Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:34, 3 May 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Long-running disputes at the Barelvi article, and similar articles.

I'm going to try and avoid as much of the content dispute as I can here, but obviously I cannot fully avoid this. I'm going to primarily talk about the Barelvi article, as that is where I've been party to. Now, this has been at ANI a couple of times in the last few months, and doesn't really seem to have been resolved, despite various temporary blocks, and full-protections of the page. There has been multi-way edit warring - of which I am guilty of, to a degree, although I've tried to keep the article to the version established by a consensus. The primary offenders are Msoamu (talk · contribs), whom is currently part-way through a one week block for edit warring, and Am Not New (talk · contribs).

Msoamu is constantly warring to remove what he views as non-neutral views, regardless of the consensuses at the talk page, and has often referred to MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs), whom has been diligently working to try and get a neutral article, with inflammatory comments and edit summaries, predominantly centering around what Msoamu believes MezzoMezzo's religious stance is, or accusations of bias aimed at MezzoMezzo. Examples of this include:

• - "wahabi views are written in various wahabi pages.It is Barelwi article,rv wahabi invalid undue criticism"
• - "Now there is consensus,In Terrorism heading at least.also i have demanded RS for blatant MezzoMezzo's POV"
• - "There are relation headings/barelvis practices must be about their practices only.NOT POV of Wahabis"
• - "Terrorism heading is 100% relevant and important.MezzoMezzo you have added here minute details of events to show it in bad light and now opposing highly relevant heading"

It must be noted that Msoamu and MezzoMezzo have been involved, on and off, in this dispute since 2007, as can be viewed here.

Am Not New is a different kettle of fish, but no less of a problem. The user's name claims that they are not a new user, yet they have also made the statement that they are - I cannot remember where that was, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. This user seems to be disruptive across a lot of articles, but again, I'm sticking primarily to the Barelvi dispute, which is where I have witnessed the dodgy edits. Examples of POV-pushing include:

• - "Many people say many things about barelvi.it dosent mean to add everything here.it is barelvi article" - ignoring the fact that a consensus had been established on the talk page to include this information. It also made that paragraph far more biased to the Barelvi sect, and generally less informative. Upon being reverted, they then re-removed a (slightly smaller) amount of content, this time without any edit summary: . That removal was also reverted by another editor, whom I haven't seen edit the article before (which is generally a sign that ANN's edit was bad)

"a consensus had been established on the talk page" where is consensus on talk page regarding this passage? mr lukeno the consensus was made on history topic see.you,MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and Msoamu (talk · contribs) were fighting on history topic.the passage which i edited was totally different.i was particulary editing beliefs.which was my main subject as i improved it before.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• - removed as WP:OR by User:Qwyrxian. It had previously been added, and removed by MezzoMezzo.
• - an edit that was quite promotional of the added person. The excessive info was removed, then re-added , then removed again (by me, this time), readded once more , and removed by me again.

Obviously, there's a lot more than just this, and it's spread over quite a few articles, but I digress. I have two proposals for each user:

• Proposal 1: Both editors are topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 1 year. Any violations of this topic ban would result in a resetting of the ban to its original length, and potentially a block. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).
• Proposal 2: Msoamu is blocked for 3 months, then topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 9 months. Am Not New, due to their lack of positive edits generally (in my experience), should get a 6 month block, and then a 6-month topic ban. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).

Since some of these disputes date back all the way to 2007, it's high time this ended. Due to Msoamu's long history in this area, I'm more than happy to see a lengthier topic ban, if that's what consensus states (including an indef topic ban). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose i think the proposal is abit harsh and seeing that i have offered to meditate afew days ago..i say we give these editors a second chance before topic bans Baboon43 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• With respect, and let's leave ANN out of this, how is this proposal harsh on Msoamu? If anything, it's lenient - as this sort of thing has been going on since 2007. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

why didnt you wait till he was unblocked to pursue this case? at this moment he cant defend himself obviously & im sure you have seen my pledge to help calm things down over there. Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message on his talk page, specifically stating that I, or another editor, would bring any of his comments here. As for your pledge, it's very good, but remember that, several months ago, I made an identical pledge, got things sorted for a bit, only for it to kick off even more. Forgive me, but I can't see anything short of a topic ban sorting this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As that user already said that i am not related to this discussion and i didnt made any such edits for which i should be block.these last two edits related to tahir ul qdri is not related to this dispute.as concerned with edit of grave worshipping i had seen it irrelevent so i removed.but let me tell you two other names which are part of this dispute.which are engaged in edit war since years.these are Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) and MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) both of these are main personalities behind this warr.and an important part of this disputes.especially MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs).i request you to see the edit history of Barelvi.

• seriously these users too should also be blocked.

Proposal: 3 years block of all religious articles for MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and 1 year for Lukeno94 (talk · contribs)

• i want you to look at my edits.i dont deserve that.
• please get comments from Msoamu (talk · contribs)Dil e Muslim talk 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've not hidden the fact I've been marginal at times. MezzoMezzo has actually not edit warred very much at all, in recent times: it's mostly other users restoring his edits. Your proposal is pretty damn POINTy to say the least. In fact, MezzoMezzo has only reverted you a couple of times, IIRC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am talking on this dispute and edit warr running from years.Sir admin.MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) Msoamu (talk · contribs) are three users are fighting from years on this article and similar type of articles(as they accepted it).where msamu tried to show his prospective(barelvi) there these two were trying hard to show thier(non barelvi) side.i am talking about years.look at thier talk page archives.here you will find many warnings and fights.dear respected admin if you block only masamo i will be unjust,you should also ban these twoo users.to cool this topic it is necessary to block both parties.thanks Dil e Muslim talk 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who's been trying to adjudicate this mess, a little bit, and who blocked Msoamu for edit warring...Am Not New's explanation is simply wrong. MezzoMezzo and Lukeno94 have been inserting neutral, well-sourced info. Msoamu has edit warred, made arguments based entirely on his personal opinions, and regularly introduced "sources" that don't even come close to WP:RS.

Regarding sanctions, I do have to agree with Am Not New, however, that this is the wrong time to ask for sanctions on Msoamu. I know that if I were blocked for a week, I would probably walk away from Misplaced Pages and not even look at my page until my block was up. There's no reason to believe that he is aware of this conversation and thus able to offer a defense. As for Am Not New, I'll need to review the exact extent of his edits before commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should've waited a week, but Am Not New's continued dodgy edits meant that I put both up at the same time. If you like, I can withdraw the Msoamu part until they return from their block. Am Not New's statements about me edit warring for years are blatantly incorrect - I only started editing this article a couple of months ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Am Not New, care to explain what's going on here? - information inserted (which I left there initially, for a more religiously-experienced editor to analyse), it was then removed by GorgeCustersSabre, readded by an IP with an incomprehensible reason, removed by me, then re-added again by this IP here. Did you forget to log in again, Am Not New? Because it's pretty blatantly obvious this is you, and I don't want to have to file an SPI unless it is necessary, for WP:AGF reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI already filed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

well i realy think it is you coz there is a complaint against me and you are trying to blame me by making different type of dramas by some ips.i didnt made any edit even.Dil e Muslim talk 05:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I think banning Am Not New (talk · contribs) will be a bit harsh. Although he has been involved in some edit wars and been engaged in conflicts with me, he seems to have seized his edit warring. I think that an Administrator giving him a strict warning will be more appropriate. I think that assuming his good faith is the best option as I think that he can make important contributions. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Am Not New, an IP makes the same edit as you 3 or 4 times in a row, and you expect it not to look suspicious? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As i already said may be it is your ip.as you are trying to prove me problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Holy shit. IP's most recent edit summary: "all that editors are wahabi or either sockpuppets.my demand is again same." I'd like to see evidence that I'm a sockpuppet, and I'd also love to know how I'm a Wahabi when I'm not a Muslim... Can someone block this IP, because this is just pathetic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have blocked the IP, but chose to semi-protect the article for a week instead. The article doesn't really have a history of useful IP edits, and this editor seems to only be going after this page...but I don't mind at all if someone wants to switch this to a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And dear user lukeno90 in your edit you are using abusive words like "kettle of fish" "dodgy" for me.this is a straight personal attack.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry? Kettle of fish and dodgy are personal attacks? Really? If you think kettle of fish is a personal attack, then I'm not sure that your English is good enough for you to edit on the enwiki, and you should go to your native wiki, for WP:COMPETENCE reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Luke here...neither of those are even remotely personal attacks in any context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Luke, I will buy you an Amazon gift card if you stop using asterisks for your comments and start using colons. It's a personal preference thing obviously which is why I'm offering a bribe. Laugh out loud. Anyway, damn man...I left Misplaced Pages for three days so I could spend time with my family and...well, what happened? The sock puppet investigation is very necessary and I will post more diffs there shortly but that's neither here nor there - if there is sockpuppetry involved, it would be a separate thing and the behavior here is a separate thing.
Msoamu's block will be finished by tomorrow and I think this discussion needs to continue. I can bring diffs, but I think Qwezrxian as the supervising admin - yes, I'm putting you on the spot unfortunately - can either confirm the following as true or deny: Msoamu has, at multiple times, blatantly edit warred against consensus. Hell, it's why he was blocked most recently. He received a final warning along with myself (I volunteered to submit myself to such a warning, FYI) which Qwerxian can also attest to. Qwerxian, as the supervising admin, I would also like to put you on the spot to confirm or deny: Msoamu hurls personal attacks frequently and has not ceased doing so over the years.
Alright, that's the factual stuff. Now, from objective to subjective: Msoamu isn't here to help Misplaced Pages. He's here to push a certain POV. That's one. He is rude when people disagree with him. That's two. He will edit war even against consensus to support that POV. That's three. I am willing to go through every single edit he's made since 2007 to prove that he has never, ever added constructively to Barelvi or related articles, I mean that. That's four. He's been warned enough. He deserves a topic ban. Let him comment on talk pages if he can be civil, but there is no reason to allow him to edit because he has not ever edited constructively to improve the encyclopedia, and we now have reason to believe that he will not ever do so.
Regarding Am Not New, then I need to go to the bathroom and do some stuff and I will get to that in a minute. But regarding Msoamu, we need to hear his defense and I would like some community input - obviously, wide community support is needed for a topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, regarding Am Not New. In the beginning, he started out like a typical newbie which is totally excusable. A number of editors have tried to work with him in order to explain various site policies, and the process has been difficult. Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabe tried to explain the WP:OR violations he was committing and encouraged him to take things to Talk:Barelvi, as did I. Lukeno was then forced to revert further instances of POV pushing by Msoamu and original research by Am Not New, at which point TommyFenton also got involved in defending the page. Even the admin Qwezxian has to revert the constant insertions of OR on the part of Am Not New, with more diffs by GorgeCustersSabre and Lukeno than I care to link here. The ever-present Mathew Vanitas also randomly showed up to revert Am Not New's OR pushing, as did Darkness Shines. The previous two never had much involvement or interest in the page as far as I can tell and probably just recognized aggressive, tendentious editing when they saw it. It finally ended with Qwerxian protecting the page again which I'm sure annoys the hell out of him. Qwexzian, Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabre tried to explain to Am Not New why his edits were wrong on the relevant talk page (more than just the above diffs but I'm tired of sifting through everything) to no avail.

So, yeah. If the SPI turns out positive, that's a different thing. Even if it doesn't, Am Not New's tendentious editing and refusal to accept advice from more experienced editors is a problem and smacks of someone who just doesn't get it, and doesn't want to get it. I'm actually leaning toward Lukeno's suggested topic ban simply because I've seen the Barelvi page and how it's been manipulated by followers of the movement such as Msoamu, Shabiha and others for the past seven years and considering that YaNabi.com (a website for which Shabiha appears to be the owner or an admin - check that article's related discussions) has an army of zealous young Barelvis who speak...well, I won't say passable English but enough to respond, I don't see why we should assume this case is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since we are looking at a topic ban here in general, Am Not New's OR pushing and tendentious editing on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri can be attested to, and perhaps should be attested to, by User:Justice007. I'm exhausted from sifting through diffs now but suffice to say that the article's history alone is indicitave of a spurt of tendentious editing warring against at least three experienced editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've just seen above that Am Not New has accused me of a deliberate attempt to slander them, via usage of an IP. They've made this accusation twice, possibly three times. That's fairly tendentious editing, especially considering that the style of English is nothing like mine, I was logged in at the times the IP was making edits, and the fact it most definitely isn't my IP, which begins with 31. I feel like you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole, Am Not New. I'm beginning to wonder if just a standard indef under WP:NOTHERE is in order, whether you're a sockpuppet or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• well there is a sockpuppet investigation.i will love to see even its relation with me.btw language can be coppied.Dil e Muslim talk 18:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, an investigation which was not started by me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So MezzoMezzo everyone is wrong you are right?infact you are a person which always stop people to make constructive edits since years including lukeno.you want to show negitive side of these articles from years.and as accepted by Qwyrxian and Lukeno94 that both(lukeno and mezzomezzo) are the major and important part of this dispute.and always engaged in edit wars with users.you not left any stone unturned to do war(with mosamu and other users) and show your side.apart from mosamu i again request block of these two users MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs). Mr admin this topic will not cool if only mosamu is blocked.you must block his opponts.and will be unjustice with mosamu. As concenred with my edits on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri that was a misunderstanding and is not related to this dispute.Dil e Muslim talk 06:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke. Yes Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, everybody is wrong, because apparently you and Msoamu = everybody. Anyway, I said my piece and I would like community feedback regarding the admittedly large paragraphs above. I feel that the information up there is pertinent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No everybody=Shabiha and others for the past seven years.Dil e Muslim talk 07:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Utter rubbish. Again you make the completely incorrect statement that I have been disrupting the topic for years: Firstly, I've only ever edited to keep the consensus in place, secondly, I started editing these articles a couple of months ago. If you're going to make accusations like this, at least bother to make them correctly. As to "everybody" agreeing with Msoamu's views, that is patently incorrect. Whilst some users have agreed (Shabiha, yes, and Hassanfarooqi), all neutral outsiders - which I was, when I first came to the dispute, as is Qwyrxian, and several other users - have agreed that MezzoMezzo's edits are neutral, and Msoamu's aren't. Qwyrxian voiced his opinion in this very thread: your failure to pay attention to that shows a WP:IDHT attitude. In addition, your edits have often been so poorly written that they would need a substantial rewrite to remain valid - Msoamu also suffers from this fact. MezzoMezzo does NOT constantly add in negative material: they add in neutral material with reliable sources - and I've seen Msoamu remove some positive bits about Barelvi in their reversions of MezzoMezzo, and then add in their own poorly-sourced POV. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dil e Muslim/Am Not New, what do you mean by seven years? Your account is only 18 days old. In only eighteen days, in addition to engaging in your regular edits, you already went through the history of the Barelvi article and took a comprehensive enough survey of the edits and discussions that you're now able to make such a judgment call...after only having a Misplaced Pages account for 18 days? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr admin let me clearify some points from above discussion. which are accepted by all the users here.

• i am(am not new) is not a part of this dispute.as accepted by all these.
• user am not new is not part of these sanctions.(tahir ul qadri sanction are not related to this dispute and that was a misunderstanding even i now provided some authentic sources on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadris talk page that he is a barelvi.)
• user mezzomezzo is a major part of these dispute from years
• user mezzomezzo is envolved in enforcement from 7 years
• user mezzomezzo is engaged in edit war from years
• as related with behaviour of mezzomezzo.mr admin only people associated with it think that he is right.many of users think that he always try to show negitive side on these article barelvi and related articles.his edits are not constructive and often doesnt let anyone to add constructive edits.
• user luken94 is major part of this dispute.
• user lukeno94 is envolved in enforcement wether it is from years or months.
• use lukeno94 work hand to hand with user mezzomezzo wether he is right or wrong.
• user lukeno94 is engaged in edit war from months.

• from all above parts i demand block of these two users on religious articles.
• and claim that i doesnt deserve that block.Dil e Muslim talk 14:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really getting fed up of you making the same arguments, even when they've been proven to be wrong. I do not go around "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo, in fact, I can remember at least one AfD where I expressly disagreed with him. Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark. You most definitely are part of this debate, and I have no idea why you're claiming you're not. MezzoMezzo hasn't edit warred (I possibly have, to keep the consensus) for quite a while. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• point to be noted "lukeno94 told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark"Dil e Muslim talk 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• So you're now going to try and manipulate my posts to suggest something else? I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down when Msoamu's POV pushing has really got them riled. Again, if you actually go and look at my talk archives and find the thread, rather than just deliberately quoting me out of context, you'll find that there's nothing untoward. Can we have an admin deal with this WP:POINTy behaviour please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

dear luken94,cool! Where i manipulated just copy paste.perhaps you should explain it while writing.why didnnt you explained earlier.Dil e Muslim talk 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because there should've been absolutely no need to. I pointed you to where you'd need to go for evidence that I don't go "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo: instead, you deliberately manipulated my words in a WP:POINTy way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr lukeno94 every person which will see your above paragraph will conclude the same as i did.Dil e Muslim talk 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dil e Muslim, I have read what Lukeno94 wrote, and I agree entirely with him: you are trying to manipulate what he wrote. Sadly, I am now convinced that you are a partisan and provocative editor who will not accept advice. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hence the consideration of a topic ban; we're seeing major issues of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right before our eyes here, on ANI of all places. Even beyond the fact that Am Not New seems to be an agenda account, the extremely combative nature he's displaying here is enough for some sort of action to be taken, even if community support isn't enough for a topic ban. And it might not be enough; what I've noticed with Msoamu's own ANI discussions in the past is that when someone floods the discussion with enough blatant personal attacks, random accusations and manipulation as Am Not New is doing now, outside observers don't take interest because there's simply too much text to read. For my part, my three comments here, here and here express my own position clearly. Lukeno has been the target of some rather nasty personal attacks by Am Not New right here, in the middle of ANI, so I understand why he has responded though I myself will try to minimize comments from here on; I don't want others to be scared away. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark" dear admin please read the above passage and decide please. mr luken used the line that they have overstepped the mark.here lukeno included both persons mezzomezzo and mosamu.mr admin do you find any word here in the favour of mezzomezzo which lukeno explained later.Dil e Muslim talk 09:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont try to blame me by some pretty team workDil e Muslim talk 09:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please stop being WP:POINTy every time you respond here? Again, you're trying to manipulate my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New has received two warnings for violating WP:NPOV today from User:Pass a Method: Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

After seeing how this has played out here, and how Am Not New's edits have continued to be problematic since after this report was filed, I have to support some sort of sanctions. There is no question that he either misunderstands Lukeno's comment he's quoted above twice (which indicates a lack of the required English language competence), or he's deliberately and transparently trying to manipulate words to tarnish editors who are doing extremely important work in making our religion articles more NPOV. As George Custer say's above, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter; the bans he is calling for are simply absurd. That type of lashing out is generally a sign of behavior incompatible with collaborative editing. I don't know if another admin is willing to step in here (I'm probably WP:INVOVLED), but it does look like something should be done. I'd even be happy with a clear "final warning" from an uninvolved admin that any further POV pushing or tendentious editing will be met with blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that any discussion involved Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, Msoamu or even Shabiha results in them posting walls of repeated text which kills any interest outside observers might have had. Bbb23 has some experience with this issue but I don't know if contacting them about this would violate WP:CANVASSING or not.

Anyway, if something is to be done about Am Not New/Dil e Muslim then what about Msoamu? Am Not New's account is only three weeks old. Msoamu has displayed that same behavior for seven years and after every block and warning before the last one, he was unrepentant. I'm still convinced they're the same person but since the SPI isn't getting anywhere, I suggest that both accounts receive some sort of repercussion. Although Msoamu hasn't edited since his last block, we all know he stalks Misplaced Pages because he magically appears any time I edit Barelvi. I have no doubt that he has been reading this thread while laying low, just as he does with the discussions on Talk:Barelvi without commenting yet swooping in to revert out of nowhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu's dormant for now. We can re-open a thread on them if this one is dealt with, and they return. As to CANVASSING, I requested Qwryxian to take a look into this again, since no other admin appears to want much to do with this case - which were pretty much my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Qwezxian is correct about being somewhat involved. All of it is legitimate involvement as Am Not New/Dil e Muslim has been edit warring across half a dozen articles, and Qwerxzian is one of about six or seven editors now trying to clean up the mess, but nonetheless if he isn't comfortable enacting sanctions on his own perhaps we could contact someone else. As it stands right now, I doubt many of the admins are reading this thread any more. Who could blame them, I think I need prescrption glasses after going over this so many times. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New/Dil e Muslim is apparently harassing Pass a Method due to Method's reversion of Am Not New's POV pushing/OR on Sunni Islam, plastering his talk page with templates like some noob. Am Not New is now consistently being reverted by at least half a dozen editors plus one admin across more than half a dozen articles as of mid-day April 30th. Some of his comments are even bordering on trolling at this point. Please, if another admin does take the time to look at the end of this discussion, please take the time to check a bit more. This is ridiculous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My edits are under discussion even now.Mr admin they are trying to prove me problmatic by making such long paragraphs against me.i didnt even broke any rule for which they are complaining.even many admin are seeing me they should block me if my edits are so problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I mention your long paragraphs and you accuse me of the same. Great tactic. Anyway, you've been reverted by half a dozen editors for violations of policies ranging from WP:OR to WP:NPOV to WP:IRS, including by the admin Qerxian, who only hasn't blocked you because reverting you across multiple articles means he is involved and he would prefer another admin does it...per his words above. And I know you read all this, so please don't play dumb. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr admin my appolojy that was previous edits in which i was not aware of wp:or policy because i was a new user.i had given some evidences that he is barelvi.that was proved OR.even these is a discusion established on the talk page of Muhammad Tahir-ul-qadri that wether he is barelvi or not.and i didnt made any revert after this on that page.and for your information that page is not related to this dispute.i didnt broke any rule there alsoDil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

as you are now talking about my revert by Qwyrxian.mr admin i added some contents with sources.user qwyrxian reverted that by questioning on sources.then i didnt reverted that.after sometime i collected more authentic sources and added it again and now it is accepted by users.even my sources are accepted my users see hereeven my sources are accepted my admin qwyrxian.just want to tell you that my edits are normal and i didnt broke any rule.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin please dont believe on thier long discussion.if i am a rule broker then an admin should block me but i didnt happend.even now these two are only users which think me problematic as problem is different.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin now about my edit on topic sunni islam .i added something with refrence from oxford dictionary of religion.that was reverted by user pass a method without reason.see here history.i am right even at that place (discusion is here).as other users is just deducting thier own logics.Dil e Muslim talk 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Orlady

I feel it is my duty to inform the group of a situation that has arisen due to my work on the Category:County government in the United States category. I am sure that many of you realize that this is an area which had been neglected because people do not care enough about it, even though it deserves the attention. County government is just far enough out of people's attention that most people could not name a single one of their elected county officials, yet perhaps more deserving of attention than, for instance, the mayor of a municipality within a county (a person which most people usually could name).

I soon ran into a few small issues that came up, and I responded to the eventual consensus. The matter was the question "Is a county government local government, or is it an agency of state government?" I can tell you for absolute certain, that with a very few possible exceptions, that county governments are agencies of the state government that are locally accountable through elections. The Misplaced Pages consensus was that county government is local government, and I organized it as such. Even thought the campaigning and elections are local, the actual governing involves state powers.

In the course of these discussions User:Orlady was very immature, unhelpful an obstructionist. There were no policy violations, at that time, but the fact is that I lost respect for this person quickly, and for my part I have refused to respond to her immaturity, and informed her not to contact me further. At this point I think I have a case for Misplaced Pages:Harassment, and if it does not rise to that level yet, then I feel I need to put these events on the record, so as to establish that a pattern is occurring.

A) Orlady spammed about a dozen state article talk pages (including Rhode Island and Connecticut which have no county government?!?). At some point I interjected and pointed all the discussion to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. I was willing to enter into a discussion of the matter, but not 50 discussions. Orlady interpred this as **ME** starting new discussions while there were on-going discussions. Obviously this is very disingenuous.

B) At some point I mentioned my education and experience in the subject matter, and I have not heard the last of it! How arrogant I must be! There is a brain drain problem at Misplaced Pages, and knowledgeable editors are being driven away by the hoi polloi that very often prevails. For myself, when there are editors who are knowledgeable in subject matter in which I am not, I stay out of their way.

C) Orlady specifically mentioned the idea about discouraging me from editing, and the idea that perhaps in the future, I would not be editing.

D) I had asked for some time to do some work on the category, but that has been met with cries that I am WP:OWNing content. So I have been dealing with hypersensitive sniping, nitpicking and reverting of my work in the area. It's hard enough already without her. She appears to be wikistalking me.

E) Orlady has opposed every proposal for moving, renaming or deleting categories, as well as every proposal to merge articles which I have made, and which is her right. However, I feel it is my duty to express my view that she has not brought up a single useful point in the entire course of the discussion.

F) The most disturbing development is that it now appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Orlady is standing by her false beliefs and imposing it in the content. This is agenda editing, and not appropriate. My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government, and this claim is supported by several sources, and is what I learned in graduate level studies in local and state government. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Orlady has looked at this evidence, and rather than accept and learn from it, is clinging to denialism1, and trying to rationalize her own views with her own wild interpretations 2. Most recently she deleted a substantial amount of content from County government in the United States which is completely objective information, but which contradicts her agenda.

H) She has posted about me personally, which is not relevant to any discussion underway.

G) Orlady announced her intention to continue to hound me in the future.

I am perfectly willing to account for all of the nuances and variances in county government as the evidence arises. However, At some point I think a topic ban may be in order for Orlady. I need to be able to work in a mutually respectful environment. Could some reasonable and mature editors intervene please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs)

I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Misplaced Pages reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, my fifteen minutes of reading led me to the conclusion that you are primarily unhappy that consensus went against your viewpoint. Sorry about that, can't be helped. This admin page is not the place to resolve content disputes.

This page is for examining editor conduct, and I can't find anything Orlady did which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban.

Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post ; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I find the comments: "... you have an entitled attitude..." and "It is very clear that you have supreme confidence in your own beliefs" in the link provided by NE Ent to be ironic, if not outright hypocritical. I'm sensing that there may be a WP:BOOMERANG nearby. — Ched :  ?  02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that this case appears to star an inbound WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So the question is, what to do about it? Is Gregbard's participation in this particular domain a net positive even as he wars against what would appear to be wider consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Gregbard is currently saying the same sorts of things to (and about) Alansohn as he has said to and about me in this section of Gregbard's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gregbard

• Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
• Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.

• Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Misplaced Pages:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by 71.139.157.86 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support this as preferable to the watered-down 3-month version below. Civility problems, WP:OWNership issues, and an apparent persecution complex make a rather nasty cocktail when mixed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why Gregbard is informing readers of over on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy about the proposed topic ban on local government. I'm also not sure why he felt it necessary to edit other people's comments in the process. Very odd. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a form of WP:CANVASSING. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Support topic ban and a side order of trout. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Both the diffs given and the editor's comments here certainly demonstrate that there is an issue, one which unfortunately requires something like this in order to hopefully resolve. I don't think limiting it to 3 months is sufficient, because I don't think a short pre-determined length of time is something that will fix anything, and I think an indefinite topic ban would be more appropriate (emphasizing that indefinite does not mean infinite). - SudoGhost 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion to above

• Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:

• a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The claim that a county government is an agency of a state government is patently absurd, and the fact that not only does he refuse to change his position but is attacking other editors to defend it is extremely concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:

1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting something to ANI is never just "putting it on the record". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)What he said. Also accusing people of being bullies doesn't help your case; 'I will immediately appeal' and 'Don't waste your time' are not words that help your position, either. The fact of the matter here, Greg, is that after reviewing your claim here - which you continue to insist is correct without even the slightest possibility of your being mistaken, despite everyone else contending you are, being considered - it is entirely without basis. If you make a claim that cannot be verified, such as 'county governments are agencies of state governments', and then personally attack people who call you on it while continuing in the aforementioned 'I'm right because I'm right' behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when people start wondering if you're a net positive to the project. Your "huge contribution" matters not if you refuse to follow policies that are in the Five Pillars in your editing. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick, accept that you are in the wrong, have some seafood, and move on - if you continue as you have been above, a topic ban is inevitable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wise words, those are. Heed them, you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try a different angle. Gregbard - we ("the admins") only have one agenda - to protect and enhance the project. We do not support any individual - we don't even support each other - unless the project directly benefits. You may have believed that coming to AN/I would only provoke the admin body to examine Orlady's conduct. But it didn't - we ALWAYS examine the entire situation, and then we try to do what we believe is best for the entire project. We don't always get it right, and we definitely encounter a lot of criticism, but that is exclusively what motivates us and directs our action.

I know you believe quite strongly that the project is benefiting hugely from your contributions. However your agenda ("to present the truth") and our agenda ("to preserve the project") have now come into direct conflict. You state above that you have not violated any policy, but I can say with great confidence you've clearly violated two of our biggest ones - Civility and Consensus.

SO, your approach to presenting the truth is strongly going against "how we do things" - through the Five Pillars. You are welcome to criticize our process (everyone else does). But for all of its faults, our process works, and we have Misplaced Pages as proof. So please examine The Bushranger's and Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice given above - it is well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If Gregbard is dropping his participation in this domain voluntarily then we're done here, at least for now (his misunderstandings of the consequence of consensus, of the role of administrators and of the purpose of ANI may work against him elsewhere, but that's for another day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Gregbard is dropping out of this area voluntarily, if his most recent statement on this talk page (later than anything he's said on this page) is any indication. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems clear that discussion and negotiation are not really achieving any success. Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a determination? Manning (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've experienced much of what Orlady has endured in dealing with Gregbard. The inability for GB to recognize that consensus may conflict with his interpretation of ultimate truth has led to an inability to work together as part of a community. There is room for cleanup and reorganization of county and local government articles, but the idiosyncratic interpretations of source materials and the failure to work towards consensus have made these areas more of a mess than they ever were before. A period of reflection and observation would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin abuse

We have a new issue here. I have tried to defend myself against accusations, and my attempts to defend myself are being met with offence that I should even try! I have stated that I think I am being bullied at this point, and I am being told "not to take this approach." Bullying is an important issue in our society today. We have a system here with no due process, and my options, in terms of my free speech are limited here (i.e my ability to defend myself without running up against some other restrictive policy). You know if someone told me that I was "bullying" someone, I would be taken aback, and stop to investigate the nature of my offence, because I am a morally reflective person. When I tell this group that I am being bullied, and told not to speak out about it, well that's how bullies act. They don't hear plaintiff pleas to stop, and they plow forward. I am being accused of thinks that I didn't do, and this situation has just gotten way out of control on your part. I'm getting very condescending messages on my talk page filled with presumptions, and I don't have a system of due process available to me to defend myself. What are the limits of consensus? If there is no policy violation, do you just make up a conflict and then claim that the consensus itself is the policy violation?!? What are my options here? Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? Can I post a message to this board every day for the next three months, or will that be intrerpreted as a policy violation? The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that?! People are plowing forward with their presumptions as if they are real, and here I am telling people to stop, and not being heard. Who do I go to if my claim is that this process is being abused? I take this situation very seriously, and I wonder if those who have the power to abuse me take what they are doing as seriously as I do. I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard. Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?! I have stated that I will cooperate. You basically have a gun to my head, and I have my hands up. If you pull the trigger, that really supports my claim that this situation is abuse. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard." See also, WP:NOTHERE Bobby Tables (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I guess it relates to the ANI thread above about Orlady? I'll look at it, but in the meantime: "Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?!" Not necessarily, no. People do things in good faith that are wrong all the time. If they can't learn from their mistakes, then we have to stop them through sanctions. An example: take a person who doesn't understand copyright policy. They keep uploading text from copyrighted sources without attribution. Now, they might think, "Oh, well the text is published, so it's out in the public and not private, therefore it's in the public domain and okay for me to copy." That's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, and they're doing it in good faith, believing that it's okay and in Misplaced Pages's benefit. But it's still wrong, and if they don't listen to explanations and learn from their mistakes, then eventually we may be forced to block them, to prevent more copyright violations from seeping into the project. Everything they did, they did in good faith, but it still ended up in blocks and sanctions. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's necessary. Again, I don't know what your situation actually is, so this isn't a comment on or an analogy to your actions specifically; just a response to the general principle of sanctioning someone for good-faith actions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw the thread title and came here to abuse an admin. This is false advertising. :) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You were cautioned previously what could happen if you would not come in line to the Misplaced Pages community consensus regarding behavior and how to build consensus. Now you've opened another ANI thread and it looks like you're complaining about the cries of "Admin abuse" for being properly warned and some community members suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the community to not edit for a while. Having looked at your talk page (and it's history) I'm inclined to agree. Misplaced Pages is not the government, and you don't have rights here. Misplaced Pages grants you privileges that can be suspended or revoked depending on the community's perception of your actions.

'TL:DR You were warned about WP:BOOMERANG and now here it is.

PS: Where's the abuse of admin I came to enjoy? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Suicide by admin (board (post)). LOL. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Greg, at this point it's as if you're asking to be blocked, as you are clearly not listening to a word that's been said - or, perhaps more precisely, you're putting your own, prejudiced by virtue of your obvious "I'm right, because I am right, and I CANNOT be wrong" POV, spin on what is being said. Consensus is that your original contention that raised this whole mess is erronious. That's not "made-up conflict" - the only person causing, and escalating, conflict here is you. I repeat what I said earlier: you could easily avoid any and all topic-bannings by simply realising that you are not in the right here, admitting as such, and stating that you won't WP:BATTLEGROUND against consensus in a WP:IDHT manner in the future. If instead, however, you post another rant as you did above, you'll simply establish, through your own actions, that you don't understand the very basis of how Misplaced Pages works, and that you're here to spread WP:THETRUTH, not to build an encyclopedia. (You might also want to have a look, based on your comments above, at WP:FREESPEECH.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to the admin abuse claim

Greg - I will continue to try and negotiate with you. I'll note I have made several previous comments and you have not responded to any of them.

• I have tried to defend myself against accusations - Could you show us where have you done this? There are many comments and suggestions above from a variety of admins (not just myself), and I don't see your response anywhere.

I still have yet to see a valid accusation! What exactly is it that I am accused of?! The idea seems to be that I have gone against consensus, and I have yet to see a discussion that has been closed! As far as I know, I was still trying to inform the consensus. We do, however have the example of Orlady redirecting the County government in the United States article after a merge had been proposed, one person registered their opinion, all within 24 hours. Is that the way we are supposed to achieve consensus?!? This is outrageous. I am not playting games here. I am telling you this situation is out of control, and AI am getting nothing but patronizing, condescending, ill-informed statement directed toward myself. My proposal is to delay any sanctions for one week. I think this has been very rashly put forward. I have recieve NO warning. I have been given NO opportunity to correct myself, nor has anything been put forward that I need to correct. The idea seems to be that I should roll over and die, and anything less is some great offence that is making my situation worse. That isn't judicious. That isn't fair-mminded. That isn't a mature, rational use of administrative authority at all. I have been present in discussion from the very beginning of these issues, so the idea that punitive sanctions are needed is gratuitous abuse of power.Greg Bard (talk)

As to what you are accused of, I would list ignoring/bypassing Misplaced Pages consensus procedures and severe incivility, particularly but not exclusively directed at me.

The above comment includes a false accusation against me. I did not unilaterally redirect County government in the United States. It was redirected by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah following merger discussion at Talk:Local government in the United States, where that other user judged that the consensus was to redirect. My subsequent edit there was a null edit done to supply an edit summary to identify the talk page that the other user's edit summary had identified as the location for continued discussion. I personally thought that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's action was premature (if I encountered it in my role as an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion or taken action), but I think the judgement of consensus probably was valid in view of the direction that the discussion was taking. Your comment here indicates that you didn't look at the edit history or the talk pages when you restored the full article and blamed its redirection on "one person". I did revert that edit of yours 23 hours later, after additional discussion had occurred on the new talk page the other user had started and after this WP:ANI discussion was well under way. At that point, I did comment that the redirection had been "proper" and based on consensus; mostly I wanted the edit history to document why the redirection had occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? - Yes, that is us. And despite your protests and accusations of "bullying", many of us are actually trying to help you. No actual action has been taken by anyone, we are still trying to sort the matter out. However if a ban is applied, you can take the matter to the arbitration committee's ban appeals process.

You don't seem to be listening to me at all, and instead seem to be presuming guilt from the beginning.

• The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that? - In numerous places, but this is a good example.

Excuse me! That doesn't state anywhere that I intend to go against the consensus AT ALL, but is rather still an attempt to inform it. So I will ask the same question again, and please show me one of the "numerous places" that are not a matter of a wild interpretation! Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have stated that I will cooperate. Good. Please start by explaining on the talk page of the relevant articles how you achieve your conclusion from the references you have provided. Sweeping statements like "Any intelligent person can see I am right" are NOT helpful. I am an intelligent person, as are all of the admins here, but I cannot not see how you got to your conclusion from the references you cited. If anything, they contradict your claim (particularly the NACO example). If an argument is not strong enough to persuade the editors, how can we expect it to sound reasonable to our readers?

The NACO claim directly supports my claim in no unambiguous terms. It clearly states that the original intention was that "counties were created as an arm of the state", and sure does not name some event where any of that changed.

I provided about a dozen links. If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before, and it came up the day before... it is reasonable to believe that it will come up tomorrow. That's how the principle of induction that underlies all of scientific knowledge works, and that is how theories work. So each one of the dozen or so individually support my claim, and together they form a strong argument for my claim. At this point my explaining this seems like I'm being condescending, which I do not wish to be. However it appears to be necessary. At least one of those sources includes the clear statement: "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state."Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg, you provided those links on a page in your user space (where I am not permitted to engage in discussion) and on a couple of other users' talk spaces. You have not presented your evidence in venues designed for content discussion at Misplaced Pages. If you want other Wikipedians to accept your opinions as valid, you need to tell us what your opinions are, you need to provide a sourced basis for your views (saying "I was taught this in college in no uncertain terms" doesn't qualify as sourcing), you need to let other people participate in discussion, you need to be willing to interact with those other people, and you need to let the discussion take some time. Finally, you need to accept that Misplaced Pages consensus might go against you; you cannot "win" by announcing that your position is correct because you know you are correct and because you know that everyone else here lacks your superior qualifications.

As for the links you cite as evidence, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I followed some of them. (Thanks for adding a little levity to my day. See User:Orlady/County by state for my comments on some of your evidence.) For the most part, your links are to primary sources, which are not generally relied upon at Misplaced Pages because they are susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Your "it is a well settled matter" quote is from this document, which is not only a primary source, but a non-authoritative primary source, being an attorney's legal brief, specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". One lawyer's argument is hardly authoritative, and my reading of the brief indicates that your quotation has far less significance in context than you place upon it. Some of your quotations are even more severely misinterpreted; for example, at one point you cited this court document to say "several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state," but the complete sentence says the opposite: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases." Your assertions of moral, intellectual, and academic superiority might be more compelling if your evidence were not so weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility. Please also do not tell people to "defer" to your opinion - that is the very opposite of consensus building.

People really seem to be offended that I responded to Orlady's comments at WP:USA with "Not helpful" REALLY?! That was an attempt to avoid arguing about irrelevant issues. That was a very mature move on my part. Those statements of hers were not helpful, and my identifying them as such were not some great insult. Furthermore, I thought we were mature enough to handle requests to defer. That was my presumption in the context of AGF. I think this is a gross hypersensitivity on the part of people who are just looking to make trouble for me. That isn't AGF. I say it again: people should be ashamed of themselves. It isn't rhetoric either. I am a fair-minded person, and I have demonstrated that conspicuously. Being "ignorant" is not a morally blameful thing. It isn't offensive to a mature adult to have one's ignorance pointed out to them. There are plenty of areas in which I am ignorant. Knowing right from wring isn't one of them. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You said "not helpful" to multiple other participants in that discussion. That was just one example of a refusal to engage in discussion aimed at reaching consensus. I've been trying to figure out why you consider that responding to another person with a curt dismissal of "not helpful" is a sign of maturity, and all I can come up with is that it's similar to a parent telling a child "because I said so". As a veteran parent myself, I don't see that parental behavior as particularly mature; regardless, unsubstantiated assertions of superior authority aren't how we resolve differences of opinion at Misplaced Pages. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The admins are charged with a responsibility - to prevent disruption to the project. Right now it is very difficult to interpret what you are doing as anything other than disruption. So work with us, talk to us as reasonable people, please stop insulting everyone involved, and and maybe we can work this out. Manning (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a harsh, unnecessary, interpretation and goes completely against AGF. You should apply the same disposition toward Orlady with regard to the fact that I requested she not contact me again, and yet she has repeatedly badgered me, as well as the merge without consensus which she performed, the evidence of which is indisputable. I go back to my original claim: Orlady is a troublemaker, and she has you all played. For my part, I have stopped editing in the articlespace, and if I am sanctioned I feel I will have no choice but to address the systemic issues that have lead to this attack on myself. We could analyse this situation in depth for months if you feel that the priority is to teach me some lesson. Please do articulate what that lesson is first. Show me a closed discussion, whose consensus I have gone against. Show me an example of incivility, which could not also be interpreted as standing firm in ones position. The lesson so far seems to me to be a political one, that just defending oneself is itself on offence. I don't think that is what admins want to impart. So please do use your words, not your powers, of which I have none. Pretend for a moment that the respect of a person who has no powers over you matters.

We don't rd" tiue process here. We rely on the fair-mindedness of administrators. Yet we have people mockingly throwing "boomerang" as if stating that makes it fair or reasonable. I have receive NO warning, and the moment the proposal to sanction me arose, I stopped in my tracks. This has put a chill on my contributions (which are substantial and numerous in the very area which it is proposed I be banned). Where did this proposal of three months come from? Was this well thought out? Do we have a sanction seriousness index, or is this one size fits all? We already have a several day stop in my activities to address this administrative action on me. Does this time count? I am requesting that sanctions be immediately taken off the table. I have about a dozen biographies of mayors, and representatives which I am working on for which there is NO good reason to stop me from creating. Where are the priorities here? Is Orlady so well trusted that you are willing to stop this productive work? Is that not a real "disruption of the project" or do you not see it that way? Is the process more important than the goal here? If so, I think you have lost your way.

When I was in college, I was appointed chairman of the student Bill of Rights committee for the entire California State University system (the largest system of higher education in the world with 450,000 students). I served in that capacity, because caring about protecting people's rights are important to me. I went on to serve as commissioner of judicial affairs, and later served as the "lawyer" in the case that established judicial review at my university (you don't need a license to practice law before a student judiciary). I am fairly certain that I take respecting people's rights more seriously than is being taken here. When I say, that people should be ashamed at abusing their position, I have done what I need to do in my life for my words to mean something here. I have made over 70, 000 edits to wikipedia. I feel personally responsible for the integrity and reputation of Wikimedia, and I have defended it publicly. I have reached out to other organizations on Wikimedia's behalf with the idea that they are worth it. Do not disgrace yourselves by eating one of your own most loyal, decent and valuable members.

The Wikimedia Board of Directors does not seem to involve itself in the consensus decision making process here. Do not prove them wrong by abusing your given administrative powers for no good reason. I used to be on the board of a community radio station, as well as a public access tv station. Those organizations were in their adolescent stages when I served on their boards. There were all kinds of issues and conflicts, and by the time my term on their boards were done, I had helped make them more professional organizations. Please drop the condescending to me, and consider for a moment that I am all that I have claimed to be -- a mature adult waiting for those around me to join me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that's what way too many admins think. protect and enhance. WP:Administrator doesn't actually say that. You know it's called a mop -- not a sword and shield. What the better admins (of which there are many) get is the real purpose of admins is to help editors. This editor came here looking for help. So help him. That doesn't mean talking at him. The AGF interpretation of Gregbard's actions is that they're a frustrated editor who doesn't get the consensus model of Misplaced Pages, and the total lack of due process per WP:NOJUSTICE. By the way, Orlady made unnecessary posts to GB's page after being requested not to . That "defer" diff ? Doesn't say "defer to my opinion." Says defer to Misplaced Pages:Capitalization -- hardly a radical statement. NE Ent 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent - It is the responsibility of ALL editors to protect and enhance the project. Admins are no different in that regard, they just have a few extra tools to accomplish some specific tasks, and by community consensus are entrusted with making certain judgment calls. As to this case, no sanction has been applied. Numerous admins have reached out to Greg Bard to try and resolve the situation. Yes, I did interpret that diff as meaning "defer to my opinion" - but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Either way we need GregBard to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner. Manning (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's okay to be an admin and it's okay to be an editor -- but it's generally not effective to try to be both at once (i.e. in the same context); let the "editors" (regardless of whether they happen to have a sysop bit) doing the content work -- the protecting and enhancing, if you will -- while admins function to help with certain janitorial chores. We do not need GregBard to participate further -- in fact less participation is exactly what he should be doing now. What we need is to find a positive, non-judgemental way to connect so that going forward he and Orlady and the rest of the folks can get back to writing the Encyclopedia without dragging each other down. And ANI is really not good at that at all ; it's suitable for the "quick resolution" situations, nothing complex. NE Ent 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Of potential additional relevance

I don't want to get into substantive discussion but for information purposes another discussion relating to Greg and county categories is at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed nominations, hinging on whether or not a number of categories on county government should be speedily renamed in line with others recently created by him or whether that does not constitute a convention that qualifies them for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My recommendation and final comments

OK, I've gone as far as I can productively go here, so this will be my last comment. Based on the above, GregBard seems wholly committed to his stance which boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Our collective attempts to engage him in productive discussion have largely failed (see above, and also here). As NE Ent observes above, GregBard does not appear to "get" the consensual model, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In this example he declares he will "abide by consensus", but then goes on to misrepresent the consensus that emerged in the preceding discussion as aligning with his viewpoint (by placing all categories under "state government").

In my opinion (speaking only as an editor, not as an admin), none of his references lend support to his position, despite his repeated insistence to the contrary. The NACO example seems to completely contradict his claim - the page directly contrasts the original formulation of county government (as GregBard states, as an "arm of the state") with the current arrangement, and states... "After World War I, population growth, and suburban development, the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments.... Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government." Throughout the various occasions when someone has questioned his reasoning, the response is either "it's obvious" or "I am the educated person, so you should abide by what I say". Needless to say, neither of these response types reflect "how we do things".

On that basis, it is thus my assessment (as an admin) that GregBard is engaged in disruptive conduct - although in fairness there is no deliberate intent to be disruptive as such. On the plus side, he has not editing any county related article since this AN/I discussion began to focus on his activity. If this remains the status quo, then this thread can be closed without further action. If however, the disruptive editing resumes, then I believe a topic ban of some duration will become necessary, as per the above discussion. I will let another admin to make that determination.

To another matter - Gregbard has repeatedly requested punitive action be taken against Orlady. I and several other admins have reviewed the actions of Orlady, and I reprimanded her for improper conduct in one case (a reprimand she accepted without dispute). Others are free to examine her actions, of course, but I do not feel there is anything else actionable here. I do encourage both of them to refrain from interacting as much as possible, as it is clear that (at least for the time being) GregBard holds considerable animosity against her. I also suggest Orlady refrain from reverting any more of GregBard's edits. Instead bring them to the attention of an admin (such as myself, or any other admin willing to take an active role).

That's about all I can say at this point. If the discussion dies hereafter (as I hope it does) another admin can close this discussion at their discretion. If it continues, I will refrain from commenting. Good luck. Manning (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose Not only does this proposal fail to take any actual action against Gregbard (which clearly has consensus above), it also bizarrely includes a revert ban against Orlady, which isn't warranted at all. This comes dangerously close to blaming (and worse, persecuting) the victim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • I'm not certain how the word "suggestion" constitutes a 'revert ban'. For your reference, Orlady was in fact the subject of the original complaint, thus the the final paragraph (which clearly indicates there is nothing actionable). Manning (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have to say that I have a bad feeling about the suggestion that Gregbard's "considerable animosity" towards me means that I should refrain from interacting with Gregbard or reverting any more of his edits, and should instead bring them to the attention of another admin. In its effect, suggesting that I ought to defer to his wishes is saying that a user can declare ownership of articles and edits simply by declaring "I have considerable animosity toward you, so you'd better stay away from me" to every user who disagrees with them, issues warnings, or takes administrative action. Gregbard's "do not contact me further" declarations (first on his talk page and then on my talk page) were in fact his response to my having warned him to desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process. Are we going to start telling disruptive users that every time they receive a warning they should post a "do not contact me further" message to exempt themselves from future interactions from the user who warned them? --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Orlady, it was meant as an optional short-term tactic for a highly experienced editor such as yourself to employ in this specific circumstance - nothing more. Please don't read any more into it - for some strange reason the cabal still refuses to allow me to dictate policy based on my whim. Manning (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind. You don't stand up in the middle of a discussion, declare a consensus, and the last person who reverts something get banned for three months. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and have not wavered from that. However, the shark tank here takes offence at the very idea that they could be wrong, and refuse to back down. That's administrative abuse. The comment from admins directed toward me concerning my understanding are completely oblivious! I have been an editor since 2006. I have made over 70,000 contributions. There are whole swaths of content and organization that I created. I have acted in legislative, executive, judicial, and diplomatic capacities es on behalf of Wikimedia. It is unfathomable that anyone would point to me and say that I just don't understand the consensus process. This issue barely began a few days ago. It is beyond impatient to just stand up and declare a consensus exists. Certainly no discussion has been closed yet even at this point! I am a very fair minded person, and if I had done anything to warrant a sanction of some kind, I would be able to admit it. In fact I have in the past. I won't accept a sanction in this case. At this point I believe I am owed an apology, and whether the political reality is that I will get it or not, I will demanding that for the entire duration of any sanction. I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. I have used terms like "decency" "reasonable" "mature" and "shame" It seems like I am the only person using those kind of terms. Now I am using another term: "conscience." So if no one's conscience tells them that they are doing the wrong thing here, that will be a shame on them forever. This is all the power I have here: my words. It seems that attitude is to take offence that I should ever attempt to defend myself. That's not a fair, or decent process. Show some respect for yourselves, and exercise restraint. Forgo the ego gratification that comes from using your powers. PLEASE DO relent and defer, and consider for one moment that this is not some great insult to yourselves. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, if the community decides to impose a sanction on you, whether or not you "accept" it is irrelevant. You would either edit in accordance with the sanction or not, and if you did not, further and more drastic sanctions, up to and including a site ban, would most likely be forthcoming. Considering this, it might be a good idea to step down off your soapbox and consider just what, exactly, is being said above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone look at this diff of a Greg Bard edit and try to figure out what is going on? At the bottom there is some potential canvassing, however there seems to be some bizarre vandalism going on as well. Manning (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks a lot like the damage to my user talk page that I asked about at the Village pump: Why are new edits introducing seemingly random errors into previous page content?. Gregbard apologized for it, blaming it on a problem with his computer. However, but it hasn't stopped. (I also saw it on another page he edited in the last couple of days.) The last post in that conversation was a suggestion that Greg might have some malware on his computer. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @ Greg. What BMK said ... quite frankly? If I had the time to monitor the situation? I'd have likely blocked you already. You're not some new guy. You should know the rules by now. Either get with the program, or deal with the consequences. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Greg, I've tried to assume good faith as much as I can throughout this whole brouhaha, but after this last comment of yours above, enough is enough, and I have only this to say: Knock it off. Whether or not you "accept" sanctions is, as BMK mentioned, utterly irrelevant - if they are imposed, you will accept them or you will be indef'd. Your comments promise that you will disrupt the encyclopedia if you don't get your way - this is the Misplaced Pages equivilant of pitching a tantrum and saying "you'll play by my rules or I'll pick up my blocks and go home". While we hate to lose any editors, Misplaced Pages does not need you - if I hadn't already !voted in the above discussion, you'd be indef'd already for POINTy threats, epic levels of I Didn't Hear That, soapboxing, and general disruptiveness, as every comment you make here makes it more and more clear that you are here to push The Truth, not to build an encyclopedia, at least in this matter, and you must abide by the community conduct and codes you agreed to when you signed up, and every time you push the 'submit' button, in all matters. Allow me to be perfectly clear: one more rant like the one above, and you will be blocked until you realise this sort of conduct is utterly inappropritate for Misplaced Pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Hi Greg. I don't have a mop, and I'm still not gonna vote on any action, but I just wanted to make a few observations. At this point, right or wrong doesn't matter anymore, diffs don't matter anymore. The admins here are clearly losing their patience, and at some point soon, the hammer will come down, hard or soft. As I read it, their POV is, in short, they're done with you - enough is enough. Several would, given the chance, insta-ban you right now. This not a court of law, this whole thing is more or less run by volunteers on a consensus basis, and at some point, people are just done.

OTOH, from your POV, you are clearly backed into a corner, and are so certain of your innocence that, as you state, you will more or less bring this matter to the supreme court and the media and Jimbo and everything else. The question is, what for? What's your ideal end state? What happens if that whole process goes as planned? Do you think some big trial and media show will end with Jimbo presenting you with a golden award for righteousness and all those who have maligned you will apologize and send you wiki-love? Not likely. Non-involved people who've dropped by this thread have taken a look, read a few diffs, and decided: "nyet". However, these admins aren't lawyers, this is not a trial, and I submit that it's possible that the judgement of all of those admins to block you may, in the fullness of time and provided an army of lawyers and diff-readers, be proven dead wrong. But IT DOESNT MATTER - what matters is the here and now.

Allow me to thank you for the numerous contributions (70k edits? that's a lot) to the wiki - that is awesome! And I hope we can find a way to keep you - I still AGF. I think you just seem to have fallen into a bit of bad business with some editors who are equally as stubborn as you. Maybe people were uncivil to you, and maybe they misread what you typed, and maybe they just don't understand the sources. But at some point, that ceases to matter. For whatever reason, the boomerang swang around your way.

An insight I had about myself a while back was, there are situations where you can be right, or you can win. What do you want? I have often felt as you have, so indignant that I was *right*, and they were *wrong*, and then I press on, and then, often, I lose (e.g. I don't get what I want) - but at least I remained right, right?? It's a shallow sort of victory. After tempers cool down, and careful reflection, I've often found that I, too, had made mistakes; I too had gone too far. And ultimately, it doesn't matter. So now I try to think to myself, how can I win - instead of - how can I demonstrate that I was right.

So sometimes, it's better to just swallow one's pride, take a breath of fresh air, start some edits somewhere else or take a break. If you do that, just leaving a brief message here saying "Ok, I get it guys, I'm gonna do some other work and try to be a good citizen", and then start doing that, then the hammer may not fall, there's still a chance, and the community will welcome you back. Rather than avoiding Orlady, frankly I would, after a cooling down period, try to find something to work on together with her - I've found her to be a good and experienced editor. People here are resilient, and can edit war with you one day and the chummily co-edit an article the next. You'll find humility and contriteness are virtues much appreciated.

So, that's all I have to say. I wish I could be an even more civil editor, and I continue to try, and I continue to screw up. But I continue to learn. As the Dalai Lama says, "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

GregBard's incivility

DISCLAIMER: GregBard linked to this discussion at WIkiproject: Philosophy. I personally think GregBard has been one of the most helpful contributors to the Philosophy side of this Misplaced Pages, and I've defended him before, but I don't think I've ever actually conversed with him.

I just want to see the evidence that GregBard has been uncivil. There has been numerous claims that GregBard has been so (I count six above here right now), but I haven't seen any strong evidence. So please, make any argument that I may read.

As far as I can tell, only once has GregBard's supposed incivility been described explicitly; this was when Manning above said, "Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility." But how was it established that GregBard tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are ignorant or not helpful? I saw two cases where GregBard calls other editors not helpful, but in both those cases I saw no reason for thinking that GregBard called them not helpful because he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are not helpful, rather than because he sincerely thought what they said was not helpful. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to spend too much time on this, I'll start with your example. The responses "Not Helpful" are clearly uncivil. They are dismissive and belittling, which violates 1.d. of Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying_incivility. It is easy enough to communicate the same idea in a civil manner - "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" is a perfectly civil way of indicating the exact same content. A single instance would be too ambiguous to make this call, but two in a row is clearly contemptuous, particularly as there were valid questions being raised which GregBard ignored. As another example, this post is quite flagrant in belittling another editor. In general any comment which asserts "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, and therefore uncivil. The vast majority of editors are willing to learn new things, so explaining one's reasoning is far more effective than just telling other editors they are ignorant. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take anything written here as merely a draft, if anything appears to be uncivil, please edit it to make it appear civil:

I don't know if those indicate the exact same content. It seems to me when one says "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" one is making a different claim then when one says "Not helpful." If two statements indicate the exact same content, then I would guess that the statements would have to be equivalent. But were one really not to know if that solves a problem, then "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" would be true, but that could still in actuality be helpful, in which case "Not helpful" would be false. But the two statements can't be equivalent if one can be true and the other false, so they are not equivalent. I think this make sense: One statement is about what one person knows, the other statement is about what another person said.

And I don't know why saying "not helpful" is belittling, if one sincerely believes that what was said was not helpful. I know there are multiple interpretations of such a word, but I think "belittling" is only relevant to incivility when it implies insincerely making something or someone appear insignificant in some way. I don't think that sincerely saying something is insignificant in some way is belittling in the uncivil sense, it is just honest judgement. I've understood civility to be like the proper atmosphere of a healthy, collegial workplace. I think that's why WP:CIVIL does well in mentioning that "Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces" and the like. I can try to speak from my own experience: If a colleague wrote beside a paragraph in a paper I wrote, "Not helpful", I might consider why she thinks that, and I may even ask her why she thinks that, but I wouldn't think that she was belittling me. My first guess really would be to think that she sincerely thinks what I wrote in the paragraph is not helpful. I would think it would be less civil of her not to write it. I imagine if everyone did that: I could go on to present the paper at conferences, submit it to journals, thinking to myself that everyone finds my paper so very helpful, meanwhile everyone really finds my paper quite useless, but they refuse to tell me so.

I also don't know if the remaining example is quite flagrant in belittling an editor. If GregBard sincerely thinks those things, then they don't seem to be belittling as such.

I agree that saying "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, because no one says such a thing sincerely, at least not on these discussion pages. But I don't think GregBard said such a thing.

I know you don't want to spend so much time, and I don't require any response: I am just writing this with the final goal of stating my opinion, not of undermining anyone else. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's good to know that Gregbard has been a valued contributor to the Philosophy WikiProject. Atethnekos, for some additional perspective on the communication behaviors have been labeled as problematic, please consider these items:

• This talk page exchange. Note Greg's comment on 18 April 2013 where, in response to my presentation and discussion of several sources, he did not comment on my sources nor present any of his own, but said (in part): "...I am sure that you feel quite confident in your view owing to your education and experience. However, I actually studied this issue formally. In Misplaced Pages, everyone thinks they are an expert, even with very little education or experience. ... At some point, if necessary, I may find all the sources I need to support my view if necessary, if it comes to that. However, I hope you consider the idea that you have just learned something new about county government from someone who knows. I'm not really able to reconsider my view because I was taught formally in no uncertain terms that a county is an agency of the state government." That comment was perfectly civil (albeit condescending) in tone, but the attitude expressed was that his expertise is so superior and the truth of his position so absolute that it is unnecessary even to present sources to support it.
• The first "not helpful" reply that I recall was in response to my reply to his accusation that, by posting on several talk pages to alert potentially interested parties to the extensive content discussion he had started on my talk page, I was starting 50 separate discussions. His post on that page had two paragraphs; the first paragraph accused me of misbehavior and the second paragraph was a request to begin a content discussion. My post was primarily in reply to the first paragraph accusation against me, and it included a link to the ongoing discussion that had already occurred (and that he had not seen fit to mention in his comment). Apparently he now explains his "not helpful" retort as an indication that my comment had not included any substantive responses to his second paragraph, but I submit that most readers (including me) would read that "not helpful" as an announcement of utter contempt for (1) my defense of my actions and (2) my request that people continue the pre-existing discussion rather than starting a new one. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess an easier approach is simply "incivility is what the community interprets as being uncivil". I read GregBard's remarks as being very uncivil. However I am but a single editor, and am as equally prone to misinterpretation as anyone else. Other editors are free to review the matter and make their own call. If consensus emerges that I have misread this, I will happily retract. Manning (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about that: People are going to have their own emotional reactions, and what the community as a whole treats as incivil is somehow going to reflect the complex of these individual reactions. Maybe there could be another way, but since that is the case now, contributors will just have to go back on their principles when these lead them into conflict. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I had asked the community for a response to a substantial question about county government, and Orlady responded with discussion about discussion, not anything having to do with any person't actual position on the question at hard. That's not helpful. To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF, and a cruelly harsh interpretation of my response. It is the interpretation of a person who is actively looking for trouble. That is what I was trying to avoid by not giving a lengthy response which is a very mature way to handle such a situation. If that is what you are hanging you hat on to ban me for three months, then you have lost your way. Greg Bard (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How about taking a voluntary break for a few days to catch your breath? Maybe go outside and smell the flowers, spend some quality time with your pet rock or something. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Gregbard, what Viriditas -- an editor I don't often agree with -- is telling you is that you are getting much too involved in Wiki-life and that you need to find some balance by some restorative reference to real life. Please remember that, although we think it's an important one, this is just a website, not reality. Take a breather, a break. Have a picnic with friends or loved ones, or go to a ball game or something. Come back with a fresh point of view, because the one you're carrying around now seems like it's likely to get you blocked or topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My (outside) view of that statement "Not Helpful" was unnecessarily dismissive and aggressive. As can be seen, it cause the discussion to just degenerate into mud slinging. It also set the tone of the "discussion" which also noted. Your accusation of a failure of those reading your statement to AGF is ironic in that with two words you threw good faith out the window and set the kettle boiling. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I can't resist. GB made the statement: "To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF". AGF isn't a suicide pact. The guideline wants you to start with an assumption of good faith. Given what you've written in this discussion alone, I don't think clinging to that presumption is really required anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassment (2nd warning)

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

I have already raised the issue of bullying here once before. I haven't done anything for the past three days other than defend myself. So calls for me to "knock it off" cannot reasonably be associated with any issues of which I was originally accused (and which I continue to maintain my innocence). I have had several admins post to my talk page with the presumption of trying to teach me a lesson. If admins want to ask me sincere questions about why I think this attack on my user privileges is unwarranted, then I invite your correspondence. However, this is a second warning to stop harassing me and intimidating me from defending myself. I will interpret any further such attempts as harassment, and I am conspicuously and publicly informing the community that I will interpret it as harassment. I realize that the Wikimedia Board of Directors does not have direct control over whether or not admins harass me. However they do have control over creating and sustaining a hostile environment that allows and encourages such harassment. I have not violated any policy, and I do not intend to. Drop and withdraw the proposal to sanction me in any way and leave me in peace immediately. Greg Bard (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's some advice: stop defending yourself and let others defend you. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your demand above essentially boils down to "I will edit in whatever manner I choose, and the community MUST leave me alone". Sorry, that will NEVER happen. Extensive text above indicates several admins (including myself) feel quite strongly that you HAVE violated a great number of policies. (See earlier discussion, I'm not going to re-list them all). Let me be clear: I will NOT drop the proposal I have made. It was made in my best judgment and it was created for other admins to review and consider. If anything, your conduct since I made the proposal has strengthened my (initially hesitant) resolve. No harassment has occurred. We have made numerous attempts to engage with you in a constructive fashion, all of which have been met with your histrionics eg. . You have repeatedly characterised this as "bullying", which is baseless.

Your numerous threats to engage in wholesale disruption in order to get your own way are forcing us collectively into a course I genuinely did not wish to be on. I have already stated I will not take any punitive action against you, lest you take the opinion that this is a personal conflict between you and I. But unless there is a substantial change in your tactics, sooner or later the admin body will be forced to respond. Manning (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not constructive at all. It should be obvious by now that engaging Gregbard in an authoritarian manner is not going to "work" if the goal is to actually keep him as an active editor, and miscasting his statement isn't helpful either. NE Ent 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Except, I don't see that at all in Manning's response. He's simply presenting his prediction of future events, and laying them out for Greg to see and understand. I actually find your comments, NE Ent, unhelpful and quite frankly, interfering with the discussion. Greg has to be told what's going to happen if he continues down this path. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ne Ent - In general I would fully agree with your dissent on authoritarianism. However all other methods on interaction have been tried and failed, as far as I can tell. If you have a better approach for getting GregBard to accept the apparent consensus and conform to community practices, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. Manning (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

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

This is a formal written complaint against User:Viriditas for a willful act of harassment, not more than few hours after a second warning to cease and desist from such behavior. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is of course written, but it's hardly formal (or persuasive) without a diff. Precisely what are you complaining about? -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Hoary - The complaint is about this pair of posts.

The key phrase in the Harassment policy is "repeated". A scan of your talk page history indicates User:Viriditas has never contacted you previously. Viriditas has made a total of two posts, the second only to clarify the intent of the first. Hence no harassment has occurred. I also note you have failed to leave a notification on User_talk:Viriditas, as the AN/I policy clearly states (and which would have been visible when you composed your post).

Unfortunately your "warning" has no meaning or substance within the Misplaced Pages framework - you have effectively demanded that the entire community leave you alone to edit in any manner you see fit. As stated above, this will never happen. Manning (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg, please drop it. This complaint isn't productive. Jehochman 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to eliminate restrictions

Alright so it's been 18 months since User:Bwilkins gave me restrictions because I uploaded several non-free images that I tried to take full ownership of. I believe I can continue on Misplaced Pages without these restrictions and not get into any more trouble. Since September 2011, I have not been called upon at WP:AN/I and have been taking some wiki breaks as a result of my overall good behavior on Misplaced Pages. I understand what I did was wrong and promised not to ever do it again. I have a full understanding of Misplaced Pages's non-free content requirements and rules and need the ability to upload these as I begin to take articles I've expanded substantially to FAC which requires the use of non-free content to illustrate the article and to inform the reader. I've been asking several users on Misplaced Pages that I've been in good terms with to help me with artwork and/or music file uploading when the article I've expanded needs one. I believe I have demonstrated since 2011 that I won't be a menace on Misplaced Pages, and believe I can be counted on to take full responsibility of my actions and not act immature towards editors. Hope you guys can see the good in me and grant me back my full user rights . Best, Jona 01:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support removing restrictions. NE Ent 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am at least a little bit worried at seeing rapid endorsements of this request when Jona (AJona1992) has not actually described to us (or even linked to) either the specific restrictions that he is editing under, or the circumstances that led to those restrictions being imposed. Does anyone have links to all the relevant discussions?

From what I can piece infer from Jona's user talk page archive, it appears that he created more than one sockpuppet to push article(s?) he was working on through GAR and to engage in deliberate copyfraud. (There was apparently also some personal nastiness, including an unblock request that included "but the bitch needs to know, well everybody, needs to know is that if you piss me off then I'm going to attack" as justification for his conduct.) I can't help but feel that we're being rushed to a decision while being kept in an information vacuum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Their block log has been clean since Bwilkins imposed the restrictions. The request is unambiguous in acknowledging their past mistakes as well as their promise to avoid such behavior in the future. I'm willing to AGF this is a sincere request. If Jona betrays this trust, then shame on them and call me a sucker.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the misbehaviour described by TenOfAllTrades is pretty strong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  I actually apologized to those users I commented on when I was asking to be unblocked. That was years ago and my behavior is nothing like that anymore as you can tell in my more recent archives and has improved since those remarks were made. Best, Jona 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm not coming down one way or another on this request. I don't mean to torpedo it out of hand; my concern is that we're missing too much detail to make an informed decision in response to this request. Were there one or more noticeboard discussions that pull together the relevant history and evidence? (Sockpuppet checks, AN/I reports, any previous appeals, etc.?) The discussion on AJona's user talk page gives some hints about what the problems were, but doesn't tie it all together and put things in context. As I said, I do find it troubling that AJona didn't feel it necessary to provide that information – or even a clear list of the restrictions he seeks to have lifted – as part of his original request. Care and attention to process details matter—both for requests to lift or modify sanctions and in uploading non-free content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For some past history, I've posted the previous ANI's that Ajona was called up for.

The copyright issues started back in 2010 and were discussed in ANI. The ANI wasn't limited to just copyright, but the discussion at the time cleared the air of these other issues (incivility, edit warring, socking, the usual kitbag)

ANI was where AJona first appealed the restrictions. Ajona's name pricked my memory a bit and it was at the same time that Ajona also agreed to my proposal for a sort of mentorship as a precondition for a lifting of the upload restriction.

Ajona asked for advice this ANI, which wasn't really a request to lift sanctions, so shouldn't be really held against him.

Ajona was restricted from making any image uploads due to their lack of understanding of copyright and attempting to pass off copyrighted images as their own, which was noted in the 2010 ANI. I'd support a lifting of their restrictions since Ajona has managed to keep himself out of trouble with regards to image copyright, but would counsel that they return to image uploading very slowly and carefully. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions are on top of users' talk page User_talk:AJona1992. For me, all the relevant information is: a. date of restrictions and b. no blocks for violation in the intervening interval.NE Ent 09:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as their block log shows, their last block was in August 2011 and unblocked in Sept 2011 with the aforementioned restrictions. Nothing since then. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support My criteria is similar to Ent's although I consider more than just blocks. Lifting the restriction seems a worthwhile "risk" after this long. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• waiting for a comment from Bwilkins. (leaning support) — Ched :  ?  16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't include those here because I've apologized to every user I badmouthed to so there's no need to bring my past back up if its patched up already. I still talk (from time to time) to several of them and they are okay with replying back especially User:Moonriddengirl who has given me several links to help me understand Misplaced Pages's non-free content and I sometimes go to her for advice. I also requested several non-free images on Commons to be deleted and worked there for a short time helping fight vandals. If this isn't enough proof then I don't know what else is. I know Bewilkins didn't approve of the loosen of my restrictions (the last time I requested it) because he felt that I didn't understand what I was doing was wrong, but this time around I did and even read several polices about non-free content. I hope you guys can see that I've changed over the past two years. Best, Jona 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Question Which restrictions do you want removed ... all of them? I would disagree with removing the restriction to one account - it should stay. Obviously following CIVIL and NPA to the letter should still apply ... and I see no suggestions about what type of non-copyrighted images ant Ajona needs to upload all of a sudden. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that in his opening statement, Ajona says that he would like his upload restriction lifted, in a somewhat roundabout way. Following CIVIL and NPA should be a given and the single account restriction being lifted wasn't mentioned. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm just guessing here, but perhaps being allowed to remove that scarlet letter notice on their talk is an issue too. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to be able to upload images and music files as my main contributions relate to music-related articles especially ones that are stubs and turning them into FAs. I don't mind staying with the notice on my talk page if everyone here believes it should remind me to stay civil and only have one account. Best, Jona 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you won't mind getting indeffed the first time you upload any copyrighted material...the block was your final warning - you don't get 3-strikes-and-out anymore ... so what I'm asking is that are you 110% certain you understand WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:IUP and all other vital policies related to images and files? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand and have made myself familiar with the non-free content polices. Jona 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting upload restrictions, especially in light of his comment just as above. As one of the admins who was working cleanup during these issues, I've seen a huge turnaround in Ajona1992 since the restrictions were rightfully imposed and personally I have confidence that the problem will not repeat. That said, I think that this is in a way offering a bit of rope. I expect that Ajona will be very careful; I would encourage him to be extremely scrupulous about documenting where images come from and if in doubt seek feedback before uploading. I think he's being doing good work, and I'd be really disappointed if we lost that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per MRG and discussion above. — Ched :  ?  22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Its time to get the editor back to work. Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment so has the community come to an agreement? Am I granted back my privileges to upload media or remain with that restriction? Also there were concerns about the letter on my talk page needing to remain, is that still in affect or is it okay to remove? Best, jona 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was reading through Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and don't see anything that prohibits your removal of the notice, and I believe that WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING would support that as well. However, there may be some items in some sort of WP:AE type of guidelines somewhere that I'm not familiar with, so I'm hesitant to say outright "yes you can remove the notice" (yes, I realize this was a community based situation rather than Arb based, I'm just using that as an example), but my belief is that you can remove it. As far as thread closure, it wouldn't be proper for those of us who have supported or opposed this to close the thread; so we must wait for a passing admin. who's not attached for that. I think the thread has been open long enough to be resolved - so now it's just a matter of WP:PleaseBePatient. Best of luck to you. — Ched :  ?  18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Milowent has engaged in unsupported personal attacks, insults and disruptive emptying of categories under discussion

User:Milowent has engaged in multiple very reude actions. This user has called me "The Unintentional He-man women haters club president". I do not appreciate this rudeness. This user has lied about what I said in a facebook discussion on the discussion which had no relevance to wikipedia, and used this to personally attack me on the discussion. In this eduit she implied that those of us who do not see eye-to-eye with her "do not live in the real world. She has called me "the primary source of the problem", when I did not create the discussed category, was not the first person to add to it, I was not the first person to move people into it and out of Category:American novelists. Here persistent attempts to blame me for it and insult me and malign me in the process are very disturbing. They also suggest that their comparison to Nazis and to the support for slavery were both meant to be personal insults at me since she claims that I am personally resposnsible for the problem. Here is where she calls me out with "do you admit or deny" that " your public facebook page you advocated that a female president should be called "presidentess"" I emphatically deny that as a false representation of what I actually advocated. What I advocated is people know as "mission president's wives", and officially identified with that title in the most relevant publications on the matter, such as this Deseret News article that discusses their added role, should be called "presidentesses". This editor did not aplogize for comapring me to those who massively exterminated the Jews and Gypsies. This editor's rhetoric rhetoric of claiming I am "the most responsible" shows that their statements on the discussion of Category:Americn women novelists at CfD that those involved there were like the Nazis, shows that they are trying to specifically compare me to a Nazi. I do not appreciate such personal attacks. This posting of a statement from my private facebook page was totally inaprpriate and clearly constituted a personal attack. Their false explanation of what I said, both on that page and in the discussion of Category:American women novelists is even more disturbing. Here is where they bring up her totally personal attack on me, but falsely representing my postion on titles. Here is where they bring in slavery, Here is where she compares wikipedia editos to "Nazi soldiers". Here is a diff where they trie to ban me from editing an article because the subject has supposedly "directly called into question John Pack Lambert". Tht is a new one, a-I have still to see where the subject personally attacks me, and b-when did it become possible to personally attack an editor and thus ban them from editing your article, and c- All I did was move the person to a more specific, by genre article, yet they have acted like I am somehow the one who has removed text from the article involved, which is totally not true. I find the tone of their comments on JohnHinsdales user page seen here also disturbing. To call other editors edits "fecal matter" is needless rude and combative. I find the personal attacks very disturbing. Editors should not have their comments on wikipedia attack on false represenatations of what they have said elsewhere. To do so is a personal attack that is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Milowent's behavior is out of control, as indicated by the cited diffs. Some action is appropriate to stop the disruptiveness and incivility. There are multiple parties to the situation, though, so there may be other editors whose behavior needs to be addressed. (I haven't looked to see who else might be at fault here.) --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Orlady, I have responded to JPL below. Hopefully you will not cuff me. I invite more editors to be aware of the substantive issues we are facing.--Milowent • 18:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that is quite the paragraph. To respond to all this would take quite some time. The short version: John Pack Lambert is the primary editor defending Category:American women novelists despite the NYTimes op-ed and numerous other respected commentators uniformly decrying this unfortunate event. Jimbo (whose first comment on the whole drama was titled "WTF" - ban him now for uncivility, btw!) basically suggested he might be banned for this behavior, though there's been no real push for a ban (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WTF.3F). What does need to be done is that the problem needs to be fixed. John, unfortunately, has also been willy-nilly creating other new categories since the "scandal broke", including putting the author of the NYTimes op-ed (Amanda Filipacchi) into another new category he created (Category:American humor novelists, also now at CfD). Indeed, I did empty most of the Category:American men novelists category because it was created as a JOKE by an editor who put two females who use initials into it. JohnHinsdale, an infrequent editor, then put about 50 of the best known male American novelists of all time into the category; I believe he did it as a joke, though he has not confirmed that. My actions have been in good faith, the "NAZI OMG" aspersions cast against me have come in the back and forth of discussions and not as personal attacks. I admit that I misunderstood JPL's promotion of the term "presidentess", which is an archaic term for a female president, but not the way he apparently intended it to be used in a context outside wikipedia. I also admit I used the term "fecal matter".

Lastly, I admit, though JPL calls me "she" four times above, that I am male. If I've been a little heated, I promise to calm down. But the most uncivil actions on Misplaced Pages are deeds, not words. And the deed that has been done recently to female novelists, even if done unintentionally, must be rectified.--Milowent • 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• An editor holding opinions different than yours is not grounds to compare them to those who put people in slavery or to Nazis. The bottom line is that disagreement with actions does not justify personal attacks. I do not think Milowent understands this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See John, this is why you have trouble interacting with folks around here. The way the slavery/nazi references came in was because Obi-Wan Kenobi pooh-poohed the whole categorization problem by saying the U.S. Library of Congress was just as guilty and sexist as Misplaced Pages. The comparison was ridiculous, so I noted the US Government also supported slavery, but that's wasn't a reason to endorse it. Obi then replied to my comment by saying I basically went Godwin in no time flat by referencing slavery--Godwin is a reference to invoking a Nazi comparison, as I noted in response. I did not EVER compare any editor to a slavery supporter or nazi. I tried to maintain good humor throughout a very very disturbing situation, which you have exacerbated in many ways since the "scandal" broke.--Milowent • 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct what Milowent said, my intent in these edits , , was to point out that the world was making a lot of noise about one particular cat, but ignoring the much larger structural issues, both in wikipedia and in the broader world, over which those writing articles in the NY times should be even more incensed. I wasn't joking when I said why aren't they attacking the Library of Congress - these are professional librarians, professional category experts, and even they have so-called "ghettoized" categories for female novelists. Thus either they are also guilty of rampant sexism, or the whole thing is overblown and just a misunderstanding of the nature of categorization and sub-categorization. In any case, Milowent quickly turned the Nazi/slavery thing into a joke, and I don't think the whole Nazi thing is worth exploring further - it was a pecadillo and definitely worth moving on.

Milowent has however (a) admittedly emptied categories that were currently being discussed at CFD, in contravention of policy and (b) behaved in an uncivil manner, throwing around the terms racist and sexist with abandon. For this at least a trout is certainly merited.

In any case, I invite all here, especially Milowent, to take the categorization quiz I put together, so we can see if anyone, on any side of this issue, can correctly and fully categorize a single bio without falling prey to a situation that would get you accused of either "sexism" or "racism". I've spent about an hour in total now sorting out all of the possible categories, and I'm quite sure no-one will pass the test (even my answer key is likely flawed!) - that's the challenge with this domain- you can correctly and in a non-sexist manner categorize someone in 32 different categories, but if you miss one - BOOM - you're a sexist. Non-diffusing gender/ethnic cats are actually quite hard to do really well, that's my main point - so accusations of sexism and racism are uncalled for and serve only to fan the flames rather than help us move forward with a workable solution.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• • If saying "this whole activity is akin to nazi soliders "just carrying out orders," glad to see you make the comparison." Is not saying that those who created a category are like Nazis doing massive executions than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Can we please not fill this unmercifully long thread with you two going back and forth on this particular sub-point? Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• lol, Shadowjams. You just e/c'ed on following from me: "If you want to get in the weeds all day, I know the admins who work on this page really love it. Let's back-and-forth with increasing indents until we need 50 inch wide screens to read our debate. No need to talk about the substance underlying things."--Milowent • 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hopefully someone with some sense will come along and close it right away - otherwise it will go and and on and on and might get ugly. I've been asked on my page to adhere closely to policy, (especially civility and AGF), which has had a chilling effect so won't say any more at this time. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The disruptiveness over this issue is not limited to these two editors. There are a few others who have been fanning the flames with personally insulting comments and/or allusions to ignominious historical events. It wouldn't do much good to block several editors. I suggest that the experienced users who have been misbehaving (including JPL and Milowent) should withdraw from the battlefield (stay away from the discussions for 24 hours) -- but only after you excise the personally offensive comments you have made. A renewal of hostilities may lead to more severe sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the best response to this debacle. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, "mission presidents' wives" is a somewhat unwieldy term to be using, so I can see why someone would want a shorter alternative. "Presidentesses" would probably be too much of a neologism though to be using in articles though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't comment on this one - that is another reason for a nice wet trout for Milowent. Going off-wiki, finding a random facebook posting an editor made having nothing whatsoever to do with wikipedia or the articles under discussion, and then mis-representing the intent of that posting in several places is going too far IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten's comment illustrates why the issue is totally irrelevant. Facebook and news article comment board comments I have made were with the intention of creating a new use of a term. I fully accept that terms are not to be created on wikipedia, and have not to my knowledge tried to do so. I edited the article on Mission (LDS) to reflect the most recent policy changes but did not try to insert the new term into it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to Obi, I did not go trolling around off-wiki for the presidentess thing, it was posted by others on twitter. But I can't believe anyone is focusing on that tiff rather than the underlying problems. And for anyone still interested in the weeds, I am discerning JPL didn't know the pop-culture source of my one edit summary joke referencing him as "the unintentional He-man women haters club president" for doing most of the editing work removing women from the American novelists category, which is what triggered the controversy. Its from a 1937 Little Rascal's episode..--Milowent • 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, *you* grabbed it off twitter, and then *you* posted it in various forms and made various accusations about it on several pages. I see that you've apologized about that, so I would also consider that closed - once the wet trout is applied. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, there is now a Salon piece decrying the recent treatment of Amanda Filipacchi's page as "revenge editing" since the 1st op ed appeared. --Milowent • 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but off-topic for this particular discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic? What about this detailed expose of JohnPackLambert's actions in the The New York Review of Books by James Gleick? He concludes, "People of Misplaced Pages! You have a problem." No one rational, absolutely no one, is complaining about editors like myself who have raised the red flags and tried to stop this fiasco.--Milowent • 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Milo, you're still engaging in the same sort of behavior which brought you to ANI in the first place - for example, going off wiki and bringing in irrelevant stuff. Now, the James Gleick piece clearly relevant, but the Salon link has *nothing* to do with JPL. You seem really obsessed and upset with what the media is writing about us here, but it is all going to blow over, and once several hundred women have been put back in the famous Category:American novelist category, everyone will go away - even as endemic ghettoization remains. There won't be more exposes in the NY Times or Salon or anywhere else about ghettoization of Christians, of native americans, of male prostitutes, of gay people, etc etc. Those people out there, that are writing this stuff? They don't care enough to fix it, so I tend to ignore them more or less...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I got brought to ANI by the editor who is documented by numerous reliable sources, cited everyday on the project for our content, to be the problem. I love how when Misplaced Pages is the subject, some editors wish to ignore all those same sources on which the project is built. Its pathetic, which is why most people are staying away from this thread. Let it be closed and let the CfDs continue.--Milowent • 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, out in the real world, people are asking questions about Misplaced Pages's culture, how the use of procedural tactics to shut down disagreement is why many people are inclined to not help, but just to complain. A direct quote is not a personal attack, but it did provide relevant context to the matter under discussion, and this procedural attack on Milowent is entirely disingenuous. Certainly Milowent's research here is not "unsupported" or "baseless" or whatever. Avt tor (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a "proecudral attack". This is a legitimate complaint about persistant lines like "those of us who live in the real world". The attack implied, that anyone who disagrees with you does not "live in the real world" is an unacceptable personal attack. If you disagree with decisions or policies, voice views on those. However to engage in personal attacks on other users, as this editor has done, is totally unacceptable. This is a requirement of civility in wikipedia, and when a user has been persistently insulted, lied about and attacked, it is reasonable for them to respond. It is a lie to claim that someone advocated something that they never did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I brought up very specific complaints about personal attacks. This diff is not civil dialogue at all. People should not be summarizing edits with personal attacks, as was done there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL, you need to let it go immediately, rather than continuing to berate Milowent here at the same time you complain about him to a third party while deleting comments you don't like on your talk page and creating another edit war over a category. What your doing is a textbook example of not being able to take criticism at all. You cook lots of omlettes at CfD, it's hardly surprising that you've broken a few eggs, Milowent's being one of them. pbp 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some outside media have claimed that Category:American women novelists was the work of "one misguided editor". This is clearly not so. To take an easy to study example, there are two articles under the letter E in that category, added by two different users. I probably added the most articles to that category, but I added neither of the articles under the letter E. Both of the articles under the letter E were transfered from the parent Category:American women novelists. On the other hand, the claim that it is "edit warring" to add someone back to a category they clearly fit in, while it is under discussion is a strange claim, when the person was removed while the category had a tag on it that said "Please do not empty the category" and no comparable direction that says "please do not expand the category".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Filapacchi is sort of defending you John, she agrees you were not alone, the problem is more widespread (and I agree), even if you went on a "spree" in early April. She also does note, however, "The editor who went on his spree in early April (username Johnpacklambert) did something particularly interesting and annoying after I'd been put back in the "American Novelists" category. He took me out of it again and put me in a new category he had just created: "American Humor Novelists." He also added three men to it, probably to make it look ok. Another editor then came along and undid what he had done."--Milowent • 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:American humor novelists still exists and still has most of its original contents. The fact of the matter is at one point we opened our article on Filipacchi by saying "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." At least to me that line said "she belongs in Category:American humor novelists." The whole rhetoric of "probably to make it look ok" suggests there is something wrong with sub-cats, which is a very problematic view. However a search for "humor novel" on wikipedia turns up multiple results, so it is clearly a term that is used. Whether it is one that is well used enough to justify a category is another question, but the rhetoric of "make it look ok", with its claims that this is all vendentta driven is ridiculous. Filipacchi has clearly failed to assume good faith, and we should not be repeating her poisonous attacks on editors who are trying to abide by rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert

User has a history of contentious and frowned-upon practices regarding WP:CfDs and categories. His talk page is littered with requests to change his behavior, and notices of edit-warring regarding the addition or removal of categories. There have been numerous instances of him mass-adding pages to categories he wants kept, and mass-deleting pages from categories he wants deletion. Oftentimes, the adds or deletions are of dubious correctness, and often occur when consensus is forming against him. But also troubling is his OWNership of CfD. JPL responds to almost every CfD out there (a bad practice in and of itself), and often makes 5-10 comments in CfDs, usually deriding detractors. Most troubling is that he's dug in on a number of CfD discussions over a number of months, often making 40 or 50 comments in a single CfD and berating almost everyone who disagrees with him. The combination of this attitude combined with the general dismissiveness of comments on his talk page (when I asked him to tone it down one time, he asked a mop to block me) indicates that JPL has problems getting along with other Misplaced Pages editors. A perfect example of this is how he's reacting to Milowent above; someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted. Jimbo himself has noted that JPL is giving Misplaced Pages a black eye. It's time for JPL to be forced to step away from WP:CfD for a spell. pbp 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Response If This user really does not think responding over and over again to people who differe from their views at a CfD nomination is appropriate, then why exactly did they do it on the discussion of Category:People from Los Angeles, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For one, because it is patently ridiculous that that category is at anything but Category:People from Los Angeles. For two, had you actually looked at the discussion, you would see numerous comments I haven't responded to. By contrast, in this last discussion and the American female writers discussion a few months back, you combined for about 150 comments. That's 150 comments in TWO discussions. Overblown? I think so. Did people tell you to cool down? Yes. Did you ignore them? Yes. pbp 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• On the other hand this editor has been going around doing things like this

The antecedent in this discussion is you, JPL, and you're correct in that you have been inappropriately adding categories to Brewster and other categories in violation of BRD. In other words, you've been edit-warring. This is particularly egregious on Brewster as at least three editors have reverted your BOLD edit, and you've undone all of them. You're yet again nearing 3RR regarding categories pbp 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against adding categories that exist to people that clearly fit in the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is against edit-warring, though. Edit-warring knows no right or wrong. pbp 19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban Johnpacklambert from CfD?

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

1. Support as nom pbp 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Note that User:Purplebackpack89 previously took this to an RFC - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. There are a lot of broader issues here and singling out one editor will do no good. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - No Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
5. No, absolutely not. Disagreed w/ John in the past, but nothing justifies a ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Comment: Nobody has yet to give a valid reason as to why Johnpacklambert's actions are acceptable. "No" or "Oppose" is not a valid reason, sorry. JPL has clearly been a disruptive influence at WP:CfD for months. As such, the one-word "No" or "Oppose" votes should be stricken unless someone can provide a better reason why JPL's disruptive influence should continue pbp 19:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Hm. You haven't given reasons, so what exactly should one say other than "no"? Your personal rants aren't reasons. Diffs are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) No, the onus is on you (pbp) to substantiate your claims, not them to substantiate theirs. Also, "someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted": pot calling the kettle black? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   The burden of proof is on the person asking for the ban. Nobody needs to give a reason not to ban. You need to provide a compelling reason why it should. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   My reasons are pretty clearly delineated in the section entitled "User:Johnpacklambert" above. The general reasoning is his tendency to edit-war over categories, his tendency to mass-add or mass-delete categories from pages when he's losing at CfD, his tendency to respond to almost every comment in CfDs he's started where others disagree with him, and in general major, major, major OWNership issues at CfD pbp 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Another rant w/o reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Excuse me? Ownership and disruption at CfD are perfectly acceptable reasons to be banned from there. pbp 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   When are you going to provide reasons/diffs? Prolonged unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks and could very much lead to your own block or ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

6. oppose what looks like an opportunistic attempt at settling an old grudge. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Note that Jimbo suggested something akin to this on his page. Please comment on JPL's actions, not irrelevant past history between him and me. pbp 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Pretty sure we consider argumentum ad Jimbonem to be a rhetorical fallacy around here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   We even have a page on the topic: Misplaced Pages:Appeals to Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose - per Timroll. There are bigger issues here, and I don't think this solves enough of them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
8. oppose I have respect for JPL and the work he does on categorization, and even though I sometimes disagree with him I think his heart is in the right place. Also a note: if JPL has emptied cats currently under discussion, please provide diffs - I haven't seen that. I would however, respectfully, ask that he (and I!) slow down on comments on this CFD - the world has probably heard enough from both of us. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose, where is the fire. I looked at the log for the discussions to be normally closed today. In there JPL had one comment in a discussion that had varied opinions and it just so happens that the position he advocated, with a reason, was how it was closed. There is no evidence in that days log of domination or ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose, close, and trout PBP for this - regardless of the merit of the rest of the case (which I will not comment upon one way or the other), this has the smell of "opportunistic score-settling" all over it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Evidence, Please. Pbp/Purplebackpack89 has been asked several times to provide diffs to prove his case. I think that it is fair to assume that if someone won't provide proof it is because they can't provide proof. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Consider the following:

    • Here,
    • there
    • everywhere.
    • and more

    In four days of CfD discussions, I count over 270 edits. And of those 270, the majority are in only a handful or two of CfDs. Ownership? Yes. Also, I went to his talk page, I counted no fewer than four separate notices about edit warring, and that's in the last six months alone pbp 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    And yet, despite being asked repeatedly, you have yet to provide a single diff (the above links are not to diffs). Why is that? Why are you unable or unwilling to pick two or three examples and post diffs to them? WP:DIFFSPLEASE. Also see: WP:DIFF and WP:D&L. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    I consider those to be diffs, and they most certainly are examples. Would you rather I posted all 270 diffs those pages represent? I didn't think so! The very problem here is that, in those four days of CfDs, JPL generated a TLDR amount of content in each of them. This much more succintly proves my point about his OWNership issues on those four days of CfDs, and in particular in regards to discussions of gender and ethnicity. pbp 04:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    What part of "pick two or three examples and post diffs to them" are you having trouble understanding? Please read Misplaced Pages:Shut up and show them the diff. Please do not respond with another reason why you are unwilling to provide diffs. Please do not respond with any other non-diffs that you "consider to be diffs". As a matter of fact, if your response does not contain two or three examples with diffs, please save us all some time and don't bother replying at all. I cannot hear your words over the defining sound of your actions. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose, and trout Purplebackpack89 for this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose Not only is there insufficient basis, I am not even sure what is supposed to be achieved by banning him from CfD.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Alex2564 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose Also a bit pointless arguing about Cat-issues now anyway. Catagories are going to be dead as soon as wikidata is working as it intends to. Granted that could take awhile.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Related issues

Three days ago I posted the following about the whole broad area here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can some non-involved admins keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists, plus the CFD pages on subsequent days and the categories involved in the various discussions.

What we have here is:

• Controversy about the existance and/or method of population of Category:American women novelists, with the corresponding effect on the contents of Category:American novelists.
• Media attention and off-Wiki notification of the state of affairs.
• An initial CFD discussion that on my screen is already 36 screens long after just two days.
• Other categories being created and often rapidly nominated for deletion and/or merger. So far I've spotted Category:American male writers, Category:British men novelists & Category:American men novelists.
• Edit warring to add or remove articles from all the categories involved.
• Accusations of bad faith and sock puppetry. There's already been one investigation.

...and adding to the complications are not only the media interest but a lot of confusion about how category hierachies work and are understood to work, plus a number of contributors appear to have been dormant for years.

All this is causing some problems and possible violations. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is deleting content without seeking consensus, repeatedly threatening blocks, making false claims, and being quite condescending

On the Stefan Molyneux article, SPECIFICO has unilaterally deleted material that was discussed on the article's talk page. No consensus was sought by SPECIFICO for these changes, and it seemed to me that it went against the consensus on the talk page, so I reverted the changes and added a section on the talk page in order to discuss the matter.

SPECIFICO then added a message that included the following to my talk page:

Please undo your recent edits and pursue your views on talk to seek prior consensus for your view that it should be reinserted. Merely asserting your rationale for your undo on talk is not sufficient. Please review WP:EW and be aware that such behavior can result in you being blocked. Thanks.

This is when I had reverted SPECIFICO's edits according to prior consensus, and SPECIFICO apparently hadn't yet commented at all on the talk page in order to try to change the consensus. The tone is threatening and condescending ("Thanks" for something I don't agree to). The initial message to me on a good faith edit on my part threatens me with a block.

SPECIFICO then responded on the article's talk page, including the following:

Please undo your recent edits and pursue your view here on talk to seek consensus for reinserting the content I reverted. Once you have undone your reinsertion I will respond to your concerns. Thank you.

It appears that SPECIFICO will only seek consensus once I comply with their demands and reinsert changes that were against consensus and that were made without seeking consensus. I responded, including my policy rationales. SPECIFICO then falsely claimed on my talk page that I had reverted them twice, that it appeared that I was engaged in an edit war because of that, and again threatened a block. It's quite clear from the edit history that I only reverted them once.

SPECIFICO then claimed on the talk page that:

Since you refuse to undo your edit, I will do it for you and once again ask you to respond to the specific policy-based reasons for my reversion of the unsourced, non-RS and trivial content. Just state your views as to why these policies do not apply or whatever other rationale you may have, but do not edit war. Please re-read WP:BRD Thanks.

This is again condescending ("I will do it for you" as if it was my job to comply). This is when I wasn't edit warring and the comment they were responding to was me "just my views as to why policies do not apply apply".

I really don't appreciate being treated uncivilly, falsely accused, threatened with blocking very quickly and repeatedly, demanded to comply under those threats, and so on. I also don't like that SPECIFICO has ignored past consensus and refused to seek consensus on the changes made, preferring to demand that I comply with their desires before they'll contemplate following Misplaced Pages policy.

While I haven't discussed it with them on their talk page specifically, I have, as you can see above, discussed it elsewhere. — Olathe (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment – While SPECIFICO can be terse, I've always seen him as a cooperative editor most willing to engage in discussion. E.g., he'll engage in WP:BRD. He's not an admin, so threats of blocks (which I do not see in the discussion) are unfounded. The edits complained of (above) may have been better handled with kid gloves, but do not warrant ANI action. If there are disagreements between these two editors, WP:3O is a better COA. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response — It's not that he's terse. I'm fine with that. It's not even that I think that he always acts like this. He might be generally fine. It's that in this instance he's bossily demanding and threatening, which shows up more on my talk page and in the sequence of events than on the article's talk page. This unpleasantness has apparently happened to at least one other user in the past. In that incident, he apparently accused a person who had reverted his changes only once of edit warring, which that user describes as slander. This sort of slander during what should be fairly minor editing disputes is apparently an ongoing problem that he has not corrected.

His false accusations look like a barrage to me. He's accused me twice of edit warring for one revert on my part, he accuses me of violating policies in my reverts, he says that I should discuss things on the talk page after I've already started to discuss things on the talk page months before, and he falsely accuses me of not trying for consensus on the talk page.

I've looked over the article's talk page before and after this incident. It has people talking a while back about the things he deleted because another user deleted them as well. The consensus certainly doesn't support his high level of deletion. He disregarded it.

More notably, he has no comments at all before he made his significant deletions. His only comments are responses to me, and they include demands that I must comply with before he will even discuss things with me. This is obviously not consensus-seeking on his part, which would appear as him discussing things with me even though I don't take back one revert I made.

The talk page does, however, include me seeking consensus for a change I made to the article a few months ago. He deleted what I'd added to the article without any comment in that section, which makes it quite hypocritical and false when he repeatedly informs me that I should discuss things on the talk page before I'm supposedly allowed to revert his changes. His demand applies directly to him. I have no reason to believe he even checked the talk page before I reverted him.

I don't mind trying a third opinion if that's what's supposed to be done, but the primary purpose of my bringing this up isn't to resolve the editing dispute, since that can be done through consensus. The primary purpose is that I don't want to continue to be bullied by him with the risk that people will believe his false accusations. — Olathe (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply – But we don't have to discuss WP:BB changes before we make them. We make them and then let others contend with us about what we did. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who want to insert or remove material. Seems to me, for the most part, SPECIFICO has been on sound grounds as I have watched him make edits. If he makes edits that contradict earlier consensus, point out the consensus and open up a new discussion. Contact me, if you like, and I'll take a look and help if I can (although this stuff gets pretty abstruse for my poor brain). Finally, I think SPECIFICO will take a look at this ANI and work on being more diplomatic. (Got that, SPECIFICO, these are opportunities for you to mentor.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response — I don't mind his being bold, but I was as well with my revert but was criticized by him for that with the associated threats. I didn't want an edit war, which is why I reverted once and haven't rereverted his unrevert. He's mentioned which policies he thinks the content violated, but not yet why he thinks those policies are applicable. I have a different understanding than him, but he may be right. I hope he'll explain on the talk page. — Olathe (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As a co-participant with SPECIFICO at Talk:Bitcoin, I'd also ask him to lighten up a bit. I'm not alleging misconduct per se, but the atmosphere at the talk page is pretty unpleasant and SPECIFICO seems to be contributing to that. Here one of the maintainers (also mentioned in a usertalk diff above) quit being involved in the article after a conflict with SPECIFICO. The article itself is in terrible shape and I don't think the current approach is working. I've looked at old revisions, they had obvious POV problems needing straightforward cleanup, but they were otherwise clearer and more informative than the current version. So I think there's been a heavy-handed approach that has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This user (SPECIFICO) has been demonstrating a similar pattern of disruptive behavior at the Gun control article. He even opened a couple of frivolous edit warring reports against two different editors, both of which were (thankfully) closed without action due to there being no 3RR violations involved in either case. ROG5728 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a totally uninvolved editor, SPECIFICO's conduct looks pretty rude. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Account sharing between Riley Huntley and Gwickwire

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

During the course of DeltaQuad's checkuser duties, it came to his attention that Gwickwire had accessed Riley Huntley's account on 01:03 22 March 2013 to make a single edit to Riley Huntley's talk page. DeltaQuad spoke to Deskana and DoRD, who verified his findings. At present, we do not believe that any other access of Riley Huntley's account by Gwickwire has taken place, but we have no way of verifying the integrity of either of the accounts.

Due to the permissions on Riley Huntley's account, disclosing the password to his account represents a breach of trust that the community has put in Riley Huntley to keep his account secure. As Riley Huntley's login is unified with advanced permissions on other wikis, there was great potential for misuse in disclosing his password. Similarly, by accessing the account of another user, Gwickwire has shown disregard for policies and standards.

Gwickwire and Riley were invited to comment on the matter to Deskana. Gwickwire said that Riley asked him to make an edit for him with a temporary password when he was unable to do so. Riley said that he was on holiday and made his watchlist send him an email whenever a page was edited, and he couldn't use the website well on his mobile so he asked Gwickwire to edit for him.

In light of the above, we hereby propose to the community that all permissions on the Gwickwire and Riley Huntley accounts be revoked due to violation of community trust and standards on account sharing. Riley Huntley's rights are currently Account creators, Course online volunteers, File movers, IP block exemptions, Reviewers and Rollbackers. Gwickwire's has resigned his rights, so this discussion would label his resignation as "under a cloud". Please comment on this below.

We will also notify the other wikis which Riley Huntley and Gwickwire have advanced permissions on, so that they can also decide on what actions they wish to take.

On behalf of DeltaQuad, Deskana and DoRD,

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Certifying this was the assessment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Further

Not having discussed this with my colleagues, I won't go into detail, but I will say that both users turned up incidental to a routine check. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally? As in there was another commonality between Riley or Qwickwire and another account related to the check?—cyberpower _Offline 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Routine"? Are you routinely checking random people 'cause you're bored of picking your nose? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seb .. I think a lot of folks have concerns about CU types of checks, myself included; but I really do think that particular comment was way out of line. Please don't do that again. — Ched :  ?  07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I will whenever I see fit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You might just want to check that attitude at the door. Up to you, but I'm just sayin. — Ched :  ?  09:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You should check yours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The natural response to this sort of needless hostility is that the perpetrator will find himself ignored outside of his own social circle. While this isn't quite as helpful as self-correction, it does help to ensure that the community as a whole is not unduly influenced by its ugliest commentary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment here on the comments by people who think that DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) or DoRD (talk · contribs) checks accounts for the fun of it. Among other things, running a checkuser investigation against anybody with more than a few edits is commonly a time-consuming task. I'm not a checkuser, so I don't know the real reason, but there are several possible scenarios in which a checkuser could have uncovered the account sharing.

1. DeltaQuad assigned IP block exemption to Riley Huntley due to an IP block affecting him. Checkusers will routinely go through the list of IP block exempt editors to see if they are still affected by IP blocks and remove unnecessary IP block exemptions. This would result in DeltaQuad getting Riley's IPs, and the fact that a different computer (Gwickwire's) accessed it would show up.
2. A checkuser may have been considering applying a rangeblock to stop abusive edits from an IP range. Naturally, he or she would want to ensure that any good-faith editors trapped in the rangeblock would receive IP block exemption. This could result in a check on Riley, Gwickwire, or even both and would show that a different computer accessed Riley's account at some point.
3. A checkuser could also have been investigating Gwickwire's IP range if disruptive sockpuppets were arriving en masse from it. In the midst of Gwickwire's edits, that edit from Riley's account would have shown up as using Gwickwire's computer, prompting further investigation that would prove the account sharing.

Thus, before you assume checkusers are horrible, abusive people, think of other possible scenarios. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, additionally, let's simply recall that Riley was an admin of the ACC interface, which in and of itself, as DeltaQuad told me (when I was previously involved in the program), causes one to be subject to frequent additional checks, due to...frequent additional risk. No need to create a mountain out of a molehill, friends. Theopolisme (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Reaper for that insight. That does change my perspective.—cyberpower _Offline 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Just to note that Riley removed himself from toolserver account creator access where he had access to sensitive information. His account creator right is separate from that now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• What reason was there to be scrutinizing either Gwickwire or Riley's account? Was there any behavior evidence to justify use of checkuser? As far as the violation -- really? I care why? Was there any harm to the encyclopedia?? NE Ent 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As Riley was a sysop on Wikidata, this was a serious security risk for us. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Risk of what? "Serious security risk"? It's a frickin' website, not the finish line of the Boston Marathon. NE Ent 02:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Risk of blocking all administrators, deleting several pages, etc. When admin accounts have been compromised on this site, the Main Page has been deleted, and arbitrators and Jimbo Wales were blocked, and this would have continued had the account not been emergency desysopped. --Rschen7754 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict × 3)Ok, thats a bit far fetched. Especially since Jimbo hasn't autocreated his account on Wikidata yet. Legoktm (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Well, account creators have, if I recall correctly, access to user IP data (considered private info, requiring IDing to the foundation to have access). So theoretically someone with AC access and bad judgment could do some real-world harm using people's personal data. IPBE is also considered by some to be sensitive, since it allows users to edit through hard blocks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Riley also had access to sensative information such as IP addresses and relevant information as an account creator on the toolserver, so sharing passwords is pretty serious. Also, administrators are also privy to information that is not public, and Riley is/was an administrator on two wikis. Also, downplaying the situation as "it's just a website" as compared to a terrorist attack, probably isn't the right response. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree. There could be severe repercussions on the entire project if immediate action isn't taken. The bombing comment was also unnecessary, and in very poor taste. Herr Kommisar 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • @Ent: Probably about as serious as removing some permissions from an account on "just a website", so this is a pretty proportional reaction. I am curious as to why a CU was looking at this, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Riley has also resigned as a Wikidata sysop. I believe that this would be considered under a cloud, but I am sure that we will be having a discussion related to the matter, once we are officially notified. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why discuss this? Both have retired which clearly means both agree with removing their rights. So remove them and stop the drama. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a technical matter, if one 'retires' it is different from 'fired' in a business sense if one wants to come back. If a major breach occurred and is taken to the community the prospects of a future RFA or other position of power can be scrutinized. I am concerned as to how a CU found this, though, but transparency is not something that we are privvy to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• One simple question: What led to the chck to be made? and I want DeltaQuad to please kindly explain how he considered that a check was needed, and that it fell within the boundaries of the CU policy. I understand that this should have never happened, but I'm now amazingly sad because after this unnecessary scandal, we've lost a great asset, and a very productive user. — ΛΧΣ 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 5)I honestly don't see the big deal. No damage came from this. And if it did, it could easily be reversed. The password that was set up for Gwickwire was temporary so the real password was never revealed. Yes, there was the potential for damage, but did Gwickwire abuse the trust Riley placed in him? No. According to Riley, as he puts, was simply trying to get Misplaced Pages to stop sending a flood of emails to his phone, while he was trying to get his phone to work. Since he couldn't do it himself with his phone, he asked Qwickwire to do it for him as his settings were set to receive an email when something on his watchlist had changed and he has over 30k pages on his watchlist. Honestly, wouldn't you be annoyed if you couldn't shutoff that email function?—cyberpower _Offline 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Could someone from the checkuser team explain what led them to run checks in this case? Was it an e-mail tip or was this part of an SPI or something? I assume they weren't just going fishing, but it would be nice to have some reassurance about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • DoRD explained a little above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think I understand what triggered the CU investigation now. I'm totally satisfied that the checks were done appropriately, i.e. not part of a fishing trip. I believe it had to do with the WP:ACC, as someone points out above. I'm not totally sure why the results needed to be made public though. This reminds me a bit of the situation a few months back when Arbcom announced out of the blue that two accounts were using the same IP. I understand why they investigated, but not why they made the results public. Was community input really needed here? Could permissions have been revoked without an announcement? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The most obvious parallel between that case and this one is that there was obvious wrongdoing involved (more obvious in the other case than in this one, given the long history of faux retirements and the subsequent un-retirement of the master account) and yet a long line of editors queueing up to express outrage at the perpetrator having even been named, let alone acted against. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I too am concerned with due process here. On what grounds was a checkuser done in this case? The concern that Riley should not have let Gwickwire use his account may be valid, but of concern here also is that other people with advanced permissions (i.e. checkusers) are using those permissions commensurate with the regulations regarding them, and not just fishing. How is it possible that a checkuser could catch something like this unless either Gwickwire or Riley had some reason to be checked, or that there was a third account linking the two otherwise. I'm unclear on how this came to be found, and I have serious concerns of a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? nature. --Jayron32 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is no expectation of due process on Misplaced Pages, as we are not a government, but a private website. That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is an expectation of privacy per WMF policy. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is absolutely an expectation that people entrusted by the community with advanced permissions like checkuser use those permissions persuant to the restrictions placed upon them, and that such people are ultimately accountable to the community to be able to justify their use of them. That is absolutely an expectation. We are not a government, we are a community who has entrusted checkusers with sensitive information, and as such, they are expected to use that trust appropriately and be able to justify their use of it when called to question. --Jayron32 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, the standard of expected behaviors for admins was WP:NOTPERFECT and a "pillar" of this community was WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. " (emphasis original). If editors / admins are to be sanctioned for hypothetical events that could have happened, the reductio ad absurdum implication is that every admin who ever edited outside a Faraday Cage such as the one used for the recent papal elections should be immediately desysoped. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

1. "Papal Election: Vatican Installs Anti-leak Security Devices at the Sistine Chapel". International Business Times. 2013-03-10. Retrieved 2013-03-19.

Arbcom? Stewards? Jimbo?

• CU aside, it's clear there is a major security risk involved here, I believe some course of action is required here. ArbCom should probably be notified, as well as the WMF Stewards, due to the fact that this is a cross-wiki incident. Jimbo would probably have some valuable opinions to share as well. Herr Kommisar 03:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Probably not needed. Riley was desysopped on Wikidata per his request, and the only place Riley holds advanced permissions anymore is testwiki and that probably isn't going to be much an issue. We probably shouldn't escalate it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The subject of his testwiki access is another matter. Escalation is probably inappropriate in my opinion, as both parties have acknowledged their mistake.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and my guess is that ArbCom would have been slammed if they dealt with this issue. --Rschen7754 03:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)This entire incident has escalated too much as is. Nothing harmful came of it. If I were Jimbo, I would've treated this the same as adminship, no big deal.—cyberpower _Offline 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much a hardliner when it comes to stuff like this, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem here. Given the extent of sockpuppetry on this site, I have no objection to CUs doing their job to protect us, but, if I'm understanding what happened, that gwickwire edited Riley Huntley's account using a temporary password, it doesn't seem much different from two people in the same room where one person edits on the other's account, with permission. It doesn't make much difference whose fingers are pressing the keys, the person with the account is responsible for the edit, and it becomes their edit. It may be technically disallowed (although I'm not sure how), but it also seems entirely innocent. No information was shared except a temporary password - I'm not seeing where that implies that sensitive information would potentially be improperly shared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is a temporary password even possible? I know nothing of how it worked, but Beyond My Ken raises a good point. What's done is done, no damage seems to have come of it, I'd say let the concerned parties explain the matter if they wish and WP:TROUT or such, now that the resignations have been sent in. While I think I may be in the minority here, editors are people and people make mistakes, let the punishment equal the crime. The resignation and shame of this action seems fair, but lets not lose two people (forever) over this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The implication relates to the belief the password did not also allow access to the account creation system on toolserver or admin rights on the data project. I could tell you i changed the password before i give it to you but will you really know if it is actually new? Riley's toolserver password would not necessarily have been the same as his WMF SUL password but it could have been. Whether the password be new or not it was still a WMF SUL password which gave Gwickwire access to an admin account on a different project. Having admitted to doing it once after being caught for that one incident knowing it was inappropriate to have done in the first place the credibility is destroyed for claims that it really was only the one time and so limited in scope. If the password Riley supplied did actually allow Gwickwire access to the account creation system on toolserver then Riley violated the WMF Privacy Policy. All we have is Riley's word on the matter and right now that isn't so trustworthy.
  Notwithstanding all of that the edit Gwickwire made in Riley's name is hardly of such immediate concern it would require such measures. That alone shows some really poor judgement on Riley's part. If you're going to break the rules you really ought to have a really good reason and that isn't. delirious & lost ☯ 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Moral of the story: Never, ever ... and I mean eeeeeeever give your password to another person. It happened in 2008 with the best of intentions, but the results were disastrous. — Ched :  ?  05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed they were.... Steven Zhang 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how this violates the account sharing rules at all. That implies that the account was shared on a long-term basis, not for a single minor edit with a temporary password. Furthermore, I am also concerned about what started this CU check in the first place. Considering the very minor edit that took place, there should have been absolutely no reason to run a CU in the first place, which implies that constant CU's were being conducted on Riley and/or Gwickwire's accounts, which is a complete violation of CU protocol. If anything, we have a much larger incident here of abuse of CU privileges. Silverseren 06:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is all rather silly, but it is the Misplaced Pages way to create a dramacane over the things no one honestly cares about rather than the things that actually matter. Of course, you are just adding to the silliness with your illogical accusations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• How else would you explain why there would be a CU over this innocuous edit? An explanation of a "routine CU" is given above. Well, what the heck is that? Silverseren 07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unless I've misread what's been written above, no one has said that there was a specific CU about this edit, but that, in some way, evidence of the edit came up in the course of other CU business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's true. It is stated above that they came up "incidental to a routine check". Of course, that raises further questions, because there's been no evidence presented that this edit or either of these accounts have been involved with any others. How does one come up "incidental"? Does a CU check bleed over into other accounts when you run it? Are there sockpuppets involved here? The evidence above is presented in a fashion as if to not invoke any questioning, as if to say that, when running a CU, this sort of thing just falls into one's lap. I think the community deserves more information when this has caused two editors to retire from the project. Silverseren 07:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's perfectly natural that CUs would not be able to explain in graphic and gruesome detail what led up to the incidental discovery of the edit in question, given the personal and confidential nature of the data they have access to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody's asking for specific details. It's just that most people are under the impression that a justified CU check only brings up IPs and users in a narrow specified range or something like that. Now it sounds like any CU check "routinely" brings up most everybody's data now and then. That could be explained. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe yes, and maybe no. Not being conversant with how CU works (technically), I cannot tell one way or the other from the outside, but I certainly didn't get that impression from what the CUs have been able to tell us so far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• For those wondering how CU works, when I run a check on an account, the tool gives me all IPs used by the person operating it. I can then check each IP individually (or an entire IP range) and I can see all accounts that have edited from said IP. That's useful when looking for sleepers, for instance. I have not reviewed the CU log, but, from my experience with the tool, I'd say that DQ was checking someone who happened to edit from the same IP (or IP range) as Riley or Gwickwire, saw something suspicious and decided to investigate. It's not that rare to see many unrelated accounts when checking heavily used IPs... Salvio 09:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, that was very helpful, and answered some long-standing questions I had not related to this situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That was indeed helpful, Salvio. I'm pretty sure any of the three involved CUs could have provided such a simple explanation without going into specifics and compromising anybody's privacy or violating policy, and I only wish they had done so. In fact, if they can't give even a reason like that, then FFS they could have said so at least (the reasons can't be disclosed due to privacy blah blah). That would have been much better than the vague passing mention of a "routine" check which has created the mess of confusion and speculation above. Chamal  17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think rather that the "mess of confusion and speculation" was the result of a general lack of AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) My comment was made late at night, and I was tired, so perhaps it could have been more clear. I would have preferred to have had a discussion with the other two CUs, but they were both offline then, so I said what I was comfortable with at the time. I will add, though, that I err on the side of caution where the Privacy policy is concerned. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Length of time is irrelevent. Sharing an account password is sharing an account password. IT security is based on potential harm. In most modern companies, sharing of accounts is prohibited on penalty of disciplinary. For much the same reason as the WMF requires identification - access to restricted personal info. While the WMF is not liable for content by editors, it IS liable for personal info it stores/holds on people who visit the various wiki sites hosted on its servers. It cannot take a 'relaxed' stance on this sort of thing. Having someone who isnt identified with access to 'personal' info is a major security breach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Acting as an independent admin, I have just revoked Riley's permissions. I have not blocked either him or Gwickwire because both appear to have stopped editing and, so, for the moment, a block is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Unless the community wants to discuss further sanctions, I suggest this thread be closed. If you have concerns regarding how the checkuser tool was used in this instance, you should contact WP:AUSC. Salvio 09:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Under what authority was this CU preformed? That is the policy-based reason why a CU was preformed on two editors in good standing? There must be a good reason why their private information was queried. Simply because a bad act was uncovered does not give justification to a warrant-less inquiry. Exclusionary rule, anyone? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some answers to your questions are provided in the discussion above. Reading the entire section would be profitable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is analogous to how the Paula Jones case led to the Lewinsky case and the subsequent Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Are you attempting humor, or simply being absurd? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I've brought this thread to the attention of my colleagues on the ArbCom, to the extent that they are not already aware of it. No other comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I take exception to the closure statement, and to the closure of the discussion in general. There was not a complaint of anything. No one said that the checkusers did anything wrong. What there was is a request for the checkusers involved to answer some questions. That isn't complaining, that's asking people to action. As now, not one of the checkusers involved has responded to those multiple requests, indeed, not one has even acknowledged that the request has been made of them even to go so far as to refuse it. So no, not one person complained about anything a checkuser did. I didn't; and neither did anyone else. What we did was ask for some additional information, and this thread was closed without any response to those reasonable questions. So, please either open that section and/or revise the closing statement please. --Jayron32 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • User talk:DeltaQuad has a statement. --Rschen7754 05:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. For the record, after reading his statement I am now more than satisfied with DQ's statement on this, and consider my question fully answered. I have no further concerns regarding this issue. --Jayron32 05:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I just want to point out that I did acknowledge that there were questions by responding early on, and once again just before this was archived. Deskana also acknowledged the questions by pointing out my earlier comment. Unfortunately, neither of us could speak for DeltaQuad, so many questions were left unanswered until he was able to make the comments on his talk. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

IP refuses to adhere to consensus at Superpower

The IP refuses to acknowledge the consensus and continues to repeatedly restore content that was agreed upon to delete. How can we enforce the decisions of the consensus without the current edit warring? The IP has a battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus to reason with him have gone nowhere. Indeed it is impossible for the discussion to go anywhere as long as the IP refuses to acknowledge consensus. The IP address also jumps (albeit slightly) so a talk-page discussion or placing warning templates wont suffice. I requested semi page protection for a temporary period to prevent the IP restoring unsupported content and possibly (as a result of the PP) forcing the IP to create an account so any discussion could proceed more amicably and warning templates could be placed at the users talk page if he continued his disruptive behavioral pattern. However, PP was declined. Please refer to the consensus here.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for now, but this still needs attention. Any takers? (I was expecting to get to the article on Superpower (ability), else I wouldn't have followed that link at all. ;)).
Antiochus, you will want to read our policy on edit warring in the meantime: WP:EW.
Amalthea 22:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ip user "Antiochus the Great|" has been abusing the superpowers article by inserting information referring on consensus on potential superpowers and claiming he can change the content under superpowers but there is no consensus prior to the unconstructive edits by Antiochus the Great. Antiochus the Great has been on consistent war edits to say there is consensus but there is no consensus on that discussion on superpowers by saying this as prior there has been no open discussion anything on the superpowers talks page since March 13, 2013 copy of history here of showing no consensus and here showing that user talk keeps throwing out this section completely, leaving not one word or source from the original context of the proir discussion of this article. Antiochus the Great is blaming me for saying I am refusing to acknowledge consensus and blaming I am continuing to repeat restore content. First there is no consensus, none under Superpowers and second restoring when Ip user Antiochus the Great reverting back his content saying this was discussed but there is no discussion of it under Superpowers. Why didn't Ip user Antiochus the Great start a discussion under Superpowers talk? But to say there is consensus when there is clearly nothing to defend that claim. Third, to say "battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus" again where. And to bring up something I was never involved in such as consensus here, I never opened any discussion there nor do I plan to. So there's no claim there.

Personally I am clued and I think Ip user talk is trying to make rules above law when making a consensus and forcing the content without prior knowledge (such as not using the same talk pages from the original articles you wish to change or etc). That's like an example if I could go over "US Marines talks page" for example and had a discussion about the "US Army" and consensus about them under the "Marine's talk's page" instead then a 4 days later I came over and changed everything on the "US Army article" claiming people were talking about it under the "US Marines talks page. That is precisely what is going on here but more so Ip user Antiochus the Great is not clear on his consensus and the content in question is not specifically stating the content is going to be written or consensus on to look like. He has provided no copy & paste history of discussions facts and I think that is really asserting the rules over rules here. I think it is forceful and disruptive to the editors to say nothing to the article editors of the very article you want to change; he hasn't done that where it needs to be said & done. I disagree with that and personally feel their is an nationality discrimination on color and authority by talk on his remarks made on Russian culture but I am not going to start anything on that nature. The article needs peaceful consensus without disruptive edits from talk and should be on superpowers article if there consensus of updating, it should be done in the very place of the article lays, is it's talk's page not another article talk page. Please maybe set a rule over this article to set that Ip user Antiochus the Great to calm down and work this out. He is really taking this matter over the edge and that is not the way the article should be handled.--180.92.187.207 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is now ridiculous. This is nothing short of trolling by the anon. IP editor. How difficult is it for other Misplaced Pages editors and indeed admins to see what's going on here? Please read through the relevant sections at Talk:Superpower and Talk:Potential superpower.

The editing of superpower and potential superpower articles go hand-in-hand. Consensus was reached by several editors after a lengthy discussion and analysis of references on the Talk:potential superpower page. It is a particularly academic subject and it seems some are getting confused about the terminology re: super v. great v. emerging powers. And there's also the usual nationalist POV pushing.

The argument put forward by the anon. IP editor is just silly. The changes made to the potential superpower page have to be reflected on the superpower page. Otherwise the superpower page will not reflect the consensus reached (which was actually a huge step forward, including the expansion of other pages on Misplaced Pages). I find it quite outrageous that the page has been protected with the version supported by a clearly trolling IP editor, rather than that supported by several long-standing editors. David (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance from an Administrator would be welcomed at this stage.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to assist us? We're clearly up against someone (and it really is just "one" - multiple IPs and even a few new accounts) who just wants an edit war and will not back down. David (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is going to help you here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I an IP, or several IP's? Or a new account? I have objected to your removal of Russia on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not my removal of Russia - in fact, if you bothered to read through the discussions on Talk:Potential superpowers you'd see that I was ambivalent towards Russia's place in the article and would probably have cautiously left it in if it were purely left to me - however there was a consensus (a total consensus against Brazil, and a near-total consensus regarding Russia) and that's what is being reflected in the articles. Or rather it would be if it weren't for one, maybe two, editors (with a bit of sock-puppetry going on) and the superpower page being protected... but the old version protected, which actually results in a material conflict in the Misplaced Pages articles between the superpower and potential superpower articles (with only the latter reflecting the consensus view on Brazil, Russia and so on). Though it seems no one actually cares about this pretty serious disparency. David (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How obvious does sock puppetry have to be? David (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've full-protected Potential superpowers for the same period as Superpower was already full-protected, so that the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I will add my two cents here. First the problem began with ip user Antiochus the Great who apparently went on this quest to try to remove Russia superpowers on a very short period of less than 4 days notice on another article discussion. This ip user Antiochus the Great never brough up a single consensus discussion on the talk pages of Superpowers talk, not one word. Then he goes saying, there's consensus over in potantial superpowers saying we had a consensus there by leaving everybody in the dark over on the Superpowers article. He starts an edit war immidiately, changing the content on his context only that's his only and nobody elses, even consensus with nobody knowing the context is going to be written or how it will be said, then people revert back and he reverts back again, again and again. Turns out the consensus under potential superpowers never did consensus on the superpowers, second Ip user Antiochus the Great closes the discussion with no noticed, says it was discussed we're done. This is what we are going to do secretly. No notice, no given discussion, no replies either. He changes the content himself and pretends he is in control of this article and only him. You want to bring a source on board, he erases it like no tomorrow again and again doesn't matter if it's an acadamic source, he'll delete anything on Russia; showing a form a hate in my view because what would anybody call this kind of behavior. Talk about corruption considering Ip user Antiochus the Great has only used the Superpowers article for only a week with nothing on the talkpages, he wants to change everything with no notice, out comes Russia, just like that. Again Ip user Antiochus the Great is making these statements and then he goes filing disputes saying there was consensus, there was consensus, that was discussed, again and again but it wasn't. The problem is Antiochus the Great he is making the problems here on the superpowers and also it appears he is doing the same thing with potential superpowers too. When was the last time both of these articles was closed for disputes? A long time ago, it all started with Ip user Antiochus the Great and I agree with Darkness Shines that the article was objected on discussion and was objected without any consensus. I think there should be a block on Ip user Antiochus the Great, he is causing more trouble for these articles and is creating war campaign with the editors. Everybody is wrong, he is right, that's not how this matter works. I also will add the other Ip user is David has also stirred problems working as a tag team with Antiochus the Great as if the both are the same ip's with different user names. Both have deleted acedamic resources in a heart beat, not even taking the time to read the information, just look at the history, you see an article put in, 2 minutes later is removed, it is like they are set in there own ways to reject everything. You bring the source to the talkpage, these two Ip users Antiochus the Great and David act as wonder twins hurting the article and the editors were created them in the past. To eliminate Russia and it's acedamic sources without consensus, trust me there was no consensus as much as Antiochus the Great says no, it's simply not true with his opening of his dispute in this page and the censensus discussions are not entirely true what he is saying here is not what it says on the talkpages. I feel these articles should be closed for a while and let the air breathe. The fustrations of Ip user Antiochus the Great has made a mess of the article as it looks horrible what he has wrote in there that I wouldn't want a 5th grader to reading them as it is simply not true what he put in there and I defend my edits on what I have tried to bring to this this matter was rejected with not a wind in the sky. So I disgree with Antiochus the Great and David that we should to keep articles closed. They are bullying the talkpages and articles, that is completely unfair to everybody. Please extend the suspension on the articles longer until a length of time passed to see we if we can beta test the waters or continue to close. --103.22.129.165 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected (but nearly confirmed) sockpuppet of Seanharger

I would like to report 184.21.73.166 because he is a suspected sockpuppet of Seanharger (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Seanharger). One piece of evidence is his contribution. His only contribution is at Seanharger's talk page, which he claims for it to be "ridiculous" that I reverted two of his edits. But when I saw the contributions, that comment was his only contribution.

Now, while he has not done any harm yet, Seanharger has already been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. This IP needs to be blocked indefinitely, especially if CheckUser confirms that it is indeed, a sockpuppet (though already, he is suspected by many users as a sockpuppet of Seanharger). Thanks. WorldTraveller101 22:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that checkuser will not, in general, disclose a connection between an IP and a registered account. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhm. Then is it possible that he is just logging out and then using the IP address, Is there any way to figure it out? Thanks. WorldTraveller101 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

IPs cannot shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, as per WP:IPBLENGTH.--Jetstreamer  23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The IP was temporarily blocked anyway. Thanks, though. WorldTraveller101 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hang on a second - we have blocked the wrong person. WorldTraveller - who has a history of hounding behaviour - interprets WP:SOCK in a bizarre manner and aggressively attackes Seanharger about it - won't let him go. Seanharger admitted freely that he was editing while logged out, was not violating any of the abusive aspects as per SOCK. WorldTraveller would not stop harassing him about it. Finally, Seanharger basically says "fuck it ... I can't deal with harassers like you, I'm going to WP:CLEANSTART to get away from you" and suddenly it's him who's blocked for Socking and NPA? See the discussion from User talk:Toddst1, but FFS we have to stop allowing baiting like this - ArbCom has already said baiting is not permitted. I'm prepared to unblock Seanharger and indef-block WorldTraveller. Yeah, Sean should not have called anyone an "asshole", but look at what he was pushed to (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One way or the other, WorldTraveller won't last long, specially considering their latest contributions, all of them intended at being judged as a good contributor in order to get easier to their adminship aspirations. I'll invite Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) to join this discussion. The messages WorldTraveller left at this admin's talk page speaks for themselves.--Jetstreamer  16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I followed a link to this ANI by accident, but now that I'm here: Jesus wept. Sean pretty much got screwed over here. I've unblocked Sean, unblocked the IP, warned Worldtraveler that if he mentions Sean again he will be blocked, and tried to clarify the situation at the surreal SPI. But surely the damage is already done. Whether or not to indef block Worldtraveller now or not is a discussion I'll leave to others. My instinct says yes, but that's probably caused by the toxic environment of ANI seeping into my soul; a warning is probably more appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have given a week - generously. Let's close this up, and deal with future issues with WorldTraveller should they occur in the future - which hopefully will not be the case. In the meantime, Sean will be somewhat free to recover a little bit from the ordeal, and WT will recognize that such hounding will not end well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a block is actually best, here. As I said above, I would have preferred a clear warning. Along the lines of the warning I'd given him a little before your block: that he is to not mention Seanharger again. I think the pendulum swung too far in the the other direction here. Consider unblocking and leaving a clear warning, perhaps more general than mine, instead? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I just saw the previous block for the User:SirFart ridiculousness, so I no longer oppose a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by user:Damonthesis

This editor, whose first edit was on April 28, is an SPA whose sole purpose is to add material to a number of articles in support of the idea that electronic means can be used to interfere with brain function. The articles affected include psychotronics, stalking, psychotronic weapons (currently at AfD), thought identification, and electromagnetic weapon. Essentially all of his edits have been reverted, by about half a dozen editors, but he reverts back regardless. You can find some discussion of the problem at WP:FTN#Psychotronics. He has been warned for edit warring, copyright violation, and personal attacks. I believe the only way to solve this problem is admin intervention. I will notify him that I have filed this report. Looie496 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I came across this editor in my AfD-trawling; I think I should point out this as well. Also, note my comment on the AfD (if you think the comment was a bit too pointed, let me know) Ansh666 04:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After attempting to to fix a completely broken wikipedia page, and having another user stalk every single one of my Misplaced Pages edits, this user, Looie496, followed me, first removing an entire page because I placed an edit, and then reverting another edit which was properly sourced and on topic. There appears to be a group of self proclaimed censors congregating here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Where they are kind enough to tell you in plain English, that is their goal. I think I've argued for my changes to the Psychotronics page enough, but for one last time, these users have conspired to remove well sourced material from the government of the United States and Russia, in order to leave that page non-reflecting of its true meaning. Again, afterwords, two of the uses on the "Fringe Theories" noticeboard followed me, from page to page, reverting edits to Bible Code (of all things) and Looie496 completely deleted the 7 year old page electromagnetic weapon without reading its Talk page. This user is apparently upset that I reverted his complete deletion of that page, as it had been discussed on its talk page, and the target merge page, and both pages had decided not to perform the merge, which he decided to take it upon himself to do, for no reason at all. This user is defacing wikipedia content, in order to harass me and incite a conflict. None of my edits today have been reverted on any page but Psychotronics, and Frankly, it appears this entire incident is intended to ensure that Psychotronics does not accurately reflect the Russian program's history, and instead continues to be a "fluff" piece, about basically nothing.

His representation of "half a dozen editors" is baseless, there is a group of 3 editors that are championing the use of the term "psychotronic" to refer to a single scientist from the Czech republic in the 1960s. It is a well known Russian program, that has been sufficiently documented in the US and abroad. As he states, I think admin intervention is necessary. It appears you have a group of people with a concerted agenda to suppress well sourced material... for whatever reason.Damonthesis (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looie496's other issue is here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Thought_identification where he again refuses to discuss content, and reverts for "bad sources" when the sources are anything but. His actions today have been to revert two good faith edits on Thought_Identification and then delete the entirety of electromagnetic weapons for no reason, then come here and file this complaint. Damonthesis (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note also the WP:HARASS warning that was issued to the other user, who appears to be gaming the revision system with Looie496, User:GDallimore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note Looie496's complete deletion here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electromagnetic_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=552977637 Immediately after I made an edit. He had either reverted something of mine on another page before, or after that. Honestly, I feel like I'm being WP:HARASSed, and it's hurting the community because of vigilante censorship.Damonthesis (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to scroll a bit further down and look at WP:AOHA. While User:GDallimore has received a warning as you pointed out, he has (following advice) stopped interacting with you for now; the other users to my knowledge have not recieved warnings. Ansh666 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the correct term is for following my edits around, and deleting the entire page I made a minor revision to is.Damonthesis (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(Involved contributor comment): it is worth noting that Damonthesis, who complains of "vigilante censorship", has repeatedly deleted sourced content in the Psychotronics article: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you could see Psychotronic weapons, which includes the content. I moved it because it did not belong associated with the Psychotronics page dealing with a single scientist.Damonthesis (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Psychotronic weapons article was clearly created by Damonthesis as a POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what POV fork means. Please look at the two pages:

Psychotronic weapons

Psychotronics at the time of the "Fork" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(note to Damonthesis: don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign them. Ansh666 05:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

It's also worth noting that nearly all the additional information in Psychotronic weapons had been attempted to be merged into Psychotronics using properly sourced material, from the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and a textbook written in conjunction with the NSA. These edits were removed, one by one, as the article returned to its state of having absolutely nothing to do with Psychtronics. Prior to this flurry of destruction this morning, Grumpy and I had a conversation going on the talk page, discussing the meaning of the word. This discussion was ignored, as GDallimore reverted the page without discussion, consensus, or attempt to merge information. That is the reason for the new page, which was, at the time, about a completely different subject. After the AfD, all parties attempted to merge information.. though I think they are in fact different subjects. The Soviet Psychotronics program has no place being "sandwiched" inside a parapsychology article about a scientist from 1960. It is an ongoing research program, that is documented not only in the sources I mentioned, but in numerous news sources in Russia, as well as MSM in the US.05:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs)

Note that contrary to what Damonthesis claims, the article at that time of the fork was not "dealing with a single scientist". I have yet to see a single source that asserts that 'psychotronic weapons' are anything but an application of 'psychotronics' - though having said that, it is hard to say exactly what 'psychotronics' actually is, other than technobabble. Unless and until it is properly defined (as I asked on the article talk page, see Talk:Psychotronics#What exactly is this article supposed to be about?), there can be no justification whatsoever for forking the article on the whim of a single contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have provided defining articles from the Army, Marines, NSA, and top Russian officials. I'm not sure where the confusion is now. I think the state of the articles above speaks for itself. Damonthesis (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

<outdent> Damonthesis's thesis is that mind control devices are real. I encountered him at Stalking, where he was busy (initially as an IP) trying to argue that victims of so-called "group stalking" who think they are victims of mind control (and some of whom actually line their hats with tinfoil to prevent this) really are victims of mind control. He was abusing a Washington Post article on victims of such delusions to state that it was real, since the article ran off onto a tangent that speculated about mind control devices, and was adding chunks of material on psychotronic weapons to the stalking article. He has since moved into the actual articles on such devices, which, since they are firmly in fringe territory, I've pretty much ignored, but I noted that he filed a retaliatory report at AN3 against GDallimore (talk · contribs), who had nominated Psychotronic weapons for AfD. He has repeatedly argued that criticism of his use of sources and editing agenda is a personal attack and that he's being harassed, when in fact he's just being disagreed with. Some counseling on constructive interaction with other editors, the role of consensus on Misplaced Pages, appropriate ways to deal with fringe and hypothetical material, and appropriate use of sourcing may be in order. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My argument had nothing to do with them "really being victims of mind control." If you read my edits on that page, the only thign I was asking you to do was follow WP:RS and include the opinion in the article that the victims delusional status was questionable, and that there was ample evidence for the weapons to exist. Your article makes it appear that the weapons themselves do not exist, which is clearly refuted by numerous military publications. Further, you cite only half of the medical opinion in both articles you sourced, saying that "support groups" worsen the problem--when in fact both articles note that its possible that they could, but no study has been done, and it is generally believed that support groups can be helpful. Your rendition of the Washington Post articles and NYTimes articles leaves out the majority viewpoint of the articles, which has been pointed out to you over, and over again. Despite that fact, you continually insist to only represent the minority viewpoint on wikipedia, and have locked down the page and ceased discussion. The articles speak for themselves, and the interpretation on Stalking is not consistent with the source material.Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that DMacks semi-protected stalking after one such addition by Damonthesis' IP: I've taken no action other than to revert once and to attempt engagement on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to you.. it appeared from my vantage that you semi-protected it, since no other admins were involved. The discussion there hasn't been very productive though, and it still appears to me that WP:RS is not being followed, as the secondary viewpoints of the sourced articles are not represented in Stalking at all. Please see Psychotronic weapons for a comparative section, which I believe to be unbiased, and more informative/useful. Damonthesis (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion, Damonthesis is convinced that mind control weapons actually exist *, and our articles are "biased" until he can "correct" them. The problem is, he consistently misinterprets sources, either mistakenly or deliberately. For example, the lead of the POV fork he created up until recently had Misplaced Pages definitively stating that mind control weapons exist and are "used" . Another editor rightfully questioned the language implying that such weapons exist and are operational . Damonthesis responded that "it's in the citation" . I pointed out to him what's actually in the citation: the source only speculates that such weapons are being researched, it doesn't say they exist . Damonthesis reluctantly modified it to say weapons were "reportedly" used .

* He interprets a law prohibiting malicious use of electronic devices such as lasers, tasers, unshielded microwave transmitters, etc. as proof that mind control "weapons" exist.

- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The source, from the United States Marine Corps, specifically says they exist and explains how they are used. The wording used in the article is nearly identical to the Marine Corps rendition, in addition there is support in a myriad of other Military and government publications to show that the program is 50 years old, and continually researched today. This is not accurately reflected still, despite the fact that you have merged much of the information from my "fork," your article still revolves around the psuedoscientific work of one scientist, rather than the Soviet military as a whole, and now makes it look as if the government is reacting to his long dead project. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Which source is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the third time you have asked for it, and the third time it has been provided to you. If you look at the history, I pointed out the URL, and then the specific section it was in. Again, it is in "Russian Views on Psychotronic War" from the Army publication "Parameters" http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/98spring/thomas.htm

Damonthesis (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That source is not "from the United States Marine Corps". It is written by "Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas (USA Ret.)...an analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office". Nowhere does it state that psychotronics weapons actually exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's published by Parameters ("The U.S. Army's Senior Professional Journal"), and distributed at army.mil. Lt. Col. Thomas is a high ranking Army officer. The article states:

Russian Views on "Psychotronic War"

The term "psycho-terrorism" was coined by Russian writer N. Anisimov of the Moscow Anti-Psychotronic Center. According to Anisimov, psychotronic weapons are those that act to "take away a part of the information which is stored in a man's brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to control the man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain." These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, "zombification," or even death. Included in the arsenal are VHF generators, X-rays, ultrasound, and radio waves. Russian army Major I. Chernishev, writing in the military journal Orienteer in February 1997, asserted that "psy" weapons are under development all over the globe. Specific types of weapons noted by Chernishev (not all of which have prototypes) were:

There is confirmation from US researchers that this type of study is going on. Dr. Janet Morris, coauthor of The Warrior's Edge, reportedly went to the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations in 1991. There she was shown a technique pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy in which researchers electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it. They input subliminal command messages, using key words transmitted in "white noise" or music. Using an infra-sound, very low frequency transmission, the acoustic psycho-correction message is transmitted via bone conduction.

While many US scientists undoubtedly question this research, it receives strong support in Moscow. The point to underscore is that individuals in Russia (and other countries as well) believe these means can be used to attack or steal from the data-processing unit of the human body.

Damonthesis (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say the weapons exist? A military analyst reporting the claims made by a Russian writer isn't authoritative proof that those claims are valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a U.S. Military analyst reporting on a Russian Army Officer and a Russian writers claims about a Russian development program. The page reflects the statements made by the analyst, and the article doesn't even say the "weapons exist." It says they are "used on the mind." If there's a problem with semantics, it can be edited, but the phraseology is taken directly from the source. What assuredly does exist is the program itself, as well as multiple decades of reporting on it. This has been confirmed, again, by U.S. researchers who have witnessed them in action. Damonthesis (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the text, they saw some Russians doing a research experiment that involved subliminal audio suggestion via bone conduction. Why do you interpret this to mean they witnessed psychotronic weapons "in action"? This is a good example of abusing a source, and is why a majority of your edits to articles have been reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I'm disengaging. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrative action needed

Counseling (suggested by Acroterion above) will not suffice here. This editor has been edit-warring on a range of articles and being disruptive in a variety of other ways. We currently have articles that are full of junk because I am not willing to engage in an edit war (thought identification, electromagnetic weapon). The absolute minimum that is needed is a stern warning that any further editing against consensus will lead to a block. I really feel that a block is already more than justified, though. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling my edits junk is OK? They are well sourced factual and relevant. Your actions, in deleting an entire page on a whim, despite talk conversations about merging them, is a bit more of a problem, I think. Damonthesis (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone experienced in mentoring editors who charge on here to support fringe theories? That's about the only alternative I can see. I'm inclined to believe that unless Damonthesis's behaviour improves by a truly dramatic degree within the next couple of days that an indef is the best way to end the disruption here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban on a range of articles broadly related to mind control, psychotronics, etc. is appropriate? That would end the disruption, give the editor a mandatory break from his crusade, and provide the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of relevant Misplaced Pages policies by perhaps working on noncontroversial articles on unrelated topics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot call a viewpoint that is supported by military sources, news articles in Russia and the USA, as well as a textbook endorsed by the NSA a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. This is the established viewpoint, and this group has repeatedly attempted to suppress sources which refer to it as such, instead opting to utilize sources which are much older, and refer to an unscientific and un-investigated invention of one person, rather than the truth--that "psychotronics" refers to a long running Russian military development program. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to try mentoring Damonthesis. I have some experience with Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, and my knowledge of electromagnetic theory might come in handy. I would suggest a one-week block to stop the disruptive behavior, and that during the block he and I have a talk on his talk page about what behavior is expected of him if he wishes to continue editing Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What we are looking at is the "collective opinion" of 3 editors and an admin that since they do not believe something is possible, any source that disproves that opinion must be WP:FRINGE. These are not fringe sources, we are talking about congressional legislation, military analysis, and intelligence textbooks. The program is very real, and very well documented; despite fringe coverage which definitely does exist. Regardless, the sources here are factual, accurate, and authoritative, and its irresponsible to be fighting their inclusion because of the contrary opinion of an editor. Historical accuracy should be paramount, point in fact, the Soviet Psychotronic_weapons program was created as a parallel program to MK ULTRA at nearly the same time.. the only difference being that the psychotronics program was never shut down, as is well supported by U.S. Military literature throughout the 90's 00's and with recent comments by the Russians themselves in 2011 and 2012. This is being presented as "my opinion" or "my agenda," when in fact I am presenting well sourced facts, and those accusing me of pushing a POV are delivering only their uninformed and un-sourced opinions in response. Damonthesis (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, because The Men Who Stare at Goats was a documentary ... ? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? You liken sourcing Military publications and analysis to a fiction movie? Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Damonthesis, you can be completely right about what the article content of a page and still be end up indefinitely blocked because of your user conduct. Likewise, you can be completely wrong about article content, but if your user conduct meets our behavioral standards you can be a productive editor. You need to choose; are you willing to follow the same rules as everyone else or do you prefer to have your editing privileges revoked? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to follow the rules, the edits I made should have at least been looked at, but were summarily dismissed. I attempted to go to another page to provide a better "look" at the differences, and was followed there, having my edits deleted by the same users. I filed a complaint about that, and was subsequently attacked repeatedly. To date, it appears nobody has taken the care to look at the merit of the edits, or the discussion that created this problem. Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the report at WP:ANEW, I've blocked Damonthesis for one week (good number, Guy) for edit warring, canvassing, and personal attacks. Other editors were also edit warring, but I chose not to block them because the source of the disruption was Damonthesis. Nonetheless, those editors are advised to be more careful next time. Another admin may have reacted differently. If Guy wants to attempt to discuss mentorship with Damonthesis during the block, that would be much appreciated. I do not believe that the block is too long, but, obviously, the discussion here might result in greater sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on Damonthesis' user page, WP:OWB #72 seems to apply... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious canvassing pointed out here and by a new editor brought to the AfD, I'm guessing by the reddit thread. I don't know the related policy, but I'd suggest more than one week for Damonthesis. Ansh666 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also FYI, several sleeper accounts have been found and blocked . Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to follow up on Damonthesis' talk page and offer to mentor him. Feel free to follow along; it should be every bit as entertaining as Celebrity Apprentice... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have his talk on my watchlist for some reason...so I'll follow along. I'd offer to help out with anything, but as the one who filed the SPI and stuff I don't think he'd take it as help at all. Ansh666 03:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• He turned me down with a rant about how Fighting Evil Requires Violating Misplaced Pages's Rules. Sigh. (BTW, concerning that rather embarrassing revelation above, I just watch CA because Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller is on it. Really. Don't roll your eyes at me! (Smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In case there's any admins left looking at this, the AfD here is getting kind of out of hand; several new accounts have posted in response to a reddit post, probably by Damonthesis. Would anyone mind closing it to avoid all this unnecessary SPA traffic? Thanks. Ansh666 07:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Moving post below by Damonthesis from WP:AN, where it was misplaced. Admittedly there's perhaps not much point now that D is blocked, and I find it meritless in any case, but it doesn't feel right just deleting it. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC).)

User:LuckyLouie appears to use phrases like "Copyedit, according to what source actually says" when removing actual sourced content and placing a biased spin. I have noticed this on two occasions, on pages Thought insertion and Psychotronics. The oddity of using this phrase while at the same time improperly modifying well sourced content to "spin it" stands out. The two occasions I have noticed are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thought_identification&diff=553056368&oldid=553027521

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966766&oldid=552966437 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966437&oldid=552964397

All of these revisions did actually reflect "what the source actually says" prior to his edit, which spun them to be biased and to reflect his own opinion.

I am not sure if there is a larger pattern here, but these three instances are obvious cases of the edit description being deceptive. I imagine it is part of a larger pattern of biased editing; regardless the deceptive tagging is troubling to me.

Damonthesis (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible canvassing on Reddit to Votestack AfD?

Some new users showing up at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons. One hinted that this AfD is being discussed on Reddit. A Reddit search turns up this forum discussion, alleging that "a number of Misplaced Pages editors are conspiring in order to suppress the inclusion of the Psychotronics program" and giving links and pointers to affected article Talk pages, and soliciting comments to the AfD. (The posts originate from a Reddit user calling themselves "needle in eye".) Uninvolved admins might want to take a look at these new accounts, possibly connected to Damonthesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, this AfD is getting rather out of hand. I'd appreciate if an admin took some action to prevent the discussion from being flooded by SPAs (they're ignoring the warning up top) Ansh666 21:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock

Closed by OP request. --WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I nominated an ariticle for deletion . My nomination was quickly declined, no problem there. Declining editor quickly protected the article claiming "Seems to attract unwanted attention from vandals" My call for deletion was valid. I have a long term contribution to Misplaced Pages. I have started a lot of articles that remain here at Misplaced Pages. I am not a vandal. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My semi-protection wasn't intended to imply that you're a vandal, and I apologize if you took it that way. I protected the article after looking at its history, and noticing an unusual amount of blocked editors and unconfirmed accounts in that history. Assuming those were what you were referring to when you nominated the page for deletion, I semi-protected the article. As to speedy deletion, the article clearly does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. There is no unambiguously promotional content, and the topic appears to be notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)While Amatulic has the right to decline a speedy (and I agree with that decline - your concerns would be better-off raised in an AFD) - protecting a page indefinitely out-of-policy is concerning. I've unprotected the page. m.o.p 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Amatulic - blocked editors and uncomfirmed accounts (which I can barely find any of in the history unless I go back months at a time) are not a reason to indefinitely protect an article as low-traffic as this one. Please try to use protection more sparingly. m.o.p 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeer - Why did you see fit to nominate an article for speedy deletion that was clearly well-sourced and, for the most part, objectively written?--WaltCip (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Master of Puppets has unprotected the page now. I have to agree with his decision as the article hasn't had a severe problem with vandalism in the recent past. Duffbeerforme, the protection wouldn't have affected you anyway as it was only semi-protected. On a side note, the GA review seems to be incomplete although the article has been listed as a GA. Chamal  14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not "clearly well-sourced". duffbeerforme (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's merits (or lack of) should be discussed at WP:AFD if you see fit, Duffbeerforme. That's not a discussion for ANI. m.o.p 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn added the GA. I believe the GA should be removed and delisted as the placement was not by the reviewer and the GA did not meet standards. I will not do it personally, I do not have time to answer questions about 'why' as I will be offline shortly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's merits should be discussed elsewere. This ANI was not about the content of that article, It was about the declining of a speedy and the accusations that went with that. Amatulić has addressed that concern. Time to move on and close this. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

AfD Closure Requested

Please can an admin take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clean, Clean? Notability has been established, and the nomination has been withdrawn, but the nominator has made a bit of a (good-faith) hash of it. I'd perform a NAC myself, but there is one delete !vote outstanding, so I thought I'd bring it here for a 'proper' closure instead. Not really urgent! Thanks. — sparklism 14:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can't be closed as "withdrawn" unless you can convince the other delete !voter to remove their vote. As such, NAC would definitely be wrong, as would any other form of closure at this point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I guess we just sit tight then. Cheers! — sparklism 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reporting self

Note : I have moved this discussion from AN to ANI as I started the discussion in the wrong location

I have been accused of making personal attacks multiple times regarding discussions on the Gun Control article. One of the complaints was formally made as part of a 3RR accusation against me which resulted as "not a violation" (as regards to 3rr, PA was not addressed), and another was recently made that the accuser has declined to post here. The topic is controversial, and tempers are high. WP:CIVIL is lacking all around (myself included), but I do not think it goes to the level of a personal attack, and I believe the accusers are attempting to win content disputes by making bureaucratic threats.

The editors in question are also attempting to systematically disqualify all sources they disagree with by calling them unreliable and self published, in spite of being published in multiple 3rd party sources, and being cited repeatedly (including by SCOTUS).

While calls for civility are justified and appropriate, I would like to put a stopper in this bureaucratic wikilawyering so that we can focus on the actual content dispute.

FACTS AND EVIDENCE

• Diff of most recent accusation
• Accusation made at 3rr Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gaijin42_reported_by_User:SPECIFICO_.28Result:_No_violation.29

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• More diffs.. User:Gaijin42 reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked) SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A previous episode occurred at the same talk page yesterday in which Gaijin42 said that his opponents' arguments were "beyond the pale, and reeks of holocaust denialism and trolling". — goethean 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

MAYONNAISE

That would be incident #2 that I already mentioned. The statement I was replying to was in regards to SPECIFICO's repeated unhelpful analgoy that nazi uses of gun control has as much relationship to the general concept of gun control as Hitler's use of Mayo does to the Mayo article. I called that trolling, and I stand by the statement.

• Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage
• If that were true, how would it be relevant to an article on gun control? Does the article on Mayonnaise discuss Nazi use of Mayonnaise?
• Using mayonnaise is an action -- like regulating gun usage
• Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst?
• (identical comment, again) Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst
• It's mayonnaise again, in spades
• Mayonnaise is complicated stuff.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to Gaijin42's discussion of the content issue, the section in question is highly problematic in regards to NPOV. It was under an "Arguments" header until one editor overhauled the article, placing it in a "History" section. Now we have a group of editors contentiously arguing that the material is not an argument, but is a neutral presentation of history. — goethean 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So, because editors took concerns into account, and improved the article per critical suggestion, is a sign that we are acting inappropriately. gotcha. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving a section from "Arguments" to "History" is not improving the article. It is taking what were known to be contentious arguments and calling them history. It is inserting ideology into a article, and acting like it is not ideology. — goethean 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting note: First, this would normally belong on WP:ANI. However, since two of you are simply going to discuss it between you, why didn't you do that first on someone's talkpage? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been extensively discussed on user talk pages, and article talk pages, and continues to escalate. Hence my post here. I myself was attempting to clarify what I believe to be a slanted presentation of the facts (and I will assume AGF and that Goethean is doing the same on this report per his own perspective.) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the discussion be moved to ANI? That was an error on my part if so. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you're only interested in a content discussion, this should be at neither AN nor ANI, as neither board addresses content disputes. Take it to 3O or DRN, depending on the complexity and number of disputants. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for having this derail. I was trying to give context to the statement which was described as a PA. I would like resolution on if my statements constitute a PA or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, it is not appropriate for you to recite a list of phrases and fragments for the purpose of characterizing them as evidence in whatever complaint you are making here. You wrote on my talk page that you were about to report yourself. I don't know what that means in the context of WP. Anyway if you wish to cite evidence please follow procedure here to help other editors and admins understand your view by providing links to diffs, adding whatever comments or context you think would be helpful. Also if this is a complaint against yourself, what is the accusation, please describe the remedy you propose, and why is such remedy not available to you acting alone, of your own will? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - General rule: if you (and others) think you might have acted like a WP:GIANTDICK then you probably were at least acting like a WP:DICK, so self-censure is easier than community/admin-imposed censure. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

While I admit minor incivility and possible dickishness, and resolve to improve, specific accusations that can lead to banning and blocking have been made against me, and I would like that issue put to rest. Either my statements constitute a PA or they do not, and I would like an answer to that question. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Try reading WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:WIAPA. ANI is not a place for test cases (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you want done here Gaijin? A declaratory judgment? Shadowjams (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm looking over that discussion and while it seems reminiscent of many similar contentious wiki arguments, I don't think there's anything (from what I saw) rising to the level of a personal attack that would require any action at ANI (unless you've got incredibly delicate sensibilities). Shadowjams (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats essentially what I am looking for. The accusations were interfering with content dispute resolution, and I wanted to be able to formally put them aside. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If someone called me a holocaust denier in real life, I would likely punch them in the nose. But since this is Misplaced Pages, I guess it's OK? Incivility isn't about using bad words, it's about casual slander like this. I don't know, or care, about any other portion of this dispute, but since you claim to be looking for outside feedback, Gaijin42, I'll say that calling someone a holocaust denier is a dick move, on many levels. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  Gaijin needs to temper his language (if you read that exchange though it's clearly more a poor choice of words than an accusation; you characterizing it as "call me a holocaust denier" is unfair at best). But if you regard those as fighting words you need to think about some anger management techniques. Shadowjams (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gaijin, at the risk of repeating myself, if you want the best feedback from others, it is important to furnish a complete set of facts and circumstances to those on whom you're relying for review and advice. Your brief, excerpted phrases and omission of the additional 3RR incident above do not give readers a full set of information on which to comment. The choice is yours, but I suggest you add diffs and links to excerpts with enough context to be most useful to those who may comment here. You may also wish to consider WP's established editor review process. To determine whether this is of interest to you, there is information at WP:ER. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

nazism sidebar disruption

user:DIREKTOR instead of disussing threatened me on the nazism sidebar talkpage that he is going to "request admin action" and he keeps edit warring by introducing new changes without consensus, i have also notified him Peterzor (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a discussion on that talkpage that has not yet formed wP:CONSENSUS to change it yet, and may not based on policy ... yet I see you making changes as if such consensus exists. What would you like us to do...block you? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

no, what do you mean? he is making the NEW CHANGES and claims am against consensus, you can block user:direktor or atleast warn him or something... something must be done because when he comes back to wikipedia i feel he would start with the wild accusations and successfully convince the admins here, so why should i recieve a punisment because he keeps edit warring, please note that i did not want this to go to ani i was forced because he was threatening me Peterzor (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Any editor has the same authority to issue a valid warning to any other editor (note the word warning, not threat). I have reviewed a handful of recent edits to the talkpage, and I've made a pretty clear statement as to your way forward. Indeed, WP:BRD applies to both of you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read anything i wrote here? in about some hours he probably will make a new thread here and will claim that i "was edit warring, "vandalism" etc, and you still did not answer my question why should i be punished by the same group adminastrators just becuase he did not agree with me (take in account everything i wrote here) Peterzor (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has punished you for anything - and I can't see how anyone can take any action regarding something that hasn't happened yet, and which only you seem to think is about to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:MrFalala - persistent violation of WP:SOAP

Please see Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014, Talk:The Blitz, , etc. Extremely tedious presentation of his opinions as "facts" without sourcing or relevance to the articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus Michael Collins (Irish leader) (, ), Irish War of Independence (, , , ) and Partition of Ireland () The Banner talk 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:johncheverly

A contributor, User:johncheverly, has recently embarked on what can only be described as a crusade to 'right a great wrong' regarding Jimmy Savile and the widely-reported allegations regarding sexual abuse by Savile (which johncheverly seems to consider unjust), and has taken to misusing multiple unconnected Misplaced Pages talk pages in the process. Essentially the same material has been posted not only at Talk:Jimmy Savile and at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where it might at least be seen as relevant, but also at Talk:England, Talk:Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Talk:English criminal law, Talk:Rights of Englishmen and Talk:Hearsay in English law. At Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles. johncheverly stated that he "would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article". I pointed out to him that "Misplaced Pages does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content". In return, johncheverly presented what he sees as 'evidence' towards Savile's innocence- at which point, since this was clearly outside the remit of the page (or any talk page for that matter) I pointed out the WP:NOTFORUM policy: to no avail - johncheverly continued in the same vein, and seems intent on abusing multiple Misplaced Pages talk pages as a platform for expounding his "FACTS" , rather than for their intended purpose. Given that in the process of expounding said facts johncheverly has chosen amongst other things to call radio/TV presenter Paul Gambaccini a "motherfucker" and "a has-been that never made it", and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Misplaced Pages policy, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block johncheverly from editing until such time as he agrees to use Misplaced Pages talk pages only for their intended purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to respond. Does anyone think that someone who DELIBERATELY chooses a name like Andy the Grump is dealing in good faith??? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

To the contrary, I am accusing Mr Grump of Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Harassment because he, for some reason, does not wish me to raise salient issues of bias and incomplete information regarding the Savile Affair.

Definition of "grump" a habitually grumpy or complaining person taken from the Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/grump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

However, unlike Mr Grump, I will deal in facts and not ad hominem attacks and his obviously profound psychological issues.

Here is the essence of my criticisms about the Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Affair:

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it. (Where I come from in the USofA, the only thing worse than a ratfink, is a ratfink that can only offer up INSINUENDO.)

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Misplaced Pages that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Misplaced Pages for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.

Also, relating to the Savile Affair, I have issues that pertinent issues have been left off the articles of David Icke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:David_Icke Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???j

The Metropolitan Police Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Metropolitan_Police_Service If you believe the wild accusations, rumors and speculations surrounding the late Savile and paedophilia, wouldn't this be a bigger systemic failure of the police than even the botched "Jack the Ripper" investigation??? According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the Metropolitan Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the MPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Misplaced Pages to research an issue. Thanks

And, The West Yorkshire Police: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:West_Yorkshire_Police According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Yet the West Yorkshire Police Service has claimed it never received any reports about Savile, who was born and lived in Leeds throughout his life, except about a missing pair of Savile's eyeglasses a few months before the entertainer's death. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the West Yorkshire Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the WYPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Misplaced Pages to research an issue. Thanks.

Once again, as an EDITOR, I approach articles as a USER. I have have some legitimate issues on bias and unanswered questions about the whole Savile Affair.

Thanks for your kind attention to these important issues.johncheverly 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And with that humongous violation of WP:NOTFORUM, I rest my case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If memory serves me right, the last time that John was here, I blocked him for WP:DE, then Drmies had to take away his talk page access for soapboxing/insults, then Yunshui unblocked a few months later . This looks like more of the same, but as I've previously blocked, I will let someone else decide how to proceed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr Brown, just because I was blocked before, does it mean that the issues I have raised and documented are not valid and should be considered in the editing process??? Please remember The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Specifically, Neutral Point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , Free Content that anyone can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content , and Co-operation and Civility between editors http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Civility. Instead of trying to tear me down, perhaps the whole project would be better served if Mr Grump would degrumpify himself and take a broader view of the editing process.johncheverly 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not just a dispute between you and Andy the Grump. I have also tried to dissuade you, at the Talk Pages for two of those articles, from your current course of action. Also, obviously, to no avail. We are not here to argue about any posthumous injustices which may or may not have been meted out to Jimmy Savile. We are here to produce one or more encyclopedia articles about him. That's all. I have to agree 100% with all that Andy says above. I'd suggest that your crusading vitriol belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• My reference to your previous bad behavior is relevant in that it establishes that this isn't a singular event, but rather a pattern of behavior. My concern as an admin isn't the content as admin don't decide content, thankfully. I do care about behavior in that it affects other editors, and editor retention in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Censorship---

2.11 Misplaced Pages is not censored Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:UNCENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED

See also: Misplaced Pages:Offensive material, Help:Options to hide an image, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles, MediaWiki:Bad image list, and Censorship of Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer). Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clearvandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Misplaced Pages's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Misplaced Pages will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Misplaced Pages because Misplaced Pages is not a member of those organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The attacks on a subject of a Misplaced Pages article (Paul Gambaccini) are unacceptable even if they took place on talk pages and/or ANI. To prevent further breaches of WP:BLP, I have blocked Johncheverly for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor has previously had three indef blocks within the last six months, without a noticeable improvement in their behaviour, I'm mildly surprised at the expectation that a mere 48h block will lead to a change for the better this time round. But, we'll see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 48 hours will stem the current tide of shenanigans. But the larger issue - that of the righteous crusade embarked upon by Johnceverly - would seem to warrant a longer block or other sanctions. If topic banned from this area (Savile, England, etc), is there anything else that johncheverly edits? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing about johncheverly is that he found any pages loosely affiliated with Savile and spammed their talk pages. So while it is a good idea to ban him from those pages it's quite likely that he will find another talk page to soapbox the same issue on.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans relate to the topic, not the location. If we topic ban johncheverly, it doesn't matter where he posts. Personally, I'd think it best to not only topic ban him, but make any unblock conditional on an explicit agreement from him to strictly abide by policy regarding the appropriate use of talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. Geeze louise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well. John was just here a few weeks ago for incivility and disruptive edits. Whereas he can be given leeway with respect to those issues as he intends to improve, we cannot countenance ongoing BLP violations. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban from all BLPs would also extend to edits relating to living persons that found their way to articles like England, for example - and that might be as precise as we're gonna get. The alternative is to topic ban him from edits relating to Savile and all the others listed above - and then re-up the ban when he finds someone else to go after. Better the blunt instrument. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I was (and I guess technically still am) John's mentor/adopter. Right now I am having a discussion with him via email. Would an admin please just hold off 24 hours to see if I can work something out with him that is not an indef block but that is enforceable with one? Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:HARASSment by user User:GDallimore

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:GDallimore#Possible_WP:HARASS_Violation

He also followed my edits around reverting them for being "factually incorrect" when in fact they were nothing of the sort.

After receiving a WP:HARASS warning for this, this user continues to send harassing and badgering messages to me, in retaliation for filing this complaint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=553067989&oldid=553025994 Damonthesis (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting obnoxious messages: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=prev&oldid=553067989

After deleting that comment. this user has posted, again. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=prev&oldid=553070258

This user has repeatedly reverted my good faith edits, which have added proper sources and corrected previously existing material, completely removing entire sections which existed before I edited them, because of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Directed-energy_weapon&diff=553069948&oldid=552982142

Damonthesis (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User warned. I'm leaving this topic open in case GDallimore would like to comment. m.o.p 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that warning was particularly appropriate. Damonthesis is the most disruptive editor I've encountered for quite some time, and it would be nice for administrators to be supportive of editors who have to deal with things like this rather than making things difficult for us. Fortunately he is now blocked for a week (see section above), but even so the blocking admin felt it necessary to give a chiding to editors who have been struggling to protect our articles. Looie496 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's dealing with things appropriately and inappropriately. Harassing another editor isn't acceptable in any situation. m.o.p 22:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting his inappropriate edits across wikipedia is NOT harrassment but necessary cleanup. Making a single post on his talk page, posting a link to a relevant guideline is NOT harrasment, even if I did so in an ironically humorous way the first time shortly after he suggested I get a sense of humour over being called a commie spy. A clearly disruptive editor who has been accusing me of harrassment and censorship since I first reverted him in a measured and considered way (and I wasn't the first person either) does not get to have his own way for even an inch by making idle allegations and threats just because I was willing to stick my neck out to stop him at every turn. GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but this thread above deals with Damonthesis's conduct. Also, Damonthesis is currently blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Indef this guy

Blocked. m.o.p 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Keted6 has resumed edit-warring immediately after being unblocked on the same article. We need a quick indef. Thanks. Pass a Method talk 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

ProudIrishAspie

User given stern warning. m.o.p 19:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

User:ProudIrishAspie has chosen to use his user page as a "hate page", but I've removed the offensive material. Misplaced Pages isn't a hate site nor a soapbox. Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He added some borderline soapbox/nationalistic stuff yesterday, you removed it today, didn't leave him a talk page message about it, he hasn't tried to re-add it, and immediately there's an ANI thread? Why is this here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. The material was added in 2012 and he has refused to remove it after it has been previously brought up on his talk page. Viriditas (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Good find. However, this doesn't really require any administrative action. You haven't discussed it with the editor aside from notifying them of the ANI topic's existence - that would be a good first step. Is there anything you'd like us to do here, or can I archive this entry? m.o.p 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been previously discussed on his talk page with no sign the user understands the problem. I'm asking for admin intervention at this time. I shouldn't have to fill out a form in triplicate to get this done. His user page is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this wasn't the first time, though looking at the user's talk page I can see it was discussed before. Next time, it may make things clearer if you mention the previous incident. m.o.p 19:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He's tried to add polemical, hate-y material like this before. I think it would be a good idea if an admin told him to quit it. — Jon C. 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty stupid, but is someone saying "I hate ...." enough for you to come and cry here? (I hate Stalin for his treatment of... just about everyone.) I cannot imagine what you would do to actual hate speech. Shadowjams (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam warned the user already. I'll keep an eye on it. All is well. m.o.p 19:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this has ended. The user responded by adding back nonsense about Yankees, evidently playing the Dixie card. Further, the user was not given a "stern" warning, but was warned. Shadowjams is doing everything possible to enable the bad behavior, so that's an additional problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not enabling anything. I added to the chorus of warnings by relying on WP:POLEMIC. They're borderline trolling at this point anyway... but I'm making a point that your reliance on "hate" (which along with "incivil" and "offended" are becoming popular methods to shut down discussions on the merits) is misplaced. Shadowjams (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Mass page moves: Greek transliteration

GreekAlex is mass-moving pages on Greek food to impose a specific transliteration of the Greek names: Special:Contributions/GreekAlex. He seems to have stopped for now, and I left him a note on his talk page, but since his very first edit was today and he started moving pages shortly after his tenth edits in what might well be a controversial way, this might bear watching. Huon (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He must be warned and if he does not stop he should be blocked without delay. Δρ.Κ.  20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all his page-moves and his terrible transliterations. If he persists he must be blocked. Δρ.Κ.  20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dr. K accuses me of vandalism, I demand an apology. The Greek "ου" transliterates to one single vowel "u" in the Latin alphabet, not in to two vowels. Dr. K says terrible transliterations and says he's right, no you are not. If you don't know, now you know.

The pages should be moved back to the single correct vowel form which also helps non-Greek speakers of the correct pronunciation.

And also Dr. K's threats of being blocked should be seen as a direct threatening of an other Wiki-member.GreekAlex (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Alex, we have naming conventions that were determined by WP:CONSENSUS. If you believe that an article needs a different title, then please use requested move and a valid policy-based argument, then wait until consensus is formed - do not move titles yourself based on your personal belief. Providing you a warning (not a threat) is valid, and is therefore not an attack. Again, please do not make further moves of your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you BW. Here is some background: This user started edit-warring after two level 4 warnings concerning improper transliteration based on his original research. He calls longstanding, valid transliterations typos:

Typos fixed.

Changes Haloumi’s location from Turkey to Cyprus: In Cyprus, Halloumi

He is also reverting longstanding Turkish onomatology converting it to Greek onomatology at Yuvarlak: converting it to his Greek version "Yuvarlakia" despite “Yuvarlak” being a Turkish word. In talk:Loukoumades he says that the commonname is wrong and not scientific and that I should understand this:

Even in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Romanization_of_Greek it states the following. Loukoumades is not the right way to write it, it just reinforces the wrong transliteration and spelling and also pronounciation (people pronounce it always wrong with the form Loukoumades (because this is not a scientific article, the form Lukumades should be used instead of the wrong form Loukoumades).

On his talk he replies to my warnings: It in not vandalism to have the will to correct the transliteration errors made by for example you.. Overall a very tendentious and disruptive editor so far with edits indicating he is trying to suppress longstanding Turkish onomatology which is in addition to the rest of his problematic edits. Δρ.Κ.  13:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Psst ... the warning above SHOULD have been the end of this thread (other than an "ok" from Alex)  :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do something about vandalism-only account

User blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I undid a couple of edits by Placejuror and put a warning notice on their page (not the first) about non-constructive edits and they reverted one of the edits leaving a juvenile message on my talk page. I note that they've been up to other tricks today as their talk page shows. Intervention by an admin might be useful. asnac (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please take matters like this to WP:AIV. m.o.p 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones and User:MarnetteD and User:Glacialfox

Apologies were offered, nothing more to see here. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

The first user has reverted me twice for something I haven't done, dismissing my contributions are "unimportant." I moved parts of the article to other parts, that's all I did. Anyone can see that if they check. However, this user cannot even when I have explained that I added nothing new. The user has then simply reverted my attempt to engage with them. Now someone else has come along and done the same. Apparently my contributions are not "clean." I'm quite tired of this approach when dealing with IP editors. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The second user has dismissed my attempt to engage with them as "trolling" which is ridiculous. Is no one around here capable of thinking for one moment that they might be wrong? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A third user has now deleted my attempt to engage with others here because they said it "didn't appear constructive to me" which is absurd. Is this the way all editors are treated? I trust these editors will be dealt with appropriately. I do not have all night to be wasting here. Luckily all this is available in the page's history. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I would kind of like to know what's going on. This is how we'd treat a vandal or a troll; this editor doesn't appear to be either. Glacialfox is, I assume, just Huggling too fast, but I'd like to hear from Gareth and MarnetteD (all three of whom I've notified, 86.40, which you should really do yourself when reporting people here). Is there a history here that isn't readily apparent? If not, I'd be very annoyed if someone did this to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting that my every attempt to engage with them (including this section) has been deleted. You hardly expected me to try again. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well nobody's going to do anything if they don't even know they've been reported here, and if you don't do it, then I have to. Gareth has already deleted my note, but now I know he knows he's being discussed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)In regards to your first two complaints - you may have better luck if you don't throw templates at other editors. If you feel you haven't received an adequate explanation as to why your edits were undone, feel free to ask the users on their talk page in a calm, reasonable manner. Giving them a template does not inspire cooperation. That being said, I can't see any reason for said reversions.

As for Glacialfox, I'm assuming that was just a product of over-zealous reversion. I doubt there's any malicious intent there. m.o.p 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what templates are for? I gave them one each, no more. Then I came here. Imagine if I'd spent hours carefully writing something to all of them. They'd have deleted that too because apparently I'm a troll and a vandal and so on. I despair. I was going to write a few stubs for some much-needed novels in this time but I can't be bothered now. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I apologize, I remember reverting that page because someone edited some other stuff into one of the things but I don't remember editing that, I'm still getting used to Huggle after using Igloo for some long and I'll be more careful. Glacialfox (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam. See? The first user just deleted again. The manners of these people. It would put anyone right off editing. I hope this isn't happening regularly but I fear it does. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An IP editing my Misplaced Pages? Are you even human? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I have a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making me capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. Something many others around here appear to be without. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I only have a small brain. But I'd really like to know how Glacialfox can be allowed with impunity to revert a post by another user on this page. I have no idea whether 86.40 is a new user or an old one editing anonymously. But in the former case, the behaviour of the other editors involved is frankly despicable. We are supposed to welcome new editors, not eviscerate them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He can't do it with "impunity". It was a mistake due to Huggling too fast, he apologized for it above, and said he would slow down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Huggle? And no, the apology referred to "that page", not this page. I'm concerned that a new editor might have been mistreated here. I think you are too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. Huggle. The "vandalism reversion tool." Well I don't think anyone used the word but the fact that I've been Huggled indicates that I am/was regarded as a "vandal" as well as a "troll" and "unclean." These are evidently dangerous things when in the wrong hands. Oh, and it says, "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle. You must understand Misplaced Pages policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked from editing." Does anyone ever apply that or is it just a waste of space to have that notice at the top of the page? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the only page Glacialfox reverted 86.40 on. The wording of the apology is a little confused, but he's talking about this page. And yes, I'm concerned about the same thing. I'm more concerned about the article reverts, though, which were not due to using Huggle too fast, and which have resulted not in apologies, but in reverts of talk page notices, and silence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Silence? Most of us do not edit 24 hours a day. I only got back here an hour ago and it is midnight where Gareth lives. Also, I only just found this as the change away from our orange message bar caught me unawares and I had not looked at my talk page. I too apologize to the IP and will slow down. After a morning of dealing with the return of an IP of one of our longest term problem editors (Pé de Chinelo) I found an IP who was editing warring without any discussion (WP:BRD) on the talk page after their edits were reverted. Then templating the regulars occurred in place of any explanation as to what was going on. Nobody eviscerated anyone and WP:AGF is a two way street and it has not been any better applied to the editors named here than it was to the IP and, again, I apologize for adding to that. As much as people disliked the Wikiquette noticeboard this is a prime example of something that could have been handled easily there as this is hardly an ANI matter. MarnetteD | Talk 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Templating the regulars"? Coming to the wrong venue? These are somehow more offensive than being constantly reverted and considered unclean and a troll? I explained in the edit summaries that there had been some sort of mistake yet no one listened. But really? I offended because I came to the wrong place and I upset the "regulars"? That's what I get? This is what I must listen to? Who are these regulars? How does someone become a "regular"? How do you know I'm not a "regular"? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not say that you had come to the wrong venue. In fact because WQA was closed this was the only venue to come to. However you have yet to WP:AGF. There is, of course, no criteria for becoming a member but I can say that not treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground is a good place to start. MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what you implied. And that last sentence too is absurd and insulting. I was quite happily editing, small things but nonetheless editing, oblivious to any battleground and not wanting to be in one. If you feel it is some sort of battleground then maybe you should be more careful and no one would have any reason to "battle" - my actions certainly are not indicative of a search for a battle. If I wanted a battle wouldn't I just vandalize all before me or call others some of the insulting names I have been called? Yet I have tried to remain calm as all around me descends into nonsense. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, I said "mistreated here" when what I meant was simply "mistreated". I didn't mean to imply that the mistreatment was on this page, but in this wiki in general. If, and I repeat if, 86.40 is a new user, then the reception he/she has received here (in Misplaced Pages) is instructive to say the least. "Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia that only established registered users can edit"; is that the message? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered another questionable revert and another insult to my time, effort and intelligence. The revert undid an edit of mine that removed some white space at the top and changed a name from this to this to reflect a move. Do I have to go through all my edits in very minute detail to see if they remain intact? Or is there any point at all since I'm so "unclean" and they've in all likelihood been eviscerated, to borrow the word from above... --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As to this last post please read the following notice that comes up whenever you edit "Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." I have had 1000s of edits changed or even deleted entirely over the years. Not every edit that you make here is going to remain and getting used to that will make things easier in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 23:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. You simply don't get it. You cannot have read the above. You are comparing your revert of my harmless piffling little edit that actually improved it, never mind making no difference at all to it, never mind vandalized it into oblivion, to something else entirely. Your last sentence just sums up how ludicrous this situation is. You are basically telling me to get used to it. To get used to being reverted or to be called a troll or unclean or other humiliating names. To get used to then being censored when I object to this - as I was basically censored, right up to and including this section. Well, quite frankly, I don't think I will be getting used to it. Because I won't be contributing any further if this is the sort of atmosphere that prevails around here. And won't be encouraging anyone else to do so in future either. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit simply removed blank spaces. It is considered a null edit and does not improve or damage the article. As to changing the qualifier in the authors article name that is discouraged by Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Do not .22fix.22 links to redirects that are not broken. Again it did not damage or improve the article. I have seen these kinds of edits performed in an attempt to get autocomfirmed. I now know that is not what you were trying to do but I didn't at the time. So, one last time, my apologies to you for not assuming AGF properly. If you cannot accept this that is fine, but, I will no longer be responding to further unfounded accusations of censorship and the like. MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You thought an IP was trying to get autoconfirmed? It doesn't seem likely that that's what you thought. Is it even possible for an IP to be autoconfirmed? The definition seems to require an account. You and everyone else who was blindly reverting this IP editor really ought to try editing as an IP yourselves for a few days. It's really instructive to see how abominably one gets treated by the "regulars." — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If the user were to look at what happened they would see I was indeed subjected to apparent censorship several times, though perhaps not by them and perhaps not even actual censorship, but nonetheless something amiss was apparent to me at that time when it was very difficult to get through to anyone - this section was even deleted at one point(!) As for the "null edit" I'm baffled that the user considers the change from this to this, which occurred alongside the blank space, to be one of those. I am further baffled at why they would explicitly announce in their edit summary that they were reverting it, and reverting it to what they regarded as the "last clean version." It shows a further disregard for my contributions. The "attempt to get autocomfirmed" is further nonsense (what would I be doing moving pages and the like?) but this has been addressed by the above (much kinder and more understanding) editor. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think Marnette is guilty of nothing more than a few sloppy edits. Marnette tackles a lot of destructive sock editing which is perpretrated by IP editors, and as such probably just saw a "regular" editor revert you and backed him up. I don't know why Gareth objected to your edits, but you didn't really try that hard to find out. I think you should start a discussion on the talk page to try and resolve the problem. I am sometimes on the receiving end of hasyt reverts being a "red link" so I can appreciate it's not pleasant when it occurs, but most editors usually respond positively when a sound explanation is brought forward. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. MarnetteD deals with a whole lot of vandals that simply churn through IPs. As a human being, MarnetteD is bound to make a mistake here and there. He apologized, as did others. Let's not turn this into a "how poorly IP editors are treated in general" thing any longer. Doc talk 03:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, "simply churn through IPs"? Why does this sound so ungrateful and degrading? As if IPs are subhuman? And these mistakes "here and there" - are you saying this is not the only time this is likely to have happened? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just showing your true colors. Read that as you will.... Doc talk 05:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that often they are. And on that note I'll close this, with my apologies to IP86. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've undid that attempt to shut down the discussion because the closer tells me on my talk page that I am making "weird effects" which I am certainly not doing on purpose. They have undone some edits as well. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What is it that you are seeking? Blocks or other sanctions against the editors you are complaining about? Unlikely to happen. Open a discussion regarding the plight of IP editors elsewhere. Doc talk 05:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the users have apologised for their sloppiness, what else is there? A shoulder to cry on? a pat on the back? a sympathetic ear? This has gone beyond an incident into unproductiveness (if that is even a word). Discussion beyond what is required of admins is not conducted here. Take it to the user's talk page if you seek some sort of ritual abasement. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/General Motors streetcar conspiracy

Closed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

At the new Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/General Motors streetcar conspiracy there have been several requests for a Speedy Keep. How do we request an impartial Administrator to quickly review and close this matter? Trackinfo (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:PraetorianFury making personal attacks and being generally disruptive

Please see this diff and this diff for two examples of the personal attacks User:PraetorianFury has been repeatedly making toward other editors. Furthermore, this user has basically admitted that he is User:AzureFury, an editor with an extensive block log. Please note that latter diff by his second account also contains several more personal attacks aimed at the same editor. ROG5728 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI for these users. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the SPI is probably unnecessary because he has already admitted he owns both accounts. Regardless, his conduct has been incredibly rude and disruptive, so something will have to be done. ROG5728 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really evidence to say "here's one example, there are lots more." Please give as many diffs as you can to support your complaint here. Since the SPI is being handled separately, I suggest you remove that part of the complaint here. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided three diffs containing clear personal attacks against another editor and one of the diffs even contains more than one attack. Let me also point out that the only reason you're commenting on this ANI is because you (SPECIFICO) are currently the subject of an ANI yourself. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I spent a great half an hour looking at all this crap. The SPI, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AzureFury, is going nowhere (for obvious reasons), and I don't think that the diffs provided here are enough reason for a block. I did find, however, that the attitude displayed by PratorianFury esp. on Talk:Gun control are snarky, bitey, baiting, and condescending--they're the mix of sarcasm and insult that makes working on some issues just not worth it. I have asked them on their talk page to stop--actually, I warned them. If this goes on, they should be blocked for a breach of civility. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Soda drinker

Alright, let's assume for a moment that what this user is doing is perfectly alright and not against policy in any way. Let's assume that I'm lacking a sense of humor today. Still, I think this deserves some discussion because I'm not sure how else to proceed. Soda drinker has been making some rather questionable edits as of late, including, but not limited to: inserting jokes into pages (and yes, while this particular page itself is a joke, I'm not entirely sure whether or not it includes adding material that looks like it comes from Jimbo), inserting malicious links, reverting an edit to the sandbox then warning that same user for adding 'obscenities' (which we may remove, but shouldn't warn for since Misplaced Pages is not censored, especially in the sandbox and when not used as a personal attack), making unnecessary edits, spamming the sandbox (I know the sandbox is there for a number of reasons, but I'm fairly sure this isn't one of them), unnecessarily warning another user, , , another completely unnecessary "warning", and creating pages to 'mock vandals'. While I don't believe a block is necessary, I'm not sure if this is a case where the user doesn't seem to understand policy or just blatantly ignores it. Or maybe I just lack a sense of humor today. Admittedly, my involvement may have been a little over the top, but instead of continuing down that path, I figured it would be better to come here. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

At 01:43, this user was warned This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at User talk:127.0.0.1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This warning seems entirely justified in the circumstances. So, the next time the user disrupts Misplaced Pages, the user is blocked. All very simple. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He's my friend, actually. I have been screwing around with the sandbox majorly with him and I haven't received any warnings for it. Odd... Alex2564 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

His activity is not limited to the sandbox, though. Ansh666 04:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the posting on Stinson ely, his userpage was an advertisement. That is why he was warned.

Regarding spamming the sandbox, that was to test image loading times.

Regarding "admins" kiz and stjohn, username policy...

Your sense of humor is severely lacking, and in addition, you check every one of my edits, to see if I have broken some minor rule. wp:bite. wp:agf. Soda Drinker (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Guilty. I do look at some your edits. I look at others' edits too, and I'm sure you've looked at my edits since the chances of you making this edit just moments after I did are extraordinarily slim. However, WP:BITE does not apply to you since you are not a newcomer and should be aware of policy by now. I made sure to assume good faith, but as I mentioned above, it's not possible to AGF on some of your edits, particularly this one, even if it was in your own userspace. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Guilty of that edit; however I was unaware it would link. That website is actually harmless. Read Code Red (computer worm); that is why I put it there. Regarding being a newcomer or not, I have been a member for a while, but I have not used my account much until recently. Soda Drinker(talk) 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Tedland

Carol M. Highsmith eminently merits an article; but as has been pointed out on that article's talk page, the article she's got has been promotional and undersourced. SPA Tedland (contributions) has been adding material, some good, some so-so; some sourced well, some not. Nothing much out of the ordinary so far, but he's been repeatedly removing the odd "citation needed" flag, with no explanation. (To his credit, most of these flags he either leaves alone or replaces with sources.) He doesn't show any sign of having read any of the commentary on and requests for his edits. At this point, I think I'd be justified in addressing him rather more forcefully, but I hold back for two reasons. First, having attempted to ameliorate the article, I might be seen as an "involved" editor. (I'd deny this, but I want to keep this message short.) Secondly, I'm not even certain that he's noticing the existence of the messages directed to him. (The old "You have new messages" thingie was so easy to notice and understand.....) He certainly hasn't done anything calling for a block, but I'd appreciate comments to him by some admin who can't possibly be called "involved". -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll suggest sending it to WP:COIN where they are used to dealing with stuff much worse than this. I'd also like to ask Hoary to let somebody else handle it: you seem to be getting frustrated with a newby and be on the point of biting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copied this to WP:COIN as suggested, and added a short comment there. (Incidentally, I'm semipermanently on the point of biting, but I generally resist the urge.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Zmichas + 140.247.0.11

The edits by Zmichas (talk · contribs) & 140.247.0.11 (talk · contribs) could be WP:Copyvio and have just exceeded 3RR. As Zmichas doesn't respond requests to talk, I ask here to have an eye on that, because I'll soon be logging off for today... --Trofobi (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Lemon

Lemon has been fixed. m.o.p 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Lemon has been modified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.155 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else as baffled as I was, I have figured out that the IP is simply alerting us that he/she reverted vandalism on the Lemon article. To the IP, many thanks for your help. Manning (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive i.p. on Mariano Rajoy and Spanish political party articles

For a good two months now a user with a dynamic i.p. has been adding this text to the article on Spain's prime minister, accusing him of Nazism, even though none of the sources which they tag on to their piece say this. This is a blatant violation of our WP:BLP policy. I raised the issue previously at WP:BLP noticeboard and the result was the article being semi-protected for one month. The i.p. has simply switched to adding the text to the article's talkpage, in contravention of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Worse they now seem to be branching out, making fairly unconstructive edits to other articles, mass adding the advertisement template to numerous Spanish political party articles, even when it clearly does not seem appropriate. For example the article on the People's Party contains this section on the controversy over illegal use of party funds, hardly something you'd find in an advertisement. Likewise I don't see any promotional text in others like Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Even when other users revert them, they simply edit war and add the text back. The text was originally added by User:Arpabone who may or may not be connected to later accounts such as Jimbomedia and various i.p.s including but not limited to 83.165.157.251, 87.223.42.72, 87.223.77.55 and 85.91.82.65. As this touches on numerous issues, such as WP:BLP, edit warring and sockpuppetry, I thought it better to ask about this here. Valenciano (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Inserting into edit history for locations

Offending revisions selectively deleted by Gnangarra. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

IPs 58.7.120.193 and 58.7.249.218 have been entering non-encyclopedic material into location article in Perth, Western Australia calling it The Navigator (there may be owther ip numbers used

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northbridge%2C_Western_Australia&diff=553164954&oldid=553164932 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Midland%2C_Western_Australia&diff=552841784&oldid=552841716

I would suggest an admin might blank/remove the pages on which it can be seen to discourage the editor from thinking they can exploit page history to leave traces of this non-encyclopedic material inside article history. sats 08:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The acceptable criteria for revision deletion are detailed at WP:REVDEL#Criteria for redaction. Which of these do you believe pertains in this circumstance? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 09:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Second verse, same as the first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

• Answer for Finlay McWalter - number 3 is quite valid in REVDEL - the editor is gaming edit history to insert non-encyc material sats 14:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP has re-inserted the material again...

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northbridge,_Western_Australia&diff=next&oldid=553182805

obviously prepared to be persistent in putting non-encyclopedic material into an article history. sats 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• • In view of the above the Ip has been blocked - but could someone please understand that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northbridge,_Western_Australia&oldid=553182805 needs the magic revdel brush as well please? thanks to whoever can remove it. sats 14:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I REVDEL'd that edit. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that sats 02:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Silent Bob

Check out Cliff1911's talk page. I feel like I'm having a conversation with a wall. Is it a bot? If anyone thinks its worthwhile to try to get through to this fellow, be my guest. There are worse sins than what this guy is doing, so maybe he should just be let alone? Dunno, offered for your consideration. Herostratus (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the not listening/interacting than I am about the linking. In theory, a block would stop the activity - and perhaps force some sort of discussion about it. But that's going way too far for something this minor. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Cliff1911 has just over 20,000 edits (almost all to the mainspace). Based on my very rough count, I think there are approximately 200 links that Cliff1911 has made to disambiguation pages. That's a rate of one error for every 100 edits. The fact that the disambiguation link issue overwhelms the talk page partly indicates that most of the other edits this user makes are just fine. As the errors don't appear to be deliberate, I'm inclined to say that the benefits of letting this editor continue working under an apparent vow of silence outweighs the costs. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Universally productive edits, accompanied by a 1% rate of generating minor inconveniences that can be trivially resolved. In exchange, he's had at least two direct threats to block him (one for not using edit summaries, and one for linking to dabs, something I've had a good few notifications of myself while performing content work) and an ANI thread with a disparaging title? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but jeez. We're supposed to be a little bit responsive here. I'm not asking for him to be blocked or anything, but maybe somebody else can talk to him in a way gets through. I sure can't. Are there no arrows in yall's quivers besides "ignore" and "block". I mean after all, ya have to infer that he's either taken the position "I don't read my talk page" (he may not know that he has one) or "I have really no interest in learning or bothering with even very simple techniques to avoid glaring errors, at least as regarding links to dab pages" or "I like making links to disambiguation pages and will continue to do so, so stuff it". It's got to be one of these, and none of these are too good really, and kind of annoying actually. AFAIK links to dab pages can't be trivially resolved by a bot or something, each has to be discovered and fixed by hand; its true that they are are only a minor inconvenience, though. (PS the title is not disparaging, it's sporty and actually bemusedly affectionate, and Silent Bob is a popular figure. And I didn't threaten to block him (couldn't if I wanted to, which I don't), I warned that he might be blocked in future, which is possibly true (you never know).) Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, when someone is totally noncommunicative, there really aren't any arrows other than "ignore" and "block". Every form of dispute resolution on wikipedia requires everyone involved to communicate. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well he's noncommunicative to me. But maybe an actual admin could give him a nudge or something. Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated disruption by IP

IP blocked and then unblocked. Hopefully we've all learned something today. m.o.p 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

User talk:99.129.112.89 has repeatedly removed maintenance tagging for the IP that they are using which is covered under WP:BLANKING. By several user's including admin. I have myself added the maintenance template warning and am currently using a 3rr exemption to revert the continued Disruption/Vandalism issue. I would like to raise the issue of this and a history of NPA, AGF and failure to understand wiki policy on top of this, however the most serious at this time is the removal of encyclopedia maintenance templates. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That template is meaningless, and the only reason you're edit warring about it is to "win" against a perceived enemy. Leave it alone, and the encyclopedia will not be any worse off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great, I see the IP editor is blocked because they're removing a useless template from their talk page. How utterly fucking typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a short time (31 hours). As Floquenbeam notes, this is a pointless dispute. However, not only has the anon persisted in games on the user talk page, but their edits at User talk:Callanecc indicate an intention to disrupt and hint that this is a registered user editing anonymously. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: That's a false interpretation. Floquenbeam, thanks! The block should be removed. I am not being disruptive, people are just mad I remove there petty messages on my page then seek revenge. It's immature! I have ignored them and continued to be productive, but one can only take so much! Why can't they move on and leave me alone? They are clearly the ones needing warnings and blocks... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is funny, WP:BLANKING says "Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." So who is going to block HIAB for violating 3RR on that IP talk page, Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, I don't really care about the other stuff. I would ask though if it's meaningless why is it covered under WP:BLANKING? Specifically "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." Now I'm only asking this because of a striking similarity with ] regarding Ip warnings/blocks and ] here noting that there is an account if this isn't you editing yourself or someone you may be connected to? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Darkness Shine, shit yeah I didn't see that. If I have to take some licks for that one it would indeed be my fault. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem, people not paying attention and just bullying IPs and editors who are only trying to improve articles and mind their own business. I knew you were the one who was guilty, not me. You couldn't just leave it alone. Just keep pestring me and pestering me. This is why users run off and vandalize in the first place. I've maintained my peace throughout! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam removed the block I placed. I have no interest in continuing the wheel-war over this. However, I wish to point out these diffs indicating that the IP is a registered user who is deliberately editing logged out, and that their intent is disruption: --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to do a good job as an editor but I keep getting resistance from stubborn editors (such as HIAB). I want them to leave me alone which is why I don't participate in their drama. Most of them are "quoting rules" that don't apply or matter while violating guidelines themselves. I'm being judged as an IP who has been on Misplaced Pages as different IPs/accounts over the years (started editing in 2007) since I travel and move, etc. That is not sock puppetry as I was accused of. I also wanted to think I was using another account (or created one) in an effort to keep them from Wikihounding me anymore. This was yet another waste of all of our time! P.S. HIAB, I hope you and your camp move on and leave me alone so we can do what is the interest of Misplaced Pages! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH (RE-SUBMITTED)

Complaint has been re-posted twice and there appears to be nothing actionable. Editor advised to either drop it (preferable) or take it to a more appropriate venue Sædon 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Below is the blockquoted text of the previous discussion. I did not feel the discussion it generated was adequate. -- # _ 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.
Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.
The edits at issue in Black Panther Party:
-- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece
-- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact
At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director:
There have been discussions at RSN already about:
the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)
the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)
(in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)
Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.
I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.
I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.
The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.
And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this complaint basically just posted to WP:AE and rejected, and with the same claim at the end that you'd be resuming your wikibreak? No comment on the merits of the case, but at a superficial glance it seems like forum shopping. Sædon 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the last topic ban proposal Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege#Proposed topic-ban wasn't closed. Does someone want to resurrect it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for a topic ban in that discussion, and this forum shopping makes me think this should be closed without any action (and I supported the topic ban). Seriously, you can't leave Misplaced Pages forever only to come back and keep trying to get the same person banned. Well technically you can, but don't expect to get good results. AniMate 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps "wikibreak" needs clarification. For me, in this context, its definition has been "an attempt to avoid dealing with things that make me upset by ignoring them and hoping the whole thing Just Goes Away." Yes, I've suggested it would be permanent. I was, still am, pretty much at the end of my rope with this nonsense, so it may happen, might not, but I will absolutely concede that it's not doing anyone any good by me being dramatic about it. I stayed away for two weeks and didnt have to think about any of this crap. It was a nice two weeks, and i hope next time it will be longer.

So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

All the same, I do want to clear some things up.

1. The AE filing was denied not on its merits, but because of scope. Sandstein's comments there clearly indicate that I was simply wrong in my judgement that these edits qualified as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." Personally, I think it was a reasonable mistake, but i am obviously self interested. I would like to think that if i saw another editor do the same, I would extend them the courtesy of chalking it up to a simple misunderstanding rather than assume they were forum shopping. Especially given that they put the link right there and werent trying to hide it somehow.
2. in the ANI case, I brought up NOTFORUM, and then from what i could tell a bunch of admins proceeded to make the issue about racism. this was facepalm-worthy. racism is something that people hem and haw about, and what's racist to one person seems totally normal to another person with different experiences. that is precisely why my complaint in the ANI case was about NOTFORUM, and likewise why my case here is about POVPUSH (and RS, and IDHT, and TE.) I mean, of course I thought the comments were incredibly offensive and racist. I mentioned that they were offensive at the time. but my complaint made reference to the policy specifically, and not to the offensive content on display.
3. in the event that you think my behavior was beyond the pale, I am more than happy to stand up and explain myself. but in the meantime, you have someone flaunting policy on contentious topics that is far more of a threat to the Project. Please, if you feel it warranted, open up an ArbCom case on my behavior, afterwards. I will be happy to comply in whatever way i can, in no small measure because at least then someone will be telling me which policies can be safely disregarded and which ones people actually give a shit about enforcing. which brings me to:
4. I don't give a rat's ass whether you ban Apostle12 or not. I supported it in the ANI filing because it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent the sort of behavior that was problematic, because talking it out seemed not to do anything but make matters worse. If i were itching for a topic ban, wouldn't I have asked for that in the RfC/U? Or in the ANI filing? In the RfC/U, we were asking for just the barest hint of respectful editing behavior from Apostle12, and yet somehow the whole thing got filled up with commenters who blew our concerns off, normalizing it as "frustrated" behavior. Even now I don't fucking care whether he has a topic ban or not. I CARE ABOUT THE POOR SOURCING, POVPUSHING, AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HE DISPLAYS. If there's some way to prevent that, I will be happy as a clam, regardless of if the remedy is community ban or saying nice things about his mother (who I'm sure is a very nice person). Given history though, I don't think that scrutiny has to be off of him for very long before he pull some shit like I detailed above. In case it escaped anyone's notice, I extended multiple offers to him to help edit, to come to a consensus, which in practically every case was both fruitless and excruciatingly long. I did not suggest a topic ban in the ANI filing. I was sort of hoping the community would take what it thought was appropriate action, which in this case was doing nothing, at least so far.

So if you need to, ignore my comments about wikibreaks etc. I am trying to avoid additional stress, and this topic (THE POOR SOURCING AND POVPUSH, JUST TO BE CLEAR) is one that has a tendency to make me stressed, (partly because it's just so fucking obvious, like there is no craft or subterfuge or art to it, which i would still be upset about, but at least could give points for style).

So don't expect me to respond to anything in a timely manner for at least the next few months, e.g. respond to questions. I promise I will just leave it at that, and not spew more of this wikibreak drama crap (that i am sorry for, see above).

And in the meantime, how about addressing the substance of the complaint -- # _ 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much for an administrator to do here. My advice is to perhaps take this to reliable sources noticeboard, file an request for comment, or simply remove the material. Another piece of advice is to embrace brevity. No one responds well to massive walls of text. Keep you complaint succinct and to the point, because a lot of editors and administrators see how much you've written and move on to the next issue because there is SO much to read through.

Also, even though it may be unpleasant, you have to engage with Apostle12. Following his edits and complaining here without engaging him on article talk isn't going to get the results you seek.

Finally, there are a lot of issues at work here, and there have been issues on multiple articles. I'd say kick this up the dispute resolution chain. You've participated in an WP:RFC/U in regards to this user, so perhaps a request for arbitration is in order. That's the best advice I can give you, because I really don't think you're going to get the result you want at this noticeboard. AniMate 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these options are acceptable to me. And you're misconstruing what my aim is. My aim is not to address the content issues directly, but to either:

make the mechanisms work (squeaky wheel, etc), or

demonstrate just how badly they are broken, such as by becoming such a nuisance here that I am sanctioned myself -- I aim to re-submit until either adequate discussion has been had, or I am banned from participation

If you have a mop, and "TLDR" is an acceptable way for you to deal with things, then you are part of the problem. If the mechanisms don't work, then we have a responsibility to figure out and create mechanisms that do.

I am, frankly, eager to get back to contributing to WP, particularly on medical articles. I have voluntarily limited my edits to article space.

And as for engaging Apostle12, he can engage here if he wishes. He is aware of the discussion. I have already wasted far too much time discussing these issues with him. read the discussions i have linked. I am in no hurry to waste more time -- if I edit, or revert, then I will be expected to adhere to WP:BRD, and participate in yet another interminable discussion. and if I don't that may be used as ammunition in future disputes.

Fuck that. -- # _ 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

UTCL, you are the only one using past editing history as "ammunition." One might even interpret your motive as retaliatory, something I do not wish to join in.

Always open to constructive editing on the various articles that capture our mutual interest: the proposal you submitted for a new lede sentence at "White privilege" is presently being discussed on Talk. Please note that I largely support your proposal, which is among many of your proposals and edits that I have backed. Another editor has commented that your proposal may not be supported by the source you provided; you might want to defend your choice or contribute another.

Regarding the other edits you mention here, I will be happy to discuss those too on their respective Talk pages. The less confrontation, and the more collaborative spirit, the better. Apostle12 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This complaint is not about White privilege. As above, it is about your edit history and non-RS/POVPUSH at Black Panther Party and the discussion that established these sources and claim as non-RS at Huey P. Newton. The discussion at White privilege is irrelevant.

I will not be editing at any of these pages until some sort of consensus is established here. -- # _ 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reposted

Reposted. -- # _ 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: If I remove these sources and claims which have been established (above) as non-RS without engaging in subsequent discussion, how do the administrators here suggest I react if these removals are reverted, without getting involved in an edit war? -- # _ 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Counter Question: What immediate Administrator action is required? The fact that your previous posting got archived without any sort of response is an indication that Administrators aren't seeing anything actionable. If it's a question about reliable sources, then Reliable Sources Noticeboard is the place to hash it out. If it's a content dispute, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is the appropraite place. If it's a conduct issue, you're going to have to make it clearer. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it not clear from the language and links above that this particular content has already gone to WP:RSN? -- # _ 19:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I've given diffs (of both the edits at issue and their previous discussions, including at RSN) of what seems, to me, like clear and unambiguous POVPUSH behavior -- taking sources that were deemed non-RS and removed from one article, and using them in a related article to support the same point of view. POVPUSH is right there in the post title. I have diffs. There is a previous ANI case about NOTFORUM behavior that I have linked. What more do you want? Just tell me. -- # _ 19:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your screed of text that is already archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH caused me to TLDR. The text claims not to want sanctions but is asking for sanctions and seems to be fairly obvious in what your next steps are. Let the natural death of the thread occur if that's what needs to happen, don't repost. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I got exactly one person suggesting i go to arbcom. is that what YOU suggest I do? I feel like action is necessary here, but I have no idea what that might look like. I have tried multiple times to get this underlying behavior issue addressed, and have found little in the way of help. I am unwilling to "let it die a natural death" (whatever that means) because I still do not have the information I am seeking -- specifically, what I should do next, and how to handle the inevitable difficulties that will arise from, say, just reverting those edits. I have no other recourse, as far as I can tell, other than making a nuisance of myself here. -- # _ 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Making yourself a nuisance here will not accomplish anything but possibly a block for you. You're not getting any response here because, as was said above, there is nothing actionable here. This is not a board equipped to handle complex disputes, it's for more obvious policy violations. For complex conduct cases your options are WP:RFC and Arbcom. For content disputes you need to follow the steps outlined at WP:DR, including WP:3O and WP:DRN. Sædon 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin impersonation: 198.228.228.36

BLOCKED Obvious troll is obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

198.228.228.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be someone impersonating an administrator. They're going around posting user block templates and marking unblock requests as reviewed. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, had to go AFK for a few minutes and wasn't able to notify the user right away. Thanks to User:Ansh666 for taking care of that for me. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:168.190.80.40

Only 34 edits, resulting in 8 warnings: great score. Could someone take a look at the behaviour of this IP? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disturbing Behaviour by User:SPECIFICO

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere – Comment about another ANI is best posted and resolved at that ANI Resolved – Question of seeking an off-wiki contact not a violation and contactee-editor has no objection

I first noticed this individual on this board and the 3RR board where they were attempting to report users involved in a debate over Gun control. I decided to provide a WP:CIVIL notice on their talk page and was met with justification for his actions . I've just observed a discussion where he was requesting that a user he was involved in a dispute with "Hello Steeltrap. On a non-WP note, could you send me an email using the email link on the left maegin of my user page so that I can ask you a question about your academic work?". He has filed 3RR , without basis, threatened users with blocks if they did not follow his direction to restore his version of an article among numerous other WP:CIVIL and WP:Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering encounters. This behaviour is not within the spirit of Misplaced Pages nor should users be intimidated by his treats and use of policy to push his point and I feel that experienced users/admins need to review this. Mike (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I can't speak to all of this stuff, but I can certainly say that SPECIFICO's request to me was completely in-bounds. I am paranoid about being "outed" so I didn't give him the email. :) But in the process of collaborating on edits that contribute to this community, we have -- even when we disagree --been cordial and friendly to one another. And I have discussed my thesis to him many times in the past. Given this context, his mild mannered request for my contact info should NOT, I insist, be characterized as improper in any way. Steeletrap (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Steeltrap and I have been colleagues here since he began editing here. He and I are both interested in the Austrian School and some related topics. As stated in my message on Steeltrap's talk page, I was interested in discussing his research with him. I am at a loss to understand how that prompted user:Mrfrobinson's complaint here and ask that it be closed. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that his interaction with steeletrap should not be considered out of bounds (although it can raise issues of suspicion). BTW, if you want to email him, I believe wikipedia does include some anonymous email tools where he can email you via the site without you revealing your address.

Also agreed that his behavior regarding 3rr is objectionable, and he is repeatedly on multiple articles attempting to win content disputes by technicality. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO's behavior as of late has been rude and disruptive. See the other ANI on him for more info. ROG5728 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Commentary - People can see I've had plenty of interaction with both SPECIFICO and Steeletrap (on one talk page and the other). Steeletrap is a new WP editor but an intelligent and obviously well-educated person and SPECIFICO, myself and other editors have perhaps jumped into discussions with him at an advanced level, only to later go back and explain some WP acronyms, policies and the like. Bitey? Sure, maybe, but not intentionally so. In the "sink or swim" stakes, Steeletrap is breaking records and winning medals. To outside observers, even the conversations I have had with SPECIFICO might have seemed heated, but I can assure you (from my perspective at least) that they have not been; just detailed and mostly academic. I can certainly understand Mike's perspective but I would suggest he has perhaps seen 1 or 2 talk pages worth of a conversation that has been conducted across 3-4 user talk pages, 6-7 article talk pages and 2-3 AFDs between a whole group of editors.

As explained on some of those talk pages, I have no real prior understanding of any of the issues in which this "group" is interested (broadly; economics, libertarianism and firearms). I've come to much of this via various AFDs and have had prior interaction with some of the group with previous editors/AFDs. They are all issues where discussions can get heated and people can get emotional. I don't think it hurts to remind everyone to be WP:CIVIL, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place to elicit such a reminder. Stalwart111 04:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:99.129.112.89

NO ACTION Warning to all about trolling and edit warring. Activity seems stopped (can only hope for good).—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Insists on keeping a hit list of users, with "knock it the fuck off, this is a talk page violation!!!!!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He says it is not a hitlist and that he is working on something regarding users who have stalked/harassed him. Which policy is he violating? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:UP Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not advocating a block here, and wish everyone involved would grow up and learn to let things roll off their back, but just to be clear: I would not consider a block for this to be wheel warring (since the IP was blocked by Orlady and unblocked by me already today). I'm playing Pontius Pilate here; I don't care what anyone does anymore. So if you don't block because this whole thing is dumb, I salute you. If you don't block because you're worried about being accused of wheel warring, don't worry (at least as far as I'm concerned). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, that seems... "wise", but if hit lists are merely "dumb", are we now allowed to have them? That's fine with me, then I'll make one myself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Spoken like a MMORPG player. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Which part of WP:UP? I see nothing there about what another user may consider a hitlist, I do see this WP:NOBAN Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. So what's the decision here now? Are these allowed or not? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly in a situation like this the sharpest dagger you can pull out is to go to an article that needs help and add some great content to it... Zad68 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That might all be true, but in the past I've seen people blocked for keeping stuff like this. If there has been or is now a change in policy or behavioral guidelines, I'd like to know about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(uninvolved; actually, I shouldn't even be here but whatever!) TRPoD tried to remove it twice again and the IP was obviously pissed off...also, IP removed the AN/I notice because "user did not sign". I'll add the shared IP notice back on top of the message and the AN/I notice back on the bottom and see what happens. Ansh666 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I remove the shared IP message as it is obviously pissing off the IP. Why on earth did you replace it? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured someone else might be using that IP in the future...is it static? (I'm not tech-savvy enough to know these things) Ansh666 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As a user listed on this list, I would simply like to know what exactly it exists for. If it's not definitively against policy, it certainly is rude to have that sort of list of users you dislike. TCN7JM 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It is static, but even they change. My point is that template is making the IP very very angry, so why keep adding it? As Flo said, this is all very silly. I'm going to bed.

Yeah, sorry about that, not thinking straight. Good night! Ansh666 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I really only find those IP tags useful when they identify specific groups such as school, so admins know to use a {{schoolblock}}; or when there's an obviously dynamic IP to help future users of the IP understand that messages posted may be leftover from prior users of the IP. Otherwise, especially for dynamic IPs, it just usually irritates them and can simply be left off. In the end, info about the IP is just a click away anyways by clicking one of the links in the IP user info box at the bottom of their contributions page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Be patient, everyone needs to slow down and wait to see what I was doing! What's a "hit list"? I've just now been able to get here and post this. I still need to read all this nonsense. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, your talk page is there for others to give you messages, not for you to give messages to others. Ansh666 21:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't tell this user to give us all talk page messages. He'll more than gladly do so. This is the user that went to every baseball season talk page to comment that he wasn't going to contribute. TCN7JM 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Whoops. This is why I don't belong on AN/I, heh. Ansh666 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If talk pages were only for others to give messages to you, things would get ugly fast. Per WP:UP "User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content."

No, you're misinterpreting WP:UP. what you are describing is the User namespace (for you, User:99.129.112.89); the talk page is for others to leave notices or messages. For example, see my talk page, which should only have a message or two from SuggestBot right now (I have a custom signature; click the italicized numbers to see it). Ansh666 21:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Or, see my talk page (and that of several other users and admins) which have notices at the top of our talk pages. It's a pretty common practice that has never been disputed as far as I know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are general notes to everyone and no-one would complain about that. The question is can I keep a box naming specific people? Again, if that's the agreement now so be it. It wasn't so in the past. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the IP is clearly communicating to the listed individuals with whom they have prior involvement, which is a permitted use. It's not a "hit list", although when initially created it's true intent was unclear. At this point though, it's a non-issue and everyone should just move along. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Is this view the agreement here? E.g. users are allowed to post messages to others onto their own talkpages and keep them there? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

TCN7JM, the comments you and Redmen have about me on your talk page under a topic I started is what is rude. The fact you are here proves you are Wikihouding me. Those "lists" were to be messages to people. Everyone relax and leave me alone. I'm repeating myself... Pay attention before just going trigger happy. This is a misunderstanding based on people moving too quickly and not letting me edit my own talk page before you come in with your big hands and mess it all up. Knock it off, this is immature. Why pick on me? Am I that interesting? I can't keep up and therefore I am avoiding this topic. Reposting the same thing doesn't mean I didn't get it. P.S. Tell the whole story, TCN7JM. You are lying. Not all. I replied as a follow up to a message I left as you did about my contributions to the few articles. You are causing problems, please exclude yourself from this. That is why I addressed you on my talk page. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's throw out whether the disputed content should or should not be on the page. This much is clear to me:

1. WP:UP#NOT: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" is mentioned, and "community-building activities that are not strictly 'on topic' may be allowed." I'm seeing this list of user as a soapbox to single out their behavior, and it is not building community as people are warring over this when they could be working on building WP.
2. WP:EW: Whether or not something is "right", we don't tolerate reverting back to preferred versions. We discuss and come to a consensus. This is not happening.
3. This whole thing is WP:DISRUPT to a tee, from everyone.

Frankly, there is too much trolling on both sides trying to make their WP:POINT. This is likely headed to a trainwreck where someone will get blocked and complain they were provoked when so-and-so got off. Perhaps, but (hopefully) it will stop the drama here. Just stop the trolling everyone.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's a spelling error in a Misplaced Pages article. Why doesn't everyone here go find it and correct it. --Jayron32 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OOH OOH WHERE WHERE! Ansh666 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't keep track of all these violations against me. All because I'm an IP. Ah, an editor without a country. Shame... Thanks Bagumba. I'm done, this is ridiculous and was pointless. I tried to explain but people continued to disrupt. Do research first, and if you want to know who is doing what, read the edit summaries and talk pages. TC, you have no room to talk. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is quite simple. Edit warring is not accepted; editors are instead advised to follow Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Ad Hominem personal attack and Racism by User:Vsmith

Even if this was an issue, it'd be decidedly stale after three months. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Neither attack nor racist Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Y-chromosomal Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Y-chromosomal Adam (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) Vsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff: Vsmith has personally attacked me (ad hominem) and made racist comments about Eskimo people.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ? How do you construe that as a personal attack and racist? And it was back in January. Kinda late, no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Well, to be honest, your remark was pretty dumb. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Folks, this is obvious trolling. Please close and consider blocking. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Further Comments It's said Misplaced Pages became like this. Being labled "Dumb" and "Troll" for reporting discrimination? It is racist, because this person says "hmm perhaps Eskimo and should obviously be named Charley (as in Brown)." He is trying to say that Eskimo people are "irrelevant" and "collateral" and "invaluable". Similar to "Big in Japan." He is saying "Eskimo people are so lesser beings that Y-chromosomal Adam and Eskimo people may be associated only for teasing and for making fun of it" It is ad hominem, because he says, "Take your discrimination blather elsewhere, we just report what the reliable sources use." He is saying my expression is "blather" -which is an offense per se- and trying to dismissing or discrediting my views. From WP:NPA page: An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. — WP:NPA Hope these clarifications help.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request RFC closure

I requested FPP for Gun Control due to an edit war, so that a DR I opened could proceed. FPP has been granted. the DR is now being rejected, because there is an open RFC on the topic. IMO the RFC is stale without consensus. It was opened 15 days ago. No major commenting in the RFC section has been done in several days, (although extensive discussions are elsewhere on the same topics). I made a motion to close on the talk page 3 days ago, which was seconded, but no other comments. I made a request for closure yesterday on the noticeboard with no response. Very heated controversial topic and debate, so definitely need an uninvolved person to close.

If someone could either close the RFC so the DR can go forward (or to take action on the RFC I suppose), or make some other resolution to the current situation that would be great. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The CfD result regarding American women novelists ignored at Amanda Filipacchi

• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
• Amanda Filipacchi
• Obiwankenobi and The Devil's Advocate

The above-linked CfD was closed as;

“

The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature. {{All included}} and/or {{Distinguished subcategory}} should be added to the latter so that this does not happen again. Can someone with AWB or a similar tool do this soon, given the frighteningly large amount of media coverage focused on these categories and related discussion?

”

I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" . Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• There has been no decision against categorizing by century. People in Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:21st-century American novelists do not need to be in the overall Category:American novelists. There is absolutely no reason for such duplication. Anyway, Filipacchi is on List of American novelists, where if someone really wanted to marginzalize her they could fairly easily, as has been done in the past by removing Stephanie Meyer from that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • We've established loads of reasons for duplication, and who is that keeps claiming we can't have duplication? That's not true. Eventually, the duplication will be removed through technical means, but for now, stop diffusing the categories. This obsession with unhelpful tasks that piss people off needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on the matter at this point is entirely irrelevant. These BLPs are to be categorized back into Category:American novelists and Category:American women novelists, that's all there is to it. What you choose to do after the fact regarding 20th, 21st century or any other categorizes is academic. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, the decision is that we will not remove articles from Category:American novelists to place them in Category:American women novelists. There is no decision against moving them to Category:20th-century American novelists or Category:American historical novelists. Those are legitmate diffusing categories and there is absolutely no reason not to diffuse. If you think we should not have Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to take it to a CfD, but while it exists it is a 100% legitimate diffusion category, and there is no reason to fight diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Your interpretation of the matter is so divorced from reality that we're either in "I'm not listening" or "Just plain doesn't get it" territory. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment(edit conflict):I've been watching this whole fiasco from the sidelines. Seeing this pop up at the bottom of the noticeboard made me think of a scene from a painting (or perhaps a movie, it was quite a while ago) I saw. Attila and his horde were advancing down a hill upon an unsuspecting settlement. With this huge debacle, and the following media storm, I can only imagine in horror the Chinese fire drill that will result. All while this plays in the background. Herr Kommisar 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stop diffusing the goddamn categories. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."

We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.

Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.

That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:

1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?

a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.

b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!

Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.

1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)

A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.

1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.

So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Misplaced Pages:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon  04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can have a category "Members of the Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the people you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "People" or "Women" or "US Presidents". Same goes for "Events related to World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon  05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards