Misplaced Pages

• Support block with Comment - He has confirmed the flyer is his, and therefore has admitted to meat puppetry. He has less than 500 edits, has come here with a very narrow pov focus and has a talk page full of warnings and past incidents. A block is required. But with that said, it should not be indef. He should clearly acknowledge wrong doing, give a clear indication that he understands the goals and objectives of the project, and should promise to abide by the rules. I would suggest 72 hours, followed by a topic-ban on all related articles. He should be given another chance to prove himself... if he wants one. - WOLFchild 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block of Minphie (or of Petrarchan47 on the flip side). One canvassing sentence that may or may not have been by him/her offsite does not justify any kind of block. No evidence has been presented of disruption on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, the articles in question do seem to suffer from non-compliance with WP:MEDRS, as discussed below. However per the recent AE consensus we can't do anything about biased editors, so there, pound sand. (By the way, simply by coincidence I have been recently working on an unrelated article that was the product of the recently AE-enshrineed wikitheory that all it takes to get a NPOV article is enough POV pushers with opposing views. The practical results of this that I've see are more like oodles of contradictory and unreferenced statements in articles. Of course, in the drug case discussed here, it's a bit more refined than that as in "my sources are (of course) reliable/appropriate and yours (of course) aren't". I'm not saying anything new here, I've read this in a wiki essay, although I can't remember the link. Can anyone help?) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  I refer you to the policy on meatpuppetry (I have quoted it in my post above as well), which has no clause about there having had to be "disruption on Misplaced Pages". Offsite canvassing is the sanctionable offence, so yes there is indeed plenty of justification for a block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on cannabis suite

I continue plugging through this suite of articles, attempting to replace the numerous outdated primary sources with recent MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews, but the task is monumental as the suite of articles at {{cannabis}} is chock full of outdated and cherry-picked primary sources, when there are numerous recent secondary reviews available. For my work, Petrarchan47 has continued to label my edits as POV (see above in this section), and continues to fail to engage on either article or user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to Petra's activity on these articles, I also noticed today a new editor, MarkyRamone92. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Strangest removal, considering the thread above: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II and Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

Sepsis II (talk · contribs)

User:Sepsis II has a history of POV-pushing regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, POV pushing that has amounted to two blocks, and sanctions as well.

Anyway, earlier today, he went to Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography and moved Palestine from unrecognized states to recognized ones, his first edits to anything VA/E related. VA/E has rules, namely that you don't make controversial moves, adds, or drops without discussing them at Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Expanded, so I reverted him on that basis. He then posted on my talk page, where I told him he needed to discuss the edit. Recently, he reverted me back to move Palestine back to recognized states, accusing me of ownership of the page. This revert seems to be in violation of his sanctions. Could something be done about this, starting with undoing his actions and reminding him of his sanctions? I don't really have the stomach for getting in an edit war with this, and I take no position on the recognition of Palestine, merely that such a clearly controversial edit should have been discussed first pbp 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Question: Wasn't Palestine officially recognized by the UN last year? - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129)
We also have an article about it. - WOLFchild 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I still say it should have been discussed before the move was made. VA/E has rules. Discussing things before you do them is one of them. Again, I take no position as to whether Palestine is or isn't recognized. pbp 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the fact is, he is correct. So, instead of helping him to add info we know to be correct (and supported by RS), you are fighting to keep it out on a technicality? Meanwhile, now the article still has incorrect info and you are seeking to drag him here to ANI? Have you tried discussing this on his talk page? Have you considered any other means of dispute resolution? What admin intervention are you seeking here? - WOLFchild 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Further note; I don't see how the initial edit was "controversial", and therefore required you to revert it. But that said, once you did, he should have discussed it with you, per WP:BRD. But I see he has instead reverted you again. You guys should be careful, you don't want to end up in an edit-war. - WOLFchild 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) It's not an article, and b) He has the last edit pbp 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) Whatever. Let's not get hyper-technical. b) I noted his last edit with my previous comment above, (it was caught up in an edit conflict). - WOLFchild 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis's only current sanction appears to be a 'civility' one. From the Palestine-Israel log of blocks and bans for 2013: Sepsis II (talk · contribs) officially restricted to 1RR/week and put on a shorter leash for personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) curtailed to a civility restriction only Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)     ←   ZScarpia   16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's gotten messier since I withdrew it

User:Thewolfchild, FWIW, a new editor undid Sepsis II's edit in his very first revision. This is well on its way to becoming the next Arab-Israeli conflict battleground. User:Sepsis II needs to start a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography, and avoid edit-warring further. This may even need to be added to the ever-growing list of articles under sanctions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict (at least the portions of the article related to Palestine and Israel). pbp 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that these areas are very sensitive and prone to conflict. You may have felt I opposed your ANI, but if you noticed my last edit (I'm not sure, first it was tied up in edit conflict, then the thread was closed), I pointed out that once an edit was reverted, that should have activated the WP:BRD cycle, which means should guys should have had a discussion. I know you tried, and I was saying he should have tried discussing as well. Cheers - WOLFchild 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Sepsis undid that guy's edit. I guess I'm going to have to start the discussion myself... pbp 23:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I get followed by banned editors a lot, sorry for bringing them along with me. I was unaware the list was a special article under different editing rules, i only noticed it due to a bot edit - . I hope everything is well now. Sepsis II (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who began the discussion. Sepsis II (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor who followed me is probably the same racist as . Sepsis II (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) VA/E isn't an article per se, b) The discussion should go on at Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Expanded. As it plays out, you may consider reporting those users as socks or SPAs, but you gotta stop edit warring! pbp 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Sepsis II:, with very few exceptions, there is basically no edit that "has to be reverted! right away!!". If you are not familiar with WP:BRD, please read up on it. You should try engaging others in discussion when you want to make contentious edits or edits to controversial subjects. Or, when other editors want to discuss an issue with you, and... always before making that 2 revert. (unless it fall under those few exceptions I mentioned). This will help you avoid edit-warring and being brought to ANI. FYI/Cheers - WOLFchild 23:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I did try to discuss PBP's revert before my second edit; I mistook the VA cabal as a violation of wp:own. As I am constantly followed by new accounts reverting my edits I have discussed the issue with admins who state that when it is clear they are banned editors their edits may be reverted freely. Sepsis II (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, well, here's an opportunity for the two of you to resolve any outstanding issues. If the two of you can pick a talk page to chat on, then PBP can close this up (withdraw it) again with no further action required. That way, you don't have to deal with any admins... - WOLFchild 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) is not new, just sporadic - actually started over 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And... ? - WOLFchild 18:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To me Sepsis II (talk · contribs) looks like another reincarnation of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), which was blocked indefinitely for nationalistic behavior, specifically Personal attacks or harassment: General persistent disruption and attacks. I've opened a SPI report, based on behavior and technical evidence, which was not seriously reviewed. Oh well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd prod a little harder on that, User:AgadaUrbanit. The main thing that concerns me now is that editors will be showing up to change the status of Palestine away from what we decide to call it at VA/E, and we end up with a (slow-moving, perhaps) edit war. I don't want VA/E to turn into another Arab-Israeli battleground. What can be done to avoid that, User:Baseball Bugs? pbp

The same way you keep a wave upon the sand. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible this thread might end with an offer by User:Sepsis II to wait for consensus before reverting again. If he does so, that's good. If he does not do so, one option would be to raise the issue at WP:Arbitration enforcement for consideration under WP:ARBPIA. Longer term, there is a question as to which states ought to go in the section 'Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states' in WP:VA/E/G. We already have an article at List of states with limited recognition. It might be reasonable to use inclusion in this list as the criterion for the 'Unrecognized' section of WP:VA/E/G. It would be even better to change that header to 'States with limited recognition.' That way our terminology would be consistent across articles. This is up to consensus, but it would save having to conduct the same dispute in more than one place. At present the State of Palestine is included in List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

Note: This section was originally titled User:Nathan Johnson refusing to stay off my talk page, edit warring over a longstanding practice, inappropriately templating a regular, and demanding a retraction. It was changed here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

After disagreement about the use of the WP:Dummy edit feature, Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) predictably took it upon himself to alter the WP:Dummy edit page by removing a sentence that the feature may be used to briefly communicate with other editors...despite many Misplaced Pages editors having used this feature for brief communication with other editors in a variety of ways for years, and despite objections to its removal, as noted at Help talk:Dummy edit#Don't message thru edit summaries. Nathan Johnson decided to WP:Edit war with me to remove the material. He then templated me with an edit warring notice when he was also edit warring (this is typical behavior of him). He did all of this while refusing to stay off my talk page. He is still refusing to stay off my talk page, even though I made it clear that I no longer want him posting there. And he is demanding that I retract my statement that he has committed vandalism to prove a point, even though I pointed to a previous discussion that clearly shows he did indeed commit vandalism to prove a point. See here for backstory. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FYI - you hadn't notified him of the ANI. I have done it for you. - WOLFchild 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As shown in the aforementioned post on my talk page and this post on his talk page, he already knew that I was going to start this WP:ANI. He was well-notified. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Having read through the links you provided and looked at the diffs when you mentioned vandalism, I don't see vandalism, I see an edit war between you two which is not vandalism. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon, I'm talking about a different matter with regard to the vandalism; that's why I pointed out a discussion that talks about this and this. He vandalized that article and an editor noted that it was vandalism. Nathan Johnson responded in a rambling, mocking manner. His vandalism to that article is what I called vandalism and is why he will not be getting a retraction and/or apology from me for having stated that he committed that vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've just protected Help:Dummy edit for three days due to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good move Mark, it needed that. It seems that Nathan has suddenly taken exception to it, and wants to arbitrarily change it, despite established consensus. Along with that, he did template an experienced editor, warning of a potential edit war - that he was on the other side of . Also, Flyer did clearly, and repeatedly ask him to not edit her talk page, which he ignored, and continually posted there anyway. She definitely has valid complaints here. - WOLFchild 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other allegations, WP:Don't template the regulars may be good form and good manners, but in the end is only an essay and not an actionable offense. Also, I suspect this would hardly be the first time an involved editor gave another editor an edit-warring warning; it wouldn't surprise me if that was the norm. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Doniago: - This is not so much about "templating a regular" as it is misusing or abusing a warning template, which is not permitted (just ask twinkle). - WOLFchild 04:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's not the point that was originally made as I read it. If that's the thrust of the argument then whether Flyer's an experienced editor or not is irrelevant. Anyway, I wasn't trying to nit-pick or anything...editors not infrequently confuse essays with policies or guidelines, so I try to point it out to be helpful when I see it happen. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the thrust of my comment, was that he abused a template, edit-warred and harassed another editor, which are all policy violations . Let's face it, no one cares about an "essay violation". Unfortunately, the talk of unrelated (and alleged) vandalism and a needless focus on the OP's seniority have served to be a distraction. - WOLFchild 08:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I pointed out below (in my "01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)" post), there was no " essays with policies or guidelines" on my part. Never has been. Many at this site are aware that I thoroughly know Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am sometimes quick to point out what is an essay; my talk page is one example of that. Either way, just like WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a well-followed essay, so much so that it might as well be a guideline, similar can be stated of WP:Don't template the regulars. And now I think I'm done with this whole thread, since it is clear that Nathan Johnson, who often acts like an administrator, is an exception to administrators when it comes to repeatedly posting on someone's talk page against their wishes and clearly has free rein to continue doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and haven't fully reviewed the allegations raised, so I should hope that my personal opinions on a minor subsection of this aren't being categorized as any part of consensus on the part of admins.

The point I was trying to make is that ANI cases are touchy enough without raising points that are tangential to items that are actionable. Whether or not you received a templated warning isn't relevant from the perspective of whether or not you're a regular editor since templating a regular isn't a policy violation, and bringing it up, regardless of who is doing so, only clouds this case and, as evidenced, is a distraction from pertinent matters.

I don't agree with the notion that any essay, no matter how well-followed, "might as well be a guideline". Any Misplaced Pages editor could post an essay expressing an opinion that, coincidentally, is shared by multiple editors; I don't believe it's appropriate or even a good idea to say that that escalates the essay by default.

For what it's worth, while I may be coming across as a voice of opposition, I do hope your issues are worked out and that the harrassment stops. Based on your Talk page discussion I feel you may have antagonized and consequently encouraged Nathan's negative behaviors (a better solution may have been to stop feeding the troll), but that would by no means excuse said behaviors. I hope the admins will take a more assertive stance regarding this filing. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that you are not an administrator. As for the rest of what you stated, I disagree, with the exception of wanting Nathan Johnson to stay off my talk page and that I am not to blame for his ridiculousness; this is clear by my responses in this section already. Even though Nathan Johnson has several or more administrator friends and is seemingly thought of as an administrator by more than that, and I therefore feel that this is why not one administrator has yet warned him to stay off my talk page, to me, your initial comment is what distracted from the more serious matters at hand in this discussion. And now it's a further distraction. I don't think that anyone who has participated in this thread needed a reminder that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay. Thewolfchild, as shown above, clearly understands why I brought up the ridiculous templating matter (and I obviously explained below why I brought it up). I will always bring up such ridiculousness.

I responded to Nathan Johnson how I felt he should have been responded to. It was not to antagonize him; it was to let him know how I felt about him/his editing and that I would not put up with his disruptive behavior. That I don't put up with such behavior (in fact, generally have zero tolerance for it) is not a surprise to a lot of people at this site, especially those who watch my talk page (which you were doing before you excused yourself from it due to my interaction with Nathan Johnson). You have a different way of dealing with such matters. Okay then. That is your way. Obviously not my way. I cannot take the blame for Nathan Johnson's behavior whatsoever. And as others can attest to, and as touched on below by others, he is ill-tempered and has very questionable editing. I generally will not take it easy on someone just because that person has a problem with self-control, and I'm beyond tired of certain editors coddling such people at this site...essentially stating, "Oh, it's expected of him. The opposing editor should not have tempered matters." There is no tempering matters which such editors; the situation is always tempered, just to lesser or higher degrees, because that's how that person is. If I want someone off my talk page, I will state it instead of ignoring that person; that person should then stay off my talk page...unless they have a very valid reason to still be posting there (such as my being blocked and that person being the blocking administrator who is validly explaining matters). I see nothing more to debate with you on this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And there is WP:TTR, also. I should probably push that back into project space someday soon. DES 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten, is there a way that the page could protected so that only this user's edits are rejected? Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a technical feature that would work that way, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since editors have decided to focus on WP:Don't template the regulars instead of the serious matters at hand here in this discussion, such as an editor refusing to stay off my talk page and therefore attempting to force me to read what he has to state and to retract a valid accusation, let me state this: I brought up WP:Don't template the regulars because I see no valid and/or good-faith reason for Nathan Johnson to have templated me; I see Nathan Johnson as having used it to intimidate me and make it seem like his efforts to remove the wording were correct while my efforts to retain it were wrong. He templated me to make it seem like the WP:Edit war was on my head alone. I am familiar with his editing, have had past conflict with him before, and I know how he operates when it comes to editing. Every very experienced Misplaced Pages editor knows that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay, but it is an essay that very experienced Misplaced Pages editors generally follow. It's not the norm at all for a regular to template a regular, unless the regular being templated is an editor who has been registered with this site for years but is significantly inexperienced with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, unless both regulars are not very experienced Misplaced Pages editors...or unless it's an administrator issuing a block on a regular Misplaced Pages editor. Yes, I'm also well aware of DESiegel (DES)'s less-followed essay arguing why it's good to template the regular; I generally don't agree with that essay, as should be clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who has yet to have a single pleasant interaction with Nathan Johnson, I understand Flyer22's concerns. Nathan's approach is frequently crass and when he thinks he's right about a guideline or policy, he doesn't hesitate to edit war. I've also seen some questionable editing such as adding a blatant BLP violation to the Dan Savage article. Then there was this unfortunate tirade. The bottom line is, if Flyer22 wants him off her page, he should honor it except for required templates (noticeboard notifications, final edit warring notices, etc.). If he can't exercise that minor level of self-restraint, then blocks are always an option. - MrX 02:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• My impression of Nathan Johnson is that he has a bit of a temper and tends to shoot from the hip. (See this archived thread from my talk page for an example or two. In that case, he quickly apologized and everything turned out fine.) If he'd choose his words more carefully, he'd be likelier to avoid this sort of conflict in the first place. Sometimes it would be better just not to say anything at all; earlier this year, Newyorkbrad gave him some good advice about avoiding stressful discussions. Having failed to avoid this one, he turned stubborn and declined to honor a fellow Wikipedian's request to stay off her talk page. That is disruptive behavior. Edit warring to remove relevant content from a help page he's citing when criticizing that editor . . . well, that's disruptive, too, to put it mildly. One would hope this could all be resolved with an assurance that the disruptiveness will stop. Rivertorch (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing all that out, Rivertorch. It seems to me that an editor who disregards Newyorkbrad's helpful advice is skating on thin ice. On the other hand, vandalism has a very narrow meaning here, Flyer22. Please use that charge with great care. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, I always respect your input. However, did you not review the exact situation that I and another editor referred to as vandalism with regard to Nathan Johnson? Look at what Nathan Johnson did there, and, if willing, explain to me why you do not consider that WP:POINT edit to be WP:Vandalism or rather why you consider it a narrow interpretation of it if you mean that I have interpreted WP:Vandalism narrowly? Being very familiar with WP:Vandalism, it seems to me that you are stating that it's that policy that defines vandalism narrowly and you mean "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." However, keep in mind the first line of WP:Vandalism; it states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." Who is to say that Nathan Johnson was not doing exactly that? Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think there is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue with regards to Nathan. Having looked at the talkpage discussion with regards to the BLP violation, it's clear that he has a very limited, if any, grasp of policy. For someone who has been editing for over five years to have a totally improper interpretation of WP:BLP is utterly unacceptable, and I wonder how long it'll be before he falls through the trap door that is an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Without at all suggesting that Nathan is in any manner in the right, it would certainly be nice to hear from him here. That said, he hasn't edited for the past couple of days either. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

While he does have the option of commenting here, it certainly is not requirement that he does, for an admin to take action. As I said above, the OP has a valid complaint - Nathan did harass her on her talk page, did abuse a warning template and edit warred. She has every reason to expect that an admin will act on these issues. - WOLFchild 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to snark at you, you're not really telling me anything I don't already know; I'd simply like Nathan's perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No 'snarky-ness' received. I understand your point, but just the same, a lack of comment on his part should not prevent an admin from acting. And by this point, an admin, any admin, should do... something, even if it's just as warning and/or some guidance. Perhaps Flyer was looking for more (I don't know), but there's obviously enough here that there should be some kind of response. - WOLFchild 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (but for me, I've lost interest, this is my last comment)

• Without delving into specifics here, I'd like to make a few comments:

1. editors have fairly wide leeway on the management of their talkpage. This can include requesting that someone "stay away"
2. as long as that person has been reasonably-well advised of that request, then future posts there can be considered to be harassment - and blocks may occur accordingly
3. the only time such a limitation should be broken is when advising them of AN, ANI, or other admin noticeboard filings - templates, etc should be placed by someone else, if valid
4. if you have "banned them" from your talkpage, then you should consider it to be a 2-way ban ... you cannot presume to provoke them on their talkpage and not permit a response
5. except where limited above, in ALL cases, templates CAN be used on ANY and ALL editors ... but ONLY if that template is appropriately used - that said, if you template someone, be aware that they're going to respond
6. tit-for-tat templates (try saying that 3 times fast) is fricking ridiculously silly behaviour
7. if you know based on previous behaviour that someone has a short fuse, think twice

Take these comments as you will ES&L 11:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User: 78.156.109.166 again

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

See User talk:78.156.109.166. Blocked user is using talk page to continue trolling. Suggest revocation of talk page access. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff? - WOLFchild 23:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

— SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly "trolling". It's just a simple question (which I have since answered). If that's all this is about, then this ANI is a waste of time. - WOLFchild 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When an editor is blocked, they should be engaged in discussion about the block and how to behave better once the block is over - not posting junk about "end of the world November 2014" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That's trolling. I think that post resolves the question of whether the user merely has competency issues or is a troll. The user is a troll. In any case, the user is not here to build the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:06, December 10, 2013

It takes two to "troll" @Robert McClenon:. I suggest removing the page from your watchlist. John Reaves 04:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Why would anyone care about what a blocked ip user posts on his page? If it was something that needed to be removed, that's one thing. But this is just harmless nonsense. It's between him and any admin who might unblock him at... some point. If he wants to waste space there, so what? But why waste space here complaining about it? - WOLFchild 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you care so much? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't, and neither should anyone else, which is my point. I didn't create this ANI, I'm just questioning the need for it. What admin action is the OP seeking, and based on what? Blocked or not, users are allowed to post on their own talk pages. As long as his posts don't violate a policy, who cares? - WOLFchild 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that IP question is on the very mild side of trolling. Some people should go back to writing an encyclopedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

He's been blocked twice within a week. His current block will be up on the 15th, so we'll see if the IP in question is interested in "writing an encyclopedia". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly trolling, though the IP is using the talk page for requests other than unblock. That's the only thing that is of concern right now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a tempest in a teapot. The user is not going to be an asset to the project. Extend for 12 months, ignore the user's talk page (unless it is an unblock request because of a changed or shared IP), and move on. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rivatphil's multiple BLP's and Copyvios.

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

I had this up at AIV, but was told to report it here. User:Rivatphil has created numerous BLP articles either unsourced or direct copyright violations from other sites. I noticed this after the New Pages utility was flooded with numerous BLPs, which were all then speedily deleted, so please check the deleted contribs of this user. Also came upon this while notifying user of discussion. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This user is also non-communicative, with exactly one user talk edit in seven years. Given the copyvios, an indefinite block is in order. MER-C 07:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Active DRV short-circuited by an apparent super-vote

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

• Jclemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Henry Earl DRV

I had sworn of ANI a month or so ago, but IMO this is something that at least needs to come before the community to review. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Henry Earl closed as a delete 18:19 Dec 10th, an editor files a Deletion review (inked above) at 20:31 Dec 10th, and the DRV is closed as an overturn 1:44 Dec 12th. Usually discussions that are closed after so short a time are done so via WP:SNOW, when the consensus is overwhelming. However, here, the discussion stood at 6 endorse & 5 overturn or relist; the closing admin invoked not Snow but WP:IAR, claiming essentially that the endorsers were wrong and that he is right.

Jclemens is a noted inclusionist, regularly taking a conservative stance in regards to how policy such as WP:BLP1E is applied in deletion discussions. That's fine, we're all allowed to hold opinions and argue them. What is IMO very not-so-fine is using one's position as an admin to essentially clobber an active and ongoing discussion because they disagree with both it and the initial AfD result. There are no hijinks at the DRV; no severe civility issues, no socks, nothing untowards; all who had weighed in at that point are regulars and veteran editors. The article Henry Earl should be re-deleted, the DRV re-opened, and Jclemens' closing statement may be converted into a discussion entry if he wishes. We appoint admins to, when needed, weigh the consensus of a discussion and act according to the project's policies and norms. We do not appoint admins to delete or restore articles on their personal whim. WP:IAR is to be invoked in the rarest of circumstances, and I do not believe that the project is harmed by its omission if that is what the consensus of editors decides. Tarc (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Tarc, I undid the out-of-process close before I saw that you had posted here. As I said to Jclemens, let's just be patient and wait for a proper close by a neutral editor once the traditional 7-day discussion period is complete. 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you thought it appropriate to post here, I'll point out here that as the original AfD closure, your undoing of my IAR (IAR is not out of process; IAR is a pillar) closure is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I'll further note here that I've invoked special BLP enforcement to keep the article undeleted and unhidden while the discussion continues. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. Consider it an IAR invocation on INVOLVED, just like you invoked IAR to attempt to supervote and shortcut this DRV. We're back at zero again. — Scott • talk 10:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this statement from WP:INVOLVED is applicable here: "In straightforward cases ... the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." The close was obviously improper - one of the most blatant supervotes you'll ever see.

The utterly frivolous invocation of special BLP enforcement is also very concerning. There is no way that deleting a person's article is a BLP violation. The idea that we are required to keep articles on people we've decided don't meet our notability guidelines and policies if we think the subject might miss out on financial benefits is one of the most preposterous I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Neljack (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here I think is the biggest question I have for Jclemens as well. I'd like to see him expand on the topic. As I see it the reasoning is dubious at best. Jusdafax 04:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Note ~ Not an Admin) Since I somewhat benefitted from this, I do not know if I should support the closing by Jclemens, but I would like to say that the article should NOT be re-deleted. Instead, it should be as it is now, with the content being {{temporarily undeleted}} as it should have been when the discussion went to Deletion Review. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine; I have no objection to leaving it restored while the discussion continues. 28bytes (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion needs to continue, Jclemens supervote action in the DRV was disruptive. Yes there was canvassing involved by a third party and some suspicious keep voters, but that is, if anything a case for relisting, not automatic closing. WP:TROUT for Jclemens and remember when it reopens DRV is not AFD round 2. Secret 13:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it is anywhere within the letter or the spirit of WP:BLPBAN (as invoked above by Jclemens), or of WP:BLP policy in general, to say that the deletion itself of an article is a BLP violation. This is regrettably becoming a case of an abuse of admin tools. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep calm. The DRV discussion is ongoing and will eventually be closed by somebody totally uninvolved. There are not current problems with the situation. Whatever happened up to this point, just let it go, and focus on content building. Jehochman 13:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Still, the invocation of BLPBAN, which Jclemens has even dared to formally log here , is so obviously ludicrous and abusive ("deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income" – by that logic any deletion of any self-advertising promotion piece would be a BLP violation!) that this cannot possibly be allowed to stand. I am finding there is already a pretty solid community consensus against this attempted ban here, so I will soon strike it from that log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. That wasn't just frivolous, but outright bad faith abuse of process on JClemens' part. Resolute 14:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a bit of a problem with "Whatever happened up to this point, just let it go, and focus on content building". I suspect that if a non-admin committed a similar violation he would get either a stern warning or a short block, not a call to "let it go". See User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I promised myself I would never mention Jclemens again, but this is too egregious to ignore. It is most definitely an abuse of admin tools, and if it ever happens again, I'll open an ArbCom case to have them removed. I can accept that people might honestly think that BLP1E doesn't apply, although I would disagree. But it is not possible for someone who understands BLP to claim that restoring the article was "protected" from reversion by BLP. Falsely claiming a "BLP" trump card when you are actually going against the only possible BLP aspect undermines the respect of the BLP policy by others, and its use by honest admins who are actually trying to enforce it. The consequences of doing it once should be community censure. The consequences of ever doing it again should be tool removal. Since 28bytes is OK with leaving it open during DRV, and ANI can't do more than criticize an admin for abusing the tools, I guess that's all that can be done here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think a desysop discussion on Jclemens should happen sooner rather than later, since this is not the first time he has abused tools to push his inclusionist agenda. Creatively misinterpreting policy and using his admin bit to abuse process is nothing new with this editor. Reyk _YO! 15:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Note that Jclemens has now continued to edit-war on the restored page attempting to uphold his invocation of the BLP exemption , even after I had formally stricken it from the enforcement log as having been overturned by consensus . He has also attempted to file a "warning" against me in the name of that same invalid BLPBAN claim . I would seriously propose blocking him if he continues in this vein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
      • It ought to be noted that also holds checkuser and oversight permissions. John Reaves 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Could everybody please take one big step back from the fight? Jclemens, please stop taking further actions here. Let's just let this article resolve itself through the normal editorial process. Jehochman 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• " Deleting or in any way hiding this article will deprive Mr. Earl of publicity, causing him direct harm." What? John Reaves 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. That, and Jclemens' similarly-worded BLPBAN rationale, are mind-boggling. I was willing to take the attempted supervote closure as merely ill-considered, but the bizarre invocation of BLPBAN is giving me serious pause. — Scott • talk 16:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours so community can decide whether Jclemens should continue to hold admin privileges. Based on his response to Fut Perf, he refuses to see the problem and has NOT promised that his behaviour will not continue, thus he should not be given the chance to continue unless the community decides he was somehow correct. Abuse of IAR and spuriously imposing sanctions upon another editor are unacceptable to see in an admin, and I am of the opinion that Jclemens has violated the communities' trust to the point that they should not retain admin privileges at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Someone remind me what it takes to remove tools an administrator on account of their abuse. Can that be done in this venue or does the matter have to land at ArbCom? Carrite (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Procedurally speaking, only ArbCom can remove the tools from an admin for cause. Jimbo technically can too, I think, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen again. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that Misplaced Pages:Removing administrator rights and Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship pretty much covers it, even though they could do with being more clearly written. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I believe the community would be allowed to restrict his use of the tools. Basically, it would be like imposing a topic ban. Something to the effect of "Jclemens is indefinitely banned from using his administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons, with the exception of vandalism and obvious violations" would suffice. We would have to enforce it with blocks.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• • My understanding is that ARBCOM exists for situations where the community cannot come to consensus and/or resolve the issue themselves. ANI is not a method listed at DESYSOP, but if community consensus exists there's no reason to involve ARBCOM, especially if it is likely that the behaviour will continue, as here. If consensus exists in this thread that Jclemens has seriously abused their admin privileges (IMO, such consensus exists already and several people have said exactly that), all it would take would be to flag down an active Buro to press the button. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unless I am mistaken, there is no precedent for a community based desysop (please correct if I'm wrong) and it is unlikely that a 'crat would act on it. Also, how would revocation of the admin permission affect the checkuser and oversight permissions he has? John Reaves 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You'd need a steward to remove checkuser and oversight. And you responded to the wrong comment. Dark Sun (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So the community could (theoretically) ban him entirely, but can't evoke removal of the tools (a far lesser sanction) even with clear cause and consensus to do so? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and if true it should be changed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Community desysop has been proposed many times and failed many times. I'd agree that it should be available, but that puts me in the minority. As of now, all a consensus can do is motivate Arbcom to act. Arbcom is currently the only venue for forcing tool removal, like it or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record I'm discussing only community desysop as a principle, I'm witholding comment on the specifics here, at least for the current time.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He hammered in the final nail be invoking BLP because it would deprive him of publicity. This is saying that it should be kept to promote him, which is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX and there is a possible COI. Dark Sun (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• What a lynching....not concurring with the recreation or rationale, but this "get a rope" mentality is overkill.--MONGO 18:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Despite being an outspoken inclusionist myself, and despite thinking that Jclemens opinions on the matter are mostly correct, I have to admit the behaviour he displayed is disingenuous at best. Perhaps not much more of whoever closed the AfD trusting arguments like "multiple events sum up as BLP1E", but still. I hesitate in calling for desysopping because 1)I am not well informed of previous Jclemens history 2)out-of-process actions on the opposite side have instead usually given a free pass or even cheers (do you remember the old unsourced BLP deletions of a few years ago, before the BLPPROD process was put in place?) 3)some arguments here seem to show the same degree of disingenuity (what COI has Jclemens with the subject of the article?!?) 4)Jclemens is being badly outed/cyberbullied off-wiki, and I am suspicious people just waited for him to make a wrong step to tar, feather and kick him away. In short, I don't like this discussion, I don't like the tones and the witch-hunting: but I must agree the behaviour of Jclemens on the case in point (especially calling for undeletion for BLP reasons) is highly questionable. I'd prefer ArbCom to look into the matter. I also would ask to unblock Jclemens so that he can participate to the discussion and explain himself. --cyclopia 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think in light of the above information (thanks to all for that) that this would indeed be a good matter for ArbCom to handle rather than having a hissy fizzle here. I share the view that the actual substance of the DRV ruling is arguably correct, although it was done prematurely and with what I see as abusive threats of retribution in order to enforce a favored content outcome. Administrators threatening to use the stick are in fact using the stick. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Opposite side have instead usually given a free pass or even cheers". WP:BATTLEGROUND much? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone needs to calm down. Let's have a discussion about what to do with the article, decide it according to policy, and move on. There's no need to attack anyone. Everyking (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I had thought that his advocacy for promotion of corporations was a little beyond the pale, but this BLP invocation is pretty stunning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am not surprised at Jclemens's reactions of invoking WP:BLPBAN and signaling an Arbcom case. He has a pattern of digging in and doubling down when confronted. Examples include defending his use of rollback on Snottywong's AfD recommendations at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire (June 2010) and clinging to one sentence in the lead of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion until a RfC was filed at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4 and subsequent XfDs (September–November 2011, but stretching back before WT:Deletion review/Archives/2010/November#G4 (copied from Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 4#Carli Banks)). (I have a few more recent examples, but the disputes are smaller and more obscure.) Regarding his invoking WP:BLPBAN, he should review WP:Crying "BLP!". This is deliberate irony. If I remember correctly, this essay has been cited to downplay legitimate concerns. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think an ArbCom case is a terrific idea and I hope he pursues it. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Observation With what I can count I see 3 potential ArbCom cases (Nightscream, Kafziel, and this) of Administrators using their powers in a manner inconsistent with current consensus. Might it be a good idea for ArbCom to issue (and have delivered to every admin) a blanket statement reminding them about the responsibilities that are laid upon them for having admin-bits and that they are expected to be conservative in their exercise of bits and to not cause undue concern in their exercise. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens restriction

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

Jclemens is indefinitely banned from using his administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons, with the exception of vandalism and obvious violations. Violations of this restriction would be enforceable by blocks.

• Support as proposer. We may not be able to desysop him, but we are able to restrict his use of the tools. It would mean that he is to act like a non-admin when dealing with any contentious BLP issues. Failure to adhere to it could be used as the basis for the Committee to desysop him by motion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. What? No. Calm down. Everyking (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am actually quite calm and don't even disagree with Jclemens with regards to the deletion of the article, but his invocation of the special enforcement regime in this case is so absurd and abusive as to warrant some sort of action regarding that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely too broad, and we're not talking of BLP violations here, we're talking of out-of-process discussion closures. I could understand a temporary ban on closing AfD/DRV discussions, but not this. --cyclopia 18:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I have no confidence in Jclemens using administrator tools in the BLP area. P.S. Everyking: please don't tell people to "calm down" because you disagree with them; that's patronizing and unhelpful. — Scott • talk 18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I second that P.S. I'm getting very sick of people telling others to "calm down" here. It's smug and offensive and always has the opposite effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. He has abused administrative tools and edit warred against consensus, claiming a BLP violation when he just wants to promote the subject. Dark Sun (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support pbp 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly harsh, too broad and likely way too soon to even consider. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This is a lynching, is absurd and is Misplaced Pages at its worst. Period.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC))
• Support as reasonable emergency restriction to resolve current situation until a full desysop can be decided by ARBCOM. The original DRV supervote was problematic, but the subsequent actions and attempting to invoke IAR as a catch-all defence is completely unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens very reasoned calm comment on his talk page indicates he will be away for 12 hours. How is this an emergency?(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC))

• Support Jclemens views on BLPs is unacceptable Secret 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Unacceptable? - How so? Also, who is going to be determining what is an "obvious violation" - there are shades of gray in many "obvious" situations. This is too broad and out of place as well. Start an RFC/U then act on anything determined there. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• The "ban JClemens!" Wikipediocracy canvassing thread is .—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're not shy about linking to an "outing" thread, which has gotten people threatened with blocks and oversighted before. Kudos for your cojones, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wait - until the block has ended and he has had a chance to calm down. For what it's worth, placing such a severe editing restriction on an Admin is very serious, should it come to that, and it is my opinion (again, if that is the consensus reached here) that if they cannot be trusted with BLPs then they cannot be trusted with the tools full stop, and the matter should therefore be escalated to ArbCom for consideration of a de-mop. GiantSnowman 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is not an acceptable use of the bit, and is the reason why there needs to be some form of oversight on administrators, other than other admins / ArbCom (which is all admins). GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now It was wrong headed, but we've had wrong headed admins do things in the name of BLP before. I think a warning from the community should be enough. Hobit (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the formal reversal of the abusive threats and unilaterally imposed non-policy-based restrictions — and its implied warning to the Administrator to knock it the hell off — is the path forward rather than this perhaps overbroad and certainly unfocused approach. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - but if he violates the BLP rules again in anything approaching this manner, then he should be fully desysopped rather than just restricted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• We have surely advanced so much since the era of Grace Sherwood...ah, I oppose unless we can prove Jclemens is also made of wood.--MONGO 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he weighs the same as a duck........ Carrite (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, moving way too fast. Legoktm (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Jclemens has clearly demonstrated that he is unfit to administer such topics. Frankly, I see little reason to consider him fit to administer anywhere else, given such blatant abuse of his admin status to enforce his own point of view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This feels a lot like a lynch mob. I'd want to see a properly diffed request with evidence that can actually be reviewed before making this kind of determination. --Elonka 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This sanction on Jclemens is, I think, a little too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jesus guys, I really hope I don't ever screw anything up around you all. Given that JClemens specifically said that they would be offline for ~12 hours in their last edit (5 hours ago), and given that the block is only for 24 hours, I really think we need to back down and cool off for a bit. There is no urgency to this. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Jclemens has made a series of mistakes in this sorry business, but we ought not to rush to judgement so rapidly. I have criticised his actions in the past, but he's been a good servant of our project for many years and I don't accept that he is unable to learn from mistakes. The block hopefully will bring home the seriousness of how the community has viewed his actions and may yet bring about the desired outcome: that he doesn't make the same mistakes again. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  To paraphrase, "Jclemens is not now and never has been a Wikipedian". Time he learned that the rules apply to him just as much as they do to everyone else. Eric Corbett 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  Some (fellow) admin decided to temporarily revoke his "Misplaced Pages citizenship". ZOMG. ArbCom to the rescue (see below). Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Look, he's blocked, and has not yet had a chance to explain himself. Is he now brutally aware that he f'ed up? I would expect so. Does he agree that he f'd up? We don't know yet. Blocks and restrictions are ONLY to be used when the editor is unwilling to follow the rules ... now that he knows the community consensus is that he f'ed up the rules, let's see what he has to say ES&L 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• He has posted a statement on his talk page. Nick (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Re: "Does he agree that he f'd up?". The answer is an astounding "No, ArbCom shall vindicate me" (paraphrasing) . If filing ArbCom cases weren't such a pain in the ass, I'd file for emergency desysop myself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think a further restriction is merited at this point. Let's see how he handles situations like this in the future before concluding that the block isn't enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mark Arsten. This is an overreaction, and at best premature. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wait - and let him talk. I believe his use of admin tools was quite blatantly wrong. But he should have a chance to explain himself. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• No opinion on this, but I'm --> <-- close from blocking the next person who refers to this as a lynching. NW (Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you're near the end of your rope.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comedy barnstar forthcoming. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with GiantSnowman. Administrators have to be able to use their tools to deal with BLP violations when they see them. If they can't be trusted to do that, they can't be trusted to be an administrator. Either Jclemens will act properly in this area in the future, in which case there is no problem, or he won't, in which case he will surely be desysopped. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – Drop the pitchforks and let tempers cool. Please don't block me NW, I didn't refer to lynching (with apologies to Dr. Strangelove – gentlemen you can't use levity here, this is the Dramah Board). But yes, as GiantSnowman says, "placing such a severe editing restriction on an Admin is very serious". Ultimately, I don't think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems that it would be even more beneficial for Misplaced Pages for this person not be an admin at all, lest we want to transform it into Spampedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support "deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income" ?!. Since when is that an argument to restore an article. Misplaced Pages's purpose is not to ensure a subject receives "attention and income". I am shocked and dismayed at such an attitude. Dlohcierekim 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support- I agree entirely with AndyTheGrump. Pushing such a ludicrously wrong-headed interpretation of policy is one thing. But he's using his admin bit to override established process against consensus. It's not the first time he's misused his tools to try to rule by fiat. Frankly, I think his admin bit should be removed altogether. Reyk _YO! 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. Except in the case of an emergency, only ArbCom can desysop someone. A community restriction on the use of an administrator's tools is an end run around the rule. I understand that an admin may be topic banned or blocked, but this proposal is not in line with those sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, your conflation of (1) community control of an editor's use of a tool with (2) desysopping is self-serving and misleading. This is not desysopping (he'll still have the user right), it is the community exercising control over an editor in one precisely-circumscribed behaviour. I get it that you don't like that. But we can do it, and we should do it where appropriate. Your (and many, many other admins') position, that only ArbCom can deal with poor admin behaviour, is a frank misrepresentation of the facts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose in that I can't imagine a restriction like this being compatible with holding adminship. The arbitration committee is the place for review of tool use, which is where this should go. I have just stumbled over this so have not digested the whole story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - needs to go to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, but only procedurally. There is very strong consensus that Jclemens' action was inappropriate. Significant concerns have been raised as to his continued suitability for adminship. This should (and IMO must) be heard at Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Wrong venue, and far too messy and vague. Needs to go to ArbCom (which I note Jclemens has said is his wish on his talkpage anyway). Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is exactly the right venue to restrict the behaviour of an editor. Admins are not special cases in that regard. Personally, I'd ban him from editing or discussing BLPs broadly construed. But this is a good start. He's not fit to deal with BLPs on any level, but I'm sure he can block obvious vandals, socks and spammers, protect pages under vandal attack, make technical page moves, etc., etc. - so desysop would be overkill and against the interests of the project. This limited restriction is useful and definitely within our power. If this proposal doesn't pass - largely on "procedural" grounds or "admins are special" grounds - the next step should be an RFC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ah yes, an admin is accused of abusing his powers, complicated by a questionable block of him that at first glance appears punitive. As others note, ArbCom is the place to make a big-ticket review of this sort including but not limited to a judgment on a proposed restriction on some uses of the admins tools. As for the article that this is all about, I've read it and it seems notable to me. But this matter has gone way beyond the article now. I see numerous facets that require scrutiny. Jusdafax 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't agree with Jclemens' actions or views on this at all. The agenda seems to be some sort of bleeding-heart action to help out a homeless man, and I empathize with that but it's not what we do here. About the accusations of lynching, I'm not sure these quick polls are the best way to handle admin misconduct. How many people here !voting are like me and just took a quick glance at what happened? How many mistakes should an admin get? As a general precedent, this sets up a situation where those who feel abused by administrative action could pile in and overweight the discussion (doesn't seem to be the case here). I lean towards leaving it up to ArbCom. II | (t - c) 05:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no pattern here, no proper consideration either. I don't know what he was thinking but it did no particular harm. Additionally, the controversial edit of restoring the appearance of the article occurred prior to full-protection - anyone, myself included, could have done it, so there is no admin tool usage issue per se. Wnt (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Jclemens in multiple actions has acted boldly to assert his personable opinion. That personal opinion is not necessarily unreasonable, but his use of admin privileges, and clear use of implied authority in what looks to most of us to be an opinion inconsistent with the opinion of the community means that Jclemens no longer enjoys the consensus support of the community to judiciously exercise admin functions. I believe that Jclemens should submit to a reconfirmation RfA before resuming any admin functions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This was a very blatant example of abuse of admin status to enforce personal opinions, and as it is far from the first time that this has occurred, it is time sanctions are enforced to prevent future abuse. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm no great fan of Jclemens - he's seriously wrong in his actions in this case and I strongly oppose his autocratic approach (specifically here and in general). But this is a kneejerk reaction to an issue that really hasn't caused any harm and which in no way constitutes an emergency, and does not in itself imply repeated abuse of BLP policy - editors should not be topic-banned for one violation of policy (especially if done in good faith, which I think this was - however bizarre the reasoning). There's no rush, and we should let discussion continue and let's see how he responds. Then when heads are cooler and if the thing can't be resolved amicably, someone can start something up at whatever WP:ALPHABETSOUP (Ha! I wasn't expecting that to be blue) venue is appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as this is an ultra vires attempt to effect a community desysop by calling it another name. I neither know nor care about the dispute at issue, but if we want to overturn the long-standing consensus that community desysops should not be allowed, then that discussion should take place in the appropriate forum. In the meantime, should the supporters wish, they can instead propose a topic ban from deletion discussions or BLPs (noting that there appears to be precedent for community bans from AfD/RfA). Should Jclemens violate that topic ban, he would be subject to blocks of increasing duration. Should Jclemens himself wheel war the block, his adminship can be rapidly revoked by bringing a narrowly-tailored Arbcom case. While I'm personally opposed to complex or "magic word" based enforcement processes, there's something improper about sidestepping a longstanding consensus through what is, respectfully, creative wikilawyering. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: Reverse BLP sanction in this case

• Addendum: 21 supports to 1 oppose.--v/r - TP 16:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Irrespective of the ultimate fate of the article in question or of Jclemens, his declaration that "Henry Earl is placed under deletion, redirection, or blanking prohibition, since hiding Mr. Earl's history could deprive him of charitable contributions during the holiday season." is not within the spirit of WP:BLP policy and should be officially considered reversed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support although the sanction was never official anyway. Dark Sun (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Formal setting aside of the abusive action is desirable; further action along this line by the Administrator after such a result would open the door for an ArbCom case with a clearly foreseeable outcome. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - self-evidently misguided. WJBscribe (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support reversal as an obvious incorrect application of BLPBAN. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as much as I feel the article should stay in WP space, and even that the article could indeed help Mr. Earl, the prohibition is ridiculous. --cyclopia 18:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• support I'm with Cyclopia here. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have nothing to add to what has already been said.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Nothing more needs to be said. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Jclemens' invocations of WP:BLPSE and of WP:BLP here are obviously incorrect and at odds with both the letter and the spirit of the relevant policies. Without comment on the rest of this mess, this particular action by Jclemens is so far removed from the realm of reasonable administrative discretion that reversal should be a slam-dunk. MastCell  19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens' declaration is so loopy it sounds like somebody doing a parody of a power-mad admin, and is exactly the sort of thing that (quite rightly) gets Misplaced Pages criticised and fosters mistrust of admins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Obvious. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 19:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support regardless of the merits of the original AFD. Not a reasonable reading or application of policy at all. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support in order to avoid establishing any precedent for this kind of action in future cases.JodyB _talk 19:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• LOL, so BLP now is used to protect the financial "rights" of panhandlers? Maybe Jclemens needs to explain if he wrote that in jest or not... Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. And because WP:BLP policy cannot be overriden by admin fiat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This was an absurd mis-application of WP:BLP. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This was not within the spirit of BLP policy. Paul Erik 20:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the above - JClemens' interpretation of policy is incorrect, on this point. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely ridiculous interpretation of our BLP policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I really can't see this as anything but an attempt at entrenching a supervote JClemens must have known would be viewed as controversial. Resolute 21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support There is no right to a Misplaced Pages page, and it cannot be construed as "harm" for a person or entity not to have one. That a business, or even a worthy charity, might gain income if such a page existed, and might fail to gain it if the page is blanked or delted is irrelevant. If a page exists primarily to increase anyone's income, that is a clear violation of WP:SPAM, and in and of itself grounds to delete the page. DES 21:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Snow Support I can't add anything to this part of the discussion other than that I can't see any way to the BLP sanction. And this part of the discussion is unanimous. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the spirit of BLP policy is "do no harm" and deleting Mr. Earl's nearly nine-year-old article would hurt him financially, then Jclemens's actions are indeed in the spirit of the policy, in a refreshingly counter-intuitive way. Merry Christmas! --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that might be the rationale but there is no evidence or apparent reason supporting the reality of such a personal financial loss, and according to policy the article does WP:NOT exist for that purpose, nor is it a recognized basis for inclusion, under the inclusion criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many ways to help people who are homeless and struggling with alcoholism. But creating a Misplaced Pages article detailing their arrest record isn't one of them. The fact that some people need this explained to them is incredible, and Jclemens' claim on the moral high ground here is sickening. MastCell  22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should address your concerns to the creator of the article, MastCell. It wasn't me and I doubt if it was Jclemens (I haven't looked). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to anyone who defends the existence of this article on "humanitarian" grounds. I apologize for the confusion. MastCell  00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to you, MastCell, for playing games with you, because I knew what you meant. My opinion is that the article doesn't need defending on humanitarian grounds because it already conforms to our policies. I see Jclemens's "humanitarian" defense as a novel approach wholly within the "do no harm" spirit of WP:BLP. I am willing to AGF when he says his concern is the welfare of Henry Earl and as far as I'm concerned, Jclemens does have the moral high ground here. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if someone could prove that the article benefits him financially; keeping an article for that reason, essentially saying that the financial considerations of subjects trumps our inclusion guidelines, would be a terrible precedent. We would be essentially creating a "right" to have an article. I do not want to do that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I debated with myself as to whether this warrants a reply, as the IP appears to be trolling in the spirit of Jclemens, but, for the record, I can't believe someone is taking that BLP argument seriously. Are we going to transform this site into the encyclopedia of panhandlers whose biographies cannot be deleted because it would be causing them financial harm? Really? What about not deleting any spam whatsoever, because deleting spam also causes some living person financial harm?! Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • The article meets the letter of our policies. There was no reason to put it up for deletion in the first place. Yes, some alcoholic panhandlers are notable. Get over it. Spam, on the other hand, is specifically forbidden by policy. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Wiki-wise notability is determined by WP:CONSENSUS or we wouldn't have WP:AfD & DRV, and not by pounding your fist on the table invoking the financial losses of the subject in case of deletion. But I suspect you knew that already and are here to serve us red herrings. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability should first be determined by policy, then if there's a grey area, by consensus. I'm only trying to understand Jclemens's reasoning, since he's not here to speak for himself, not to serve you red herrings. Unlike many editors, I understood what Jclemens was saying when he opined that someone who doesn't embrace all Five Pillars is not a true Wikipedian. A simple, logical statement that seemed to enrage many—to the point where many start frothing at the mouth when they see Jclemens's name. That surely is a large part of this current drama. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Who says the spirit of wp:BLP is "Do no harm"? As I understand it the spirit of the policy is first "Don't do anything that might get us sued." Do no harm is a distant second. Especially after a certain recent Arbcom ruling. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone should edit Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and add Keep. Deleting this would cause financial and attention loss to the subject (and BLP prohibits that!) Sometimes reality exceeds what people might have a priori conceived as examples of bad arguments... Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is however an interesting wikiphilosophy point in the Jclemens behaviour. Many editors here, including many who piled up on the Mr.Earl AFD, think that removing articles on "ethical" grounds is often necessary. But everybody here (including myself) seems to insist that instead keeping one on the same grounds is ridiculous. Why such a double standard? Why don't we think that both actions are ridiculous? The actions of Jclemens were WP:POINTy, but it is interesting what they revealed.--cyclopia 10:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be an extension of American legal/social principle that while a person can be forbidden from certain damaging speech, a person cannot compelled to speak in someone's favor. Similar to this, in criminal law, a person can be forbidden from causing harm, but cannot be compelled to help those in need (well emergency services can, but regular citizens cannot). I don't know to what extent these unidirectional principles extend outside of the United States. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: in criminal law, a person can be forbidden from causing harm, but cannot be compelled to help those in need This is interesting. Here in Italy the law imposes a duty to rescue when you find someone in immediate, critical need of medical help -not to do so is a crime.--cyclopia 12:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it take an experienced attorney to know what could get Misplaced Pages sued? I'm not an attorney. I think the spirit of the policy is more general, as I've said, something like "do no harm". (Neonchameleon, I don't know what ArbCom decision you refer to.) WP:BLP says ". . . the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Jclemens apparently understands this to mean more than "don't put anything libelous in a BLP". --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens blocked

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

First, do not rush to unblock Jclemens. The usual pattern in these ANI's is (1) outrage, (2) motion to sanction, (3) block, unblock, reblock, (4) ArbCom, (5) desysops all around. Could we please not do that this time?

• It has never been Misplaced Pages policy to block for abuse of admin tools. One bad action does not justify a second bad action. I urge the blocking admin to reverse. Jehochman 20:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Jehochman: we can block admins for tool abuse, or anything else for that matter. Your constant pleading for your class as a special case, beyond the reach of community sanctions, is false and self-serving. There is nothing in policy or precedence that implies misuse of admin privileges can only be dealt with by an arbcom case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, apparently his BLPSE action was not in jest and he thinks ArbCom will clear him. Good block I say. He can appeal to ArbCom if he wants, preferably without disrupting more Misplaced Pages pages in the meantime. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I suppose his resigning tools would shorten the process. That or acknowledging a mistake and moving along without further theatrics. Carrite (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Not concurring with original block but no unblocking please...everyone chill out a bit.--MONGO 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block. I echo Jehochman. This was a bad action made in response to a bad action. There was no obvious risk of Jclemens disrupting the project during this time. Resolute 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this block. I do not see it as in any way preventing harm. It looks punitive to me. I also urge the blocking admin to reverse. This block clearly does not have consensus support. DES 21:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Good block He was engaged in disruptive editing by edit-warring and threatening to use BLPSE against another admin where it clearly did not apply even as his actions were being strongly criticized by the community. Should he come back and file an unblock request acknowledging his wrongdoing or otherwise signaling such actions will not be repeated then the block can be reversed. If he is unwilling to do either then he can sit it out for the next 18 to 19 hours.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now. Enough lynch mob. Reverse purely punitive block. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked The edit warring (and really wheel warring—even if no tools were used, special permissions were used/threatened to be used). Let's not unblock until we figure out if ArbCom is the place we need to be going and/or until Jclemens promises to disengage and refrain from such behavior in the future. NW (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock As far as I can tell there was no potential for harm when the block was made, as the admin had said they have no intention to block anyone and were going off-line. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock I really don't think there's much prospect of Jclemens trying anything at the moment, and if he does there will be lots of people watching him and ready to block him. So the block isn't preventative. Neljack (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked- by his words and actions Jclemens has indicated that he intends to carry on in this manner. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• unblock needs to be able to take part in AN/I discussion. Dlohcierekim 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

He can do the same thing that I had to do. Post his response on his talk page and get someone to cross-post it here. GregJackP Boomer! 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and keep blocked. He was using the tools in an edit war / edit dispute, and has given no indication that he will stop. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked: This is a 24-hour block, people. He deserved it, probably more. It will be up before this discussion is over. Voting on whether a block should be reduced by less than a day is kinda a waste of time. pbp 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. There was no indication that Jclemens was intending to stop using tools in a questionable manner; this was a good, preventative block. — Scott • talk 01:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. I don't like the way this is being handled. Everyking (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked unless he promises to stop. Now that I've had time to review the situation, I think this was a very questionable block by Starblind, but I'm also very concerned by Jclemens' insistence that he's right and everyone else is wrong. I think that TParis, the admin who reviewed the unblock request, has got it right: If Jclemens promises to moderate his behavior and let the discussion play out, then go ahead and unblock. So far though, his reply to TParis (in my opinion) is not sufficient. If Jclemens decides to accept the conditions wholeheartedly though, I would have no objection to unblock. As for whether to de-sysop, I think those calls are a bit premature at this point. From reviewing Jclemens' contribs and admin actions, this seems to boil down to: He made a premature controversial close of a DRV, and used his admin tools to undelete an article. It appears to be a decision that is not supported by followup discussion and consensus, but he wasn't acting against consensus, he just made the wrong decision to begin with. I don't see that as a reason to de-sysop. As for the followup warnings and invocation of BLPBAN, those are a different matter, I'm still looking into that part. --Elonka 02:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You missed that he edit warred during the DRV to restore the article's contents after his premature closure of the DRV was reverted by another admin and he took note of it . That's not fair to characterize as "he wasn't acting against consensus, he just made the wrong decision to begin with", but more like: "he was told by a fellow admin (several in fact) that he is persisting in actions contrary to policy, but he just sought new ways to get his way (like threatening his colleagues with WP:BLPBAN)". Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked for the moment, but remain open to Jclemens's unblock request(s). Right now, the best assurance he's willing to give is "the idea that I would be disrupting the encyclopedia if not blocked or restricted is ridiculous". Unfortunately, the whole reason we're here is that that isn't ridiculous. If/when he agrees that he won't continue the edit warring, DRV-closing, or BLPBANning that led us here - even if it's just because he intends to file an arbcom case instead, to get the whole thing sorted out - then I would be fine with the block being lifted prior to its original endpoint. Until he can tell us that, though, the assurances he's willing to give are too little for me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now - How can we have a discussion about sanctions without the accused? This sure looks punitive to me. Jusdafax 04:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock provided he agrees not to edit Henry Earl or block anyone for doing so. He's a good admin, not a vandal; he's not going to go back on his word, and he deserves the right to speak in response. Though he's going to have a lot of convincing to do with this BLP idea. Wnt (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. What part of edit-warring against consensus, issuing completely frivolous warnings, attempting to circumvent standard editing procedures by invoking an utterly incorrect BLPBAN, etc, is acceptable behaviour for an admin? Added to which, Jclemens has shown an immense lack of clue with their "unblock request". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Punitive block; no emergency; discussing Jclemens without him being able to present his case in this venue is akin to a kangaroo court. --cyclopia 10:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

How does an article that's been around for almost 9 years suddenly become a problem? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE I suppose. Someone discovered it. Wasn't there some big bruhaha about "unwatched BLPs". Somebody decided to watch/read that one, I suppose. Didn't we have hoax articles that were around for years? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be because we're a bit rubbish at keeping on top of BLPs. There are thousands of similar articles out there, unwatched, unloved, some will be particularly egregious violations of the BLP policy, but they just sort of become accepted, a reference might be added here or an update made there, but without anybody really thinking "should WP have this article - maybe I should PROD or AfD it and see what happens". Nick (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't BLP what the "living people" category was supposed to help accomplish? I note the admin's comment, "Deleting or in any way hiding this article will deprive Mr. Earl of publicity, causing him direct harm," seems highly unusual. I have to say that while the admin's heart may be in the right place, his sense of what's appropriate on Misplaced Pages seems to have made the wrong turn at Albuquerque. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

JClemens' argument was invalid, but so was the argument made by the AfD closer. JClemens' idea would lead to keeping random articles because you decide the subject needs the publicity, say, because he is homeless. 28bytes' idea would lead to deleting random arguments because you decide that despite passing GNG their subject somehow makes them 'indiscriminate information', i.e. that you should discriminate against information you don't like. Of these two ideas, the latter is the more dangerous, because it cuts into the encyclopedia. If JClemens were to be penalized, 28bytes would deserve worse. Wnt (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a misreading of 28bytes's closing rationale. I understood it as meaning that, although GNG is arguably met, the community has editorial discretion to decide it is unsuitable for this encyclopedia regardless. Which is completely true, and not really up for dispute. 28bytes judged the consensus of the community as he saw it, which was that the article met the spirit of WP:BLP1E, and closed the discussion accordingly; it's not "28bytes's idea", it's the community's. Contrast this with Jclemens's behaviour; turn up with a supervote based on mistaking DRV for AfD, his inclusionist ideology for policy, and a keep vote for a closing statement. When everyone, rightly, objected he edit warred to maintain his preferred version and tried to decree an editing restriction based on a self-serving reading of WP:BLP so silly it hasn't even passed the laugh test here on ANI, with the intent to force the result he wants at DRV. In short, he's trying to rule by decree. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If the latter of the two is more dangerous, then WP:GNG itself needs to change because that's not 28bytes's rationale, it's what the community decided upon. 28bytes citing WP:GNG in a closing rationale is hardly "dangerous" or problematic, and interpreting 28bytes's close as "you should discriminate against information you don't like" is a misunderstanding of what was written, at best. - Aoidh (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The AfD was organised and canvassed offsite for the purpose of disruption, which lent high profile to what normally would've been an innocuous discussion. Passes WP:N, but you can make an emotional appeal that it's nicer to not have an article, combined with a totally disingenuous appeal to BLP1E (while in the larger framework of BLP, perhaps deletion could be justified) - with enough high profile sources that the actual harm reduction of not having a Misplaced Pages are is quite small, and where the encyclopaedic importance is very low - it's an excellent choice for someone looking to cause a kerfuffle. WilyD 09:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it all quite well. It's kind of a show then; let's pretend we can make Newsweek et. al. to have not written what they have written by invoking a false BLP1E argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wily's claims are pure, unadulterated bullshit. The article's existence was raised offsite; that bit is true. The idea to delete it rests entirely on my shoulders; no request, or even a hint of a request, was made by any other user. All Wikipediocracy members who joined in the debate are editors in good standing here; one of which at least is an active administrator, and another one (who !voted against deletion, as well) just stood for ArbCom. No proxy voting occurred, and there was no request for anyone to participate in the AfD debate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that the gist of Wily's rationale remains; it was made drama because of the off-site lobby. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's made a drama by people making it a drama. It matters not one iota whether this issue is raised on-wiki, off-wiki, on IRC, on Twitter, on a blog or by the Pope. The people who have commented here are all Wikipedians in (more or less) good standing who are perfectly entitled to their opinion, the more people who are involved the better. If, and it's a big if (which doesn't apply here) raising the issue off-site was to cause sockpuppets and meatpuppets to come along and side with one particular group, that's a problem, but the reality is those who found this discussion via Wikipediocracy are generally well versed in policy, are experienced enough to have made up their own minds and their contributions are of equal value and importance to those who found the deletion and discussion via XfD, DRV or ANI. Nick (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) None of that is responsive to the critique or the explanation. It is merely evidence for the wiki's lack of independence, making the wiki vulnerable to off-site campaign. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Luke beat me to it; I was about to describe those comments as bullshit as well. That administrator would be me. I'm only one of quite a number of admins that post on Wikipediocracy; including even former and current members of ArbCom. The existence of this article was a disgrace, and I would have supported its deletion no matter how I found out about the AfD, whether it was in project space, on a user talk page, a forum, Twitter, a random web page, or even word of mouth - because there are valid policy-based and ethical reasons to delete it. That will almost certainly be true of every single person that voted delete who also happens to be a poster on Wikipediocracy. — Scott • talk 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Don't slag me because you don't like the truth of the situation. Without the canvassing, this would've been a non issue. Anyone looking to delete the article for it's own sake would've slipped a prod tag on it, and five days later it would've slipped into the night. No muss, no fuss. Bugs asked an honest question, they deserved an honest answer. WilyD 14:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am no longer a member of that site, but we really have to end this notion that everything they do is analogous to the work of the fork-tongued, cloven-hoofed devil. People...some editors here, some not...raised a concern about a BLP article. Whether or not that increased the number that would've attended to the AfD by a factor of 5 or 105 is immaterial to the quality of the arguments that the editors who show up make. WP:CANVASS is meant to blunt the impact of droves of non-Wikipedieans showing up and voting with empty "KEEP OMG THIS BAND HAS 9,000 FANS!!!!!!!" It should not be abused to poison the well in this manner, suggesting that a deletion discussion is tainted for the sole reason of what particular external website is discussing it. Yes, the outing and the lynching imagery in their thread was puerile, but that doesn't detract from the arguments to delete, or the arguments to endorse here...esp by editors with no WO connection at all. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CANVASS is meant to prevent the distortion of consensus by one or more determined partisans. You can consider it a corollary of WP:BATTLEGROUND. In this case you had a thread stating "Misplaced Pages kicks a man while he's down" with an OP plainly arguing that the article was all about defaming, shaming, and otherwise harming a poor, defenseless homeless fellow. This said to an audience that was already somewhat predisposed to having extremely negative views regarding the existence of BLPs on obscure individuals. Lost in all that was the fact he has a devoted following on the Internet and in his local area, which apparently has no ill will towards him at all. Anyone who thinks that can possibly result in any objective outcome has much better expectations of humanity than humanity honestly deserves.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as a "distortion of consensus". If there are Misplaced Pages editors who happen to get news of that AfD's existence via Wikipediocracy first, then show up to provide reasoned arguments for either its deletion or retention, then that is all that matters, i,e, if their opinion is a good one. If someone posts "delete this article sucks", or if someone registers an account that day just to vote, sure, those kinda of votes will be discarded in the final tally . My point is that there's too much hemming and hawing about where people get their news from rather than the substance of their input. It's similar to the creation of articles by banned editors; if the end result is a good article that satisfies the project's notability and other criteria, then so be it. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on, you are smart enough to know how things really work. WP:NOTAVOTE mean the numbers are not supposed to matter, but it does not mean the numbers have no effect on a closing admin's decision. Sort of like WP:BATTLE, it is a statement of intent not a statement of reality. A large number of editors citing any rationale that could even conceivably be valid are going to be given greater weight in evaluating a discussion than a small number of editors disputing that rationale, no matter how thoroughly the rationale is rebutted nor how minimally it is defended. In those situations a "no consensus" decision is possible, but a closing admin favoring the small group over the large group is rare. Canvassing is about biased editors corrupting the process by playing into that reality of admins not wanting to rock the boat by going against a larger group of editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the fact that I support the deletion of this article and 28bytes' rationale, the simple truth is, things like this get posted to Wikipediocracy for the express purpose of creating drama. The sort of message that the OP wrote in the thread over there would be considered blatant canvassing on Misplaced Pages. Running off to Wikipediocracy first should not excuse this. Resolute 15:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record I've never been to Wikipediocracy, have no intent on going there - and supported deletion under wp:BLP1E. Now possibly I got caught up in a campaign from offsite, possibly not. And frankly I don't care - I believe my vote was accurate. And as for why now, that's simply a matter of wp:OSE. Someone nominated it for deletion now as opposed to some other time. And whether a prod tag would have worked is a whole different question. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct

As the proposals here have been closed and no one has filed a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case (yet), the obvious remaining WP:Dispute resolution avenue is WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. I see three major issues here: Jclemens's interpretation of WP:BLP, his use of admin tools/authority, and his refusal to accept feedback. I believe that he has history in each of these, although I do not have complete evidence organized. There may be enough to go directly to Arbcom. I have created a page for organization and coordination at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Jclemens. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what we need in this case is to waste more time repeating the same arguments over and over for no practical end... Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is Jclemens's history of abusing his admin tools, trying to rule by decree, and making bizarre self-serving policy interpretations when challenged. It's not just about this incident. Reyk _YO! 11:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that desysopping Jclemens is a very practical end. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen on that front without going to WP:RFAr. Is someone ready to do that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This needs to go to ArbCom. An incident where an admin, (especially one with checkuser and oversight) has tromped all over everyone and everything the way he has, and acting so... unusual, all for the sake of trying to use the project to get money for a barely-notable career criminal, (and all the drama that has since ensued as a result), must be heard by the wiki-supreme court. Among all the WP:DR processes available, that is where this belongs. - WOLFchild 12:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (btw - can I start writing my own BLP now? I wanna cash in before Christmas...)

Is there the the current threat of further questionable admin Action? Yes: File an immediate ArbCom request invoking the need to bypass the RfC/Admin Action step of DR. No: File a RfC/Admin Action (as per Misplaced Pages:RFC/U#Use_of_administrator_privileges) and give the Admin an opportunity to rectify the issue that is of concern. Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration

Regretfully, since this situation appears likely to recur, I am filing a request for arbitration regarding this issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Tobby72 is vandalising this article: , , .It is not political site but i added short info about current human rights issue, and this user started to vandalise the article.He is trying to prove that the Mongols are bad people but Russians and Chinese are innocent people.It is impossible to justify such serious human rights violation: 4, 5, 6, 7. Khereid (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• (NA) Vandalism should be posted over at Misplaced Pages:AIV 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• This isn't obvious vandalism so would be referred here from AIV. Khereid you need to engage User:Tobby72 in discussion, because at the moment I can't find anywhere where anyone has told them that there is a possible problem with their edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added short info about the human rights issues (9), because human rights violation is continuing in China and Russia.But this user is adding irrelevant materials on the article.The article is about only one ethnicity, not about whole world.Khereid (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded with a comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mongols#POV-pushing -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Khereid, I don't see what the point is of your giving wikilinks to articles with Roman numerals. Now, there is no vandalism here or in the other diffs you gave. On the other hand, your edits could do with a bit of explaining (like an edit summary, for starters), and the charges you make here are not proven by any evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hyper-aggressive editor, Roccodrift

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

I'm dealing with an editor, User:Roccodrift, who is edit-warring, making false statements about sources, making false accusations, refusing to discuss article content and repeatedly templating my talk page even though he is banned from it.

These are big accusations, so allow me to back them up with diffs.

I simplified the language of Ted Cruz to use the summary from the source instead of quoting Cruz. Roccodrift immediately reverted, with an edit comment claiming I'm not sticking to the source. He also templated my talk page, accusing me of vandalism. Both of these accusations are unquestionably false.

I politely explained on the talk page, quoting the part of the article that directly supports the change, then reverted exactly once. He edit-warred back, falsely claiming a BLP violation. At this point, I stopped at 1RR to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring.

(There's more -- he's edit-warring against a few people on Economic inequality andtemplating User:EllenCT. A visit to his talk page shows that he's edit-warred over this page before and said some non-factual things about BRD.)

At this point, Roccodrift has violated a number of key policies and is extremely guilty of WP:TE. I am requesting that he be blocked for a suitable period of time, taking into account that this is not his first offense. MilesMoney (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

About being banned from your talk page. You recently gave a general amnesty to all who had been banned from your talk page. Has Roccodrift received a clear note of being re-banned from your talk after that? Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have. You don't seem to have excused yourself from their talk page, though. Iselilja (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dropping a notification on a user's talk page when an ANI has been posted about them is required as per the big orange header at the top of the edit page. Roccoshdrift hasn't banished MilesMoney from their talk page so dropping a notice was the right thing to do. It would be a courtesy if MilesMoney had refrained from posting to Roccoshdrift's page but in this case it's not really relevant. Blackmane (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ANI notifications are required. But what I noticed was that at the same time (10 Dec) that MM notified Roccoshift about being banned from MM's talk page ban, he made himself two other independent edits to Roccoshift's page. 1 2. Iselilja (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but like I said, banishing someone from your page does not have to be reciprocated. It's a courtesy to not post on the banished editor's page but no policy requires it. Also, apologies to Roccodrift for misspelling his name and have corrected my previous posting. Blackmane (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Miles should probably be trouted.

• At Ted Cruz, he made a bold edit and his edit got reverted. It's all well and good that he started a discussion, but then he reverted again . That's edit-warring, any way you slice it.
• Immediately after this, Miles felt it necessary to revert my next-most recent edit. At Economic inequality, Miles re-inserted unsourced material (right along with 3 "citation needed" tags, no less), completely ignoring several edit summaries and messages on the Talk page that make the problem clear. Apart from anything else one might say about it, this is disruptive editing.
• I've recently tried to explain BRD to Miles , but I think what just happened at Ted Cruz shows that he still doesn't get it.
• We have UW templates for a reason: they help us communicate. Collaboration is impossible if there is no communication.
• I'm not going to have a fit about it, but I will just mention that this accusation of TE follows close on the heels of another accusation gratuitously made in an AfD nomination . Miles was cautioned by an uninvolved editor , but apparently he doesn't think there's a problem with this sort of thing.
• Miles' complaint about "aggressive editing" appears to be projection. Truly aggressive editing looks like this , or this , or perhaps like this , or maybe this .

It seems to me that Miles' angling for a block is an attempt at gaming the system. Roccodrift (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit that started this by MilesMoney was correct, Roccodrift should have taken the time to read the source before reverting (twice) Nonetheless MilesMoney should have waited for editors to engage in the discussion he started in the talk page before reinstating his edit, that's how WP:BRD works. The original edit has been re-instated by another editor so I say everybody drop this.

A minor comment: I've recently had a similar issue with Roccodrift regarding his use of templates. I pointed him to WP:DTR and I'll once again repeat my recommendation: instead of impersonal templates that can be taken as somewhat aggressive, a polite message in the editor's talk page will always be better received. Roccodrift should perhaps ease up on the templates a bit. Regards. Gaba 12:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A minor point WP:TTR. If you feel that the templates can be taken as aggressive then they should be done away with. If regular editors find them aggressive, what do you think new editors think of them? 155.178.6.19 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My complaint isn't about content, it's about behavior. If my initial change could be considered Bold, then his Revert should be followed up by Discussion. He did not discuss; he just communicated with comments that are factually incorrect. He violated BRD, among other things.

For my part, I did follow BRD by opening up a discussion, but there was no reason to wait for others because the stated reason for the revert ("source does not support") was demonstrably false. There was nothing further to discuss. Now, if Rocco had stated some more general basis for disagreement -- for example, if he admitted that it was sourced but thought the ambiguous direct quote was somehow an improvement -- then I would have discussed it with him before my single revert. Of course, he communicated only through vulgar gestures: reverts, false edit comments, and templates modified with false accusations. In simple terms, he lied and bullied.

Rocco:

1. Aggressively reverted without discussion.
2. Left edit comments that were false.
3. Made false accusations of vandalism.
4. Repeatedly templated a talk page that he was banned from.

I don't see how these issues have been resolved by someone else reverting Rocco's changes away. Do you? MilesMoney (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Lied" is pretty strong language. Most view it as a personal attack because it is an intentional deception. As for your talk page, why don't you just delete it? You seem to have banned just about everyone from it anyway. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to use some other term for saying something that you know is false. He knew that the source supported the edit. He knew that changing the article to match the source isn't any sort of vandalism. If he didn't know, then he's guilty of reckless disregard for the truth, which is no better than lying.

Do you also support the rest of his behavior, including the edit-warring, the templating where he's not allowed, the refusal to discuss the content? MilesMoney (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney there's no point in opening a discussion if you're not going to wait until other editors comments. Was the matter so urgent that you needed to revert again before anyone commented? No it wasn't, so you should have waited at least a little while before reverting again.

As for the rest of the issues you mention: I don't particularly agree with the way Roccodrift handled the issue (specially the vandalism template which was completely out of place, hence my request to Roccodrift to ease up on the templates) but there's no real reason for blocking here as far as I can see. I understand you are upset but you'd be wise to follow Arzel's advise and tone down your comments. As much as I could agree with you, WP usually regards comments on how another editor "lied" as a WP:PA. Both of you should continue editing as usual and if something like this happens again, well then perhaps some sanctions will be necessary. Not right now though. Regards. Gaba 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about whether it was ok for me to revert exactly once after I completely refuted the stated objection, but this doesn't in any way offer Rocco a defense.

As far as I can figure it, there are exactly three explanations for Rocco claiming the source didn't support the edit (and therefore claiming BLP violations, vandalism, etc.). They are:

1. Rocco read the source, saw that it supported the edit, but intentionally lied.
2. Rocco did not bother looking at the source, but pretended he knew what it said, which is a different lie.
3. Rocco read the source but failed to understand the direct statement, which is gross incompetence.

No matter which horn of the trilemma you grab, Rocco should not be editing Misplaced Pages. MilesMoney (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't either.--MONGO 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration Miles. Just try to ignore Roccodrift if the opportunity presents itself. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in dealing with Rocco, but he's made a point of accusing me of violating BLP and of being a vandal. That's hard to ignore. He's also edit-warred to remove cited material while falsely stating that it's not cited, which is very, very bad.

My hope is that Rocco takes a hint and dials down his aggression. I think that a suitable block would prevent further article damage during the block and perhaps even motivate him to dial down afterwards. After all, even Rocco's most ardent supporters here can't deny that his actions are beyond the pale. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, if you have such a severe problem that you have to ban people from your talk page, maybe it's time to go on a short wikibreak. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. The only editor who is banned from my talk page is Rocco, and this is motivated by the fact that he has made a habit of leaving false templates on my talk page. Sounds like my only "severe problem" is that Rocco keeps misbehaving. As such, it is not so much my problem as his; he controls his own behavior and is responsible for it. Don't you agree? MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Potentially disruptive class project?

No idea what to do or what our policy is, so I guess I'll drop this in your guys' laps before I AFK.

There seems to be a class project to add content to Misplaced Pages, possibly regardless of weight or notability, some of whose edits may be disruptive. I wonder whether they're being graded on whether their content remains up, in which case it's an invitation to unconstructively edit-war.

Class project noticed here:

I'm asking them what's up here:

Sample edit that I would classify as disruptive: (Edit: that was a weak example. Better example is one OlYeller21 was complaining about: )

I'm not sure how to follow "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." as it's not about a particular editor, but rather a group. I would take to SPI but I'm don't know whether it qualifies as meatpuppetry per se. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this should be cross-posted to Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard/Incidents? EdChem (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a notice at EN/I (in this section) which links here and to the NPOV noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have notified two of the editors involved - Stellaiyeo (talk · contribs) and Midgeholland (talk · contribs) - about this ANI discussion. GiantSnowman 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. My name is Tavi, and at the risk of having my name added to the list of "Potentially disruptive class project" participants; I am one of the people who was in that class. I just had a few questions.

1. Is Misplaced Pages to be edited by anyone?
2. Were any students in the class willfully adding trolling, incorrect, or otherwise misleading information? Can you point to those edits?
3. Was it "disruptive" solely because we are all new, and make tiny errors here and there? Or is our actual information incorrect?
4. In fact, this whole incident seems very amorphous and unclear. Can you cite multiple examples with explanations as to why the edits do more harm than good?
5. If you'll see updated pages such as H. J. Mozans, and new pages such as Woman in Science, you'll see that we are doing our best to make sure that the new information is correctly sourced and cited. Or, are you also frustrated with these edits too?

Thank you for your time, and I hope this to be expeditiously resolved. TaviWright (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I suggest is to copy the contents of the article and put it into your user sandbox. And yes, everyone can edit Misplaced Pages, but see WP:COI. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I agree that GiantSnowman should post the articles there, and I would be willing to use my sandbox for such offending articles.

As far as Conflict of Interest goes, I do not know how there could be any. The class was graded on accuracy of content, and NOT graded more favorably if the information stayed up indefinitely - only that there was a discussion, and learning about how to edit wikipedia happened.

Again, just claiming things as a "conflict of interest" or "disruptive" without giving reasons doesn't help us reach a conclusion. TaviWright (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TaviWright: The reason why I am mentioning COI is because you seem to know a lot about the sources needed for the article, and about the topic for said article. Please exercise caution when you are working on articles on topics that you are familiar with. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I can see how that could be an issue. However I think you may be misinformed - we did not have prior knowledge of the article or topics. Most of the information was gathered while, or just before, editing. At the same time I understand that it is within interest to keep articles fair and unbiased.

Okay. I see that you are editing with good faith, rather than tendentious editing. Anyway, good luck with your project. Epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of disruptive class projects every term, and the fit hits the shan from mid-November to mid-December, and then again the US spring term. For the incident at WP:ENI, what is the outcome here? Sandbox? These kinds of incidents happen by the boatloads, and eventually something will need to be done, but for now, at least they are being tracked at WP:ENI. Do we know the course? I'd like to fill out the incident report at ENI for future ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TaviWright and Midgeholland are listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Feminism/Students, whose instructor may be Wadewitz. With student editing, if you just keep following back all of their contribs, you eventually can sometimes find a course. Rarely. Most of the time we just never hear anything and the articles end up merged or deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for a section move (It was posted in the wrong place)

Can an admin move THIS discussion from the WP:AN to the WP:ANI? The reason for the request is that WP:AN states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators", while WP:ANI states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." But, since neither User:Ahnoneemoos (the affected user) nor User:Caribbean H.Q. (the posting user) are administrators, the posting at WP:AN couldn't possibly be affecting any administrator as intended by the directive and, as such, it has not followed the requirement for posting there. On the other hand, the posting made by user User:Caribbean H.Q. is asking for the intervention of administrators and experienced editors, which is what this page --WP:ANI-- is for. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was posted here due to the SilkTork/Ahnoneemoos ArbCom issue, but I don't really have any objection against moving it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Um moving that very, very long section to here will achieve nothing other than the section being closed very fast. If there is still something that remains to be addressed, may be someone could open a new brief discussion (preferably taking in to account anything learned from that thread) explaining what that is with appropriate evidence. And Caribbean~H.Q., Ahnoneemoos, you Mercy11 and the IP could refrain from discussing the issue amongst each other, at most perhaps including one response to the original request and further followups to be limited to responding to other participants. Alternatively, may be accept no action is forthcoming and let it drop. You could always negotiate with each other in an appropriate place over whatever the problem is. You seem either very very good at it (or very very bad but I'm hoping it's the former) after all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. While topic bans (or site bans) can be discussed at either desk, AFAIK it's preferred to discss them at AN. Particularly when they are the intention of the thread and primarily arise from a long history of problems rather than in response to a recent incident (even though you will usually also take in to account the history). AN does mention this: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: ....ban proposals ...". P.P.S. I've been wondering whether to mention this and have decided I should particularly since Blackmane said the same thing. Before opening anything further on AN//I, you should consider whether or not it's likely to be rejected due the absence of a WP:RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I figure that if a RFC/U is going to be open, then the civility concerns presented by Mercy are more serious and should take precedence. The idea of the thread was not to "punish" Ahnoneemoos (and as such I did not want to enter into the whole "desired outcome" debate), but rather to stop an issue that has been spreading through several of the articles within scope. If a RFC/U is opened, I have no problem in participating in it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Caribbean HQ, have you heard of the WP:Wall of text disruption tactic? Notice the comments by User:Blackmane at this place HERE. You know my position regarding User:Ahnoneemoos, and I am not after "punishment" either, but neither banning nor blocking are punishments but instead means to avoid further disruption (as well as opportunities, hopefully, for soul-searching and/or rehab). Unfortunately for him, Ahnoneemoos is playing the going-in-circles game HERE. You are better qualified than me at summarizing and submitting petitions to forums. Perhaps you could open up a petition for review WP:RFC/U, I could then contribute. Hopefully an uninvolved admin via community consensus of whatever, can then help this matter to a fair closure for all. Mercy11 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't lay the blame solely on Ahnoneemoos. It takes two to tango, and if Ahnoneemoos had been the only one causing the massive wall of text in the AN discussion (in other words, replying to nothing), people would likely have more easily seen the problem with Ahnoneemoos's contributions. It's perhaps fair to say that Ahnoneemoos contributed the most text (although they were the one who's behaviour was most at issue and for which there was a topic ban request) or perhaps the IP. And you Mercy11 contributed the least amount of text of the four primary participants. But ultimately that discussion only got the messy way it was because despite the fact it was supposed to be a request for outside intervention, existing parties to the dispute namely those four I've already named seemed held extensive back and forth with each other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you seem to be assuming that having a topic "closed very fast" is somehow not beneficial. What's not beneficial about that? Is closing "very fast" somehow inherently better or worse than having an item sitting endlessly without closure? I am sorry, friend, but your "very fast" comments above are not objective at all and, thus, quite elusive, and as such not beneficial to reaching any understanding. You don't seem to have squarely provided any resolution or alternative to my section move question above. Perhaps you could be more precise? Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing beneficial to having a discussion closed very fast because no one can be bothered reading the extensive back and forth between existing participant parties (from before the discussion was brought to AN or ANI).

The topic in AN will be archived when people stop replying. If you want, someone can close the discussion at AN without the pointless moving, but I don't get the reason why you need someone to close the discussion nor why you would have to bring such a request here rather than at WP:AN, when the discussion could be simply to left to die a natural death.

And I have provided four alternatives before you replied. Either open a new concise request probably at WP:AN; open an RFC; continue the discussion among yourselves (which is more or less what is going on in the existing discussion) in an appropriate place (perhaps one of your talk pages) and try to reach some sort of accord; or finally, just drop it.

I don't get what you mean by 'not objective at all' or 'elusive'. I feel I have been fairly clear. And I have no connection to any of the key participants I'm aware of so whether or not my comment was right or wrong, helpful or not, I don't see why I would not be objective.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the discussion seemed to be heading in a bad direction, I did close the AN discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mercy, I will not be baited into continuing a circular argument. The fact of the matter is that Ahnoneemoos is not interested in pursuing an accord. Not only that, but when one points out that he can't continue to victimize himself after a user posted to his page in a dickish manner, because he did the same before, then the drama sets in (this coming from the same user that likes to throw "fuckings" all over the place when involved in conflicts and even questioned my mental health in a thinly veiled attack). I am not going to get drawn into a maelstrom of drama, that plays to his advantage.

That being said, I have reconsidered my original position and determined that a simple topic ban may not be enough, notably because the user refuses to see that there is a problem. Hence, I am not really interested in pursuing a partial ban on a RFC/U. Of note is that of the few third parties involved in that conversation that favored him, none justified his actions in the politics/economics articles, they only defended him from a complete ban that wasn't even being discussed there. Even in a stalemate, the fact that even those that favored his position admitted that he "gets carried away" is notable. If the MO continues, then it should be considered regular disruption and then a RFC/U requesting an actual block could be argued. The ball is on his court. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And I think we accomplished several things: (1) We proved that Ahnoneemoos has issues with various editors, not just you; (2) We memorialized HERE a historical record of Ahnoneemoos's violations into a single location and useful for future action (hopefully won't be needed); (3) We put User:Ahnoneemoos on notice that his (a)WP:Disruptive editing, (b)Non-WP:Civil behavior, and (c)WP:OWN tendency have not gone unnoticed, won't be tolerated next time, and that anyone of them is reason for a RFC/U. Hopefully there won't be a next time. For the record, let me add the following quote by Ahnoneemoos to your "otherwise pointing to his "years editing Misplaced Pages" comment as well, for it now appears that it is not only about his tendency to own articles but his tendency to claim ownership of editors as well:

"If you have an issue with someone from WP:PUR feel free to channel your inquiries through me."

With Ahnoneemoos's recent Declined history of his ArbCom request in the periscope as well, if User:Ahnoneemoos is smart I think he now knows he needs to play his next moves in a fashion more aggreable to the community. BTW, the 2 editors that came to his defense were never any bit of a concern to me. Experienced closing admins would have been able to read thru them in no time. Their comments were WP:OTHERSTUFF and pointing to unrelated ocassions when Ahnoneemoos did the right thing does not absolve him from cases when the did the wrong: doing the right ALWAYS is what you are expected to do to contribute here. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat and repeated blanking at Raúl Cuero

Greetings -

I frequently patrol WP:SPER, and one of the recent edit requests is a bit over my head. Raúl Cuero was semi-protected earlier today following repeated content removal and blanking by IPs. A few hours later, User:200.114.28.224 posted this edit request to the article talk page. Since it involves a legal threat and potential BLP issues I wanted to bring it to the attention of someone a bit more experienced than myself.

Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's a legal threat simply because I can't exactly tell what the IP is trying to say; it's clear that s/he does not speak English as a first language. Erpert 01:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat: "the person who write this article can be exposed to criminal complaint by lie" is a threat to prosecute the article writer, not just to sue like most legal threats here. Dark Sun (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It'd be nice of someone that spoke Spanish checked out those sources. Anyone? John Reaves 15:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can read Spanish well enough to understand articles such as this one cited in Raúl Cuero. The Misplaced Pages article accurately reflects what the cited article said, which is not necessarily to say that the cited article was accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis back again

I'm sorry folks, but he's back again. You know who: Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Background: in April 2012, Dolovis was blocked for six months after some serious and repeated gaming of the system, and general failure to abide by consensus, specifically when diacritics were involved. He volontarily (?) prolonged his absense until this spring. I noticed that, as his name started showing on pages I have on my watchlist, but I didn't follow his edits around as I assumed he had learned his lesson. There were also no new controversies (at least none that I noticed).

Now, however, after I have moved a handful (recently), or several (over time), articles on various Russian sportspeople to follow WP:RUS, at least one of them apparently created by him, he is going back in my move log, and is reverting them all, as it appears – I'm getting plenty of notifications (the count is now double-digit).

That's all good and well per WP:BRD, but obviously, I did ask him (politely) on his talkpage why he did that. His response was this: "Hi HandsomeFella. Please stop moving biographical articles to names not supported by English-language sources as you did at Dmitri Akimov, Andrei Akimov (footballer), Sergei Akimov (ice hockey), and others. Misplaced Pages is not for testing or experimenting with your skills as a translator from Russian to English. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Naming conventions (Russia), please follow the general WP rule WP:UE policy when naming articles. That is, when possible, we use the conventional English name (as used in verifiable sources) instead of the WP:Romanization of Russian rules."

That's the worst assumption of bad faith I've seen in a long time. I have around 29000 edits under my belt. I'm not "testing or experimenting with skills as a translator", and I can read the Russian alphabet. I'm no newbie, and Dolovis knows that very well. (Besides, names are not "translated", they're transliterated.)

As if that weren't enough, he then went on to place the same inflammatory text as a "warning" on my talkpage, adding as clarification to his previous response: "I will also place the above message on your talk page as notice to others that you have been warned about your page moves. Cheers."

Those with a good memory recall that Dolovis has had frequent run-ins with several editors here, and (disclaimer) I was one of them. Without being too paranoid, it's hard to avoid the thought that this might be an attempt to get even, when given the opportunity. It would appear that he is trying to frustrate and/or infuriate me with his formal, but inflammatory, choice of words – but I'm not taking the bait. Be that as it may, this is highly uncollegial behavior, it assumes bad faith, and I think he at least deserves a slap on the wrist for it.

The issue at hand – the notion of WP:RUS generally being in conflict with other guidelines (mentioned above) – I intend to start a discussion on with an RM. (It's not pointy, "D" comes after "BR" in WP:BRD.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Dolovis: I replied to HandsomeFella's concerns on my talk page here, but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue, he has brought it to this ANI. HandsomeFella accuses me of not acting in good faith, but it appears that the exact opposite is true. I only became aware of HandsomeFella improperly moving articles to new names apparently based on nothing more than original research (i.e. no verifiable sources) because one of his article moves showed up on my watch list. It was only then that I realized that he had recently improperly moved several biographical articles, including Sergei Akimov, Andrei Akimenko, Sergei Akimov (footballer), Andrei Akimov (footballer), Dmitri Akimov, and Sergei Akimov (ice hockey). It is proper procedure to warn someone, even an experienced editor, if they appear to be running afoul of Misplaced Pages policies, which is the case with the above listed moves. Dolovis (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not proper to "warn" somebody as a first step, if one is really assuming good faith, and not just pretending. The proper thing is to take contact and start a discussion on the other editor's talkpage – which happens to be exactly what I did. If the editor then fails to listen, then it's proper to issue a warning. First making a lot of reverts, then, after being contacted politely by the reverted editor, issuing a "warning" - and placing it on my talkpage! – is anything but assuming good faith. There was absolutely no ground for assuming that I would continue moving pages after realizing that they were contested. Still you assumed exactly that – i.e. you were assuming bad faith. The sequence of events exposes you.

Your claim "but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue" falls flat on its face, considering I was the one contacting you – politely. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As further explained at WP:UW, talk page warnings also serve to notify other editors that you have already been notified about the disruptive editing. Given that you had recently moved several articles contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, I thought it proper to place a warning on your talk page so other concerned editors could see that this issue had already been addressed. Dolovis (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You're only providing more evidence that you're acting in bad faith, the latest example being the accusation of "disruptive editing" above. There was nothing disruptive in my page moves, that were all done in good faith (if that concept is familiar), following a guideline that I may (or may not) have misunderstood.

It's not that I don't understand what user warnings are about, as you pretend to believe. You're assuming bad faith and using inflammatory wording, obvious for anyone to see. I suggest you retract it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue Has it ever been considered that Dolovis may be is under a topic ban? "'For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed.'" This may not be a violation of the ban, but the user is already on a very short leash. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue of this ANI does not concern diacritics, and even HandsomeFella admits that contesting his article moves is “all good and well per WP:BRD”. The issue brought here by HandsomeFella is that he is upset that I placed a warning on his talk page about his improper article moves. If he didn't like the warning, he should have removed it from his talk page and moved along. Instead HandsomeFella has chosen to create a lot of drama and is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that I didn't like the warning. It is also true that I didn't like the bad faith assumption that was its very foundation, and was even more emphasized by the totally baseless accusation of "disruptive editing" above. When one approaches an editor in good faith, as I did, such a response is totally unacceptable, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged. That is what I reported you for. Had you just responded in kind – with an emphasis on kind – you wouldn't be in trouble again. You need to learn quicker from your experiences. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a matter for ANI, but I randomly clicked on one of the articles listed (Sergei Akimov (footballer)) and there aren't even any sources in it. So Dolovis's rationale isn't sufficient for undoing ALL of the moves. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

self admitted sock

• Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs)

From their first comment they admit that they have communicated with the user before. Blatant sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:, AIV then, rather than here? Just looking at the guy's edit pattern I could tell he was a sock without even reading the edits pbp 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously an alternate account, but unless you can point to an actual violation of WP:SOCK (which posting talk page comments normally is not, unless it is to appear as multiple voices in a discussion) or unless there is good reason to think this is al already blocked or banned editor, I see no reason for a block. DES 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorally, there is very strong evidence that the account is being used by Arnhem 96 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I've just blocked him indef for that reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And why was Arnhem 96 blocked? And their talk page access withdrawn? No-one has pointed to an editor (blocked or not) of whom they are a sock. Their only crime seems to have been embarrassing Werieth, in the SPI of Betacommand where Werieth had just admitted to 9,000 edits under another identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley the edits where not under a different identity, Please review Misplaced Pages:Unified login Werieth (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And its not like I was hiding them, commons:Special:Contributions/Werieth and see the link on my user page. Werieth (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just like Betacommand, you still haven't learned the grammatical use of "where" vs. "were" (although per both of your usual practice, you'll now edit your grammatical error to hide it). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, Andy. This is a previously checkuser identified blocked editor (). Regardless of the result of the other SPI, this is a block-on-sight issue. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a CU been run on Formal Appointee Number 6? Or on Arnhem 96? Because if they haven't, then that's a pretty serious accusation for you, a heavily involved admin, to be making on zero evidence. We have much better behavioural evidence than Werieth is another of Betacommand's accounts than we do to link Arnhem 96 to another randomly picked account. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

...apart from the fact that this account admits it ... I give up on this one and won't comment further. You're obviously not a stupid person, but if you want to continue to ridiculously defend an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user seemingly on the basis that they agree with you, well knock yourself out. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Well its nice to meet you too! i always enjoy meeting socks impersonating other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that this Formal Appointee person has been blocked, but would any admin consider revoking his/her talk page access too? S/he is using it to trade insults (and judging from the list of names at the top of his/her talk page, I doubt his/her behavior will cease. Erpert 09:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll find a way through their local library or whatnot. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue Won't we need a checkuser to verify that? It may just be some teenager that created an account and tried to act stupid. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Safer Wholesale

The templates at the top of Safer Wholesale are the subject of an edit war between myself and TheDailyFlows. Both of us are on the edge of WP:3RR and I have no wish to see either of us sanctioned for our edits. I am requesting a neutral administrator to "take charge" of the AFD and cleanup templates for the duration of the AFD. Once an administrator or even a neutral non-admin indicates what the templates should be, I will not edit the templates except to restore them to that state for the duration of the AFD. I would politely ask that TheDailyFlows agree to do the same. Because this is at AFD and because the AFD template is one of the templates involved, I am posting here rather than in a non-admin dispute-resolution area. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I started to take a look but it looks like User:TheDailyFlows has already been blocked for edit warring (8 or 9RR is a bit much), so I think this can be marked resolved. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This may be a moot point, the other editor managed to trip 3RR, so we'll have to wait 24 hours to see if this request is still necessary. If the issue re-appears I will re-file as a fresh request. In any case, if at least one administrator can watchlist the page and the corresponding AFD that might help avoid a return trip here. I am truly sorry that this new editor managed to get off on the wrong foot here, he's had a frustrating last day or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The rule is clear, AfD templates should not be removed while the AfD discussion is open, doing so is a form of disruption even if 3RR is not breached, and can lead to blocks all by itself. Article issue tags such as {{tl|notability} and {{refimprove}} should be removed only if the editor also edits to fix the issue, or if the editor thinks the tag does not properly apply, then before or just after removing the editor should start or participate in a discussion on the article talk page, and should not persist in removing if the removal is reverted, pending a consensus on the talk page. multiple removals without discussion can be considered to be disruption also. As to whether the tags belong, that should be discussed on the article talk page if anyone disagrees with them. DES 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the tags are moot until the AFD concludes anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: In my dream world (which doesn't exist) every article that is at AFD for notability would be about a topic that actually is notable, and during that week the article would be improved with quality references that clearly demonstrate that the topic is notable and at that time - even before the AFD concludes - all editors would sing Kumbaya and agree that the notability and reference-related tags should be deleted. As I said, that's my dream world it does occasionally happen (minus the musical interlude). In this case, the cleanup templates will probably become moot as soon as the AFD concludes, as it looks like the article will be deleted in about a week barring someone adding references that others have been unable to find. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright claim on Pyramid (card game)

Can someone familiar with how copyright law deals with describing card game rules deal with and Gkrsoft's edits. Thanks. --NeilN 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user on their talk page that they can simply remove any copyrighted information. After all, nothing on this page is sourced... For this reason adding copyright notices "copyright (c) Ckrsoft" etc is not appropriate as such material should not exist in the article to begin with. It is unclear which content on the page the user is referring to. — MusikAnimal 22:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the editor is objecting to the detailed description of the game rules rather than a straight copy of text. --NeilN 22:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that would not warrant removal in itself... I'd say WP:ORTS would have been the right course of action, as Pharoah suggested. At any rate as you've probably noticed he's since been blocked... I had reported him to WP:UAA already as it was clear his intentions were only on behalf of the organization. However to his benefit I'd argue the article should probably be nominated for deletion per WP:GNG. — MusikAnimal 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I replied on the help desk, no one can claim a copyright on the general concept of how a game is played, at least not under US law. The version of the rules linked to from the help desk did not look to me as if it were close enough to the version in the article to warrant any removals or deletion on copyright grounds. All that said, I feat thsi probably foes not have enough general notability to survive an AfD, if anyone cared to nominate it. It was PRODed as non-notable in 2010, and restored as a disputed prod earlier this year, it seems. DES 22:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Pipes_of_Pan_song_by_Elgar_1900_cover.jpg

Could someone please check if a larger version of this file exists in the history? It was mistakenly tagged as non-free, and, as such, may have been scaled down. Adam Cuerden 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Adam Cuerden 22:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6, part II

Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user was blocked a few days ago for 24 hours for disruptive editing. And guess what? She's back at it, and has created many very short pages, and it is apparent from both these pages themselves and the fact that she has repeatedly blanked sections of her talk page that she still doesn't understand how to create redirects, and our efforts to teach her have been unsuccessful.

1. She was requested to respond in a previous ANI thread. She did not.
2. She was asked to create redirects correctly in the future. She did not.

I would like it if something be done about this user once and for all, though I don't know what should be done, which is why I am coming here. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reblocked for a week and asked her again to listen to us and create articles and redirects in accord with policy. If she cooperates and indicates she will stop the problem behavior any admin may unblock without notifying or asking me first, based on your own judgement etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6

Could an Admin please look at the editing behaviour of User:Gabriella~four.3-6 please. They are creating many unhelpful articles and modifying existing, plain disruptive. I believe they have been blocked before for similar. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the post above. Problem sorted :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. She also marks all her edits as minor. We really should get rid of that function. I don't see any purpose to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing at Talk:Morgellons

User Sierraparis was advised in this ANI case from July not to continue to cause problems. They have continued to chime in every so often about how the article needs to be rewritten (without actually proposing specific changes themselves) to give more credence to fringe views and include sources already determined to be unreliable. They literally do nothing else here on Misplaced Pages besides advocate for fringe views to be included in the article. They've already stated they are not here to contribute. Sierraparis isn't here to build an encyclopedia, is clearly a SPA, and needs to stop disrupting the editors. Proposing that they at least be indefinitely topic banned from medical articles and their talk pages. However, since not being allowed to edit doesn't appear to be a concern for them, I'd suggest going straight to an indefinite block. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles. User was given WP:ROPE and then used it. Indeed, after being reminded a few weeks ago (S)he has continued to re hash the same old stuff that almost got him/her topic banned back in July. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support and thank the anonymous user 69.23.116.182 for their continued crusade against disruption on Misplaced Pages. Maybe this should be moved to somewhere more conspicuous. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not much else. OhNoitsJamie 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles.. WP:Nothere and generally disruptive and a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, due to ongoing WP:IDHT problem. Most recently at Talk:Morgellons#Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection, makes repeated unsubstantiated assertions and misstatements about new journals using post-publication peer review, and doesn't appear to be reading or understanding the papers he suggests we use as sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support WP:MEDICINE-scope topic ban per above, unfortunately. Sierraparis was given WP:ROPE and warning in July but avoided a sanction as there wasn't enough evidence; now there's enough evidence. Although they have slowed down their pace of editing, the edits they have made exhibit a time-wasting unwillingness or inability to embrace sourcing policy in this area. Zad68 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support; as ever, Zad68 puts it more eloquently than I could. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block warranted?

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

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

Per WP:INVOLVED, I'd rather let the community decide if this is a case of WP:ROPE. . It is also worth noting the gems in his . OhNoitsJamie 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jamie - can you be more specific about whats going on so I don't have to guess? You cite involved but are you involved as an editor or involved as the blocking admin? What led up to the block? Do you believe the response is what warrants an indef? What's going on?--v/r - TP 01:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the user's talk page would be self-explanatory. My involvement began when Retoru repeatedly reposted the dumb verbose rap song synopses and was given a final warning to stop. They did so again recently and I blocked for a month (previous block, for creating an attack page, was originally indef but reduced to a week because Retoru had made a small number of somewhat constructive edits. I also posted some additional info intended for a block-reviewing admin. Retoru's response to the block and additional info is what I'm suggesting merits an indef, but wanted to get additional consensus before extending the block to indef. (I try to err on the side of caution regarding WP:INVOLVED. OhNoitsJamie 01:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to see if there is any other reason you think you're involved. My opinion: At the very least, he needs to be topic banned from religion topics if he cant control his opinion. As far as an indef, not sure we've risen to that level yet. Just ignore his little rant about you, none of us are going to read it and suddenly say "Oh Lord, everything I knew about Jamie is a lie based on this newb's clear and well thought out perspective."  :)--v/r - TP 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The crux of my reason for suggesting an indef (other than the tantrum) was WP:NOTHERE, given that most of the edits were attempts to be subversive (i.e., listing someone's occupation was a "pedophile," while arguing "but it's true! They are a pedophile) and other similar gaming behavior. Either way, I'm fine with whatever folks suggest here. OhNoitsJamie 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reblocks are cheap. He's one day into a month block, and the only new behavior is incivility (which isn't really new anyway). Judging from the tone of his post-block comments, this user isn't likely to return anyway. An indef would only give him something to brag about off-wiki. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Google News Archive

I want to write a article. But Google news is shut down. What do I do? Tommieddd (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have secondary and tertiary sources enough to create an article? Is the subject notable? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is Kirk Everist. There may be sources but where are the archive? Tommieddd (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tommie. That's a good question, but this particular board isn't set up to answer it. The editors at the wikipedia teahouse will be happy to give you a hand, though. Good luck! Garamond Lethet
c 04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Google News is running for me, as is the newspaper archive. Doc talk 04:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tommieddd:

See this discussion on the miscellaneous village pump. Graham87 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Englishfootballfan block evading

Hello, Englishfootballfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman - blocked yesterday by SPI has begun to edit again, could an Admin please block too? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved @Callanecc: Thank you JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Noting that I've also filed an SPI with a request for a CU to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User Iryna Harpy — report of WP:NPA and WP:TALKNO

Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear admins, please check if bellow posts of said editor violate «no personal attacks» and if talk page of articles used as forum for discussing other editors and POV, but not discussing the ways to improve the wiki-articles, as it should be according WP:TPG: 06:04, 3 September 2013, 00:36, 3 December 2013, 04:41, 10 December 2013, 09:55, 10 December 2013, 04:04, 14 December 2013. As you may see, such behavior is lasting for quite long time. If it really breaks WP:CIVIL rule, please do something with it. HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Iryna Harpy's comments have seemingly become more and more heated. While this doesn't really make any sense (and the idea that Misplaced Pages has "developed a zero-tolerance attitude towards politically sensitive areas such as Central and Eastern European issues" isn't even close to accurate), this is pretty out-of-line. I would suggest Harpy learn a lesson in civility. Erpert 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be grateful if the investigating administrators read the entire Holodomor talk page in order to establish the context in which any comments and missives were made, paying particular attention to this section; an RfC called by HOBOPOCCC as soon as his 24 hour block had been lifted; his assertion of 'proof' by recycling the rejected RS's once it had become evident that his RfC had been unambiguously rejected; simultaneous appeal to EdJohnston over content dispute where Ed's position on HOBOPOCC's approach are self-evident.

The very contributor who has accused me of "personal attacks" has violated a multitude of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I would be happy to provide a comprehensive list of these violations if I am required to do so. I have also added proposals to the Holodomor talk page that the RfC and that HOBOPOCC's continuous additions of spurious 'proof' be closed off: the majority of the salient points as to the plethora of objections to both his content proposals and incriminating POV push are outlined there.

To be frank, HOBOPOCC has demanded an inordinate amount of time from myself and other editors who do not have single purpose accounts and have, as a consequence, are drowning in a backlog on articles in serious need of fact checking, copyediting and demanding serious work on talk page consensus over the content itself. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the article talk page for Holodomor include the {{sanctions}} tag? My reading of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions is that it was superseded by discretionary sanctions through motion. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:HOBOPOCC has previously been blocked for edit warring on Holodomor. After that happened he was warned about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Here he insists that a Ukrainian political figure should be re-identified and that 'First of all he was Russian.' His editing seems to be influenced by nationalist feelings. At Talk:Holodomor he insists that the deadly Ukrainian famine of the 1930s was just the local occurrence of a general Soviet famine, seeming to be unaware that there's a large nationalist brouhaha on that very question. His POV is so strong that it seems he can't read the sources correctly; any discussions that involve him seem to run on to thousands of words. His inability to work within policy at Talk:Holodomor suggests he is heading toward a ban from that page under the sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, I apologize if I had you completely wrong, Harpy, but...that still doesn't excuse some of your comments. (Maybe you should have come here first.) Erpert 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend everybody who is discussing this case not to mix up charges (btw - absolutely ungrounded) on me and definite violations of definite rules of wikipedia of editor Iryna Harpy. Referring to my POV as reason to ban me from some topics - is nonsense! Editors shouldn't be banned just because he/she has some POV. Everybody of us has POV. Editor should break some rules of wikipedia, to be banned. And this is not the case about me — as for edit warring I was involved I was blocked already and I haven't committed any other violation of rules of wikipedia. Also I would like to remind everybody that content of the articles should be discussed on their talk pages, but not here. If everybody would like to discuss Holodomor issues - you are very welcome to appropriate place, your productive input, based on RS, would be highly appreciated.HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here should read the Holodomor talk page and its archives to see the extent of the problem with HOBO ... he appears to hold a visible strong POV extending to even translating Russian sources :(. Irina is not at fault in this. Collect (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another Incidient - I am an uninvolved party in the Holodomor article, but I have seen a similar level of personal attacks by Iryna Harpy against other editors (Poeticbent and myself) on other articles such as Białowieża Forest, where a simple request to follow the NPOV UNESCO naming conventions for the infobox name and an NPOV attempt to improve an article based on prior cross-border conventions garners a personal attack like this. It's not even a "heat-of-the-moment" edit, but a willful re-edit of her prior-posted comment. I firmly believe that over-the-top comments from Iryna Harpy such as ... I had been under the impression that you are an intelligent and FAIR man. Trying to disguise intentional manipulation of Misplaced Pages policy as a rational method of resolving 'disputed'/'controversial' subject matter because 'you' are unable to be neutral is an embarrassment to your status in the Misplaced Pages community.... Comments such as that are beyond the pale. Poeticbent is an upstanding and fair editor and does not deserve such abuse. I bring this up, fully expecting the wrath of Iryna's comments, but so be it. I warned her I would bring her reprehensible behavior up to ANI. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) EDITED Ajh1492 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's cold. Maybe neither one of them should be editing the article (btw, I am also uninvolved). Erpert 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Before more of these "attacks" on my behalf are levelled at me, could I suggest that the entire talk page dialogue regarding Bialowieza forest be examined, please. In the first instance, I did apologise to Poeticbent and, to my understanding, neither he nor I have anything less than a good rapport both before and after this heated debate. Again, I would ask that the talk page be the reference point, rather than selected instances of behaviour being used to discredit me. The entire article has been split into a Belarusian and Polish 'version' of a single instance world heritage area. Splits may be warranted in some instances, but this was undoubtedly a POV fork issue. Perhaps I should have made a formal complaint against Ajh1492's POV content dislike of the use of Cyrillic on the page (stating, "I have been saying since the beginning that the alt names field in the infobox should be only stated as the name is inscribed in the UNESCO WHS list (Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Białowieża Forest), nothing more, nothing less no cyrillic. I don't personally care if Belovezhskaya Pushcha is transliterated belarussian or russian.") Ultimately, there was nothing that would suggest that there was anything even resembling an attempt to reach consensus. The article was split into Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park, leaving only just enough to prevent it from being qualifying as a stub, the majority of the work on the article over the years having been wrested and turned into the predominant Misplaced Pages article as Polish Białowieża Forest. If you were to read through the talk page, I have no doubt that you would also find Ajh1492's finger-pointing at me as being seriously ingenuous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Erpert, as you are not an administrator, rather than make comments like, "Wow, that's cold.", could I suggest that you actually examine the relevant talk pages, the talk pages of those who are making accusations, etc. in order to get a broader picture of the dynamics at work before making judgements? None of the issues being raised occurred in a vacuum, and judging any alleged violations by me in such a serious venue requires more that looking at a single quote. It is befitting to examine the calibre and agendas of those levelling accusations. Looking at their user talk pages, contributions, et al may also assist in informing you as to their motivation and any agenda/s they may have. I'm not saying this in order to be rude to you as I take your criticisms of my behaviour as being in good faith. I do, however, think that it is essential that it be understood that there are contributors who hide behind policies and guidelines as a method of gaming the system. Thank you for your patience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI: you don't have to be an admin to make comments on this board. Erpert 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of that and was not suggesting that you don't have a right to voice your opinion as a neutral party: I did note that I accept your appraisals as being in good faith and that I was certainly not deriding your input. I was merely suggesting that you check into a little of the backgrounds of those who are tabling complaints and those who are being accused of unacceptable behaviour. I am unable to defend myself without context being understood to be of primary concern. I edit in areas (including Middle Eastern politics), Eastern European history (hence politics), ex-Soviet satellite nation-states and other volatile areas of Misplaced Pages which are extremely demanding. Making best attempts at working on consensus building and intervening in order to create balanced articles tends to make me a prime candidate for a plethora of accusations being levelled at me. My objective is to keep Misplaced Pages a credible, encyclopaedic source. If that makes me unpopular and the target of disgruntled, biased contributors, so be it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User Alexandharrison

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

User Alexandharrison has been editing Misplaced Pages since 25 October 2013, and has created a variety of new pages that have been deleted. I went over his/her last fifty edits outside Alexandharrison's user page and found most of them reverted/undone. None of them were productive and I reverted/undid the remainder and posted a warning on Alexandharrison's talk page. He has under 200 edits that have not been deleted If you have time, please go through each of Alexandharrison's edits from October 25th to the 21:12, 25 November 2013 edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Governors added to incumbents at Year X in US history

I'm more interested in eyes than in direct action, though I could argue that administrative intervention is an option--at least mass rollback is. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Yesterday Fundingmoney (talk · contribs), a relatively new editor, started adding long lists of US governors to the "Year X in US history" articles (not yet the names of those governors)--this one is representative. I asked them about it, reverted one, I asked them to stop, and then I posted on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States, where predictably there has been no response yet. At any rate, my argument is that since governors are hardly as important as other listed entities (Congress, prez) this is a waste of server space (to the tune of 1000 bytes per article).

Well, since then they started filling in the blanks. So here's the thing. They haven't responded to my questions, and without such an answer, and without any discussion at the US Project, I am in something of a bind. Their continuing those edits is, in my opinion, disruptive, and I think these lists are worse than useless, but I can't really start hitting mass rollback all by my lonesome. So this thread is, I suppose, an attempt at a. getting more editors to look at this; b. getting Fundingmoney to start talking; and c. figuring out what needs to be done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My take is that since we're talking about Governors, which are state elected officials, that the material doesn't belong. It would make more sense if they were adding the names of all the U.S. Representatives and Senators but even that seems unnecessary.--MONGO 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I rolled back the 1865 example and agree that these particular governor lists are unhelpful and inappropriate. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Following from your example, I have reverted all their edits up to the 1875 example up to the beginning of the 20th century examples Drmies reverted all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

i have changed the title of this section to a more appropriate one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Are the swarms of "Year X in ..." articles intended to serve readers in some way, or are they just a place for editors to spend their time making thousands of edits? bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BieberLover23

Six months ago, the user received a warning about their edits, to which they responded with: "Hey, Darkwarriorblake, suck my dick." (as shown here). The edit was reverted on 13 December, but BieberLover23 reinstated it several hours later (see here). User has also been instigating an edit war on Fast & Furious 7, as seen in edits 1, 2, and 3. - Areaseven (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours. There's adequate warning here and really nothing to discuss as far as whether the edits were in conflict with policy or not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Technoquat sock

Block please? --NeilN 17:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page

Harizotoh9 reverted hours of work on the Jung myung seok page including edits by multiple contributors and lumped everything into one category. I will not participate in edit warring but would like an admin to offer a warning and a block to this behavior as it violates wiki policy. Furthermore on Richwales talk page the user acknowledges their lack of familiarity with wiki procedures. I posted on the users page that they should ask for help and not perform edit warring. I just noticed that this is not the first time for this user to participate in this behavior and has been warned by Rutebega in Feb 2013. I suppose a more significant block may be in order. Pease help. MrTownCar (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) MrTownCar, judging from this, it seems like you're forum shopping because you're upset that the article doesn't look the way you want it to (no one owns articles on Misplaced Pages). Regardless of whether Harizotoh9 had been warned, you neglected to mention that you have been warned yourself about that article; and it definitely doesn't help that you insulted him afterwards. (You might want to read WP:POT.) Erpert 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the brilliant observation erpert. The difference is I learned to work within the rules of the system even if I don't like the system or what is posted in the article but I have made the effort. For some one to make a broad sweeping edit reversion reverting multiple contributors with opposing persectives and then claim ignorance about the process is quite ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. cheers.MrTownCar (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You've learned to work with the rules of the system? I don't know; this section makes me think differently. And after reading all the bickering on the article's talk page, it appears that the information that Hari removed was all based on unreliable sources. Basically, if you were tendentiously editing and another user reverted your edits in good faith, you can't then come to a noticeboard and expect people to want to overturn the reversion, much less block that user. Erpert 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of all the rest, this is a BLP with some fairly serious stuff. In such a case, it's not unresonable to removal material which seems to be questionably sourced while discussion takes place. In any event you're apparently referring to a single edit (plus a merger request). Harizotoh9 hasn't edited the article since October before that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion outside of policy by involved admin

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

I would like to bring your attention to admin BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The admin speedily deleted Marina Rodina with the reason "redirect to disambiguation page with no apparent solution" despite the redirect being an established alias of the subject as discussed previously here and here.

• User:BD2412 is not only the creator the article it redirects to, but also it's top editor. I challenged the deletion on this admins talk page, and their reason was Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#R3._Implausible_typos, despite the redirect being created in 2010, not "Recently created". And "WP:BLP".

Why has this admin just ignored previous discussions and speedily deleted the page? For the above reasons, I believe the page was speedily deleted outside of policy, and the admin has violated bullets points 1 and 2 of WP:TOOLMISUSE, and even after being challenged, has refused to accept responsibility and amend their mistake.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to clarify one point, before this redirect was deleted, it was pointing to Marina Orlova, a disambiguation page that was not created by me, but by User:Den1980-. There is no reason for the title Marina Rodina to point to the disambiguation page, Marina Orlova. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So then why didn't you just fix the redirect instead of deleting it? And you did create the page it was originally redirecting to for 3 years. See end history of Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Sinistrial (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • At the time that I noticed the redirect, the page had been moved; nothing on either Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) or on Marina Orlova (actress) indicated that either page should be the target of such a redirect. I am certainly not obligated to retarget a bad redirect to an article for which it is still a bad redirect. bd2412 T 22:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • BD2412 if you thought there was a valid plac for the redirect to point to, you should have directed it there. If not you should have listed it on RFD. A redirect present for years is not "recently created" and so this was not a valid speedy deletion. Who created the redir or any of the pages it might have pointed to at any time is not relevant. Speedy deletions are for narrow, bright-line situations that have clear consensus in advance. Outside of these criteria, or even inside them when an admin knows the action will be contentious, XfD should be used instead. DES 00:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
        • As it happens, I did not think that there was a valid place for the redirect to point to; there is none within the context of Misplaced Pages's policies. Since there is no reliable source for a notable person named "Marina Rodina", a redirect to a disambiguation page not including that name fails WP:DABMENTION, and is basically a WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, retargeting it to an existing BLP article for which no reliable source supports having this as an alternative name for the subject is a very clear WP:BLP violation. bd2412 T 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree. Erpert 01:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, more conspiracy-mongering, personal attacks etc at Ruggero Santilli and Hubble's law

Apparently, there is a conspiracy amongst Wikipedians (Jewish naturally) to denigrate the scientific theories of Ruggero Santilli: or at least, there is according to the contributions of User:Aabrucadubraa and User:ClenserBlastAaa . Obvious socks of the blocked User:ScientificEthics and his sockfarm. See here for the last ANI thread. I've filed a SPI, but I think further intervention may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them. If the SPI turns up anything, we'll go ahead and tag them appropriately. John Reaves 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've just created Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aabrucadubraa. What timing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah - I'd added them to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Zkurko. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And before any of the above, there was another SPI, now closed and at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScientificEthics/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues concerning User:Tom Fearer

This incident involves Vandalism, possible sockpuppetry and threats of violence. I'm not sure where to put this specifically, so I came here.

Within the past few hours, User:Tom Fearer began blatantly editing other editors' talk page comments on Talk:Retail loss prevention. I then noticed that Tom Fearer's userpage redirects to User:Camaro82, his apparent new username. Tom insistently undid my rollbacks, claiming he wanted his name removed from the page - no exceptions.

This continued on and after my WP:3RR was up, he posted on my talk page, claiming he's been receiving threats of violence from other users. However, I cannot find anything of the sort from either accounts' talk page history or on the current version of Talk:Retail loss prevention. He then went so far as to completely blank the article's talk page. He does not care if his account gets blocked/deleted, only wishing to have his name completely expunged from Misplaced Pages.

Again, I'm not sure where to put this and I personally have no idea where to go from here. I do not know whether or not this is an SPI/vandalism case with some threats of violence smoke-and-mirrors being made. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who last sent me a threatening message is an unknown individual with the IP of 209.222.50.200. Go to my User Page and click on the October 2nd 2013 revision. In addition to this message I have received several threats in the past from fired co-workers since my account originally cited my email. I have had not had an incident that was sourced from this website since 2008/2009 when I was last and active user. I attempted to delete my name off the (retail Loss Prevention) talk page due to it showing up on Yahoo and Google searches with my name. I have also submitted a request for a name change to Camaro82 which I believe might resolve the issue for me and with the users on this site. I just want my name removed somehow, I set my Misplaced Pages account up when I was my early 20s and had I had the foresight back then would have not used my name. Forgive me for the signature jargon, I don't even recall how to do that properly on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a link to the edit I spoke of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Camaro82&oldid=575373310

I don't even know what this is referencing at all. But what gets me concerned is the KILL part, to me that is a clear cut threat as any. I have received emails from former employees who have been terminated by me and have had a similar vein of tone in the message. I take these threats completely seriously and as I stated before I would like my name reference removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems more like a vandal's way to frame a suicide threat on your user page, than an actual death threat. Would you like your username changed? Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I did respond to Tom Fearer's request for advice here, directing him to WP:REDACT and WP:TPO. Josh3580_talk/hist 01:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, yes I would like to change my user name to Camaro82 if possible. I fairly certain that I submitted the request correctly on the Change User submission page. So long as my current name is removed for an alias I would feel a lot better about messages like that. I wasn't even aware of it until I did a chance Google search on my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Fearer: just a side note, since you mentioned you don't know how to write out your signature.. at the end of your text simply type ~~~~ (those four tildes) and your signature will be automatically added in at the end of your message. I'd have left this on your talk page but as noted, it's redirected to a different account. Gloss • talk 01:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Announcing your username change here, in front of the known universe, is not necessarily the best strategy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tom Fearer: The "Camaro82" username is not registered yet (despite the fact that the user page has existed for more than eight years), but you can register it now. You just have to request a change in username. It's at WP:CHU/S. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The username request was submitted - and as soon as a 'crat gets around to it, there shouldn't be a problem with it being taken care of. Gloss • talk 02:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's just what I was about to ask, thank you. Tom Fearer (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru

User:QuackGuru has been displaying disruptive editing for some time now, especially at the GERAC and Acupuncture articles.

• Disruptive tagging (, , ) even though he's been asked repeatedly to stop this (, )
• Stubbornly referring to other editor's contributions as "nonsense" (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Nonsense deleted) even though he has been asked a long time to refrain from doing so ()
• Refusal to accept talk page consensus (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Results should not be should be limited in the article, Talk:Acupuncture#Rate of serious adverse events).

The last time that several users asked GQ to stop his pattern of disruptive editing was on 02-Dec, but to no avail. Discussion with GQ is further hampered by him deleting all messages on his talk page as soon as possible. I request a topic ban. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if you even tried to discuss the matter with the user—all I see on their talk page is a link directing them to this page. User:QuackGuru removed the messages from their page, so not Mallexikon's fault. --Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hore55

Hore55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created four articles with lists of airports in Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Norway. I tagged those articles for speedy deletion, because they are redundant as we have List of airports in Norway. User removed speedy deletion templates from some of the articles, and I notifies him on his talk page not to do that (). All four articles were later speedily deleted. But, Hore55 recreated all four articles in the same form. I tagged articles for deletion again, but once again he removed speedy deletion tags from articles ( and ). I reverted those edits and warned him again on his talk page not to do that (). He then posted a message on my talk page to "get lost" (). He than tagged articles I created years ago with speedy deletion templates (, ) including my own user pages ( and ). Please, try to stop this User's disruptive behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Peridon has warned them regarding the "revenge" speedy deletion tags and I've redirected the articles they created to List of airports in Norway. So let's see what happens now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

persistent nasty incivility

I confess to being increasingly annoyed at the escalating incivility toward me shown by User:Katydidit at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt in the last few days. (examples: "Would you at least do that and turn honest on that point, or do you want to continue lying with your repeated falsehood that has been proven untrue? If not, I can only surmise you don't want to honestly discuss this topic, and only want to smear and make-up stories because that is all you have to go on."; " You are mad, thoroughly, completely mad to make-up such outrageous, amateurish gibberish in vainly trying to support your unverified assertion, and that you refuse to add one cite as I have repeatedly asked. Blind, and mind completely shut tight, not just incredibly biased to the facts of consumer shortages, but blind and mindshut." "When will you finally wake-up to the truth and stop believing the government's propaganda that an increasing number of people are realizing are just a pack of lies?") He just gets worse and worse. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are losing the debate, and continually refusing to acknowledge other authors that I cited--that was the reason for my reply to you, so you resort to doing this, and you still refuse to provide a source link as WP:Cite requires for unverified assertions. You are now smearing me unfairly, and I'm done trying to discuss this topic with you. I finally lost my patience with you, and that is why I said the things I said, in trying to get you to stop saying things that were proven false. Maybe I did go a little too far, but you weren't discussing fairly or cared about my links in citing others, and that is why I said those things I wouldn't have normally said to others in a discussion. --Katydidit (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Katydidit, I don't see your attacks as being justified. What I see is disruptive editing on the article (5 days ago) and contentious remarks - to say nothing of walls of text - on the talk page (the present). This board is hardly the place for bringing civility issues, but your comments are personal attacks, not just incivility. If you can't control your frustration and your tongue, go do something else. Based on your history, you mostly edit articles (as opposed to talking); as long as you can avoid your recent edit warring, perhaps you should stick with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I lost my patience with that other editor, but he was an exceptional case. It won't happen with him or anyone else again, because I haven't met anyone else as stubborn as he was in refusing to acknowledge the other authors and links I posted for his edification. --Katydidit (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You said that it won't happen again, which was fine...but what you said after that wasn't the best thing to say. Erpert 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DrEdna

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

DrEdna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly using sarcasm and attacks against users, even after a final warning. See discussions at User talk:DrEdna#Talk page revert, User talk:DrEdna#December 2013 and User talk:George8211#Your posting on my page.. Also attacking in edit summaries. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully support this action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what action do you suppport? George8211, DrEdna attacked another editor in July. You posted a warning in November, even though, except for a couple of edits in early August, DrEdna had not contributed to Misplaced Pages in the intervening time. I can see that DrEdna is a piece of work, but why did you bother? It just gave her a chance to renew her nasty comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That was one of my flubs. I warned DrEdna about the remark, but forgot to check the timestamp. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my assumption as she did not sign her comment in the usual way.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds GREAT proceed with account deletion and/or blocking. Greatest conversation ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The timing isn't great, but it seems that DrEdna is not here to build an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I agree, especially after this. Erpert 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Greatest hot air conversation ever. DO IT ALREADY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you know who you are dealing with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Aside for the fact that threats are seriously frowned upon here...whom are you even talking to? Erpert 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely for disruptive editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Masu7

User:Masu7 was blocked indefinitely for persistent sock puppetry but he/she continues to create sock accounts. The latest is User:MOttaCossaOb. Could somenone block this account and also delete the articles/categories created by this account: Royal College Panadura', Royal vs St. John's, Category:Royal College Panadura'? You will also need to protect these articles/categories otherwise Masu7 will recreate them using another sock.--obi2canibe 15:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:80.195.139.78

80.195.139.78 (talk · contribs)

Hi. This IP editor keeps adding unsourced dates-of-deaths to lots of BLP articles. I've warned them on their talkpage, but they continue to edit articles without sourcing them. Can and Admin step in and help? Thanks. Lugnuts 19:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions by Evildoer187

Evildoer187 is apparently on a WP:TRUTH-mission on Misplaced Pages, causing disruptions everywhere. As is evident from the user's talk page (even though many blocks, warnings and topic-bans have been removed by the user (eg , , many others remain), the user is on Misplaced Pages with the sole purpose of pushing his POV concerning topics related to Jews and Judaism. The user has already been topic-banned from editing areas related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. My first interaction with the user was today, though I see many others have encountered the same behavior previously. On Ashkenazi Jews, several users had discussed the intro. To give a very brief background, it is a fact that good, serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. In keeping with NPOV, Misplaced Pages should not to take sides between these, but report the fact that science differs. According to Evildoer187's POV, Ashkenazi Jews are of Levantine origin. This view is contradicted by a recent and very extensive DNA study by 18 researchers, published in Nature. As far as sources go, an extensive study published in Nature is pretty much the gold standard of WP:RS. This study, which has been widely reported in leading media, shows that the origins of Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European. This, however, does not fit Evildoer187's POV, so he repeatedly deletes and rewrites, removing any reference to a possible European origin , , As seen in the diffs, the user has deleted it both from the introduction and from the infobox, while gladly keeping references to smaller studies in less known journals which are in line with his POV.
In short It's apparent from Evildoer187's history that this is a single-purpose account for the WP:TRUTH, it's apparent from the user's talk page that this is done in a way which has led to countless warnings, blocks and topic bans. The fact that the user still continues in the same way despite all these warnings is indicative. Given this user's history on Misplaced Pages, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear, I feel a topic ban for ] on any article related to Judaism or the Jewish people would be in order. It is evident that this user is here to push a certain POV, not to build a neutral encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your inflammatory and aggressive attacks on me here are reflective of POV pushing on your part. I may have made mistakes in the past, which I will readily admit to, but it should be evident to anyone who looks at the page in question that I have done no such thing on Ashkenazi Jews.

I did not delete the peer reviewed paper in question. I deleted the news articles which discuss (and in some cases, misrepresent) the peer reviewed paper, which I believed was superfluous. Further, none of the studies cited in the article even remotely indicate that Ashkenazim are purely European, as he is trying to portray in the article itself. They only suggest that 80 percent of mtDNA origins are traceable to Europe, with the rest being of Middle Eastern origin. Genetic studies do not differ (among the ones cited at least) on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. They all agree on Levantine origins. I was also under the impression that the related ethnic groups category pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common, but also culture, geography, linguistics, etc.

In short, this editor is deliberately trying to misrepresent the study, and that in itself is indicative of POV pushing.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you see "inflammatory and aggressive attacks" nor is it clear to me what you mean by "reflective of POV pushing on your part". I've taken great care to respect NPOV, giving equal weight to equally valid scientific studies, and I've argued at the talk page that the article should represent both views. The fact that you find that "POV pushing" is unfortunately very indicative. When you say I edited to suggest that "Ashkenazim are purely European" you're entering into lies and slander. Could you provide diffs to a version of the article by me that says that "Ashkenazim are purely European". If you can't (and you can't), kindly retract your slander above. I said quite the contrary, as can be seen from my edit of the talk page (). I fear the unmeasured response by Evildoer187 only reinforces my impression that this user should not edit articles related to the Jewish people or Judaism.Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You immediately came out with attacks on my credibility and threatened to block me (even though you are not an admin) after just one edit. Instead of discussing or reverting rationally, you instantly demanded that I be topic banned. That is pretty aggressive, no?

If you were actually representing both sides adequately, then you'd have a point, and I would never have reverted you. But as this diff here indicates (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), you posted that some studies claim that Ashkenazim are entirely European in origin, whereas none of the studies arrive at this conclusion. Further, you needlessly added news articles discussing a study which was already cited in the article.

I will not retract my accusations of POV pushing, because from what I can see, that is exactly what you are doing here.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Taken directly from the diff. None of the genetic studies say this, so either you're lying or you're not paying attention. I am inclined to go with the former.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. You're clearly trying to deflect the discussion.

• I did not threaten to block you, I posted a standard Misplaced Pages warning on your talk page.
• This discussion is not based on one edit or one article, but on your whole edit history.
• First you claim I said Ashkenazim are "entirely" and "purely" European, then you link to a diff where I wrote "mainly European". "Mainly" and "entirely" are two different things.
• The claim about Ashkenazim being mainly European is not mine, it's from the sources I used. That's how Science, one of the main scientific journals in the world, reported the findings of the study. NBC News and BBC News both did as well, though they are not scientific. Whether you agree or not is quite simply irrelevant. Science most certainly satisfies WP:RS and the fact that you accuse me of "lying" and "POV-pushing" for citing it is, once again, indicative of how you refuse to accept anything or anyone not agreeing with you.Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the study claims that Ashkenazi MATERNAL origins are mainly European. Your diff said "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." If you had clarified that part, or if you had cited the Zoossmann-Diskin study from 2010 which DID arrive at that conclusion (i.e. that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European), I would never have had a problem with it, although it may have raised WP:UNDUE concerns since the bulk of genetic studies posit that a significant portion of Ashkenazi ancestry is Levantine. Further, it would still have been completely unnecessary to link to anything outside of the main study itself. Additionally, I stated my intent to remove the NYT article and replace it with the actual study, which I was not able to track down, so your accusations of censoring the other side/POV pushing don't hold water here.

I will, however, concede that I made a mistake with regards to your first two *'s. I will be more careful about that from now on.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is not the article, there's a talk page for that. My edit took into account both sides, and was even more careful in the claim that the article in Science was. Nuff bout that. The topic here is your behavior on Misplaced Pages and the way you edit, apparently causing inflammatory reactions all around.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

http://forward.com/articles/185399/jewish-womens-genes-traced-mostly-to-europe-not/#

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.551825

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24442352

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

These are the citations I removed in my original revert (see the diff). Notice how they each pertain to the same exact study, which was also cited in the same sentence (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html). This begs the question: why is he linking to all of these news articles when the study itself is already there (and which I did not delete)? I should hope that the reason is obvious and that I won't have to fill in the blanks. Moreover, notice how the study in question does not say, anywhere, that "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin". Rather, it says that maternal origins are mainly European. If he had added the word "maternal" in the sentence, this dispute would never have happened. But he didn't, and so here we are.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sources you deleted. Science.NBC News. BBC News. Among the best sources available to us, and Misplaced Pages welcomes secondary sources. Science wrote "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.", my edit was perfectly in line with that. And your behaviour in this thread is typical of your whole Misplaced Pages history. You deflect from the topic, you repeatedly lie about me. You declare one of the leading scientific journals in the world unfit as a source. That is the topic here. You do not contribute to Misplaced Pages, you disrupt it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not told any lies about you. The evidence of your actions is right there for all to see. As for myself, I have done nothing wrong, save for not going to the talk page when I should have (which I admitted to).

And you still have not answered my question: why are you using all of these news sources which merely report on the study, when the genetic study itself is already cited? Especially when said study does not arrive at the conclusion you say it does. It reeks of POV pushing, and I don't know how you could argue otherwise. Further, I never said the Science journal source was unreliable, just superfluous and unnecessary because the study it talks about is already cited in the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And upon closer inspection of the Science article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

It is indeed referring to mtDNA specifically, which hardly equates to "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin", as you put it in the article. If you had wrote instead "Ashkenazi Jewish maternal lines are mainly of European origin" (never mind the fact that you needlessly padded out one study with at least 5-6 news articles reporting on it), there wouldn't have been a problem. But you did not do that. So tell me again how this is not lying, on your part?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You deliberately deflect and do not WP:HEAR. I discuss the article on its talk page. I leave it for uninvolved admins to consider your disruptive history on Misplaced Pages, which is the topic here. It is evident from your talk page and edit history. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:HEAR "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you; see if you can see their side of the debate; and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."

I fail to see how I've violated this rule. You are the only one, to my knowledge, who is incessantly battling me on this issue. There was one guy who disagreed with me yesterday, and another on the talk page who ostensibly agrees with me. That's not consensus, last I checked.

Moreover, I have seen your side of the debate, and I understand exactly what the problem is. You are misrepresenting a study in the article and padding it out with news articles reporting on the same study which is already cited. So on the contrary, I did WP:HEAR you. The fact that I'm calling you out on this does not mean I'm not listening to your side. You are dissembling here.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing your deflection game and this isn't about me. Your claim that only one other person has commented on your behavior is ridiculous. You have been topic banned and you have been blocked several times for your extremely disruptive behavior. Any admin can check out your talk page, or rather your talk page history as you've deleted most warnings and blocks.Jeppiz (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm refuting the charges you've brought against me here, and pointing out how the entire dispute on the Ashkenazi Jews article (which resulted in this thread) is a result of your editing behavior. As for me, I acknowledged that I've made mistakes, and I've been working to improve on it. You, on the other hand, manipulated sources and violated WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

Moreover, I did not claim that only one other person commented on my behavior. I stated, clearly, that one other person disagreed with me on that issue. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on that topic, when it is evident that I did not.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I said you don't WP:HEAR in this thread. You continue to try to deflect by discussing Ashkenazim. That is not the topic here. The topic is your disruptive behavior throughout your entire history on Misplaced Pages, your many blocks, topic ban, and the inflammatory arguments you bring to articles.Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on the Ashkenazi Jews article. You even said so in your initial comment i.e. "Given this user's history on Misplaced Pages, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear". This was prior to our argument on this page, indicating that you were accusing me of violating this Wiki norm on Ashkenazi Jews. Further, I have acknowledged (this would be the third time, in this thread) that I have made my share of mistakes, and that I am working to improve, so your accusations of deflection don't hold water. I should also note that I have sought WP:ADOPTION, but was never picked up.

Moreover, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out your problematic behavior, as it provides relevant context.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And now Jeppiz has commented in that thread. Seriously, you both need to chill out. Erpert 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I don't want to spend all day arguing on here, so I'm gonna back off and wait for an admin to show up.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I could not reply to Jeppiz on the thread below, I will do so here instead.

• No, not revenge. I even told you on your talk page that I was going to take action against you here. I've been pre-occupied with other things. I don't live on the internet, after all.

• You did not try to reflect both sides. You took one genetic study (whereas you claimed there were several), misrepresented its conclusions in the article, and buttressed it with at least 5-6 news articles which pertain to the same study. That is POV pushing. Dictionary definition of it. Evidence for this is provided in the diff.

• I only did that in the related ethnic groups template, because my impression was that related ethnic groups pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common. What do Ashkenazi Jews share with Southern Europeans and Italians other than genetics? What do they share with Arabs, Samaritans, Sephardi Jews, etc? That was my point. Also notice (check the diff) that I did not remove the genetic study in Nature, which is what all of those additional news articles were discussing. He is not being truthful here, and that's the problem.

• Taken from the same article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

He made no reference whatsoever to maternal DNA, which would have provided some much needed clarification. Instead, he (tellingly) omitted it and put "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" in the article.

• Adding news sources which all discuss the same genetic study is problematic, and you know it. It would seem that you are deliberately trying to bypass WP:UNDUE by making it appear as though these studies (and you did say "studies") are more numerous than they actually are. For the passage pertaining to the Middle Eastern origins of Jews, the citations were much more varied and clearly extracted from different studies. Needless to say, if you are being honest, I expect there will be no objections if I employ the same tactics vis-a-vis the Middle Eastern origins of Ashkenazim.

• My accusations against you are not unfounded. The evidence I have posted here shows that clearly. I do not think I should be topic banned because although I have made mistakes, I have not edited the Ashkenazi Jews topic in a disruptive manner, as he claims.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel

User Rarevogel has been engaged in a long-term edit war over the ethnicity of Alhazen. For example, they initially replaced a long, referenced discussion of Alhazen's identity with "Iraqi Muslim": They've been engaged in making similar edits to the same text for nearly two months now. They have been warned for edit warring on the article They did recently finally engage in a discussion on the Talk page, but at the point where it was still far from clear that there was consensus for change they went ahead and made an edit to the same text anyway: There was some support for deleting the overly long discussion in the lead, so in the interests of moving the article forward I largely let the edit stand. Rarevogel then basically implied that their opinion was the only thing which mattered in the article. When I said that if the consensus in reliable sources was that Alhazen could be described as an Arab, that's what we should use, Rarevogel told me "Go fuck yourself": I haven't looked at Rarevogel's other edits to other articles, but interestingly they have recently been warned for removing the word "Arab" from articles: . I personally think Rarevogel's behaviour is unacceptable, and that some sort of block is required to make that clear. --Merlinme (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rarevogel's response to being told "Go fuck yourself" was unacceptably rude was "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope". . --Merlinme (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I warned him/her about the personal attack. Erpert 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even see the second attack at first (I'm not sure what "piss up a rope" even means but I am sure it was meant to be pretty derogatory). I second a block. Erpert 21:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Exceptionally rude user, would need some time to reflect on their behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:70.134.229.223/User:70.134.228.221

Since a couple days this IP user is Wikihounding me and my edits, using 2 IPs (I assume 70.134.229.223 is also 70.134.228.221 same subnet whois Private Customer - SBC Internet Services SBC07013422800023051028141157 (NET-70-134-228-0-1) 70.134.228.0 - 70.134.229.255) , inhibiting my work, making poorly based complaints and generally being rude/arrogant (not only on my talk page but also in an article I'm currently improving). Please check the user's contribs. I feel annoyed and harassed. I have no problem with polite critic or people pointing out that I made a mistake, but in a polite tone. Any help is appreciated. ₪Stormmeteo 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)

MilesMoney (talk · contribs) has re-added -twice- obviously contentious and potentially defamatory content to the BLP of Dana Rohrabacher, supported by a partisan source with a less-than sterling reputation. Diffs:

Miles has elected not to start a discussion, nor has he made any attempt to find a better source (which may well be available, if he were to bother looking). Instead, he prefers to try to force in his edit, even though it has been pointed out that it is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Roccodrift (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did start a discussion, but you went directly to WP:ANI, bypassing the talk page, WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. To repeat what I said:

Dana Rohrabacher said this at a congressional hearing, so it's on the public record and we have CSPAN videos confirming it. The citation is to http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/26/1928321/rohrabacher-boston-islam/, which includes both of these original sources while defending us from the appearance of WP:OR. There is no WP:BLP issue here as there is absolutely no question that he said these things and that it was notable.

I stand by this. If you disagree, however, let's take this to the appropriate forum, not this drama page. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a flurry of disruptive edits by User:MilesMoney, who really ought to know better. This could perhaps be better discussed at WP:EWN, but the user in question has been editing disruptively across a range of article - adding dubious categories unsupported by the article, and then reverting while refusing to discuss. User:Roccodrift is correct to remove the poorly sourced material on a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The best reason not to go to WP:ANI is that it gathers well-wishers such as StAnselm, who's unhappy with me for reverting a flurry of bad changes he recently made. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Two corrections. First, I'm always willing to discuss my edits. Second, I didn't add categories: I restored the ones you tried to remove because you were wrong to remove them. Hope that helps. MilesMoney (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding Miles' additional BLP violations from today: Pamela Geller ; Gary Bauer ; Robert Spencer (author) . The common thread here is that I had performed an AGF revert on each one of them within the last hour. In fairness, it should be noted that Miles' didn't attempt to edit-war on these other articles. Roccodrift (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The common thread is that these BLP accusations are false. Rather, the two of you are guilty of whitewashing articles. MilesMoney (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. If you think I violated WP:BLP, go to WP:BLPN. This bit of forum-shopping appears to be retaliation for my earlier report. MilesMoney (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Right Wing Watch" is not a reliable source for anything, except maybe details about Right Wing Watch, and it is certainly not a reliable source for a BLP. Using it to label various living people as "far-right" is extremely inappropriate. It violates basic policies regarding categorization, and especially violates BLPCAT.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but this is the wrong venue to discuss such issues. I've opened a WP:BLPN report on the original complaint. You are free to open reports on any of the others that's been piled on. I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read where other editors are "guilty" and they are "whitewashing" articles. The truth is that Miles is too eager to add unwarranted spin to articles – MM is categorizing the people as "far-right" when a simple "right" is/might be supported by the sources. (The term "far right" is not used in the blog (rightwingwatch.org) for the Robert Spencer article.) Gary Bauer gets a "critics of Islam" category because the rightwingwatch.org blog mentions him in passing. Worst of all, MM posts the references in-line rather than using proper citation format (as in the Dana Rohrabacher edit). – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read that an article entitled Anti-Islamic Sentiment Cheered at Values Voter Summit depicts Bauer as anti-Islamic. But I already posted that on the appropriate talk page so why am I repeating myself here? No good reason, so let's end this. MilesMoney (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This report has been made obsolete by the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Murdering_children, where Rocco and I have agreed on two reliable sources to replace the original source. Now we're done. MilesMoney (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gary_Bauer#Critic_of_Islam is where we came to an agreement on sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Jeppiz

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

I've been meaning to do this earlier, but I got caught up in other things. This user has engaged in POV pushing on Ashkenazi Jews. When I tried to rectify this (see this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), he accused me of disruptive editing and POV pushing. The problem here is threefold. One, the passage "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the genetic study cited. So either he's being lazy, or he's deliberately manipulating the source. His immediate and aggressive reaction to my reverting him would indicate the latter. Two, he padded the study out with links to news articles and journals which report on the same study, which is superfluous and arguably a violation of WP:UNDUE. And the fact that there was only one actual genetic study cited in that passage makes the claim "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" even more erroneous. Instead of discussing this rationally, he became accusatory and is now trying to have me topic banned. I am hopeful that this dispute may be resolved peacefully.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Speedy close. This discussion is already taking place here; we don't need two discussions about the same thing (but frankly, both of you need to take a time out). Erpert 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, this topic is an obvious revenge. I came to WP:ANI to point out that Evildoer187, a repeatedly blocked and topic banned user, is causing disruptions everywhere he goes. This is the revenge.
• Second, what he calls "POV-pushing" is attempt to reflect both sides in a thorny issue, the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Some scientists say the Levantine, others Europe. To reflect this, I wrote " Scientific studies differ on their origins, with some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East, Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Several scientific sources were provided for both claims. How on earth is this "POV pushing"? Several other users agreed with my edit on the talk page.
• Third, Evildoer187's response was to delete the second half, leaving only the reference to the Levantine. Who is POV pushing?
• Fourth, Evildoer187 claims my sentence "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the sources. I quote from Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world and one of the sources I used "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe."
• Five, my "padding out" is normal Misplaced Pages practice. Using secondary sources is welcomed at Misplaced Pages. Sources I used included Nature, Science, BBC News and NBC News, all of which satisfy WP:RS.
• Sixth, and the only correct aspect. Yes, I do think Evildoer187 should be topic banned. He is a highly disruptive user who is here for the WP:TRUTH. His edit history is revealing. I am almost glad he started this retaliatory thread with all the unfounded accusations just to get back at me. This shows exactly what kind of user he is. So yes, I repeat my call that Evildoer187 should be topic banned from all articles related to Judaism and the Jewish people. His whole history on Misplaced Pages shows that he cannot edit these topics without causing a great deal of disruption and conflicts.Jeppiz (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)