Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:24, 21 February 2013

• 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

User:Xerographica

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

Reason: Continuing WP:NPA, WP:POINTy and non-good faith comments despite repeated messages and warnings: Start of recent history:

Further edits and evidence worth considering:

• Xerographica brought up an ANI regarding SPECIFICO, Rubin and myself. Overall the discussion was more about his behavior. See: ."
• He developed a "to do list" (name changed after discussion) User talk:Xerographica/Archive 4#My To Do List as a WP:UP#POLEMIC during his block period.

Besides numerous warnings, there have been efforts to promote positive editing since block expired:

• User talk:Xerographica#Article creation break? – started by User:Lawrencekhoo
• User talk:Xerographica#Unnecessary war – Comments by me, as a comrade in arms.
• User talk:Xerographica#Military SMEs needed – Comment by me suggesting a change of focus to military topics.
• User talk:Xerographica#Change your approach – Comments by User:Little green rosetta
• User talk:Xerographica#Burden of proof on Tax choice – Comments by User:Writ Keeper
• User talk:Xerographica#Suggestion – Editor Review – Suggestion by me that he undertake WP:ER
• User talk:Xerographica#Last chance – Further comments by Little green rosetta.
• User talk:Xerographica#Extra training – Suggestion by me, as a former US Army NCO. If he had agreed, I would have assigned WP:ER.
• Additionally, I sought to give him input via (confused) and (facepalm). But even (raspberry) did not faze him.

Comments about his behavior, attitude, remarks, etc. have been added by various other editors in talk page commentaries. These diffs are not provided.

Final observations:

• WP:TE is perhaps the most pertinent essay for analyzing Xerographica's behavior. I think that 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.13, and 2.14 are directly on point.
• WP:DE applies, particularly in terms of consensus building and ignoring community input.
• While WP:GRIEF pertains to spammers, the various stages of grief apply to Xerographica.

As the last diff (of 13 February) is the latest NPA, following repeated level 4 final warnings, this history is submitted for consideration.

– S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting the diffs above, not to hide them but for the sake of brevity. That is a longer list of material than I've ever seen on ANI. Many will just TLDR and not even look at it. I'm sure an admin will say the same that excessive material is not likely to be looked at. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the forbearance of many editors has enabled user Xerographica's abusive edit list to achieve unusual length. A shorter list is given here SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin: I made it through Feb. 05, and I'm just not really seeing anything other than an editor who is obviously frustrated, and should probably communicate a little more level-headed...but nothing crazy. Definitely not personal attacks. What are you wanting the admins to do with this? Ditch ∝ 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• An WP:RFC/U might be better equipped to handle this than ANI (has one been done already? Did I miss it?).--v/r - TP 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User Xerographica has already been blocked four times for similar behavior.

The block log indeed shows action, some quite recent, and the subject's talk page is a train-wreck (deserves credit however for not "scrubbing" it, like some I could name) and I'd say the complaint is valid, taken all together. Agree that an Rfc/U may be the next step here. Good call on the hat also. Jusdafax 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Yes, I did consider RFC/U, but felt it would not result in definitive action. The result would be a "Nah-nah-nah, you tried to get me!" from Xerographica. The alternative, next stronger stop would be ArbCom, but that was not appropriate course of action either. As for the non-NPA nature of his remarks, I've felt he was "Borderlining" to an extreme, and thereby failing to work towards consensus. (And thanks for the hatting.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is certainly a two way street. But in my defense...I'd like to think that I'm improving and "evolving" over time to more closely conform to Misplaced Pages behavioral standards. For example...

1. Recently I have been seeking feedback from neutral editors...User_talk:Little_green_rosetta#ioby
2. Since this warning by Writ Keeper...User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice I have not undone a single edit by Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO
3. And as Ditch Fisher noted above, I am no longer engaging in personal attacks

Regarding my own complaint...well...if you've read over the evidence shared by Rich...it's clear that my biggest complaint is that they make substantial edits to pages without first reading the reliable sources. Therefore, given that their edits are not based on reliable sources...then clearly they violate the no original research policy. Unfortunately, it's not that clear to outside editors. I'm fairly confident though that it's just a matter of time before enough other editors start to catch on.

Additionally, these editors are engaging in Misplaced Pages:Harassment. They follow me around undoing my edits. For example, how in the world would Rich have known to undo my edit on the House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)? That's just too much of a coincidence. But doesn't the volume of evidence that Rich shared speak for itself? How could there possibly be so much editing overlap unless they watch my contributions? Our interests truly are not that aligned. If they were, then I wouldn't have to try and persuade them to read the reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Is WP:GAMING going on in Xerographica's remarks? I.e., 'Playing the victim' by saying these editors are harassing him. I.e., 'Playing policies against each other' by saying my complaint is a two way street – e.g., that he might have a complaint about me? I.e., "sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected" when he says that "other editors start to catch on" to his POV regarding OR, SYN, RS? Other bits of gaming: 1. Ditch Fisher read through 5 February and did not say Xerographica was no longer engaging in PA. 2. It is clear to Xerographica alone that other editors are not reading the RS and are therefore engaged in OR. 3. The "recent" requests for feedback were not to evaluate his behavior, but to look at edits made by other editors. (Nevertheless, as the requests were made to Little green rosetta, I certainly accept the good faith of the requests in and of themselves.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – This is interesting. While this discussion is going on, Xerographica continues to make remarks about other editors. – "Hugo Spinelli built the article up, and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are trying to tear it down. SPECIFICO is the one who nominated it for deletion... Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Freedom_of_choice. Where's their positive contributions? Where are the reliable sources that they've brought to the table? I know it's hard to see a pattern with so few instances. But thanks for taking a look at it." In a comment made to User:Writ Keeper referring to Freedom of choice. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it "gaming" to share my side of the story? And it clearly is harassment. Out of all the articles mentioned in your evidence...how many did you edit before I did?

And Rubin even admitted that he's harassing me...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#Stalking...

If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too.

I deserved to be "stalked" because my area of interest is public choice? The only other active editor who is also knowledgeable about public choice theory is Thomasmeeks. Here's what he had to say about the subject...Talk:Benefit_principle#Recognition_to_creator_of_this_article

Some tough things have been said above about aspects of this article. The Talk page is just the place for such. At the same time, I think the harshest critic would agree that the subject is very appropriate for WP and probably long overdue. Identifying that gap and trying to plug it is IMO a not inconsiderable achievement of User:Xerographica, even at the cost of falling well short of what are likely X.'s own standards and risking the kind of responses as above. Sometimes that's the cost of being WP:BOLD. That's not to condone any avoidable lapses of course but to at least keep them in proportion.

X. has to balance his own priorities & might have enough on his plate to keep way busy in other activities. Still, if time & inclination allowed, X. might be best qualified to improve the article in the near term. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is really only going to end when the three of you stick to editing articles that interest you enough to actually read about. --Xerographica (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Others have repeatedly suggested to X that, with a fraction of the time and energy he puts into his talk page and other non-article messages here, he could instead be improving the articles. He states that he is familiar with the various subjects and the associated literature. Over and over, he's been asked to use properly-sourced material, properly-cited to create encyclopedic prose content that would prove his talk page assertions correct, while improving WP. Sad to say, I can't recall any example of him simply citing the text of a reliable source which would support the specific content he insists should belong in any of these articles. Other users have patiently tried to mentor and encourage X to become a constructive contributor, but for whatever reason this has not happened. Given his recidivist history, I am afraid that only a lengthy block is going to give him the time to reconsider his perspective and priorities about participation here. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Seriously? You can't recall this... Talk:Tax_choice#Kennett_failed_verification.3F? Let me know if that doesn't jog your memory and I'll be happy to provide plenty more examples. Also, speaking of jogging your memory...don't forget about this...Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because it failed verification. I'm not going to say that you didn't read it, but no one with good knowledge of English who did read it would find it supported the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – I ask that Xerographica's comments directed towards SPECIFICO's past editing not become a distraction from the main issue. – S. Rich (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried taking these pages off of my watchlist, but the dispute seems to have followed me regardless, so I guess I should just drop a note here. From my somewhat limited prior experience with this dispute, it appears to me that Xerographica is very passionate about this subject, adn has good intentions. That's not in and of itself a problem, but who was it that compared strong opinions on Misplaced Pages to tigers in a zoo? It comes to mind. The things that I had an impression are the real problems are these: a) Xerographicahas little sense of discrimination as far as material that should be in the article as opposed to material that should stay out. It appears that, in Xerographica's mind, a reliable source guarantees inclusion in an article; any edit that removes sourced content is a negative edit, no matter why the material was in fact removed. See Talk:Tax_choice#Eisenhower_vs._Hitler? for an example of this. Second, and more importantly, it seems that Xerographica doesn't quite understand original research and especially synthesis; it seems to me that Xerographica is, perhaps unknowingly inserting their own inferences and conclusions between sourced bits of information. An example of what made me think this way is at User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice. Basically, this unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages norms is leading to Xerographica's frustration with the other editors, who are objecting to their edits for seemingly incomprehensible reasons, causing the lashouts. Unfortunately, because Xerographica is so passionate about this issue, they're not particularly willing to accept criticism, and also prone to edit-warring and other seemingly aggressive behavior. The edit-warring is what drew my attention to Xerographica in the first place, but to their credit, I have not heard that they continued to edit-war after I issued a warning. Again, I haven't made a comprehensive survey of Xerographica's edits, so I can't say if this is a consistent problem, or if this is the same issues that others have noted. This is just what I've observed in the conflicts I've been exposed to, and what seems like the root of the problem to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:TIGERS is what you were looking for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I had one rather strange and frustrating interaction with X on electoral fusion; I think the portion of Writ Keeper's comments beginning "Second, and ..." and ending "... aggressive behavior" are an excellent diagnosis of the situation and of X's behavior. --JBL (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is part of the problem. However, while it's perfectly understandable that a new editor might start out that way, most will listen to advice and guidance and develop the ability to work within WP norms and protocols. In X's case, however, despite a lot of guidance and supportive dialogue from a number of capable editors and experienced mentors, X has simply failed to progress beyond the dysfunctional behavior. In light of this, the situation will not be remedied by more of the same mentoring or guidance. Those have been demonstrated to be ineffective. A significant block is much more likely in my view to have a beneficial effect. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt a block will have a beneficial effect on Xerographica's editing. Quite the opposite, if anything. Of course, there is a time when it ceases to matter what will improve Xerographica's editing; whether we've hit that point, I don't know and don't really have an opinion. While we're on the subject of sanctions, a well-targeted topic ban might be more effective, but who knows? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Observations: 1. The very day the tiger was released from his cage/block, he started clawing about the museum. (Indeed, the block was extended because he would not retract his fangs when appealing the block.) 2. I think a ban would have to be pretty extensive to be effective. Namely, anything in the economics category. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Economics" was what I was thinking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding improvements in my editing. Here are three of my most recent articles...
• The Other Invisible Hand
• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
• Scroogenomics

Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up? My contributions are certainly far far far from perfect...but can you name any editors who are actively creating/improving economic articles? I mentioned Thomasmeeks already...and recently Hugo Spinelli did a great job with Freedom of choice. Yet look on the talk page to see his difficulties with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO. They criticize and tear down other people's efforts but I've never once seen them build up any article. I can share plenty of articles that I've made a highly imperfect effort to try and build up. Yet where's a single article that these three editors have significantly improved? Where's an article where they've done it better? Doesn't anybody think it strange that these editors cannot provide a single example of an article that they've built up?

I wouldn't at all mind criticism from these editors if they actually led by example...but they really do not lead by example. They can't even provide one single example! I can show you plenty of my contributions so you know exactly what you'd be losing if you blocked me from editing economic articles. But what would be the loss if you blocked Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO? There would be no loss...and that's a problem. --Xerographica (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

wow, 168 violations in the hat. did anyone read each example, is there a highlight reel? since i havent clicked each, which was the worst? the few random examples i did follow seemed rather tame? whatever happens with this case, i suspect one of the parties is in error. either X has flown under the radar for quite some time, or R is looking too hard. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Clarification for Darkstar. The count is 116, as the diffs begin with #52. The first (#51) is the block log, provided as the starting point. Was I looking too hard? Well, there is the pre-block history, which is not included. And I might have given descriptions to the his comments, like "snide" or "cute". (I did so in response to him directly a few times.) But the point is, that Xerographica constantly throws out these comments. So, given the borderline nature of many of them, they are invidious. Alas, someone needed to do something; and, as there are other things I rather do, I did not enjoy this project much. – S. Rich (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I have had the same problems with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO since I edited Freedom of Choice, but now things seem to be moving on. Anyway, as far as I know, I don't see any serious violation of WP's policies by Xerographica. I find it really hard to assume good faith with their disruptive edits and abuse of DRs, so I can understand Xerographica's frustrations. I share the same. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – In reply to Xerographica immediately above.

I'll refer you to Carl Eytel, which I started and which took one year and over 500 edits from myself and 14 other editors to achieve Good Article status.

Here are the diffs on Scroogenomics: – 3 by you at the start in setting up the article and 22 subsequent edits by 5 other editors.

Hugo Spinelli did not suffer disruptive edits from me. I modified the talk page headings in accordance with WP:TPO to neutralfy them. I posted the rationale on the edit summary when I did so. And I have quoted the particular language of the TPO guidance on that talk page. And I apologized to Hugo when it appeared that he did not understand the rationale. (And I am sorry to see that Hugo finds it hard to AGF. This essay WP:AAGF, is one that he might find interesting.)

– S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

if cute and snide are grounds for action, i fear the whole of wikipedia will need to block itself Mr Richiepoo. Have a dandy doodle day sweetheart. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The deingrating comment of "richiepoo" and "sweetheart" above and in the edit summary certainly is, however ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Please see my response to Darkstar on his talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

support. i am convinced some action is needed. thx to srich for having the patience to explain the issue in such detail. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support RFC/U Look, I don't know what the hell else to try in order to get Xerographica to fall in line with Project and Community Norms. Blocks don't phase him. Polite correction has xero effect. Attempts by some of the most patient and knowledeable editors are ignored. It's either indef-block and lose the potential for some good edits, start an RFC/U, or let this editor run roughshod over everyone. My choice is b. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i see what you did there Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am not an admin and I am unsure whether I should comment here. If not, I apologize and will remove this. I was mentioned in the 'extended history' above and have two thoughts. First, it is inappropriate to hide Easter Eggs in articles (humorous or otherwise) in order to make points about whether Misplaced Pages editors read or comprehend your additions. Second, the assertion that other editors are incapable of understanding or are insufficiently interested in and hence incapable of editing is appalling. This editor has passion and fire. It needs some tempering. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – To Bwilkins & Capitalismojo: please see my comment to (my buddy) Darkstar here: . I really don't think there is a pony under all of that horse shit. To Capitalismojo: your comments are most welcome. We are not just "users" of WP, we are contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment While I have noticed problems with X (and they appear to continue to a lesser degree) I can understand his frustration with a cadre of editors following his every move. Not that him being followed is a bad thing for the pedia, but it is certainly making him uncomfortable.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – Various observations about Xerographica being uncomfortable, upset, frustrated, or whatever are missing the point. The fact that certain editors, or any editors at all, are monitoring his activity, and making repeated efforts (with both honey and vinegar) to get him to improve his attitude and editing, is missing the point. The fact that he might have something to contribute alongside his tirades, pleadings, unfounded admonitions, complaints, highhanded sounding superior comments (and attacks), is missing the point. Note, please, that his disruptive, truculent, and selfish pattern of editing and commenting has gone on for some 2,000 edits, 770 of which are on article pages and the remainder on article/user talk pages. (I cannot tell you how many comments have been made about or to him. I suspect the number would be a comparatively high one.) Pleading, discussion, warnings, blocks, etc. have not helped. Moreover, with the conclusion of each block, he continues with the same behavior. (Indeed, he has had blocks extended because of his comments made in appealing the blocks.) The point is that the community is being treated unfairly when his behavior continues as it has. The point is that actual contributors, not just those editors who are following him, are frustrated, upset, uncomfortable, and disrupted each time Xerographica issues another "you are not qualified to comment because you are biased, did not read, do not understand, do not see the wisdom that I seek to impart to the world, etc." Is it unfair to "hound" Xerographica? Only if the hounding lacked basis or was simply personal – but that is not the case. Is it unfair to the community to have him continue on? Yes. I am convinced that a RFC/U would have no positive results. The RFC/U could only repeat the admonitions about his DE, and ask him to stop what he has been doing for these 2,000 edits. Xerographica had had his chance to behave according to community standards when the last block ended, but his behavior picked up again immediately following the block. So I ask, who is being treated unfairly? In my opinion, the community is. And allowing Xerographica to snarl about, unleashed, uncaged, is a disservice to the community. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's a case of the snarling tiger versus the proverbial bull in the china shop. I'm only snarling at the bull because it's destroying the china. But maybe it's not destroying the china? Unfortunately, there just aren't enough editors to form a credible consensus with regards to economic topics. That means that any "snarling" on my part is far easier for outside editors to spot than the destruction of china is.

But I've honestly made an effort to tone down my "snarling". The thing is...I really don't think it's "snarling" to ask another editor whether they've done their homework. These three editors follow me around and undo my edits. Maybe they know something that I don't. So I ask them whether they've read the material. And then they accuse me of personally attacking them. If they asked me the same question I would simply answer "Yes, I have". If they produce a source that I haven't read (which has never happened), then why would I accuse them of personally attacking me if they ask whether I've read it? --Xerographica (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Observations:
  • We had much of the same in the block of last December. Arguments were made in that appeal which simply repeated the behavior that lead to the block. With the December block in mind, I submit that the "They don't read" is nothing more than the other side of the the same "They don't add value" coin.
  • Last month's block has the same thing that we see above. E.g., he said "I think I've shown Good Faith in wanting to learn about what behavior...is...or isn't acceptable." (X's closing remark in appealing the block.)
  • Both before and after this last block I and others talked to him about what a worthless and disruptive question the inquiry is. E.g., I tried to tell him that he should not ask "have you read the sources I provided?". (And here he repeats it!) Why?
    • 1. AGF means you assume the other editor has read it. On the other hand, asking if "Did you see this part: 'The world is round' in Columbus' diary? I think it supports the idea of ...." That sort of question opens dialogue. That sort of question is focused. That sort of question can and does AGF. But no ....
    • 2. No what? No, X has figured out on his own that other editors have not read stuff, and he declares so directly in his comments.
    • 3. In any event, what are the two possible answers to X? They are: a. "No. I haven't." Which would only reinforce his smug, superior attitude and thereby engender another remark belittling the editor. Or, b. "Yes. I have." In one such case, X ended up saying "read more and edit less" in his edit summary. (Albeit not directly to Rubin who had answered yes. The ES was, perhaps, more directed to me.)
    • 4. Regardless, Xerographica purports to know so much about this stuff that no editor could overcome his superior knowledge and analysis. But he misses the point, repeatedly made, that his OR and SYN is unacceptable.
  • Xerographica had repeatedly said "Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up?" Patting myself on the back, I hope Carl Eytel will shutoff that spurious comment.
  • His "they don't read" comments are only part of the problem. He has engaged in POINTy behavior and other disruptive conduct.
  • Here's a suggestion. What if this ANI was a RFC/U? (In a sense the last few months with Xerographica have been an ongoing RFC/U on his user talk pages.) Would we get a different result? No. I submit that his comments above are simply burying the pony even deeper in the pile.
  • Last point, consider if Xerographica had made the above remarks in a block appeal. Would they survive scrutiny? Has he made a WP:NICETRY? Does he consider and comply with WP:NOTTHEM? Has he actually agreed that huge portions of his behavior are unacceptable? The answer, pre-block appeal and now, is no.

– S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

if he promises to stop snarling altogether can we close this thread? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought he had already promised to stop snarling.... But, perhaps, we disagree as to who the the proverbial bull in the china shop is.

Many editors assert that Xerographica is the "bull", creating articles which are not encyclopedic, promote his POV (which I generally agree with, but, I recognize it is a POV), have excessive quotes and "see also" links, and do not have references (and probably other problems I don't recall at the moment.)

Xerographica asserts that many editors have not read (his provided) source materials; are removing relevant quotations, references, and Wikilinks; (and probably other offenses I don't recall.).

So, who is (creating the) bull?

As an aside, in most cases, I don't think X is violating WP:OR except as WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Suggested course of action:

1. While I am not familiar with the technical details, I recommend a one-month WP:TBAN on Xerographica from editing on any pages related to economics, libertarianism, capitalism, or politics. Article categories (by parent) would be the determinants.
2. Likewise, Xerographica be interaction banned from commenting on any talk pages, user or otherwise, for the duration of the ban. (His own talk page would be the exception.)
3. Xerographica undertake an WP:Editor review during his ban. If he completes it before the close of 30 days, he can appeal the ban and ask for an early termination. If he does not complete the review, he must go to the banning administrator/community and justify the delay.
4. As part of the ER process, he post the ER templates on his user/talk pages.
5. In return (and at the risk of making this nonsense look like a personal battle), I will WP:DGF and undertake two reviews of the backlogged Editor Reviews. One at the outset of the 30 days and one upon completion of Xerographica's review.
6. This ban may be imposed in one of two ways. If technically or administratively possible, as a WP:CBAN IAW WP:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. If not by Banning policy, then voluntarily by Xeriographica.
7. In either case, the sanction gets logged.

That's it. I'm putting away my WP:BLUDGEON. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on commenting again in this thread, but I'd like to say that a ban from posting on any talk page is a terrible idea. If we're considering sanctions other than blocks, it should be because we're trying to guide him into being a more productive editor. An essential part of the editing process is discussion of differences on talk pages; taking away that option will only make things worse, not better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For everybody's consideration, here's one of my most recent interactions with Rubin and SPECIFICO... Talk:Free_rider_problem#See_also_-_preference_revelation. Was there snarl on my part? Yes. Like I said, it's frustrating when the same three people follow you around and undo your edits. In the past I would have engaged in an edit war and would have been far more snarly. But now I simply post my disagreement on the talk page. In this instance I made a genuine effort to try and help Rubin, and then SPECIFICO, understand the connection and relationship between the two concepts. I could have been nicer, I could have been more patient and I certainly could have better explained the connection. But if it had been anybody else (other than Rich) I certainly would have been nicer and more patient.

From my perspective, just like I'm completely clueless about physics...these three editors are completely clueless about the free-rider problem and all of the other economic concepts that they edit. But now I'm posting my disagreements on the talk pages. It might take a month, or a year or 5 years...but hopefully eventually another editor will come along, read what I've posted on the talk pages and undo the damage caused by these editors. It's certainly not "natural" for me to standby and patiently and politely voice my disagreement with their edits. But I've got the standby part down. I no long undo their edits. Regarding patience...well...I did spend my time trying to help them understand the concept. That took a lot of patience on my part. Regarding politeness/civility...I no longer engage in what most would consider to be personal attacks. Can I eliminate the "snarl" though? Could you not be snarly to editors who are clearly and constantly harassing you?

How about this. If you guys actually enforce the policy against harassment...Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding...then I will really try to stop snarling at these three editors. If not, then all I can promise is that I won't engage in what most would perceive to be personal attacks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better idea: you make a month worth of edits that are a) all within policy, b) all assume good faith, c) don't attack any editor directly or indirectly ... and I can guarantee that most editors will find no reason to have to follow your non-compliant editing behaviours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding:

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

Whether or not you agree, I see related problems on multiple (economics) articles, and articles you perceive as economics articles, including {{quotefarm}}, providing "references" without indicating what text in the reference might be relevant to what text in the Misplaced Pages article, misreading sources (often, by adding your own knowledge of (a particular school of) economics to interpret the source), adding "See also" links which are only relevant through another article already Wikilinked, or are not relevant at all, interpreting common "folk" sayings as economic concepts, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Any comments on my proposed course of action? Or does Xerographica get to decide what the community has to do? – S. Rich (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I recommend as follows:

90-day topic ban on editing articles in categories economics, libertarianism, capitalism, and politics.

No restriction on any talk page interaction or on article editing in other categories.

Subject to WP rights of unblock request and appeal. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I fear it will not be sufficient (and I commend the patience of the editors who have not given up trying to explain the concept of WP:OR to X, who in my opinion simply feels that a superior intellect such as his is not bound by it, so tries to argue it out of existence); but nonetheless I support Specifico's recommendation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Jeez, I thought I was tough as I was looking a 30 day period of rehab. But my proposal was toughened up with the Editor Review, which I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors. Well, I'll sweeten the bargain on my end. One, if X will undergo the ER, I'll double my load on reviewing their backlog. Two now and two upon completion of X's 30 day ban. But X has gotta act soon if he's interested in doing the ER voluntarily. I may pull my offer off the table, which would not benefit the ER backlog. (And don't get me wrong, I've made some recent changes concerning ER which should improve it and its' role in the project.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am uneasy imposing a mandatory ER as a penalty. I prefer to give X the freedom of choice to elect such a review for himself. X can evaluate his opportunity cost for the Editor Review against its potential to improve his chances for successful editing career here. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding original research, I recently expanded the article on preference revelation. Where's the OR? Clearly there's plenty of research...but where have I added anything that's "original"? Regarding "rehab", I think it's unreasonable to expect me to be nicer to the three editors who are harassing me. It's also pretty unreasonable to block me when they are the ones who are clearly violating Misplaced Pages policy. --Xerographica (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Here's what Rich said above..."I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors". And here's what he just posted on his talk page...

Fuck you, Spinelli, there's no edit war going on.

Do you know what Orangemike blocked me for two weeks for saying? He blocked me because I said that other editors were "willfully ignoring reliable sources"...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. --Xerographica (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – And here is the discussion I had with Spinelli before he tagged by talk page with his edit war message: Talk:Brady_Haran#Future_Projects – S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Was my comment WP:VULGAR? Obviously so. Should I say WP:SORRY? I'm thinking about it. (I've said sorry in the past for my mistakes, including a sorry to X.) But (or should I say "Butt") the issue in this discussion is regarding Xerographica's many uncivil and non-AGF remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know whether you should apologize (actually don't care), but I know that invoking the name of Paul Harvey to justify telling someone to fuck off is exceedingly lame. Unfortunately we don't have a Misplaced Pages:Biographies of dead persons policy here, so there's not much I can about such a disrespectful use of a man's name. NE Ent 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I added a section on preference revelation to public goods, public finance and public economics. Rubin undid my contributions with the following explanation, "Somewhat relevent, but much too long". Rather than undo his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about the value of his contributions as an editor, rather than give him honest feedback, I simply posted my highly filtered thoughts on the talk pages. It's really not easy to hold back...especially when he is clearly harassing me and none of you admins are doing anything about it. But I did hold back. I'm not asking for an award here...I'm simply asking that you don't block me. --Xerographica (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so adding incredibly long and therefore knowingly inappropriate sections to an article, then whinging when it's removed is supposed to somehow absolve you from the fact that competence is required? Those edits were pointy, and you know it - you knew they would be removed before you even clicked "save", but you couldn't wait for your adversary to remove them so you could come here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's one possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation is that, based on a thorough review of the relevant literature, I identified where there's significant room for improvement and made the effort to contribute valuable and well cited content. Could it have been shorter? Sure, just like all the other preexisting sections could have been shorter. But I don't see Rubin removing all the other sections because they are "much too long". Nor do I see him removing all the sections that are poorly cited at best. And I certainly do not see him contributing any content to these articles or to any other economic articles. All I see is him following me around undoing my edits. But rather than do anything about it, you'd prefer to assume that I intentionally added that content for the sole purpose of entrapping Rubin. I'm certainly not surprised that one of these three editors undid my contributions, but I'd much much much prefer it if Rubin hadn't. Who wouldn't prefer not to have their considerable effort undone? --Xerographica (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Look, people ... many kb of text ago, it seemed to be clear that an RFC/U was the right way to go. Rather than actually take that step, the sniping escalated: Person A sniped at Person B, Person B sniped at Person C...and so on. Are you afraid of RFC/U's because your own actions will also be looked at? Tough shit! Yeah, Xerographica is disruptive, but not to the point of block via this board at the moment, capische? Continuing this thread well past its useful life is also disruptive. File your damned RFC/U - I'm sure you'll have more than the requisite number of certifiers. Until then, I recommend some voluntary topic bans, some voluntary interaction bans, and at least one person whose username starts with X should go back and re-fricking-read the purpose of this project and WP:CIVIL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• BY OP – Seems everyone wants something done (including X, who wants something done to everyone else but him). Of course I do too, and that's why I worked up this ANI. And in attempts to get this resolved, I made my repeated suggestion that X undertake an ER. (Seems that the scale of possible actions goes from ER, next to RFC/U, to ANI, to ArbCom, etc.) X won't do an ER on his own, and no one can force him. But I think a block, that would be immediately lifted upon positive results from an ER, would be helpful. So I ask an admin to set up the block – or close this discussion. If the block is implemented, I shall fulfill my commitment to undertake ER reviewing on the backlog regardless of X's own willingness to undertake. If this discussion gets closed without a block, then I shall undertake the RFC/U. (I'd rather have the time devoted to ER reviewing.) So, concerned admin, whoever you are, please take action. I and the community will be grateful. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Or just close this. If something were to be done, it would have been done by now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Resurrected (Unfortunately)

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

I am again being accused of vandalism for no good reason, and having edits reverted. I am curious about something. Is it likely impossible to have an objective, secular version of the Jesus article, because the article is closely watched by Christian editors whose passion (zealotry?) and number are high? At the moment, text has been added with 7 sources, and the editor who added seems to be admitting that he hasn't actually read the sources (not clear on that). The text consists of classifying certain arguments as argument from silence, although none of the sources seem to actually do that. Rather the editor in question (History2007) has researched the arguments (presumably, although it also seems he hasn't read the sources) and decided they are that type of argument. Isn't that OR?

Anyway, I am getting tired of this. History2007 also added a modern translation of a text from the year 1103, and tried to pass it off as a modern source . I deleted that and he had a cow . He doesn't seem to realize that Yifa is a translator, not an author, and the text in question is not about historical method and is almost 1000 years old. He is constantly adding sources he hasn't read.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction Humanpublic (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the editor from my previous complaint (with the impossible-to-remember name), Seb-something, stalked me to another Jesus related article and reverted me there as well. Humanpublic (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Talk does appear to be mildly tendentious. Either way, 'the' Church is shown itself to be perfectly capable of self-advertising over the last 2,000 years and needs no help from Editors... Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a prime case of where the accuser should be the accused. Several users have already suggested that Humanpublic should be topic banned from articles related to Jesus. A look at the talk page (and the archives) shows Humanpublic's record. In the last 24 hours, Humanpublic has repeatedly deleted sourced content he doesn't like , , , , in addition to deleting comments on talk pages . Given all those deletions of sourced content, and with no consensus whatsoever, I'd say that there is "good reason" to accuse Humanpublic of vandalism, as three different editors have already done in the last hour , , . When a fourth and a fifth editor suggest a topic ban , I find it quite relevant as the edit history of Humanpublic shows that this is a WP:SPA for the purpose of imposing a POV at Jesus (and the related articles Christ myth theory and Argument from silence) . Last but not least, the favorite accusation Humanpublic makes, that he is a secular editor facing "zealous Christians" is quite simply wrong. I do not believe in the Jesus of the gospels myself. Two of the best known critics of the "Christian Jesus" is the atheist professor Bart Ehrman and the Jewish professor Geza Vermes. We use both of them in the article; both of them state categorically that Jesus existed, as does all other scholars in the field regardless of their religion.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting your comment was an accident: big fingers, laptop keys. I restored it. It's actually the comment I was responding to. Humanpublic (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because content carries a citation doesn't mean it's appropriate to put in an encyclopedia article. In at least one of the edits you list, Humanpublic is removing a "sourced" claim because he alleges that the source doesn't actually support the claim. In another he removes the claim because he argues that it's a non sequitur in the context of the article. In yet another he argues that the text is being used to support some synthesis. Provided his allegations are correct, these are all perfectly valid reasons for removing sourced text and are certainly not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a source is not automatically a reliable one. Basket _Feudalist 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Have either of these editors discussed these arguments on the respective article talk pages? The "source doesn't support the claim" one in particular should be very easy to test, and the onus for doing so is on whoever added the content. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And congratulations on Psychonaut for hitting the nub there: Talk:Argument from silence was last edited... 7th April 2011...!!! Basket _Feudalist 18:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP here looks like a single-purpose account with an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pscyhonaut and Basket, a source is not automatically suited. Then Humanpublic could perhaps assume good faith and discuss the issue at the talk page instead of edit warring over it? As for discussing, I already referred both to Humanpublics edit record and to the talk page (including the archives, far too many diffs to make a list) where several users have pointed out for months that Humanpublic does not WP:HEAR arguments. As Basebnall Bugs states above, Humanpublic is a single-purpose account with an agenda, the agenda being to advance the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. There is not one professor in any relevant field, no matter if they are Christians, atheists or Jews, who support that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE. I agree when Humanpublic says the article Jesus should be a secular article, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs (most scholars agree Jesus did not claim to be God or think he was God; most scholars think a number of accounts in the New Testament were forged; many scholars think Jesus was a religious Jew all his life; many scholars think Christianity was the invention of Paul decades after Jesus's death). We should take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be.Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop saying I think Jesus never existed. I don't think I've ever said that, and I am agnostic on it. Humanpublic (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it time for administrators to earn their paycheck? This is an admin forum. If I'd thought being a minority critic of a dominant religion was a road to progress, I would've stay on the Talk page. I thought administrators were going to carefully research the issues and provide neutral guidance and/or intervention. Isn't that what this page is for?

• • For example. What is the point of the labor of providing the diffs and links to the dispute, if nobody researches the dispute. I did not merely assume History2007 didn't read the sources. He admitted he copied the sources and text wholesale from another article. This is the text in Christ myth theory:

Some arguments from silence go back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria. Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus. Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty. However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder. .... In general, an argument from silence cannot be definitive, however it is not a fallacy and generally is the correct inference. In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid. Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events. Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.

And this is what he inserted into Jesus:

The argument from silence that that lack of sources indicates that Jesus did not exist goes back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria. Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus. Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty. However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder. In general, an argument from silence can not be definitive and may be questionable, given the circumstances in which it is made. In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid. Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events. Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.

It is this, AND that he added 7 book-length academic sources in less than 20 minutes, AND that he refuses to answer a simple question about whether he read the sources AND that he (patronizingly) announces he has no obigation to quote what in the sources actually supports his edits that make me think he hasn't read the sources and is generally disruptive. What the Hell is my AGF violation? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor if he read a source? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor to provide the source text that supports his edits? I didn't quote all this text initially, because I assumed this forum is for careful research of disputes and diffs would suffice to inform people, not just popularity contests. Obviously I was wrong.

If you're going to tell me this is the wrong place for content disputes, maybe you could tell me the right place. As far as I can tell, minority opinions can lose popularity contests on Talk pages, or they can lose them here, and that's how "dispute resolution" works. Who actually enforces the rules with some care and research and integrity???? Humanpublic (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Admins earn every dime they make.

• This forum is not for content disputes, you can try WP:DRN or WP:RFC.
• Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, so in some sense it is a popularity contest, but it's not a simple one. More like a weighted by ineffable coefficients popularity contest. NE Ent 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look at the links you gave, but if everything is a popularity contest, how is the encyclopedia going to be objective about Jesus?

History2007 is now deleting the U. Mass history department as a source, saying the history dept. isn't reliable on historical methods. And, he is replacing it with a dictionary of foreign terms, which he admits he hasn't read (I am assuming nothing here--he stated he hasn't read it). , . Humanpublic (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Humanpublic, you're vendetta against History2007 is starting to look silly. You suggested a topic ban on History2007 for no reason other than your personal suspicion he had not read a couple of books . You started this thread to accuse History2007 of being a Christian zealot for not agreeing to implement your POV . After History2007 mentioned his interest in Argument from silence, you went straight there to edit war with him . These are all highly disruptive edits, and unfortunately very characteristic of your behavior here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting a topic ban for Humanpublic

* If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are NOT INVOLVED IN THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE'. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments. *In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a CONSENSUS OF UNINVOLVED EDITORS not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community".. Strangesad (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In line with In ictu oculi and ReformedArsenal , I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Jesus. As pointed out by Baseball Bugs , Humanpublic is "a single-purpose account with an agenda".
Since September, Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed. That was perfectly valid as first, but it has long since passed into disruptive behavior. As has been pointed out to Humanpublic time and time again by countless users, there is not one professor in any relevant field supporting that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE.Of course the article should be secular, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs and we take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be. When a user just continues to challenge other users, refusing to WP:HEAR counter-arguments, never once bothering with a source but only to present his own opinions, it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. After five months of this, it certainly disrupts the article quite severly. A quick look at the talk page of Jesus is enough to see that most of the discussions are about Humanpublic, not about how to improve Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) UPDATE In response to a surprising number of comments on the matter, I want to state right away that this nomination is based on Humanpublic being a disruptive user. I'm forced to add this since some people comment on completely irrelevant aspects. I did not nominate Humanpublic for doubting Jesus's existence, nor did I nominate him for mainly editing article related to Jesus. The nomination rests exclusively on the disruptive behavior by Humanpublic and nothing else.END OF UPDATE.

• Update Since I posted the request for a topic-ban for Humanpublic, he some user with an interest in the page appears to have launched a sockpuppet with several highly disruptive edits , , , .Jeppiz (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

" Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed." Hmm, I don't think I have ever denied Jesus existed. Not sure. Humanpublic (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We do not ban users just because they come to Misplaced Pages for a single purpose. We do ban them for being persistently uncooperative to the point of disruption, but I don't see that there have been sufficient prior attempts at dispute resolution. There was one 3RR report which seemingly didn't go anywhere, and for at least one of the issues Jeppiz is complaining about there was no attempt whatsoever to engage with the user on the article talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I certainly did not suggest topic-banning Humanpublic for being here for a single purpose; I (like two other users today) suggested topic-banning him because he goes about that purpose in a highly disruptive way. He has singlehandedly turned the talk page about Jesus into a WP:FORUM where he refuses to WP:HEAR any counter arguments and continues to push a fringe-theory despite not having presented a single source for it. For five months. That is disruptive and detrimental to the article, and that is the reason a topic-ban is suggested.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How am I misrepresenting what you wrote? You said that he should be topic banned, and started off by noting that he was "a single-purpose account with an agenda". If this claim is not relevant to your proposal, then why did you mention it? Your argument also rests on the disruption he's caused, and my !vote addressed that issue as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I guess the question is what we mean by disruption. Can a user by disruptive just on talk pages, or does it have to take edit warring over articles? Looking at the talk page of Jesus, I would say it's clear that the actions of Humanpublic disrupts work on the whole article. Anyone can at time pose irrelevant questions, but when the same user does it for five months, is informed about it by countless users, and still goes on and on in the same track, I think it's a disruption of WP:NOTAFORUM. I think it's clear to anyone having a look at Talk:Jesus that Humanpublic has succeeded in turning the page into a forum. If he had a valid point backed up by sources, it would be a content dispute and not a problem. When he spends months pushing a fringe theory without bothering with presenting even one source but only his personal opinions (and the same opinions over and over again), I do think it's disruptive and I have seen first-hand how he has stalled any work on the actual article. If you don't agree that such behavior is disruptive, I fully respect that view.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, but Psychonaut never said they were disputing the behaviour could be disruptive, simply they felt insufficient attempts were made to at dispute resolution first. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Naw, we can handle the user w/o that. If it gets any worse, then yeah... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - There are some problems here, as I see it. On first glance (this is the first time I have looked at this article and talk page) I see why the issue has been brought here by parties on both sides of the fence. One thing I can't help notice on the talk page is the confrontational polemics of HiLo48, the subject of several correctional sanctions. But here's where it get complicated. Humanpublic and HiLo48 raise an interesting point in that the editing of the article appears to be POV material from those of the Christian faith, and call into question the sourcing of Jesus' existence. Highly controversial! But, is that a "disruption?" While I am unfamiliar with Humanpublic, HiLo48 often uses rhetoric that usually "stirs the pot." Yet, here again, there are some larger NPOV issues now on the line for this flagship Misplaced Pages article. I am unwilling to take a stand without further study of exactly what the stakes are. And I suggest others here do the same. Jusdafax 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A good and balanced post. I am sure we all agree that the article should not be edited with a Christian POV. When Humanpublic and HiLo48 first made that point, I don't think anyone objected - nor do I object to it now. Quite the contrary, I welcome it. However, there is nothing "Christian" in stating that Jesus existed. It is an uncontroversial fact, supported by all scholars in the field who have published on the matter. Not by most scholar, but by all scholars. That makes that issue a fairly simple one, if we want to adhere to WP:RS. That is why people have asked Humanpublic and HiLo48 for sources, and have asked for sources for months. And that's why Humanpublic and HiLo48 have failed to produce any sources. In my view, that pretty much settles it. If all professors on the matter (including those who aren't Christian at all, even those who have been called anti-Christians) believe that Jesus existed, then the article should state so. And I do think that when somebone continues beating the same horse for five months, it is at least tedious, and if done excessively, also disruptive. So once again, there is nothing disruptive in challenging a Christian POV, there is nothing disruptive in presenting alternative theories if backed up with sources, and there's nothing disruptive in discussing any point of the article in good fait. But surely repeating the same fringe theory for five months when not able to find a single source can look disruptive?Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a fine spirit of collaboration: "get over yourself; I can revert whatever I want as long as there's good reason to do so. Further posts by you to my talkpage will be considered harassment and reverted as vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556"

I would love to not be an "spa". I registered on Misplaced Pages intending to edit literature articles. My interest in the Bible comes from a Bible as Literature class I took. I have added two sentences to the article Jesus. It is a purely factual edit, reliably sourced. It has nothing to do with any theory, fringe or otherwise. It is: "There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him. " THat's it. It is reliably sourced, and only makes factual claims. In Talk, I've pointed out that there are no secular historians as sources, that sources mostly have a Christian background and/or write popular books, and that Christian popular books aren't objective about Jesus. That is not a fringe theory either. To me, it's just a concern about conflict of interest.

The result has been that my comments have been edit-warred off the Talk page, my attempts to preserve my comments have been called vandalism, I've been reported for "3RR" for not wanting active discussions archived, accused of disruption, been followed to another article by Seb for the sole purpose f reverting my edit, and been nominated to be banned from the articles.

If my edits to The House of Mirth had the same response, I would appear to be a Edith Wharton "spa." This is not my only interest. It is my only controversial interest. People should quit attacking and belittling by the dozens at the mere suggestion that there could conflicts of interest, or the mere addition two sentences that are not pro-Jesus. If I didn't get bombarded by dozens of attacks and personal comments with every edit, I would be spending more time on other subjects. Humanpublic (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't pay detailed attention to this page, mainly since it's generalist and had a relatively stable equilibrium, but the Talk has been beeping like crazy on my watchlist recently, and so looked at the beeping. The Talk comment "support topic ban" was predictive - that's where this is going to end. One edit to an Edith Wharton page does not a non-SPA make, the much trumpeted edit to the Jesus article lead here changing reliable scholar Bart Ehrman's interview on Jesus-mythicists "There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true. Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources. Those are their negative arguments. I deal with all of those arguments. I lay them out as fairly as I can and then show why they’re not very good arguments, even though they sound really good. When you actually investigate them they’re actually not that strong." to User:Humanpublic "There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him." (period) wouldn't of itself be a problem if acres of Talk page bytes hadn't been trying to explain to User:Humanpublic why that isn't good processing from source to high-profile article lead copy. Too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on Talk, too much of being an evangelist for the WP:TRUTH. The rest of the editors on that article (of whom I'm not one) deserve a couple of weeks' rest. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

He's a single-purpose account here to get The Truth out. His chosen topic doesn't really make a difference. It may not quite be time for a topic ban, but that's what will happen if he keeps on. Tom Harrison 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support His editing in the area is disruptive. I would have opposed per the comments above; however, his back at you ban proposal below doesn't leave me confident that he intends to edit productively in the area. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless somebody can produce DNA evidence of Jesus's existence. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

sigh The comment above is completely besides the point. Humanpublic is not reported for doubting Jesus's existence, he is reported for being disruptive. One can be right and be disruptive, and one can be wrong and still civil.Jeppiz (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Baseball Bugs, Humanpublic is an obvious WP: SPA who uses polemical tactics (example would be the purely retaliatory topic ban proposal below) to push his specific WP: POV. Given that incidents have arisen in the past, I think a bit of fresh air would do Humanpublic good, and would prevent further escalation of this controversial topic. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a lot of manure flying around here. It's not just History2007's last 500 edits that are mostly Christian (and 100% Biblical). I went back 2000 edits. They are 99% Biblical. Then I went back to his first 500 on Misplaced Pages, 6 years ago. They are 99% Biblical. Who's the SPA??
• Kudos for the thought that "Whoever proposes a topic ban first, wins!!!!!" Banning the one who proposed second--he loses!!--is classy. Gee, I have a proposal. Let's have a level of intelligence that goes beyond 4th grade.
• I am shocked, shocked, that those who were absolutely certain about sock puppetry are the same as those who are absolutely certain about the SPA and absolutely certain that being 2nd with a ban proposal means "you lose" and absolutely certain nothing critical of Jesus belongs on Misplaced Pages. Nothing fishy there. Gotta love it. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• In response, I would like to say taht I have known History2007 for some time, and I have found that his own motives and behavior are more or less the same as mine. There are a number of other topics he would be possibly more interested in developing the content we have on, but he is very knowledgable of the topic of early Christianity, and is finding himself almost exclusively editing material on that basis for the purposes of ensuring that the content meets wikipedia guidelines and policies. And, yeah, I myself started with WikiProject Biography, and would personally prefer to be spending time on content regarding the smaller and less "glamorous" nations and regions of the world. If the IP is accusing History of putting wikipedia's good before his personal interests, I agree with that. If he is saying that is to be held against him, he is drawing conclusions based on no real knowledge of the subject whatsoever. We praise and thank people for working for the good of the project, we don't criticize them, or worse, seek to sanction them. Honestly, I tend to think that the IP's comment does not itself necessarily indicate an intelligence that goes even as high as the 4th grade level. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as much for the WP:POINTy topic ban proposal below as for his poor behaviour on the Jesus article. I don't think Jesus existed; I'm certainly not going to try and insert that sort of POV (or anything similar) to the Jesus article: in fact, it's why I stay away from religious articles, apart from when attempt to sort out a content dispute. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If the idea is that being an SPA justifies banning, then apply the principle equally. Based on the links above History2007 is more of an SPA than Humanpublic. I also had a similar experience with History2007: deleting my references, inserting his own, not really understanding the purpose of my references, and then not explaining what text in the book he cited he was actually using. I wouldn't support banning him either, but he did come off as condescending.Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: Any atheist trying to win a popularity contest must be young. Strangesad (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support at least a firm warning Humanpublic is disruptive; the arguments have been gone over time & again, and Jesus myth theory covers the material well. Time for him to edit on something else, if he is interested in doing so. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Policy forbids those actively involved. You not only edited the article, you edited HP's edit. You are involved. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update a couple of violations of WP:NPA by Humanpublic, further underlining his disruptive behavior .Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, this request has very thin legs, the diffs provided does not justify a topic ban, at least not now, even if now Humanpublic will surely have extra-eyes on him. It would be obviously different if the sockpupping accusations did not resulted in a hole in the water. Cavarrone (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Strangesad. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Humanpublic is continuing personal attacks - calling one user "dishonest" and another "a turd" . I do not like to campaign to get people blocked or banned, but something needs to be done to stop Humanpublic's battleground behaviour, which appears to be escalating.Smeat75 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on habit of disruptive editing, although I would have reservations about making the ban indefinite. I would tend to support one of up to a year. If Humanpublic would rather be working on other content, as he said above, I think it is probably time that he does so. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Policy forbids voting by those involved. You are arguing content on Talk:Jesus, you argued it here, and you are an active editor of closely related articles. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban now. A few days ago I specifically came against a topic ban for this user, given no proper warning, and suggested a warning instead. But now, I see no other way. He continues to hold that policy is silly and he can insult other editors at will. And that is after multiple warnings. Think of it this way: this user has done 180 edits in 6 months and has been involved in more brouhahas than many users get involved in after 18,000 edits. This is not a good start and will just get worse if he is encouraged to go rampant and walk over policy at will. I think user:Der Kommisar's characterization of the situation as WP: NOTHERE (just below here) is valid. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the rules. You are not allowed to vote. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere, I thought I read that only uninvolved editors voted on bans. That would exclude you, if I remember right. Strangesad (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

1 This is not a vote. #2 There is no policy or practice which states involved editors cannot participate in ban discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.
• In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community".. Strangesad (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties may comment (no gag order), but given that it is "not a vote" at the close, their support will not be factored into the final decision. That is all. History2007 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I also notice that Hmanpublic made the "turd" comment linked to above on in his user talk page after having been given a final warning regrding personal attacks in that same section of his talk page. I believe that there is probably sufficient cause for a short term block regarding that as well, and I do not see that such a block at this point would inhibit him from providing information regarding this proposed topic ban of him. John Carter (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Sadly, as with many complaints brought here, this is really a content dispute. Humanpublic is a firm defier of the massive majority of conservative editors who tend to "own" the articles where he has upset people. He's a nuisance. He challenges mainstream thinking (like Jesus did). They want him silenced. It would be interesting to see what was left if every content related post was removed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Sadly, the above comment seems to completely ignore much of the material presented here, by someone who himself has a rather obvious and longstanding record of engaging in disruptive edits and personal attacks, neither of which can even remotely be considered acceptable conduct even if there is a content dispute involved. I cannot see how calling someone a "turd" falls in the field "content dispute," for instance. The evidence is rather clear that Humanpuclic cannot abide by conduct guidelines regarding this subject, and we in general do not allow those who have difficulties adhering to guidelines to determine when and where they are applicable. John Carter (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree Exactly. The fact that Humanpublic often challenges people does not excuse his disruptive behavior. In fact, it rather reinforces reasons for a block, being that most of these "challenges" are actually personal attacks and WP: TE behavior. Such !votes made by Humanpublic's supporters require a grain of salt when being read. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that calling someone a turd isn't nice. If that was tackled on its own, all would be well, but again, just as with most threads begun against people with non-mainstream views, this has become a dumping ground for all the shit anyone has ever wanted to pour on the target. While there is any crap in this thread that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail. The behaviour of ALL those wanting to censure someone for poor behaviour MUST be better than the person they want to silence. Many posts here fail that test. The attack should fail. You need to show a better choice of friend. Being on the same side of a debate as you must never excuse bad behaviour. Condemn the bad behaviour of those on your side of the debate, and I will respect your position more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, with all due respect, your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval. You appear to be making a statement that if a person makes a single mistake, then the person who makes a thousand or more mistakes cannot be sanctioned unless the person making a single mistake is also sanctioned. That premise is illogical on the face of it. No one is perfect, and we do not expect them to be. But Humanpublic's behavior is not only imperfect, it seems to rarely if ever recently rise to acceptable level, and that refusal to engage in conduct of an acceptable nature is in and of itself grounds for sanctions. And, unfortunately, I think even the facts themselves disagree with you on this point. Around here, tbe mainstream view regarding Christianity, and Jesus in general, is more generally seen as being your own lack of belief, not the contrary. Also, there are policies and guidelines, like WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT which all should adhere to. And, honestly, if anyone were to hold you personally to your own position "if there is any crap .l.. that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail," I tend to think that "fail" is exactly what your own comments would do. John Carter (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

John Carter's Talk page: "Around here I try to help out some of the religion based projects, particularly Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity, where I am one of the coordinators...." John Carter, please give diffs of Humanpublic's disruption on Talk:Jesus. I see a single addition he has made to Jesus, which is factual, not a fringe theory, and sourced (and currently deleted). The "turd" comment is juvenile. It was made on his Talk page, in response to juvenile taunting by another editor. I see a lot people shooting themselves in the foot. Humanpublic isn't helping his cause. Your distorted drama-queening conduct isn't helping yours. Strangesad (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I have struck some of my provocative comments that throw fuel on the fire. Strangesad (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

e/c And therein lies the difference between HiLo and Humanpubic. HiLo has also discussed many similar content issues, and presented arguments against myself in many cases, but he has been logical as far as I have seen, despite our wide differences in content. I have personally defended HiLo against attempts to even warn him, let alone block him, and I have made it clear to him on his talk page that in my view he is a good editor. These two editors have very similar views on content but dramatically different approaches to editing. Therein lies the difference between them. This is not a content issue. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it; I'd often defend HiLo, but not Humanpublic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks guys (the last two of you), but did you notice the completely off-topic, inflammatory bullshit thrown at me by John Carter three posts up? To make sure it gets seen, he said, about me, "your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval". It's precisely that sort of tangential, unverified crap that gets posted in these attack threads. So, where's the thread now to censure John Carter. And I'm not joking. So long as these threads are seen by so many, often the self proclaimed "good" Christians, to abuse and bad mouth others, with a seeming complete immunity from any consequences, the Misplaced Pages discipline process is an absolute disaster. And don't come back to me telling me to stay on topic. I will edit here to the best of my ability, totally objectively. Prejudiced editors like Carter above abuse and damage Misplaced Pages continuously, all with the goal of pushing their conservative religious POV, and never seem to get into trouble. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to start another thread, go ahead. I am ultimately here because Humanpublic dragged me here, not the other way around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, please calm down. There is no evil anti-Christian or anti-Atheist (whichever you belong to) cabal that John Carter leads. If there was such a group, rest assured they would be disbanded by the admins here. Making borderline WP: PAs and denouncing policy is a fast road to a block. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 05:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's a silly comment too. You're the first person to use the word cabal here. I know that because I just searched for it to find this stuff in the Edit window. I am a member of no cabal, and you suggesting I am is surely unacceptable. I obviously made no suggestion that John Carter is a member of any cabal (since you're the only one to have used that word). So I don't know what nonsensical background there is to your post. I came here today to point out that this is a content dispute (IMHO). John Carter has smeared me with references to alleged sins elsewhere. I responded (maybe I shouldn't have) by pointing out that he was way out of line. Now I'm being told I'm the one making personal attacks! Don't you get it? It's the awfully nice Christian, John Carter, who just can't behave in a Christian way, who you should be criticising here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably I should not make a comment like this here, but cannot restrain myself - the repeated insinuations on this thread that anyone who supports the accuracy of a statement such as "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" must be a fundamentalist conservative Christian are ab-so-lute-ly ri-dic-u-lous.Smeat75 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A criticism of an alleged insinuation, with no names and no indication of where and when. What a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Although i agree Humanpublic should be blocked for personal attacks, i have rarely seen a topic ban for an insult. Pass a Method talk 05:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the personal attacks he has made after warnings call for a short term block, as stated below. But the larger picture goes far beyond that issue: Here is a user with 180 edits, 20% to articles, i.e. 36 article edits. And there may be over 3,600 edits here dealing with the consequential turbulence. For every article edit made, there are 100 consequential edits that could have been put to better use. This is no way to develop an encyclopedia. Look at this user. She has written more DYK articles than anyone remembers (over 200 DYKs I think) and how much mayhem has she brought about? None at all. That is the kind of user who builds the encyclopedia, not one who starts this type of lengthy drama in 3 acts. Not to mention the counter-productive atmosphere created by the personal attacks. This is not a good start and can not continue in this way. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is too much WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior going on from multiple editors. This started out as a misplaced content dispute, and has turned into a mud flinging contest. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre actions by Strangesad

Strangesad, who opposes a topic-ban, has taken to striking out comments by several users who had expressed support for the topic ban. . He claims it's because they are involved, which leads to two questions.

• 1. Is is true that no user who has had the slightest involvement can express their opinion?
• 2. If there is such a policy, how come Strangesad strikes out comments from only marginally involved users if they expressed support, but leaves intact comments from even heavily involved users if they agree with Strangesad and opposed?
  

This practice by Strangesad looks truly odd. Also a bit surprised to see him insert a comment at the very top, especially as it does not seem to say what he claims, that nobody can express an opinion if they have had any interaction with the topic Jeppiz (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

technically Strangesad is correct that policy forbids those invokved from voting. What they failed to point out is it also forbids those uninvoled from voting. We do not vote for topic bans or most things on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Apparently Strangesad doesn't. And the fact that he only took out comment he disagreed with shows a pretty clear bias. I undid his striking of other users' support as it's not justify by any policy.Jeppiz (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say the uninvolved are prohibited from voting? Consensus is determined, as practical matter, by voting, and involved editors aren't allowed to vote in that process. Jeppiz is hardly "marginally involved, neither is History2007, and Johnbod edited HPs edit. I didn't strike comments, only the vote itself. Strangesad (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How many times do we need to tell you? This is not a vote It is a discussion where people express their opinions, but it is not a vote. At least three users have already pointed that out to you. And no, I'm not marginally involved, I'm heavily involved. As are some users who support the topic ban and some who oppose. You struck out only comments of those with whom you disagree. The point is, it is not for you to strike out the comments of anyone.Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strangesad, striking out any other person's comments is incredibly inappropriate. I think this deserves an official warning by an admin. Involved editors are fully allowed to express their opinions, otherwise, how the hell can non-involved editors work out people's motives? Lukeno94 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Both striking out user comments with which he disagrees and making talk page comments of this kind makes me wonder if Strangesad is WP:NOTHERE to improve Misplaced Pages.Jeppiz (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be put out of its misery. No action is likely, all that happens is that it wastes time. Let us just drop it and all go on and get a life. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User conduct, not content

I feel that this discussion has gotten sidetracked numerous times, and I just wanted to reiterate that AN/I is meant to focus on user conduct. Content disputes like the ones that has riddled this thread should go to WP: DRN. Frankly, the OP's conduct so far has been appalling: the extremely WP: POINTy topic ban proposal, WP: EDITWARring over his additions (, , ), WP: FORUMSHOPping (), and not to mention WP: PAs made by User: Humanpublic (, , ) to top it off. This thread is starting smell strongly of WP: BOOMERANGs. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was about to post here regarding continued personal attacks, but you have already stated it. As I stated at the end of this page, the continued personal attacks by this user after multiple warnings by various editors (and his clear declaration on his talk page that he does not intend to stop insults because policy is silly) makes it impossible to continue interacting with him without suffering insults. This is enough. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Since a significant number of people here approves of it, you will either have to put up or leave. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not have to put up with it. I will not. WP:NPA is policy, and I expect it to be respected. Any administrator can issue a short term block here to stop these continued insults given the multiple warnings, else the WP:NPA policy will be declared invalid as a defacto standard. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang is right.... you complained I brought a content dispute here, and now that I've moved it to a dispute-resolution page, you complain that I am (is there anything anybody can do that can't criticized with an acronym?). I was repeatedly called a vandal for non-vandalism, and called extremely dishonest twice, and now that I've once said History2007 was "being dishonest" suddenly my behavior is "appalling" and I should be blocked. Seb snidely suggested I am self-important and told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then repeatedly antagonized me on my Talk page. History2007 copy and pasted a big pile of sources from one article to another without quoting any of them, and when I asked if he had read all of them and if he could quote them, I was attacked for violating another acronym (AGF). I have never reverted an edit to Jesus more than once, but now I am edit-warring.... I have about 500 edits, and have been editing 6 months, while History2007 has been editing 6 years with thousands of edits and almost all of them are about the Bible, but I'm an SPA (how many damn acronyms are there?). If you actually brought some integrity to your presence and criticised all sides equally, I might listen and learn to what you have to say. We seem to all agree this thread is going nowhere. Personally, I don't see how its content-dispute to expect editors to document that thier sources support what is claimed, but apparently I'm in the minority. Humanpublic (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am just very tired of the he is all Bible repetitious statement. I must have been looking for Heaven here, was super exhausted here and developed fatigue here. Again, you must stop focusing on editors and discuss content on talk pages and stop personal attacks. That is policy, as you have been told, many, many times now; yet continued to disregard it. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Per Smeat above, Humanpublic's WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality suggests he is WP: NOTHERE. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the worst thing that's been said here "You're being dishonest"? By many involved parties? I work in a middle-school. This has reminded me of work. Strangesad (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry it does not work that way. User A says X, user B can then say Y = X+delta and it can quickly escalate to deep insults if any personal attacks are allowed. That is why there is a policy. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Baron Master", probable sockpuppet of Humanpublic

Topic Ban for History2007

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

This editor is adding sources that he hasn't read:

"History2007: Have you read the sources you added? Please provide the specific text you are citing, so other editors can assess it. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Have you read the sources you added here, or not? I see the material I removed from Argument from silence was added by you. You used a 2007 translation of a text from the year 1103 as a source. You misquoted another book that was not reliable anyway--a book on trade in ancient Greece not a source on the general validity of a type of argument, and it didn't say what you said anyway. You don't seem to bother to actually research the sources you use.Humanpublic (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

" Again, please tell us: 1) which of the sources you added have you actually read, if any, 2) what they actually say. Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Have you actually read the sources you cited?? Humanpublic (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Please quote the texts you are citing. You made your edit less than 20 minutes after mine, and added seven sources. I find it hard to believe you carefully examined seven scholarly books in less than 20 minutes. Humanpublic (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response

He is adding sources from books, and mocking editors (me) who ask him to provide the text being used to support the claim. "Trust me that after writing 600 articles I know how to source. Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it. Trust me on that, and read WP:RS about books being the best sources. ... History2007 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (See also: ""What nonsense. It is verifiable; if you want to verify it, get the books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)")

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction

He adds sources without reading them--he admits he copied them from another article. He refuses to work cooperatively when asked to document that the source backs the claim. He is disruptive. Humanpublic (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Question What offence do you feel History2007 has made, which policies do you think he has broken that you want to see him topic-banned? Is this a WP:POINT in reply to the discussion about you above?Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"He adds sources without reading them." — you better prove that or retract the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Judging from Talk before after edits it looks that History2007 was badgered into providing some copy to present a topic that Humanpublic demanded, and then Humanpublic didn't like it, could be wrong but that's what it looks like. In any case the above "Topic Ban for History2007" is a misdirected case of tit-for-tat. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this is mostly a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - We do not issue topic bans based on content disputes. If History2007 has violated a specific policy or guideline, you haven't made it clear. I won't be validating this one with an oppose. Evanh2008  00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not based on the link "POINT" that you gave. I'm not frustrated with how a policy is being applied. I really think that anybody who persists in adding sources he hasn't read, and adding sources and refusing to document that they support the claims made, should be sanctioned in some way. I assume that breaks a rule, but can't point you to the "statute." As I said, this is the only controversy I've been involved in, so I don't know the ropes. Frankly, History2007 seems like an "spa" to me as well.His last 500 edits are all about Christianity . Not true of me.... Humanpublic (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he's made some Islam-related edits. But, 90% of his edits for the last 6 years are Bible-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban and support warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban. Incidentally, there were many nasty remarks made to HumanPublic that I have personally witnessed Nashhinton (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And were those "nasty remarks" made by History2007? If so, please provide diffs of History2007 making nasty remarks about Humanpublic. If not, what's the relevance?Jeppiz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The rule violation is OR, as I said initially. Analysing or researching an argument, and then classifying it as an argument from silence (or any other argument type), is OR. I assume there is a rule against adding sources you haven't actually read. I assume that there is a rule requiring editors to document that the sources support their claims. If those rules exist, then he is violating those rules. Anyway, I'm off to other destinations for the rest of the day. Humanpublic (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT might be pertinent here, in particular the sentence which says, "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." I am unconvinced that violation of this minor guideline is enough to warrant a topic ban (and a topic ban from which articles, exactly?), and this is still a pointless discussion. The SPA accusation should be supported with evidence or redacted, per WP:NPA. Evanh2008  00:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, and also support a warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF and for not working out content disputes on the article talkpages instead of here. Heiro 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban for History2007, a highly knowledgeable user who not only scrupulously observes wikipedia policy but patiently spells them out to every POV fringe theory pusher who appears on the pages under discussion. For this he gets called a "zealot" by Humanpublic , which in my opinion borders on a personal attack.Smeat75 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and warn Per LGR, Heiro and above discussions, topic ban has no merit and is purely proposed out of bad faith. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. Humanpublic, you're actually talking yourself deeper into your hole, as you can now see the first support-!votes for your topic ban; if you continue down this road, there will be more people willing to ban you. You've been told before that it is policy that "verifiable" does not mean that people need to quote passages of text to you and present them to you as the gatekeeper. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Go get the books in question, open them at the indicated page, and read for yourself. Assuming that others haven't read them is about as offensive as assuming your request is based your own illiteracy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose History2007 is a good and alert editor, who's really keen at using reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal violates either WP:POINT or WP:AGF or both, and inclines me to strike my !vote opposing the proposed topic ban of User:Humanpublic above. Both of you need to start resolving your content disputes, prefereably one at a time, and preferably without resort to blocks or topic bans. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Err... one of those "both" hasn't even commented here... just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • "You" means the two users proposing topic bans in this section. They most certainly have commented here. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • 'k. nevermind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty funny. The funniest part was the multiple no response conclusions (in bold), just above. We have been telling this guy not to use arguments from silence, and then he just does that. Anyway, I went back and added some exact quotes. But this is a very simple concept, even pointed out to Gregory in Silver Blaze. I will add some more direct quotes to the other pages later. I will not be making any further comments here. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POINT and being one of the least thought-out topic ban proposals in the history of anything. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Purpose

Can somebody tell me what the purpose of this whole thing still is? Can we just close this or what's to be done? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to address the OP (Humanpublic) and his unacceptable behavior. As stated above, he has engaged in highly uncivil habits, however, multiple editors have repeatedly tried to sidetrack the discussion by asserting the incorrect belief that this is a content dispute (which it is not). The blatantly polemical refutations done by his supporter HiLo () have repeatedly constricted discussion (although they do not have much footing), and I fear they may exhibit the same behavior as Humanpublic. As for the topic ban, there seems to be no consensus, being that the editors have argued over content, not user conduct. However, if Humanpublic's uncivil manner escalates in the future, this will certainly provide insight on the situation. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 12:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How much longer is this discussion going to stay open, with users quarrelling, striking out each others' comments and so on? Are there any admins paying attention to what is going on here at the admins board? Any action going to be taken, comments made by them, decisions, anything?Smeat75 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing's gonna happen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Requesting a rapid close to this entire thread This thread has become like a prolonged visit to an inexperienced dentist. As Seb said, no action is likely here. Except bickering, of course. Will some uninvolved person just close it please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Return of the Wikihounding Sock

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

I suspect that GeezerB is a sock of Plant's Strider, a troll who habitually followed I and another editor around the project, making inconsequential edits wherever we went. It has not yet escalated to that level with this account, but if you compare the edit summaries and the area of interest, I think it's pretty clear they're the same person. There are other things that led me to post here, but I won't be posting those per WP:BEANS. Evanh2008  06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway. And please provide some evidence. Not saying he is or isn't a sock, but the 'evidence' GabeMc sent to me was singularly unconvincing. Please bear in mind that just because someone is not a new editor, a sock is not the only other option. Also that having the effrontery to propose addding Miles Davis to WP:VITAL two weeks after GabeMc proposed adding Jimi Hendrix is not harrassment ans not evidence of socking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

While there seem to be similar topics editing in, the edit summaries look similar, and he seems keen to get a few articles up to GA status, I'm loathe to comment any further without shutting up and showing you all a bunch of relevant diffs that I don't have. I do note that Plant's Strider's block has expired, as it was only a cool down from edit warring, and GeezerB doesn't seem to show actual evidence of edit warring. I'd discuss first before escalating it up to ANI. Ritchie333 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Gabe's email has to do with anything. I came here of my own volition, and specifically mentioned edit summaries, which Ritchie seems to have had no problem finding. I've had no trouble getting far less obvious socks blocked at ANI before, but if you prefer I contribute to the how-to-sock-and-get-away-with-it manual that SPI has become, that's done now. Evanh2008  03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Elen, I thought e-mails between users should be kept private. Per Misplaced Pages:Emailing users: "The contents of emails between users are private" and "Note that emails sent this way are private – they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails." (emphasis added) According to merriam-webster.com: "Private: 'intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class.'" Also, from Misplaced Pages:Personal security practices: "If you become stalked or harassed on Misplaced Pages via any information posted about you on-site, whether by you or anyone else, it is recommended that you report this discreetly via off-site means, such as email, to a trusted administrator ... which maintains a confidential email service." (emphasis added) I have never discussed this user on-wiki with anyone, so your revelation here of the confidential information exchanged during our private correspondence seems inappropriate at best. GabeMc 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." NE Ent 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like a bit of a cherry-pick. WP:POSTEMAIL goes on to say: "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki". (emphasis added) GabeMc 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly consider citing a diff as quoting a private email. The diff is, after all, public information. I asked you for some diffs, and one of the ones you gave that made you certain that GeezerB was (a) harassing you and (b) was a sock of Plant's Strider (who was also harassing you, and was a sock of Chowkat... except that he wasnt, see ]), was that he had added Miles Davis to the list of Vital Articles a mere two weeks after you had added Jimi Hendrix. Not one of the diffs you provided appeared to me to be evidence of either harassment or socking. You regularly accuse other editors - not even other editors that you are in an active dispute with, just ones that make edits you don't like - of all being socks of each other. If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I never said GeezerB was harassing me, ever, you must have misunderstood something else I said. 2) Chowkat is now a proven sock/sockmaster, so what's your point about my accusing him of being such? Per: "just ones that make edits you don't like", wow, have you ever got this all wrong, and you also seem to be quite biased against me at this point, so you seem too WP:INVOLVED to be dealing with me. 3) No evidence is realistic to you, IMO. Why are you even a CU, why not let someone else do it who doesn't seem to resent it so much? 4) I wrongly thought our e-mails were confidential (see the above definition of private), if they weren't intended as such, I would have posted them to your talk page. 5) Per your comment: "If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence", 1) I never accused GeezerB on-wiki of anything, nor did I suggest or encourage Evan to open this AN/I thread (I actually wish he hadn't, IMO, we should have waited for more evidence, then went to SPI). GabeMc 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Contents" means the actual email, not a reference to the email. Although not directly applicable to this case, the concept behind "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows)." elucidates this. NE Ent 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another cherry-pick. You're quote is from WP:EMAILABUSE, which does not apply at all to good-faith e-mails. As far as the definition of "content": "the topics or matter treated in a written work ... the principal substance", which you seem to be using interchangeably here with "verbatim", or similar; I repeat: "the contents (subjects or topics) of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki." So, it would seem that in order for you to be correct, we would need to redefine "private" and "content". GabeMc 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, Gabe, but you're wrong. Your quote even says it: "the contents" should not be posted. As in, the direct words in the email. Simply stating that the email was not convincing is not a violation of that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify, "Also that having the effrontery to propose addding Miles Davis to WP:VITAL two weeks after GabeMc proposed adding Jimi Hendrix is not harrassment ans not evidence of socking" is quite a specific example of nearly exactly what I said. Who goes to Vital Articles after just 4 days on Misplaced Pages and confronts my effort to broaden ethnicity and gender diversity in the list? GabeMc 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding email If you don't want the content of your email shared, don't send it to people you don't trust not to share it. They are under no obligation to keep your missives private.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I did trust Elen, before she made my private statements public. GabeMc 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• SPI is now open. Evanh2008  03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc asks "Why are you even a CU, why not let someone else do it who doesn't seem to resent it so much?" What I resent is being asked to unearth private information about other editors without any basis in policy. At one time, an IP hopping troll on a cable provider made a considerable nuisance of themselves in the popular music area, including targetting GabeMc. Since then, Gabe and Evan have been convinced that significant numbers of editors, including long standing accounts as well as new accounts, are all this individual. In many cases, myself and other CUs have been asked to conduct userchecks on very little evidence. In this case, I have been asked to checkuser this individual when no policy is being violated. Even if he is Plant's Strider, the Plant's Strider account stopped editing before this account started. Users are entirely free to abandon one account and start another. No evidence of problematic editing or hounding has been presented so far, and I simply cannot justify poking around in this user's IP information on what is presented here and in the SPI. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise though to Gabe. Informants perhaps ought to be made more aware that allegations of socking based on diffs or editing pattern often end up being public - because the CU at the end of the day has to justify to the community and the WMF as to why they used the tools. If I had been aware that Evan was posting off his own bat, I wouldn't have mentioned Gabe, because he had dropped it with me by that point: looking at it now, I should have been less cross. The cable net troll was quite vile - I can see why he is suspicious of other users. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Elen, your above statement: "I simply cannot justify poking around in this user's IP information on what is presented here and in the SPI", seems to directly contradict this comment you made not long ago. Seems to me that you CU anyone you suspect, while telling others that they need to prove it first. Any thoughts? GabeMc 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Elen's use of the CU tool, you should probably take it up with the appropriate authority. Speculation on this type of crap is going to go nowhere on ANI, since Elen presumably can't defend herself by releasing details about CU checks publicly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One of those where several have said "it's Foo", but the CU on the IP does not provide any evidence thereof. Often the most one can do is block the IP, sometimes it's not even worth that. I've checked one or two for Gabe, but I don't believe there is one editor behind all the accounts he has presented (personal opinion - he can always ask another checkuser to review the evidence), and in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules, so I don't see how I could justify using the tool. Again, another CU may vary in their opinion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Per you above comment: "in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules", how does this apply to Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system, which states: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages ... Gaming the system may include: Attempting to twist Misplaced Pages sanctions or processes to harass other editors." GabeMc 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But you haven't provided any evidence of this. The Plant's Strider account isn't a sock of anyone else, and it was briefly blocked for edit warring and being a bit shirty. GeezerB hasnt even interacted with you, except that you took enormous exception to him nominating Miles Davis and Led Zeppelin as vital articles, as you felt it was a direct threat to your nomination of Jimi Hendrix. WP:FALSENEGATIVE - Checkusers cannot go on fishing expeditions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction. Per your above comment: "The Plant's Strider account isn't a sock of anyone else", WP:FALSENEGATIVE states: "CheckUser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected". Per "Checkusers cannot go on fishing expeditions", then what would you call this. Again, seems like you run CU at your own whims while telling others that they are always wrong. Also, can I respectfully request that you cease revealing information I e-mailed to you in confidence. Could you please do that for me? I told you that I thought it was confidential or I would have never told you anything via e-mail and would have posted it on your talk page. I can't take that mistake back now, but you could stop spilling beans out of spite. GabeMc 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Elen, if its proof of disruptive editing that you want then look here and here, despite this, which is yet another behaviour reminiscent of User:Plant's Strider. See here and here. Also, per Yeepsi this and this would seem to be pertinent to the case, which shows a behavioural similarity between PS and GB. GabeMc 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So why are you and Yeepsi (who is Yeepsi - haven't seen him before. Must be a sock of yours.....see how easily it's done) so determined to prevent a harmless change to a citation system better suited to a situation where you are referencing multiple pages in the same book? Again, I'm not seeing disruption, I'm seeing doing something you and Evan don't like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1) You are quite wrong once again Elen. Sfn is my preferred citation style. Just take a look at any of the articles I've taken to FAC, they all use sfn/harvnb, including George Harrison, which Evan and I had recently nominated for FAC with the sfn/harvnb citation style. 2) Yeepsi has been a respected member of the Beatles project for several years now, versus several days for GB. 3) As far as "a harmless change", if GB's actions violate WP:CITEVAR and WP:CONSENSUS, and contitute Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, then how exactly is that harmless IYO? GabeMc 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have to confess that yes, since I have nominated a few Pink Floyd articles to WP:GAN myself, that I am, in fact, Elen's sockpuppet. Ritchie333 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like we've found our latest users to indef then... ;) I see a massive AGF fail on the behalf of GabeMc, at the moment. Plant Strider has no history of socking, nor any need to, at present. Doesn't mean they aren't, but... Premature ANI (that would be a premature SPI anyway) much? Lukeno94 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, I did not start this thread nor did I endorse it. The only reason I have even commented here is that Elen dragged my name into it by revealing the contents of private e-mails that I sent to her in confidence. GabeMc 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll revise that slightly: you and the person who started this thread have an AGF fail. There's no sockpuppetry involved, based on the SPI: perhaps meatpuppetry at most. You've presented things as being disruptive that are blatantly not, those edit summaries you list as being similar are edit summaries that thousands of Wiki editors use. In addition, Plant's Strider hasn't edited since the 27th of January, and it's entirely possible that they've gone for a clean start, or something like that, to lose a perceived "reputation" on their previous account - but possibly haven't followed procedure to the letter. GeezerB appeared on the 8th of February - so there's a good period in between where such a decision could've been made. Also, your comments towards Elen, although I agree you have a genuine reason to be displeased, have been WAY out of line at times. The only concerns I have are any similarities between Falco70 and GeezerB - but I can definitively see that they've made edits at identical times to each other: this doesn't rule out a multi-browser usage, but... Lukeno94 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, I repeat. Prior to this thread, I had never accused GeezerB on-wiki of anything whatsoever (I merely predicted via e-mail to Elen that he would begin stalking as did PS), nor did I suggest or encourage Evan to open this AN/I thread. I actually wish he hadn't, IMO, we should have collected more evidence, then went to SPI, assuming we had what we needed. Evan did not ask for my opinion nor did he give me a heads up prior to posting here. I have never wavered from that position. As far as WP:AGF regarding User:Plant's Strider, I think you should go and take a good look at his talk page and contribs before you judge me. Several admins thought he was Wikihounding/stalking and edit warring, I was not alone in that assumption, and at least two admins came to that very same conclusion entirely independant of any communication with me. FTR, Elen told me via e-mail that she thought there were at least three sockmasters involved and that I should search the internet for DeviantArt and similar non-productive online groups for evidence of a socking ring. So why am I now the paranoid one who should AGF? FTR, the wikistalking has been ongoing for more than 8 months (I'll bet you didn't know that). GabeMc 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, per your above comment: "The only concerns I have are any similarities between Falco70 and GeezerB - but I can definitively see that they've made edits at identical times to each other". Take a look at my contribs for 23:50, 20 February 2013. You'll see that I made three edits "at identical times" to three separate articles using nothing more than multiple browsers, as you said above. GabeMc 23:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think I've violated a policy, Luke, you are more than welcome to report me to the appropriate noticeboard. If you're unwilling to take my suspicions of sockpuppetry (which were based on extensive experience with the sockmaster and which have now been confirmed by an administrator, just FYI) seriously, you're also welcome to not comment and move along. What you are not welcome to do is to make baseless accusations against people who had nothing to do with the SPI I opened. I would suggest you move on from this thread before you say anything else you might regret, and consider getting a rough idea of what you're talking about before commenting on another ANI thread. Evanh2008  02:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I've said anything stupid. In fact, I'm pretty sure my comments are actually completely relevant - namely the fact that Strider stopped editing a week or two before this new account appeared, making this not sockpuppetry. As I said, this might be a meat puppet, it also might be someone who wanted to cut ties with an old account that they viewed/was viewed as having a bad reputation. Any sock puppetry is between GeezerB and Falco70. I wouldn't deny that they do appear to be the same user, but then again, those edit summaries are hardly a unique style trait - it's simply the same topics that would clinch it. Going back to Gabe, I'm well aware your comments were never meant to become public, but I'm confused by the inconsistencies - the title of the thread says "wikihounding sock", yet this guy is neither a sock (previous account is now inactive) nor actually hounding you? Also you've said some less than pleasant things to Elen who made a genuine mistake - she is, after all, human. Anyway, Toddst1 has blocked these accounts, so you've got your issues sorted out for now, and this ANI thread may as well close. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I ever accused you of saying something stupid. In fact, I'm damn certain I didn't, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. If you think there wasn't any wikihounding, you're wrong. It was established by multiple individuals beyond a shadow of a doubt that Plant's Strider was wikihounding both me and Gabe. If you don't believe me, take a look at his talk page. He did not create two additional accounts because he was interested in helping build an encyclopedia, and assuming otherwise is moronic (there, now you can accuse me of saying you said something moronic). "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. As far as Elen goes, I will say that she has essentially established that she lacks a basic understanding of WP:FALSENEGATIVE, and consistently assumed that Gabe and I were conspiring behind the scenes for some unstated purpose. The fact that she immediately jumped to the conclusion that Gabe was responsible for my initial post here, and then accused me of "picking potential sockmasters apparently at random" after I had already presented a heap of evidence unmistakably tying the accounts to Plant's Strider, should be immensely worrying. Evanh2008  08:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Keithstanton at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo

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

G'day all, could I get some attention to the subject new user/SPA currently doing wholesale deletions regardless of consensus and after gentle advice not to continue? Probably a sock, but unfortunately I am mobile and don't have the access I need to provide the evidence for that. The editwarring alone should be enough for an ARBMAC warning. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The comments are just so ridiculously over the top, it might just be my old community banned sockmaster buddy User:Oldhouse2012, or the other sockmaster that has been active on that page, User:Sinbad Barron. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Hilarious. Almost certainly a sock, and most definitely an exceptionally disruptive user. A checkuser and a ban would be in place.Jeppiz (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, Keithstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today and is already surprisingly knowledgeable about our policies. Comments such as (severe personal attack) and (WP:BLP violation), as well as the general editing pattern of one-sided advocacy in the WP:ARBMAC area, leads me to believe that an indefinite block might be in order.  Sandstein  13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Indef of this obvious SPA disruptive sock. --WhiteWriter 20:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello eveyone. First I don't know the actual reason I have been summoned to this crazy discussion by Peacemaker, an editor I have the sincerest respect for and one with who I see eye to eye fully. I understand a few people are threatened that I'm both a new user and someone who is knowledgeable on wikipedia policy. Well I am, I always read the instructions before opening and wikipedia is no different. But let's be truthful, the policies I gave on the voting page to get Persecution of Serbs in Kosovo deleted were mentioned throughout the article anyway. That out the way, I am sorry if my wholesale removal from the article looked disruptive but I never set out to do it. It's just once I started I couldn't stop. for every decision to delete, I gave a summary descritpion and in the end, it left the page empty. OK, I could have left the LEDE but it would have been unsourced and saying nothing true. What I am trying to say is, that page should not have to go through wholesale removals but an admin desperately needs to step in and get it deleted, PLEASE delete it. It is a tool for Serb nationalists like User:Nado158, the biggest one going. He has the cheek to call User:Bobrayner a sock and call him Albanian when the facts are simple. Bob is just good hardworking and neutral editor with high end Balkans knowledge and he rightly points out that in Kosovo, the victims wee "not" Serb but non-Serb, and we all remember the vicious genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity which happened in Kosovo from 1990 to 1999 and I personally witnessed a lot of these as I was serving with KFOR so nobody can tell me differently. I am not a sockpuppet and don't want to be blocked, but please, once and for all, delete Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, I cannot sit by and watch exploitment of Misplaced Pages by Serb nationalists who spread lies and use blogs for sources. Thankyou for reading. Keithstanton (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Keithstanton (with whom I have never interacted) seems highly disruptive. The warnings given to him seems to have had no effect, and he continues today with deleting sourced content at an alarming pace , , , , He never discusses these deletions on the talk pages, and while not involved in any Balkan topic myself, I find his arguments untenable. He deletes multiple sources, including many that fulfill the very highest standards of WP:RS, such as reports from OSCE. I cannot say if he is a sock or not, but he is clearly a disruptive user out to get the WP:TRUTH at all means, including deleting everything he does not like. He continues despite several warnings. Sock or not, he should not edit any article related to the Balkans.Jeppiz (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with a cool-off block for an egregious violation of the normal editing process (WP:ARBMAC). --Joy (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd hardly call articles from BBC, Reuters, various significant European newspapers blogs. Normally, I would think that someone who has experience or is an expert in a field that they're editing should be given some leeway, but not like this. The article does wander off from the main topic somewhat, at least in some of the versions I've seen, but there's nothing that isn't fixable without wholesale deletion of entire chunks of material. I'd almost call this a WP:COI and as Joy says above, edits in this area are covered by ARBMAC. Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't call them blogs either but what is Balkananalysis? Run by an apologist of the Serbs Chris Deliso. The point is this, there aren't that many sources on the article that use Reuters or BBC and where they do, they never match the claims they are meant to support. The article is packed to the rafters with unattached pieces of gossip some of which have their own articles and others simple cases of everyday street crime, the type you get everywhere. What about David Copeland? Do you know the EDF has indulged in more and worse acts of terror against the nonwhite British community than has been imposed on Kosovar Serbs? And anyway look, I am not doing wholesale removals any more, that has stopped. Keithstanton (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it is getting outright ridiculous. Less than ten minutes after Keithstanton claims above "I am not doing wholesale removals any more, that has stopped." he goes ahead to do further "wholesale removals" at the same page. , . In most cases, it would be a WP:NPA violation to accuse someone of blatantly lying, but in this case I think it is justified. Keithstanton is lying about his actions and intentions in this discussion, while continuing his highly disruptive edit-warring. I'm quite frankly surprised that he is able to do this more than 50 hours after the discussion was started, as Keithstanton's action both before and after the report was filed has made it perfectly clear that all the accusations are true. I say this as an uninvolved user who had not had any interaction with Keithstanton nor with the article before the report was filed here at ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

at the very least, could we get a temporary topic ban in place? Then Keithstanton can show he can edit properly elsewhere first. These articles are hard enough to corral inside WP policy/guidelines without mass disruption. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask for prompt action by an administrator here? Keithstanton has continued to behave in the same way, per Jeppiz above. I think a block is entirely appropriate given the continued behaviour. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo's continuous disruptive editing and highly biased editing behavior with a certain agenda

The case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Misplaced Pages:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Misplaced Pages:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Misplaced Pages:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing,Misplaced Pages:Coatrack and Misplaced Pages:Fait accompli.

He is editing a numbers of Articles with Misplaced Pages:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.

• He uses Wiki:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
• See here he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
• See here and
• here
• here
• Inserted a biased source here and
• veiled criticism in the name of history section here again
• here .

• This POV pushing based on single source continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
• Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive , *,
• Blatant accusations ,
• Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here
• Again accusations
• Blatant POV and lies
• Editing to prove a Point
• Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.
• Inserting his POV
• Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source
• Again tampering
• Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV

• Salafi-Removing a very Genuine template from the Article see here and Protecting *blatant lies and POV here .
• Unsourced POV here ]
• Nazim Al-Haqqani -He removed a lot of content here]

• Tawassul-Removing total neutral valid content according to his personal views here inserting his POV here
• Ibn Arabi He removed half of content in bad faith here
• Ya Muhammad here

• He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
• for speedy deletion ,
• ,
• ,
• ,
• Mohra shareef here
• Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here

• This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
• He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here

• Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day.
• He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.

• He is doing this since long-
• See a small example here and here
• reverted by other editors .
• Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors

• Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi

• This editing pattern has harassed many editors in the past and has forced them to leave editing specially from Barelvi Page.For Ex-User:Hassanfarooqi,User:MatthewVanitas with his efforts to improve the Article ,User:Nkv and User:Coercorash. Many fears to edit a single line or wording on these Pages due to this monopoly.

• One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
• If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Misplaced Pages as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Misplaced Pages a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: . I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the Ibn Arabi allegation, I can verify that Msoamu is the one causing the problem, as all MezzoMezzo did was remove a massive chunk of unverified information (or verified only by primary sources, which aren't sufficient in this case; the information was highly non-neutral. Even with the edit, the article still needs major improvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• One major issue is that the majority of Msoamu's diffs are also very old, I believe, and yet being presented as if they're a recent issue... Lukeno94 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have not discussed here just a single Article ′but continuous patterns and motives of him'.He is continuously engaged in proposing Sufi movement Articles for deletion.But he is facing failure in his attempts.Many editors have removed his Deletion Prod from various Sufi Articles see here ,.Msoamu (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See here

• Msoamu, a lot of your issue here is that you're presenting diffs from 2007 as if they're recent. They're not, and from mine, and other editor's, assessments of this dispute, you are by far the more disruptive. There are very few diffs you've presented that date from after your block for edit warring. I believe I requested that you'd stop trying to sully MezzoMezzo's name with half-baked accusations, sadly, you haven't. I can only see this being resolved by a WP:BOOMERANG and a topic and/or interaction ban being enforced on Msoamu, sadly. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Luken,Kindly read my above comments.There are major POV pushing and disruptive editing by MezzoMezzo with in a month.The time period from which he has started this years editing.I have given numbers of Pages and Articles as Proof which he has recommended for Deletion with in a month and reverted by various editors.All the Pages in past and in present he has recommended for deletion belong to Sufi movement ,for which he seems to have certain agenda.Even I have shown recent changes by him to reduce importance from various Articles so that later they can be suggested for Deletion.Most of the pages he has developed belong to Salafi movement which is in strong opposition of Sufi or Barelvi movement.This is not a case of half baked accusation or something else.Non salafi Islamic expert can easily identify his edits.He has been accused of doing this many times.

• I have brought this case here to examine his edits in depth and to seek comments on his editing pattern.Msoamu (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your comments seem to suggest that sourcing doesn't matter a jot - if you disagree with an edit, it can have a thousand reliable sources backing it up, and still should be removed. That is totally incorrect, as are assertions that Mezzo has regularly gone against consensus - the opposite is true. Some of these complaints about AfDs are unfounded, as other editors have removed significant chunks of information (rightly or wrongly), and that is what Mezzo has based their arguments on. Also, you've confused speedy deletion and AfDs in your diffs - the two are very different. You also label things as "big accusations" when they're not, they're single sentences worded neutrally. Saying things like "Barelvis have begun mixing with Shi'ites more than before" is NOT an accusation, it's quite possibly a statement of fact (I don't know the source, so can't check), and it's blatantly absurd to claim that - I don't suppose you're anti-Shi'ite? In fact, you've even provided diffs here that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MezzoMezzo - try this one: as an example. You're so blinkered by either your dislike of MezzoMezzo, his (fairly neutral) views, or these movements themselves that you're making a boatload of unfounded accusations, based on a mixture of old, dodgy or downright incorrect evidence. For what it's worth, I'll provide my talk page assessment of this dispute here, from the 9th of February:

• Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Misplaced Pages should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi."here is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing).here I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not.here He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:

• Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:.
• Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
• His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.

Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu, I suggest you look at your actions, apologize, and move on, and join the discussions, otherwise the ONLY way I can see this age-old problem is for you to be topic banned from editing anything to do with Islam, broadly construed, and an interaction ban with MezzoMezzo. You were flagged as being disruptive on these articles in 2006: this needs to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Dear Luken,I learnt a lot from this discussion here.I will try to be calm and cool.Many times third person can clearly tell us that what is really wrong.Hope to see your cooperation in editing,I regret my complaint.Thanks.Msoamu (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unfortunate that you decided to go against the discussions I'd tried to have with the pair of you, as it's likely this will WP:BOOMERANG back at you, with your history of being involved in edit-warring on these topics as long ago as 2006. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter-claims

Msoamu and two editors with whom he sometimes collaborates have launched what I feel are a number of personal attacks on me in the past few days or so.

In the case of User:Msoamu:

Accused me of supporting Salafism and Wahhabism here.

Note that Msoamu was recently blocked for edit warring, POV-pushing and personal attacks (against me). This user has been blocked for vandalizing the same article in 2006.

In the case of User:Hassanfarooqi:

Accused me of engaging in a "Salafi jihad" and turning Misplaced Pages into a "jihad ground" here.

Called me an "anti-Sufi bigot" and accused me of engaging in a "Jihad against Sufism" and brining a jihad to Misplaced Pages here.

Accused me of being an "anti-sufi wahhabi" and on a "jihad to wipe them (Sufis) all out" when creating this page.

Note that Msoamu seems to be egging Hassanfarooqi on here.

This user was also blocked in 2006, but for personal attacks rather than vandalism.

In the case of User:Shabiha:

Changed one of my comments on a talk page, seemingly to portray me as a POV-pusher, here.

Accused me of supporting Salafist jihadism here. Yes, it's there. Look all the way down at the very last sentence in his edit.

This user was blocked in 2007 for edit warring and personal attacks.

Especially troublesome are the accusations of me supposedly supporting holy war and violent extremism. I work for a reputable institution; should I ever be outed, such accusations can have personal ramifications for my family and I. I've tried both ignoring it and asking for it to stop, and multiple other users have tried reasoning with these three to no avail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I unintentionally deleted Your comments on a Talk page.I was para phrasing my own headings,in this process mistakenly done that.That was not motive which you understood.Next,the comment was not directed to you and was in good faith.Please avoid taking it personally. Shabiha (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• can I present here some earlier examples of Personal Attacks on me ? Shabiha (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First, disclosure: Mezzomezzo asked me on my talk page about this complaint and whether or not he should post here, and I advised him to post a short summary with diffs as he has done above. Having said that, now that I see the diffs, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha need to stop the attacks immediately. I am willing to AGF that Shabiha's comment was not intended as an attack and the deletion was in error; but the other two are totally unacceptable. The are evidence of a battleground mentality at best, and outright offensive at worst. Were these western users casually dropping the term "jihad" it might be vaguely understandable, but these editors (based upon the topics they contribute in) must certainly know how strong and aggressive and, ultimately, rude such a label is. Just because someone nominates a lot of articles in a particular subject matter for deletion does not mean that they are attempting to wage a holy war of violence and eradication. Having seen some of the content Msoamu was defending, this is very disruptive. I'm interested in hearing what sort of defense these two have for their attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Frietjes going rogue?

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

Frietjes (talk · contribs) has changed {{sms}} into {{hs}} for a whole list . When I noted on his talkpage he was being premature , I was deleted quickly . But of course, there are alternatives and one should be open to talks . -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

see WP:BLANKING and I am not a he, but I'm used to the assumption. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Notified: -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

weird, Frietjes. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

it's weird that I am used to people assuming that I am male? okay, would you rather I said it was sexist to refer to me as male? or how about if I said that calling me stupid was an attack? let's try be civil here. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

AGF, DePiep. —Rutebega (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is weird you edited backward. In time. You could have written below.

The point is you edited by premature conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Best to use singular they if referring to another editor.
• Best to set gender in Special:Preferences if one wants to other editors to know -- {{gender|Frietjes}} says 'she". NE Ent 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Other issues notwithstanding, I agree it is generally not a good idea to do these kinds of edits before the discussion is closed properly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvidrim, so far you are the only one reacting to the point. I can add: even after a merge conclusion, these edits are not needed because Redirects are cheap. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Based on this thread and a few other randomly selected diffs from Special:Contributions/DePiep, he may not be competent enough in the English language to contribute to an English language encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • DePiep's tendency to personalise and dramatise minor disputes is not necessarily tied to his command of the English language. I'd hope that the former could be resolved amicably. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear trolls. I was not just hoping, but even trying, as the 2nd diff shows. It was met by the 3rd diff. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Using they or xe as a singular pronoun, as advised here, is not English. We do not use that in the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The original warning was rude, IMO.
(tangent) Singular they is, indeed, English, and in wide use, per the article. I agree it has difficulties, but WP:MOSR § Gender-neutral language says that there has been no consensus on its use in WP articles, which certainly means its acceptable in the less formal nature of talk pages.
I felt the same way as Nathan Johnson when trying to understand DePiep's writing, particularly in this thread. However, competency might not be the issue. @DePiep: It seems like you sometimes construct sentences in an intentional effort to seem "clever", use words in less-common ways, or use not enough words to disambiguate your meaning; which is fun in certain limited circumstances, but not respectful of your audience when the goal is to communicate efficiently and effectively. JMO. —— 13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Troll feeding troll: circular trolling. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I sincerely doubt there's a "rogue editor" here. To be honest, even if Frietjes has jumped the gun, this AN/I seems completely over the top. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jumped the gun twice: 1. premature, 2. even when merged, no edit was needed (R is cheap). And to note: I started this ANI when Frietjes deleted my talk opening. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with deleting a talk page comment - at least you know he's seen it. This ANI was still premature - if anything, it's a content dispute and therefore in the wrong place entirely. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

John Laing plc

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

An IP keeps blanking the page of the John Laing plc article and inserting a cut and paste job from the company brochure. I have reverted it a couple of times but fear it is coming from the company marketing department. Dormskirk (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added 9.38 kb of level 1 or equivalent warning templates to the user's talk page to cover the extent of policy violations. Now we wait for a response. —Rutebega (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't use that many warnings. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if that doesn't get a response, what will? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, that was warning overkill. GiantSnowman 09:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, but I also don't think level one templates, even in excess, constitute biting. He hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours, and if he does come back, hopefully the reading material alone will ensure the issue doesn't arise again. —Rutebega (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for 10 days. Let's wait and see if the promotional editing continues afterwards; I hope not. De728631 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for all your help. The IP has asked me for help on my talk page which is a good step forward. I have asked him / her for a list of errors and ommissions so I can help him / her expand the article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy-paste tracking

I investigated an new article, Short and long-term effects of alcohol, which included old tags. It is a copy-paste merge of Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol, along with some unidentified material. The details are probably moot since I nominated the article for deletion. Further investigation of edits by David Hedlund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reveals some troubling patterns. The combination of articles had been attempted before(Warning: many diffs are large pages). The new article was created after the same editing had been undone in another article by another editor for excessive size of the pasted-together material. Part of the bulk was 65K from Alcoholic beverage (diff). Sometimes the same material has been pasted into multiple articles (e.g. look for "477,200" in & & . The repetition makes finding the originals difficult since text searches find the repetitions and the original text may have been removed from the article in which it was created.

A warning against copy-paste moves had been placed on the user talk page in the past, and since I warned against unattributed copy-paste, it has been done again, copying material from Long-term effects of alcohol. As some material has been moved multiple times, I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes and lack the tools to sort out this mess. I'll try to figure out where to drop some {{CWW}} tags, but there is a lot of history to sort through, and I'm hoping that some admins or editors who might have experience with similar situations will be able to offer assistance or guidance.Novangelis (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles Short-term effects of alcohol and Short-term effects of alcohol have apparently been restored so the article Short and long-term effects of alcohol that I created by merging to two can now be deleted. The unidentified material were from the article Alcoholic beverage now moved to Alcohol and health and structured into Template:Psychoactive substance use. Thank you.David Hedlund 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has made good and reversed the residual copy-pastes. I can't be sure until the search engines have caught up. Under what conditions will attribution remarks be required (for example, articles where the material was not reversed promptly)? I'd like to finish clearing up this mess.Novangelis (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify for those who might be puzzled about what happened here. (And I writes as someone who is mostly puzzled about most everything.)

Short and long-term effects of alcohol was speedily deleted under WP:G12 as as a copyright violation of Short-term effects of alcohol and other things.

What the... ? How can copying Misplaced Pages's free content possibly be a copyright violation?

Yep, that's somewhat counter-intuitive. But Misplaced Pages's content is subject to copyright.

To cut a long story short, copying info from an existing article into another one requires attribution of the copied content. It can be as simple as writing "copied content from ]; see that article's history for attribution" in the edit summary. See Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages.

Hope this helps. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Errata: WP:G12 not WP:G11. Moreover, to confirm my account has not been compromised, "O for a Muse of fire", etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article wasn't really a copyright violation (any attribution issues could have been easily resolved e.g. by mentioning on the talk page that "this page has been created as a merger of Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol"), but could be speedily deleted as a duplicate of existing articles (WP:CSD#A10). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Errata redux: What Mike said.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Phillip Sheppard and Francesca Hogi

The contributions of an IP editor show speedy deletion tags to both Phillip Sheppard and Francesca Hogi. I reverted one of these edits saying in an edit summary that I believed the material on the page meant that she met suitable standards], User:Phil Bridger reverted the other because of the indication of importance/significance. Note that I did not create the Francecsa page nor did Phil Bridger create the Phillip page. Soon afterwards, a similar IP Adress redirected the pages to Survivor: Caramoan. I reverted again stating in the edit summary that I didn't see any discussion on a talk page or elsewhere a concensus to redirect the article. I asked the editor if they could provide an edit summary or otherwise explain why they were making these edits. They undid my reverts and offering no edit summary, so I notified them that I would bring it here for outside opinions as this should be resolved rather than turned into an edit war. They have edited the Caramoan article implying that the castaways are "non-notable", finally in an edit summary, and maybe they are, but they haven't explained why they don't merit their own articles. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm mistaken. Either way, there is no need to make an edit war out of this so I'd like this matter resolved.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There may be a legitimate claim about the notability of these people, but that should be settled at WP:AFD, as both speedy deletion and redirection have been challenged. If the IP continues to redirect or add speedy templates after this, post here and someone can protect the pages. Or if this thread has already been archived by then, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Archetypex07

Archetypex07 (talk · contribs) is an editor with a very limited understanding of Misplaced Pages and a very obvious nationalistic agenda. The editor has been edit warring on this article in order to keep their unsourced and completely erronous version of the etymology of the word which they introduced back in June 2012. The editor has engaged in discussion on the talk page, but each and everytime it has involved some heavy refactoring of previous comments: 1, 2, 3, 4. The comments themselves are largely incoherent, chauvinistic and in general bad faith, and reveals a complete lack of acknowledgement of basic principles of Misplaced Pages like WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:AGF. The editor seems to be a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE, and obviously sees Misplaced Pages as a battleground for some kind of race war.

My recommendation would be that Archetypex07 is indeffed as being an obvious negative asset to the project. But I am open to suggestions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I notified the editor of this discussion, this was their response. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Pity nobody has warned Archetypex07 before about 3RR on his page (I just did), or he would certainly be blocked for edit warring by now. Going straight to indef for a user with a previously clean block log may be a little headlong, though I do see it may come to that. Mathsci just removed A's post to this thread, understandably, I suppose, but on the other hand the post was quite illustrative of the problem. Please only remove vandalism on this board, Mathsci — not attempts to discuss, however misguided. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC). Adding: I do agree that A's change of the section title was in fact vandalism. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

He made those changes twice and two different editors reverted them. Changing the title and adding various personal attacks just afterwards was disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly was. That's why I thought it illustrative. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I've blocked Archetypex07 for 24 hours for edit-warring and disruptive editing. The repeated reverts, attacks on other editors, and allegations of collusion for anyone who disagreed with them needed to stop. --Jezebel'sPonyo 23:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring is a perfectly valid reason for reverting. And I did in fact warn the user about 3RR previously. Remember that it is always useful to check the history of a talk page, especially when it concerns users that are prone to deleting notices. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What bad thing has occurred because the first 3rr warning was overlooked? NE Ent 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on this right after his request for unblock was declined, I extended the block indefinitely. Single purpose account clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead promote some kind of radical race agenda. Secret 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski

User:Nikola Smolenski has been reverting several of my contributions. Has made no attempt to engage in discussion prior to this until I did. Claims I am "massively deleting information from articles without any reason", when in fact I am editing the layout and condensing/summarizing the information of the article without actually affecting the quality of the information itself, and stating my reasoning for it. Any information I do happen to remove is done so if a) it is unsourced and/or b) it is irrelevant or non-notable to the main nature of the article(s), the majority of which are either completely unsourced or lacking sufficient sources to verify content. Please advise. Buttons (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• No comment on the source deletion, but given the personal attacks that Buttons has made on Nikola (accusing her of having a personal vendetta, calling her childish and telling her to "grow up", calling her a liar and a hypocrite) leads me to believe that a WP: BOOMERANG lurks around the corner. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Granted that was unnecessary, however the pattern is pretty clear. Buttons (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Buttons is the only Wikipedian I have ever seen who has more red than green in his edits. His "condensing" IMO makes articles more difficult to read without adding any value. Furthermore when he removes content, he doesn't leave any explanation for his edits, so it is not possible to know whether he removed the content because he believed it is irrelevant or incorrect. I admit that there might be the possibility that I went overboard, but I do believe that his edits were detrimental in general. Examples:

• Here he removes the infobox without any explanation; he rewrote the article so that it states that Yugoimport is a weapon manufacturer, while in fact it is an agency, and to my knowledge it doesn't have any manufacturing capabilities on its own, and furthermore this is written in the very reference that he has used; and all of this with the comment "Clean up".

• Yugoimport's role and purpose is not clearly defined (as with most things in Serbia unfortunately), it appears to have some role in designing and producing weapons. The infobox was removed because of unsourced claims, eg. it states the company has 25,000 employees, when the entire defense industry in Serbia only employes roughly 10,000 people.

• Here he removed Cyrillic spelling of the company(?); removed referenced fact that the company is the largest in Serbia by the number of employees, which is obviously relevant; removed referenced fact about plans to build a solar power plant which I believe is relevant; all of this with edit comment "No relation to company"(??).

• True, however its not a third party source, which is why I removed it. As for the solar panels, nothing in the source indicates it had anything to do with said company.

• Here he merged sections about flags despite the fact that the flags are a century apart and completely graphically unrelated; removed flag images from paragraphs that describe them, making the text more difficult to follow; reworded the text so that it is very terse and IMO difficult to read; removed some relevant information again without any explanation; merged references to specific articles of a law into a less precize single reference to the entire law... Nikola (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're both being a little nitpicky here. The page as it is (your way) is ugly, frankly IMO. My intent was to separate the modern section from the historical (medieval) section because honestly that section is plagued with issues, ranging from grammar to the reliability of the sources. As for the references, again really nitpicking here but my edits at least linked to an external source which could easily be verified by the reader. I find it odd you removed one of the cited flags, claiming it was somehow unreliable despite the fact it came from a well known source. Buttons (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Buttons, did you put your comments inside of Nikola's? Please do not do that, it's very confusing to read. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IP slinging insults, will be unblocked to disrupt further tomorrow

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

91.145.38.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 91.145.38.53 was blocked yesterday for disruptive editing on Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories. His posts have gotten increasingly hostile, and he's now using his talk page (while blocked) to insult other editors. "you retarded pedophile look-alike dipshit", "F U C K YOU WIKIPEDIA ADMINS", "Go fuck yourself your pathetic censorship dictator wannabe", etc.

The insults should be removed (since one was levied against me, I'd prefer not to do it myself), but more importantly, I see no reason to suspect that this behavior won't continue after the user is auto unblocked tomorrow. EdJohnston performed the initial block, and I contacted him on his talk page first, but it looks like he's out for the night. If someone uninvolved could step in, that would be great. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked with talk page access disabled. Insults removed, unless I missed some. Tom Harrison 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:KuhnstylePro and persistent creation of WP:HOAX articles

Over the past year, this user seems to have made a large number of what appear to be WP:HOAX, or at the very least, extremely speculative articles, most of which seem to have been speedy deleted or AFD'd, judging by his talk page. The user has been warned numerous times about this kind of behavior. Outside of editing in the mainspace, the user seems to spend a lot of time creating elaborate speculative articles about nonexistent future products/media in his userspace (User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/A Hero's Guide to Deadly Dragons, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Holy Cartoon!, User:KuhnstylePro/iMoonTelevision, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Wendy Wu: Year of the Dragon, User:KuhnstylePro/Disney Channel All Star House Party, User:KuhnstylePro/The Star Wars Show, User:KuhnstylePro/Drawn to Life: Boneheads Edition, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Kinect Q, User:KuhnstylePro/Xbox Portable, and many more), a hobby which represents over 40% of his edits. I'm a little bit at a loss for what to do with someone like this. He has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well. Bushranger nominated a bunch of them for speedy deletion, and I deleted those and some others. I hope the ranger will come by here and give their opinion--given that they were blocked before, for the same thing, I'd say block indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Never mind! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And a ninja-block strikes! It's clear he's not here to build an encyclopedia, so an indef has been applied. If he wants to be unblocked he'd better provide very strong assurances he understands what Misplaced Pages is actually for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • ...looking further into this, it looks like a truly massive hoax has been perpetrated here, focusing around "Boneheads (TV series)". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • So, what criteria would User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII fall under? Since the game does exist, but essentially, the "hoax" is the entertainment section, since Beyonce performed the show, not Maroon 5/Selena Gomez. ZappaOMati 05:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I saw that one and thought about MfDing it. Is there content worth saving? If no, it's a test page (at best). I just deleted one (forgot which one) that was copied from mainspace in October and then worked on some; I deleted that under "Housekeeping" as an unattributed copy paste job from the article. I urge other editors to go through their subpages and delete/nominate as they see fit: after a dozen or more I need something else to look at. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't think so, since I'm pretty sure all but the entertainment section has been in the main page before the game kicked off, so CSDing it as a test page would work; I'd do it myself, but I have to hit the hay now. ZappaOMati 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I just deleted it as a BLP violation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). Read it and weep, for we - and apparently a large chunk of the Internet, judging by the Google hits - but lack of reliable Google hits or Google News hits - have been had but good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII created. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Missed a spot: User:KuhnstylePro/Cartoonlopedia. TheStickMan 13:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think I got them all. I need an index-finger massage. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well that was fast. And efficient. One last thing, his move of Future Earth to Future Earth (2009 TV series) should be reverted. Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Moved back without redirect. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Great! Thanks for all the help, admins! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Would Touch FX count as another hoax? I've been looking through the user's edits and found this article which, so far, has received edits only from him. A brief search turned up this website, which lists some games listed as "Touch FX". I doubt that it's an actual arcade board, though. TheStickMan 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been nuked; I agree that we simply can't extend any good faith to this user's contributions given his proven use of Misplaced Pages to spread his own imaginary creations (charitable)/hoaxes (WP:SPADE). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism IP

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

FYI — http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/209.242.141.26 looks like a vandalism IP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That IP is barely active, one edit today, was a hidden can't see comment. WP:AIV exists for a reason, no need to block for now. Secret 03:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Civility and not bureaucracy exist for better reasons. It's preferable to simply say "Please use X in the future," where X is AIV, 3rr, uaa, etc. NE Ent 03:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Danjel's misuse of active versus retired status etc

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

Some prior discussions about User:Danjel at:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Role account used by User:Danjel
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Short term block proposal: User:Danjel
• Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors (still ongoing)

Of great concern is User:Danjel's misuse of the {{retired}} template, see his user page at User:Danjel, as well as his flouting of WP:NOSHARING see Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors. While he opened an RFC against another user at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Epeefleche on January 15, 2013 that has still not been closed. In spite of placing the "retired" template on his user and talk pages on February 16, 2013, yet nevertheless he has kept up making comments as he sees fit utterly confusing other editors. This abuse of the "retired" template is causing confusion and is a violation of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT as Danjel flits in and out of discussions as he sees fit, violating WP:AGF ; violating WP:VANDAL and where his illegal deletion is rightfully reverted by another editor , where he is called on his abuse and misuse of the "retired" template that even allows him to avoid censure for his mounting violations, especially of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND that amounts to game of smoke and mirrors, while a RFC that he launched remains open and he acts either "retired" and "active" at the same time making it impossible to communicate with him or to take hims seriously at all. Admins are requested to intervene and either block him or ensure that he makes it known that he is as active as any other editor who is busy with other things and if he is truly "retired" not to misuse the {{retired}} template as a tool in his ongoing battles with eitors who do not share his WP:POV. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• The user has been notified, see User talk:Danjel#ANI. IZAK (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Couple of points: 1) It looks like several people have commented on the Epeefleche RfC, so I don't think Danjel's retirement is grounds to close it. 2) He's made a grand total of four edits since placing the retirement templates. 3) I'm not aware that being nominally "retired" forbids you from editing; where is the rule that states this? Reyk _YO! 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Iuno... I don't think there's a rule or policy on this. You can make up a box saying you're the Emperor of Mongolia or whatnhot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed if this was just some innocuous case then hey no big deal, but this is taking place in the context of some pretty serious differences of opinion where Danjel has and is facing major criticism in other situations, as well as still maintaning a RFC against another user, and all of a sudden hey presto, now you see him, now you don't. Either he stands still and we can all be on the same page, or we tell him that no one can keep up with a user that's acting like an "invisible man" where in effect he is creating and very craftily violating WP:SOCK within using or not using his own user name that becomes either "retired" or "active" as he tries to evade criticism. There was stuff on his original user page that he requested be blanked (his user page history is gone, now that he's plonked down the "retired" template in effect destroyed an important record that relates to his admitted violations of WP:SHARE and WP:ROLE), now he has resorted to being "retired" but now his strategy is that he flits in and out to make attacks and edits. It's started and needs to be nipped in the bud. IZAK (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he says he's retired, close all threads he's started. Easy, no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Another point of concern here is that a closing sysop at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Epeefleche (the RFC that Danjel started a month before he "retired"), should NOT reach the conclusion, that since Danjel has retired, there is no longer any concern about his behavior as cited above. Danjel can easily come back the day after the close of the RfC or vanish and reappear as someone else. Retirement means zero in this context. The RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Epeefleche needs a close that is as strong as if Danjel were still active, and the closing admin should be fully justified in closing and should not have a reason to say "no reason to boomerang and no reason to interaction ban him, as he is retired". That would be handing Danjel a "victory and prize for his maneuverings that may happen. Thus, the RFC should be ended forthwith because consensus is clear, and the RFC has continued for over a month. The nominator Danjel as of a few days ago is no longer active on WP, but of course he can "un-retire" tomorrow, therefore the consensus for either a full block or at least an interaction ban on him interacting with User Epeefleche (talk · contribs) is absolutely necessary. IZAK (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

Well... I think you misunderstand the power of RfCs... banning and other sanctions are usually not the outcome. As far as I know, somebody writes a summary for future reference, and then it goes to ArbCom or some other board... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I know full well that RFCs do not lead to bannings. That is not what the concern is here. The concern is about violations by User Danejel (talk · contribs) of WP:SHARE; WP:ROLE; WP:SOCK and now of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT and undermining the enire fabric of WP:CONSENSUS, and how would anyone "classify" misuse of the {{retired}} template to avoid sanctions and zig and zag without facing the consequences. Either he is here or he is not. Either he is with us or he is not. Either he is a normal editor or he is not. This is obviously a grey zone that the offending user is attempting to leverage to his own advantage in his disputes, actually it's more like a vendetta against another user. There is an over-all pattern that's causing havoc any time this user enters the fray. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the best course of action is to wait for the RfC to be closed, then come back here when problems continue. You've made your point here and it's on record. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User: Nishidani has the retired or semi-retired template on his user page for years and edits on a daily basis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, User Nishidani (talk · contribs) is more honest and uses the {{semi-retired}} template and it quite accurately states "This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.". IZAK (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IZAK: you're getting so shrill that you can't even spell my name. While you've said that I'm in breach of every policy and guideline up to and including WP:KITCHENSINK, you're yet to actually provide any evidence of it. So I'll respond to the actual substantive ones:

1. Your contention that I was using User:MrJuddsStudents as a form of meatpuppetry is and was completely unfounded. There is absolutely no basis for your complaint. It was raised by one of your allies as a means of harassment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive244#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE, at which the result was that there was nothing wrong happening, that this was likely an area where WP:IAR should apply, and that we should all wait for the RFC (which you've linked above).
2. No, I'm not avoiding sanctions. In fact, every single time you and other friends of Epeefleche has raised the possibilities of sanctions, there has either been no result and ignored as wikidrama, or it has been turned down because there's no substance to your complaints.
3. Yep, I'm retired. It's exactly this sort of wikidrama bullshit that has made me decide to look elsewhere. Presumably you'd prefer if I edited as an IP? It's been pointed out above that there is no policy that says that I can't edit while "retired", and, yet... You still continue.
4. Yep, I've also had my userpage, and all the subpages under my username deleted. Again, show me where the policy is that says that I can't?
5. As for battleground, I'm not the one talking about blocks and bans and "victor and prize". But I suppose it all serves the greater good of avoiding any criticism whatsoever.

As for you... ˜danjel  05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• This thread doesn't belong here. So what that Danjel has a retired template on his talk page, and has made a small number of edits since he placed it there? You can announce your retirement, stay for a bit to tie up any loose ends, and even retired people occasionally pop back into their old jobs to help out once in a while. Suggest either WP:BOOMERANG or just closing this trolling thread. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC

I believe that this ANI thread arose because I had the gall to point out that:

1. User_talk:IZAK#No_good_deed_goes_unpunished;
2. User_talk:IZAK#List_of_recent_discussions_concerning_me_where_I_was_not_informed; and especially
3. User_talk:IZAK#People_who_live_in_glass_houses (against User:Bob K31416

...are against the policy WP:POLEMIC and should be removed. I asked at User_talk:IZAK#WP:POLEMIC, and you responded with your wikidrama rubbish there, and then here (and I note that you've brought your friends).

It certainly seems that you're not going to remove the content on your talkpages attacking other users on your own, so I'd like to ask that an admin do it for you. Cheers. ˜danjel  05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Danjel, now you are here, can't keep up, but as I quite clearly indicated to you, those are not "attack pages" they are a record of official accusations, including a false libel where I was subjected to a "check user" that was quickly deleted, for no reason other than that record stood agisnt you and your friend Bob. Let me repeat what I have stated at my talk page: ...this is just a record on my own talk page of recent events that concern me, and about the various discussions that concerned me that I wasn't even informed about, that I have created a record of for the record. I could have lodged some pretty serious complaints against Bob for not informing me, but I did not wish to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND that you seem to delight in. Stop it! In addition to that, in the course of researching the above lack of basic WP:WIKIQUETTE of informing a user about a discussion that concerns him (me) I also put forth for the record some serious instances where Bob's arguments trying to find support for his WP:POV are rejected by some pretty serious editors including Jimbo Wales. IZAK (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An official record of accusations, for example your recording that Bob has once been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bob_K31416; by the way, the difference in the way Bob responded and how you have responded... STUNNING). Sounds like "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" (WP:POLEMIC) to me, which hasn't been used in any dispute resolution process in a "timely manner" since you posted it two weeks ago. But, by all means, continue arguing that what you are doing is not WP:BATTLEGROUND. ˜danjel  05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel, Thanks for bringing this to my attention, but this activity is an example of the dark side of Misplaced Pages that isn't productive and is best avoided IMO. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Danjel has a fair point - IZAK, what purpose does logging past grievances serve? Delete the lists, move on, and forgive & forget. GiantSnowman 15:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IZAK, if you have no intention of acting on those issues you documented, keeping a list on Misplaced Pages amounts to WP:ATTACK. Keep your links offline and you're fine, but just keeping them on display with no intent to file a complaint is not kosher. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have now done so, reluctantly, see below: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Misplaced Pages:Etiquette etc. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved in that I commented and endorse viewpoints in opposition to danjel in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Epeefleche and brought up a questionable use of account danjel, as an editor I strongly suggest you let this go. In the grand scheme of things it's not an explicitly permitted page, however the pot should not be calling the kettle black. I suggest you take your extended wiki-holiday that was in line last month and don't think about what other editors say about you. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• (Involved similarly to Hasteur, been putting up with Danjel's wrath for some time now): This thread and the RfC need to be closed post haste. This thread is going nowhere; we've largely hashed out these issues in prior spurious ANI discussions. Likewise, there hasn't been significant comment on the RfC for two weeks, it's time to put that puppy to bed. I'm sad that the Danjel retirement thread closed before I could comment. The issue is less that Danjel is making edits while claiming to be retired; the issue is that since the beginning of the RfC, nearly all edits Danjel has made have been in regards to the RfC or ancillary issues, to the point of being disruptive and attacking other editors. I think Danjel's retirement needs to be more mandatory pbp 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lobsang Sangay

Paged is nuked! Please somebody look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The page never existed under that spelling. Is there an alternate spelling? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's right there. Since 2009. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Err no? Garbage (the whole page ) appears here. Im using a server from japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, must be something else then. Page exits. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

They changed the spelling. And the page looks fine here where the temperature is −41 °C (−42 °F) CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Choyoo and Cambridgebay. However, it is still garbage(See below). I am accessing from a server in Japan. This is what appears:�����}k�$�q�g��H61�Yj�=�ޝ&fg�E�.�ffI�v�FvUvw�TW��1����J4��d���,?�N��w�aQ�%�(����p�XlV���>�]��uBc�r���nX��jN��UͶ�#� {���P���E��S����g

I think the most likely explanation is that you are affected by some kind of filtering. Maybe related to Chinese censorship? If you try this link] (without saving!), maybe you can read the wiki source code of the page. Hans Adler 09:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also accessing from Japan, I bet the user's browser is at fault. Look up mojibake. Shii (tock) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks fine to me too, and I'm accessing this from Japan. Maybe you managed to change the character encoding somehow? Try changing it to UTF-8 and see what happens. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Standard browser configuration issue - not set to correct encoding, or missing certain fonts. Not much we can do from this end, as it's not an admin issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, its fine now from a server in the ,Philippines. I'm the same guy above(annonymous.) The server I was accessing from is based in Japan. Well, thanks for your action and response Shii, Hans Adler, Bwilkins , Mr Strandivarius and others. --Jondel (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This was a caching issue caused by the recent rash of template vandalism. IPs were being shown the older, vandalized revisions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Something's going on and I can't fix it

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

Please see here ASAP. Evanh2008  07:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Was a problem with Template:Cite WS. Taken care of by Metropolitan90. Evanh2008  07:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Another DeFacto sock, quick block required

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

For context, see WP:ANI#Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses. and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. The editor is active right now and I am getting tired of following them with rollback. Hans Adler 09:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User 2005, repeated personal attacks

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

I have asked User:2005 five times in the last few days to stop making personal attacks against me, to discuss content and not people and to conduct himself in a respectful manner and he continues to lash out at me and try to bully me. I ask that he be blocked until he can conduct himself appropriately and in keeping with Misplaced Pages rules. Please note this user has a long history of this kind of behavior with many editors and is notorious for treating new editors badly and driving them off. Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow this kind of treatment, regardless of how one may feel about content or another editor.

Diffs: see rude edit summaries: and just a sampling of his latest insults DegenFarang (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see some abrubtness and frustration, but no personal attacks in 2005's edits. I also note that you've filed a (seemingly equally baseless) complaint against another user at AN. Just because people disagree - strongly - with your editing does not mean that they are either hounding or attacking you, and since you seem to be having similar problems with multiple users you might want to take a step back and consider that you may, in fact, be in the wrong. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any comment violating WP:NPA.Jeppiz (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I had to point towards the most aggressive user in Talk:Steve Badger (poker player), it would be DegenFarang, to be honest (examples here, here). Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Ritchie333 10:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you cited as two examples of me being 'the most aggressive user' me responding to people politely asking them to stop making personal attacks against me? That doesn't make a lot of sense. DegenFarang (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is everyone else, while certainly being abrasive and not as polite and calm as they could have been, commented on specific content related issues, whereas unfortunately you just said "no personal attacks please", which is commenting on the editors rather than what they've done. I'm sure you made those edits with the best of intentions, but the problem that I've found is, if you say this, it actually makes things worse, as the conversation derails onto who was personally attacking who. See WP:NPANPA. Ritchie333 17:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"being abrasive and not as polite and calm as they could have been" This is exactly what I'm here to report 2005 for. What can be done about his abrasive style? Surely there is a WP:SOMETHINGSOMETHING which says he's not allowed to do that. DegenFarang (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A number of different approaches can be undertaken, but my personal choice is, per WP:EOTW, to ignore it. If somebody says "get stuffed" it says more about them than me. If the article gets disrupted, then we can go down the standard dispute resolution channels. In any case, as Yunshui observed, Okay, it wasn't nice that 2005 said Stop vandalizing and get a life, but he said it because he felt you were disrupting the article by removing reliably sourced content, not for no reason whatsoever. Ritchie333 17:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into this, even if I disagree with your conclusion. Since it appears nothing is going to be done about his behavior - can somebody please help us reach a resolution on Steve Badger. We can't come to consensus on the talk page and each time I try to edit the article he just reverts me. DegenFarang (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel you're going round in circles and getting nowhere on talk, try going to WP:DRN. Ritchie333 17:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody posted on my talk page that I removed one of your edits. This was an accident and I'm not sure how it happened. Sorry about that. Thanks for your help DegenFarang (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Having already observed many disputes by DegenFarang before, I can say that he's the main antagonistic factor in all of them and seems to target 2005 whenever possible. I might agree with some of his edits but it's difficult to act on them due to aggressive defenses. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that 2005 targets me. I don't even follow my watch list, it would be impossible for me to 'target' anybody. The problem is 2005 has basically every poker article on his watch list and feels ownership over all of them. DegenFarang (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Degen has also taken to mudding up AFD with 5 nominations in the span of half an hour of articles created by 2005. (1 2 3 4 5) Toohool (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting that DegenFarang has been very keen on getting 2005 thrown out for sockpuppetry. Perhaps an interaction ban for the pair of them will solve this? Ritchie333 17:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An interaction ban? There is such a thing? PLEASE! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! If ever there was a case where one of those should be enacted, it is between 2005 and I. If that is done - this multi-year problem is solved. I will have absolutely no problem whatsoever abiding by that and would welcome it. DegenFarang (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems as if disagreeing with DegenFarang results in baseless accusations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WP:Hound, too. Rray (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

DegenFarang has been blocked 3 times for harassing editors. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADegenFarang). Surely, constantly accusing editors who disagree with him of making personal attacks is just another type of harassment? Rray (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very telling Rray - if Elen of the Roads says "not everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet", it's probably worth listening to carefully. DegenFarang, I notice you removed my (imho) helpful and constructive advice here for no reason. Exactly what was the point of doing that? You're digging a big hole for yourself here. Ritchie333 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that happened and I definitely didn't intend to remove it. As you can see I responded to it and thanked you. DegenFarang (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Rray and Ritchie333. I can find nothing wrong that 2005 would have done, while the behavior of DegenFarang appears rather problematic. DegenFarang was already blocked indefinitely for harassing other users with unfounded accusations, and allowed back only after s/he promised not to repeat this kind of behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a look at the noticeboard and found that DerengFarang filed a complaint about Rray there yesterdat , and those who looked into it found it as unfounded as his accusations against 2005 appears to be. This is how I see the situation

• DegenFarang has a long list of blocks for launching unfounded accusations against users with whom he disagrees.
• DegenFarang was blocked indefinitely for this behavior and allowed back only after promising not to repeat it.
• In the last two days, DegenFarang has launched two accusations against two different users with whom he disagrees. Other users have found the accusations unfounded.
  

Based on this, I would say that DegenFarang has broken the promise he gave to have the indefinite block lifted. His actions here, such as deleting a comment by Ritchie333, does not inspire confidence.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Several things you said are incorrect or several years old - but in any event, an interaction ban between 2005 and I would solve the same problem. DegenFarang (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what is incorrect? Weren't you blocked indefinitely for making unfounded accusations? Did you not make an accusation against Rray yesterday? ? And clearly you have made this accusation against 2005 . So do tell us what is incorrect. And why would we impose an interaction ban on 2005 when not one diff of him doing anything improper has been presented?Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your use of the word 'unfounded' or with your statement that 2005 has done 'nothing improper'. You're also intermingling things that happened yesterday and 2+ years go, as if they are all recent. Among other things. I will concede you are a far better wikilawyer than I am, but your overall premise is still largely incorrect. DegenFarang (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. All I can see is a 2 year+ long dispute with DegenFarang filing numerous, baseless reports against 2005 and several other users, be it SPIs, ANs, ANIs or whatever. User:2005 may be abrasive, but that's not a valid reason to block them - heck, I'd have been blocked already if that was the case. From the diffs I've seen, none are bona-fide personal attacks, they just echo a frustration that they, rightly, feel for an age-old dispute being continued. You were indeffed in 2011 for EXACTLY this sort of thing - and from what I can see, this should happen again. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to my comment, what happened to this?

• The points being made to me are that I am at fault for my actions. I acknowledge that completely and have done so numerous times. I understand harassing users is not permitted, no matter what they did to you, and I agree not to do it in the future. I mentioned other users only because Misplaced Pages is currently seeking ways to prevent new editors from leaving the site and one of the reasons cited was the hostile culture they find when they join. I cited my case as a perfect example of this and thought for that reason somebody may have sympathy for my situation. It still does not excuse my behavior nor does it give me license to continue on the same way in the future. However I think it does give a valid reason to consider the unblock request, if me simply promising to change is not enough. Misplaced Pages is specifically trying to figure out how to retain users just like me. I'm presenting you with an opportunity to help. If that isn't enough for you because you need to hear me say flat out that I was wrong and I wont do it again and I'm 100% sure of that - I just did. And I have numerous times. I'll say it again: I was wrong. I wont do it again. I'm 100% sure of that. DegenFarang (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's what got you unblocked, why didn't you stick to it? Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Okay, DegenFarang, so you like the idea of an interaction ban between 2005 and yourself. I'd like to hear comment from 2005 first before going down this road, as it's rather unfair to do anything until we get his side of the story. In any case, you need to understand exactly what one is. WP:IBAN has the full lowdown, but in a nutshell it means you have no communication with 2005 whatsoever. If he adds something to a poker article that you don't like, you leave that article well alone - you don't edit it, revert, or discuss his edits on talk. Violating an interaction ban, particularly given your past block history, would pretty much guarantee you get indeffed until hell freezes over. So I'd like you to be really really sure that's what you want. Ritchie333 19:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sure. I only wish I knew of this a long time ago. Nearly all of my blocks have come from interactions with 2005. DegenFarang (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to further clarify, interaction bans are not necessarily two way. If the community decides 2005 hasn't done anything disruptive (and consensus so far is that he hasn't), the ban will be enforced one way, which means he can revert your stuff, but not vice versa. Ritchie333 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I support a two-way interaction ban. DegenFarang (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)DegenFarang

That is not what I am proposing. Ritchie333 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So you want to give another user carte blanche to edit anything I ever do on Misplaced Pages and prevent me from ever even speaking that users name again. That's a bit absurd, don't you think? Especially when all of this stems from him reverting my edits? DegenFarang (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We enforce bans to protect the encyclopedia from long term disruption. Given that at least one editor has suggested you be reblocked, I would frankly not look a gift horse in the mouth. Ritchie333 21:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have 15,000+ good faith article edits over a broad range of the Misplaced Pages, primarily in the somewhat contentious area of gambling and poker articles. The big majority of DegenFarang's edits are on talk pages, various ANI and other admin pages, and on articles I've created or contributed to. In the past week or so he has put seven articles that I created up for AfD. I think thay all have been closed now as speedy keeps. He's previously hounded, stalked, attacked, boomeranged, spoken falsely, and threatened me. He has been banned eight times, and has been given at least three "final warnings" each of which he then violated. He clearly is incapable of being a productive editor on any article authored or significantly edited by me. This is due to me unfortunately being the first editor he encountered who reverted some nonsense he was adding from an unreliable "source" to the Amarillo Slim article in January 2009, stating a movie was in the works which actual reliable sources had said was already canceled. While his scorched earth attacks on everything I touch are the majority of his editing, I believe he should be permanently banned based on his additionally history of vandalizing BLPs like John Roberts, just three weeks after the Amarillo Slim incident. The pattern of attacking an article and the editors acting in good faith is on display there too. Here is another example of his blunt BLP vandalism on the Russ Hamilton article. While these other actions are older, they should have led to his banning back then. Currently he has repeatedly called sites like the world series of poker official site and the New York Times "spam", and ripped apart articles before submistting them for Afd. While I would be relieved if he was given an interaction ban to stay away from articles that I have created or am a substantial established contributor, I fear this will just lead to him going after other articles. He should be once and for all permanently banned, but again, giving him an interaction ban is better than allowing him to continue slashing through the current group of articles he is attacking. 2005 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

---

For the record, I'm disappointed by 2005's expressed tendency to edit war (from what I've seen) rather than to seek dispute resolution before now. But I'll grant that there has been significant provocation over a long period of time. I am more disappointed by the fact that since DegenFarang was unblocked in March of 2012, he never once reached out to me as his "mentor" when he found himself in conflict with another contributor to try to find a way to resolve it amicably. I can't speak for Beeblebrox, but I consider that this was one of his unblock conditions in addition to the promise he made of his own volition that he would " disengage completely from interacting with . This should clear up 99% of the problems I had or could have in the future. I understand and accept that if I am given another opportunity to edit and have further problems, I'll be blocked forever."

He states above that if there were to be an interaction ban, he " have absolutely no problem whatsoever abiding by that and would welcome it." (Note that abiding by a one-way interaction ban would be in no way different than abiding by a two-way interaction ban from his perspective.) I don't regard myself as a particularly draconian administrator; normally I'd say bring on the interaction ban (or an indefinite topic ban from all poker-related articles, broadly construed). But DegenFarang's history as a tendentious editor is just too long by this point for me to believe that this would have any chance of success. As such, I feel it's my responsibility to reinstate his indefinite block at this time. — madman 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good call. 2005 isn't perfect, but this has gone on too long: DegenFarang was blocked for this, violated his unblock conditions, was offered a golden chance to get away with it, but didn't take it. I don't think he should be unblocked any time soon. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of DeFacto

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

A new user User:Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, but as the SPI on DeFacto is still open, would someone please shut this account down as he is hitting a large number of artciles. A quick read of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Measurement#Potenetial copyright problem on several articles will show that he is out to cause trouble. The IP accounts and have been blocked, but DeFacto appears to have created this new sockpuppet account. His choice of articles being editged as well as This message is shouting "WP:QUACK".

This is in addition to Hans Adler's earlier request. Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a legitimate (sacrificial) alternate account created under the "privacy" option of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Created to advise those in WP:MEASURE to take note of the copyvio highlighted by an IP user, and hidden and denied by some. Nothing more. Woo-ton-woo (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no copyvio, you are clearly the same person as the IP, and the IP is clearly identical with the indefinitely blocked User:DeFacto. Now can someone please block this clown? Shouldn't there be admins monitoring this page? Hans Adler 11:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bsadowski1 has just done the necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup! Bsadowski1, thanks! Hans Adler 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a mass rollback on the contribs. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits on the various IP pages actually looked slightly helpful to me, but it really doesn't matter. Hans Adler 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Suggest talk page access should be revoked: . Lukeno94 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Need a fast block

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

MikeIsRight12 (talk · contribs) created an account, and then immediately set in to reverting edits I made across a wide range of articles. The user then started reverting random edits by Little green rosetta (talk · contribs). Given the intersection, I'm 99% certain this is Ysfan (talk · contribs), a user I indef'd after disruption on Ys (series), who had also had run-ins with LGR. I've had to block two Ysfan socks already in the past 3 days. I almost blocked myself, but since it's technically my real edits being reverted, I figure someone else should do the honors. But while we're here, if anyone would like to weigh in whether or not I could block in this case, it might help, as I doubt that this person is actually done. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, especially since the stress almost caused Q to block themself, which would be quite embarrassing, I'd think. NE Ent 12:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Outing and personal attacks on srWiki

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

I'd like to bring to attention the activities of PANONIAN (talk · contribs) on the Serbian Misplaced Pages. The relevant thread is named "?" and is between the user and Nado158 (talk · contribs). I'll just let PANONIAN explain:

"Brother, what happened? You're nowhere to be found on the English Misplaced Pages. Hail! --Nado158 (разговор) 17:40, 27 January 2013 (CET)

Well what am I to do? There my account is banned anyway from the subject of Serbian history, and that's my main field of interest, so I can't do practically anything. While those several dumb and biased admins are active I can't do a thing, and I won't beg them to lift my topic ban. --PANONIAN (разговор) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (CET)

And how did it come to that? I can see the administrators are very much against us and support an Anti-Serbian policy and all those who write against us. Who are they? What's happening? I fight as much as I can! --Nado158 (разговор) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (CET)

Brother, did you ask me (via e-mail) for some help four weeks ago with regard to Vojvodina and Baranja???? --Nado158 (разговор) 23:01, 28 January 2013 (CET)

No, I did not ask for help via e-mail in regard to that. And you're right about the administrators, its clear they support almost anybody who's against Serbs. What is one to expect anyway from someone who's mind has been brainwashed for the past 20 years by Western media? As for how I got banned, that's the fault of , who appears on the English Misplaced Pages under the names of DIREKTOR, PRODUCER, and Peacemaker67 (here I enclose a list of his sockpuppets: http://sr.wikipedia.org/Корисник:PANONIAN/Suspected_sockpuppets_of_user_DIREKTOR). He uses all those accounts to convince administrators that more people support his idiotic views, while on the basis of the behavior of those accounts and their positions it is absolutely certain that one man stands behind all three (this is of course clear to anyone who's had dealings with them over the period of a couple months, while its difficult to convince administrators whom invest only a few minutes into the question). The administrators, therefore, rejected my demand to research whether those accounts are sockpuppets, and banned me from subjects related to Serbian history. I had the option to ask for a lift of my ban after six months, but as they said I violated it (and they falsely accused me, I had not), its not likely they would have lifted it even if I asked. I complained to even the founder of Misplaced Pages about those administrators, but he didn't reply to me. In any case, I consider all this a question of patience. None of them will hand around Misplaced Pages forever and all the stupidity can be removed with one click, its all just a matter of time. The situation is currently bad, but it will get better. More and more people gain access to the internet, and I think one day a Russian, Chinese or Indian will become an administrator (rather than an Amer , German, or Japanese), and they will not be so biased against Serbs. --PANONIAN (разговор) 06:58, 29 January 2013 (CET)

I apologize then, I must have understood something incorrectly. I was a little confused, because it was in English, and in very bad English at that . For the rest, what can I tell you. --Nado158 (разговор) 19:21, 29 January 2013 (CET)"

In addition to the above, the user has a special page he apparently likes to point out to people, entitled User:PANONIAN/Suspected_sockpuppets_of_user_DIREKTOR, where he's attempting to WP:OUT me and branding five users and myself as sockpuppets. The user is currently topic banned. I'd like to request, if possible, that the user be banned entirely. I'd also like to inquire as to where I need to go to have oversight strike that nonsense from srWiki? -- Director (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(If one is concerned about outing, one generally does not out oneself when reporting it) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Stupid mistake, I'll have WP:OV strike it, but its not my full real name. Its more like an "internet version", people I know wouldn't recognize it. -- Director (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Noodleki

Noodleki (talk · contribs) has persisted in copyright violations after being warned. For example, his latest edits ( ) copy and paste text from elsewhere in Misplaced Pages without attribution. Please refer to User talk:Noodleki for numerous templated and personalized warnings about this—I count 19 of them, 8 of which were made in the past few weeks. We don't have time to check each and every one of his edits, determine which Misplaced Pages pages or external websites he copied from, and perform the appropriate reverts or {{copied}}/{{copyvio}} tags. (In fact, we're already doing that over at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki for all his edits up to 21 January 2013. We have no desire to check any further ones!) Could I suggest a block until such time as the user demonstrates a willingness and ability to comply with applicable copyright policies and laws?

Incidentally, there are also a lot of recent warnings for edit warring and personal attacks. This edit appears to have triggered the latest warning. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The user was indeffed for copyright violations in September 2012 and unblocked a couple of weeks later per "reasonable unblock request", see log. Presumably an unblock request promising to do better? Anyway, I think it's time to reinstate. Indeffed. (Lovely response to Psychonaut here, too. Very combative user.) Bishonen | talk 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

P.S. I have asked Kim Dent-Brown, who did the unblock in October, to review. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

This was Noodleki's unblock request from last September, which stands in remarkable contrast to the combative form of words used elsewhere in his/her contribs. It seems to me that Noodleki knows what voice to assume when pleading for an unblock, but forgets that their editing history is viewable, warts and all, when it's time to make a judgement. Good block, I would caution any other admin to beware of honeyed words and leave the block in place. Kim Dent-Brown 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Misplaced Pages:Etiquette etc

See: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC, where I have been requested to file the following, as I now reluctantly do having wanted to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND, as previously noted on my talk page:

In contravention of the usual and required policies of Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, Misplaced Pages:Civility; Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, and following my considered outside opinion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by IZAK, here is a list of recent discussions that relate to me where at no point was I ever informed about them by the parties who commenced the discussions, primarily by User User:Danjel backed by User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs). Some of them were quite serious and had I known about them in a timely fashion I would have taken the time and effort to respond:

1. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK. (Fortunately I did manage to comment after a user not connected to the compliant brought it to my attention. The SPI "investigation" ended quickly and was also quickly deleted without any action taken and in effect rendering the spamming of a link to it on other forums that in effect rendered anything to do with that moot.)
2. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view.
3. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view criticism of children's account.
4. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK.
5. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Per WP:WIKIQUETTE, when commencing a discussion about another user, be it on any talk page and certainly on an official forum, and definitely when making serious allegations against that user, it is not just common decency but almost required to inform the user concerned or even any other interested parties. See for example Category:User warning templates, such as: Template {{ANI-notice}}: "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."; or Template {{SPIusernotice}}: "A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts... Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPIusernotice for evidence..." and others like this.

While User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs) has had things to say about me lately, yet he has:

1. Been suspected of sockpuppetry WP:SPI himself: User talk:Bob K31416#Sockpuppetry case; Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416; Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416/Archive.
2. Been criticized for accusing an established user of being a sockpuppet: User talk:Bob K31416#SlimVirgin that violates WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
3. Accused an established user applying for adminship of being a sockpuppet User talk:Bob K31416#unsupported allegations in a request for admin; Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/History2007#Oppose in violation of WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
4. Forgets that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Constant focus on toughening WP policies, thereby making user contributions more difficult, and thus reducing the ability of new users to join (a constant lament at the present of the WP Foundation) and is takes his causes to Misplaced Pages founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) even coming up with an idea for a "WP Commission" that would have the "final veto" on policy (even as he freely edits away constantly in areas of WP:POLICY) that flies in the face of what WP is all about about which he is reminded and that was rejected: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Policy commission, as concluded by User Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs): "At the end of the day, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think we are in danger of thinking of wikipedia politically in terms of policies rather than focusing on what is most important, encyclopedic content. In fact if many on here cut the bureacratic/governor pretense and wrote articles instead the site would be massively better off.. And if much of the time spent discussing policies and wiki politics instead went into actual development planning and how to feasibly greatly improve overall content we would start meeting our real objectives...♦ Dr. Blofeld" .
5. Misplaced Pages founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) disagrees with his "off-wiki" obsession: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125#Consensus and off-wiki canvassing: "I don't think it's a serious issue. I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" - it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Misplaced Pages is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying - they are - but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" and "I don't disagree with it (much) as written, but I think people tend to overstate the likelihood or importance of it, and tend to underestimate how often the real problem is people screaming 'canvassing' to prevent people from seeking outside voices. Many things on Misplaced Pages would benefit from more participation, more eyeballs, and the bias against recruitment means that decisions are made in obscure corners without relevant people being properly notified. This may suit the interests of a group that has a majority in that little corner, but knows that they are in the extreme minority in the broader community or world. But it doesn't suit the interests of Misplaced Pages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" .

See also related:

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Violation of WP:NOSHARE
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Role account used by User:Danjel the latter an extension of
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Short term block proposal:User:Danjel

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Both users have been informed , . IZAK (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Gee, if only there was a place where editors could go to deal with WP:ETIQUETTE problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, read the whole megila it's only the tip...IZAK (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. I commented on the previous ANI, it does seem like you're forum shopping a bit here. Anyway, I'm not sure how Jimbo's comments support your viewpoints at all, and I also don't see an issue with a user who wants tougher policies. The comments about false sock allegations are definitely valid here, that I will admit - but that point also reflects that, just because someone's been accused of socking, doesn't mean they have - so why you reference a SPI that found nothing is beyond me. Your wikilawyering appears to have driven Danjel away (in addition to some personal reasons that, combined, you gleefully tried to gravedance on, with your ANI thread about his retirement). In addition, I see no need why he should need to notify you about specific threads at an RfC where you could reasonably have been expected to be watching - it is, after all, involving you, and you had contributed the day before. I'm not claiming Danjel and Bob are completely flawless and innocent: they're not. But you're no better. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• After reading IZAK's message, I don't see that there is anything for me to respond to. FWIW, I think it's a very strange message to post here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• IZAK - As someone who has largely taken the same side as you in this issue, I just see nothing actionable. No body is perfect and that's what you've basically outlined. While I'd love to see Danjel trouted for his disruptive behavior lately, bringing back to back ANI threads against each other isn't going to settle the matter. The smart thing to do is be patience and the better person and let your opponent make an ass out of themselves without your help. Bob just hasn't done anything worth an ANI thread and I think you need to quit bringing him here. And Danjel's has been discussed plenty of times lately, there is nothing new to discuss. I agree with Bob that this is a strange message.--v/r - TP 14:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikimedia

First of all, I'm not sure if this is the right place but I don't know where to report vandalism at Wikimedia, nor do I know how to undo it. Several articles link to this map , as do articles in about 50 different language Wikipedias. The map has been carefully discussed on the talkpage of Languages of Europe, as can be seen at Talk:Languages of Europe. This morning, a Turkish user replaced the map with a new version in which he had inserted a rather extreme Turkish POV. The Kurdish areas in South-Eastern Turkey had been colored Turkish. Even more bizarre, relatively large areas of Germany had been colored as Turkish-speaking!! While there are a fair number of Turkish immigrants in Germany, it's absurd to claim that Turkish is the main language in large parts of the country. To the best of my knowledge, no German city is majority Turkish, let alone a German region, and most second-generation Turks in Germany speak German. In addition to the imposing Turkish on the Kurdish areas and parts of Germany, the Turkish language areas of Bulgaria and Greece were also modified, but these changes are small. This is a rather clear case of a nationalist-driven POV-pushish made without even discussing the matter first, and if it had been an edit to the text, I would simply have reverted it. As I'm less sure about how to do with Wikimedia, I bring the matter here. As the map is featured on so many articles, I hope the matter can be dealt with quickly.Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is more of an issue for Wikimedia Commons: try commons:COM:AN? --Rschen7754 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go there as well. However, I now see that the user is heavily edit-warring with the same nationalist POV at Bulgaria , , . One of the people he is edit-warring with is extremely uncivil and I'll report that user for violating WP:NPA but that does not excuse Maurice07's own own nationalist edit-warring. Maurice07 already has two blocks for disruptive editing only in 2013, and his user-page makes it clear that his agenda is one of extreme Turkish nationalism . Given that he is clearly here to push a nationalist POV-agenda, and does so in a disruptive way, I'd say his behavior is relevant for ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong violation of WP:NPA WP:CIVIL

While filing a report on a heavily disruptive POV-pusher, Maurice, for vandalizing a map used by more than 50 articles and for edit-warring at Bulgaria (see above ), I came across this PA edit summar by Wikiisunbiased that is completely inappropriate.Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, telling someone to "fuck off" is certainly uncivil in that case, it's not a personal attack. Now, referring to them by their ethnicity may also be very uncivil, but I'm not sure I'd call it a personal attack either (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I stand corrected and I correct myself above. Still, it's as much a violation of a policy. I had a quick look at the user's history and saw that this isn't the first time, though certainly the most serious that I found.Jeppiz (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked for the "Fuck off, Turk", because that's never acceptable, but quickly unblocked when I realized that they hadn't edited in the past 24 hours. Someone else can figure it out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really apporopriate to unblock as this is an ARBMAC area. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it ever inappropriate to self-revert? Legal matters are an exception, since you're re-enabling a copyvio if you undelete it, but unblocking someone whom you've blocked for this kind of behavior isn't inappropriate. Of course, it's also not inappropriate for someone else to reblock. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now issued a formal ARBMAC warning to Wikiisunbiased. Further disruption will result in an immediate block. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible IP hopping on Robert Fulton

1 2 3 4 5

IPs involved:

164.104.71.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 164.104.71.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 164.104.95.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I suspect a sock - sockmaster currently unknown, but their edit patterns are similar to each other. Two of these have already been blocked for 24hrs by Brookie. - hmssolent\ _{My patrols} 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected one week and let's see if that IP goes away. Secret 04:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of pending changes level 2

tl;dr some sysops are using PC/2 even though WP:PC2012/RfC 1 (current consensus, correct me if I'm wrong) says they shouldn't

Someone should go through and fix this. (and also get that big trout back out)

⁓ Hello71 03:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty limited uses from that report, looks like mostly a few people who missed the memo. I fixed one PC2 use and have asked the admins who set the others to review in light of current consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And on further research, it looks like user:King of Hearts, who set the protection that I changed tonight, had previously declined to remove PC2 on the basis of local consensus overriding community consensus. This seems like an issue that needs to be discussed; I'm going to give him a pointer to this conversation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PC2 was applied to 1948 Arab–Israeli War following a report at ANI due to the extensive sockpuppetry. Detailed reports that describe the extent of the sockpuppetry are available (see below and at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_29#data for further details)

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - article results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - talk page results (PDF)

Requiring autoconfirmation will not prevent sockpuppets of topic banned/indefinitely blocked users from editing the article. Actually PC2 didn't provide 100% protection from sock edits either but it effectively eliminated the disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

When a discussion is held at a public board, like ANI, it's not local consensus; a public discussion decided that IAR was properly applied here. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I observe that someone put PC2 on 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There is also an AN discussion thread that was moved to a subpage here: Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets. That thread is awaiting formal closure. Some intrepid person should take care of that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To briefly come out of my isolation for a moment; I've got other things on my mind right now and no desire to handle any more PC discussions myself. That discussion should be closed, and whoever decides to do it should have look at the dulcet writings of Zhuangzi first, you'll get it when you read it. Best of luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, from the perspective of someone who wasn't involved in the local discussion about the Arab-Israeli article and is just analyzing this as a matter of policy application, I would say that given autoconfirmed sockpuppets and community consensus to not use PC2, the solution would have been either full-protection, a dedicated checkuser watching the article, or just playing whac-a-mole with the socks, rather than implementation of a protection level that wasn't supposed to be used. Yeah, full protection would suck, and yeah, socks suck, but in some situations you sort of just have to choose your poison. As a side note, I would also say that a thread like the Mangoeater one, as a wide-open community discussion, could probably overrule community consensus in a limited area if it reached that consensus; however, a consensus made by a few people on an article or editor's talk page is far more tenuous as far as being able to overrule the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. In the ANI discussion, the community came to a consensus that PC2 is preferred over full protection in this specific case. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeal against decision made under Article Probation

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

I was recently topic banned under the above system, but the article in question was then shifted to be covered by Discretionary Sanctions. I have not been told how to appeal against this banning. Can someone tell me how to do this? Rumiton (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You can file an appeal at Arbitration Enforcement. -Niceguyedc 06:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Flag of WS/Flag of the SADR

Hello,

Today I was surprised that Emmette Hernandez Coleman decided after a 1 week discussion where only 3 people participated (2 people agreed and one opposed) to make a major POV editing by merging the articles Flag of Western Sahara and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, while it took us more than a month discussion (Dec. 2011 to Jan. 2012) to get a consensus following a NPOV RfC, where 14 people participated and the final decision was to give the article a form that matches the core WP:NPOV policy. It was also appalling that Emmette Hernandez Coleman didn't warn people previously involved in the redaction of the article to participate to the Feb.7 2013 discussion.

I ask for a strong reminder to Emmette, to remind her that a non-consensual decision (3 people participated to the discussion, 2 agreeing and 1 opposing) can not take precedence over a long RfC discussion where 14 people participated and which is directly related to a core policy of Misplaced Pages (WP:NPOV).

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I just discovered that she did the same with Coat of arms of Western Sahara/Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic --Omar-toons (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It was unanimous, Reisio neither opposed nor supported. He said "That said, I won't oppose you (and haven’t)". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I would have left more feedback were the conversation not so one-sided. Consensus can change. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, to describe the situation: The previous NPOV form was decided through:

• a 40+ comments/7 involved users discussion on WP:DRN ;
• a 90+ comments/14 involved users RfC discussion.

Today I discover that a user shorted it following a 6 comments/3 involved users discussion, and this is supposed to be a "consensus"? Please!
--Omar-toons (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm quite tired right now, but I'll give a fuller expectation a shot. It was not a "simple discussion", it was a successful proposed merge. That's about as much a "simple discussion" as a requested move or an RFD is. The result was unanimous. The discussion was left open for at least seven days, the standard length of time for requested moves, XFD's, proposed merge's, etc., during which any of the articles editors were free to participate in it. That other discussion was about a year ago, consensus can change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs)

Omar, you should've had the thing on your watchlist. It's not like it was some secret plot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A denunciation from Omar-toons should be taken as a sign you may well be unbiased indeed. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and he's already busy raising his army... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you grow up a little bit?

Btw, I just notified people who contributed to the RfC discussion, even those who had an opinion opposed to the mine... just saying :)

--Omar-toons (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am quite grown up. You're the one throwing the hissy-fit... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why didn’t you notify me, Omar? Are we not friends‽ ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There were a couple of other editors who weren't notified. I've left notices on the talk pages of everyone who a) took part in the Dec 2011/Jan 2012 RfC, b) wasn't notified, and c) who hasn't commented here yet. (I think I've got everyone, but people should feel free to check if I've inadvertently missed someone out.) — Mr. Stradivarius 09:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do it myself because I am involved, but I think the merge should be undone per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Any merge discussion should have at least as much participation as the Dec 2011/Jan 2012 RfC had. Yes, consensus can change, but there simply wasn't enough participation in the merge discussion for it to count as a legitimate challenge to the RfC result. This is not helped by the fact that participants in the Dec 2011/Jan 2012 RfC were not notified of the merge discussion. I suggest undoing the merge and starting a new, widely publicised merge discussion, with all previous participants receiving notifications. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And you couldn't have started a discussion on Emmette's talk page to work it out before running to drama central, Omar-toons? You made 2 edits, and not even really 2 since the second was just a modification to the first, to the talk page of the article in question then come running here. Seriously, I find it hard to take this seriously when you haven't even made the effort to hammer out the disagreement beforehand. What is appalling is the lack of common sense here. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Blackmane. @Omar-toons - You gotta relax man and feel some wikilove. I understand this is a sensitive topic, and that you've had to deal with some aggressive editors in the past (*cough* *cough* Reisio *cough*), but after initial review it looks like Emmette Hernandez Coleman was acting in good faith here. The correct response to take is talk quietly and politely to Emmette about your concerns BEFORE coming to ANI. I suggest and advise you retract this notification and agree to try to work things out peacefully with Emmette before pursuing further action. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Threat to "go to the media"

See User talk:Promotor Veritatis. This newish editor, who appears to believe himself to be someone of great importance in the outside world, has had several poorly-written edits removed from the article on Elizabeth Woodville by several other editors. He is now making a clear threat to make some unspecified attack on the project in the media. Is there a case for a permanent block? Deb (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the edits done by this user are poorly written, and I'd agree with your evaluation of the user as well. Still, I wouldn't worry. The media is not legal, so I don't see it violating any policy. Any media worth mentioning would laugh at a request to expose the "Scandal of the Misplaced Pages censorship of Elizabeth Woodville".Jeppiz (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The use of the word "truth" in any language (but especially in Latin!) in a username is always a bit of a red flag. But I don't see any case for a block on the present showing. I agree they're short of Wikiclue and don't seem desirous to learn, but media threats ain't legal threats. And could you link to these media threats..? On the talkpage I only see a threat to go tell a particular scholar, Professor Arlene Okerlund. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

I LOLed at this edit. Looks like an editor with attitude and competency problems in equal measure. I would just ignore it unless there is further disruption. Evanh2008  11:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the media here - also note the edit summary. GiantSnowman 11:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha. They later changed "explain to the media" to "explain to Arlene Okerlund". I love the edit summary! ;-) But except for one single edit in 2012, they are in fact a very new editor. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

This is better than TV, I love it. While I feel sorry for the poor soul, I still don't see a reason to block him.Jeppiz (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Without a very good explanation for their threats and behaviour, I am inclined to indef Promotor Veritatis per WP:NOTHERE, as they are clearly not here to collobarate with other editors, and there appears to be a COI which is affecting their ability to work to our guidelines. GiantSnowman 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like somebody needs to peruse WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTVAND, as well as possibly WP:EW, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. I'm personally puzzling over why a Word file titled "EW1437" would be so perilous... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have had a go at explaining simple Misplaced Pages policies to Promotor Veritatis, and why he's wound people up. Could I humbly suggest we wait for a response to that before wielding the banhammer? Ritchie333 12:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:OWB #72 for Truth in Usernames. KillerChihuahua 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As others have noted, a threat to go to the media isn't a blockable threat. Lack of clue, if not eventually remedied, on the other hand…--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Richie, editor has 13 edits, far too early to be talking indef. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

24.135.84.89

Per User talk:24.135.84.89, we need a range block, because in addition to the heaps of bizarre insults, this rather obnoxious person is promising to change IPs as soon as they are blocked. Sadly they're in a generic broadband ISP block 24.135.0.0/17, meaning 32K IP addresses. I don't have experience with this so I'm asking for someone else's help.

BTW they claim they are not User:Oldhouse2012, but it doesn't matter, really. If anyone wants a translation to be able to verify my sentiment, please feel free let me know.

--Joy (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there's much chance of range blocking that many IPs, there's just too much collateral damage. Your best bet is to request semi-protection of pages he disrupts. Ritchie333 13:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem seems to be that they're currently pretty active on talk pages of all kind. And semi-protecting article talk pages is undesirable. Maybe we can narrow the range a bit? De728631 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah right, yes you generally don't want to semi-protect talk pages, as unregistered users have got no way of getting edits in otherwise if the article is semi'd. If he's that active over talk pages, you'll just have to aggressively revert, block, and ignore, I guess. Ritchie333 13:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • It should be pretty easy WP:QUACK to tell which IP(s) the user uses, so probably no need to go through the whole warning systems. Block any IP in the range that performs similar actions to these, or related, pages?Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Oldhouse2012, my best guess would be to deaggregate 24.135.65.0 - 24.135.84.255:

24.135.65.0/24

24.135.66.0/23

24.135.68.0/22

24.135.72.0/21

24.135.80.0/22

24.135.84.0/24

If we expand it a wee bit more, we get a more manageable: 24.135.64.0 - 24.135.87.255:

24.135.64.0/20

24.135.80.0/21

--Joy (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is any checkuser-enabled admin watching this, can they check any of these combinations for actual collateral damage? --Joy (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Majority first, objectivity second? WTF? (read it patiently please)

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

But some editors are trying to prove that the following claim is enough, "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities. In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India." —— So I decided to dig deep to understand what exactly is being claimed and what parties they are referring to.
′The Naxalite Challenge: Ramakrishnan, Venkitesh′ source no 12 doesn't even mention children or Kashmir or Indian Armed forces while revealing that "the naxalites' sphere of influence has spread in the past year and a half from 76 districts across nine States to 118 districts in 12 States." —— I would like to argue that this undermines the relevance of that claim since the whole page doesn't mention Indian armed forces or Kashmir or even the word "Child".
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: Thirty-fifth session, CRC/C/15/Add.228, 26 February 2004 source no 13 —— says nothing, nothing whatsoever, about Indian Armed Forces' use of children nor does it even imply anything as to who might be the recruiters of child-soldiers. I think given the controversial status of the article and the fact that Indian government denies using Children at all, a stricter enforcement of WP:SYNTH is merited.

P.S. I believe Indian forces do use children in central (Chattisgarh) and north-eastern (Manipur) parts of India (far from kashmir), albeit the current source does not specify that it is going on in Kashmir also. Children are being used in Kashmir, though the sources does not explicitly claim that it's by Indian forces. But, there are numerous sources that unambiguously point to anti-state militia and naxalites (, etc). Mr T 15:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So what is it that you want ANI to do?Jeppiz (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me the go-ahead to revert the inclusion.Mr T 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and one in which you've repeated the same argument and consensus not gone your way. I strongly, again, suggest that you read WP:REHASH. In the meantime, this should be closed and sent to WP:DR. ANI is not going to give you permission to continue an edit war.--v/r - TP 15:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Also, you should use the entire quote: "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities. In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India. However, the reference to child soldiers in the report was limited to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states; however the problem of the use of child soldiers is far more widespread than this in the country"--v/r - TP 16:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• I've notified the 'majority' that you failed to notify. Just because you intentionally avoid to mention them by name does not absolve you of the responsibility of notifying the people you are talking about.--v/r - TP 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't avoid their names to eschew notifying them. Assume good faith please. Mr T 16:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• IMHO, the source in context of Kashmir isn't talking about Indian Security forces' use of children, they are pointing to Naxalites' use of children as soldiers and spies..

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards