to comment on it. What the UN has to say on something is of no relevance here. If there's BIAS here, and maybe there is, your combative edits and entrenched position are doing little to overcome it. Most importantly, constantly turning everything in some interminable political discussion may feel good when you're 16 and debating with your parents, but here--well, it may still feel good, but you'll find your audience turn rather to an admin asking for a block per FORUM or something like that. And if you keep this up, should it be me blocking you for persistent disruption? Because that is quickly becoming a valid block rationale. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking me what I truly think, Strivingsoul, I said a bit of it above. Misplaced Pages is neither a soapbox nor a discussion forum, and ANI isn't remotely a venue (nor, as to that, is anywhere on Misplaced Pages) for you to wage war over your political beliefs. I oppose a community ban because it's a knee-jerk, disproportionate reaction to the situation, and that as far as I've found there aren't any Misplaced Pages policies requiring the permaban of people who don't think that David Duke sits at the right hand of Anti-Christ, but I freely confess I'm not going to lie awake in anguish if the Supports win this one. Your best move right now is to sit down, shut up, and accept that you've already said everything you wanted to say, ten times over, without continuing to comment on everything every editor posts. You'll ignore my advice, I expect, as you'll ignore Drmies', and if you possess a soupçon of self-examination, that you're getting this from two editors who oppose banning you should be the Mother of All Wake-Up Calls. Ravenswing 07:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a site ban, at this time, largely per Ravenswing. However, I would support an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to this topic area, the scope of which should be discussed if there is some support from other editors for one. Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As I previously stated, I support an indefinite topic ban for this topic area. GAB 00:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban Valueless nonsense. WP:NOTHERE. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Changing to support: Per Strivingsoul's talk page and his appeal of his temporary block. While I dislike the precedent that someone can be blocked for unpopular views, and greatly dislike handing Feder more reason to think he has a hunting license against editors he dislikes, it's plain that Strivingsoul just can't wrap his head around the need to refrain from insulting other editors, no matter the alleged provocation, no matter how justified he believes he is in doing so. Ravenswing 13:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban - Duke apologetics above are evidence that NPOV isn't on the agenda. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR on Levant by Debresser

Here Debresser reverted my edit, re-instating a claim not supported by sources. Here the user removed the {{cn}} tag I placed on the unsupported claim. The two reverts happened within 40 minutes, on an article that clearly falls under WP:ARBPIA.

I pinged the user on the talk page and explained the problem with the content they restored, but got no response so far. “WarKosign” 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I agree with you, both edits inserted a fact with no sources that's in contention , at the very least between you and DeBresser, and on the first edit, he's basically saying it's common knowledge. Not a great move. KoshVorlon 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the Sabbath, so Dovid won't be able to reply until tomorrow evening, even if WarKoSign's complaint is correct.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not addressing the matter of the real dispute itself, but might this not be better discussed at WP:AE,considering the existing sanctions? John Carter (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: WP:ARBPIA sanctions can be applied by "any uninvolved administrator", and I figured I can find a few of these here. WP:AE form is quite tedious to fill, the process there is quite slow and I do not know the user enough to decide that an AE case is needed. I just want someone to give Debresser an authoritative reminder that WP:RS and WP:1RR should not be ignored. “WarKosign” 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign:, I agree with you, and, actually, have, in past, made comments here on much the same basis. When I did so, I was told that it would be best to take the comments to AE by some of the administrators involved. And, if you look at some of the threads above, it can reasonably be argued that this requests on this page can take longer than requests at AE. I've tended to find that to be the case myself. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for pointing out that I couldn't come here any earlier because of the Shabbat.

As to the issue itself: because these were two different edits by WarKoSign, it didn't trigger my attention to 1RR. Also, I thought this was simply one of the many politically motivated edits in the ARBPIA area, so I reverted it as such. We have such editors, mostly IPs, the whole time, and they are nothing more than political vandals.

In any case: 1. if the Palestinian territories are in the Levant, then so is the State of Palestine, and visa versa, since they are in the same geographical location, far and by. 2. Since all countries that surround either of them are in the Levant, so are they, and no source is needed. I mean, if that logic can not be disputed.

However, I now understand the issue under dispute is whether it should be "territories" or "state of". The addition of {{Cn}} didn't explain what the issue was. This template takes a |reason= parameter, which was unused. In any case, I still think this was a pointy edit, and don't think there is any chance that a discussion will come to any conclusion other than reinstate the previous version.

I would self-revert my last edit,to avoid the impression that I take 1RR lightly, but WarKoSign already made a new edit. I recommend WarKoSign to open a discussion about this issue on the talkpage, since I think his edit is in violation of NPOV. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith on my part is not an excuse to violate policies. My edits were not by an IP editor nor can they be considered obvious vandalism (even if you disagree).

Both your arguments (1,2 above) are again relying on the unsupported claim that State of Palestine is in the Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt that Palestinian Territories are in the Levant, but as of this moment State of Palestine has no physical location, it is a de-jure entity without defined borders that claims the Palestinian Territories. It is very likely that it will be there one day, but wikipedia is not the place for speculations. I provided the source for SoP *not* having defined location on the talk page, please prove me wrong there.

You are still able to re-instate the {{cn}} tags (or better yet, provide a source that supports the statement I claim invalid). Failing to do so you are still "enjoying" the results of your violation of WP:1RR.

I did open a discussion on the talk page, one where you did not respond until after I opened this discussion on ANI. So far I provided a source to back up my claims, you did not. “WarKosign” 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And after the Shabbat ended, I joint the discussion.

After your edit, I also edited the article. The result of your edit was that there is no point to undo my old edit any more, since we both made more recent edits.

Even if the borders of the State of Palestine are not clear, the above arguments prove irrefutably that in any case the area of the State of Palestine is in the Levant. Your source does not dispute that, just as it doesn't claim other absurd things, like that it would be in the Americas. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - i'm not sure 1RR applies for the article Levant, because it has no direct relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is not marked as such with proper page notices.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Any mention of State of Palestine or Israel on any article, especially in relation to the territory disputed between the two, certainly falls under WP:ARBPIA: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". “WarKosign” 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED

I am seeking input from other editors regarding recent actions by JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Guy).

A large volume of mostly congenial discussion has taken place at two articles Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy about whether content should be deleted, split, merged, moved, and trimmed. In the past five weeks, there have been at least three RfCs, two move requests and three AfDs for these two articles, resulting in various outcomes. The biggest challenge has been to try to keep the discussions focused so that consensus can be clearly weighed.

I'm bringing this to ANI, not to discuss the content, which will resolve of its own accord. My concern is about JzG's conduct as an admin, his use of admin authority in a content dispute, and his refusal to respond to questions about his conduct and involvement.

The following events occurred

1. October 6, 11:10 - JzG closes an RfC
2. October 6, 23:10 - JzG votes in a move discussion
3. October 9, 10:37 - JzG closes an AfD for the spinoff article (Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy)
4. October 9, 10:47 - JzG posts a non-neutral message soliciting "cool headed admins" to get involved
5. October 9, 14:18 - JzG opens a poll in which users are asked to select from one of four options to move the Kim Davis biography to. Note, he opened this discussion while the requested move discussion is still running, in an apparent effort to sidestep an developing consensus.

JzG has alternated between his editor role and his admin roles with respect to this content, which raises conflict of interest concerns as summarized in WP:INVOLVED. There was also concern about JzG opening what amounts to an overlapping move request during an ongoing (formal) move request. Both myself and Prhartcom raised these concerns on JzG's tall page . JzG's response was to delete our requests without a response (which violates WP:ADMINACCT). To his credit, JzG did comment on the article talk page here, here, and here, however, it did not address his WP:INVOLVED status.

After seeing that JzG had deleted my first request from his talk page, I tried to engage him again to discuss my concerns about his conduct, only to have the request deleted three minutes later . His comment on my talk page also left me cold.

I have other concerns about JzG's conduct in other topic areas, but those are out of scope for this discussion.

Comments are appreciated. Thank you.- MrX 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus: - MrX 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Stop. The. Drama. MrX has concerns about JzG's conduct, I've had concerns about Mr.X's POV and agenda-pushing conduct at the article and article talk page in question as well as other hot-button issue articles to which he seems to gravitate. Personally, I think JzG (like other editors such as myself) are simply tired of X's penchant for drama, RfC's, opposing viewpoints at the talk page and in deletion discussions, POV pushing, and tendentious editing/discussion style. My suggestion is a boomerang at the most and a trout at the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On that accord, the multiple polls/processes = the drama, and there's several people at fault for that (one maybe more than the rest, but I'm not going to name a name). The idea that there's just one person with an agenda just doesn't square with the history on what I now call a Shenanigans Page. Rampant POV pushing has come from several editors. Stevie is the man! 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And Mr.X has been in the middle of every bit of it adding more drama, more dissension, more, more, more. That's my observation, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It seems to me your issue is about his particular POV more than his behavior, as again, if you look into the history, you will see several people bringing up the polls/processes over and over again. It's not just Mr. X. Stevie is the man! 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow me to suggest that any complaints about MrX or anyone else be addressed separately, so as not to distract from the matter at hand. I won't violate AGF and call this a deliberate smokescreen, but it has the same effect as one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems that even before this admin came along, we have had one poll/process piled on top of another, often repetitive and it had already just about worked my last nerve. Then this admin comes along, and per Mr. X's description, has brought in a virtual dump truck of salt to pour on an open gaping wound. This talk page has become Misplaced Pages's Shenanigans Page, and someone with a big mop needs to go in there and wipe it all out. All of it. Back to Square One. And this admin needs to be told to excuse himself from this and related articles. There's a power trip or something else I can't explain going on, and if I've just violated WP:AGF, I will advise the concentrated sucking of a lemon. I am unable to put my concern in kinder words. Stevie is the man! 23:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Not seeing an issue with any of those diffs. The last diff that is complained about actually seems like the best way to consolidate the RfM to a solid title as opposed to the mess above it. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-RFC? It's part of the same discussion. It started nothing new. It looks like an attempt to get an actual hard count on the suggestions above to finally settle on a title rather than have endless pontificating. Capeo (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Altogether, as Fyddlestix states, this is shenanigans, albeit the admin's actions were abuses on top of existing abuses. Stevie is the man! 11:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, it may look like that if just glancing at it but, just to let you know: Guy complicated the situation by introducing an article out-of-scope to the discussion that he said we had to consider; the article (Miller v. Davis) that had almost never been mentioned in the discussions and had nothing to do with the formal RM. His attempt to take the process in a new direction was unhelpful to all the work MrX and I had spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Scroll up to the other ANI issue on this page titled "Kim Davis" for my comment to Guy, and read his response, in which he disrespectfully ignores every single point I make; instead of refuting them he simply restates his position. How could an admin behave this way? It doesn't seem possible. Prhartcom (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, Kim Davis is notable on her own (including her life, background, and personal life) and her article cannot be disappeared without an AfD. Just a reminder, folks. We don't disappear articles without AfDs or at the least WP:MERGE proposals, but I'm quite sure if the Kim Davis article were to disappear someone would come along and recreate it, and be well within their rights to. The controversy and litigation can be a separate article if needed. Anyway, that's how I see it. RfCs do not determine these things. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Per the RFC on the page from last month, the community consensus is that we have 1 article. Davis has done nothing personally since then not related to the controversy and so still at this point, any article about Davis will be a WP:PSEUDO-biography of a controversy masquerading as something about a person. Claims that there MUST BE YET ANOTHER AFD are completely baseless.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Kim Davis article was AfDed twice already in the past 40 days (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)) and both of the extensive debates resulted SNOW Keep (and a clear decision against merging into the litigation/controversy article). We cannot override that, personal opinions and non-binding RfCs notwithstanding, without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Back in the day (ahem), two snow keep's in a row would have been regarded as a sacrosanct "final decision", and this is part of why I've been essentially calling shenanigans. We have two hard decisions to keep as you describe, but some editors refuse to stop re-opening this question via various crafty techniques. Then an admin comes along and essentially puts his thumb down on a position in opposition to the double-snow-keep. This. is. maddening. And should alarm anyone who cares deeply about the Misplaced Pages. Stevie is the man! 00:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no matter who does what, the AfDs can't be overridden without a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy that states an AfD can't be overridden by an RfC? Particularly for a merge. Because an RfC is going to get a lot more editors involved than an AfD in most cases. I'm not saying you're wrong but you keep tossing out these rules as though they're some policy that could trump consensus. I ask because merges are done all the time without either an AfD or RfC. Capeo (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, from what I've been seeing these days, for years actually, RfCs usually don't get that much traction, not unless they are about big events (or other big matters) or heavily advertised (for example, via the WP:Village pump). AfDs usually get more attention. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would note that this incident discussion is not about discussing what to do with this particular article. That discussion doesn't belong here. This is about a process that has turned into a clusterfudge of shenanigans. It's not just about this admin. That was just the cherry on top. Stevie is the man! 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is in fact just about this admin, per the heading. We seem to have some disagreement as to how to expand the scope of this thread to a point where no consensus is humanly possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK then, in terms of Fyddlestix's question up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" -- Yes, I do think that's a major problem, and a major mess, especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article. So yeah, I think we have a problem and Guy should step away from the article. One or more admins should step in an ensure the Kim Davis article remains intact, and then sort out the two(?) litigation/controversy articles so they get merged into each other, without interfering with the Kim Davis article. And no, I don't think admins should summarily delete (archive) civil and good-faith questions on their talk pages (multiple questions in this case) -- they should definitely respond to them and be open to feedback and discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was extremely clear that there should only be one article. The AFD was extremely clear that the content merited an article. The AfD close was extremely clear that a discussion on where to keep the content was merited. And it is extremely clear that there are a number of editors going to ludicrous extremes to attempt to keep the extremely clear decisions from being implemented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see a problem in the diffs under "following events" in the OP. What admin action by JzG am I supposed to be seeing? The discussion JzG closed (first diff) is just another argument between those who are familiar with standard procedure and those who like the liberty of writing a BLP regardless of WP:BLP1E. It looks like the "Cool headed admins needed" post by JzG has morphed to #Kim Davis above, but cool-headed admins really are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  John, the Kim Davis article has gone through two AfDs in the past 40 days, and both have closed after lengthy !voting as SNOW Keep and a clear consensus to avoid deleting, merging, or renaming the article. The only way to override that now would be to have a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  What exactly are "cool-headed admins" needed for? Bypassing a consensus? Implementing Jimbo's version of a biography? Quelling an uprising? With the exception of one editor who was topic banned, the discussions have been quite collaborative considering the subject. I'm surprised that you don't see a problem with an admin closing discussions and voting in closely related discussions on the same article. When is it ever acceptable for admins to simply delete requests to explain their actions? Hell, I give IPs, trolls, and spammers better treatment than that. - MrX 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Two replies but no mention of the points I made—no admin action has been identified. This report is based on "conduct as an admin" with a claim of an ADMINACCT problem, yet it appears no admin action has occurred—has a page been deleted? protected? an editor blocked? The ADMINACCT issue is apparently the reversion of two posts at a user's talk page: being disruptive and Your Kim Davis disruption. Hint: if you want to talk about an article, use the article talk page, and if you want to talk to an editor, don't frame it in terms of them being disruptive. Misplaced Pages is open to anyone, so you can do these things if you want, but don't use ANI to whine about your unfounded complaints being archived. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  See where Softlavender sums it up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" ... "especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article". Misplaced Pages is open to everyone, but we also have expectations for how processes work. What we have now is shenanigans that were made a lot worse by this admin. Stevie is the man! 11:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your vacuous comment ""cool-headed admins" really are needed". Closing RfCs and AfDs are admin actions. Hint: actions that occur under the color of admin authority are admin actions. JzG failed to abide by policy which states in plain English "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." - MrX 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Johnuniq, you asked what exactly is the admin action we are objecting to. To answer your question: Inappropriate arbiter behavior. Guy pretended to help us as an arbiter but instead of facilitating us, he attempted to take us in a completely different direction. He had a personal motivation to try out a pet idea of his: to combine the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article. This was an idea that came out of his own head; it was not currently being discussed. That's not what administrators acting as arbiters do. This was no arbiter. Arbiters don't ignore the current formal question, come up with a different scheme, and try to get everyone to follow it instead of the formal question. Yet this is what Guy did. I still can't believe an administrator did this. When I asked him about it, he deleted my question. When I asked him again, bringing up a series of points to him, his response, instead of refuting or accepting each point, was to ignore everything I said and just repeat his scheme to me (see the #Kim Davis section above). His actions are nonconstructive and unhelpful to all the work many of us have spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You appear to have made a single edit at User talk:JzG, namely this comment which has the heading "Your Kim Davis disruption". Was that "When I asked him about it"? Do you often get useful replies after posting a message like that? Re WP:ADMINACCT: My suggestion for the OP would be to read what it says—it starts with "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" (my underline). I still don't see any use of admin tools in regard to this issue—closing an AfD with "Procedural close as merge" did not use admin tools. I will try to not post in this section again because I've said enough—if we engage in back-and-forth it is very unlikely that any new voices will be heard. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, fair point about my note on his talk page. I do have a single question for you, as I do actually need to know at this point: We all know administrators use admin tools. I think administrators are also depended upon to act as arbiters in a discussion. Just because this particular administrator behavior did not involve the use of admin tools, does that mean his behavior is excusable? Prhartcom (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that by now yo have made your position entirely clear. I closed an RfC, and you don't like the outcome. You also don't like the fact that I am trying to draw to a close the filibustering of implementation of that consensus. At this point it might be a good idea for you to stop digging. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, as I suspected, you haven't actually read the complaint I laid out for you. For the last time, I agreed with your closure of the RfC, and I agree with your opinion that the Kim Davis article should be an event, not a biography. For the last time, my complaint was the following behavior: You attempted to take the discussion in a direction that almost no one was discussing (combining the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article) and then you voted on your own idea, revealing that you did this for your own personal reasons instead of facilitate our discussion. You were supposed to be acting as an arbiter. Now do you understand? Prhartcom (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I do not find Fyddlestix's above summary of the situation to be remotely accurate and I don't think the complaint here has any merit. I will explain why. WP:INVOLVED prohibits the use of administrator privileges to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Closing an RfC is not an admin action and per WP:RFC any uninvolved editor can do it. Closing an AfD is usually an admin action, but this was strictly a procedural close that directly resulted from the RfC he closed. A procedural AfD close is not an admin action, nor is it controversial. It's a technical decision rooted in procedure, not any reading of consensus. So, his AfD close was an extension of his RfC close, and both were the result of him acting as an uninvolved editor, and he did not use his administrative tools in any way. Thus the WP:INVOLVED complaint is invalid. Secondly, is the notion that it was somehow inappropriate for him to close the RfC as he was not "uninvolved". This argument has no leg to stand on. First, he was not involved at the time of closing the RfC, and has not attempted to act as an uninvolved editor or uninvolved administrator since involving himself in actual discussion. Second, there were two clearly distinct issues here: He closed an RfC that was trying to determine whether to have one or two articles. He involved himself, after the fact, in a different discussion to determine where exactly the single article should be located at. This is not prohibited in any way. Perhaps starting a poll while a move discussion was ongoing was not the most helpful thing he could have done, but rather than attempt to resolve this concern civilly and in good faith, I see accusations of disruptive editing, bias, administrative abuse, flaunting of consensus, causing damage, and "Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus"—for asking Jimmy Wales for his opinion. In my opinion, this all constitutes a series of unfounded and egregious personal attacks, if not outright harassment. The most likely response that is warranted here, if anything, is a swift WP:BOOMERANG. Swarm ♠ 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you saved me saying exactly that. The reason I asked Jimmy should be obvious: I first got to know Jimmy when I was being attacked for trying to fix a biography that was under attack from off-wiki activists, before I was an admin and before WP:BLP even existed. I'm pretty sure I understand WP:BLP, but in edge cases I will often consult Jimmy, not as "Mr Misplaced Pages" but as someone whose judgement on biographical issues I trust more than anyone else's. It's pretty clear that some people don't like the consensus to have one article. By my reading there are two groups who oppose that, one which wishes to attack Davis as a small-minded bigot, and one which believes her to be the Rosa Parks de nos jours. My advice to both is: walk away and leave it to people who care a lot less about it. Turning the whole thing into a battleground is not making them look good.

I started the title discussion because the RM can't come to a conclusion. It's being held in isolation from the fact of existence of two other articles. There's a consensus to merge to one title, the next step is to decide which title, IMO, and "leave it here" vs. "move it to some other title" does not help with the two other articles; all it does is string the agony out for another few months while people argue at those talk pages, giving them a further opportunity to filibuster the merge.

Anyone who has a better idea of how to fix this mess is more than welcome to pitch in, as I said at the time on this board. There are some editors active on this topic who I think could perhaps do with being forcibly separated from it for a while. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You created the mess by opening an overlapping RM discussion. A couple of editors tried to tell you that you were creating a mess, but we you not only ignored them, you deleted their requests! Another admin can close the RM in a couple of days. If there is no consensus, then propose another RM if you like. But stop closing RfCs and AfDs, and stop posting non-neutral requests for admins to get involved in content disputes. You're obviously involved and have expressed a desired outcome. Know your role.- MrX 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: Your baseless accusations of egregious personal attacks and harassment, and trite appeal to WP:BOOMERANG are repugnant. You analysis of this situation is flawed. WP:INVOLVED doesn't exclusively pertain to admin tool use, nor did I even mention admin tools. WP:INVOLVED does say "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." The five diffs that I listed show an admin closing an RfC; immediately voting in a move request; closing an AfD; seeking involvement from "cool headed admins" (WP:CANVASSING); and finally, disruptively creating a move request, because the current one was not going his way. In that chronological order. As a user with a non-trivial amount of editing experience and basic observational skills, I find this conduct to fall short of what the community expects of admins. How would this behavior fare in an RfA?

You didn't even bother to address the fact the JzG refused to answer requests to explain his actions, and merely deleted the questions from his talk page. Not only does is show a disregard for WP:EQ, but it plainly violates WP:ADMINACCT. JzG added more chaos to a dispute that was moving toward resolution and he seems to have done it with a specific content outcome in mind. It's great that Jimbo Wales agrees with him, but what makes his opinion any more relevant that that of Stevietheman, Prhartcom, Fyddlestix, Softlavender? Here's the last biography that Jimbo created six years ago.- MrX 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, this is a very simple situation; allow me to restate it: The issue is inappropriate administrator/arbiter behavior (nothing to do with administrator tools). It is fine that Guy began acting as an arbiter for us, to help us organize a complicated discussion. It is even fine that he closed discussions for us; we appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator. I happen to agree with Guy's view that the article should be an event instead of a biography. What isn't fine is when the uninvolved administrator then attempts to take the discussion in a completely different direction, one that had almost never been discussed. He said we need to combine two articles: Kim Davis and Miller v. Davis. This was not the current discussion. Guy complicated the current discussion by introducing a pet scheme of his. What kind of administrator complicates a discussion instead of trying to help simplify it? MrX and I have had hard enough time getting the current editors focused on the formal questions; we don't need an authority figure to sweep away the formal question and try to replace it with one of his own, and certainly not for the administrator's own selfish reasons. Now does everyone understand why MrX and I complained about Guy? Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the uninvolved people here have told you that the issue is not inappropriate administrator behaviour, and there is no such concept on Misplaced Pages as "inappropriate arbitor behaviour", your statement is founded on a fundamental error. In fact, as far as I can tell, the real issue is that you don't like the consensus to have a single article and want to re-litigate that debate. That's why you're one of the people I think needs to be forcibly separated from these articles, because I think you have become too emotionally invested in a specific outcome. My suggestion to you is to walk away. It is pretty clear to me by now that, in as much as there is a problem here demanding administrator attention, the problem is you and MrX behaving like angry mastodons. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article. This shows how little you understand me or the fact that we agree on so much otherwise. It looks like you will never admit that you were the one who introduced a complication for your own selfish purposes: the Miller v. Davis article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What "selfish purpose" is this supposed to be? Good grief. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since several uninvolved people here and on the article talk page have pointed out that your conduct was inappropriate on several levels it may be a good idea to actually listen. You might note that Prhartcom and I hold opposing views on how the article should be titled and seem to be far less emotional involved than yourself who went shopping to Jimbo and ANI as soon as it was clear that your choice of outcomes was unlikely. Showing a scintilla of respect for people that you disagree with would also help. - MrX 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate disagreeing with you, Guy, as I noticed we agree on a lot. MrX is right; I wish you would listen and acknowledge instead of just defend and deflect. To answer your question, whatever purpose you had in mind when you introduced that new idea that wasn't being discussed that you had a personal stake in. Anyway, I know you were only trying to help. As a show of good faith, we still need an administrator to close that remaining RM discussion over at the Kim Davis talk page; if you are interested? Or wait a few more days and then close it? Or ask another administrator to close it? Whatever you think. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the dead horse. You have a content dispute that has improperly been raised to the level of ANI through an incorrect attempt to expand INVOLVED way beyond the scope. Being an "arbiter" in a dispute is not an admin action unless you are claiming only admins can act as neutral arbiters and that would be silly.

The only thing I can find to criticize {u|JzG}} for is simply blanking the request to explain things on his talk page. A simple "INVOLVED does not apply here because..." would hopefully have nipped this in the bud. That was his error and I hope he will remember a brief response early on can save pages of drama later. Your error is continuing this thread after several un-involved editors have said that they see nothing wrong. Time to move on. Jbh 13:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As anyone should be able to see, I have extended an olive branch above. I honestly have a question, though: Don't administrators occasionally help decide difficult discussions? Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do but they do that as editors. Admins are, by definition, experienced and trusted editors but there are likely hundreds of experienced and trusted editors who are not admins who I would trust as arbiters in a sticky content dispute before I would trust some admins. Being a neutral arbiter is not part of the admin "package" and INVOLVED only applies to those actions which can only be performed by admins whether due to technical ability, like blocking or page protection, or by policy, like making decisions at WP:AE. Jbh 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining that. I myself often act as an uninvolved arbiter to help others resolve their disputes and I have always wondered if I was out of line for doing so, as I was assuming (incorrectly, you are saying) that the job is normally done by administrators. This explains why Guy said he was there in the capacity of an editor. When he closed discussions for us, ruling/deciphering the consensus, we looked to him as someone who could help us organize some of the chaos that naturally comes from a contentious subject. Then we were disappointed when he actually made the chaos worse; injecting a pet idea of his that wasn't being discussed, almost succeeding in taking the focus away from the formal RM question. I hope this helps explain why we were disappointed in what we felt was "inappropriate" administrator behavior. So, do you think he should not have closed a couple of discussions for us, as he was only there as an editor? Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a judgement call on his part and, as a non-admin, not one I feel comfortable second guessing, particularly without spending more time than I want to to look into the surrounding discussions. Jbh 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• None of the items at the top of this section fall in the category of admin abuse. But maybe JzG needs to be clearer when he's acting an admin and not. It may not be a bad idea for admins to have two IDs, one for admin actions and one as non-admins, to head off this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I didn't open this ANI but I misunderstood Guy's role; I thought he was there to help us get organized after he closed two discussions then came to the third one and asked us for a "show of hands" for a new idea, etc. but I see now that he was acting on the same level as any one of us. He had told us he was there as an editor, but I forgot that when he began behaving as someone with authority. I hope you agree he wasn't really acting like the editor he claimed to be; that's why I asked you that last question. Prhartcom (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to opine as I haven't seen the edits you discuss. Mr.X's list was not disturbing. I'm a non-admin, by the way, and proudly so. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no comment on whether the conduct in question was admin-related or not (it was partially, because he closed the AfD as an admin), however Jzg/Guy recently wrote above "I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article", which is categorically incorrect, because as I've stated more than once here, the Kim Davis article has gone through two extremely recent AfDs which closed with very clear consensuses NOT to be merged into or with a/the article on the controversy. If there were two articles on the controversy (which there were), one of them should be merged into the other. But there should not be one single article created out of those three existing articles. That was the main problem with Guy's actions, past and current. The Kim Davis article cannot be merged, redirected or deleted without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation

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

Thread retitled from "Question re username and userpage".

Could I ask for comments on the username Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (t c) in regards to WP:ISU and WP:IU, please?

Their user page could also need some comments; the two flags are supposedly homemade - rather odd to me is the combination of the Christian flag cross and both Muslin and Jewish symbols. The Star of David on a Rainbow flag is ... hmmm ... perplexing. I have asked for their comment re userpage, but they removed it in this diff with the edit summary "remove bullshit".

I notice that in the article Islam in Scandinavia they created, File:Viking towns of Scandinavia.jpg has been used with the caption "Muslims towns of Scandinavia". The article so far has seen some sourcing challenges giving inflated numbers for Muslim population that don't match those seen in Islam by country. -- Sam Sailor 12:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The user is also edit warring against a bot (reported here) and I'm struggling to get them to understand the concept of verifiability and the importance of reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: personally I don't think it violates WP:ISU as it's probably not shared. I definitely think it could be classed as inappropriate given the articles they've been editing and Cordless Larry's comment above. samtar 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the note. it is not a name of an organisation i know about Misplaced Pages:Username policy i just made it up. the name basically is to show my Contributions willing to Misplaced Pages. which is about Semitic-Germanic cultural heritage, Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc. that explain the Star of David on a Germanic flag--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation - given what you've said, would it be fair to assume you meet many of the single purpose account criteria? You may wish to read the advice given to SPA accounts here. A good piece of advice there would be "If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbor a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama." Thanks samtar 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

i do have some interest in the Semitic culture Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc but i also do have interest in other topics, so it is just a name based on the famous (Holy state of the Germanic Nation) which itself is an inappropriate name given they relate them self's (the Germanic) to an unrelated culture! i know it is funny but in the Misplaced Pages article it is included.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: The word "interest" in the above context does not mean interest as in things you like. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

i know.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

are you sure your name is not an WP:IU?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: Initially I was able to create my account on the English Misplaced Pages but not French and German because the username violated the username blacklist on those Wikipedias. However, the blacklist has been deprecated. I'm sure quite a few experienced users have seen my username and don't appear to have any problems with it. Also, it doesn't suggest any affiliation with Misplaced Pages or the WMF. We are all "Wikipedians". That's the term for someone who edits Misplaced Pages, and does not suggest official affiliation (especially with the words "The Average" added preceding the word "Wikipedian"). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

whether or not that username is inherently problematic, the user name combined with that user's edits are a pretty solid sign that they are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation was blocked by Bbb23 last night for breaking the 3RR at Islam in Scandinavia, and then a few hours later an IP started making the same reverts, with edit summaries such as "hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh very funny jokes hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i had a nice laught" and "nigga plz". The article is now protected. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation has now created Judaism in Scandinavia and is displaying exactly the same behaviour there by reverting my removal of unsourced population estimates, addition of maintenance templates and removal of an irrelevant map. Pinging Sam Sailor, Bbb23, The Average Wikipedian and TheRedPenOfDoom. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and has now taken to trolling my user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

oh really not here to build an encyclopedia, than why i created three 3 articles in less than 3 days?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Arabic name for "Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation" is الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية. That is written on the userpage User:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation and was displayed in both the flags the user uploaded to Commons, now deleted at File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg and File:מדינה אסלאמית קדושה של האומה הגרמנית.jpg. I bounced this off of an Iraqi friend of mine (mainstream Shia Turkman), who said the name could, as indicated by the user above, be a play on the Arabic name for the Holy Roman Empire (الإمبراطورية الرومانية المقدسة), but that it also gives associations to

1. Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation, and
2. Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية‎ المقدسة, "Holy/Sacred Islamic State"),

and that it in any case leaves the impression of someone who, allow a direct quote, "could be either a radical with an agenda that serves Islam no good, or could be someone trolling to give Islam a bad reputation."

The user has added the acronym ISGN to their talk page. It is possibly a coincidental spoofing of Islamic Society of Greater Nassau, but nevertheless further implies shared use, WP:ISU, and their use of File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg in article space as quote "Muslims Swedish adherents symbol" (Diff of Islam in Sweden and Diff of Islam in Sweden) suggests a breach of WP:GROUPNAME.

Personally I have a hard time seeing why this username would not be considered disruptive and/or misleading, cf. WP:IU. -- Sam Sailor 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor concerned has been blocked for a second time after I reported them for edit warring, but shows no sign of acknowledgement that they are in the wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor has been engaging in block evasion over at the Commons. See this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block on the grounds of persistent edit warring, block evasion, abuse of multiple acounts and likely NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree indef block. --Achim (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen has now blocked the user indefinitely. Thanks, all, for helping to deal with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain. My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here). I made a paid edit to Plaza Hotel which is a page that Beyond My Ken is clearly passionate about. He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done. I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels) as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work. I feel that Beyond My Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about. I have posted over 30 Paid Page Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Beyond My Ken did...and as a new paid editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Misplaced Pages Community which comply with Misplaced Pages's style and content guidelines. I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Beyond My Ken to leave them alone. With Plaza Hotel, I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed (and I repeat my preference to engage him instead of going through these sorts of processes).

While there are 30+ pages that Beyond My Ken reverted, the two most recent were Peace_Hotel and Swissôtel_The_Stamford so those are the ones I would like to put at issue here. Blueberry Hill (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines for those with financial conflicts of interest state that "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles" (emphasis is in the original). To reduce the chance of future misunderstandings, it would help to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueberry Hill It is a good idea is to check the links you create. Beyond My Ken does not go to BMK's page nor does it ping him. Next since this Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hotel Paid Edits w.2F Disclosure was declined this new thread smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not forum shopping; the editor was told to bring it to ANI first ; see also User talk:Blueberry Hill discussion about not starting with arbcom. NE Ent 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes my mistake and I have struck the comment. OTOH you should not be altering your posts on BMK's talk page as you did here. Place a new notice rather than altering an old one is the proper way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of Blueberry Hill's edits and concur that most, but perhaps not all of them should be reverted. Here are some of the problems: First, Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Adding a plethora of restaurant listings and amenities falls afoul of that rule. Use summary style, and describe amenities and restaurants with as concisely as possible. Second, the wording on many of the edits was indeed highly promotional. While some wordings are commonly used for travel brochures, they are simply too charged or too trite for an encyclopedia: for example, on Banff Springs Hotel, phrasings like "beautiful wilderness", "spectacular settings", "luxury dining experience", "authentic" – that goes too far. Even in some cases that avoid using promotional wordings, the intent is still clearly to persuade the reader, which is the goal of an advertisement, rather than to inform the reader, which should be the purpose of an encyclopedia. Example, on Hotel Macdonald : "Travelers who miss their own dogs while away from home can take the hotel's dog along for walks and companionship." Yes, that might be true and might be greatly comforting, but it is still trying to persuade that the canine will make the hotel a more comforting experience. That kind of slant of slant just isn't permissible.

So, moving forward. Paid editors can play a valuable role for Misplaced Pages. Articles become outdated, and mere updates of room counts or ownership is perfectly acceptable. But paid editors who persist in trying to give articles a promotional slant will run into stiff resistance. Blueberry Hill, I would suggest you read some neutral, non-promotional examples of hotel articles before moving forward: Renaissance Blackstone Hotel would be a good start. If possible, it's easier to write neutrally about the history of a hotel rather than its amenities. Altamel (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from Blueberry Hill's latest contribution :

The 5-star hotel offers 1,261 luxurious rooms and suites, 15 restaurants and bars, access to the Raffles City Convention Centre, and one of Asia's largest Spas. ... Swissôtel The Stamford offers 15 food and beverage outlets including the Equinox Complex, which offer a wide range of cuisines, and settings from casual to elegant. ... JAAN, Level 70 – Serving a distinctive menu of artisanal French cuisine by Chef de Cuisine Kirk Westaway. JAAN was Ranked No. 11 on Asia's 50 Best Restaurants list 2015, and Ranked No. 74 on the S. Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants List 2015 ... ... One of Asia's largest spas, the Willow Stream Spa, featuring relaxation lounges, pools, whirlpools, steam and sauna rooms. The spa offers 35 treatment rooms total, including three couples suites with private Jacuzzi and aromatherapy steam rooms.

This is not WP:NPOV writing, this is not encyclopedic writing, this is not even good writing, this is the writing of a PR flack, solely promotional in tone and purpose. Since Blueberry Hill appears to be incapable of writing in a way that is appropriate to Misplaced Pages, I stand by my request that he only request edits on hotel article talk pages, and not edit directly any hotel article. We could, of course, go through every one of his edits to clean up after him, to convert the above into something resenbling:

The hotel offers 1,260 rooms and suites and many bars and restaurant, as well as access to the Raffles City Convention Center. It has a complete spa, which includes lounges, pools, whirlspools and steam, sauna and treatment rooms.

but it's not our job to be Blueberry Hill's personal copyeditors, it's his job (literally) to write in a manner acceptable to us. BMK (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the (collective) feedback and this is very helpful. What I'm trying to accomplish and what I ask for is the opportunity to give you pages that are acceptable to this collective group (and any others who might be interested in these topics). I'm comfortable I can do this (and by being public with this issue, I know you're paying attention to me). Would you collectively look upon my future work on these page based purely upon their merits and not based upon something that you previously objected to and not based upon the fact that I'm being a paid editor (and FYI, I've never done PR in my life).? Blueberry Hill (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is useful for some things, but hashing out the wording of edits across multiple articles is not one of them. The accepted procedure is to use the relevant article's talk page and request edits (there's even a handy template). Again, I strongly encourage you to read Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing and follow the procedures described there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to hash out wording here...I'm just looking to be judged fairly and objectively if I attempt to incorporate your feedback. Blueberry Hill (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All of your edits have been judged on their merits, or lack thereof. BMK (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The wisest option is to propose what you wish to include in the article on the talk page and let other editors dissect the text and distill out anything that might violate WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. You should definitely include any sources that such text would come from. Blackmane (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistance for Blueberry Hill

Blueberry Hill, in the interests of moving things along, you are welcome to an offer of help from me—not indefinitely, but to get you in the right direction. When you have placed your proposed text on the relevant article talk page, you are welcome to ping me using {{ping|Sladen}} and we can go over and WP:NPOV what you've done. If you would like help and are willing to learn, then we'll probably have a solution. —Sladen (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) And if an understanding of WP:NPOV doesn't come naturally, BMK et al will probably revert you again, and you'll end up back here again.

A good way to start is this: (1) Write your copy offline. (2) Delete all the adjectives. (3) Post the result on the article talk page as your proposed text. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. BMK (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to that suggestion. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed Swissôtel The Stamford down to the facts and awards with reliable sources. It no longer reads like a brochure. Trimmed Peace Hotel similarly. There remains a "happy talk" problem. At least three people have died falling from the Swissôtel The Stamford since 2013. Somehow the paid editor didn't mention that, even though that's what you find if you look for independent reliable sources. This is the other side of the COI editing problem - omitting the bad news. John Nagle (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No Assistance for Blueberry Hill

I happened to look a bit into the Plaza Hotel, one of User:Blueberry Hill's clients, when writing Oak Room (Plaza Hotel). The institution is now a shell and shadow of its former self, being converted largely to condos many of which are always empty (holding unused multi-million dollar condos is normal for Russian, Saudi, etc. billionaires I gather). The storied Oak Room itself had to be shut down because entitled "douchebags" (not my words) were out of control and wrecking the place. These, I think, are useful and cogent facts which ought to be added to added the article to help the reader answer the question "what is this entity".

Is User:Blueberry Hill going to add this material? No of course not. Is he going to suggest these changes on the talk page? No of course not.

My experience is that User:Blueberry Hill is going to elide all these facts. In theory then other editors are going to take time to check the material very thoroughly, take the time not to just to check the refs to ensure that they're accurate but to take the hours or days necessary to extensively research the entity exhaustively to determine if balancing material has been left out -- that we are not lying by omission.

Is this going to happen? Not in my experience it's not. More likely some editor will come along and at most check the refs for accuracy, be like "looks good to me", post it, and Bob's your uncle, for User:Blueberry Hill.

Why this happens is complicated. Here're some reasons: with User:Blueberry Hill, we have to assume bad faith -- nothing personal, User:Blueberry Hill, its just an effect of your profession that of course people are going to look at your statements with skepticism -- but we are very much in the habit of not doing that because of our community commitment to assuming good faith on the part of editors in good standing.

In addition, people here like to be helpful generally: "Sure, I'll post this for you". In addition, there are editors who think it's ridiculous that we don't allow commercial editing and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. There are editors who think rules against commercial editing are unenforceable and it is unfair to punish people who abide by the bright line rule and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. And of course there are libertarians who will post the material for ideological reasons. There's certainly no rule against backrubbing (you post my PR material to which you have no attachment and no COI and I'll do the same for you). So there're a lot of reasons why, sorry, this is a poor solution.

As an alternative, I'd suggest indef blocking User:Blueberry Hill on WP:NOTHERE grounds or whatever other grounds you like. I don't want him here and he doesn't belong here, period. I don't give a damn if he contributes to Mike Napoli or whatever. So do I. The difference is, I'm not corrupt and I don't hack into the Misplaced Pages database to damage it for my own personal financial gain (which is what I consider commercial editing to be). That's a big difference.

You're the admin corps. You're supposed to protect the Misplaced Pages It's simple: get rid of him and people like him whenever, wherever, and however discovered. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus, hopefully the more positive approach is to offer a limited amount of guidance and support to Blueberry Hill, during which they can choose to make the most of it and contribute according to policy, or other remedies can be looked at. Education opportunity and carrots are much better in the long run than brute force and sticks. Lets presume WP:AGF (per Misplaced Pages's policies, and regardless of presumptions of WP:COI or not). As yet, I believe we're waiting upon Blueberry Hill's request for review of their next draft/proposed changes. —Sladen (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan myself, but WP:ROPE would seem to apply. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The last edit from Blueberry Hill (talk · contribs) was on 11 October 2015. The articles involved have been cleaned up by others. Their edit at Plaza Hotel was totally undone, with the edit comment "Nope", and they didn't try again. None of those hotel articles need much attention; they're all historic hotels with their long histories documented in Misplaced Pages. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a need to do anything here. John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Lipsquid edit warring just short of WP:3RR with very personal application of WP:RS principles

This editor insisted that a paragraph in the lead section of Flat Earth about the myth of the flat Earth had to be removed because the source cited came from an advocacy group, so he removed it once, twice and then a third time. Then they stopped short of a fourth edit, possibly knowing from past incidents that people aren't meant to edit war.

The content problem with their edits was that the article has a whole section about the topic the paragraph he removed discusses, and there is even a separate article about it, both containing many more sources than the single one given in the lead that they considered too biased (let's keep in mind that the lead section doesn't really need references for things profusely cited in the article body).

The reason I am still concerned about the editor's attitude and am reporting it here even though the dispute may (or may not) have settled down is that in the talk page discussion, they insisted about being entitled to edit out content with valid references, just because the references were quoted from URLs belonging to advocacy groups - even though they accepted the very same references when quoted from elsewhere (same text from the same public speech at the very same advocacy group, just, quoted from veritas-ucsb.org instead of asa3.org).

Let me stress again that the paragraph in question really doesn't need references because it's part of the lead section (with good reason) and there is a profusion of references in the relevant section and separate article. At this point I really want to know whether I am to be disagreed with about this view. If not, then I think it's important that Lipsquid understand their edits are not in the encyclopedia's best interest as there seem to have been several potentially similar verging-on-edit-wars incidents.

LjL (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I note this older edit where the editor proclaims in the edit summary that "You can't delete sourced material and those statements" (which isn't correcct, of course, but that's not the point), yet he had no problem deleting multiply-sourced material this time just because of technical reasons, i.e. (I quote) "is not my job to fix the sources of the logically challenged". I find it hard to assume good faith with these plain contradictions. LjL (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That is all you have to say? Usually people reported on AN/I actually defend themselves from claims made in a report against them. clpo13_(talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Defend myself from what? "edit warring just short of WP:3RR"? I wouldn't think I need to defend myself for not breaking a rule. Another editor fixed the source, I thanked them and have not made an edit since. What I am defending against? Lipsquid (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You could have just said that. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR is just a bright-line rule, as it states itself. You have engaged in an edit war, and I'm absolutely concerned with your continuing attitude about it. The other editor didn't "fix the source", he left the source unchanged, and merely gave a different URL to the same source (same text by the same author). You, on the other hand, had removed the whole paragraph three times because you didn't like that particular website. That is concerning. LjL (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A bright-line rule I did not cross. It seems you don't know what bright-line means? Are there any more accusations you would like to make for rules I did not break? Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would simply like to point out that edit warring is prohibited (I quote: " if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited"), whether or not you cross the WP:3RR threshold, something you certainly knew. Also, thank you for promptly removing your strange accusation that I was "whining". LjL (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not say it was strange. I am sure Admins have something better to do than have people file requests for assistance against people who haven't broken any rules, without first making any dispute resolution attempts themselves. That seems like whining to me. Maybe I should file an ANI against you because I find your indiscriminate use of ANI's when you can't define a rule that was broken troubling and maybe you should be sanctioned.. Lipsquid (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Another bogus ANI filing by LjL today. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out. While 3rr is a bright line which if you cross usually results in a block, there is nothing to stop admins from assessing that edit warring is occurring and blocking the involved parties. Blocks have been levied on editors even when only 2 reverts have been performed. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This problem is a non-problem. LjL opens ANIs against anything he doesn't like without making any attempt at resolution, as evidenced in my case and as evidenced here which is completely out of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I broke no rules and he likes to make controversy where this is none. He dug up all kinds of other nonsense about things that happened in the past and all were related to one user, Signedzzz, which I am sure administrators are unfortunately all too aware of who Signedzzz is and how he operates. How about a warning to LjL for opening frivolous ANIs without making an attempt at what the rest of us consider normal resolution methods? Lipsquid (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have applied normal resolution methods in the form of an extensive talk page discussion where you didn't seem to indicate understanding that your style of editing was inappropriate, but in fact re-asserted it was "perfect". LjL (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are so great with dispute resolution that is why all your childish ANI requests get closed. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up without commentary:

It seems LjL thinks he is above WP:HOUNDING After the incident on Flat Earth (which I have avoided and not edited since the filing nor will I be editing), he seems to have magically decided to make his first reverts and move the chaos to & Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"First reverts"? What are you talking about? I've been reverting countless edits on many articles. I also had started participating in the Laffer curve-related debates before this ANI. I am also pretty much entitled to see if someone who, in my opinion, is breaking policy (such as edit warring) in one place is doing the same in other places - that's not WP:HOUNDING, in fact it's explicitly mentioned there as not being. Note also WP:AOHA please. LjL (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is by definition WP:HOUNDING "This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight"..."The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Back off, I have made no reverts to Flat Earth and I have stayed away from any of your edits. Move along.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of your quotes is the case here. LjL (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Then prove it by moving along... Lipsquid (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan - Failure to respect RM closure and advice

Although I a loath to bring this to ANI I will not enter into an edit war with User:DrKiernan over this. The article Foreign Affairs was subject to an RM initiated by User:In ictu oculi on 3 Sept. That RM was closed by User:Cuchullain on Oct 1 as No Consensus. User DrKiernan supported the move. On Oct 2, DrKiernan initiated another RM. I closed that RM on Oct 10 as not moved because there was no consensus to do so. DrKiernan initiated a WP:Move review . On Oct 12, DrKiernan unsuccessfully attempted to close the MR after three editors had endorsed my close. . On Oct 12 DrKiernan initiated a new RM in direct contravention to my advice in the previous RM that editors wait six months before initiating another RM. Another editor in the Oct 12 RM suggested a speedy close. I closed the RM with the following comment "Closed per not so subtle suggestion in previous RM - Article is moved protected for 6 months" and subsequently move protected the article for 6 months. I notified DrKiernan on his talk page of my close . Within 3 minutes of my close DrKiernan reverted my close as if it had never occurred showing zero respect for the Admin decision. I have notified editors mentioned here on their talk pages. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made no edits to this article. There's nothing wrong in opening a discussion on a talk page, or bringing new evidence to that talk page to inform the discussion. Move-protection is over-kill; the page has only been moved twice in the last ten years and never by me. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am uninvolved. I closed the RM, as process appeared to have taken place already. Agree with you on the lack of need for move-protection and have reverted to autoconfirmed. -- Samir 18:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Samir. Mike is right: 3 move requests and a move review in less than two weeks is extreme; we're just not going to come to a consensus that quickly. Revert warring on talk pages is still revert warring; DrKiernan needs to step back and chill, stat. As for the merits of the RMs, wait six months and we'll revisit then, there's no particular rush.--Cúchullain /c 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• At Misplaced Pages talk:Move review#A withdraw that is a biased involved close contrary to the consensus of the discussion I have challenged User:DrKiernan's close of the review discussion. He clearly didn't like the way the review was going, closed it without reference to the discussion, and proceeded to act contrary to the sentiments of the review discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have boldly reclosed the MR with a procedural close which is the common result of a move review in cases like this where the initiator withdraws or another RM or similar discussion is started elsewhere. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• No one has mentioned that Kiernan is an admin and that therefore Move Protect would have been ineffective anyway. It seems clear (to me at least) from the above discussion and my read of the various RM discussions that Mike Cline was acting appropriately, the discussions were assessed correctly by Cúchullain, Samir, and Mike Cline. It looks therefore that the MR discussion is heading for endorsement and that Kiernan acting contrary to the closures is abusing the level of responsible behaviour and/or judgement vested in him at his RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably because no one wanted to point out that move-protecting a page an admin wants to move against consensus makes the line clear where abuse of admin rights kicks in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible tag teaming

I would like some advice as to whether the following counts as tag teaming, and if so how I can establish whether the behaviour is acceptable or not. On five occasions during discussions with User:No More Mr Nice Guy, the same uninvolved editor User:Bad Dryer has entered out of nowhere to revert my revert.

(1) Diffs at Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine:

• 22:21, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:57, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (13,042 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 18:07, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (attribute)

(2) Diffs at Template:Palestinian_territory_development:

• 22:11, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (it has been discussed before, but I don't see consensus for you version.)
• 21:46, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (2,648 bytes) (+554) . . (Undid revision 664591161 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) this has been discussed before. you need consensus for this)
• 17:52, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (removing this map for multiple issues including NPOV and RS, see talk shortly)

(3) Diffs at United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine:

• 22:23, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:56, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (96,712 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 07:38, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (/* United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) */ attribute)

(4) Diffs at British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument):

• 22:50, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (80,739 bytes) (+71) . . (/* Transjordan */ attribution is (possibly) needed, but this text hews closer to the source, and is more detailed and accurate.)
• 21:09, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (80,668 bytes) (-97) . . (attributing to Feith, tracking his view more closely, and removing Bentwich statement taken out of context)
• 00:37, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (80,765 bytes) (-4) . . (/* Background and negotiations */ per source. how the source's "there was never any question" changed to "to many observers it seemed" is anyone's guess.)

(5) Diffs at One_Million_Plan:

• 22:56, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (per WP:BRD - wait for consensus before adding this material again)
• 22:27, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (30,402 bytes) (+574) . . (Undid revision 685444238 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) I have read your talk comment. This is impeccably sourced. Your comment is both WP:OR and wrong. See talk shortly.)
• 22:11, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (rv. see talk page shortly)

I am sure there is a good reason, but in my five years editing here I have never seen such coordination.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: None of the 4-5 month old edits of his Oncenawhile mentions above has actually stuck. That in itself should tell you something. And neither will the one he made today. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

They all stuck - they were all reverts of edits you had made that were later agreed on talk to be wholly or partially inappropriate. (5) is ongoing. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. You snuck the map past me with a misleading edit summary that made me assume you were putting another map in there per the talk page discussion. Good one. I'll be sure not to fall for that again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Try looking closer. It is a different map, from an impeccable source, but with the same data, so your well-poisoning was averted. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So your edit didn't stick after all. You had to change the article per my concerns, not per your revert. Glad we got that cleared up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. But this tangent might never end if one of us doesn't stop. I hereby allow you the WP:LASTWORD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, User:Bad Dryer was the editor who caused User:Malik Shabazz to retire. (Bad Dryer was for a while blocked as a Nocal100-sock, but then unblocked.) Draw your own conclusions, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There must be some secret cabal. Maybe we can close this and assist them with a cover up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

She was not implying a cabal, she was reminding Malik's friends there's unfinished business here. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile please accept my apology. I had actually misread this while tired. I had actually mistaken that No Mr nice Guy had brought this case against you. Viewing it as such this looked a bit frivolous. As such allow me to strike my sarcastic comments.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• WJBscribe made a comment here not so long ago. Perhaps it's time to give his prophesy some serious consideration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd Editing

This is a strange bit of editing. User:Jandown and User:Desklin appear to be the same person. This history of Jandown shows them going through and deleting archived comments of other editors. Likely one of the comments is related to this user. Desklin also changed the name on some of Jandown's edits to be Desklin. Perhaps someone that is more used to handling SPI cases can take a look. Arzel (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The two talk pages have been notified, here and here. Arzel (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway. Erpert 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And ANI is here. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strange indeed. I reverted a few edits where Jandown had messed with an archive. Desklin has been adding questions to an archive that were asked at a refdesk and removed here, by Baseball Bugs. Perhaps BB can shed some light on this matter. Yes, Arzel, odd, and worth another look, though not (just) necessarily from an SPI perspective--but it's a bit late here. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Desklin is a sock of an editor who has been bothering the RD for a while, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. I think this was obvious to most regulars at the RD. Edit: And I remember now that I left a hint on the the WT:RD then a week or two later someone else brought it up. So I've been removing any of their contribs which haven't had replies on sight. (I've left those with replies given the history of concern over such removals.)

I probably should have filed an SPI, but first I was hoping the reversions with convince them to at least abandon this account (and they did seem to disappear for a while, but they are often irregular), or that one of the admin regulars would block them. Also recently BWH2 semed to have taken to serial sockpuppetry (perhaps with a very odd IP or two) meaning a checkuser didn't do much. Edit2: In fact, I remember now that the hint I left was at a discussion where someone complained about the editor being blocked by an RD regular based on behaviour, without a CU although after an SPI. Which may not have helped encourage such IMO very useful blocks, not that I'm faulting admins for not blocking without an SPI, whatever the case.

I don't think I noticed Jandown, or may be I did but just reverted or ignored the edits on the RD and didn't check the history, can't remember for sure. Edit2: Their Jandown account does suggest CUs may be useful, although it looks like it was only created after they were bugged enough by me and I think others deleting or reverting their contribs. So if the SPI had been filed and CU run early enough it also would have come up fruitless.

Deleting archived comments, normally IIRC replies to their questions which they didn't seem to like for whatever reason is another historic behaviour of BWH2 although I don't think they've shown that for a while, at least AFAIK.

BWH2 also has a history of causing some problems on the encyclopaedia proper, mostly in creating useless redirects, but also sometimes in questionable edits to articles. Although when I checked Desklin's edits to the encyclopaedia proper, many of them didn't seem so bad so I left them, even if I technically could have reverted all. Last time I checked which was over a month ago, I did revert any that seemed inappropriate although IIRC most were minor.

P.S. Just checked the history SPI history which confirmed most of my memory. P.S. 2 Seems they tried to delete this discussion . Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I've seen enough. They're the same--their way of editing the refdesks is exactly the same--and they're not doing anything useful here. There's a couple of useless redirects and then a bunch of messing around in those archives. Nil Einne, feel free to start reverting those edits. I'm going to block for NOTHERE, and whatever the kids at SPI wanna do is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 and soap articles

Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) has made a large number of requests for page protection, (eg: , , , , , ) all of which are on soap opera characters, and most of which have had barely any edits this month and hence in my view do not meet the semi protection guidelines. The apparent cause of this, according to Cebr1979, is that a single editor has been undertaking slow-moving disruption (their words, not mine) across many articles, as documented here. A look through 172.0.210.68 (talk · contribs)'s contributions though, suggests to me that this is a good-faith editor and if there was any problem, I think it would be WP:COMPETENCE related. Therefore Cebr1979's protection requests are disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. What should we do? Ritchie333 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have anything to do right now. Between your post at 0:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) and your request above, Cebr1979 hasn't resumed the disruption. So, since he hasn't continued the problem, I don't know why you think admins need to step in and use their tools. Give him a chance to actually do the right thing before demanding Admins step in... --Jayron32 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting blocking or anything, rather it seems this issue has been going on in various places over the past few weeks, and it's probably a good time to bring it to a central place to get some more views. I realise it's a bit odd to have an ANI thread when I just want a discussion, but there you go. Ritchie333 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, there is absolutely no disruption from me. I have been in contact with many admins about this guy (something you know because you linked to one of the conversations yourself) and, you are wrong. This is not a good faith editor, it is a sockpuppet using multiple different IPs to make his nonsense edits. I'm not going to bother explaining the situation to you since you can't be bothered to take two seconds to look it up (even though you claim to have "looked through..." like, I just don't even know). Some of those IPs have been blocked for nonsense edits/vandalism and you definitely knew that before you came here so, common sense should have dictated there is more to this story you are clearly unaware of (especially when you were actually aware of it because this conversation was right there in front of you and there's no way you didn't see it). The next time you have an issue with something, my advice to you would be to ask some questions instead of immediately running around to the nearest place you can to instantly cause some drama. I'm not talking to you anymore.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When I said I wasn't talking to you anymore, Ritchie, I hadn't seen this yet. Don't you EVER come to my talk page and put something back I have removed. EVER. You wanna talk about disruption? Go read talk page policies. I don't wanna see you at my talk page again. I shouldn't need to be schooling administrators on how wikipedia works.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, since you don't want drama, what is your suggestion for dealing with this problem? Given the range of IP addresses you list here, I don't know if a range block would be useful. Let's try to resolve the underlying problem rather than the symptoms of too many page protection requests. Liz 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I have already linked to conversations I've had about this guy (there are many more but, now I just don't see the point in even trying). You and I even (indirectly) had a conversation about him on my talk page just days ago. I have already attempted everything under the sun I can think of and it's gotten me nowhere. If you have suggestions, feel free to toss them out.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at a random sample, I see a whole bunch of editors getting angry and upset at IPs on their talk pages, and a random spot-check of them here, here and here reveals a completely clean block log. To pargraphase Willard Duncan Vandiver, "you gotta show me". Where is this disruption? I think if you keep raising frivolous requests to WP:RFPP (all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins) somebody's going to think about ways we can keep the backlog down a bit. Ritchie333 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins"

You couldn't be more wrong, Ritchie. I had already decided to stop fixing this guy's mistakes. Let him have his free reign. This is just too much of a headache.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of RFPP I can see Ged UK and Ymblanter also declined some of your recent RPP requests and I see KrakatoaKatie had a word with you about this yesterday. So that would seem to justify my view that multiple admins have addressed this. I was really hoping we'd get to the bottom of who the IPs are, possibly someone that an admin reading this would know about, but I guess not. Ritchie333 16:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you were not! You're just changing your tune now! Re-read your original post right here in this thread. You defended this guy. You were not trying to get to the bottom of anything involving him.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and KrakatoaKatie actually approved every single one she looked at so, again... "all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins???" You just proved you knew what you said was false when you said it. I'm off for the day. Have a god one! Cebr1979 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Cebr1979, since we're having this discussion here, here's my take on this: Yes, the person who is doing this is a disruptive force, and should be reverted. However, given the low-level of disruption (a few edits a month, at what I am looking at), there's nothing we should do to pre-empt this. That is, page protection is used only when the level of disruption is so rapid or high volume that we can't keep up by reverting. This level of disruption can be managed quite easily by simply reverting and blocking if necessary. Simply: this level of disruption does not merit page protection, by our protection policy. Now that you've been informed of this, please do not continue to make protection requests which you have been informed will not be acted on; you've also been explained to why they have not been acted upon, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Just keep up the good fight, keep reverting this person, and we're sorry that we can't do more to stop them; except maybe a range-block, if that is feasible. Page protection cannot be done because the potential for collateral damage against good-faith editors outweighs the need to stop this one person. --Jayron32 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Jayron32: As you've already pointed out, I've already done all of that and I had already done all of that before Ritchie came here.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hours and hours before...Cebr1979 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I got you. I'm just trying to be unambiguous. So long as you've stopped, we're good here. --Jayron32 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Jayron32: Read this conversation please (which I have already linked to) and you'll see there is nothing "low-level" about it. This guy's a pro.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • That article in that discussion has been edited (5 times by IP addresses in 2015) is about as low-level as you can get. Now, that doesn't mean this person doesn't need to be stopped, nor does it mean their disruption is to be ignored. It's just that protection is the wrong tool for it. 5 edits in 1 year does not need protection to stop. --Jayron32 16:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Jayron32: The article in that discussion is irrelevant. I asked you to read the discussion itself (which you clearly haven't done).Cebr1979 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Mauna22: Please don't delete comments made by me (or anyone else) as you did here.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Sorry about that. It was an accident. Mauna22 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • I had read the discussion already. We're clearly not even discussing the same point here. You're saying the person against whom you're requesting protection is a disruptive problem, and needs to be stopped. I am agreeing with you. You also keep trying to use protection to stop them. I am letting you know that protection is not the correct solution to this problem. That is all. I don't need to be repeated told by you to agree with you when I already have on the points you're demanding that I agree with you on. We're still not going to protect hundreds of articles that get edited once every few months. --Jayron32 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                • You're right, we are not discussing the same thing here. You said he was a "low-level of disruption" and I was correcting you.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, I said there was a low level of disruption to that page. I was discussing the article, you were discussing the person. I think we're good here. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Jayron32 18:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've found it - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 - that was all I was really asking for. Ritchie333 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So I looked down this rabbit hole when I stumbled upon these RFPP requests last night (and I think the night before or something), but from what I can tell, it goes deep—so deep, I just went to bed instead of deal with it. Still, it looks like this might be LTA from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 that's spread across numerous IP ranges. They're all soap-opera-related articles, and they're usually mobile-web edits. If you peruse the following categories, you'll likely find instances of characteristic edits from the SPI user (some benign), which seem to have kicked up starting a little under a year ago:

• Category:General_Hospital_characters
• Category:One_Life_to_Live_characters
• Category:The_Young_and_the_Restless_characters
• Category:Coronation_Street_characters
• Category:EastEnders_characters
• Category:Days_of_Our_Lives_characters

This encompasses thousands of articles, so protecting them all likely isn't feasible. If I were to guess, the user has a true "home" ISP with Comcast but possibly travels frequently and/or largely contributes with an iPad anyway (most frequently with 166.173.0.0/16, so AT&T-US, but some appearances in other countries). The edits are disproportionately mobile web and usually revolve around changing template parameters related to sibling/parent/family crap (or trivial name changes), and will long-term edit war over them.

Furthermore, this is a recurring theme with mobile IPs. Given the ubiquity of devices, the relative ease with which they can be used to evade blocks and reassign IPs (even unintentionally), and the lack of responsiveness from abuse departments, it's clear that obsessed users—and make no mistake, this is a case of obsession—can make it difficult to effectively prevent disruption (or even get in contact with them). I'm starting to think AO+ACB blocks for mobile ranges are increasingly in order in cases like this. Even when trying to get in touch with an IP, the chances are exceptionally good that by the time a message is dropped on their talk page, they've already been assigned a new public ip (so they'll never even see it). Alternatively, we could re-evaluate the idea of per-page blocks (a WP:PEREN) but solely in the context of ip-range blocks in cases of severe abuse.

Regardless, not quite sure the best course of action in this instance.

--slakr 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also @Cebr1979: I strongly agree with the others that repeatedly adding a bunch of pages on WP:RFPP is a bad idea. This sort of cross-page issue is better to raising here with an explanation and history of what you've experienced (or on WP:SPI). It might end up requiring a unique solution or simply more people watching the range of articles (if there's nothing else that's easily doable and/or willing to be done), so raising the issue here is more likely to provide diversified inputs. RFPP is more for one-off requests where a specific page or two is the problem (e.g., Penis being vandalized or people edit warring on a couple articles)—not dozens of articles or a whole category. :P Broad, sweeping actions, including protecting a large number of pages (if they're needed) are better suited for discussion here. --slakr 01:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed contentious page move (again)

User:Film Fan continues to move articles that could potentially controversial moves (ignoring WP:RM#TR). I previously raised this at ANI and he was warned not to do this by admin User:Number 57. This now continues with the page move for Felix and Meira which includes this edit to prevent it being reverted (exactly the thing Number 57 warned him against). Please can this be moved back to the title pre-move (happy for a WP:RM to be logged, if needed).

Recently he moved the article for Point Break only for that to be reverted at a WP:RM raised. FF already has a long block history for edit warring over posters being uploaded and knows the WP:RM process, as this has been pointed out to him several times. I see this as being contined disruptive behaviour. Thanks. Lugnuts 08:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked a week for this. clpo13_(talk) 08:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editing the redirect is simply inexcusable, and Number 57 wasn't the only admin who warned him against that. I've blocked Film Fan for a week, but I think he might need explicit sanctions. He seems to be practically allergic to collaboration. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts 08:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: User has a block log a mile long, including an indef exactly two years ago, which was rescinded after 11 months because "User has made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block", but he was re-blocked 5 months later for edit-warring. I think we may be looking at a site ban if problems continue. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).

In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see and ). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.

I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.

This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see ).

This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosh,

you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI . The key points back then, remain the same now:

1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.

I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCM_email 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.

PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, accusing me of having a battleground mentality is an extremely offensive personal attack. I let it slide when you presented the case here, but no more (i.e., stop). I also encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG, specifically:

Moreover, Dentren's diff () shows a good example of a potentially good contributor to the article (Ramirez) being driven out of the article by Keysanger.

This situation is what needs to stop. It is increasingly become clear to me that the only way to stop it is by banning Keysanger from the War of the Pacific article.--MarshalN20 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCM_email 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Community proposal: Article Ban for Keysanger

Approximately since 2007, Keysanger has been editing War of the Pacific. He is the article's main contributor (). After half a decade, the article does not even meet the standards for a GA; meanwhile, Keysanger has consistently exhibited ownership (,,), POV-editing (,,,), inappropriate use of sources (,), edit warring (), and an inadequate use of the English language ("Chinises"). This has effectively obfuscated discussions in the article's talk page, preventing other editors from contributing to the article. Moreover, there have been concerns raised about Keysanger's relationship to suspicious Australian IPs (most recent). Mediations have been attempted in the past, to no avail.
Therefore, in order to promote new contributions and less conflictive editing in War of the Pacific, I propose that the community place an indefinite article ban on Keysanger from the mainspace and the talk space of the War of the Pacific. This WP:ABAN can be appealed to the community after a year. Keysanger would be free to edit other topics about the War of the Pacific, but his WP:ABAN can be expanded to a topic ban if the aforementioned disruptive behavior continues in these other articles.--MarshalN20 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. I thought about proposing a topic ban, but an article ban is more precise and less problematic for administrators to handle. It is also a way to encourage Keysanger to exhibit good, collaborative behavior while he works in areas that are of interest to him (there are plenty of articles in the War of the Pacific topic area ).--MarshalN20 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeYou mean it's not GA yet? OMG! How will it ever be completed by the deadline at this pace? Oh there is no deadline. With no deadline it's lack of GA status is irrelevant. I also see what seems to be an accusation of sock puppetry but there seems to be no evidence. I'm wondering how the SPI turned out? I'm also not really seeing any diffs that show anything that looks like misconduct. This pretty much suggests that there is no misconduct. No misconduct, no reason for any type of ban. I notice that there is currently no reason that you can't edit this article. Since your interested in it achieving GA status I encourage you to go forth and start taking action to get it to get it to GA status. I encourage the both of you to limit your interactions with each other solely to discussion of article content. Misplaced Pages has multiple means of dispute resolution to help form a consensus, such as a WP:RFC, so if you find that you can not form a consensus among yourselves I encourage you to use some form of dispute resolution to get a consensus. As I understand Marshaln20, you have already been topic banned from this area once and have been given a second chance. I wish you the best of luck with this second chance. I caution the both of you in your future interactions. Good luck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I consider that this is a valid criticism. Thank you for highlighting the flaws in the proposal. I have added diffs, per the recommendations. I will add some more—there is plenty. I do not plan to add more evidence of Keysanger's bad use of language (I do not want to humiliate him). Also, the outcome of the SPI is not under question; a number of users (myself, WCM, Dentren) have expressed concern with Keysanger's relationship with users (Chelios, IggyAU/IggyAu) and IPs from Australia. I concur with the idea that there is no deadline; however, I consider that the purpose of article writing is to reach the standards set up by our community (the GA & the FA process). If we don't have a set goal, or focus, then what are we doing in Misplaced Pages? Keysanger has been working on War of the Pacific since 2007 and he is the article's top contributor; if he can't take the article to GA standards (at least), either because he can't or want, then the article should be open to other editors to contribute. At least that's my view on it.--MarshalN20 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. This is not to suggest that someone else won't be. I would honestly again recommend caution. Your free not to. But you do know what the boomerang is. And there is no deadline. You can set goals. Personal goals. Other people can share these personal goals if they wish to. This person may have a goal set. I don't know. I could ask them but they aren't required to answer and it doesn't matter because it's not relevant. If you want to see it GA then go there. Edit the article. Do not repeat the actions that have before lead to a ban. Don't talk to them unless it's about article content. If you can't come to a consensus then use Resolution. You just got your topic ban lifted. You are apparently interested in the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I understand Joe, trust me that I do. I love to work in articles with editors such as yourself, because you know the procedures and can hold a friendly discussion in spite of disagreements. However, this doesn't happen in War of the Pacific. Ed best explains the difficulty of working in this particular article when he writes that " has been in dispute for seven years" and that " has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there" (). Taking a controversial article through the GA/FA process is difficult, albeit not impossible. However, it requires that all parties strive towards a common goal. I know this to be true because that is how it was done in the Falkland Islands article, which I am proud to have helped in taking to FA status. I agree with Ed that admin attention is badly needed in War of the Pacific. I am proposing a solution to the problem; the community can agree or disagree, but at least I tried to help resolve this serious matter. Warm regards.--MarshalN20 02:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on principle. I will generally oppose sanctions proposed by involved parties. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, the problematic editing on behalf of Keysanger has been an issue at least since 2009. I would like to hear how you would address it. Keysanger had had time to learn and acknowledge himself with Wikipedias rules and policies. Now I see he is just gaming the system having actual ownership of War of the Pacific trough persistently disrupting and tiring out anybody contributing there that does not agree with his preferences (you can take a look the history of the article). What should be done? Dentren | 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Keysanger appears to be on a crusade to "get" MarshalN20. I say the actions (like the ones I noted above ) speak for themselves, loudly. As for Serialjoepsycho's argument about not usually supporting a ban notice by one of the involved parties, who the heck else would bring it. I don't think that's a reason to discount . KoshVorlon 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:As for my argument? Could you point out where I've made this argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Support, albeit reluctantly. I have to agree with Kosh Vorlon that Keysanger appears to have been pursuing Marshal seeking sanctions against that editor. In addition, despite being advised to, he appears unable to drop the stick and disengage as I and others have suggested. The thing that finally convinced me to support the proposal was the "this isn't about me, this is about them" statement, after he was warned by several commentators about the WP:BOOMERANG. WCM_email 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, agree with MarshalN20 analysis. There is long-term (5+ years, half a decade!) disruption and ownership issue. Keysanger is definitely hindering the development of this article, because he uncompromisingly try to enforce his particular view of the conflict. Dentren | 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Dmateh

Dmateh (talk · contribs) is a student of Savitribai Phule Pune University who is upset over what he claims are the school's unwritten rules. Several times now he has used the school's Misplaced Pages article to air complaints about these rules . The material was removed by User:JustBerry and myself; we both attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:NPOV to him at User talk:Dmateh#Recent edit to Savitribai Phule Pune University and User talk:Psychonaut#Savitribai Phule Pune University. He does not seem to accept the policies, and in retaliation for our not allowing his unsourced criticisms to stand, he blanked large sections of the article—basically anything that didn't have a <ref> tag nearby, no matter how uncontroversial or trivial to find sources for. I told him that this was disruptive but he seems to have dug his heels in. He's re-added the unsourced content, claiming that it is his "right" to do so.

I don't think any further communication from JustBerry or myself is likely to help. Could someone else please have a word with him, or take whatever action they deem necessary to curb further disruption to the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just posted an edit-warring notice on his user page. His position seems intractable but I'd like to see if he responds to warnings from other users. I hope other editors can watch this article as well to see if this disruption continues or the editor decides to move on to other articles. Liz 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; hopefully he'll get the message. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock? for Mumbai IPs

At a bunch of hip hop music articles there is a person from Mumbai who is engaging in persistent introduction of unreferenced text and wrong information, using multiple IPs. For instance, the IP changed Gold to Platinum for the album Rolling Papers but the source says Gold (page 3 of the results.)

• 59.184.132.22 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.132.67 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.166 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.238 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.145.57 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.151.126 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.153.238 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.164.176 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.167.235 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.169.131 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.175.145 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.189.242 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.190.189 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

There was some action in August from Special:Contributions/59.183.57.203 but that is outside of the above range which suggests a rangeblock of 59.184.132.1 to 59.184.190.256. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Range 59.184.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). There does not appear to be any serious collateral damage so I am going to lay down a range block for a week. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

IP editor ignoring WP:V

89.205.38.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP user was blocked in August by User:Laser brain for disruptive edits that seem largely to revolve around changing genres without regard to sources. The person received a level 3 warning in September. When I came upon the same behavior (changing genre to contradict sources) I tried to explain, in case there was a misunderstanding of policy. There's not. The response was to again change genre inconsistent with source. Personally, I'm not really a soldier for the genre wars, but I think WP:V counts. And it doesn't look like this IP is inclined to agree. He's not adding sources or replacing sources. He's just changing content regardless of source.

Bringing it here as it's not really "obvious" vandalism, although it is disruptive. --Moonriddengirl 22:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• In the single diff you posted, the IP is correct -- read the citations; the genres are posted on the right of the AllMusic Overview. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I must be missing something, Softlavender. :/ The genre for Guns 'n' Roses, for instance, says "Pop / Rock". The IP changed the genre from "Pop / Rock" to "Hard rock / Heavy metal". --Moonriddengirl 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. The IP is using the "Style" info on AllMusic, as opposed to the rather spurious (in my opinion) "Genre" info. But his edit summary was compelling: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_only says: "do not use genre sidebar" from AllMusic. Which is probably a good rule to follow, especially in cases of bands that are clearly more (hard) rock than they are "pop". Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that (and said as much to him or her), although s/he seems to have been cherry picking "styles" rather than using all - but I have to wonder why if the issue is the source s/he doesn't replace it with sourced material rather than changing to content that contradicts sources s/he retains. :/ At least that would just be WP:NOR. (I removed the genre field from that table, by the way, per the talk page. It's a chronic problem, people adding unsourced genre information to that stupid list, and if AllMusic isn't reliable for this that means none of the genres were sourced.) --Moonriddengirl 23:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the band clearly is or is not, whether the source is reliable or not, he's making the article say something different from the source. The bigger problem here, is this IP has been used since July, and seems to get into at least one edit war every week, and never uses discussion except for the occasional edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dealing with genre warriors is frustrating at the best of times and one could make a wiki-career on little else if one was so inclined. I consider blocking only when they are completely outside the bounds of WP:V, engage in edit warring to keep their preferred version, and refuse to discuss—which was (and continues to be) the case with this IP. Edit summaries are not discussions. I would recommend a more lengthy block. --Laser brain (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation from User:Thursby16

User in question never spoke to me and then, suddenly, send me a message: "You're racist" and nothing else. MYS77 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff is here. GAB 23:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

have you asked them what they're talking about? Rather than throw NPA warnings, it might keep things calm to find out what their beef is. Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Asked him yesterday, no replies. MYS77 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps your edit summary here on a page he created has something to do with it: I can't say I really understand what you meant, perhaps there is a linguistic barrier between the two of you. I see no issues with your edit, but mentioning prejudice in the summary could have been misinterpreted. Scr★pIron 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That might be it. Looks like a misunderstanding more than anything else. Blackmane (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. But look at the page before my edits came in. It had no sources, almost. What I meant in my edit summary is: "why the people who create these pages (probably an English user - or fan - because the guy plays for an English team) do not look for proper sources", and showing with proof there's plenty of them in Spanish (a different language than English, of course). However, there's still no reason for him to call me a "racist". Everyone who can actually interpret it correctly can see it. I'll drop it, and if he personally attacks me again, then I'll try to "revive" this thread. Thanks everyone for your inputs. MYS77 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marathon

This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:

Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1 2

Statement by Sbharris

I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See This kind of aggression does not work on me.

I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence:

This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there , including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past , and should comment in this dispute.

User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Marathon

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: . And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include . I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Afterwriting

Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

It kind of looks like the last thing he did he received a block for. There's little in the way of evidence here and he doesn't have to keep your warnings on his talk page to the best of my knowledge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting all the pings to individuals that may have a beef with this user I do wonder if the canvassing policy is relevant to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to ANI, yes. To arbcom... no. Arbcom is no consensus process. Notifying involved users is normal. And that above was originally posted at arbcom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So all of these users are involved?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Question What is the desired affect here? It the proposal that we ban an editor for a snarky comment that was made 8 months ago? Is that it?--Adam in MO Talk 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I second this question.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also second this question. ~Oshwah~ 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 31.176

On football articles there is a big issue with a dynamic IP that for a long time has been editing old results to incorrect results (diff), adding teams that has not qualified to tournaments (diff) and other delibirate factual errors (like moving Olympic games from London and Great Britain to Korea diff). This has caused frustration with me and other editors (diff, diff and diff) and I have seen multiple reverts from different users (just look at the contributions and you see the reverts after). The IP adresses I can remember and see on my watchlist after warning them are:

• 31.176.132.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 July)
• 31.176.137.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (1 September)
• 31.176.138.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (8 September)
• 31.176.142.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (2 September)
• 31.176.143.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (22 September)
• 31.176.145.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3 September)
• 31.176.148.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11-12 August)
• 31.176.150.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (5 August)
• 31.176.152.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 September)
• 31.176.157.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (today, 15 October)
• 31.176.164.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4 October)
• 31.176.166.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (10 August)
• 31.176.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11 August)
• 31.176.189.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (30 September)
• 31.176.190.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (31 August)
• 31.176.191.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (12 October)

There is probably a lot more, so if a rangeblock could be done it would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is a dynamic /17 according to DNS lookups (31.176.128.0/17). I fear there will be too many false positives, though; it's not easy to search older edits here on the English Misplaced Pages, but many of the contributions from the range on other language Wikipedias (which are faster to check) were benign (although the Italian one has dubious football-related edits that might need looking at). --ais523 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is 31.176.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). All the edits from October except for one from this range are football-related. I am laying down a range block for one week. Please make note of the range for future reference. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, it is an /18. That'll teach me to do rangeblock arithmetic in my head… What tool did you use to check the contributions? I tried using the rangecontrib tool on WMF Labs but it took several minutes to load and doesn't show many results. --ais523 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I used this one and changed the start date to 2015-10-01. The range calculator I used is the simple one in my sandbox.-- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate

RoseL2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is identified on Commons as an alternate account of A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A1candidate appears to be a clean start of Random user 39849958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly user:Levine2112. A1candidate has outstanding sanctions (0RR restriction )

• AN discussions of Levine2112
• AN discussions of A1candidate

It seems to me that the sanctions preclude a WP:CLEANSTART, which was in any case problematic when changing from Levine2112 to A1candidate. I think this user needs to be restricted to a single account, since making statements in arbitration cases with undisclosed prior history witht he participants is not in the least bit cool. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If this is Levine2112, they should still stay away from alternative medicine articles, broadly construed, especially chiropractic. If this is A1Candidate, they have a serious COI regarding TCM and acupuncture, and should stay away from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of a clean start is not to "respawn" with clean logs to resume whatever arguments you were just in, if you're under DS you shouldn't try it all. And if (this point is a matter of interpretation) you're trying to give the impression you're a random, concerned Wikipedian that just found their way into an ArbCom case, oh and by the way, here's a huge pile of diffs...I'm particularly concerned by that. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Basketball disruptions

Anonymous editor IP 141.237.78.57 has been repeatedly reverting my changes on Liga Sudamericana de Básquetbol article, as showed here, here and here. I tried to persuade him on his talk page requesting him for a good reason for his reversions or at least try to reach a consensus. What I tried to explain him is that some club names have to be cleared (for example, put the city into brackets) to avoid confusions when there are more than one team with the same name, such as: Estudiantes de La Plata - Estudiantes (LP) and Estudiantes de Olavarría - Estudiantes (O). He has always chose reverting instead duscussing the topic. - Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Daniel Schitine

Daniel Schitine (talk · contribs) ignores my warnings and continues updating Fred (footballer)'s career statistics without updating timestamp. See history. SLBedit (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• You posted comments in edit summaries, not warnings. And considering that you yourself stated that his/her edits were good faith edits, I'm not really sure why you brought this to ANI. Erpert 03:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster keeps posting speedy deletion notices on photographs that are clearly mine.

I am a photographer with a DSLR. I publish my photographs on Flickr (under my name) and on my website, www.takenbynora.com. I would like to reserve copyright for all my images by default, including on Flickr, but for certain images that I am uploading I choose to upload them under a free license on Misplaced Pages. It is extremely troublesome to update all the licensing for every instance I have published that photograph under my own copyright. Therefore I am asking to appeal the process here. I do not know why User:Eeekster keeps giving me such trouble and this is an unnecessary process for a photographer who would like to share her work on Misplaced Pages. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also contest if these photographs are really "published" if they were uploaded onto my Flickr account or on my website. They haven't like received notable media attention or anything (except for when I actually present my portfolio) to people. I could email "permissions" from my email (it's not like I have a Flickr email address?) but I am not sure why that must be done when I am clearly the photographer in question. Eeekster says that I could have simply created this account to "impersonate" the original creator of these photographs but I find this assertion kind of silly. Additionally, he keeps linking to an escort aggregator site which has actually used my photographs without my permission, not the other way round. (I am a transgender escort who advertises on backpage). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would further like that an artist I hate clutter in my descriptions (I often post prose or poetry) so having to edit my Flickr descriptions to accommodate every time I repost the photograph to Misplaced Pages under a free license would be extremely troublesome. I am enough of a scatterbrained artist as it is! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Further proof that I am the photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanping Nora Soong (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While it's frustrating for people who are the actual owners, this is protecting the cases where peoples' photos are being used without authorization. As a side compliment, I imagine that the quality of the photo and its composition might have made it compelling to ensure that your rights are being correctly represented. Have you followed up on the instructions left on your talk page? I am not certain, but there might be a process whereby your flickr account can be verified once by OTRS that you are the owner, to streamline future submissions. If it doesn't exist, it would certainly help to encourage photographers to continue contributing their quality works.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask for some emergency intervention? I don't have time to submit to OTRS right now. I updated my description on flickr for one of the images -- shouldn't that be enough?

Also "Quality" and "composition" are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement. I consider myself an artist. Though I have been hired for gigs, I doubt my own competency every day (I get suicidally depressed sometimes about my own ineffectiveness). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what it says on one of my flickr images: "I have attached this photograph (along with several other photographs) to Misplaced Pages under my account Yanping Nora Soong under a creative commons license. I would appreciate a speedy resolution of this matter. Thank you. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Also 'Quality' and 'composition' are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement": They aren't "evidence" per se. I was merely commenting that people are less likely to suspect fuzzy, poorly-framed photos are being passed off as someone else's work. It really is too bad a few rogue editors who steal credit for others' work make it harder for legitimate owners to contribute their photos, but it's unfortunately the world we live in. Tagged photos usually have at least a week to square things away with OTRS. I'd suggest contacting them to see what (if anything else) is needed, and arrange for a more convenient time frame, if necessary. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

False accusation of edit-warring by Softlavender re: Ruritanian romance

While editing the page Ruritanian romance, I received notice of a deficiency in my edit from user:Ssilvers. I thanked the user, and proceeded to attempt to remove the deficiency.

While doing so, I was referred to the talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin, in which Softlavender broke WP:Civil first by referring to my edits as "mind-numbingly long" to Ssilvers, after which Softlavender and Ssilvers agreed between themselves to dramatically change my edits without consulting me - no attempt to reach consensus.

Softlavender then expressed doubt the subject of my edit (adding Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" to the list of literary settings similar to Ruritania) belonged in the section, saying that additional sources to verify the classification of "Orsinia" as a Ruritarian setting were needed (that weren't imposed on the other two editors in that section).

I tried to resolve these issues. I supplied two additional references which affirmed the point I was making. Meanwhile my edits were changed, again, with no attempt to reach a consensus with me by Softlavender.

The act which seems to have precipitated the templated warning to me in my own talk page not to engage in an edit war (with no private consultation with me beforehand) was my attempt to be conciliatory and remove certain citations as Softlavender requested earlier in the article talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance.

This provoked a reaction completely at odds with WP:Good faith and WP:DTR in which I was falsely accused of edit-warring - after making a change that Softlavender requested earlier - deleting my own citations because I believed in an earlier post that Softlavender wished me to make those citations in the Ursula LeGuin article.

I am following the procedure set forth in the templated edit warring warning left in my talk page to protest a false accusation by Softlavender in complete contravention of WP:Civil, WP:Good faith, WP:DTR and the guidance to seek consensus before changing another editor's edits. loupgarous (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The situation is deteriorating. In Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin Softlavender just ordered me not to remove citations in the article which I had placed there originally. My reaction was "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits?" Then I placed the notice which I'd earlier placed on Softlavender's talk page informing Softlavender that Softlavender is the subject of an Administrative Noticeboard/Incident discussion. loupgarous (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately, you were attempting to add information that other users think was excessive or flat out unnecessary. After the first or second reversion you should have attempted to open a line of communication to figure out what exactly the issue at hand was and how you could best resolve it. I know you were trying to address the concerns in good faith, but repeatedly re-adding the content without starting discussion was edit warring. You can edit war in good faith. You can edit war with the best intentions. Softlavender did not ask you to remove references you added, you simply misunderstood, so let's just forget about that part. Softlavender did not refer to your edits as "dull", but "long", which is actually a pretty big difference. Had you followed WP:BRD, the situation would not have escalated to the point of warning messages and mild "incivility". Did Softlavender need to template you? Probably not. Was that the best way of going about things? Probably not. Does that warrant admin intervention? Absolutely not. We are all human and we don't intervene over minor instances of incivility. I don't think you are being bullied anyway. You were not behaving appropriately to begin with and that makes other editors frustrated. Bringing this here does not resolve problems, in fact, it just aggravates the animosity. Rather than worrying about Softlavender, why don't you worry about the content and seek out dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Being "edit-warring" templated on my talk page lent an air of officialdom to Softlavender's accusations. I didn't edit war. Softlavender was uncivil. Softlavender just forbade me to undo an edit I'd made originally - in fact, she reverted my removal of my own citations without consulting me.

I find that hard to reconcile with wikipedia's norms of behavior. Obviously you disagree. loupgarous (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I can see where this is heading. Sorry I wasted everybody's time. Carry on, everyone, the article will get on just fine without my help, and I just learned a little more about wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vfrickey Please be aware that when you click on the edit button this statement is directly above the editing field "Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." No one is "required" to inform you of any edits that they make. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What I referred to was Softlavender's complete failure to engage me in discussion toward a consensus. I naively believed wikipedia required that. loupgarous (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, also, I did initiate a discussion. I did introduce sources on the talk page which specifically answered concerns Softlavender raised about my edit, and I repeatedly trimmed my edit to attempt to meet those concerns while keeping the edit reflective of what the source actually said. At one point an edit Softlavender made was at variance with the content of the source cited. I advised the other editors in the talk page discussion that I was changing the edit to make it reflect what the source cited actually said. If that's "edit warring," then every time I've edited an article to conform to the cited source, I've edit-warred. I have no way of knowing whether you read the discussion or not, but it's all there. I repeatedly tried to initiate a discussion toward a consensus, got ignored, patronized, templated, and then finally forbidden to move my own edits as Softlavender requested in the discussion. I didn't misunderstand anything - Softlavender said, clearly, "you can make your citations of the books in the LeGuin article." And, after being templated, I obeyed the injunction in the template to bring the discussion HERE. I have been trying to play by wikipedia's rules this entire time. loupgarous (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is some guidance I'd like an answer to. I made three citations of Ursula LeGuin's books in the Ruritarian romance article. Another editor consolidated these citations into a single reference. Softlavender referred to me in the third person:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article."

I took this as a request to move the Orsinian citations in the Ursula LeGuin article, and in preparation to do so, I deleted them from the Ruritarian_romance article with this explanatory edit summary: "Other Ruritanian settings in fiction: deleted references to LeGuin's publications at Softlavender's request" My intent was conciliatory. Softlavender reverted that edit with the following edit summary: "Undid revision 685936889 by Vfrickey (talk) replaced citations removed with no rationale" It was at this time she sent the "disruptive editing" and "edit warring" templates to my user talk page. I took this to mean she was proceeding with charges I'd edit-warred. I believe that if there was an edit war, both parties took part equally, at every stage of the exchange. I responded:

"Quoting you from earlier in this discussion:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article. Also, please learn Misplaced Pages mark-up (for things such as italics). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

THAT is the rationale for deleting the citations in question, Softlavender. Your very own request. It was my attempt to be conciliatory and address an issue you raised. As far as the accusations of "disruptive editing" and other abusive behavior, I'll let this discussion and the change log speak for my actions, which were done in good faith. Remember WP:Good faith? loupgarous (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

Softlavender's response was: "I made no request whatsoever to remove any citations from the article. Do not remove citations from this or any other articles. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)" My response: "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits? loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"

Is Softlavender justified to forbid me to revert my own edits? MarnetteD just told me that every editor agrees to have her edits changed by other editors on clicking the "Save page" button. My citations were combined, very correctly, by another editor into a single reference.

But on Softlavender's accusation I and I alone was edit-warring, can she forbid me to delete citations I'd made in the first place?

I'm not wikilawyering here, and the issue isn't content - it's conduct.

I was going to just walk away from this discussion, given that I fully expected to be piled on and Softlavender's accusations of edit-warring repeated.

However, I want as many other editors as possible to read Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and consider that someone else may treat them in the way I've been treated, and tell me they'd accept (a) a false accusation of disruptive editing and edit-warring to stand unchallenged (b) a discourteous refusal to engage in discussion toward a consensus - Softlavender waited until she'd templated me to address me as anything but "the other editor" and in anything but the third person, and (c) repeated reversion of your edits without that attempt to achieve a consensus we're told to seek. I tried to do that, I troubled to look up those other sources Softlavender told Ssilvers - not me - she'd need to see until she even conceded that Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" met the criterion of "being similar to Ruritania."

At this point, the content isn't the issue. It's the conduct, gaming the edit-warring rule to avoid reaching a consensus or even discussion toward a consensus. Until this point I'd been willing to concede Softlavender's good faith, even after she assumed such bad faith on my part (or wished to create that impression) that she sent warning templates to my user talk page... and I took those templates as clear evidence of her intent to make precisely those charges to administrators.

I don't have much of a choice but to come here as each of those templates advises to make a defense against false charges I've edit-warred or edited Ruritanian romance in a disruptive manner. I could be reasonably sure that had I taken Swarm's advice and just forgotten about this or tried to seek dispute resolution that Softlavender's next move would be to bring edit-warring charges against me to administrators.

Read the discussion in Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and the edit summaries for Ruritanian romance before you decide that I edit warred, or did so without just as an arbitrary reversion of my own edits. Ssilvers was the only user in this discussion to advise me my edits were being reverted and the reason for doing it - and I thanked Ssilvers for the constructive criticism and indicated my intent to locate a secondary source establishing the Ruritarian nature of Orsinia.

I won't ever touch another article of Softlavender's, but neither will I sit meekly while my character and actions are attacked without justification. It's possible I'll be gamed out of Misplaced Pages, but I won't slink away. loupgarous (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

loupgarous (or Vfrickey), Swarm just stated above the problem with your excessive content, and then you write a long complaint like this? At any rate, I really think it's time you drop the stick. Erpert 03:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't victimize yourself any further. I already stated that Softlavender's methods weren't ideal, and I don't blame you for bringing this up here. It's okay. But there's nothing really disruptive here on either side which is why I don't understand why you won't drop this. I can look at the article's history and see that you edit warred—it's okay. We've all done it. It's usually not a big deal, just a side effect of legitimate content disputes. I never denied that you were acting in good faith, but you did edit war. It's okay. You're not going to be punished. But, again, you could have handled the situation better and I think you're ignoring the problem with your own conduct while complaining about a response you partially provoked. I'm not trying to pile onto Softlavender's side because this isn't a battleground. The simple fact of the matter is that they did not do anything to warrant administrator intervention. Disputes happen. Sometimes they get nasty. We're all real people, with real emotions, and we don't punish editors if they get worked up and become a little uncivil. There's really no reason to get so worked up over this. Softlavender has no power over you and they are not trying to harass you. You can continue to work with them, because we're all on the same team. If you find an editor unreasonable, appeal to the others, but there's no need for this. Move on. Please. Swarm ♠ 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that Vfrickey is relatively new here, and so I am sympathetic to some of his/her problems in adding excessive content, using wiki-markup, reference format, etc. But I suggest that, instead of being defensive, Vfrickey read the WP:MOS, use the WP:Cheatsheet. Softlavender's first comment on the Talk page was based on experience concerning article balance and such Misplaced Pages policies as WP:V. That's why I adopted Softlavender's suggestion. When two experienced editors agree on something, it is very likely not arbitrary, so Vfrickey's next action was, indeed, edit-warring. Vfrickey, what you should do, instead, is to go to the Talk page and ask if it would be ok to restore certain content, and then I would have been glad to explain why it was too long and too tangential to the article's topic. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect assumption. This comment is from their user page; "I've edited wikipedia for over eleven years, and nothing, not even wikipedia's own inattention to all the supposed arbitration measures it boasts of will stop me from doing what I do well; which is edit articles for accuracy and concision." I am not sure what is going on here but 'new editor caught up in the arcane machinations of Misplaced Pages' is not, per their own words, it. Jbh 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Waking up in the morning, reading this, and

(a) my wikimarkup skills are pretty atrocious. I will definitely, before I edit again, learn the current wikimarkup protocols. And

(b) I apologize sincerely to Softlavender and Ssilvers that they had to "clean up my mess," i.e., replace HTML italics with wikimarkup italics. They shouldn't have had to do that, or

(c) deal with my reverting Ssilvers' change so I could pare it down in my way (which they found to be unacceptable, too). My intent wasn't edit warring, but there are sandboxes for what I was trying and I ought to have used one (perhaps learned from my tomcat and buried my edits in it, then walked away).

(d) I sure apologize to all of you for indulging myself in massive logorrhea last night.

I appreciate your input. You gave me what I asked for, your candid opinions. And you were civil. I've taken your points, and again, thank you all. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors. loupgarous (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo untruthful accusations, unmerited warning sign on my talk page.

Carliertwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently left a warning on my talk page here accusing me of edit warring. This began after I commented on the talk page of the article Siouxsie and the Banshees expressing my dismay that the genre punk rock was left out of the artist page genres on 4 October 2014. I then placed the genre in the article (WP:BOLD!) Another user (User:GentleCollapse16) then corrected the capitalization, but did not revert my edit. I then corrected a genre capitalization she missed and had admonished me about. User:Carliertwo then reverted my edit and placed warning on my page accusing me of WP:EW, following one edit revert, accusing me of WP:GWAR in their edit revert on the edit history page of the article. WP:GWAR states: "A genre warrior is an editor with a single-purpose account (or IP with no account) that spends most of their time on Misplaced Pages altering the genre field of music infoboxes, changing genre categories, or changing genre-related prose." One only has to look at my contribution page to know that does not apply to me and is untrue, as I (mostly) link internal links into articles. I have been on Misplaced Pages for over ten years and dislike confrontation, but I feel as though this user is trying to intimidate me because they are the main editor (for years) of the Siouxsie and the Banshees article. I left a very terse message on their talk page as I was astonished that they would leave a warning sign on my page. There was no edit war, I was merely placing a genre on the article's page after talking about the inclusion of the genre on the article's talk page -- which no one replied to. I should have been more civil, however the sign on my talk page (for all users to see) after one edit revert and the accusation of WP:GWAR made me quite angry -- I did hope to engage them on subject, but they did not respond. I did revert their revert of my edit and explained to them it was not out of spite, but because I believed it to be factual. My edit was then reverted again, with the accusation by User:Carliertwo that: "disruptive edits and genre warring going on from the same user since several months." This is another untruthful accusation. One only has to look at the article's edit history to see that prior to this, I have not made an edit on that article since 2012. I have not reverted their edit.

I feel as though User:Carliertwo is in violation of WP:OWN and tries to intimidate others who edit the article. Looking over the article's edit history (and their own talk page), this user spends an exorbitant amount of time "policing" the article and has themselves reverted others who have made changes to the article, accusing others of being sockpuppets. I very much dislike the untruthful accusations this editor has made about me and feel as though this editor is simply trying to intimidate people who may wish to edit the article and has their own preferences as to what should be included. This, to me, is much less about the article (let them have it) than it is about the accusations this person has knowingly made against me. Wikpedia for me is generally a quiet, solo pursuit; usually making small fixes here and there. I dislike other editors making false accusations against me. As they have not responded to me and my two posts on their page, I have come here. ExRat (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I present my excuses to ExRat, I made a mistake: I copied pasted an old message of my computer that I used to edit for another user called Lachlan Foley last August, see here when LF did GWAR edits It was a strong issue at that time. ExRat has just made a few edits in this page and he certainly doesn't edit in any way like the other user. I was tired when I posted this message yesterday and clicked, I hadn't read the whole message that the memory of my computer advanced. Again apologies, my mistakes. I've added another message at the history of the Siouxsie and the Banshees article, saying that I made a mistake. Carliertwo (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo, I thank you for responding to me. I thank you for the apology, and I would like to extend an apology to you as well. I definitely should have given you the benefit of doubt. With a much cooler head today, I realize I may have been quite defensive when dealing with you and the issue. I should have been followed WP:CIV more closely, instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that you were trying to impede good editing. I think a calm discussion of the issue could have been of great benefit, and I should have waited and then worded my response to you. I think we could have worked this out if there was communication between the two of us. I realize you are very concerned with the article as it is an important subject to you (I am a fan as well) and you have been a steward of the article for a long time. I did feel however that your actions and some of the allegations were to try to undermine and intimidate me from making edits to the article, especially when I got no response from you after I brought up the allegations. I am honestly not generally a confrontational person, and I do wish the incident never happened. I think now, it was probably a matter of butting heads over content. would much rather now, simply let the issue go and I do not wish to besmirch you as an editor, as I take your word now that the allegation that I was causing disruptive edits for months was merely an accidental copy & paste. I also do not wish to pursue the incident any further and do not feel as though the comments left on your page should be left for other editors to see, as I now view this whole incident in different light. I consider the issue closed, and again I thank you for the apology. If, in the future, there is an issue between the two of us, please simply feel free to have a discussion with me. I am actually amenable to suggestions and opinions of other editors. Although I still feel the genre of "punk rock" should be included in the genre section, I will not pursue this.

I am requesting this discussion be closed, as I think we have resolved our issues. ExRat (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

convert imagenames from unicode to ascii

@JzG, MarnetteD, and BlackMane:found images whose filename is in unicode letters, almost impossible to type in ascii-limited keyboards, copypasting difficult in android. requesting admin oversight, are unicode filenames allowed to remain?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC) @GiantSnowman and David Biddulph:pinging more adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No filename is mentioned above, but the user's edit history indicates that they edited a template which uses File:বাংলাদেশ কমিউনিস্ট পার্টির পতাকা.svg, the flag of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. That filename translates to "Communist Party of Bangladesh flag". It's on Commons, not English Misplaced Pages, and was uploaded for use on the Bangladeshi wikipedia. So there's nothing wrong here. (Hint: Although a rarely used feature, Android's OS supports both USB and Bluetooth mice, which may help with the cutting and pasting problem.) Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle, JzG, and GiantSnowman:can admins edit filenames uploaded in commons?also, there is one more image in my edit history with non-ascii nameMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

commons:Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed? says: "Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just asking, only because I don't know, but is there precedent for creating a copy under a more accessible name? --Jayron32 12:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copies should never be created. File pages have other information like license and description which should be maintained in one place. It's possible to make file redirects but commons:Help:File redirect#Unwanted use of file redirects says: "Creation of redirects in alternative languages is not wanted. Multi-lingual translations on the file's description page are used instead." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and Jayron32:file uploads in commons where filename is smilies, imagine problemMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In nearly all cases, a filename which is all smilies could be renamed "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays" Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the OP is using, but my Android can copy and paste Unicode characters just fine. That is once I figured out how to copy and paste. :P —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Article was proposed for deletion...

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

I proposed an article for deletion Scripture Dialogue on October 8th, the message remained in place for 7 days and no objections were made on the article talk page. Now that the desired time span has passed, how do I get the article deleted? Is this something that an admin must do? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article it seems it's directly related to another article that was deleted for Copyright infringement, see World Alliance of Religions Peace Summit. Before this is deleted it might be apt to check it for copyright violations.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Prodded articles are listed at Category:Proposed deletion. You'll notice that the page goes back to articles proposed for deletion on October 6th, so there's a two day backlog, which is actually pretty awesome for backlogs. The page will get looked at when admins catch up to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks, I just wasn't sure if there was something I was supposed to be doing. There's no hurry. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding paid editing results (needs admin/CU + OTRS)

I almost responded to Ticket:2015101610012722 - but an enwiki admin/CU may be better suited to follow this up. Storkk (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Banner - AFD Topic ban?

I find consensus against a topic ban, and as several commenters have noted, such cleanup efforts should be commended as long as they are done within policy. Deletionist inclinations towards low-quality articles who look like they could fail WP:GNG are not necessarily a bad thing, although it is understandable that they would cause friction with people who tend towards inclusionism or who work on the targetted articles -- I lean towards inclusionism myself, and have faced similar situations on video game articles I cared for. Misplaced Pages works on consensus and I'm sure we'd all rather see the articles brought up at AfD for discussion rather than unilaterally redirected/merged/PROD'ed; nominating or !voting in an AfD that ends up closed opposite to your thoughts based on eventual consensus is a perfectly normal part of being an editor.

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

G'day - I am creating this to bring to attention the User:The Banner, who has repeatedly over the last year nominated national beauty pageant holders who contest the Miss Universe competition for deletion. There have been at least two dozen nominations on individual pages, some documented here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Pageant_articles_under_attack. The user seems to contest the premise that individuals that who win their national beauty competition and represent their country in Miss Universe are notable.

There was a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#Beauty_pageant_contestants that he participated in to discuss it, and while I don't think there was clear consensus, there seemed to be majority agreement that representing your country in one of the major international beauty pageants (including Miss Universe) was sufficient notability for a stub article. Despite this, User:The Banner has continued to individually nominate Miss Universe contestants for deletion (as per above), and another one today Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Adorya_Baly (winner of the Miss British Virgin Islands who will contest Miss Universe for her country). His main argument was refuted in that discussion because he largely discredits any small country as not being inherently notable, and that results in a huge bias based on the size of a country (something we try to avoid).

I would recommend that this user receive a topic ban from nominating these articles for deletion in the future, because I question that these are being done in good faith and, they appear from my view to be disruptive to the area. Core discussions of notability should be decided on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Beauty Pageants or somewhere similar, and I don't think this crusade is constructive. --  R45  15:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately if someone fails GNG then an article on them can be nominated for deletion. This tends to favour people from bigger countries due to the larger pool of reliable sources available. As notability is not inherited, an unknown contestent from a small country who has had no press coverage is not notable by wikipedia's policies. Yes this is biased, but its the way the rules work currently. Local consensus on specific wiki-projects does not over-rule the GNG.

Of course there are probably plenty of local sources in their home country, as long as these are reliable there shouldnt be any problem. There is no rule against using foreign sources, as long as they are reliable. They will just be more difficult to find. I would expect the winner of a national country-wide pageant to gain significant press in her home country. But then you come up against BLP1E. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, so participating in a notable event does not make the contestants automatically noteworthy. Due to this, repeatedly articles about pageant contestants are removed, like Tonie Chisholm (now a redirect after several removals and recreations), Paola Nunez Valdez (removed at least three times under several names) and Markélla Konstantínou (removed at least three times under several names). People known from just one event are, conform WP:ONEEVENT, not always considered notable. The Banner talk 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I think you're being disingenuous here given that in those AFDs, participation rates were very low in the discussions. Additionally, highlighting 3 examples when you've have over 2 dozen fails means a very small percentage of these articles you're nominated are being removed. My reason for coming here is I think the approach isn't appropriate in light of the objections/disagreements, and it would be better to generally discuss the issue and find consensus rather than trying to individually tackle these articles. Others don't agree with me it appears, but I really scratch my head to think this is actually a constructive way of approach these articles. --  R45  16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Look up what I have nominated for deletion and you will get a non-biased list with a much higher success rate... The Banner talk 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I am specifically talking about your nominations of these types of articles, and that's my whole reason for coming here - and hence why I suggested a topic ban, not anything else. --  R45  17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did you actually look at the list? Or are you only cherry picking? The Banner talk 18:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: Of course I'm cherry picking because I'm was/am raising a specific issue - that's also why I didn't suggest anything more than a topic ban on this specific issue, because you are a constructive person in the AFD space in general. Honestly judging by your block log, you have a history of getting caught up in edit wars and maintaining hard-line stances on specific issues (including a previous ANI about you earlier this year and a similar ANI about you last year), and I think in this specific case, whatever personal beliefs you have are clouding your judgement on the issue. That said, based on comments by a couple admins here, others don't agree that a topic ban is warranted so nothing is likely to come of this. --  R45  18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• So you are cherry picking the negative facts while you accuse me of personal beliefs you have are clouding your judgement on the issue. That sounds a bit odd, don't you think? More or less: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But for sure, you won't see me nominate winners of Miss Universe, as they have enough independent sources to establish notability. A lot of other contestants earn most of their notability from other events/work and you won't see me nominate them. I only judge contestants towards WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT (and I know not everybody agrees with me the preliminary round and main round are in fact just one event). And I judge the articles on WP:RS, as a contributory reason. Nothing more, nothing else. The Banner talk 19:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And WikiProjects do not set the rules for notability. The wider community does that. And certainly WikiProjects can not use WP:AN/I to decide an AfD. The Banner talk 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I am not a member nor a participant of that WikiProject. --  R45  16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't even see this as particularly biased. Even the Miss America pageant is not nearly as big a deal in the United States as it once was, and I can only imagine that in many of the participant countries, Miss Papua New Guinea, for example, the annual winner is not a big deal locally and does not receive the equivalent of front-page newspaper coverage. Here's the thing: if you can't find three examples (in three different publications) of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about a given national pageant winner, then the subject probably does not merit a stand-alone article about her. And by significant coverage, I do not mean one and two-sentence passing mentions, nor do I mean routine coverage such as the one paragraph about the subject in the morning-after-pageant announcement. In the United States, national pageant winners still typically get magazine write-ups and interviews. If you can't find a feature article in the subject's hometown newspaper, and a magazine article or two about the subject, plus some significant national and regional coverage, that tells you something about the particular subject's notability (or lack thereof). We are not a beauty pageant winners' directory, and notability is the standard for inclusion. Oh, and don't forget, for purposes of establishing notability, the sources must be independent: that means coverage from the website and publications of the pageant committee (and its affiliates) do not count for notability purposes.

So, in short, no, The Banner should not be topic-banned. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: your comment is certainly fair, but not directed at the premise why I opened this discussion. In my opinion, The Banner is indiscriminately nominating these articles on principle, not individual merit - hence the reason why such a large volume of these are nominated and continue to fail. If you look at most of these failed nominations, most were made with no effort to research sources - rather a generic reference was left to WP:GNG, largely based on the user's bias/personal belief against these types of articles. If he wasn't an established user, people's perspectives on this may be different. Again, I think there are valid discussions to be had here what notability guidelines should be to help these discussions, but I think some common sense (at least as I see it) is suggesting that these mass and indiscriminate nominations may not be in the best interests in this area. --  R45  17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

How dare he fail to understand that all hotties are inherently notable. In case it was not obvious, pageantcruft is a plague on Misplaced Pages and nuking purported "biographies" that consist of nothing more than tabloids saying "phwooooaar!" is a valuable improvement of the project. Pageants are not under attack, editors who want to write about almost-famous-for-15-minutes hotties are under attack, and rightly so. And frankly I think we should be ashamed as a society that in the 21st Century we still have these cattle-market pageants. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @JzG: The veiled sexism (or anti-sexism) tone in your response was really unnecessary and unprofessional, and not relevant to why I posted. I am not here defending pageants, or even trying to bring a content dispute here. The reason for my post was the manner of his behaviour. Frankly I don't contribute to Beauty Pageant articles much at all, and this post was not about the notability argument per se, but use of the AFD process when so many have of these nominations continue to fail. My opinion is that, in light of the history of lack of consensus on the notability of these national winners / Miss Universe contestants, it would be more constructive to discuss it at the dedicated WikiProject, find consensus and establish a guideline, than deal with these with ad-hoc nominations of individual articles. I was under the impression that's the whole point of having clear guidelines. --  R45  16:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, clearly we can make light of this, but GNG is the standard for inclusion of stand-alone articles. That said, nothing stops the interested editors from creating a list of Miss Universe/World/Planet Earth participants that includes a brief two or three-sentence bio for all of them. That list can then link to the notable participants. Some participants of a given pageant will be notable; some won't. Oh, and at the risk of sounding like a galumphing old sexist, I am all in favor of "hotties," but they still don't get a stand-alone Misplaced Pages article if they're not notable as individuals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I too oppose this proposal. Absolutely worst case scenario, the topic ban would have to be narrowed to just be about pageants or something, as he is generally, from what I've seen, a good contributor to AFD. That being said, I don't see any action warranted at all. He's not doing anything wrong, and arguments over what is more important, the GNG or more specific variants of it, (like WP:NSONGS or WP:NBAND) come up frequently, and more often than not, the GNG is the one that's ultimately held in the highest regard, which would leave him in the right in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

RE "as he is generally, from what I've seen, a good contributor to AFD." I suppose you mislaid your glasses. Please have a look at his AfD stats full of red cells, and an accuracy of 59%. A deplorable performance. Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly what I said, from what I've seen. One's I had observed recently include Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hardlight, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hisashi Suzuki, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Masami Ishikawa. Please don't sass uninvolved third parties, there's no need for that and it won't get you anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Apparently I parsed your statement incorrectly. Anyway, I'm not trying to get anywhere. Kraxler (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It only says that I am not interested in vote-polishing, also known as voting with the crowd as the decision is already loud and clear. The Banner talk 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Sergecross73's observation is even that suprising from a numeric standpoint. If we look at the recent 100 (from 1 June onwards), The Banner !voted the same as the outcome 80.5% of the time, so if Sergecross73's observation is relatively recent, it's somewhat expected. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Sergecross73: My suggestion was strictly an AFD topic ban over beauty pageant contestants, specifically even Miss Universe contestants given that I've counted at least 25 nominations that have failed so far in that area. I was not suggesting anything beyond that. --  R45  16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, you're right. I think I read the subject title and was thinking you were proposing something more broad. My apologies. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - a ban on nominating beauty pageant articles for deletion, for slightly different reasons. There is ample evidence that The Banner has an unhealthy obsession with these beauty pageant articles. In the past I have considered bringing this to ANI myself; and I'm not alone in thinking about it (pinging Kraxler). The problem is that The Banner wants these things deleted regardless of whether there are sources are not, and will persist even if sources are provided. This user will not pay attention to WP:BEFORE no matter how many times they are reminded of it. Some background:

• There was an extended discussion of this issue here. All the relevant points are covered in the discussion. Since then, here are a few more that I have been involved in:
• The Banner telling me that counting Google hits is research here
• More Google hit theories on not passing GNG here. A good example of blind nomination: nominating Miss Vietnam on the basis of ghits while not being able to speak Vietnamese to even know what the hits are is obviously a bad idea.
• Interesting discussion about systemic bias on this one. If the debate is at the level of ghits to determine notability a subtlety like systemic bias would be rocket science.

That he doesn't like pageants isn't a valid reason for nominating everything he finds just to see what sticks. We are well past AGF at this point. If this was a new user I would assume WP:CIR over the Google hit thing but this user has been around a long time, and repeatedly spoken to about this, so I'm convinced these nominations are in bad faith.

Last but not least, I support a topic ban so that I don't have to look at any more beauty pageant articles, otherwise I may need to seek medical attention. Vrac (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban- The Banner nominates articles for deletion, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. So what? I'm really not seeing any evidence that he's being disruptive in any way. Reyk _YO! 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The "so what" is that articles that shouldn't be deleted are getting deleted because no one is around, or doesn't speak the appropriate language, to defend them. This user cannot be trusted to do any kind of good faith effort at BEFORE, and obviously doesn't have the good judgement to leave things alone they have no clue about. I find it extremely disruptive, it is a waste of my time looking at these things. I feel compelled to defend some of the ones in Spanish-speaking countries because I've lived there and know they are notable, and no one else will defend them. This is the problem with IDONTLIKEIT nominations; they are indiscriminate. Vrac (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I do not see the disruption. You don't like it that sometimes the community reaches consensus to delete these articles in your absence. So what? If you think it's a waste of time commenting on an AfD, don't comment on it and let the community consensus fall where it may. And BEFORE is not mandatory. Never has been, never will be. Reyk _YO! 17:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much of a defense of the Wiki there. You are obviously free to not care but I think that articles on notable subjects being deleted deserves more than a "so what", even if the articles are about things few people are fond of such as beauty pageants. Vrac (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. If articles that shouldn't be deleted are getting deleted, there is an answer, and that is to define a notability criterion stating that national contestants in Miss Universe, and possibly in the other three international pageants, are considered notable by reason of representing their nation. If "we" don't want such a notability criterion, then "we" can just let the AFDs run their course. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) Based on their AfD Statistics I see about five articles about pageant winners they nominated in the last six months which were closed as Keep while there are dozens which were closed as delete. Those results are a sure indication that what The Banner is doing follows consensus. Non-notable articles are non-notable and nominating them for deletion is a benefit to the project. If the editors who are upset about these nominations want the articles to be kept find sources to show notability. Do not try to topic ban an editor to prevent the articles from being nominated. That is abuse of process. Jbh 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Clarified time frame. Jbh 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: your statistics are selective and not related to the subject I opened. I made a specific reference about national winners that contest the Miss Universe pageant. I would suggest re-reading my first comment and reviewing what was linked (i.e. the two talk discussions). --  R45  17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• You are asking for a topic ban on beauty pageant AfD's. I do not see a lot of bad nominations in that category recently. Certainly not enough to be disruptive. You might not like what they are doing but it is not harming the project which really is what must be demonstrated before I will support a topic ban. Consensus about notability is established through AfD or through proposed policy changes at the appropriate Notability noticeboard, not through WikiProjects. Jbh 18:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: Again, please read the original comment (specifically this and the lack of continued discussions) which is the basis of my suggestion that this should be discussed given the history of failed nominations instead of continuing to open new ones. You're certainly entitled to disagree with me whether it's disruptive or not, but your other comments and statistics aren't quite on point with what I posted earlier. --  R45  18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @R45: I did. I see no evidence of disruption. That you are citing year+ old material as a reason to ban really makes me wonder if there might not be something that warrants a BOOMERANG in the history because this ANI complaint shows an unwillingness to drop-the-stick. The topic ban discussion cited by Vrac about Davey2010 above also petered out because there was no evidence of disruption. My suggestion is to close this with a trouting for you for calling for a topic ban with no evidence of disruption. Jbh 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: I think your accusations and tone against me are unfortunate considering I only opened this today, and simply responded to comments within this thread in a civil manner. I came here in good faith believing this is an issue, and brought it here as such thinking it was the most appropriate place. --  R45  19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry you find my comments objectionable, my intention is solely to give you the viewpoint of an editor un-involved with this dispute. You are requesting a topic ban for no current disruption. That, in itself is disruptive. You are challenging every editor who opposed your call for a topic ban and are not taking on board what they are saying. That is disruptive. This conflict has been going on for at least a year with, as far as I can see, the same result - that the AfD nominations are not disruptive. Bring it up again here based on old evidence is refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Continuing this ANI request for days will not change the outcome unless someone presents evidence of current disruptive AfD nominations by The Banner. Do you have such recent evidence?? If not my strong suggestion is that you withdraw this request and save on the drama. That is my two cents. Jbh 19:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from pageant AfDs - this is not about whether one or the other pageant or winner is notable or not. It's about bias The Banner nominates indiscriminately pageant articles for deletion, and always !votes delete on such articles when nominated by someone else, independent of the individual merit of any article. Thus his participation is unnecessary, at best (in the rare case the result is deletion), but mostly disruptive (in case the result is keep, the vast majority of cases). Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You better look up what I nominate. The results are not as gloomy as you try to tell the world. The Banner talk 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kraxler: I am not seeing "(in case the result is keep, the vast majority of cases)". Am I missing something? I looked at the last six months of their AfD nominations. I do not think any time beyond that is germane to a topic ban discussion. Jbh 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at 19 articles that were kept in 2014 (table as of September 2014), and many more, just look at the red cells in The Banner's stats. It's a long-term issue. Kraxler (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That, and I've noticed that the majority of these listed AfDs have the same three or four people voting Keep on all of them, frequently with personal attacks on the nominator. Reyk _YO! 18:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the one who made that list. Trackinfo had to be hammered on his fingers to stop him from harassing me. This list is neutrally sourced and up to date.

But yes, I have noticed that in pageant world are a lot of sock puppets and meat puppets and, unproven yet, suspected paid editors. To make it difficult, there are also genuine editors. I see no effort of you to look at that side of the story, Kraxler! The Banner talk 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So you mean he's posted things up for deletion and they didn't get deleted? OMG! We have to stop this. There's no evidence of any conduct issues but we just can't have people creating AfD's that may fail. We also can't have people riding to wikipedia on unicorns, so thus be warned as the Cabal is watching.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most of these are not notable and to be totally honest I think The Banner's actually clearing a long backlog!, (BTW thanks Jbhunley for the ping although I nearly had a heart attack as thought this was related to me & that near TBAN ). –Davey2010 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to topic ban Timtrent from any more AFDs

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

User:Timtrent has done nothing but post AFD after AFD on articles. Some of these exist in over 30 other wikis and they are all going for speedy keep right now. He needs to be told to stop. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts. 166.176.56.20 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. My contributions record speaks for itself. I choose not to participate in this. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Which Articles for deletion are evidence of misconduct?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose- No evidence of disruption has been provided. Disagreeing with someone on AfD is not grounds to get them banned. Reyk _YO! 20:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose And I believe this is a sock that needs to be put back in the drawer. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

These deletions aren't policy-based. Timtrent should link to specific policies when creating AfDs (WP:BEFORE). clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Clpo13, every AfD I have observed violates this POLICY: ] (Misplaced Pages Alternatives To Deletion) and I wish the ATD POLICY was enforced before AfD's were allowed. Any AfD not following the ATD POLICY should be withdrawn. ATD is a POLICY, not an option or an afterthought. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

seems like this ip is related to in some way. Likely sock.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pound Sterling and N0n3up (talk · contribs)

I do not have the time or the inclination to continually revert the vandalism that this user is inflicting upon the article, or put up with his non-stop personal attacks.

His initial initial edit removed reference that the British debt of 850 million dollars was owed largely to the United States. He claimed that, despite there being a source in the article, that this claim was un-referenced. Repeated requests for N0n3up to address if he accessed the source used have gone unanswered.

References were provided, initially in the edit summary and then on an off-article talkpage (since copied onto the article's talk page) providing evidence that the US was the main holder of British debt following the First World War. Despite this, the same - what I would now like to call vandalism as it included ignoring and misreading sources - vandalism was repeated: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert, and this revert from an un-involved 3rd party, who attempted to mediate. As the talk page discussion shows, the sources were all ignored with completely invalid and irrelevant reasons.

Next, N0n3up focused on mis-reading only one of the sources provided to make a series of edits that resulted in this revert, which he subsequently reverted, and after it being taken to the talkpage and barely discussed he once again reverted. Despite being informed that Admin intervention was being sought, he once again reverted the edit: diff. Please note the change in wording over his previous version, despite his edit summary comments.

Finally, his posts are littered with trollish comments aimed at my nationality (Anglo-American). The user has demonstrated little understanding of the subject, combativeness from day one, an unwillingness to engage with the sources, answer questions directed at them, and completely misuse sources. I acknowledge that my own attitute has been far from perfect, yet this needs to end and this user needs to either start reading the sources for what they say (not what he thinks they say) or be banned from editing from this article.

Regards204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards