Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Springee (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 10 October 2016 (→User:Springee gaming the system). 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 admin 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Request

This is a relatively urgent request to have all restrictions removed. Almost all of my time on Misplaced Pages is now spent on making charts as my primary username but I can not add them to Misplaced Pages without logging out and can not add them to any semi-protected article. I just did three charts for maternal fatality and would like to add them using my primary username but can not do that. Nor do I wish to wait six months to ask for this restriction to be removed. When it was brought up there was no decision and it was archived as a stale discussion. I still am only about half way caught up on all the things I noticed when I was blocked, and some of them involve each of the restrictions I am under and each means that I can nor make a productive contribution because of that and I have no interest in invoking IAR and making the edits anyway. I follow all the rules and always have. I was away for six months during which I continued to contribute to other projects and never once violated the block thus qualifying me for a standard offer which I am requesting. As soon as this is approved I will put one or more of these three charts into one or more articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs to work on and another 6,000 or more waiting for translations, so I am never going to run out of the graphics I am working on (so far I have done over 1,500) and have no time for wiki drama. But I would like to be able to use the work that I am creating. After all, a picture is worth 1,000 words. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to your restrictions? I'm not sure what you are requesting to have removed. Also, the way you have phrased this request implies that you have secondary accounts and that you log out to evade the restrictions. Could you clarify that?--Atlan (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe from this and the previous discussion that Apteva's work on charts invokes some of the issues related to his MOS ban. Tables/charts etc often require *specific* formatting which may conflict with other formatting used in the article hence the request to remove the restrictions. He is not saying he has been logging out, he is saying in order to put the material in he would need to log out and edit as an IP, and that even if he did, he wouldnt be able to make changes to semi-protected articles - he clarifies this when he says he has no wish to IAR and do it anyway. So currently his restrictions prevent him from making useful changes - the only way to make said changes would be to break the rules, and he doesnt want to break the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AN January 2013, including the "Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account" subsection. I think more information is needed before anything can be considered, despite the fact that Apteva has done good work at Commons and has been editing well here for over a year ago, I think. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Atlan: Ctrl+F WP:RESTRICT for "Apteva"; it's not clear if they are currently violating the restriction to one appeal every six months. I think if they let an appeal get archived wihout a proper close and didn't immediately request a proper close, then they should be blocked unless there was clear consensus to remove the restrictions.It is not at all clear to me what they want to do, what they are restricted from doing, or what the relationship between these two might be, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva's restrictions are logged at WP:Editing restrictions. His last appeal was in April of this year, which is give or take a day, 5 months ago, and that appeal was indeed archived with no resolution (I commented on it and almost no one else did). In fairness I do not think an archived request that was not closed should count towards his 6 months limit, if you are appealing a restriction you should get a clear yes/no answer. However my comment still stands - I do not think lifting restrictions from someone that were put in place specifically to prevent them making certain edits, so they can continue to make those edits is a good idea. Saying that, it has been awhile, so maybe its time to see if they can work in the area without conflict. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really think about that. I don't really understand the urgency of re-appealing five months after the last appeal was archived without result and risking a block for the possibility of getting the sanctions lifted one month sooner, and I would probably take the burden on myself to request a close if my appeal got archived without result, but you're right that it probably shouldn't count. Stricken. I would say remove the restrictions; they've certainly done their time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Except for the one-account restriction. A thorough explanation is needed for all use of alternate accounts, and since the vast majority of Wikipedians are already under a (de facto) similar restriction -- the policy called WP:SOCK -- explicitly allowing the use of alternate accounts should only be done if it is made clear why such an allowance is being requested. The above request ... doesn't look clear to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See my reply to Atlan. Its just the odd way he has phrased his request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I remember having a few head bumps on Apteva's page around the time their sanctions and block were put in place. WP:RESTRICT doesn't log any charts restrictions for Apteva, so how is this actually a violation. Or am I missing a few things here? Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer the immediately preceding question, early on I was doing charts as one user name and inserting them into the article under a different name (one name on commons one on enwiki) and got yelled at for being a sock even though the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another to use after I became an admin and for articles that I could not use the other name for. All very complicated but all quite simple. Unless anything has changed in the last five years other than that now all new accounts are SUL, my recollection is that if I take a photo of a house across the street I am allowed to put it into an article under a non-linked different username, that if I am working on an article that I would get fired if my boss found me doing it, etc. ditto. Almost all of my work is creating graphics under my primary user name, and I just uploaded three, that one at least would be extremely useful for the article on that subject and I am waiting with baited breath to be able to link it under my primary username. I would prefer but will defer if needed to continue editing the 150 solar articles under this user name just for the purpose of continuity. I am more than willing to follow all rules and only have one of own, Anonymity. That one is non-negotiable, and I am 100% certain, permitted, on this platform. I simply would not have any interest in contributing anything ever if it could not be done under that one and only one condition. If you look at all of the solar edits I have done from day one you will see they were all done under this username even if I was inserting a chart that was done with the commons name. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction. I have done 45 charts using this username and about 1800 under my primary username. Just guessing I would say I have about 20,000 edits, 2/3 on this username (13,900 and 10,360 under my primary username), as I was trying to "run up" the edit count to get to 5,000 so I could do an RFA. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Why is a different, anonymous user name any more private than the "Apteva" anonymous user name? Why would you want a separate user name for "becoming an admin"? (I did read this, but I'm afraid it didn't help me to understand, sorry). -- Begoon 03:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Really the only thing that you would need to read is WP:VALIDALT. I am not asking for anything more or less than what the consensus of the community has determined are legitimate uses of alternative accounts. My opinion would only be an issue if I had a different idea than what is written there and I do not. But it is my contention that it would be trivial to look through 30,000 edits and figure out a huge volume about that person and quite possibly identify them, out them, but that is totally prohibited and has already caused us to lose at least one good editor that I know of, and perhaps more. One way of making that less likely would be to avoid editing anything that would immediately identify your country, your city, your street, or your house. After I became an admin some of my edits would be as an admin and some as an editor, and as many admins did at the time at least, I have no idea of today, a separate account was used when you were in a public place and could not log in but wanted to sort categories write articles, just do ordinary tasks. But that was a long time ago and that may have changed completely. I do know that now we have a serious problem promoting admins, but I do not know how many of the current admins are using alternative accounts. Anyway, read up on WP:VALIDALT to see all the ways that I would not just want to but need to use an alternative account. Basically I want all restrictions removed so that I can do the exact same things, no more, and no less, than anyone signing up to make their first edit today. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The above seems to be in order. I support removing all restrictions. I would, however, strongly urge Apteva to put more effort into considering how his comments will be read by other users. The above "the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another for articles that I could not use the other name for" very much looks like "for articles that I am not allowed edit per my restrictions". Requests for removal of restrictions should not require very careful reading and interpretation. But that's a minor issue; I still say remove the restrictions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be averse to the removal of the restrictions provided some disclosure linking the 2 accounts was made to Arbcom. All of them are CheckUsers anyway so it wouldn't be out of their ability to link your accounts, although that would be a gross breach of policy if there was no reason to do so. Unfortunately, if someday Apteva were to become an admin, I believe there must be public disclosure of alt accounts. (Any admin may correct me here). Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I obviously have no objection to notifying Arbcom, and you are right that fishing expeditions and idle curiosity are forbidden. WP:AGF my intentions are and always have been only in the best interest of WP. Obviously as an admin you do not need to publicly reveal the accounts that you will use for privacy reasons. That would not work and if policy says you do that policy may need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you would adhere to the prohibitions at WP:ILLEGIT in your use of an undisclosed alternative account, specifically the prohibitions from: Editing project space, Circumventing policies or sanctions, Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny? Have you adhered to these conditions and prohibitions in your prior use of undisclosed alternative account(s)? -- Begoon 04:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I can categorically confirm that I will always adhere to all policies and guidelines, and out of 30,000 edits (give or take) I can only recall one violation and that was very early on before I knew about 3RR and an explanation would have worked far better than a block. Everything else has just been absurd wikidrama like below which I have neither the time nor interest in. I am her to build an encyclopedia and nothing else. You can either help me or I have no clue why you even have a user account. Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so let me ask directly: Are you therefore of the opinion that your blocks for disruption were not the result of your violation of any policy or guideline, such as, say WP:DISRUPT? I ask because how you view what happened in the past could be indicative of what may happen in the future, if restrictions are removed. I haven't decided whether I can support this yet, so your responses are helpful. I lean towards support, but I remember the events clearly, and still have lingering concerns. -- Begoon 09:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that you could not get me into an argument if you dragged me there. Too much work to do. I have a backlog of thousands of graphics to do and have no time for discussion. My intent is not to read this but to make an edit as soon as the restrictions are lifted. Sanctions are trivial to impose and with lees than a minutes discussion can be reimposed if there was any hint of the tireless, dogged war I pursued in the past to change the MOS to what it became anyway! Hows that for being right? Right now I just don't care about anything other than creating another useful graphic and offering it. If anyone wants to change anything, the furthest I will go is leave a comment on the talk page and let future generations sort it out. I am proud of the 1800 graphics I have done. One that I am working on now is being translated into 80 to 90 languages, meaning it will be available in native language for that many different wikis. That is far more important than discussing whether there should be a comma after Atlanta! Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Ban is a few years old. I was going to vote to support, but looking at the enormous amount of discussion and hands thrown up in frustration pre-topic ban I found here alone, I vote no. The lack of clarity in the request doesn't give me confidence either, so I won't support a reduction in the topic ban to allow editing but not policy discussion. Perhaps closer Seraphimblade has something to say? --Elvey 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please I implore you to amend or withdraw this. There is one and only one reason for making this request now. To put a chart into an article. Surely you can see the value of having me do it using the username that uploaded that chart? Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact is that I don't even use this account any more other than to occasionally update the solar articles. All of the rest of the time I am on commons on my primary account creating charts which then get put into articles, but mostly are just available for articles or are already in articles. I would guess there are 500 to 1000 that get updated monthly or annually as new data becomes available, like ones showing unemployment, and the only time an article needs to be edited is to say the date range of the chart has changed in the caption. I will never run out of work creating and translating charts and that is where almost all of my time is spent. I just want to be able to use them too. Why is that such a strange request? Apteva (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My only comment is that I closed the previous discussion based upon the consensus of the community that the restriction was necessary at that time. If it is now the community's view that it is no longer necessary, it should be lifted; conversely, if there is not a community consensus to lift it, it should remain in effect. The restriction is a community sanction, not something I came up with on my own. Seraphimblade 12:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest removing all sanctions, and that if anyone sees any hint of anything even questionable discussion here be capped to no more than two responses or ten minutes whichever comes first and one vote of support before closing the discussion and reimposing whichever portion is suggested. I will be marking this account "Not currently in use. Please contact me on commons." And not be using it for at least the rest of this year. I don't have time for controversy, and will avoid it like the plague, as I have an encyclopedia to work on that desperately needs help. You can't even look up the income in Florida without finding that the numbers have been vandalized and the page marked disputed. I will fix it but that takes time and effort. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The back and forth has lasted a couple days and may result in some confusion or perhaps inevitable talking over one another. So in the interests of clarity, I'm posting this for consideration. Does the community support/oppose the lifting of all restrictions that are currently active on Apteva? As far as I understand, the current restrictions are

!Voters are, naturally, free to choose whether they support the lifting of particular restrictions instead of all of them, as they desire. Blackmane (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

How did this get archived after only one day? Apteva (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Threads on AN/I are automatically bot archived after 3 days of inactivity. Counting that the last comment was on Sept 30, it's been four days not one since this thread went inactive. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow where does the time go when you are busy~ Finished the chart with 81 translations, had to log out to use it (which is what I am trying to eliminate) and the article it would go in is semiprotected, but I can of course add it to 80 other wikis in that native language. Mostly I just create charts and let someone else figure out whether, where, and how to use them, but the one I am waiting to add would be worth putting into the article. It is not semi-protected so I can log out and add it but that makes no sense. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

More charts added. Would like to be able to use some, replacing older non-SVG ones. Apteva (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• The nature of the request, the lack of clarity, the unexplained urgency, all this makes me quite uncomfortable. Apteva seems to be rushing to put out a fire that doesn't exist. I've never had a bad experience with them, but this isn't even 6 months from the last request, which itself was rather muddled. I am guessing I'm not the only one with these types of reservations, based on how few are participating. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I still don´t understand how the listed restrictions prevent Apteva from adding charts to articles. Also, he keeps saying he logs out to work around the restrictions, which would seem to me to be ban evasion. Is there some kind of language barrier at play here?--Atlan (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No I have never wanted to or evaded in any way any restriction, and have allowed Misplaced Pages be worse by doing so. I rarely edit Misplaced Pages today other than to put into place the charts and images that now occupy almost all of my editing, and update solar articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs that have been requested and another 6,000 SVGs to be translated. And that is in addition to the new works that I have created (about 1,700 out of 1,800). Most of the solar articles need to be updated monthly or annually as it is a rapidly changing field.

The reason we allow alternative accounts is because they are necessary. Which means that I can not properly participate. The reason we allow changing dashes to hyphens and vice versa is the MOS requests that. I can not properly edit articles to make them conform to the MOS. I can not appeal these restrictions for six months because someone wants Misplaced Pages to be worse and not better. This appeal was started long after the six months was up and was archived twice because no one responded. And if you do not think that correcting factual information or correcting hyphens to dashes is not important, why are you even here? The urgency is there is an article on a subject that would greatly benefit by way of illustration from using a chart that was not uploaded using this alternative account and I would like to be able to insert it using the same account that uploaded it (it is PD and I did not create it). Apteva (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Apteva: I'm still trying to figure out why you log out to insert these charts.--Adam in MO Talk 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I am primarily an IP user, although now primarily a primary account editor and rarely use this alternative account (created a week later to address things I could not do with the primary account). It would be silly to log out just to add charts here when there is no reason to keep going back and forth. There is no reason to block this account and unblock the primary account, because that would only prohibit me from editing semi-protected solar articles. Anyway, I would prefer removing any reference to my primary account here because it only has the effect of violating my privacy. I will freely disclose the link to anyone who contacts me, unless it is clear that they are only requesting it to try to out me IRL, something that is clearly forbidden. It has never and never will be used in any manner that is in any way a violation of any guideline or policy other than unintentionally by forgetting which account had edited that page. Now that I am only working on charts and plan on not making more than 4 edits a month here, what I want to do is make all four using my primary account so that I can seamlessly edit all 200+ wikis. In most other wikis I still edit as an IP user. Apteva (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the answers to the questions above are too concerning. I remember the disruption that led to the block, and it was a series of enormous time sinks. At the heart of it was always "I am right, you are all wrong, and you simply do not understand why I need to be allowed to do whatever I like, in order to make the changes that I have decided wikipedia needs." When blocked, the argument became "you are hurting wikipedia, because you are not allowing me to do whatever I like, in order to make the changes that I have decided wikipedia needs." In the responses above Apteva indicates that they still think they have never done anything wrong apart from a bit of accidental edit-warring as a newbie, and all the rest was caused by others not understanding how right Apteva was and not just letting them do whatever they had decided was correct. I can't support lifting these restrictions in that case, since I am too concerned that their view on what happened in the past is so divorced from the reality of things. I was hoping their answers might make me less concerned, but sadly they did the opposite. Sorry. -- Begoon 15:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that if you are concerned about my answers you are simply not understanding them, probably because they are way too long, and you do not see the value of someone with the username lets call it FooFoo, creating 1800 charts and putting them into an article using that username instead of an alternative username, say FuuFuu other than in article that FuuFuu is editing (it would be a perceived sock violation to use FooFoo)? Please I implore you to allow me to edit using my primary username, instead of making me use "FuuFuu". The least you could do is unblock my primary account and allow me to use it. As you can see this one is tagged "not in use" (other than to reply here). I do not wish to have the block moved as there is no reason to do that, as doing so would simply mean that I would not be able to edit the 150 or so solar articles that I update from time to time. Out of the last 15,000 edits I have probably made 1,000 using this alternative account and it is simply not practical for me to use "FuuFuu". Slows me down way too much to have to every time I want to edit here log out and log in again, and simply prefer to use only one username when possible (the exact same thing that Misplaced Pages prefers), and these restrictions do only one thing, prevent me from properly improving Misplaced Pages. Not only are restrictions not supposed to do that but are prohibited from doing that. It would not make any sense to have restrictions that only hurt the development of the encyclopedia, which all of these clearly do, which is why it is urgent to remove them. The idea that I was a sock was brought up simply because I created a graphic in my primary username, as I almost always do and to avoid being a sock put it into the article using the same username that had been editing that article. But then someone clicked on the chart (clicking on a chart is relatively rare - while the charts I have created are viewed over a million times each day, far far fewer click on them), and with no basis for doing so accused this perfectly legitimate, and necessary, alternative account of being a sock which I am not and never have been. I always have and always will follow all guidelines and policies to the best of my ability. When I broke 3RR I had no idea it existed, and a warning would have been much better for Misplaced Pages than a block. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Partial - Yet again, I fail to see why Apteva can only edit by using two accounts. So I do not support removal of that restriction.

I have never seen Apteva as a vandal or deliberately disruptive editor and so have no wish to restrict him in useful work around his interest in solar power. So I'm open to removing restrictions that would prevent this. I would hope that Apteva can recognise what the original problems were and how to avoid a re-run of them. In such a case - and be aware that you will be under some scrutiny - I'd support removing that second restriction, on making stylistic changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support lifting restrictions. If Apteva's editing, under whichever username, becomes a problem, there's enough prior discussion that re-imposing them, or stricter ones, shouldn't be a problem. I'd also like to opine that re-appealing after 5 months when the previous appeal was archived with no decision shouldn't be considered a violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Once again, the same breathless bafflegab from Apteva. I notice that while Apteva has been vigorously campaigning to have ALL his restrictions removed, he's only been providing his breathless and unchanged bafflegab regarding the use of multiple accounts. Just above, he finally lets the mask slip and reveals that he wants to once again take up his ridiculous and timewasting crusade regarding hyphens and endashes, which I suspect was his purpose all along.

You need to put some charts into an article, Apteva? Here's what you do: you put the damned charts in the damned articles. You have an account, so use it.

I note that, despite the fact his second account (Delphi234 (talk · contribs)) has been blocked on Misplaced Pages, he still uses that account name on Wikimedia Commons, as well as referring to his current Misplaced Pages account as his "alternate account". This tells me that he does not and has never intended to follow his account restrictions, simply hoping to bide his time but losing patience with this restriction-violating appeal.

Here's what he needs to do: drop this immediately, or I will:

1) go to arbitration enforcement to officially request enforcement of his six-month appeal restriction

2) further ask that the his six-month appeal restriction be lengthened to nine months or a year to prevent -- or at least delay -- future wastes of time.

--Calton | Talk 04:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no WP:POLICY against "breathless and unchanged bafflegab", but I can only agree that he'd make his case so much better if he learned to express it more concisely. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Totally true. It is very difficult for me to respond to "drop this" without knowing what "this" is. I can assure you that "down there" would freeze over long before I would violate any restrictions or create most charts other than using the account which was created before this, or use this Admin wannabe account to insert any charts into virtually any but solar accounts. As I plan on being very careful to make less than 4 edits each month on enwiki (after I finish the other half of the backlog of edits that I know about that piled up while I was blocked and not one has noticed and fixed - the reason is our Wiki stats counts people who have made more than 5, and more than 100 edits a month, and I do not wish to be placed into the wrong category - I rarely make less than 100 edits a month, but they are mostly on commons). Prohibiting me from using my primary account is a huge problem. My only question is: Do you want to benefit or hurt Misplaced Pages? Each of the restrictions clearly hurts Misplaced Pages, and removing all of them clearly helps Misplaced Pages. None of this requires any discussion. But it does require an answer. You can either let me add a PD chart that I uploaded in September now or ten years from now, but it is absurd to wait six months let alone 10 years. So do you want to allow me to make four edits a month with no restrictions and no violation of any guideline or policy or not? I just did a chart that shows how likely someone is to click on an image and if anyone knows of a tool that will tell me the page views of the 3,000 articles that the template that uses that image has, that would be very helpful. Even without including those 3,000 articles, only 1.6% click on the image. Including them probably drops it to closer to 0.001%. Now if you will excuse me, what precious editing time needs to be productive and commenting here is less than useless and I will not make any further edits here. You can either help or hurt Misplaced Pages and I can no more stop you than I can wave a magic want and eliminate the people who are hurting Misplaced Pages. I am not one of them. I have created 176 articles, only one of which was deleted, and over 8,000 images. That is a far better use of my time that spending time explaining myself here. I await your positive response and will re-appeal and re-appeal ad nauseam simply because that is the only way I am comfortable contributing. As noted I could invoke IAR, but that simply is not who I am, and refuse to do that. Thanks. This is my last post here. Apteva (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A 12 line reply to a one line comment about verbosity? You're missing the point. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the two-accounts problem just that WP:Unified login is preventing Apteva from being logged in to Commons as Delphi234 (which is blocked here) at the same time as he is logged in to Misplaced Pages as Apteva? It seems like a simple solution would be to remove the sock block from Delphi234 and add it to Apteva, fixing the login problem without touching the community restrictions. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose lifting restrictions. I like Apteva, but the lack of clarity in this request and the continuing my-restrictions-are-damaging-to-WP tone hold me back. Apteva has produced some wonderful charts (see, for example, File:Asiana Flight 214 Approach to SFO.png). The lack of clarity in this request and its side discussions confuse and trouble me; there are complained about barriers that I just do not see. The restrictions-are-damaging viewpoint is tied to the earlier MOS issues and make me leery. This case is atypical; instead of editing typical content outside the topic ban, Apteva has been updating stats. I'm happy to see the additions, but safe statistics do not risk conflict with other editors or show that earlier issues are being avoided. Apteva is permitted to appeal his restrictions; so this appeal should be closed rather than ignored and archived. Glrx (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal #2 - Renaming

Rename Apteva's account here to their choice of name, to match that at Commons. This leaves them with one consistently named account, no alternative account(s) and avoids problems with unified login. They can then do what they wish (subject to any remaining restrictions) without hindrance. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• support as proposer. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• conditional support seems reasonable with the condition that Apteva is okay with this option as it is a forced account name change otherwise. PaleAqua (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Edit: striking !vote per comment at my talk commons page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Link: Commons:User talk:PaleAqua#enwiki:ani

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal #3 - Indef ban

• After this piece of snark at another editor, I would now favour an indef ban, with reviews limited to 12 months at most.

Apteva has no insight into their behaviour at WP and why this has for so long been a problem. They have wasted substantial amounts of other editor's time in trying repeatedly to explain this. They still demand their "alternate accounts" for no clearly discernible purpose. There is no reason why they cannot already do whatever useful edits they wish to, without this Apteva / Delphi234 business.

Enough. Time to throw away the key. Let other people get on with something more useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll agree with some of the assessment, but lack of personal insight and confusion are not reasons for an indef. Glrx (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Close to support. I started out above thinking it had been a long time, AGF, people change, people learn, all those good thoughts... By now Apteva has eroded all of that by demonstrating no change of attitude, no understanding of why past behaviour was unacceptable, telling multiple editors they must either support or Apteva has "no idea why they are here.", and that not doing exactly what Apteva wants is just "hurting" wikipedia. It just gets worse. Apteva responded to my comment about their persistently telling others that they just do not understand why Apteva is right and everyone else wrong by... telling me I probably just didn't understand why Apteva was right... More walls of impenetrable blather, more wasted time... The final nail for me is the indication of a desire to recommence the dash/hyphen nonsense. That makes me shudder. So, I almost support this, and reaffirm my opposition to lifting of any restrictions. -- Begoon 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Forgive me, but I missed it. Where is "the indication of a desire to recommence the dash/hyphen nonsense"? That's a pretty big nail. Glrx (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  "...Which means that I can not properly participate. The reason we allow changing dashes to hyphens and vice versa is the MOS requests that. I can not properly edit articles to make them conform to the MOS. I can not appeal these restrictions for six months because someone wants Misplaced Pages to be worse and not better. This appeal was started long after the six months was up and was archived twice because no one responded. And if you do not think that correcting factual information or correcting hyphens to dashes is not important, why are you even here?" - . That's how I read it anyway, but as usual with Apteva it's wrapped in vagueness and rambling rhetoric. -- Begoon 02:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  To answer 50.0.205.96 below, this one diff obviously isn't enough on its own, but the quote above might make it clearer. So, so many of Apteva's edits are not content-based, but are to denigrate other editors like this, claiming that anyone who sees a problem with their behaviour they "want Misplaced Pages to be worse and not better". Enough is enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Thanks for the quotation. I took the "to make them conform to the MOS" as dominant (and different from Apteva's past behavior), but MOS is an area that Apteva should avoid. Yes, there is a house style, but the delta between Spanish-American War and Spanish–American War is small and won't confuse readers. Glrx (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not bothered much by Andy's diff taken in isolation, and don't feel like wading into the bigger context enough to support or oppose the ban proposal. But Apteva, really, if you have useful content (charts or whatever) to add to articles, I urge thinking like a content editor and realizing that the MOS is nothing but a circlejerk. Normal human readers come to Misplaced Pages for content and don't care in the least if punctuation style differs between articles or even within an article. So go ahead and add the charts without worrying about whether that leaves the hyphen style inconsistent (or whatever), regardless of what the MOS says. If someone else is obsessive enough to notice, they can fix it eventually. If they never notice and it stays inconsistent, that's fine too. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Users adding references to Paolo Rampini die cast books

There are multiple IP that add in the "References Cited" section, several books of "Paolo Rampini" on diecast subjet. This users are adding the links also in the italian wikipedia. If you insert "Paolo Rampini" (with inverted commas) in the search box you will find 25 pages with this books. There are tecniques to block this advertizing users and clean the pages?--Arosio Stefano (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

IPs adding these (and nothing else):

• 37.176.229.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 93.68.207.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.114.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.157.192.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.134.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.27.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.159.39.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Defo looks like spamming to me. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to start cleaning them up. For prevention, I'm not aware of anything other than the spambot, which is (afaiaa) for links, not text. - Ryk72 09:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

All done. Edit filter is the only obvious way to fix this if it continues. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 93.68.234.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 31.157.41.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Any chance of an edit filter? Guy (Help!) 10:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Having a look at the possibility of a filter now - testing at Special:AbuseFilter/773 for a little bit to see what we're up against -- samtar 15:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Spamming confirmed

I think removes any residual uncertainty. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. How does this prove it is spam? I see a valid reference. Google books also found other books that use in their own bibliographies.

• https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0-_tBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA124&dq=%22The+Golden+Book+of+Model+Cars%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Golden%20Book%20of%20Model%20Cars%22&f=false
• https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9OMTItsyCSoC&pg=PA121&dq=%22The+Golden+Book+of+Model+Cars%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Golden%20Book%20of%20Model%20Cars%22&f=false

Is there something about Rampini that is forbidden?  Stepho  talk  12:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple shifting IPs and changing the apelling to evade a filter? That is classic spamming. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Guy on this; also consider that the books are being added as general references, not inline references, to articles which are already verified - there's no enhancement to the quality of the articles by the addition. - Ryk72 13:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Filter? Rangeblock? Synthesizer patch trivia LTA case from New York

There's a person using multiple IPs from New York who adds unreferenced trivial stuff to music articles. The most recognizable pattern is like this one in which a song article gets something like the following text clumsily inserted into the first sentence:

• ...(where the patch/sound was/were heard)...

Here are some examples:

• 8 Oct 2600:1017:B42C:F2BD:39DF:B887:9F4C:57B3 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 Oct 2600:1017:B829:DB9A:602B:3727:3BD2:2ADB (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27 Sept 2600:1017:B81C:911D:A591:6D14:580A:3E3F (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 Sept 2600:1017:B80C:8923:3931:FD2A:6643:B8AA (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1017:B802:AECC:7180:7036:B70D:8F0C (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1000:B10B:9C5:384B:2589:1406:1C07 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 July 2600:1017:B82C:A4C4:2453:58A4:DD3E:A3E6 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 July 2600:1017:B818:FC2:7452:75E3:151E:7E75 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 17 July 2600:1001:B116:9629:DD5:5BD9:18FD:2C41 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 16 July 70.192.67.109 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 2600:1001:B128:4F85:DDCF:A0E6:3C6C:4C44 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 June 2600:1017:B40A:E3AB:3D69:CC5C:6589:1B2E (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25 June 2600:1017:B81A:7B1D:1CC1:4BC0:E2BD:409F (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 June 2600:1017:B814:6C8C:85F2:2AF:B89F:D435 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10 June 2600:1017:B809:3743:9DA3:6F49:B45D:B193 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 22 May 2600:1017:B808:590F:8C6A:ABD7:252C:FA9E (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 May 2600:1017:B40A:79F6:F51A:9F70:F038:5217 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 April – 1 May 2600:1017:B81A:4F01:1977:B827:7A34:6E12 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 20 April 2600:1017:B80B:5A78:E817:36EB:13FD:31B6 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 March 2600:1017:B80F:61EF:2582:6E38:CB38:42E0 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 13 March 70.214.107.246 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 March 2600:1017:B820:33DD:F095:AED6:C1A7:D8D6 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 26 February 2600:1017:B42C:452:E03B:F767:B25B:5695 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 February 2600:1017:B81A:597C:F81E:2DFF:EAE0:334 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–28 January 70.199.102.232 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 January 2600:1017:B822:9C5C:E85B:E505:981B:C8B9 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 January 2600:1017:B817:3A18:219E:798A:6F87:558B (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 7–9 January 70.214.96.15 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 December 2015 2600:1017:B806:BC85:D991:4755:1262:82D7 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 October 2600:1017:B818:4D25:44A:DF1:5914:41F4 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Some of these IPs have been blocked for this disruption, for instance a few weeks ago on 1 September and on 8 September, both blocked by Widr. If this disruptive person stuck around for more than a few days on any IP address I would try to reason with him or her, but that hasn't happened. So to stop the disruption, do we put a filter together to stop the clumsy insertions of trivia? Or do we set a rangeblock in place on the most frequently used group, 2600:1017:B...? Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think an edit filter is the way to go here. He's not editing frequently enough to justify a rangeblock for 2600:1017:b800::/42, and for the rest we'd have to block the /64s or /128s individually. Katie 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have requested an edit filter. Let's see how that goes. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• An edit filter was knocked together by MusikAnimal who will update us after seeing what triggers the filter. SummerPhDv2.0 says that the elation of a successful filter might yield an epic poem or "something". Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, no hits yet but I tested the filter on the list of edits Binksternet provided. The only reason I'm doing this by the way is because I really want to see SummerPhDv2.0's poetic talent. I'm holding you to it! :) — MusikAnimal 00:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• "There once was a man from Geatland..." - SummerPhD 02:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 aka User:Little Silas aka User:2602:306:3134:6180:848e:9e67:8ee5:670a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/POV-pushing at Winsor McCay

2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk · contribs) aka Little Silas (talk · contribs) aka 2602:306:3134:6180:848e:9e67:8ee5:670a (talk · contribs) has been altering the Winsor McCay to reflect a POV that McCay was born on a certain date or in a certain order before his siblings. John Canemaker, McCay's most prominent biographer, goes into detail about why McCay's birthdate is uncertain in the second edition of his Winsor McCay: His Life and Art (doesn't appear to be available on GBooks, but I've quoted it ad nauseam at User talk:Little Silas). All of this is detailed in the article itself, but said user continues to push this WP:OR/WP:SYNTH stuff, as they have for over a year now (and have even introduced at Talk:Winsor McCay an undocumented theory that McCay was born in 19661866, supported by not one source).

You mean 1866? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with this incessant disruption? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Despite having been warned, the editor in question is now engaging in an edit war. Re: "They are simple facts directly cited to Canemaker"—I've already shown this to be false at User talk:Little Silas. Canemaker goes into detail why a birthdate cannot be determined. Little Silas knows this. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey is making false claims of OR, POV, and edit warring. I attempted to insert two simple facts into the article: 1) that Winsor McCay was his parents' firstborn child, and 2) that his sibling Arthur was his younger brother. Both facts are found in two important sources: Canemaker(2005) and Bien(2011). These are sourced facts, not OR, and I made no attempt to interpret them. And I put nothing in the article about McCay's date of birth. Curly "the jerk" Turkey doesn't like, or doesn't understand, the possible implications of these facts, so he claims that they are actually contradicted by the sources, which is absurd. His false claim can be easily dismissed by simply reading one page in either source. Any POV problem here belongs to Curly "the jerk" Turkey. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• The above manure has been refuted repeatedly at User talk:Little Silas. Arthur was born in 1868, while Winsor was born in either 1867, 1869, or 1871, which can't be determined for reasons Canemaker details on page 22 of his book, which User:Little Silas has demonstrated to have read. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I made no reference at all in the article to McCay's birth year. I am mystified why Curly "the jerk" Turkey thinks that I did. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Winsor cannot be Arthur's older brother unless he was born before 1868. Let's stop pretending—we've been over and over and over this, and you're even editwarring over it. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey just might be on to something about 1868, but I'm just interested in what the sources have to say. Canemaker calls Winsor the “firstborn” (p22) and the “eldest son” (p24), while Bien (p123) calls him “the oldest son”, and refers to Arthur as his "younger brother". It can't get any clearer than that: Arthur McCay was Winsor's younger brother. Both sources say so, repeatedly. What this might mean for Winsor's disputed birthdate is anyone's guess, but these sourced facts speak for themselves. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Canemaker takes great pains to demonstrate why McCay's birthdate cannot be determined, and there is no reason to call Arthur a "younger brtoher" or Winsor an "older brother" when it's already clear they are children of the same parents. Your goal is to push an earlier birthdate, which you've been pushing for over a year—including trying to obliterate the other dates from the article, and continued to editwar over it (until an admin stepped in). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• When are they going to remake this film? And totally ruin it? Doc talk 09:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hopefully never. Curly "the shithead" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's safe to say we've not seen eye-to-eye, but you're signature did make me chuckle! Got to agree with you here. Either someone blocks the anon or makes the page protected. Lugnuts 08:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute with conduct issues arising from it. Often resolving the content dispute in a civil way causes the conduct issues to subside. Read the dispute resolution policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is here because of the incessant behaviour and the POV/OR/SYNTH issues. The "content dispute" has carried on for well over a year, with Little Silas slipping in their POV/OR/SYNTH under two IPs. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: an admin has stepped in before "rev OR" that Little Silas had added. Is OR to be upgraded to "content dispute" status? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey continues to misrepresent my edits as OR, when I simply introduced two brief sourced facts, without comment or interpretation. And Curly "the jerk" Turkey continues to carry-on about Winsor McCay's birth year, which I never mentioned in the article.

More troubling, however, are his false claims of "incessant disruption" extending "for well over a year". I first attempted to edit the McCay article over the course of a week or two in June 2015. I then ignored it for well over a year, until a few days ago. On Oct 2 (05:22), I inserted the sentence "Winsor was the first of three McKay children", and the phrase "Winsor's younger brother Arthur", with sources for both.

Two days later, on October 4 (03:20), after a routine exchange about date-range formatting, Curly "the jerk" Turkey suddenly went ballistic and reverted all of my edits, calling them "OR bullshit" and threatening "to take this shit to WP:ANI? I'm reverting all this horseshit." I restored only the two brief disputed edits at 05:03 & 06:00, pointing out that they were sourced facts, not OR. Unfazed, Curly "the jerk" Turkey reverted them again (07:32), with the command to "stop the horseshit now." I restored them at 07:42, explaining that "You are disrupting these edits with false claims of OR." He then reverted my edits yet again (07:46), with the kiss-off comment "You've been reported. Have fun with your block." So, I restored my edits twice (first, 2 edits from his mass deletion), with valid explanation, while Curly "the jerk" Turkey reverted and threatened 3 times, with false claims of OR. That's the extent of his "edit war."

And clearly Curly "the jerk" Turkey's charge of "incessant disruption" lasting "for over a year" is ridiculous, since I ignored the article for more than a year, and the current dispute is confined to barely 4 hours on October 4. What Curly "the jerk" Turkey calls "incessant disruption" is just anything that threatens his POV.

This complaint by Curly "the jerk" Turkey is based on distortions and downright lies. His statements cannot be trusted. He is cynically using ANI as a weapon against an editor he disagrees with. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And that "POV" would be ...? We know what yours is—that despite the source you cite saying McCay's birthdate cannot be determined (and why, in detail, documented in the article), you insist on one particular date, and hammer away at it with superfluous language such as "eldest son" and "younger/older brother". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• I do not insist on one particular date, and I said nothing about his birth year in the article. All references here to his year of birth have been made by Curly "the jerk" Turkey. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've already linked to your edit changing the birthdate to 1867 and the ensuing editwar that an admin had to put a stop to. The only reason to add superfluous language such as "elder/younger brother" or "first son" is to reinforce the idea that 1867 was his birthdate—which is your goal and your only reason for being on Misplaced Pages. Round and round and round we go ... Oh, let's not forget that Robert McClenon inists this is all about a birthdate, which you now deny. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Canemaker(2005) and Bien(2011), the principal sources, both say McCay was born in 1867, but that wasn't good enough (way back in June 2015) for Curly "the jerk" Turkey. I don't necessarily agree with Canemaker and Bien, but I keep my opinions out of the article. I'm interested in trying to reduce the ridiculous uncertainty surrounding McCay's birth year (anywhere from 1866 to 1871, and beyond), not in specifying any particular year. But I make a point of keeping this interest out of the article, by not mentioning McCay's birth year at all. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Canemaker details on page 22 of his book why Winsor McCay's birthdate cannot be determined to be 1867, 1869, or 1871. On the same page he tells us Arthur McCay was born on 1868. This is all in paragraphs 3–4 of Winsor McCay#Family history. There is no reason to call Arthur Winsor's "younger brother" or to call Winsor the "eldest son" in the article—the article makes it amply clear that they were sons of the same parents. Misplaced Pages cannot prefer the 1867 birthdate, even if particular authors do. The only reason to include superfluous language such as "older/younger brother" or "eldest son" is to POV-push a preferred date that the most prominent source tells us: "The exact date and place of birth of the child who became Winsor McCay are uncertain because of lack of documentation." (Canemaker 2005, p. 22). Read through the edit history of the Winsor McCay article and you'll see User:Little Silas and his IPs detailing how they came to the personal conclusion that McCay "seems" to have been born in 1867. This WP:OR/WP:SYNTH cannot be classified as a "content dispute". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these three accounts are Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose accounts focused entirely on this POV-pushing/OR/SYNTH ("Silas" is a nom de plume of Winsor McCay's). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do I detect a desperate attempt to move the goalposts? >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Goalposts", because this is so obviously a game to you. Nothing has changed, including your disruptive behaviour. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibilities for Closure

I suggested that this is a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. User:CurlyTurkey, on my talk page, objects that this characterization too often derails ANI discussions. (At least, that is I think what CurlyTurkey says.) Rather than have this discussion first derailed and then archived to nowhere, I suggest some sort of resolution. First, if this really is about a date of birth, and about edit-warring over a date of birth, in view of how long it has been going on, the two editors can be sent to request formal mediation, where a skilled mediator will cut through their antagonism and get to the issue of the date of birth. Second, the article can be fully protected for a month to force them to discuss on the talk page. I am not optimistic about that and do not recommend it, because I think that a third party may be needed. Third, both editors can be warned that incivility is not permitted and that future incivility and future edit-warring will result in blocks (and that the first block should be at least 72 hours, because some editors think that a 24-hour block is cheap). Fourth, I don’t have a fourth alternative, but maybe someone else does. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Better idea: someone take an actual look at what's going on. This is not a content dispute. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Another Possibility for Closure: First, there is so a content dispute, which has to do with the birth date of the subject. If there weren’t, the filing party could simply leave the edits alone. Insisting at length that there is no content dispute does not change the fact that there is a content dispute. Second, however, there are conduct issues. I see incivility on both sides. Third, there is an unnecessary use of IP editing, since we have agreement that Little Silas and 2602.306.3134.6180.* are the same. I suggest that the article be semi-protected for six months because there is no reason for Little Silas to edit logged out. Fourth, if Curly Turkey thinks that there is no content dispute, they can just ignore the birth date nonsense. Fifth, a community interaction ban should be imposed between them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• "if Curly Turkey thinks that there is no content dispute, they can just ignore the birth date nonsense."—You're acting as Little Silas and I were disputing preferred birthdates—which only demonstrates that you've given the evidence no more than a cursory glance, if that. Pause for thirty seconds to read through the evidence and you'll see how ignorant, ridiculous, and disruptive these subsections are. If you can't do even that much, then you have no business here. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Like Robert McClenon, I am unable to evaluate the details in this report. However, it is unhelpful to derail the report with banal suggestions about mediation between a known-good established editor and an SPA with shifting IPs. As far as I can see, in 15 months the SPA has done nothing but attempt to inject unimportant and challenged details regarding which child was born first diff. The events took place 130 years ago so such details are unimportant and likely to be unknown. Does anyone have a suggestion for how to deal with this? I'll try to follow Winsor McCay for a while but am unlikely to be much use since I'm not going to track down and examine the sources which CT has mentioned—indeed, I think that would be a waste of time since we can be very confident that CT is correctly reporting what the sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• You can never be confident about the veracity of Curly "the jerk" Turkey's statements, unless you trouble yourself to check the sources: Canemaker(2005) p22, and Bien(2011) p123. To simply assume that he is being accurate is grossly unfair. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'ts not just an assumption, it's a reasonable conclusion based on previous experience with the editor and with Misplaced Pages. The main point, however, is that edits from an WP:SPA that focus on trivia such as which of three children were born first (130 years ago) are known to be unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I can mail scans of the relavant pages to anyone who wants them if the material already extensively quoted is not sufficient. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Call it what you want, it is an assumption, and an obviously biased one at that. And if my two small disputed edits were simply "unhelpful trivia", Curly "the jerk" Turkey would not have resorted to false claims of OR when he removed them. He is aggressively opposed to these simple facts because they threaten his POV concerning McCay's birth year. I have my own opinion on the subject, but I've made a point of keeping it out of the article. I made no reference whatsoever to McCay's birth year in my recent article edits. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• They're not "unhelpful trivia", they're persistent POV-pushing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is why I'm requesting to have you blocked. You have yet to state what my supposed "POV concerning McCay's birth year" is supposed to be, given I "prefer" none. I hope noboby else will be as dense as Robert McClenon to fall for that transparent nonsense. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• We can hope that an admin will take the time to wade through this and stop the nonsense, but there has been too much back-and-forth for that to be likely. I have now read enough of the discussion to work out what it is about. The SPA's motivation was made clear at Talk:Winsor McCay#Winsor McCay's 150th Birthday: "So Winsor McCay was born on September 26, 1866, nearly 9 months after his parents' marriage on January 8." That follows after a few lines of argument aka WP:OR. The SPA may be correct and is welcome to publish their conclusion at another website, however Misplaced Pages will have to use the same vagueness as the sources. As I mentioned above, the fundamental point is that an exact year of birth from 130 years ago is trivia, and attempts to push a line will be stopped. Unfortunately CT will have to endure the issue for a while longer—a calm approach will get the best results. Perhaps the SPA may like to turn their talents to determining Shakespeare's exact year of birth. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Virtually every biographical article on Wikipaedia leads with the birth year, so getting it right is hardly trivia. And there is already no doubt that Shakespeare was born in exactly 1564, since his birth is recorded in the Stratford parish register, so your fatuous and oh-so-clever dismissive comment is nonsense. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Persistent WP:OR POV-pushing is a behaviour issue, not a content issue, so let's hope someone gets around to plugging this disruptive single-purpose SPA. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not "pushing a line." I confine my opinions to the talk page, where they are permitted. (WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.") I avoid expressing my opinions in the article, and I made no reference to McCay's birth date in my recent edits. I have no expectation of ever changing the current dog's breakfast of possible (and impossible) birth years that leads the McCay article. Embarrassment and ridicule will have to do that. I just think that a few simple sourced facts (e.g. "Winsor McCay had a younger brother who was born in 1868.") would help interested readers understand the issue, and perhaps draw their own conclusions. Why suppress pertinent facts? >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• At Misplaced Pages, that's known as WP:SYNTH—the desire to provide true facts to push unsourced information. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like I'm now being accused of a thought crime, for having a forbidden hidden agenda behind a couple of thoroughly sourced simple facts. That's quite a leap from a baseless, disproven claim of OR. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No one gives a shit what you "think", so there's no "thought crime". You've repeatedly violated Misplaced Pages policies. That's a behaviour issue that needs to be dealt with. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• More baseless nonsense from a proven liar. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommend a range block and very long semi

On seeing this, which was originally a content dispute, play out, User:Little Silas is unfortunately making it very clear that User:Curly Turkey is mostly right and that they obviously have no intention of being reasonable. Why are they continuing to edit form IP addresses when they have a registered user account? I suggest, first, that the article be semi-protected for at least six months to force them to use their registered account, and, preferably, second, that the IP addresses be blocked for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have one IP, which changes occasionally at the whim of AT&T. I think it's been been stable since May. I edit very little, and the edits are usually small, so I don't bother to log-in unless I'm doing something more substantial, which is rare. Is logging-in now mandatory? And finally, what "personal attacks" are you referring to? >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "I edit very little"—yes, we know. Yours is a WP:Single-purpose account. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Proven liar" is a personal attack, unless you can prove your ability to read minds, since a statement is only a lie if it is not only false but is known to be false. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Every now and then I encounter an editor whom I try to assume good faith of and to defend until the editor proves the case against themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• How about my other question. Is logging-in now mandatory? >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• As you know, the answer is no. What you are missing is that it is also not compulsory for established editors to waste hours repeating obvious policy issues to single-purpose accounts. If you stick to your Little Silas (talk · contribs) account people might be willing to spend a little more time explaining basics on your talk, but doing that with a shifting IP (albeit, slowly shifting) is a double waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• My activities have not been single-purpose. As I explained, I tend to make a small number of small edits through my IP. These include a few attempts to edit the McCay article (October 1-4), as well as edits to several other articles: If this list indicates any "single-purpose", it is dealing with ANI over the last few days, which is definitely not my preference. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

unless you can prove your ability to read minds—hardly need to talk about "reading minds". To be a liar, you first have to tell a lie.

Update—Little Silas is playing more mind games "Provided source reference for fact that has been in the article, unsourced, for several years."—to udermine my credibility by copy-pasting a ref that sources four sentences to the first sentences, trying to make it look like the first sentence was "unsourced". This behaviour's not going to stop. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁&nsees a dark motivebsp;¡gobble! 07:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• This was just a mistake, not a dark conspiracy to undermine Curly "the jerk" Turkey's credibility. I added a source reference, not noticing that there already was one near the end of the next line. I apologized, saying "Sorry. It was so far away that I missed it." >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's funny how your "mistake" fits so well into your established pattern of behaviour. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's funny how Curly "the jerk" Turkey sees a dark motive, even where there isn't one. It was a simple mistake, and I apologized within an hour. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There whole reason for your single-purpose account is to play these games. It was no "mistake". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pldx1 appears to be trolling me, and isn't doing much else

Pldx1 (talk · contribs)'s behaviour has been brought up here twice before with several users agreeing that his edits were troubling, but with the threads getting archived without a proper close. He hasn't added much good content to the encyclopedia (his English is very poor and always needs to be proof-read by others, and his sourcing standards are not great either). After a three-month absence, he recently re-emerged and made one possibly-bad edit and one definitely-bad one, which I reverted.

In a discussion on MOS peripherally related to the former, which had until then been unusually civil for MOS, he posted a long comment that was barely legible but appeared to be unrelated to the MOS problem and to be trying to make the discussion about me. After I called him out for this, he posted a piece of sarcasm that served no purpose but to get a rise out me. When I told him that if he continued doing this I would report him on ANI, he replied with this. (It's very annoying being called out for the odd misprint on a talk page by the editor who added this to the mainspace.)

Note that I have told him several times to stop pinging me, but he has kept doing it, including in all three of the recent comments. Despite the ping, I didn't see the last one until after User:Curly Turkey had reverted it as "trolling", but it still seems like something should be done to address this problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User Hijiri88. You put yourself in a hole. You better stop digging and let it snow, before unearthing a boomerang. Pldx1 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope; Pldx1, no boomerangs here today. _Muffled 08:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that Pldx1's constant abuse of the words "snow" and "boomerang" was addressed in the previous ANI discussions. I linked those archive threads rather than mentioning it here. The fact that he has used the word "snow" to describe several debates he was on the weaker side of as being in his favour on so many different occasions, and I have explained to him why it is wrong each time, is just another example of WP:IDHT on the part of this user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered this user before, and I can confirm that their tone is often smug and taunting, and that they have very, very low sourcing standards. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dear user Reyk. Let us see what sources are saying. According to http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=reyk&users=pldx1&users=&startdate=20140101&enddate=20161005&ns=&server=enwiki, this encounter occurred at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer)_(2nd_nomination). Perhaps you perceived the remark:
  Moreover, it doesn't seem that "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery" are established cricket technical expressions
  as smug and taunting. How do you perceive, some months later, your own expressions ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

• This is eaxctly the haughty trolling I was talking about. Thank you for making my point for me. Reyk _YO! 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a proposed enforcement action we're being asked to consider here? —swpb 20:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Swpb: Block. The user lacks necessary competence to edit here and is not here. Their mainspace edits are either minor alterations that include grammatical or other errors, or significant changes that are dubious POV, borderline OR or unsourced and also contain grammatical and other errors. Their non-mainspace edits are even worse -- loaded with personal attacks and trolling, assumptions of bad faith, and bizarre non-sequiturs. He disappeared for three months, and when he came back his edits had somehow become worse. The only defense of their edits that has been presented was that they might have kinda-sorta partly cleaned up one article this guy messed up. A TBAN from edits to the Misplaced Pages, talk, Misplaced Pages talk and user talk spaces, and perhaps substantial prose edits (i.e., not uncontroversial technical fixes) to the article space, would be a viable alternative, but I think it would be functionally the same because he has already demonstrated that he would immediately and repeatedly violate a TBAN, to the point where he would quickly be subjected to an indefinite block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, everything sticks. I advise Pldx1 to cut down the rhetoric and stick to pure article editing outside his niche to prevent problems (the nice people at GOCE could always use a few more hands). Hijiri has been on ANI since forever and I'm not saying it's his fault but it's getting tiring. I think some quiet self-introspection is best for all parties here (including me). :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• User Hijiri88 should be reminded that an ANI-complaint is intended to describe Incidents in such a way that Administrators can make their opinion about the alleged misdeeds, and that ANI shouldn't be used as a dramaboard. When complaining about pings, a description of who pinged whom and when should be provided. When complaining about "trolling", it should be stated why asking "To make sense of; comprehend" or not "To make sense of; comprehend" should be evaluated as inflammatory. When pretending that " sourcing standards are not great either", links should be provided to the allegedly poorly sourced articles. In place of that, the complaint filled by User Hijiri88 is only casting unsubstantiated lettersoup trigrams.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards