Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:23, 11 June 2012 editNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 edits Constant attacks by editor: correcct ip← Previous edit Revision as of 09:30, 11 June 2012 edit undoSkyring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,610 edits Constant attacks by editorNext edit →
Line 779: Line 779:


{{IP|121.216.230.139}} has strong views on ]. He's also constantly accusing others of vandalism and of inserting libel and defamation. , , , , , , via edit summaries and section headers. The material in question has three different sources and judged not to be libelous by an admin . He was warned by me about ] and personal attacks and has received other warnings, for example. He's still continung , . At this point I'd like an admin to step in and make it clear to 156.* that these attacks must stop. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC) {{IP|121.216.230.139}} has strong views on ]. He's also constantly accusing others of vandalism and of inserting libel and defamation. , , , , , , via edit summaries and section headers. The material in question has three different sources and judged not to be libelous by an admin . He was warned by me about ] and personal attacks and has received other warnings, for example. He's still continung , . At this point I'd like an admin to step in and make it clear to 156.* that these attacks must stop. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:As the target of some of these attacks, may I rise in the defence of the IP editor. He is a new editor and he feels strongly about the material. He is getting good advice from more experienced editors and I trust that he'll let it sink in and become more co-operative as time passes. I feel sure that he can provide some excellent work once he becomes more familiar with the way things happen around here. I am not particularly offended by his assaults on my various sensibilities and I forgive him. I do however, echo NeilN's request that it be made clear by an admin or two that continued transgressions will make his participation difficult. --] (]) 09:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:30, 11 June 2012

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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


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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    MMA, part 1287

    We are herding cats at this point. As usual, the discussion moves in 100 directions because it is a complicated issue and there are no simple answers yet available. ArbCom may be needed to provide a binding resolution, but this isn't ArbCom. Dennis Brown - © 23:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    See also Misplaced Pages:ANI#MMA_AfD.27s above. I have just closed another disruptive AfD - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination). I have also noted at least one WP:POINT nominations for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19) of articles edited by the few editors who are trying to uphold Misplaced Pages policy in the MMA area. I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say "enough". Black Kite (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    As an editor who has passively observed the MMA disputes that flare up on the boards every other day (it seems), I'm also of the mind that some unified solution should be adopted—it really has been quite "enough" at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    As only tangently involved (MMA editors trying to change policy/guidelines to make such articles acceptable to which I've commented on), yes, this is far past the point of disruption. That said, the MMA ppl have brought up a good point that if the various individual event articles aren't considered notable, then why do we have articles like 2008 Food City 500, 2011 World Series of Poker results (note, 2011 World Series of Poker exists but is ok), and similar? There is an inconsistency here, and it might step from the larger idea that the various sports arena itself is a walled garden - by no means as great a degree as the MMA - but clearly with a larger allowance for topics and the like. At this point there needs to be a course of action that pulls any decision away from those involved with MMA or at least the troublemakers making such pointy AFD noms, and get to a resolve quickly, but making sure that solution applies uniformly to other sports-based articles. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm guessing that we have articles like 2008 Food City 500 because no-one's got round to deleting or merging them yet. Yes, the solution should apply to all sports, but with well over 3 million articles stuff like that is always going to sneak through; it doesn't mean we should let it go though. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, I'm fully aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument, except that I recall seeing editors from the various sports (nonMMA) suggest the NASCAR articles are just fine but the MMA ones are a problem. This mirrors a similar discussion about the denial to include eSports (professional video game competitions) within NSPORT because "its not a sport". I do applaud most of the editors that are knee deep in sports, self-aware that sports coverage far outweighs most other contemporary topics and thus having restraint to what is summarized on WP, but there remains some aspects here of walled gardens that we can't sweep away by just closing down the MMA stuff, fairly. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    There is a very subtle difference though, one that came out of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open in that an annually repeated sports event is a little different (I am not saying I necessarily agree with that). Mtking 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    What's enormously unfortunate about this situation is it's somehow identified as an "MMA" issue when the exact same sets of pages exist all across the site and tend to be the rule for formatting rather than exception. The main difference here is that for various reasons the AfDs on this particular subject have been unusually successful. Simply contrast this with worse entries such as that, or that, or that, or that (the list is trivial to enumerate). When users who feel their area of interest is being singled out see their concerns dismissed by wiki-insiders, it creates a great deal of frustration with the process and thus the highly visible drama. Should the same exceptional deletions happen on any other part of wiki with a significant userbase, the consequences would hardly differ. The challenge to solving such a systemic dilemma is to studying how the system works rather than respond with the same natural instincts which is the hallmark of institutional failure. Agent00f (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    • There are some things that will always be the case in Misplaced Pages or in any similar project without centralized control and therefore without fixed enforceable rules:
    1. within a field, the results at AfD will be inconsistent
    2. between fields, the accepted emphasis will be inconsistent
    3. everyone will think their own interests are being unfairly neglected
    I accept this will happen even the areas of most concern to me, and though I continue to push gently for greater coverage of them, I will not forfeit whatever sympathy there is for my minority interests by making a nuisance of myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    My question, how come we have to continually deal with these many AfDs on MMA articles, more often than not with either a "keep" or "no consensus"(no consensus when there are 4-5 votes for deletion and dozens to keep, yet those all are discounted for one reason or another), yet whenever a much less notable event, like say for instance a soon to be cancelled show about modelling that has no lasting significance gets nominated for deletion, the result is always a "Speedy Keep" and the nominator gets scolded? After so many failed deletion attempts by the 1 main MMA deletionist here, shouldn't they too be scolded for continually nominating articles?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    If there's significant element of randomness on wiki by design, then the implication is userbase interests here were specifically unlucky. With this understanding the org shouldn't be unduly alarmed that intrinsic variation produces outliers. IOW, when the stars align, page sets get wrecked and those who use them become displeased proportional to the wreckage. The connection between these last two is basic human psychology which is difficult to trivially amend. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    "I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say enough." What method would you recommend for getting rid of MMA fans? Portillo (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    • For those who cannot edit without being disruptive or incivil, then blocks and/or topic bans are clearly indicated; that's not even controversial. That doesn't just apply to MMA fans, but to any editor of Misplaced Pages. I merely bring the issue to ANI so that more eyes may be available. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you think there's a broad enough consensus about deleting the articles at hand that it could be made a CSD category? It's a brutal but effective approach.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I don't believe so. Whilst some are clearly non-notable, others are on the fringes. Even the ones that are obviously non-notable have some sources, even if it's clear that they fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. I think the main issue here isn't the articles (they can be dealt with in time) but the disruption that is spreading to other areas. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the AfDs end up like this - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 145. I doubt if that's going to be closed as anything else but Keep, but that is effectively saying that "any sporting event that is mentioned in the newspapers is notable". Without going too much towards WP:WAX, that means you could effectively make a case for (as an example) all 1,760 professional soccer games that happen in England every year. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a reason that the sports notability guidelines don't consider regular games as part of a professional league series as notable just because they were played and reported on, and instead provide seasonal summaries. This is the solution that pro-MMA editors have been suggested to head towards but they fight to include every possible detail against global consensus for this type of information. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What Masem said. Your average NFL or Premiership game, NASCAR race, major American college football or basketball match no doubt nukes your average UFC event for GNG-applicable coverage, and I'm sure that given the green light, there are any number of Manchester United or University of Nebraska supporters who would be positively eager to write articles on them all. If "routine sports coverage" is a valid excuse to shoot down an independent article for the next Celtics-Heat playoff match, it sure is heck a valid one to debar your average MMA event. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • and another one kept that is just like all the rest Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 21, it would appear that the MMA fan base has worn the other editors down ....... Mtking 10:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Or perhaps the other editors and moderators are simply tired of your crusade against MMA articles, realize the truth that these events are truly notable(we're still talking about them after a decade has passed), and that deleting them would weaken Misplaced Pages as a source of knowledge. I wonder how many people will be talking about the results of ANTM #19 in over a decade, yet you consider them to have lasting notability? Such bias proves you simply have an agenda to scrub WP of MMA articles.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    <outdent> I'm not sure if this belongs here, but there is another MMA discussion going on over at Talk:List of professional sports leagues regarding whether they qualify as a league or not, which has been prompted most likely by the same circumstances regarding all the MMA AFDs. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    What's quite interesting here is that an event card as set of ~10 distinct and separate contests of 15-25min regulation time was mentioned numerous times in the past, yet critics continue to IDHT this basic reality. Each event page is already a collection of individual "games", and direct comparison of notability to X vs Y competitions would be a separate entry for each contest (ie 10 pages for each card). Agent00f (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


    I will observer that a solution was previously on the table (several times in fact) regarding how to move forward without having to invoke AN/I or AN every single time however the filibustering, polite disruption, point-making, IDHT, and outright obtuseness has been a (perceived) hallmark of the enthusiast community. A previous discussion to endorse general sanctions across the MMA article (and project spaces) had atrophied due to lack of commitment. It is my understanding that the Administrator Corps does not feel that the toolset they have does not endorse actions with respect to these users, therefore there are 2 solutions. First is to open a new discussion on AN regarding authorization of General Sanctions across the MMA article and project spaces. The second is to open an Arbcom case and get a set of discretionary sanctions applied to the MMA article and project spaces. As I'm immensely involved (and any proposal by me would be accused of being part of the cabal to destroy MMA on Misplaced Pages) I am not an appropriate user to move forward with either proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    What? You pretend to speak for the entirety of the Wikicommunity yet in reality it's you, MtKing, Ravenswing, etc. The exact same editors take part in these frivolous AfDs, the core group of 4-5 deletionists and the hordes of angry MMA fans who tire of this coordinated plan to ruin MMA on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps the Wikicommunity and administrators in particular don't agree with your suggestion of sanctions on MMA articles, hence none being applied.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    Please strike your personal attack above. In no way was your response appropriate to my informing people of two options that have been on the table before. Your commentary here demonstrates the intrinsic flaw in the enthusiast's viewpoint. We are not out to ruin MMA on Misplaced Pages. We simply want the "walled garden" mentality to cease and for the articles to follow the same guidelines that other projects are required to follow. Are there counter examples where there are worse article? Entirely possible, but for the time being, the eye of scrutiny is on MMA articles. Is it possible that other sports will be touched by this plan to break down the walls and follow the guidelines? Absolutely yes. So to summarize, your premise is faulty and a personal attack on those who are attempting to uphold the policies. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    Absolutely not. My post above is absent of any personal attack. Your argument is flawed as well. You say other projects are required to follow these same guidelines? No they're not. Misplaced Pages is full of fancruft(America's Next Top Model) that has absolutely no degree of lasting notability. The eye of scrutiny on MMA articles is not Misplaced Pages as a whole, rather it is the agenda of a few editors who can be counted on one, perhaps two, hands. If you truly wanted to improve the articles to adhere to Wiki standards, improve them! Instead it's one constant AfD after another. When those AfDs don't turn out the way MMA-deletionists intended, they simply nominate them again at a later date, with no attempt at improving them in the meantime.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    *Edit to add, show me one AfD for a UFC ppv recently not started by the MtKing, Hasteur, Ravenswing, TreyGeek, NewConnorMan, or the new POINTy troll Portillo. Just one. Most have been MtKing's doing. Not only does he brag about it, he also openly antagonizes MMA supporters without repercussion, blaming us when his AfDs are shut down without a 'delete' verdict. Sorry, but it is beyond obvious that you guys are not trying to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Truly, we're supposed to assume good faith, but your collective ruined any hope of that long ago with your antics and irritating smarminess.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    I've been reading this debate for awhile now, and I really don't have a horse in this race, but I have a question with regards to notability and the like. First, yes I know other things are on Misplaced Pages, but what is the difference between the UFC PPVs and the regular WWE and TNA PPVs that have articles here? Are the wrestling PPVs consider inheritable notable? If so, what coverage/guidelines do they get their notability from? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    I believe WWE is deemed notable per WP: Fabulous Costumes. JoelWhy? talk 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    No! Bad JoelWhy! We explicitly discourage fabulous costumes here! Writ Keeper 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    In response to Wildthing61476, their PPVs typically receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as The Sun and The Star (British national newspapers), Québecor Média (Canoe.ca) and the Miami Herald; not to mention extensive coverage from wrestling-oriented reliable sources such as the Wrestling Observer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    Just as UFC PPV events receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as Yahoo!, the LA Times, the Las Vegas Sun, as well as national newspapers like USA Today. Not to mention the extensive coverage in foreign countries like Brazil, Mexico, the UK, and Japan. Also the multitude of MMA-oriented websites such as Sherdog or BloodyElbow. Oh yeah, and other mainstream sporting media such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, FoxSports, etc.AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    I can confirm that Brazil's two main national newspapers, O Estado de S. Paulo and Folha de S.Paulo, regularly cover UFC events, as shown here and here. Evenfiel (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm forced to ask the question, then - if MMA Event articles are well sourced and competently written, what harm do they do to the project? If it's a reputation thing, I've got a list of articles more damaging to Misplaced Pages's reputation than these. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    It should be noted that coverage in the Sun and the Star, while indicative of some cultural relevance, is not coverage in something that generally meets WP:RS. Also the Sun is owned by a major player in the PPV scene. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
    Regardless of Murdoch's many fingers in many pies, coverage by multiple national media sources (not just The Sun) is generally a reasonable claim to notability for article subjects. In response to AugustWest1980, I think your point is fair - if an event had such extensive coverage then I would tend to consider it notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - AfD regular, sports fan, no dog in the MMA fight... I don't think the UFC pages are being deleted when challenged; certainly not lately. If there is a caucus attempting to delete them, they will become frustrated and shut down the disruptive mass attacks if more common sense (policy: IAR) and a lower level of mechanical adherence to the mantra of "three sources or bust" (guideline: GNG) is followed by closing administrators. High number events have adequate sourcing and, of course, the answer to preserving the low numbered events over the long haul is to find adequate sourcing for them as well. But I don't think this is any sort of crisis at AfD other than the minor annoyance of excessive cut-and-pasted challenges with no effort to follow WP:BEFORE. This, too, will pass. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That is an excellent point. I believe the only UFC events that have been deleted were ones that went unchallenged. Anytime there is vocal opposition to it the closing admin rules it either "Keep" or "no consensus". Now that these AfDs are being heavily challenged seems those who nominate and support deletion get angry and accuse the "MMA community" of disrupting the process. Ha! AugustWest1980 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - One thing that really makes me mad is that the people putting UFC article up for deletion do not even check to see if there are good sources out there. They don't follow WP:BEFORE at all. They make no attempt to IMPROVE the article or check to see if it CAN be improved before they nominate it for deletion. Then, when I bring this point up in the afd debate, users like Hasteur have the nerve to tell me that WP:BEFORE isn't a requirement... only a guideline. It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Not-to-mention, when I'd search for sources myself, I can find sources from news agencies all over the world. LA Times, USA Today, Brazilian, Japanese, and European publications, etc. I even found sources in books and magazines using a google book search. It is ridiculous that articles get deleted if they are unopposed. So I have to run around defending all of the UFC articles because Mtking puts a bunch of them up for deletion at one time. I think if no effort is made to improve an article by finding sources BEFORE they are put up for deletion, then that nomination should automatically be thrown out. Gamezero05 21:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    Again with the personal attacks. Great to see that the enthusiast community still knows how to sling a FUD bomb to derail and disrupt any forward momentum. Hasteur (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    Hasteur, there were absolutely no personal attacks there. I'm not sure you know what a personal attack is. I simply stated things that have happened and my opinion on it. You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. Gamezero05 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    Again, absolutely no personal attack present. Your attempt to "play the victim" citing nonexistent personal attacks will garner you no favor here. GameZero stated facts. Your cabal of MMA-deletionists never try to add sources or improve existing articles. You took one admin ruling from many months back, a ruling that vaguely implied some MMA articles could be consolidated, and then ran roughshod over years of work in the MMAProject using that one statement as justification for multiple AfDs. When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA. You simply couldn't accept the fact that your plan to reorganize and marginalize MMA knowledge on Misplaced Pages is very, very unpopular. No doubt you will now point out the nonexistent personal attacks in my post. Knock yourself out.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    Both your and Gamezero05's remarks prove my point. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and premptive attacks on the editor and not demonstrating content reasoning. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    Prove what point? I hate to keep this stupid squabble going, but what you are saying is just completely untrue. My paragraph that I wrote was highlighting a problem with nominating articles for deletion without even bothering to check for sources. How you took that as a "personal attack" is beyond me. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of having to respond and defend myself against your pointless straw-man arguments. Gamezero05 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    Aw... how cute, they learned a new keyword to disrupt debates. Tired of having to respond and defend yourself? Don't. If my postings are so out of line someone outside the enthusiast community will tell me to sit down. You commited an ad-hominem attack with It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Your continued insistance that this wasn't an attack and commiting yet annother attack on the person with You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. again steps over the line. That you commit further attacks when you're being cautioned about personal attacks only demonstrates that you can't disassociate the user from the action. The fact that you claim I'm setting up straw man arguments, I point at the collection of UFC articles that are now on the AfD block that are in danger of deletion not because of any action that MtKing or myself took directly. So you know what, if I'm going to be tarred and feathered as a MMA deletionist, I might as well play the part. <sarcasam>Delete every single MMA article</sarcasam> Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    Ad-hominem attacks? I don't think you know what ad-hominem means. You seem to think personal attacks and ad-hominem attacks mean simply mentioning your name. Personal attacks would mean I attacked you personally in some way. An example would be if I called you a name. An ad-hominem attack would be if I used some irrelevant point to try to make an argument. An example of that would be if I said something like "John can't be good at basketball... he's a nerd". Being a nerd has no real connection to one's basketball playing ability. There are different kinds of ad-hominem attacks, but they all follow the same basic principle. And NOTHING I said was an ad-hominem attack. And NOTHING I said was a personal attack. I was simply pointing out FACTS that had happened, and used specific names to clarify exactly who I am talking about. If you'd like to see exactly where you said WP:BEFORE is only a guideline and not a requirement, it is right here: WP:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_21. Also, you accuses me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line? Gamezero05 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    The reason why UFC 21 got kept is simple, the MMA fans have created through various means including off-wiki canvassing and rallying calls such an atmosphere of total vitriol and disruption that no editor wants to go near it, you are guilty of it (and for the avoidance of any doubt yes I mean you Gamezero05), along with numerous socks of other indef'ed editors and SPA's the whole debate has been so poisoned to such an extent that any chance of a rational compromise went long ago. I can think of three or four good editors who have given up on MMA as a result, I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement. In fact it will make a good case study and essay on how as a single interest group can force it's agenda on the WP community. Also before you jump up and down claim this is an attack, no it is not it is explaining what has happened as I see it, so don't waste the electrons in replying if all you are going to do is talk about how much I have attacked you. Mtking 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    How am I causing disruption? Because you aren't getting your way? Because I'm standing up to you guys who want to delete everything? I can't believe you are trying to blame this on "us"... the people who actually care about MMA. YOU are one of the people responsible for all of this "vitriol". You caused an uproar when you decided to start merging entire years worth of articles to one page and delete numerous other outright. So let me get this straight. We are editing MMA articles on Misplaced Pages just fine, then one day you and others decide to go on an MMA crusade and start merging and deleting everything in sight, then we try our hardest to stop that from happening, and now you are blaming US for the disruption? It is really quite unbelievable. I don't know anything about off wiki-canvassing or sock puppets or SPA's, since I'm not involved with any of that myself, so I really have no idea what to say about that. I don't know if that is even true or not. Plus, I find it quite ironic that you claim I am one of the ones causing disruption and I am responsible for "vitriol", yet you say things like "I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement", and Hasteur gets smart with me, yet you guys claim I am the one slinging personal attacks. Gamezero05 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    You could not resist wasting the electrons could you, even after I told you not to; and it is not me making comments about basements it your colleagues, also don't bother wasting yet more time and effort by claiming you don't read the MMA forums as you have made enough comments to very clearly demonstrate you do. Mtking 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

    AugustWest and Gamezero, you're approaching this discussion in the entirely the wrong way. Constructing arguments which make sense is not useful in a dispute predicated instead on leveraging inside processes. As an example of the former (ie arguments), it makes a lot of sense that subjects in close proximity in an encyclopedia should follow similar and consistent formatting, but arguing for this first pillar of wiki against blatant violation not only apparently fails POLICY but is considered a DISRUPTive nuisance. As an example of the latter (processes), defending hundred of pages against AfD's is wasteful and time-consuming whereas nominations are very cheap, and no amount of making sense will change this basic reality either. The only way these very disruptive and inconsistent changes to a very specific subset of pages can be reversed is to gain the support of some insiders with the political weight and know-how to tip the balance in the other direction. That's a very different kind of task to what you're twiddling away at here. 75.172.4.206 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

    On the contrary, this thread was started to gather consensus on what, if anything, we can do to reduce the drama level regarding MMA deletions. One simple way which would have a noticeable effect would be to indefinitely block editors whose contributions at this point are basically yelling about how The Deletionist Cabal Is Ruining Everything Because They Hate UFC And Love ATM. There are at least two prominent candidates on this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    And I agree completely with that. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    The MMA debate actually raises several very good, very valid questions about sports notability, and these have yet to be answered. The problem lies at both extremes, those that want to keep everything, and those that want to delete everything, albeit with one side being somewhat more disruptive than the other. I gave up on trying to bring the two sides together once it became apparent that neither side was willing to compromise, even a little. Eventually, a settlement will be forced upon them all, which is usually the net result when two sides refuse to cooperate with each other: A solution that no one will like, but they will not like it equally. The sad thing is, a compromise wouldn't be that complicated if not for the bludgeoning. Dennis Brown - © 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    We have already compromised a lot. We agreed to the omnibus. We have been talking about splitting up the omnibus because it is too long. We are trying to work on this. All that we ask is that the numbered UFC pay-per-view events have their own pages. That is really all I am looking for. I am also wanting to improve the existing numbered pages. But I (and the rest of the MMA project) can't ever get any of this done when we are constantly trying to defend pages from deletion. Gamezero05 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not blaming you in particular Gamezero. You and I have bumped heads once or twice but I think we both respect each other and have generally treated each other fairly, even when we disagreed. I was trying to get the whole omnibus system redesigned, based on the input of everyone, when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise. I don't have a preferred way, I just knew the first way was too rough to work. Everyone does try to paint the place like it is two camps, when the reality is there are two strong viewpoints, and half the people just lean one way or the other, and are not as extreme. But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp. The most vocal minorities are the ones being the boldest, which is why there is so much disruption. Consensus can't be reached when some are so reactionary. This is why I think eventually it will require an outside binding resolution to move forward. Dennis Brown - © 18:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

    "Also, you accuse me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line?" "When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA." I agree with Gamezero and AugustWest. Hasteur and Mtking love throwing potshots and condescending comments to MMA fans. But if anyone challenges them, they are instantly accused of disruption and ruining Misplaced Pages. Portillo (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Could that be because we've been personally attacked by SPAs, IP editors, externally canvassed users, and editors in goods standing (Like yourself) for so long that the only way to get through to you is to drop the mask of civility and start throwing elbows with the same sort of abusive language that gets levied against us? Want our behavior to improve? start by calling out editors who level abusive statements to us and we'll be more reasonable to work with. Don't care? We can ride the Drama Merry go Round until someone gets so fed up with the incessant drama from the project that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already. Hasteur (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    "that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already." I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with these types of threats. Any doubt that there is an axe to grind is all but cleared up with comments like these, coupled with the corresponding behavior. BearMan998 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    Additionally, this is a true example of a personal attack and it's from none other than Hasteur himself. I have never personally attacked you so I would appreciate it if you can edit and interact in a civil manner. BearMan998 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    I might be short-sighted here, but I can't see anything in that link that looks like a personal attack. Can you clarify? Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    See his edit summary of "You already voted, now scurry back to your den." I made a simple mistake in my edit and that was his response to it. BearMan998 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    Ah, I missed the edit-summary. Yeah, a bit snarky, not sure if it was attempting to be a joke based on your user name. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment all I know is, Hasteur and Mtking cannot use an excuse like "other people personally attacked us, so we're going to personally attack people here". Two wrongs don't make a right, and nobody has personally attacked you guys in this discussion. Gamezero05 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    Comment for the MMA crowd: I see that UFC 94 is a Good Article. Quality work like that is your best weapon to disarm your opponents. While you seem to be doing a great job on the athlete bios, I would suggest you get together and collaborate on a few event articles to bring them up to higher standards. Given the coverage Canada's major media are giving it, UFC 149 should be a relatively easy candidate once the event happens. The first one in Toronto that set an attendance record received considerable coverage, iirc. Show off a few more examples like UFA 94, and the arguments against their existence will whither and die. Resolute 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    I completely agree Resolute. If there are any good things to come out of this whole debacle is that it has brought attention to the MMA crowd that 1) Misplaced Pages needs help in editing the MMA articles and 2) MMA articles which are a valuable resource to the MMA community and the general public are being deleted. There have been some very good editors who contribute to these articles however with all the nominations for deletion, I see them using their resources instead to fight the nominations and getting sucked into endless and heated arguments. BearMan998 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    I agree. I recently made UFC 145 similar to UFC 94 in order to prevent it from getting deleted. And the article isn't even close to being finished. One problem is that the people who want to delete the articles (Mtking, Hasteur), don't make any effort to improve any of the articles. They just go around trying to get them deleted. Gamezero05 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    Lets not kid ourselves here, the sources in UFC 145 that are from sources that WP would call reliable are routine primary news coverage or more about the fighters with a tangential link to the event. Lets take the cite from the impresive sounding International Business Times here as an example on closer invistigation you will acutaly see that it is from a user content blog. Where are the sources written after the event, with further analysis or discussion on the long term impact of this event? Mtking 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    Well, if you happened to notice, the UFC 145 article is NOT finished. I never got around to finishing summarizing the results and also if you notice, I never got around to writing anything for the "subsequent events" section. If you are wanting sources for things AFTER the event, you are going to have to wait... because nobody has written that part yet. It isn't a finished article... remember, Misplaced Pages is a constant work in progress. Gamezero05 04:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    So you admit that currently the event does not have demonstrated enduring notability (as per WP:NOT) it should therefore be redirected to the omnibus article until such time as it does. Mtking 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise... But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp.". In general I (and the wiki record) would agree with Dennis's characterization of what happened. Back when I was still involved with this, I distinctive recall proposals which retain 80% of the original omnibus reasoning (if not the entire design of copy/pasting dozens of pages into one), with enthusiastic support, and being ignored completely by the omnibus designers (unfortunately there's nothing to diff for silence). Those among the userbase who felt their reasonable attempts to compromise weren't being addressed wasn't a uncommon experience (there was no reply to this). From a cursory look at the discussion today, this lopsided behavior has only continued, with targeted archiving of critical comments. Speaking of which, it's worth noting that the proposal above was also unilaterally collapsed as TLDR by omnibus hardliners, and this seems commonplace. When that sort of unbalanced environment persists, the combined outcry is rather unsurprising, and whatever solution should address this extremism. Agent00f (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • So let's get this straight, you made a proposal which recived enthusiastic support from one editor that in essance wanted to amend WP's notability requirement to say that if the sum of the parts was notabile than the parts are also notable, and you are seriouly wondering why the attempt to change poilcy was not taken seriously and was ignored when it was such a transparent attempt at derailing the discussison and continue your filibustering. If you should be in any doubt about how transparent your filibustering is, have a read of your RFC/U here or here including such quotes as he has gone out of his way to be intentionally obtuse, redundant and verbose for the purpose of diluting and distracting from the discussion or and it is clear from Agent's behavior here --the personal attacks, the battlefield mentality, the accusations of gangbanging, the filibustering, the right vs. wrong ideology, et cetera. Mind you you have achieved something, you have forced a number of editors in the MMA project who were willing to work within the existing WP policies to leave the project. Mtking 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    I believe it was you, Mtking, and a few others who made people leave the project. The project was going just fine before you and some others went on a crusade. You and a few others who have Misplaced Pages "know-how" come in and completely change how MMA is presented on Misplaced Pages, and when 95% of the people involved with the MMA project oppose you, you blame THEM for "disruption". It would be like a small, well-trained army swooping through a village destroying everything in sight because they want the land, and when the villagers try to fight back the small, trained army blames the villagers for being so difficult. Gamezero05 04:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    So it's those established editors fault for wanting this project to be an encyclopedia and not a MMA fans results and gossip site, hm, maybe you should also read Agent00f's RFC/U as well.Mtking 06:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages will be no less of an encyclopedia with the inclusion of high-ranking MMA articles. And just because a few individual users have been disruptive doesn't mean the entire MMA-supporting side can be generalized as being disruptive. Some of us have valid, policy-based opinions, although many of them are repeatedly dismissed or overlooked with a high prejudice.
    And without getting into a personal attack, I have to say I see a lot of irony in some of the claims being made. Both sides have plenty of guilt in the filibustering department, especially in the repeated echoing of "fails notability, fails notability!" when there has been plenty of consensus that it doesn't. Likewise, I find it quite humorous that the inclusionists who wish to maintain and preserve information are being considered disruptive, while the deletionist side that mangles useful articles and creates large amounts of drama and the resulting problems somehow claims that they are not disruptive.
    Ultimately, I think a few editors on both sides really need to step back, and perhaps away from the issue altogether, simply because they are completely unwilling to compromise. That sort of adamant behavior is not beneficial towards reaching an agreement or consensus since they will never back down or admit fault. At this point, if anyone is simply unable to accept either the deletion of any MMA article or the existance of the top-tier, notable MMA articles, should really step away and take some time to cool down and return with more of an open mind. Otherwise, this argument will never die down. Zeekfox (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

    Arbitrary Break

    This issue will never die down when the supporter community can externally canvas for new editors to come in and require established editors to have to prove the entire reason over again. Those of us who are left in the "enforcing WP policy" camp are the ones that refuse to take an exit from the debate because we know that any established editor who leaves the project emboldens the supporter community to continue their disruptive tactics. Hasteur (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

    Do you have evidence of external canvassing? Ypsi.peter (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

    Comment Good question. Hasteur, you continually accuse the inclusionist side of canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry. Where is the proof?
    Also, a reasonable compromise was suggested. All numbered UFC events get their own page, all lesser UFC events and all lesser organization events get omnibus pages. The deletionist side rejected it. The inclusionists have continually gave ground in this discussion, seems the deletionists simply will not budge thus implying an agenda of erasing MMA knowledge and history from Misplaced Pages. They have even rudely suggested that inclusionists leave Misplaced Pages altogether, implying we don't belong here, suggesting we start a different Wiki proving that they do not believe the subject matter belongs on WP. AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    RE to Ypsi.peter Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA (Socking, Canvassing), Any of the multiple AfDS or disucssions that the hordes of non-wikipedians have been screaming for their want.(Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA,Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger,Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 151,Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (2nd nomination),WT:MMANOT,WT:MMA,Talk:2012 in UFC events)Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    The reason why we've suggested that the "inclusionists" found their own MMAPedia is because the articles that are being lobbied for are so far below the basic guideline that individual backyard events can get included. I think that some MMA articles do merit inclusion here (Like the Greasing contraversy given above). Given that all of the articles that have been challanged fall significantly below the level of inclusion, the Omnibus article is a significant step to reasonableness that the "deletionists" have put forward. Not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable. The fact that we have to beat the point into the "inclusionists" with a spiked club only demonstrates the level of disruptive IDHT that the "inclusionists" are constantly practicing. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    Again, you're misrepresenting the facts. First you say that the "inclusionists" are lobbying for such basic guidelines that backyard events could be included. Patently false and absurd. The "inclusionists" have stated many times that numbered UFC events are notable and deserve their own articles where other lessor orgs could have omnibuses. You mistakenly say "not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable" is again false. Every Superbowl is notable. Every World Series is notable. Apparently every season of America's Top Model is notable. I just got through adding multiple sources to UFC 2, which someone POINTedly nominated AfD.
    Movies, TV shows, reality television, usually the only references they have listed are sites like TV.com or IMDB.com, that makes them notable. Well every single numbered UFC has an entry on IMDB. Using the same judging criteria, wouldn't that make them notable? It's WP:COMMONSENSE, in 20 years no one will know or care who won Season 3 of Survivor or ANTM, but they will still be writing about and discussing UFC 1 and 2, just as people still discuss Superbowl 1.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

    Forgive my obtuseness but I don't understand how those links provide evidence of external canvassing. Can you be more specific for me? Ypsi.peter (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

    My friend, you're coming to this with a very stacked deck. Before you post further you may want to consider reading over the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages as your agenda and what you're aiming for is fairly obvious to me. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    Your constant veiled threats to new users are getting old Hasteur. It is obvious his agenda, he wants to participate in the events surrounding the destruction of MMA on Misplaced Pages.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    From another editor in another thread, but very relevant and so far unanswered:
    In the end, this really has become just an editing war where a few editors are trying to march forward, waving the banner of policy where it doesn't apply. You want proof that this is mostly an attack? Because it's UFC articles being targeted. There are plenty of pages out there for lower tier events that even the most devoted MMA fan wouldn't recognize as notable, but instead of trying to delete/merge THOSE, the editors on the opposite side are going after the most notable MMA organizations out there.
    Whether pages should be deleted or not, why AfD nominate every recent and soon-to-be UFC article, but yet, don't even bother with pages for DREAM, Titan FC, or Cage Rage? If it were just a matter of "enforcing policy", then the AfD nominations would be targeted towards articles that truly aren't notable...not the pages people actually use and care about. Instead, this is clearly being done with ill intent. AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    Well it's become very obvious that there is an axe to grind here which is made obvious by the constant threats of deletion and the specific targeting of these articles as opposed to certain WWE and boxing articles. With that being said, can we really say that good faith is being exercised by the aforementioned threat issuers?BearMan998 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    That would be because there's a history with the UFC articles, therefore they're more closely watched, and what is done with other things, the "what about X?" argument, is irrelevant. But let's not let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, shall we? Let's instead use megabytes of text to sling mud everywhere about the anti-UFC cabal instead of improving the articles and their sourcing so that there is no question of their notability and relevance.
    With the sarcasm hat off: the best way to refute arguments that something isn't notable, is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, or that it's part of an indiscriminate collection of information, is to improve the article with uncontroversially reliable sources that establish the event as unique, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let the slings of arrows of outrageous fortune slide like water off a duck's back, and improve the article so that neutral users will !vote Keep. If, however, that can't be done, due to a lack of uncontroversially reliable sources to establish uniqueness, notability, and worthiness... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes those would be my words that were quoted. And I would like to point out that the mention of lesser divisions not getting AfD's wasn't a "What about X?" argument to keep the UFC articles, but rather a point that the AfD's were not made with such a noble cause as the deletionists try to make it out to be. The AfD nominators aren't interested in removing MMA articles that fail notability, but instead go on a crusade to strike down articles that are well-sourced and cover a notable event.
    • Also, recent articles have been getting improved. Yet, it seems the opposition to MMA continues to be relentless, dismissing every possible source as being either primary (referring to the MMA-specialized publications) or a newspaper (pretty much everything else that publishes news). By those standards, 98% of Misplaced Pages should be deleted, right? Zeekfox (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • In answer to Ypsi.peter (yet another MMA SPA) go to any of the MMA forums (such as sherdog.net) and search for "wikipedia" and you find your evidence, along with countless attacks on editors here.
    • In answer to AugustWest1980 and BearMan998, your attempts to goad others to nominate articles for deletion (such as WWF events) won't work with me, if you think that they should be deleted, you always have the option of nominating them yourself, however as you are aware pointy AfD nominations by MMA SPA's are normally closed in very short order. Mtking 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to goad you into anything so that's a poor presumption on your part. BearMan998 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Try and goad you into nominating AfD? What an ignorant insinuation on your part. Trust me, I would be ecstatic if you never nominated another article for deletion ever again. I see you deftly jumped over the question posed by imagining insidious motives instead of answering.AugustWest1980 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    I don't know what agenda you think I have or what sinister motives are behind my comments, but I can assure they aren't true. I read wikipedia articles a lot, of all shapes and sizes, but I've never been interested in editing. My questions are honest and simple, and I'm not trying to trick you or troll you or anything like that, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into wikipedia as a whole. As somebody who never edits I've never paid attention to this whole arguing facet of wikipedia. Ypsi.peter (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    The AfDs

    Since nearly all of these hardly had any discussion on the actual notability of the subject (and since they were well overdue - clearly many admins are steering well clear of the subject, and I can hardly blame them), I have closed all of them (apart from a couple that were clear Keeps) as No Consensus. At least this time they weren't disrupted by SPAs. I would suggest these aren't nominated again until a clear consensus on the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as they relate to MMA events is gained, with the input of a wide range of the community. As a side note, since it appears to be a problem related to a vague definition in WP:SPORTSEVENT, I went and looked at boxing, to see if there were articles on single world championship fights. The answer to that was "some of them", however I note that where they exist, they're usually very well sourced, and contain real-world background and coverage from many non-primary sources - see Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye, for example. If all UFC articles were up to this standard, there wouldn't be any argument about their notability. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    AFDing any of the UFC/MMA pages right now (short of CSD-qualified cases) is disruptive to the process; editors who are involved that are still nominating need to stop and/or been on a short block to chill for a while. There's a solution between "having no UFC event pages" and "having every UFC event with a page" that still needs to be figured out off AN/I, but those purposely disrupting the process do need admin action. If there has to be a formal proposal that no UFC/MMA related article should be AFD'd while this process is undergoing, then so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    The problem is, the discussion has been going on for months, it has been virtually stalled for months, it has let to mulple RfC/Us, SPIs, more blocks than I can count, meatpuppeting on both sides, and I would bet 100x more text in comments than the whole of every MMA article combined. I don't think we can flatly say that any and all MMA AFDs are disruptive without looking at the case individually. New unsourced future event articles are created all the time, for instance. Mass AFDs, yes, I would agree that is less than optimal and likely being done to be disruptive, but would have to look at the circumstances. I support the close of No Consensus in this case, for instance. If the time I spend mediating there has taught me one thing, it is that this will not be solved without a binding resolution. Dennis Brown - © 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    For every boxing article that is well sourced such as Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye there are UFC articles that are well sourced as well such as UFC 94. Similarly, there are as many boxing articles like Floyd Mayweather vs. Zab Judah or Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz which lack the non-primary sources and quality of Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye. I don't think the lack of non-primary sources should lead to automatic deletion as these were indeed championship fights which will leave a lasting legacy to the sport. Similarly, UFC championship fights leave a lasting legacy to the sport which is my main reason for supporting that they retain a standalone article. With that said, articles are always a work in progress and quality is always being built as seen by the improvement in some of the higher numbered UFC articles. Additionally, as previously stated, my stance is that only events with championship fights retain an individual article, the other events are not relevant enough in my opinion. BearMan998 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Let's not argue the content/inclusion part here (this is ANI). I would extend any action that I suggest to AFD'ers of MMA to extend to established editors that are creating MMA match articles without impunity. As for the process taking too long, what's probably needed is to have non-involved admins set up a RFC process to resolve the issue. (This is skipping an Arbcom step that tends to end up back to this point such as with the Troubles or Mohammad images.) --MASEM (t) 03:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:PERSONAL

    I am reporting a WP:PERSONAL attack on me by User:Soapfan2013 and 219.79.90.44 for creating personal attacks for the way I handle my talk pages. Yes, it may not unorthodox, but I will close a conversation if I feel it is not in an unhealthy discussion place, and I do not want to violate WP:PERSONAL, which Soapfan has on numerous occasions. And it's gone on long enough. I'm tired of being attacked by people on this site who do not know me or do not like me. And I want something done about it.

    Refer to these edits: 01 02 03

    I do not appreciate being called a baby by users for the way I use my talk page. How I edit and code my talk page, etc. is how I do it to avoid conflict and keep me somewhat WP:CIVIL, which these users are not months/weeks following the small conflict between members and it keeps me calm and helps me walk away from situations which would prove volatile. I agreed to work with Soapfan on furthering their work in editing soap opera articles following a WP:SOCK case, and that faltered due to us being unable to work together in situations, and since then, they seem to be badgering me around things, and I do not appreciate such. I've had several IPs attack me several weeks ago, and it's deterring my wanting to edit here at Misplaced Pages. I've progressed a lot of soap opera articles by bringing notability and WP:V to them. And situations like this are really hinging that. I realize my past my not have been the most grey, but within the past 4-6 months, I've really been working on staying out of conflict, yet it seems to want to attract to me, especially from said member. I try to remain civil headed and clearheaded, and we all get caught up in a moment, hence why we're always advised to walk away, which is what I always tend to do. But people don't want to let it die, and I'm tired of it.

    I've told Soapfan to no longer post on my talk page, and they refuse to comply and at this point, it's distressing that they have such a fixation on me. MusicFreak7676 05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    I've blocked several of PJ/Soapfan2013/User:Onelifefreak2007's socks in the past. I've given him another chance with this account, because he'd been quiet for a while and seemed to be handling a return to editing well when I finally figured out that it was him editing. Posting this on Musicfreak7676 was unacceptable and I'm waiting for a response from him and am very much considering blocking him. That being said Musicfreak7676 you are constantly in violation of WP:Civil. You shouldn't have to close or archive discussions to keep yourself civil, you should just be nice. It's not like you're editing in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. It's soap operas. You get angry and threaten users with "being reported" whenever they make edits you disagree with. That you've found a sympathetic admin in Daniel Case is mind-boggling, because though you are often technically right your attitude is downright awful. AniMate 06:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Well, when I have people constantly down my back, like you, coming at me and making total judgement on me, my closing off arguments and discussions is how I handle it. It's how I resolve it and close it off and feel resolved, and keeps me from going back into the discussion. Yes, I may not have the best way of addressing things, I do not deny that, but I don't calling people babies, etc. And AniMate, I truly feel like you, as well, have a personal issue against me as you've made it clear you "watch" me. I feel as if you don't WP:Assume good faith around me. And AniMate, I'm a he, not a she. I'm not trying to create another conflict, I'm trying to end it. That's all I'm trying to do, so I can go on editing articles and making articles a better contribution to the site. I'm not doing to either to seem as superior to anyone, either. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying I may or may not be doing, I'm just doing this to stop this bull. MusicFreak7676 06:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    My apologies about the gender confusion. I keep an eye on all of the soap opera articles and users. I've been active there and know the socks to look out for. Musicfreak, assume good faith is a two way street. You never seem to do so. Rather than leaving polite messages for those who make edits you disagree with, you almost always threaten to report them. That is not civil. That does not assume good faith. Rarely do threats of reports lead to cooperative editing. I watch you for the same reason I watch PJ, because you both have a history of treating other editors poorly. AniMate 07:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    I don't know, blocking a shared IP for 24 hours with no warnings for calling someone a baby seems a bit harsh, but whatever. I totally agree with AniMate's WP:PETARDic assessment, especially the bit where he mentions sympathetic behaviour over a sustained period by an admin who should know better. There are specific rules on how and where to request blocks and protections, and for good reasons. Neither MusicFreak nor Daniel Case were following them. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    • I've informed Daniel Case that this thread is also discussing him. May I remind people that if you criticise others here it is only polite to tell them. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Heh. I would have, but his talk page is protected. Not a good start for a conversation, is it? 219.78.114.94 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have no problems with Daniel Case or his actions... I'm just rolling my eyes at the super friendly person he's taken under his wing. AniMate 10:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    For the record, no formal mentor/mentee relationship exists between us. A long time ago, Musicfreak made an AIV report to which I responded. S/He seems to have decided then that I could be trusted, which is fo course fine with me, and has continued to report further instances of vandalism to soap-opera articles to me for my impartial review. That's it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    When an editor asks another to stay away from their talkpage, that's usually considered appropriate - no matter what the reason is behind it - those who continue to post there after such a warning are usually guilty of some form of harassment (except admin actions, of course). If an editor chooses to close conversations on their talkpage rather than to be baited into arguments, that's also quite fine - commendable, actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Usually. Request is a more accurate description than warning. The close boxes are fine but not actually commendable -- archiving is preferred. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    It's a fine block. And there really aren't specific rules on Misplaced Pages -- we even have a rule that says that. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, not rules, but you know exactly what I mean. There definitely exist more appropriate channels than prodding your buddy admin, as explained in the policy of this site (here and here). This has the obvious (to me) advantage that such requests are dealt with more impartiality and fairness, and therefore situations like this are more unlikely to develop. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    I've only gone to Daniel because I've been told by other members to go to Daniel, especially when it concerns soap articles. And whether I archive or close off conversations, it's how I do it. I archive every 3-4 months to keep it in my organization. I'm just irked at the fact that I've asked for PJ aka Soapfan to not post on my talk page because it's clear we cannot co-exist and work together. Our personalities do not match together. Recently I have been taking things to the vandalism report section, I have. And I've been using the warning template. And AniMate, instead of rolling your eyes, you should have come to me and told me you didn't find it appropriate that I was going to him. Simple as that. MusicFreak7676 16:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    The way I see it is that you needed help understanding that your ways needed changing, too. And Daniel did not give you this help.
    But that's OK, I think you eventually found it somewhere else and you are trying to better yourself. Cheers to that, and best wishes for the future. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Okay... well, I believe you're the IP that I originally reported hence you're obvious involvement. I didn't find anything anywhere, nor do I believe I needed help. This whole post wasn't about me learning anything, it was to stop the obvious harassment against me. MusicFreak7676 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Sure mate, have it your way. But there must be a reason why you are getting so much shit, and i my view that is strongly related to how you treat other editors. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I frankly don't see the problem here. I thought the topic was simply that Musicfreak was attacked, not that his ethics were up for review. I have to say, early closure and archiving can be unorthodox and sometimes counterproductive, but that is purely on how he handles his talkpage, not why. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    So are there going to be consequences to either of the users, or was this just opened so people could discuss me? Because Soapfan has a clear history of insulting members and abusing WP:PERSONAL on his previous account. MusicFreak7676 04:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Unequal treatment from an admin

    Ents are wise. Listen to them. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    Hello,

    This is regarding recent exchange of messages on talk pages User_talk:Thisthat2011 (own), User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke, and User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee (admin). The issue also involves a user User:Sitush.

    The admin had warned me here(User_talk:Thisthat2011#June_2012) of 'personal attacks on other people', 'constant snide attacks on User:Sitush', and then block here over a discussion here(User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#For_admin_Dougweller.27s_attention).

    On inquiring details on how he reached these conclusion to give warning, he has avoided presenting details and is accusing further 'so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only'. It appears somehow to be personal attack sweetened with a 'please', a behavior himself warned me against.

    He had done something similar earlier User_talk:Thisthat2011/Archive_1#March_2012 here too, which he immediately rectified himself.

    So I would like to know why he is warning to myself, but has avoided warning himself and user:Sitush for exactly doing the same. The behavior is inconstant w.r.t. users.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    I was not acting in an admin capacity in that exchange, and so there is no question of my having misused my admin tools. The issue here is not one my my taking sides - as I make clear, I am carefully avoiding taking sides in the dispute, which is between Sitush and Yogesh. But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here, in disputes that do not involve you. If you have a problem with his behaviour, make a report at to the appropriate venue - as Sitush says, put up or shut up. Now, what admin action do you want taken here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    So he templated you, then had second thoughts so struck it instead of deleting it, expressed opinions about your actions. He didn't cover it up, he struck it, which I consider the honest way of correcting a mistake (or change of heart, or whatever), as he isn't trying to cover up the fact that he originally said it. He used the phrase so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only, which clearly isn't a personal attack, even if it is more crudely worded than perhaps you or I would use. "Stirring the pot" is a common English expressions, used here frequently. It clearly isn't an admin action issue as no tools were used and no administrative sanctions were mentioned. It appears you never tried to bring up the issue on his talk page before coming here, and incidentally, you are supposed to do before coming here, per the top of this very page. It does look like you were stirring the pot on the talk page of Yogesh_Khandke, but I don't have the whole backstory, so maybe you had a good reason to say what you said, and/or maybe he had a good reason to say something about it, but no one did or said anything "action-worthy". I don't see any abuse here, just two editors that disagree. So, what exactly is your point, and why are we here at ANI? Dennis Brown - © 02:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps a new essay should be written. Misplaced Pages: Stirring the pot. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    On my page there is a warning of a ban. Is the warning from an admin, an editor, an observer?
    As also, I had asked the admin on my page reasons for his warning. He is still silent on these questions, inspite of messages on his talk page to answer, and still passing 'low-level snide remarks' such as 'But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here' - is this not a 'low level snide' accusation from an admin?
    Is putting forth a question of violating AGF a low-level snide remark that calls for a warning of a ban? Is the user saying that if there is a dispute, no one else should comment?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    What the user is saying is perfectly clear on your talk page - because I said it in plain English. Since you have been here, you have been stirring the shit against Sitush by constantly taking sides against him in disputes he has with other editors - typically you have been supporting other tendentious POV-pushing battlefield editors. Sitush has been putting in massive amounts of hard work to fix the appallingly bad articles created and edited by a number of Indian caste warriors and other nationalists whose only aim is to shower their own castes with praise and turn many articles into glorifying puffery. And he has been getting little but grief for it - running from outright egregious attacks, to your style of constant snide digs at him. You are part of the problem here with India-related articles, you are not part of the solution - if you wish to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, you should be helping the editors who are doing all the work of fixing things, not hindering and harassing them as you are constantly trying to do with Sitush. I'll repeat again, if you believe Sitush's behaviour is problematic, put up or shut up by raising a report at the appropriate venue instead of constantly nipping at his heels. And again, what admin action are you asking for here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    PS: I should also note that the editors you support are frequently those who get blocks and bans for their own behaviour, as is the case this time.
    PPS: Putting a standard templated warning on a user talk page is not an admin action - any editor can do so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    You have not answered questions that I had put forth upon your warning. You have avoided answering it twice, repeating past accusations but not bothering to answer how a question of violating AGF automatically means constant snide remarks, and so on. If you want to warn, be ready to answer how an inquiry on violating AGF automatically means anything. Otherwise drop the bone for all its meaning, and let other admins comment.
    I am not sure of the admin action, but the title says it all. It is unequal treatment from the admin that is a matter of concern. If you notice the talk page, Yogesh_Khandke has also requested you "to address the issues such as hounding and complete lack of civility and constant heckling without any provocation on the part of the concerned editor." Selective warning and actions and selective silence is not civil per me, especially on the part of someone who is admin.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have answered your question by explaining that it is your general continued low-level sniping that is the problem, not one specific action - and I can't help it if you cannot understand that. Also, the dispute is between Sitush and Yogesh, not you, and I am being even-handed in that by recusing myself from acting on it because I do not believe I am sufficiently uninvolved with the two of them. Now, if you can not point to any abuse of admin tools on my part, and are not asking for any admin action, then I have better things to do with my time - bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


    Boing! said Zebedee you cannot call it shit stirring, is it wrong to be part of a dispute. You mentioned on the ThisThat’s talk page Sitush and Yogesh are grown up enough and know each other well enough by now to conduct their own disputes and to seek neutral help with resolution if they need it - so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only. Well if two users have some dispute and if they wanted to resolve it among themselves they would have discussed it somewhere else not on wikipedia, many times disputes are resolved by discussions which involve more than one editors(else no one would put pages on watch list). No one is having any doubts about Sitush’s hard work in cleaning up caste articles I have personally noticed Sitush putting great effort in cleaning a lot of articles. If you say that ThisThat should stop anti-Sitush bias I would request you to atop anti-thisthat bias and stop warning him for doing nothing.Do not call him a part of a problem just because he is bold enough to point out a problem/mistake P.S Not sure why you mentioned caste related articles here I don’t see thisthat editing many articles related to caste sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    If they're "grown up enough" then they should just fricking do it, and stop the sniping or else a) someone else will bring it up, and/or b) someone else will stop it. Misplaced Pages is not the place for such childish bullshit, and Boing was absolutely right in notifying the editor that he saw as the prime instigator. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I am afraid you are wrong, I can say that Thisthat wanted to clear the dispute so he did a right thing. I am not sure whom are you referring as prime instigator I hope its not Thisthat as he entered the dipute very late and thus cannot be an Instigator. Misplaced Pages is not a place for childish bullshit of warning people just because they were part of a dispute and tried to help the someone whom they thing are on the right side sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    It would be best if all participants in this discussion walk away without insisting on the last word.Nobody Ent 11:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

    Perth

    Discussion now on user talk page. Nothing for AN/I here. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    A recent WP:RM (initiated by myself) from Perth, Western Australia to Perth was closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs) as "moved", and the page was moved. A short time later, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) reversed this closure and moved the article back.

    See Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move for some subsequent discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim.

    There are a few problems with this action by Deacon of Pndapetzim:

    1. The usual procedure would be to take it to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closure review. Doing an instant reversal in this way is wheel-warrish. (Also, it is bad form to edit a archived move discussion with a prominent "Please do not modify" in red at the top)
    2. Deacon of Pndapetzim has a userbox indicating membership in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. Since Perth, Scotland was a former capital of medieval Scotland, and Perth, Scotland was the "rival" of Perth, Australia as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the WP:RM discussion, this at least creates the outward appearance of possibly having a personal stake in the outcome, and for this reason alone it may have been an unwise action.
    3. In his reversal comment, Deacon of Pndapetzim appears to question JHunterJ's integrity by stating "Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close."

    See also this note by JHunterJ regarding the formulation of his closure summary comments.

    I would ask an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome of the WP:RM and move the page back to Perth, and then anyone who wishes may naturally start a review at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closure review. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

    Did Deacon remove Perth without any explanation? That seems highly suspicious. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, now it seems Deacon did have an explanation. Deacon stated in this thread on JHunter's talk page that there was no consensus and the overturn was justified. Upon reviewing the discussion on the Perth talk page, it clearly shows that there was no consensus, with a hodgepodge of supports and opposes. I have to say, I think Deacon was justified in overturning the closure. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Deacon is definitely right. There was no preponderance of opinions either way, and when a discussion is split 50/50, you can't declare consensus one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    And this isn't wheel warring, it was a single revert. It doesn't happen that often, but it is acceptable and it was explained. JHunterJ or others can take it to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closure review if they so choose, but nothing improper happened here. Dennis Brown - © 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    D should have taken it to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closure review. As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    That is one option, reverting is the other. You and I might prefer someone go to review rather than revert us on an RM or AFD or other discussion, but I don't see a policy against this type of reversion, so I conclude it is acceptable sometimes but subject to review like any other administrative action. The problem is, this is ANI, not review, and not the proper place to discuss whether or not the close is proper or not, or the revert is proper or not. If you think it was clearly abuse, sure, ANI is fine but I find it hard to believe that a single revert is abuse, and review is the much better, calmer place to review the situation. Dennis Brown - © 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    OK, hoping the drama would be minimal here. This was a case of a highly controversial discussion, clearly having reached no consensus, being closed in favour of one particular view and being reviewed afterwards. Moreover, one to which the closer expressed a preference in the close rather than, as he is supposed to, summarize discussion and carry out whatever its conclusion is. I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus (see my comments on the page in question).
    PS, there is no established procedure for reversing RM closes, but neither is RM a binding process that would necessitate one; it is perfectly normal for page moves to be reversed when they are made in this fashion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I am an admin with impartiality and experience and the serious claim. You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure. Stop insinuating that that could only possibly have occurred if I suffer from some admin character defect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    This is certainly tough, as two Wikiprojects are contested. From an uninvolved view, I have to agree with Deacon. Closing a debate with no consensus and redirecting in one side's favor is clearly out of order. This seems to be very WP: BOOMERANGish. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    @J, I'm not really sure my academic interests should really be a topic of focus here, but I do not wish to imply any "character defect", and am sorry if it is taken in such a way. At issue here is not anyone's academic interest, but whether or not a particular discussion had consensus. The community would be best served, I think, if you focused on that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    People should stop throwing this scottish thing around as the majority of opposers are actually australiains, many of whoom reside in Perth, Western Australia. The thing is this has been discussed for most the last 10 years and there has never been a clear consensus, to close either way on what isnt a clear consensus is just creating unnecessary drama any admin can see that the status quo works and has consensus and has had for a considerable time the "new" proposal hasnt shifted that consensus. Gnangarra 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    It was a bit "glass houses" for Deacon to question whether JHunterJ was being impartial. Even if you do argue that the reversal was procedurally correct, it really shouldn't have been Deacon who did it, because it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that his academic interests may make Perth, Scotland a primary topic for him within his own personal cognitive sphere. The optics of it are the issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Agree that D shouldnt have reversed the move, but its worng to say this is just a dispute based on racial lines because it aint when many Australians dont support the move, its more a matter of timing. That said the closure wasnt clear and wasnt reflective of the discussion as it should be discussed, but while others are running around making changes it creates a hostile discussion. The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision. Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comments:
    1. I do not agree with those who claim that the proper forum is Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closure review. As pointed out above, it is not adopted as a policy or a guideline. In my opinion (expressed early at the talkpage), the page is nowhere near ready for adoption. In particular, it was diverted at the outset by an editor with an axe to grind concerning non-admin closures. The provisions for such closures remain vague on the page, but it has has been manipulated toward normalising a position that has not been subjected to wide or searching scrutiny.
    2. JHunterJ has frequently closed RMs without consideration of detailed and clearly articulated arguments, and sometimes cited evidence that has been comprehensively dismissed by counter-evidence and cogent arguments. He has edited relevant policy, naming conventions, or guidelines (sometimes without any discussion toward consensus, or apparent assessment of existing consensus), and then applied those provisions in deciding RMs, sometimes counter to the weight of numbers and the weight of argument in the associated RM discussion.
    3. I agree with the assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I believe acted with complete propriety in this case. He did not begin a process of wheel warring. If anyone did, it was Kwami who reverted a perfectly well-argued administrative action of review. But I do not censure Kwami, who appears to have acted as he saw best and with some circumspection.
    4. I hope that JHunterJ will rethink his attitude and his actions, and find something more constructive to do than push what is obviously a particular and partisan view of priorities among vigorously contested provisions at WP:AT, WP:DAB, and related pages. Especially, he should not act so that the energy, time, and talents of knowledgeable editors participating at RM discussions is squandered. For my part, I have stopped participating because of his presence. Life is too short.
    Noetica 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RPP/AFD backlog

    Just FYI... There's a long backlog at WP:RPP. A couple of items have been waiting for attention for almost two days. Zagalejo^^^ 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Still over 20 requests left to process if anyone wants to get them out of the way. tutterMouse (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have worked my mouse to the bare silicon in closing AFDs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Great but we've still got a backlog close to 30 over at RFPP, nobody's put a dent in it since this was posted and have a good few which are three days old which just seems... negligent. Get to it kiddos, RFPP requests are people too. tutterMouse (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Phony use of a citation by a longtime administrator

    I have organized this report into four sections: SUMMARY, REASONS, DOCUMENTATION, and APPENDIX.

    SUMMARY. A longtime administrator User:Kwamikagami (or "Kwami", as he often signs himself) made an insertion that he supported with a phony citation. Here it is:
    before: Kerala is often referred to as Keralam by the native Malayalis.
    after: Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ (listen) by the native Malayalis.

    Any reader would interpret the new sentence as saying that the inserted phonetic transcription is being sourced to the footnoted book. But the book does not contain any such material. (Moreover, the transcription is rife with inaccuracies both notational and factual (although one of Kwami's specialties at Misplaced Pages is IPA transcription) and it had never been sourced in all the years that it (or variants) had been appearing in the article.) * * * End of Summary * * *

    REASONS FOR lodging this incident report. One month after he made the insertion in question, I reverted it, unaware of who had made it. Within one day, after discussion on the Talk page, Kwami (although not other editors) accepted my changes. But at that point I still didn't realize the old insertion had improprieties because I hadn't done deep investigation into its supporting footnote and into the article history. (All I had done was replace the old source.) Eventually two things happened. It slowly dawned on me that the flaws in the insertion could not be explained by mere inattention, and then this week, Kwami weighed in on a current complaint to AN/I about my own citation practice in a different article. All this plus Kwami's strong bias against me (next paragraph), and because as an admin he should operate at higher standards, are the reasons while I now feel it urgent to make this complaint.

    The same administrator has denounced me aggressively twice in recent months. Just last month, he participated on an article talk page to threaten me with being blocked (Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion, 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)). Two months prior to the edit in question, this administrator totally lost his temper at me and established that he is hugely biased against me (Talk:Diasystem#Reply_to_declared_dispute_resolver, 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC) and 00:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)). Now he has just commented against me at AN/I about the same Russian phonology article as prior, 01:02, 9 June 2012.

    DOCUMENTATION. The administrator User:Kwamikagami made an insertion into the article, Kerala in mid April 2012. Kerala is a one of the states of India. For many years, the opening sentence has contained a phonetic transcription of how to say the name. For six years, the attribution ("sourcing") of the phonetic transcription was unsatisfactory, because there wasn't any attribution (a situation I myself rectified in mid May 2012). Although Kwami did not create this situation, he made it worse. Over the years, there was vacillation as to whether the transcribed pronunciation was that of Keralites or of English speakers (probably Britons). There was never an indication given in the article as to which community's pronunciation was being represented (sometimes such an indication was given in the edit summary), AND, the phonetic transcriptions changed over time, AND, citations were never offered. (The native pronunciation of the letter 'e', , is close to the vowel in 'day', 'say', whereas the transcription inserted for many years, , is the much more open-mounted vowel of the British Received Pronunciation pronunciation as in 'hair'.)

    Also for many years, there has been an insertion that Keralites call the state 'Keralam' instead. Until 2009, this insertion, too, was unsupported. The latter claim is just a claim that Keralites add an 'm' at the end, and did not include a phonetic transcription.

    What administrator Kwamikagami did at 19:36, 15 April 2012 is that he moved the then current phonetic transcription from the article lead to the existing passage which claimed 'Keralam', then without justification, he augmented the transcription with the false claim that it is the inhabitants' pronunciation, AND he arranged the sentence so as to create the impression that his insertion was sourced by the footnote already long in place to substantiate the 'Keralam' claim). In an associated edit just three hours later, 22:34, he inserted a different transcription in the opening sentence, in the gap created by the prior edit. The differentness of the transcriptions, along with a remark he made a month later (see below) prove he believed that the transcription of 22:34 was an English language one, although this is never stated AND no citation is offered for it.

    Here is his change made at 19:36:
    before: Kerala is often referred to as Keralam by the native Malayalis.
    after: Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ (listen) by the native Malayalis.

    The chief misdeed here is that while the new text is most reasonably interpreted as citing "Freiberger" as the source of the transcription, "Freiberger" is not its source. The "Freiberger" footnote, in place for three years, asserted only that the locals add 'm' to the end of the word. In fact, the only "authority" for Kwami's insertion is that it was present in the article, unsourced, for many years.

    In any case, this phonetic transcription was incorrect. Not only are syllable stresses wrong and the vowels transcribed into IPA wrong, the dotted 'L' is transcribed into IPA wrong. The dot indicates the sound is retroflex, but Kwami's IPA transcription uses the wrong IPA symbol! This from an editor who specializes in updating IPA transcriptions! His transcription even overlooks the 'm' that supposedly distinguishes the inhabitants' version of the name!

    Granted, there are multiple interpretations of what Kwamikagami's intentions and responsibility are. Perhaps it's plausible that his intention was not for readers to associate the longstanding "Freiberger" footnote with Kwami's inserted phonetic transcription, but to associate it only with the longstanding content it had always been associated with. But this interpretation is unreasonable (given the content of the previous passage as well as its longtime stability, and given how Kwami laid out the footnote). Besides, even if this interpretation were correct, it would entail that Kwami deliberately inserted a claim that has no basis.

    An interpretation even more difficult to defend is that this lapse was an oversight. (1) The bad insertion stood for one month, unchallenged. (2) Kwami is not a casual Wikipedian who edits rarely and fleetingly, rather he's one of the most active among us. (3) He chides other editors on the insufficiency of their sourcing. (4) He's a longtime administrator. (5) At first, he swiftly did a global revert of every insertion I had made simultaneous to the one about the phonetic transcription -- incidentally, without acknowledging he was doing so -- which in itself is a misdeed when committed by an administrator. (However, he did relent after I posted a discussion on the Talk page..) For him to restore the original insertion is inconsistent with the interpretation that he had meant to change it but never got around to doing so. Please notice that in making this restoration, he did demonstrate inattentiveness in two ways. First, he still didn't catch the two whoppers I mentioned above, the missing 'm' and the bad 'L' symbol! Second, regarding his rationale that the English pronunciation of a foreign name customarily precedes the native at Misplaced Pages, the article contained no indication that the pronunciation he claimed is native, is so.

    Incidentally, the invocation of "Oliver Freiberger" was not a proper citation because Freiberger is the editor of a collective volume -- that's why I have been putting the name in scare quotes all along. A proper footnote would use the name of the author of the chapter where the cited material appeared (the cited material being the claim of 'Keralam'). This is of course a minor point, but Kwami is supposedly a citation "hawk" (diligent auditor). It would strongly imply he committed the prevalent Misplaced Pages crime of not checking the citation for proper form and for content. Of course, if he did check it, if he did find it through Google Books as I did, then he incontrovertibly became aware it did not support his insertion.

    APPENDIX Partial edit history of the article Kerala relevant to this complaint, only for people who think it's important, which doesn't include me).
    (a) 16 Jan 2006. User Saravask inserts a phonetic transcription of 'Kerala', apparently, the first in the history of the article. Text: Kerala (IPA: .
    (b) as of 01:56, 10 March 2006. User Saravask amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (IPA: .
    (c) as of 23:17, 13 March 2006. User:Saravask amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (IPA: . ES: (use native pronunciation (nasalization, suprasegmentals, etc); gm; clarify chart caption)
    (d) as of 19:35, 27 April 2006. User:Saravask (talk | contribs) amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"Kerala.ogg"},"classes":}">. ES: (Audio file "{{{1}}}" not found)
    (e) as of 07:12 1 July 2006. User:Grammatical error changed Saravask's transcription. Text: Kerala (<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"Kerala.ogg"},"classes":}"> (Anglicised) or (native). ES: added native pronunciation.
    (f) 2 Jan 2007, IPA transcription had been changed to .
    (g) Sometime between 11 May 2008 and 22 Jun 2008, a separate section, Etymology was created.
    (h) 26 November 2009. User:Caughingjoe inserts reference "Freiberger" to support the claim that the natives say 'Keralam' instead of Kerala'. This claim had been in the article since at least 5 December 2005.
    (i) 19:36 15 April 2012. User:Kwamikagami wrongly associated the "Freiberger" footnote with a detailed phonetic transcription.
    (j) 22:23 16 May 2012. Dale Chock (that's me), citing a grammar of the Malayalam language, removed a phonetic transcription from the section, Etymology and amended the transcription in the lead sentence to native pronunciation.
    (k) 01:52, 17 May 2012. Kwamikagami globally reverted me with the ES: "undo: that's not a "correction", that's a different language. English first on WP-en." In fact, instead of putting English first in the lead, he made it English only. (At Misplaced Pages, it is common practice to include the native pronunciation of names in the opening sentence.)
    (l) Two minutes later. Kwami slightly amended his transcription (using updated markup to produce the same result).
    (m) 15:23, 17 May 2012. I restored my edits with the ES, "Restore factual enhancements on prehistory and pronunciation. Restore Infobox heading. Clean up citations. See two new sections on talk page."

    • The above post clearly evidences lack of assumption of good faith and battleground mentality. A cursory review of the OP's contributions will show that this is a consistent pattern.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    A bit of WP:TLDR in there too. I feel like there might be a valid content concern buried somewhere in there and perhaps WP:ECCN would be a better venue (or the article talk page of course). SÆdon 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Dale, you're welcome to fix any errors. I didn't read your complaint past the summary (way TLDR), but the problem arose because the India project decided to remove all native script from geography articles, and several people implemented the decision badly. In this case (as in several others), the result was that we claimed the English pronunciation of Kerala was , which was not true. I moved the pronunciation down where I thought it would be more appropriate, rather than simply deleting it. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Actually, we may have more than just a lack of assumption of good faith here. The Kerala thing happened a month ago; Dale didn't said anything until I responded to an edit war of his on Russian phonology, where he was making an unsupported (though very possibly correct) edit against sources. In that discussion he said I had it in for him, though frankly I didn't remember who he was at the time, and now he's using this ANI posting as evidence against my character in that debate, in an argument he added after the debate had been archived. Since I'm a minor party to that and it's now linked to this ANI complaint, perhaps I'm not the one to revert his additions to an archived talk page. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I noticed a similar occurrence when I suggested at Wikiquette Assistance that his behavior at Diasystem was WP:OWNy and he has since taken to either accusing me of article ownership or implying as much by saying I'm the most significant contributor to this or that article.
    I've un-archived the other thread. — Ƶ§œš¹ 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Bushranger's point (1.) is invalid since I led off with a short summary. I am entitled to fully document an accusation. I went to extra length because (a) the person I'm accusing is an administrator; (b) the article gets 50 edits a month. His point (2.) is valid. I'm sorry for the oversight. I was logged in and in earlier drafts my signature was there. The last thing I can be accused of is concealing my authorship of controversial comments. Bushranger's response is poor administratorship because he doesn't address the complaint: the citation invoked for an insertion does not support the insertion, and the inserter had no reason to think it did; if the inserter had read the cited source, he would have seen so for himself. As for Kwami's annoyance, the timing of my complaint was already addressed by me in a short, titled section right after the Summary. Dale Chock (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Personal attacks after being warned by User:Mishae

    Mishae has been told multiple times not to make personal attacks like calling editors scum and calling them fascists. He has responded to his most recent warning by writing "...If it offends you, and don't want to see it just ignore it! Is it that hard? My other suggestion would if you will just cut both of your eyes out, that might prevent you from seeing my pointless edits, and other crap that I do, that you don't like..." . The editor has shown a high level of incompetence, i.e. arguing after he was told to stop removing persondata (User talk:Mishae#Persondata) and tries to excuse himself by claiming that he is Russian and has Autism . I personally think an indef block is needed for personal attacks after warnings were given, an unwillingness to accept consensus, and an unwillingness to receive advice. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Wow yeah, I support an indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NPA, admin's choice. SÆdon 04:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    It is difficult for me to support a block considering he has created 664 articles; however, I cannot justify allowing someone to continue editing after they have told an editor to "cut both of your eyes out". Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    While we by default often allow good content creators a little leeway, what he said to you was so unacceptable that it can't be excused by positive contribs. Indefinite, as you know, is not infinite, but he needs to be blocked until he accepts and understands that kind of behavior is unacceptable - Russian autistic or not. SÆdon 04:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    (Said to PamD) Right, that's why I brought it here, I was just remarking on how I dislike these situations. The final aspect is the fact that he was fully aware that it would get him blocked. "Altough I don't want to be blocked by using threats now". Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Ofcourse, thats the best way is to show how much you guys hate disabled people, especialy those that are here to help. I just was upset with PamD and Stemonitis. Well I actually do have autism and CP. It now feels like like I can't explicit my feelings. Rich told me that you are a good mentor. I don't see it. And as soon as admins would make the choice everyone will say "heil" on it. Just great!--Mishae (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I just need help, not a block. If Worm That Turned will be my mentor, I will stop issuing threats and namecallings!--Mishae (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    That is a problem. There should be no if/then situation for you to stop issuing threats and namecallings. All threats and namecallings must end now and should have been redacted before. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Rich was referring to Worm That Turned I believe; however, I did nothing but assist you prior to your personal attacks. We do not hate disabled people. There are constructive editors on the encyclopedia with just about every disorder you can imagine. We even have blind editors. The deal is, we do not treat any editors differently due to what disables them. That means that we never treat them worse, but we also don't allow editors to act in a way that is contrary to the policies that are set in place while using their handicap as a crutch. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Rhetoric about hating disabled people is not helping your case here. If your disability interferes with your ability to edit in a collaborative environment it is something you will have to deal with. WP is WP:NOTTHERAPY and competence is required to edit here and follow behavioral norms and guidelines. SÆdon 05:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    O.K. I agree, so whats now? I don't know how to deact?--Mishae (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    There is no guarantee that redacting your edits will keep you from being blocked for the reasons described in this thread; however, you can redact your attacks by striking them by adding <s>COMMENT</s> around your comment, or you can remove your attacks and replace them with (Personal attack removed). Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Strike your comments, apologize to everyone to whom you spoke like that and promise not to violate the spirit or letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL again. Keep in mind that if this happens again it will likely be a quick block (and that's not even guaranteeing you're not getting blocked now, but if you do what I said it will be a step in the right direction). SÆdon 05:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    O.K. I agree, so whats now? I did the deact. If you guys don't hate disabled people you'll have stoped reverting and ignored the pointless edits I made. That way I could have talked to Worm That Turned without getting into a conflict. Instead, I have PamD and Stemonitis giving me warnings that I find to be a scare tactic rather then helpful one, and now you Ryan, telling administrators Boo-hoo-hoo this guy insulted every editor. Ofcourse you will be on their side! Why you even came to Worm That Turned talkpage? You weren't invited. Neither you or PamD were invited to my talkpage. Fine, I apologize, but not because I feel like it, just because I don't want to be blocked. I can't promise, since I don't want to lie.--Mishae (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Facepalm Facepalm. Heiro 05:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    If you can't edit here without attacking other users then you can't edit here; it's that simple. SÆdon 05:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    O.K. I did the deact. Whats now, what is facepalm?--Mishae (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Facepalm is my reaction to "Fine, I apologize, but not because I feel like it, just because I don't want to be blocked. I can't promise, since I don't want to lie." :It would be a good idea to say you will not repeat such behavior again and actually mean it, and strive to not repeat the offending behavior again. Otherwise you are likely to end up blocked until you can do these things. Heiro 05:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Mishae if you say you won't promise because you don't want to lie, you are in effect saying that you already know you will call people "scum" and "calling them fascists" over and again. If you must be insulting simply to function, there is a serious issue of incompatibility. How would you suggest we handle your conduct and your stated intention to continue? My76Strat (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    We don't "hate disabled people" here at WP, as Mishae likely knows. And the rhetoric that alleges that we do seems a bit trollish in nature. Doc talk 06:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Misha has struck through the two words "scum" and "fascistic" but I see no indication of an apology, and no change to the "cut your eyes out" rhetoric. This editor seems to have a lot of problems with Misplaced Pages, quite apart from the obsessive removal of spaces from places where they are widely accepted as beneficial (between asterisk and text in a bulleted list, between "|" and the following text in a template set out on separate lines) which was the trigger for various discussions. PamD 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment Mishae is notoriously known for similar activity on Russian Misplaced Pages, where he was indeffed in August 2011. In addition, he went to external sites to place there insults to his opponents.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Fine, I am sorry Pam that your feelings have been hurt, boo-hoo-hoo. But you know my feelings are hurt now too, because of all this! Don't you want to apologize to me too. And besides just because its "easy to read for editors" the spaces I believe are worthless. Because how many editors even go through every article and look for removed trailing space? O' and I did cross that retoric out too, so that you will shut up and quit whining. How would you handle my conduct? Simple:
    1. user:koavf will help me with it
    2. Don't create the same "circus" you guys did here!

    And yes, I already know that I might call people names, but only if they provoke me like here. I don't want to get a one way apology. It makes me feel like this: I apologize to Pam, Pam says "thanks" and will continue on critisizing me, with which I have an issue with! As for the comment: "this editor have a lot of problems with Misplaced Pages"... Question to you Pam: Don't you have problems understanding something too, or are you implying that you are perfect and people that have autism are suppose to be banned? If that so, then put a sign under the missleading "encyclopedia that everyone could edit" that "people with disabilities are not welcomed here, because they cause dissruption, thretening your cozy personal talkpages and articles, etc"--Mishae (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    You're invoking the "look what you made me do" game. No one can "provoke" you here, unless you choose to be provoked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots12:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Mishae, people with autism or any other disability are welcome to edit here, but they still must comply with all behavioral guidelines. I personally knew several editors here with varying degrees of autism, and they are excellent contributors. Having a disability isn't a license to bypass the community expectations. We shouldn't discriminate, but we also should not coddle. If someone is blocked from editing for disruption, it doesn't matter why they are disruptive, it only matters that they are disruptive. I would strongly suggest you seek to learn ways to better communicate your frustrations, because while your contributions appear to be very beneficial, your disruption isn't. If necessary, seek mentoring for this to help allow you to continue being a part of the community here. Dennis Brown - © 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    "No one can "provoke" you here, unless you choose to be provoked" - so what you are saying is that I chose to be provoked!! I didn't chose to be provoked, people set me up on this and now want my apology. I can't apologize to people that are setting me up! I already asked user:koavf for help assistance or mentoring as you guys call it here.--Mishae (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I think he meant you can choose to ignore the other person's comments, but this is often easier said than done. The mentoring is a good idea and I'm glad you are trying to initiate it. I would recommend that if you see a comment that upsets you, don't reply to it so quickly. Take a few hours or a day, then collect your thoughts, and make your reply be persuasive instead of reactionary. It isn't easy, but it is more productive. I do mentoring as well, but I'm full up right now. If you can't find someone to assist you, let me know and I will try to find someone. You are obviously a good contributor, we just need to help you communicate better, both to avoid future misunderstandings, and because it actually helps you to be a better contributor as well. Until then, I strongly suggest you avoid confrontational situations, as the totality of your comments are block-worthy, but I'm trying to give you an alternative. English is a funny language, and sometimes it isn't what you say, but how you say it. And again, no one will hold any disability against you, but you are still expected to comply with the same rules of civility that I do, and everyone else does. Dennis Brown - © 15:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    As Dennis says, we don't hold any physical or mental handicaps against any editors, but competence is required, and Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Editors are required to follow Misplaced Pages's policies, and those policies include the civility policy and the No Personal Attacks policy. If you cannot honestly and genuinely promise that you will abide by those (and of course the rest of Misplaced Pages's policies as well), then Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. If you are willing to make a good faith effort to comply, we'll more than happily give you another chance, but it's up to you not to turn that last chance, mentored or not, into WP:ROPE. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Mentoring could be worthwhile. Either way, if the editor sincerely wants to edit, then he needs to make that his priority instead of worrying about being "provoked". I've been blocked a few times here. Each time it was because I went too far. I accepted that fact and sat out the block, even when I felt emotionally that I might have been "provoked" or "baited". No one can provoke me or you unless we choose to allow ourselves to be provoked, i.e. if we choose to "take the bait", if we choose to "let it get to us" - as Dennis describes above. We are not anyone else's puppet. No one owns us or controls us. We take responsibility for our own actions. ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    O.K. I will try to comply. You see, I can't ignore warnings either, because people can block me for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rule, another burden with which I need to get along with. To be honest, I would have prefered to be blocked for that rule rather then for my comments. On the other hand, I am proud that I shared my feelings, no matter how harsh they were. Because see, throughout this month user:Uncle G mocked my spelling, after which he refrained from. Another problem, is that I have a feeling that every edit I make even on my own created articles are causing can uproar. Can I at least edit the articles that I wrote? Apparently not! And in your opinion I can't call it "fascism", even though that in my opinion it is! Like I understand that majority of people on Misplaced Pages are Jewish, and they might take it pesonaly, but can they ignore it? Ofcourse! The thing is, if Ryan would have not gone to my talkpage with his "friendly notice", but rather ignored it and helped me, the conflict wouldn't have escalated further. Instead, it turns out, people can't ignore a "fart" here, just like on the Russian Misplaced Pages. Well people shouldn't use a bait in the first place!

    "No one owns us or controls us." - Hold on. Jimbo Wales is controling the site and the consensus controls your/our minds.--Mishae (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    The "burden" as you call it is entirely of your own making. If it was down to me I wouldn't give you the hint of a second chance for your despicable, threatening comments. I would site ban you, end of. This place can be difficult for anyone, threatening to blind someone is way beyond acceptable, no matter how good your content is. Leaky Caldron 17:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict × 2)First, you are allowed to edit your own pages; however, other editors are allowed to edit your pages too. No matter where you edit you must work with other editors. I am very disappointed that this had to come here to ANI. You went to Worm That Turned's talk page asking for someone to go through your contributions with AWB. I responded that I could do that and then I asked for some clarification of what you wanted done. In your clarification, you introduced a personal attack which I referred to on Worm's page, and Gilderien pointed out on your talk page. This was to give you the opportunity to remove your personal attack rather than face any consequences. You responded to the remark on your talk page with another personal attack at which point PamD and I both described to you that your actions were inappropriate but gave you the option to discontinue, or change, your responses rather than coming here. Many editors don't get this option. You responded to that with a particularly harsh statement of having PamD cut her eyes out. Since my interaction with you has begun, I have done nothing but assist you and/or give you extra opportunities, so I don't appreciate the way that you are stating I am against you. In fact, I even remarked once that I felt that warning you for removing spaces and reverting your edits may have been inappropriate . In fact, if you wanted to be more specific as to what you wanted me to do with AWB on your contributions, I would be happy to do so. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    And couldn't you ignored that personal attack, not to mention it wasn't about you? O.K. I already signed up for AWB, and an admin granted me one. Question: How do I use it? What I want to do: So that you will prevent my edits from being reverted, thats all.

    "threatening to blind someone" - read that comment again, it was just a suggestion not a threat. The "threat" feeling was in your and PamD's mind. Which means that the "threat" is of your own making as well.--Mishae (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    In the circumstances I don't think you should have access to anything other than basic editing functions. I don't think that you are either competent or trustworthy. Leaky Caldron 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)We don't just ignore personal attacks and you can't use AWB to prevent your edits from being reverted. We have not even referred to a threat, so I don't know what you are talking about. I am leaving a request at User talk:Graeme Bartlett that AWB access be revoked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Hold on! You make it worse by revoking the AWB, and I am competent and trustworthy, just give me a chance!!!!--Mishae (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Enough - I think we all know how everyone feels, and beating this horse isn't helpful. He said he will seek mentoring, let us leave it at that. If there are continuing problems, blocks will follow, but let us not antagonize the situation any more. I would suggest simply ending the conversation and close it, now please, and let us just see what tomorrow brings. If nothing else, because I'm asking everyone to. Nothing is revoked, let this rest a day. Dennis Brown - © 17:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)If you were competent in using AWB you would no be asking how to use it. If you were trustworthy you would not be here at all. Leaky Caldron 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, Ryan already asked for revokation, and I posted my appropriate opposition to it. And yes, I am competent but at the same time I don't know how to use it, whats wrong with not knowing how to use it, or how to activate it?--Mishae (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Because you should already have read this WP:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual. Leaky Caldron 17:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Its funny that I requested an AWB without reading how to use it, but I still don't get it! So, I should log out and then log in my AWB, how do I do it? I loged out, I loged in, nothing happened. It says something about being "sixth from the top", but the only sixth thing on the top I have is "My contributions". Any suggestions?--Mishae (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    So, O.K. I callmed down, now what?--Mishae (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    In the editors "apology" to Pam above he not only mocks her with "boo-hoo-hoo" but goes on to say that he only struck his words so that she would "shut up and quit whining." Why has this editor not been blocked yet? His behavior is completely unacceptable and his attempts to mitigate it have lead to more unacceptable behavior and blaming other people for his actions. Dennis, I know you like to give a lot of leeway and I respect you for that, but this seems to me to be a pretty clear cut case of an editor abusing other editors and continuing to do so after being warned not to. A block would be purely preventative. I realize compassion is important, but not to the point where we let other editors get abused. SÆdon 20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    To add: how would this have been handled if it was User:Malleus Fatuorum or User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz? I've seen both of them get blocked for less. SÆdon 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    If it had been Malleus, the thread probably would've been closed within minutes. If it had been KW, it probably would've been handled, well, much like the above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    And the comment Like I understand that majority of people on Misplaced Pages are Jewish is also utterly unacceptable. I honestly don't believe that any more WP:ROPE is needed; the potential continued disruption to the project regrettably outweighs the potential good here, IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Having been highly supportive of a block earlier, I think Dennis has a point. After this cooled down, the editor began editing constructively and any work with User:Koavf should assist him. That being said, I am still disappointed by the fake apology. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    In response to a request on my talk page, I have decided not to revoke AWB access. The reason is that AWB is a tool not a reward. It has not been used by Mishae to cause any disruption. Misplaced Pages will not be helped by removing AWB access. Revoking AWB will not affect any of the complainants or victims of attacks mentioned here. However if AWB does not get used after a long period of time, or on user request, then it could be removed due to lack of use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you Graeme Bartlett for listening to me. I was a bit worried where it will lead, and I am glad it all got resolved piecefully. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble. As for my comment Like I understand that majority of people on Misplaced Pages are Jewish, well I said majority doesn't mean all or is it pretty much the same thing? Again, can we please close our eyes on it, as Dennis said we sholdn't beat a dead horse. I got callmed down so should the rest of the party! As far as the abuse goes, I was a bit abused by Uncle G when he mocked my spelling in a quotation. And you all think that wasn't abusive? I'm not putting a blame on him I just use it as an example. Different people have a different definition for this word. To me, my personal attacks were just a part of my anger problem, I sometimes can't except warnings or criticism as a good thing. Especially if people threaten to block me, the discussion of which still goes on despite Dennis's enough.
    "Why has this editor not been blocked yet?" - well, why should I? If the conflict have been resolved, and I apologized (either weakly or not), then the block should be withdrawn till future notice (which hopefuly wont happen). I maybe tried using humour to detract from conflict, but apparently got it even worse. Either way, if the party agrees, I think its over. Your comments?--Mishae (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. As Ryan Vesey pointed out above, Mishae has made some constructive edits. I say, let's encourage that behaviour by allowing him to continue to edit. At the same time, let's hope this serves as a reminder that he has to stay civil toward other editors—and a final warning that any future uncivil edits will lead to his account being blocked without discussion here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    I still would like discussions to be the main theme for any conflict resolutions. This example is one of them, by talking every user learns a lot, by blocks though not so much. I understand that blocks are ment to be preventative, but at the same time some people look at it as punitive, especially if a block is indefinite.--Mishae (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    True. That's why I said, if you do the same thing again—if you haven't learned from this discussion—that a block was in order, because it would be the next step up. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Slightly off-topic, but I ended up looking at Mishae's user page and thus userboxes, and some of them seem to be fairly serious BLP violations (particularly the one about George Bush which he created himself using a blank template). Is this really the place to be referring to living people as "traitorous scum"? Basalisk berate 01:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    First of all I didn't created it myself, I copied it from another user who had it, and thats every user box. No body ojected to them, so why should somebody object to me! The only userbox I did create was the WikiRabbit one, even that was with the help of an editor.--Mishae (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    I haven't seen it on anybody else's userpage, I've only seen it on yours, which is why I'm raising it. A BLP violation is a BLP violation, regardless of how many people commit it. I just think it's pretty libellous language to use on a public website. Basalisk berate 02:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    While I highly disagree with the statement made by Mishae (I highly respect president Bush), I believe you are incorrect that it is a BLP violation. It is legal under Florida law due to freedom of speech and it is clearly presented as opinion and not fact so a source is not required. What in WP:BLP do you think his statement violates? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Well maybe they delete it? Well its my opinion too, you can't accuse people of their opinion. Isn't it my userpage? Isn't that why its called that? Another thing, as you can tell I don't like Putin either, thats not a BLP violation, right, considering that he is alive too?--Mishae (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Fair enough about genuine opinion; not sure the Sarah Palin box can be defended in the same way. Also Mishae, the BLP policy applies everywhere on wikipedia, not just article space. FWIW I have no dog in this race; I'm British and couldn't care less about American politicians. Basalisk berate 02:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Talk about it with User:Secret Saturdays, not me. I just shared the same opinion. And the fact happened, she wasn't elected, infact I don't think she is in politics anymore! Another thing, for the future reference can you talk about it with Ryan not me, O.K?! Just to be fair, I don't like Obama either, I just coudn't find similar userbox.--Mishae (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Dale Chock at Russian phonology

    User:Dale Chock is refusing to acknowledge the agreement in the talk page that he needs to find a reliable source to back up a claim he wishes to make about Russian consonant clusters, a claim that sourcing thus far has directly contradicted. Before doing more exhaustive research, I had tagged the claim to request citation, which Dale continously removed. In addition to edit summaries that show as much, Dale has also repeatedly asserted in the talk page that this claim does not need verification:

    • April 28: "We do not need to prove that a particular Russian spelling is unrealistic just AEsos, in an attitude of linguistic chauvinism, finds it hard to believe it is realistic."
    • May 2: "...about AEsos's insistence on demanding a citation for the quintuple sequence /kvzglʲ/, i.e., that this is pronounced as spelled. Contrary to what he would have us believe, Russian spelling shows Russian pronunciation, except for as noted in reference works."
    • May 4: "About clusters of five, I've already explained that: the spelling is to be taken at face value. It is irrational to call for confirmation, and this has already been exhaustively explained."
    • May 11: "At the moment, he also persists in the approach of manipulativeness and aggression, bringing us chapter two of a petulant fiction that I really accept the validity of the demand for a citation."

    I should note that some of these quotes illustrate Dale's mischaracterization of my request as being one regarding a specific consonant cluster. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is whether clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset. Despite a lengthy justification where I showed the problems with Dale's claims, he has chosen to disregard both my points and the responses by two other editors that show agreement on his need to find sourcing. This includes a recent restoration of the claim in question.

    And, as I have shown in the past at Wikiquette assistance, ANI, and AN3, this all comes amid talk page hostility where he accuses other editors of incompetence and bias. — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    This is the third complaint in a month by this same complainant against me about the same article, and although this one seems to raise a new point, all three otherwise make the same allegations. In this his latest complaint, the opening words are a lie, as I will explain. Please bear in mind that virtually nobody else besides him and me is interested in this article and our editorial disputes (I regret that nobody else is interested in the article).
    I call attention to a fresh act of his bullying of me which immediately preceded the lodging of this complaint. Please note that there is a behavior pattern from this complainant, where a complaint to Administrators' Noticeboard against me is preceded by some act with a cunning, mischievous design. The most notable example is when he deleted comments I made on an article talk page and moved them to his own talk page, stating that that was a more appropriate forum for my remarks. (This outrage was documented in my response to Aesos's previous complaints to AN/I.) This time around, earlier this week, while he was awaiting a reply from me at Talk:Russian phonology, shortly before I posted it, this complainant took to taunting me with this message. He is referring to an article he had never edited and in fact has no interest in; he tracked my recent edits to stalk me. Notice the message's sarcastically exaggerated camaraderie and bonhomie -- remember, this is from someone who had just complained about me twice to AN. Evidently, there is an emotional escalation within him which gets reflected in a progression from a display of personal harassment to a lodging of a complaint with AN.
    Regarding the single dispute issue he is now complaining to you about: two other editors took his side against me, and two days ago I discussed that on the article's talk page.("Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012) Therefore, Aesos is telling a lie in stating that Dale is "refusing to acknowledge". The reference to "agreement" is phony because all the "agreement" consists of is that a grand total of two other people have responded to his most recent discussion at Talk:Russian phonology, and they agreed with him. Just two days ago, before the complainant lodged this complaint, I made a comprehensive response to the his discussion topic.("Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012) Please note the complainant preferred not to discuss points of contention with me until twice failing to get me disciplined. Even then, he chose just one contentious issue out of many, and addressed it in repetitive fashion.
    I fault this third complaint for selfishness (the complainant can't stand that I disagree with him, but conversely he disagrees with me); repetitiveness; and distortions. He uses rhetoric that insinuates that certain true things are false, while on other points he exaggerates. He proposes a "majority vote" criterion which doesn't exist (or at least it shouldn't exist).
    One of the two persons to respond to Aesos's discussion point and take his side, Cnilep, did so with reservations, and more importantly, Cnilep did not address my arguments and did not even argue his opinion, he just stated his disagreement with my opinion. Even if he had addressed my arguments, I am not obligated to desist from my editorial stances just because nobody agrees with me -- especially in a situation where participation by third parties is feeble. The other person to take his side, the administrator User:Kwamikagami, is very biased against me. Notice that Aesos uses rhetoric insinuating that my charge of bias on Kwami's part is a fiction. It is a fact I have alluded to in responses to Aesos's previous complaints to AN as well as on Talk:Russian phonology.
    Aesos also alludes to my objection that he is incompetent as if it weren't true. I have proven ad nauseam how ill informed and uncomprehending he is at Talk:Russian phonology, Talk:Diasystem, and Talk:Diaphone. (To mention just a few examples: for Russian phonology, during five years he confused a source's claim about word roots as being a claim about words; he uses multiple spellings for the names of his own sources; he has twice inserted Russian language examples while misstating their grammatical case or mistranslating them, gaffes which drew swift corrections by native speakers; and once when he addressed the history of linguistics, he characterized a diehard opponent of generative grammar, Trager, as an "early generativist", which is like confusing Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. Just two weeks ago in Russian phonology, he mistranslated a phrase meaning '(away) from friends, from among friends, on account of friends', as '(together) with friends' (a confusion of genitive plural with instrumental plural). He's been participating in this article for five years!)
    One last, tedious point, in response to "I should note that some of these quotes illustrate Dale's mischaracterization of my request as being one regarding a specific consonant cluster. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is whether clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset." He has obsesssively complained that I mischaracterize this particular request -- which is mischaracterization on his part. He has given two stories of how I mischaracterize it. The first time, I responded on the talk page, rejecting his story. This time, my lengthy contribution to the Talk page at 23:29 4 Jun (linked above) was devoted to that objection. Aesos gets a kick out of refusing to acknowledge that I acknowledge the true content of the objection. Dale Chock (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment
    This case is simple: since our sources say Russian onsets may have up to 4 consonants, if Dale believes it to be 5, he needs a source to support that. Meanwhile, he has issues with civility and assuming good faith. — kwami (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    As detailed in this fresh post, Kwami is the last person to be faulting people on "civility", "assuming good faith", and editorial judgement regarding citations. There is his verbal aggression toward me 1 March (linked to in that post), in which he yelled (in two posts, actually) "you're ranting, Dale", flatly refusing to acknowledge paragraphs worth of substantial, objective criticisms I made about a third editor. (To his credit, he has never lost his temper like that since.) That outburst is far more extreme than any indigation I have expressed. Likewise, what he did with a citation in April 2012 is far more objectionable than anybody could reasonably say about the editing action by me that is the subject of this thread. Dale Chock (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Or, as seems to be the case, if Dale believes that there are exceptions to this 4-consonant limitation, he needs to find sources to support such a claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    I am responding here only because Dale Chock has referred to me in his response above. Anyone who is interested may view my comments on the article talk page. I am not quite certain what Dale Chock means when he suggests, "Cnilep did not address my arguments and did not even argue his opinion, he just stated his disagreement with my opinion." My comments there were not an argument for or against any individual; I merely stated my understanding of relevant Misplaced Pages policy and best practice. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Cnilep, by disagreeing with my stance on how to edit an article, disagreed with a particular individual on something. His talk page comment was not "for or against that individual", but against an opinion -- some individual's opinion. He did not stop at "merely stating my understanding of relevant Misplaced Pages policy and best practice", he applied that understanding to make a determination on whether to oppose or second an editorial judgement. Not a hypothetical judgement, but a deployed judgement, deployed by an identified Wikipedian. Cnilep's reply is a string of obfuscations and insinuations. On the article talk page, he evaded engaging my reasoning about a particular action, and he evaded presenting his reasoning. What he did instead was state a conclusion, then chat about something else. The chat was interesting and informative -- of lasting interest in fact -- but it was only tangentially pertinent to the dispute. Dale Chock (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    A fresh example of Aesos inserting misinformation into articles on languages and linguistics (a point discussed above). He has been editing Russian phonology since 2007 (or is it 2005?). Here's a mistranscription he inserted 20 May 2012, and restored 04:02, 7 June 2012. "For example, the phrase с друзья́ми ('with friends') is pronounced ." (The first time, he erroneously wrote с друзья́х instead, but that's beside the point here.) The point of interest is how to transcribe the portion, '-ья-'. Aesos gives ʲa instead of ʲja. Not only that, but for this and some other examples, he fails to do what he demands of me, to cite a source for his transcriptions. Dale Chock (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    The last sentence exhibits the very mischaracterization I referred to above, one that you say I have mischaracterized. If you really aren't arguing that I'm asking for you to provide citations for the transcription of specific words/phrases when I ask you to cite the claim that clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset, then your written prose is prohibitively obtuse.
    Here, I'll put it plainly. Either you to provide diffs that show me asking you in a talk page/edit summary to cite a specific transcription, or you concede that you're making this up. — Ƶ§œš¹ 06:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Note: Restored from archive.Ƶ§œš¹ 06:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    After reading all of this it is clear that you are involved in a rather routine debate related to opposing views and stubborn convictions. That is called normal editing. If you feel you need outside opinions, an RfC is the way to go. There is nothing here to intervene. This thread should close without prejudice and you editors take this to the article talk page and work it out. My76Strat (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Do you really believe that continuous removal of citation tags are part of normal editing/routine debate? — Ƶ§œš¹ 15:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    With reference to the above comment by User:Aeusoes1 06:26, 10 June 2012, note the mixture of imperious tone, self-contradiction, and bafflement. Let's see if he corrects that phonetic mistranscription I called attention to.
    I repeat: I comprehensively discussed his objection to me at "Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012. That's where I presented a case for why his "citation needed" tag is invalid. Instead of replying to my reasoning on the talk page, he has ignored my discussion, taken the dispute here to AN/I, and blurted, "No, you just have to do what I say." Dale Chock (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have never asked you to cite a specific transcription. Asking you to provide diffs isn't me telling you to "do what I say", that's the format of this forum. Without diffs, you aren't even providing evidence. — Ƶ§œš¹ 21:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Dale Chock continued

    • Dale Chock has now followed one of the editors who posted here and to whom he apparently took offense editors to the article Linguistic relativity which that editor had nominated for GA - he started with a series of edits that can only be described as trolling (redefining the topic against what sources (which he is obviously unfamiliar with) say, introducing snide and dismissive language into the lead, and publishing long rants on the talk page in which he takes objection to the articles entire layout and topic). Incidentally this article received praise from a professional on the talkpage only days ago. Can we not do something to stop Dale Chock's rampage of uncollaborativenes and battleground mentality. He has some knowledge about linguistics (although a lot less than he thinks), but he is entirely incapable of collaborating with others. I have made a habit out of taking article's off my watchlist once he appears, but this one happens to be one I care about and which has much promise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Note how his first comment is a personal attack that aims directly at huimiliating me as a human and a professional being by lying about the two articles that I have edited in my professional domain and even having the nerve to suggest that I had misrepresented the views of my own mentor Una Canger. That is beyond base. I really really hope that someone will stop this creatures rampage through the linguistics articles on wikipedia because he is clearly only editing to raise his own selfesteem at the expense of others. I strongly urge an admin to look through Dale Chock's contributioins and realize that he is the epitome of a troll and a WP:DICK - a toxic personality if I ever met one. He should not be editing here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    I agree something must be done. I'm tempted to block him, but if others think that's too strong, a ban (topic or interaction) might be in order. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    The complainant, User:Maunus, deleted some posts from Talk:Linguistic relativity, some of his, some of mine, after posting this hysterical complaint. That includes the post where he called me "scum". I am awaiting help getting those posts restored. He also does not disclose that he and I had acrimonious disputes on three articles in 2008. I wonder whether admin User:Dougweller was informed or ignorant of these facts. I have collaborated fine on linguistics articles except for him and one other editor. I wonder whether Doug Weller has read my Talk page discussions on a range of articles, engaging a range of editors. Of course, Maunus justified deleting posts claiming "lies and slander", but that would apply to me accusing him of, say, real world crimes or of acts that objectively jeopardize Misplaced Pages. It does not apply to me complaining about his refusal to debate me or his ignorance. Maunus's accusation that I followed him is self serving. First off, I edit mostly languages and linguistics articles and this is a linguistics article. But beyond that, only a small number of editors devote themselves to linguistics articles. Maunus has probably edited 95% of all linguistics articles. I bet Doug Weller -- who doesn't edit languages or linguistics articles -- doesn't know any of that, either. As it happens, I did not have specific knowledge that Maunus was currently involved with Linguistic relativity; my attention was drawn to it in another way. By the way, you can compare my usual style of discussion with Maunus's usual style at Talk:Pochutec language. Don't be scared: it's only two screenloads. Dale Chock (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Since Maunus has brought it up here, let me respond specifically to the rant about his mentor, Prof. Una Canger, although normally AN/I would not be the most appropriate forum for this. Point of information: the topic involves Mesoamerican linguistics. OK, many of us can see how absurd it is to accuse me of horrendous abuse and talk about punishing me because I said he didn't understand some professor's views on a subject! Even if admin Doug Weller can't. Furthermore, Maunus is not being factual in assuming I knew that Prof. Canger was his ten year mentor. At Talk:Linguistic relativity I drew the connection that she and Maunus are scholars in the same tiny field (Mesoamerican linguistics) from the same tiny country. That does not mean I ever before knew that he studied extensively with her. It would be smart of me to assume that he, the young person, would be well aware of her, one of the senior scholars in his field from his country. But it would be stupid of me to assume that any one of the Danish experts on the linguistics of Mexico has taught and mentored every single Dane who enters the same field. When last Maunus and I tangled, 3-1/2 years ago, I never asked him about it and he never said. Dale Chock (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Fang Zhouzi

    Fang Zhouzi seems to be subject of an edit war and attack by people trying to damage his reputation. Allegations of voyeurism, sexual assault, and plagiarism being added. References are in Chinese and difficult to understand. I have not left any notices of this posting to any editors as I am not sure who should be notified. This article likely needs an expert. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    This appeal falsely claims that some people intend to smear Fang Zhouzi. Fang's voyeurism allegations come from a professor at Guizhou Normal University and are reported in official news media including Qianzhong Morning newspaper. The wiki addition simply reflects those allegations and their official news report. Some close allies of Fang Zhouzi intend to suppress freedom of speech. An expert wiki editor should be involved before the addition is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuoyeben (talkcontribs) 16:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    The problem is, this being the English Misplaced Pages, only a small subset of our editors can read the references to verify the assertions. Is there a particular reason this was posted here and not the noticeboard for biographies of living people? —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Ignorance. Should it be moved? Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Appeal

    Arbitrary header

    Magog the ogre has just imposed a restriction on my editing, he has banned me from editing Battle of Chawinda for two months even though I have committed no violations, there was an Iban violation on the part of the other editor with who I have the Iban yet again Magog sees fit to restrict me. His policing of this dispute has been suboptimal since the start had has gotten worse. I demand he remove himself from policing this dispute, and this restriction lifted. Ok here is the timeline Added by Mar4d. Removed by Dbigrayx. Restored by Nangparbat. I revert back to Mar4d. removed again by DBRX. IP reverts himhttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&diff=next&oldid=496114020] which I revert assuming it was a sock, I self reverted this once I checked the IP. I have now edited this content twice. TG first revert of this quote was two days after I had worked it twice. There has been no violation on my part Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    If anyone (other than someone with skin in this dispute) is actually interested in the events that led to this block, I will be happy to provide them. I'm not going to do so unless requested, because I'm not going to waste my time when most non-involved who are familiar with this dispute will instantly recognize that the community has been more than patient with both of these users, and that any sanction on them, especially when one of them has been continually trying his hardest to get around the spirit of his interaction ban, is more than fair, given the alternative remedies that could be produced. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Late comment This was a really good answer; it's unfortunate you felt unable to follow through. What I recommend in future similar circumstances is to temporarily let the other party have the last word and wait for a third party editor to respond. If the third party validates your position, no further action is needed on your part. If they don't validate your position it's highly likely they'll phrase their concerns in a way that allows a specific response to any perceived misdeed or lack of clarity on your part. Nobody Ent 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you can explain why you have not even warned the other side of this Iban when it was he who committed a violation, instead choosing to sanction me again. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I am stuck between a rock and a hard place in a response to that. I really don't want to respond per WP:NOTTHEM, because I'm really tired of always talking about the other party, and because I don't want to WP:SOUP up the conversation for the community. On the other hand, I really want to be fair and give a full explanation. So here it is: TopGun did not violate the ban. As I indicated to you by email, a reversion of vandalism (or, in this case, socking) by one editor is not sufficient to rise to the level of placing a block on the other editor's actions for said content - especially when the first editor self-reverted. And even if it is enough - you yourself have made such edits in the past and indicated you thought they were OK, so you kind of knew better, right? Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    One of those edits was not by a sock, the quote in question was first edited by myself, TG editing if it is a violation and again you choose to restrict and berate me though I had done nothing wrong. You continually do this, all anyone need do us look at the two warnings you gave out after the last ANI thread, one was nice and friendly, the other aggressive. Guess who got the aggressive one though again I had not commited the violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I guess you caught me, Darkness Shines. I am a proud American; Pakistan is as virulently anti-American parts of the Pakistani population is as anti-American as any nation in the world, save parts of the Afghan population. They harbored a mass-murderer of American civilians in their equivalent of West Point, and then threw the guy who helped out the US in jail for 30 years. They do things like throw US government agents in jail for the crime of being stuck up at an ATM. Their nuclear arsenal scares the daylights out of me, like no one else's. I harbor no such thoughts towards India. And yet, despite all of these thoughts going through my head, I have thrown my hat in the ring with a pro-Pakistan POV-pusher. Or could it possibly be that you are just acting disruptively? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Having spent some time in Pakistan, and having written a series of articles about it, I would have to say that classifying Pakistan as a whole as "virulently anti-American" is plain wrong - period. The reality is that they try to have their cake and eat it too. Indeed, they will do actions to appease their US friends, then turn around and do actions to appease the Islamic congress. They're a massive double-agent, but everybody knows they're a double-agent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I've redacted the statement a bit. Although it's a rabbit trail. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Cheers. Of course, it's also detracting from the apparent purpose of this ANI anyway, which is apparently to review the editing restriction? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Magog please stick to the facts. Explain why you sanctioned me when I had done nothing wrong and have not even warned the editor who commited the Iban violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    So, let's take this from the beginning again. Darkness Shines was sanctioned because he reverted TopGun, from whom he is interaction-banned. DS claims that his revert was justified because TG's previous edit was itself a breach of the interaction ban. True? Well, in that case, DS is wrong: even if TG's edit had also breached the ban, that doesn't give DS the right to revert again. We can now proceed to investigating whether TG should also be sanctioned, but the sanction on DS is sound. And, insofar as it's restricted to this one article, it's rather on the lenient side. Fut.Perf. 12:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    If one is in an interaction ban, and observes a violation by the other party, the appropriate thing to do is to privately notify one's most trusted admin, and let the admin take it from there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Excuse me? Am I now to Check content to see if an Iban violation occurred before? It is not my job to check if the other part of an Iban has edited content I had previously edited, and if my revert of content I had edited beforehand is a violation why did Magog not sanction or warn for this? Sorry but with Magog it has been one way at all times, I did not violate the Iban, I should not be sanctioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    The answer to your question, "Am I now to Check content...?", is YES. Once you are in an interaction ban, if you take that ban seriously and to heart, then you should pay very close attention to the other party's edits, so as to avoid any risk of breaching the ban. ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    DS was told this more times than I can count. He's playing coy if he is to pretend he doesn't know better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Discretionary sanctions?

    By the way, do we currently have a general regime of discretionary sanctions on Afghanistan and Pakistan issues? Given the intensity of multi-party disruption in this area (multiple POV warriors fighting on multiple ideological fronts, plus no end of serial sockpuppeters in between), we surely ought to have one. If we don't, let's get one now (community-imposed), and then apply it on a zero-tolerance basis until the appropriate proportion of editors in this field is gone (that is, at my rough estimate, about 70% of all editors active in the field now). Fut.Perf. 12:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Can't comment on Afghanistan, but Pakistan-India sanctions would also be useful in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    I'm not too keen on this. There is clearly a lot of tension in the set of articles that overlap India and Pakistan but, I think, this tension is actually quite productive. A lot of useful content is being generated in this area and the tension is kind of important in maintaining neutrality. TopGun and DarknessShines are leading this content charge and, quite naturally since they have opposing points of view, these two editors are constantly in conflict but, properly managed, this is a productive conflict. Right now, both these editors are being given a lot of rope (thanks to Salvio!) and I think that's a good model for us to follow. Clamping down on both editors is not a good idea (sort of like shooting ourselves in the foot) and, with regard to the current discussion, clamping down on only one editor is a really bad idea. One look at the talk page of Battle of Chawinda does, I think, support my view. A lot of the talk is about pov but a lot is about sourcing and reliability of sources as well. Very healthy and very productive, imo and we should be encouraging this sort of thing. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I can't share this assessment. I'm not seeing anything useful being done here. What I'm seeing is tons of awfully poor quality content being created, and tons of time being wasted. The "productive conflict" model of NPOV is a failure. We can't get NPOV through encouraging POV warriors to keep up a balance of power among each other. What we need is editors who actually strive for neutrality on their own, and I'm not seeing many of those now. Maybe if we get the abusive elements out, those few that might be able to do positive work could finally come to the fore. Fut.Perf. 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Slam-dunk, emphatic support - I called for these a long time ago. Unfortunately, at that point I was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness; perhaps now people are willing to entertain my point? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Ban proposal: TopGun and DarknessShines

    • The obvious, yet unfortunate response to this whole thing - seeing as various admins talkpages and ANI are all littered with tattling on each other, suspected and real Iban violations, etc, is to just fricking BAN the both of them (DS and TG) from Misplaced Pages for 6 months. During that time, they can learn that childish bickering is verboten and undesired from our editors. During that time they can learn to treat others and their skills/opinions with respect, no matter what. During that time, they can realize that we're fricking serious with our restrictions, and that FUTURE bullcrapola will be met with permanent bans from the project. During that time they can try and get over their ethnic/nationalistic crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    What ethnic nationalist crap? I am neither Indian or Pakistani, my mother is Irish and father English. I have no nationalist views on this whatsoever. But well fucking done on proposing an editor be banned when he has done fuck all wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Support ban for recurrent need for dispute resolution; not endorsing Bwilkins description of editors. Nobody Ent 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Neutral for iTopGun -- to be fair, I have not seen the editor on ANI/WQA recently. Nobody Ent 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Very reluctant support - we've been dragged to AN/I far too often for this. This is an extreme solution but if it's the only way to put a stop to this then sobeit. Would it be possible to impose a topic ban on Indo-Pakistani topics instead though? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose I have to oppose this ban. Although I would have preferred a topic ban, but WP:TBAN says,"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." I believe that although both of them do get in many conflicts, but one can't say their edits on India/Pakistan related articles as disruptive. Please correct me if I am wrong. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 15:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Support per Nobody Ent. Not sure editorializing the issue is helpful. I've been just inside the sidelines enough to see that this ban is needed to prevent disruption. Dennis Brown - © 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Support, reluctantly - it seems that blocks are the only way to put an end to this. →Bmusician 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Strong opposeSupport if both are being banned: this is ridiculous. Darkness shines is single sidedly wikilawyering around his IBAN and stil hounding me even after he was interaction banned for the same. He encroaches on my edits whenever he gets the chance on reverting possible socks which turn out to be just a random IP address opposing him and not a sock... and sneaking out my edits later getting caught. I can give a whole lot of diffs that Darkness shines is still hounding me, even filed an SPI on me in the IBAN and was blocked for it... I've been informing Magog and Salvio of this from time to time with DS being too leniently dealt with and given a free pass on most of his violations either calling them stale or either asking him to self revert and do note that I've not reciprocated any of that. This was the last discussion that I took to ANI and was warned of staying off from the notice board for the IBAN reports and I did. DS still often incorrectly went there reporting me . All my reports about DS's violations were made to either Salvio or Magog's talk page and all have been correct reports... the fact that DS was not blocked for all of them is only because he WP:SOUPed his way out. I have no faith in ANI to read this reasonably though per precedence and act as a mob to sanction me with some one who has been hounding me. The way to deal with IBAN vios is block when they happen. Way to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose Both the 6 month ban as well as the topic ban, the IBAN was placed due to a reason, enforcing IBAN with a block when a IBAN violation has been proved is the correct thing to do. Problem only erupts when the wikilawyering starts. I also agree with RegentsPark's comment below. Blocking for six month is way to harsh and seeing the interference of Nangparbat socks in the incidents, it is highly likely that more socks will erupt.
    Also there is a Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan going on where all the concerned parties are participating and the discussion appears promising. I dont see any benefit in derailing the hard work done so far in mediation, by forcing a Block or Topic ban when things can be handled in a better way using existing options on collaboration. --DℬigXray 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment A ban is like going up a blind alley, seeing the block logs. Has it worked previously? And the answer is no, so why not try something that may effectively end this problem once for all? In my opinion a Topic Ban is necessary here more than anything else. But first the following needs to be identified:
      1. Topics which both editors edit mostly
      2. Topics where both editors have been in disputes
    After identifying above I guess it will be easy to move forward with a topic ban that was suggested many a times before too. --SMS 17:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I would support a topic ban rather than a site ban at this point. Hopefully a topic ban would prevent the drama, but still permit editors to do useful work elsewhere (unless it later turns out that their days are consumed by incompatible but passionately-held beliefs on oceanography or on 18th century French literature). If a topic ban has been tried (I'm not aware of this having been done but I might have missed something) but failed to stop the drama then I would support progression to a site ban. bobrayner (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Nah. I agree that life will be much easier without these two but this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Both editors are primarily adding content and, I think, there are sufficient checks and balances on neutrality that they are a net plus for Misplaced Pages. A simpler solution would be to require them to only use email when reporting or querying iban violations - take the drama off wiki so to speak. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose on the grounds that we ought not support a ban of editors just because the issue is brought up a lot. Deal with the issue where there is disruption; if it is shown that DS has been disruptive enough to enjoy a topic-ban or site-ban, go for it. Ditto with TopGun. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Heartily support for DarknessShines, whose presence has, from what I've seen, been thoroughly disruptive (and whose block log speaks for itself); not so sure about TopGun. Fut.Perf. 20:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose Much too broad. A topic ban on the article in question might be enough, with an expansion to articles involving Pakistan if necessary. No reason to remove them from the rest of Misplaced Pages. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose for TopGun TopGun has never violated his IBAN, even once. This ban serves no purpose. On the other hand, Darkness Shine's treatment of the IBAN has been suboptimal; consult his block log for proof. The only person who should be scrutinized is Darkness Shines. Mar4d (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yes he has, quite a few times and has again done so in this very thread Darkness Shines (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Question

    Why is there no content between the "Appeal" and "Arbitrary header" headers? Was content removed from there, or did someone just put a level-3 header immediately below the level-2 header? Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    No, I just added it to make editing the first section easier. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Crystal Cathedral article renaming problem

    Article moved back to appropriate title. Discussion can continue on the article talk page, nothing more for admins to do here. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    Without any discussion an editor has improperly renamed the Crystal Cathedral article to Christ Cathedral on the basis that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange has recently announced that "Christ Cathedral" is to be the building's name when it becomes the diocese's new cathedral. Although the building is now legally owned the RC diocese, under the terms of the sale it is still currently functioning as the "Crystal Cathedral" and will continue to do so until Crystal Cathedral Ministries ceases to use the building, which is not expected until the middle of 2013 at the earliest. I have tried reverting the name change but for some reason this didn't have any effect. I will appreciate it if an administrator, or any editor who knows how to do so, will revert the name change. I apologise if this is the wrong place to request this. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Then just move it back and invite ktr101 to discuss the move on the talk page. It only becomes an issue if he moves it again without consensus. and yes I did check the redirect to make sure he didn't pull a dolovis by editing it so only admins could move it back. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks Ron. As mentioned above, I already tried to "move it back" by reverting to a previous version but - although all the article's text was reverted - the name change wasn't. I tried several ways to do this without success. Can you tell me what the best way of reverting a name change is? Another editor has already reverted it for me. Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    I would agree with Ron, this seems consistent with WP:BRD. Also, I notified Ktr101 that you brought the issue up here. Even though you didn't mention him by name, this is obviously referring to him since he made the move, so in the future, be sure to use the template at the top of this page and notify any party who is the focus of an ANI, please. Dennis Brown - © 12:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks Dennis. Your advice on the notification of other editors is noted and appreciated. I had already considered doing this but didn't think it was so much an "incident" with another editor as a straightforward article problem that only needed changing without too much fuss and I didn't know where else to ask since I was unable to do it myself for some reason. But I will know better if there is a next time. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I've just moved back the "Christ Cathedral organ" article to Crystal Cathedral organ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    212.118.232.164 / User:HunterSilver

    Blocked and protected, for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    Hi. I think banned User:HunterSilver returned again, with his attempts to push his unconstructive edits at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal, now with this IP address: 212.118.232.164. Just to let you know, User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. All of them are, in turn, sockpuppets of User:DBSSURFER (A few days ago, I opened a SPI, which can be found here). I'm really becoming tired of this, and I hope someone can solve this issue for good. --Sundostund (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

    disruptive editor with unsustainable PoV

    Hi,

    I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    "NPOV" or bias?

    Dear Editors: I am writing about the article formerly entitled “Non-helical DNA structure” (Non-helical DNA structure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). This article originally reviewed the powerful and generally non-controverted 40-year history of evidence against the Watson-Crick “double-helix” structure in living systems (as opposed to artificial laboratory settings). The term “non-controverted”, as used here, should be read “not substantially considered and rejected, but mainly just ignored”. Misplaced Pages could have played an important historical role by bringing this history into public view, and thereby helping to fill this knowledge void. --- I said “could have played”, because the article has now been axed by a pair of kids, one a graduate student who seems hell-bent on promoting high school textbook models of DNA structure, (Antony-22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and the other, well, there’s nothing that can be known about him from his page (HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but he evidences no knowledge of the subject at all, not even on a high school level. Every time these kids swing their axes, another arbitrary and capricious deletion (and occasionally an inappropriate addition) occurs, so that the article at this point is the literary equivalent of a man who had carefully dressed for the opera, but who, on the way there, suffered an attack by a vicious street gang, wherefore he now struggles to remain standing in the street, dazed and bewildered, in tattered rags. In its current form, the article is a complete joke. Incredibly, these two child-editors have now flagged it as needing “attention from an expert on the subject”! How will that be possible? The people about whom the article was originally written, namely Gordon Rodley, V. Sasisekharan, Tai Te Wu, You Cheng Xu, Ken Biegeleisen (that’s me), and Clive Delmonte, ARE the experts! Now that we have been axed, exactly whom do they think will emerge as an “expert” to repair the damage they’ve done?. --- There’s no point in wasting any more time on this. If you have any editors with knowledge in the area of DNA structure, and who are really and truly NPOV in their outlook, something of value can perhaps be saved here. Otherwise the article will stand forever as a monument to the ignorance and bigotry of these child-editors, who have raped and mutilated it to the point of worthlessness. Even the very title betrays their ignorance. For no earthly reason, they capriciously changed it from “Non-helical DNA structure”, which is meaningful and appropriate for search engines, to “Non-helical nucleic acid structure”, which no one will search for (perhaps their intention?). Moreover, changing the word “DNA” to “nucleic acid” implies that the article is not merely about DNA, but also about RNA, which is simply a false implication. RNA is usually single-stranded, and to raise the question of “whether or not RNA has a helical twist in its double-stranded structure”, when it’s not even double-stranded in the first place, is logically absurd. --- If you think you have an editor with whom we can work to better-conform this article to “encyclopedia style”, but who can somehow refrain from butchering the content, then there’s still hope. Otherwise, it will just sit there and rot, and, in the end, Misplaced Pages, in this instance at least, will wind up looking very foolish.Voice of 5-23 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Any more of your accusations of "bigotry" and attacking other people as "child-editors" and you are likely to find yourself blocked. As for the article, you yourself say this theory has been "mainly just ignored". Theories that have been ignored rarely find much space in encyclopedias, and it is not an encyclopedia's job to "play an important historical role" in promoting them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Wow, this is still going on? It's been almost two weeks now. Viriditas (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    This topic seems to be more appropriate for Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Hang on Boing! said Zebedee. The guy might have a point. Article written by experts -> Edited by folks unfamiliar with the subject -> Tagged with expert needed. This seems like a legitimate complaint to me. Voice of 5-23, have you tried engaging those two editors in dispute resolution? Also, please cool it with the name calling, it isnt going to solve anything.--v/r - TP 14:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    TP, the previous 'discussion' (and I use that term loosely as 'discussion' implies 'dialogue with both parties listening') ended with Voice of 5-23 declaring on the article talk page that he would from then on ignore it but would not stop editing the article regardless of peoples' (extremely valid) concerns about the content he was adding. Voice of 5-23 has proven to have a severe case of WP:IDHT and is, quite frankly, IMHO WP:NOTHERE to do anything but push his WP:FRINGE theory as WP:THETRUTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    See Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure#Quality and recency of sources. Non-helical models of DNA structure were briefly considered in the 1970s to solve a theoretical problem in bacterial DNA replication, and have legitimate historical interest for that reason. They were rejected by the mainstream scientific community due to the discovery of a class of enzymes called topoisomerases, which obviated that particular problem, and would be considered a fringe theory today. The article as originally posted focused extensively on recent, low-impact papers by some of the authors mentioned by Voice above, which have been largely ignored by other authors, and the article itself mostly ignored any sources supporting the mainstream view. The "expert" tag has been there since 25 May 2012; right now I'm looking for someone with more expertise in topoisomerases and/or bacterial DNA replication, and I've been collecting sources here.
    Also, please see the previous AN/I thread on this issue, as well as Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure for examples of previous personal attacks by Voice of 5-23 / Notahelix (the same user due to a mixup about a username change). Antony–22 (⁄contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    @TP. He might have a point, yes, but he's not making it very well by asserting that we need to promote a theory that he himself says has been ignored. The non-helical DNA idea, imo, deserves a mention in passing at best as it was entirely theoretical as far as I know, is clearly fringe and is not taken seriously by mainstream academia - but that is something to be discussed civilly on the article talk page or at a suitable project, and is not to be addressed by hurling insults at people here at ANI. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (BS, Biochemistry).
    (sigh) This still? Guys, this is another example of a field expert who has decided he does not have to follow Misplaced Pages's rules. The article he added was written like a paper for publication, and when editors started cleaning it up, he threw a fit. Anyone who questions him is treated like crap. Thing is, the system he's writing on has been discarded decades ago, but I get the impression Voice is trying to bring it back. And his statement above doesn't help dissuade that impression (emphasis mine):
    " This article originally reviewed the powerful and generally non-controverted 40-year history of evidence against the Watson-Crick “double-helix” structure in living systems..."
    "The people about whom the article was originally written, namely Gordon Rodley, V. Sasisekharan, Tai Te Wu, You Cheng Xu, Ken Biegeleisen (that’s me), and Clive Delmonte, ARE the experts!"
    "Misplaced Pages could have played an important historical role by bringing this history into public view, and thereby helping to fill this knowledge void"
    Now, he may just mean documenting this older theory for everyone to view. But his adamant stance that it must conform to his standards, and not Misplaced Pages's, combined with his defense of his theory, is the concerning bit. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, and one comment directly to Voice: equating the changes to the article with rape is not only melodramatic, it's highly offensive and inflammatory. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Given his behavior, it's past time to delete, block, and show him the door. The project is better off without people like him. DarkAudit (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Because he's an expert (in some sense), and we don't want to unneccesarily chase experts away, he should be told he's got one last chance: edit collegially so Misplaced Pages gets the benefit of his extertise, or get the boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    BMK, he's already had that last chance and demonstrated that he not just isn't listening, but deliberatly so. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    If that's the case, that he's been given a "last chance" warning and hasn't changed his behavior, then I would support an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Ongoing 4chan raid

    See h**p://boards.4chan.org/v/res/142750682 (or this archive, if the original thread 404s). Many videogames-related articles need to be cleaned up and maybe semi-protected due to vandalism. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    P.S. Why on earth does boards.4chan.org trigger the spam filter? It makes no sense, what's there to spam? It's a discussion board. It's not like the website sells Viagra. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Pretty sure it's the generic blacklist, since 4chan is one of those "The Internet Is For..." sites. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Surely, the usual reason for an edit containing a URL is that it's being ref'd, in article-space..? Stopping people attempting to cite 4chan, at the cost of a much smaller number of legitimate edits outside article-space needing the URL to be obfuscated, seems like an acceptable level of collateral damage to me. bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    at least it's not an ongoing 4skin raid ... we've had those discussions here too many times (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    "Surely, the usual reason for an edit containing a URL is that it's being ref'd, in article-space..?" - Quite unlikely - threads on 4chan 404 after they lie dormant for some time, and do not last forever. And I don't really anticipate that people are actually maliciously posting links to 4chan threads (rather, it's the other way around; Misplaced Pages links are posted on 4chan for "raids"), and it seems counter-productive that one has to obfuscate a URL to report ongoing abuse. Well, it's not a big deal anyway. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    The Zeitgeist Movement (continued)

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    Previous discussion at ANI

    The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Discussion at WP:DRN

    Reinventor098 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

    After the previous discussion, I set myself up as a quasi-mediator in the ongoing content dispute about the article. I may live to regret that, but, nonetheless, a fair amount of constructive dialog has taken place, both on the article Talk page and at DRN. When, in my view, editors have regressed into name-calling, I have called them on it in an effort to refocus the conversation. Unfortunately, Reinventor, a WP:SPA, has not contributed constructively to these conversations. Instead, he has come back from a block for edit-warring on the article and recommenced his behavior. See here. In addition, he incorrectly labels other editors' actions as vandalism and makes oddly veiled comments at the article Talk page in a section he labeled vandalism (), e.g., "It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are." I think "your" means Wikipedian editors who add material he doesn't like but it's not clear.

    I suggest a block is warranted, and significantly longer than the previous 24-hour block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

    Talk page deleted

    User:M0rphzone is deleting talk page discussions, and then reverting attempts to restore the thread back to its original state. There is nothing particularly inappropriate in the deleted content. I've tried to reason with him/her, as did another user PBJT in this post, but the response has been prickly ("mind your own business.. go focus on other topics.. your ego is so big .."). I even tried a compromise by just linking to the deleted content, but that was reverted by M0rphzone also. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    You did not notify me correctly on my talk page and you did not discuss about the issue on my talk page. I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this, and trying to get help for it. It looks like you are deliberately attempting to harass me. I already tried to resolve the issue and didn't intend for the discussion to go in that direction, but you continued to harass me about my actions. And not only are you harassing me about this, but also canvassing on other user's talk pages. I've already talked to an admin about this, so this issue should be resolved. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    You are not allowed to remove your comments on talk pages, especially after other people have replied to them. You can strike the comments, like this, but outright removal isn't something you can do. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Nothing says users can't delete their own comments. But fine, I am restoring them and striking the comments people think are attacks. Conflict is resolved. I don't give a fuck now. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. FWIW, WP:REDACT discourages outright deletion of remarks after others have responded to them. It suggests striking them, or at least marking it as having been redacted by the commentor. LadyofShalott 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Barts1a

    Barts1a (talk · contribs) and I have not been amicable with each other in the past. An early interaction with him over my use in rollback ended up with him imposing the restrictions he has on himself. Sometime last year, he involved himself in a discussion he was not involved with on my talk page and I requested he butt out after he left unwarranted comments and continued to accuse me of misusing rollback on my own page.

    I have not been in contact at all with Barts1a since then, as our topic areas do not crossover. However, this did not keep him from leaving this snide comment today regarding another editor's actions in regards to messages I have been leaving on their talk page. He has not been editing heavily this month, and it has been his only edit in a 24 hour period, so it seems he decided to make a concerted effort to be rude to me because he found the opportunity to do so. This is clearly not acceptable behavior.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Ryulong, have you pursued any other forms of dispute resolution before bringing this to ANI? What administrator attention does this issue require? Have you discussed this issue on Barts1a's talk page as directed by the instructions at the top of this page? While I question what positive motive Barts had for making that comment, and at the very least he should be trouted for it, it seems to me bringing this one comment to ANI (particularly when Barts can't comment here) is a bit excessive even with the backstory. Note: I was Barts1a's first mentor after that discussion you've previously mentioned boomeranged on him. N419BH 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    This is a long standing behavioral problem of his that was addressed on this board previously, so I felt that this repeated instance of him being disruptive in an issue for which he is not involved needed looking at here. It's not just one comment. It's his now 2-year obsession with my actions. And from personal experience, he will revert messages I leave him on his talk (particularly because I do not htink I need to use his "Yell at me" page just so he can separate all negative criticism from his talk page's history). However, I was not aware that Barts1a is banned from the adminstrative noticeboards (which is what I believe you are referring to) but I believe there should be some leeway when he is the subject of discussion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Ryulong; you of all people should know that jumping straight to ANI for matters such as this is what ended up getting ME banned from noticeboards in the first place! If one of my talk page stalkers could copy this comment onto the relevant ANI thread that would be much appreciated. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (copied from barts1a's talk page --AniMate 01:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC))
    Barts1a should know he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. And it's not jumping straight to ANI when it's a long term behavioral problem on his part.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Also I find his labeling of this as a dick move is also problematic. I was not aware he was still under a self-imposed ban from the noticeboards (it was not something I paid attention to in that orange block on his talk page).—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    The reasoning for making the post in the first place is to highlight how Ryulong is treating other editors by reverting their edits to his talk page almost all of the time and he expects us to grin and bear it. Now that someone is doing to them as they did and are doing to others he spits the dummy. Treat others how you wish to be treated.
    Also: thanks for copying that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Copied from Barts1a's talk N419BH 03:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    So basically, he's refusing to acknowledge the fact that I'm free to remove comments from my talk page as I please, mostly because I did it to him because I can't stand his unnecessary intrusions. It's good that he cleared that up then because that still doesn't make up for the fact he felt to point it out in the first place.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yes WP:IDHT seems to be happening here. WP:ROLLBACK provides a clear statement that's its okay to use rollback as you please in your own userspace, and furthermore WP:BLANKING says users may remove content from their userpages as they please with very few exceptions. N419BH 05:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • There was no way that comment was anything but disruptive, given the past history with Ryulong. As Barts1a's mentor, I've blocked him for 24 hours, explained on talk page. Ryulong, I agree with the comments above, ANI was not the place for this - I've seen no other administrator interest and I'd have taken this action based on Barts1a's reaction without the ANI. In future, revert him, drop me a note and then forget about it, a much better course of action. Otherwise, we have more appropriate boards, including WQA - this certainly didn't need urgent administrator attention. I hope that this won't happen again. Worm(talk) 07:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Archived -- yet still OPEN -- ANI item

    Consider this the official closing. LadyofShalott 03:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    Could an admin please review and close THIS "ancient" request (Administrator's Archive #231, item #8)? The incident is rather short and, imo, rather straight-forward as well.

    The incient was initiated over 4 months ago, and has not seen any activity in 3 months, yet there it saw no closure.

    Subsequently the incident went into Archive mode, together with a few others (on or around 9 February 2012????). However, the matter is still open. I am now wandering if closing admins regularly look at Archived ANI items with the same frecuency as they do current ANI items...

    I am requesting that an admin please review and close the INCIDENT. Thanks.

    My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

    • I've taken the liberty of correcting your links. That probably shouldn't have been archvied, but there was no consensus to unblock (given the situation two !votes was insufficient for action), and at this point the block is about to expire anyway... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    In general, no, we don't look back at archives unless looking for something specific. If they did get archived (and left for months!) then it was either acted upon or had no consensus for action. LadyofShalott 23:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    If something goes into the archives that's generally a polite no. Nobody Ent 01:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Avaya1 and Victor Ostrovsky material

    User:Avaya1 is unilaterally removing material related to Victor Ostrovsky from Mossad (), Sayan (Mossad) (replaced with redirect ) and Katsa, which as been in the articles for quite some time, on the grounds that it is from a primary source. I have repeatedly asked him () to engage in discussion on the relevant talk pages and reach consensus, or to take the issue to WP:RSN. I'm not clear what category of misbehavior this falls in if any. I am asking only that he not blank articles with a redirect without a talk page discussion of the reliability and appropriateness of the source, or whether the Sayan (Mossad) article should exist at all. I do not wish to engage in back and forth editing over this on the premise that he is refusing to utilize the talk page to reach consensus. Obotlig 21:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    It's true that we could content fork separate articles for the things that Ostrovsky reports/claims, if that made to easier to organise Ostrovsy's content. However, the Ostrovsky article is extremely short and there's plenty of room to put it there. Secondly, Ostrovsky's reports are only based on one source - himself. Giving them separate articles is already POV content forking and against WP:Undue and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, since it implies that there is more than one source for them. Ostrovsky's book is written and actually marketed like a spy-novel, and reliable secondary sources (such as Benny Morris) have described him as a novelist (albeit one who had a career - at least as a trainee - in the Mossad). This is the content forking policy we follow on every other Misplaced Pages article of this nature.
    As for writing whole sections on the main Mossad article, based entirely on Ostrovsky's book, this clearly is not WP:RS. Avaya1 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    You may be absolutely right. I am not familiar with this material well enough, or the objections to it, although I did create the Sayan (Mossad) article which has not been challenged in any way yet. Similarly the material in the Mossad article has been there for some time and has withstood the scrutiny of a number of editors. I feel obligated to protect the material until there is at least a discussion with any other editors interested in the topic. The importance of WP:CONSENSUS seems paramount, although I do understand your point of view on this. Rather than discuss the topic here, that's all I will have to say about it unless you should choose to take it to the talk pages. I won't revert your edits on this anymore. Obotlig 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you for seeing both points of view. Feel free to add the content you wrote to the main Ostrovsky article, there's plenty of space. Avaya1 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    User:Zzspeed -- Industrious, competency-challenged fan at work

    User:Zzspeed appears to be a devoted fan of soap opera actress Nina Arvesen, and edits, just about exclusively, articles related to her. Unfortunately, most of their edits seem to be cut-and-pastes of nonfree text. I've just had to stub the actress's main article, and an article on one character she played, because so little material could be salvaged. On June 7, they executed a complicated and senseless series of page moves (example, one edit moved page Angela Cassidy to Nina Arvesen played Angela Raymond), with at least one article ending up in the wrong namespace; while I've fixed that, I can't unscramble the whole mess. I suspect the article that's ended up as Angela Cassidy Raymond belongs at Angela Cassidy, but that looks like it requires a deletion to effectuate the move. There may be other articles buried in the chaos, but I can't find them. Anybody interested in taking a look at this? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Melanie and Martina Grant

    Withdrawn after revision of my edit by User:RatWeazle, with edit summary: "Undid revision 496964851 by Michaelzeng7 (talk) information is well cited and was mostly put in the public domain by the subjects themselves."

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


    User:87.112.146.112 posted a request to my talk page asking that "sensitive and personal information regarding their children and relationship information is kept private". This was as a result of multiple unexplained removals of content on the article Melanie and Martina Grant. I removed the information but I am unsure of what to do as of right now. Thank you. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Re-opened, and dealt with: I've removed and rev-deleted the information in question in the interest of the subject's privacy, as I believe it comes under the "contact information" provision of the WP:BLP policy. It may be in the public domain -- lots of things are -- but it doesn't mean that it belongs in a biographical enyclopedia article. -- The Anome (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Your RevisionDeletion didn't seem to do anything, as the alleged content is still visible in earlier revisions. -Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Perceived threat to bomb Misplaced Pages

    Reclosing as no further action has been requested or is needed. LadyofShalott 01:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    Talk page access revoked by Dennis Brown. --SMS 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    I don't take these things seriously but this perceived threat of violence is probably against a few Misplaced Pages policies. Can we at least block the talk page access?--JOJ 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

    Threat to bomb Misplaced Pages? Come on!

    I can't read the dangerous and frightening threats mentioned above, since they've been oversighted (probably just as well, or they might give me nightmares). Seriously, threats to bomb Misplaced Pages? What's next, Bishzilla gets indefblocked for threatening to burn little users to crisps? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

    Somebody set us up the bomb! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Not oversighted; they were simply deleted. If I understand rightly, talk page access was not revoked because of the threats themselves, but because threats were the only thing coming — talk pages are enabled for blocked users largely to facilitate unblocking and to permit other constructive discussion with blocked users, and when blocked users do nothing with their talk pages except making empty threats and frivolous unblock requests, they're abusing that access and should have access revoked so that they don't waste our time. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mirahmet.hyraidabassa

    This account was created a few hours ago, and so far all of his edits have been to revert me. The user usually refers to me as "a Muslim", and accuses me of "Islamic supremacism". His edits exhibit a level of Islamophobia ("Muslims, who are considered to be extremely intolerant of cultures and religions other than their own"). How can I respect WP:Bite, and deal with the obviously problematic edits? Is there a possibility he's a sockpuppet?VR talk 03:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    There's almost no chance that someone would join Misplaced Pages and immediately begin reverting another user without doing anything else at all. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirahmet.hyraidabassa. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    VR, do you know Jose.medez248? SPI says that these two accounts are related (along with several others) and suspects that Jose is the master for the whole group. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Outing and Threats at Talk:Hogganvik runestone

    Someone take a look please?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    IP has now made another threat, blanked the Talk page, and blanked the warnings on his own Talk page. Meters (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Outing revdel'd and RFO'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Android version history and User:User931

    No administrator is willing to take action, none will be taken here - Closed Worm(talk) 08:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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


    He refused at first to contribute to a discussion on his repeated reverts and tagging of a section in this article with the WP:CRYSTAL policy but without explaining it. Even after i bought it up he continues to do it and remove large sections, basically edit warring with me. I started placing edit warring tags on his talk page, which he ignored and sought the advice of my mentor User:Worm That Turned. User931 finally started conversing on the article talk page but this turned out to be just immature insults and when i bought this up he went back to edit warring and removal of questioned content. I started an RFC, which he will only contribute to while using personal attacks and arguing instead of proposing changes and continues to delete content and undo, my undos so we can discuss it on the talk page. I have warned on numerous occasions and am needing Administrator advice now as i believe i am at the end of my tether, he is immature and that i am generally seeing him exppress ownership of the article even with extra eyes trying to discuss changes before they are made on the talk page. Sorry about the rant there and thanks Jenova20 21:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    Without comment to the content dispute, you shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute. - SudoGhost 21:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    I agree completely, i was told not to by my mentor as i saw the previous warring as vandalism since he wouldn't discuss it. This time i acted on the same thing and can see that i shouldn't have. He has since worked around it by readding the content and so i could not undo my use of the rollback. I apologise again. Thanks Jenova20 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    And i added a tag for this discussion here on User931's talk page but he removed it so i assume he will not contribute to this. Scratch that, he's removing all criticism on his talk page and all warnings he has received from others. . Thanks Jenova20 21:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    He's now putting the page back how it was before he removed everything fromt he section under discussion.
    I hope you can see from this how active he is and how he is and how as soon as administrators are involved he cleans up his act. Thanks Jenova20 21:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    I removed this from the archive as the issue is unresolved. Thanks Jenova20 22:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    When something gets archived, it means it's not going to be acted upon. You have an RFC in process. On the article, you have not followed all of WP:DR as of yet. While those are still in process, what do you anticipate us to do in the meantime? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    I was going by the guide at the top of this page. "Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment."
    Thanks Jenova20 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    But it deserved to be archived. Indeed, you never even responded to my question above to even show why it should remain open (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    I don't know how to respond to that. I requested a third opinion on this a while ago and was told this is the wrong situation and to open an RFC. I have opened an RFC and got no response at that time so took it to the Administrator noticeboard as the issue being addressed is the wording of the paragraph and not the actions of User931. So even though the RFC is doing good it doesn't address the issues i have had with User931. Thanks Jenova20 13:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    You have the option of a RFC/U. But to be honest if the only problems are in that article and they stopped after the RFC for the article it's not likely to be a good idea. If they haven't stopped, then I presume other participants in the RFC will have commented here if they felt the behaviour required administrative action. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    The problems are more the user than the article. We are having a productive conversation now on the page about the improvement of the article but User931 is a problem in this and other articles, as can be seen from his talk page messages that he removes.
    He is gaining criticism for refusal to work with people and edit warring but just removing the messages and when i did finally get messages from him they were petty personal attacks. So i want to push this. I realise i'm far from perfect and my own record is far from clean as i have made my own mistakes but his conduct is unproductive and unacceptable. Thank you Jenova20 14:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Constant attacks by editor

    121.216.230.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has strong views on Craig Thomson affair. He's also constantly accusing others of vandalism and of inserting libel and defamation. , , , , , , via edit summaries and section headers. The material in question has three different sources and judged not to be libelous by an admin . He was warned by me about WP:TALKNEW and personal attacks and has received other warnings, for example. He's still continung , . At this point I'd like an admin to step in and make it clear to 156.* that these attacks must stop. --NeilN 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    As the target of some of these attacks, may I rise in the defence of the IP editor. He is a new editor and he feels strongly about the material. He is getting good advice from more experienced editors and I trust that he'll let it sink in and become more co-operative as time passes. I feel sure that he can provide some excellent work once he becomes more familiar with the way things happen around here. I am not particularly offended by his assaults on my various sensibilities and I forgive him. I do however, echo NeilN's request that it be made clear by an admin or two that continued transgressions will make his participation difficult. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic