Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:42, 19 July 2014

• 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

Antidiskriminator

Required reading (sorry):

• Talk:Đurđevdan uprising generally
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: Đurđevdan uprising
• User talk:Joy#My queries about your Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: My queries about your Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 33#Antidiskriminator
• User talk:Joy#"Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results" + User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 9#Re: "Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results"
• User talk:Joy#Đurđevdan uprising II + User talk:Antidiskriminator#Re: Đurđevdan uprising

This series of unproductive communications between User:Antidiskriminator and myself has crossed the line between annoyingly bizarre and disruptive. After months of discussion, we're clearly not making any substantial progress, because today Antidiskriminator actually explicitly accused me on the article talk page of conspiring with User:Peacemaker67 to molest him, acting against consensus, having no support outside of a purported tag team, etc. To add insult to injury, that's in reply to a discussion where we actually had a new user (User:Roches) post a lengthy critique of Ad's choices that touched on all the issues that I raised earlier, and then some.

One of the links above is from when I had asked User:EdJohnston, the admin who had last topic-banned Antidiskriminator over unhelpful Talk page behavior, and then unbanned him, to review that decision. He suggested more discussion at the time. In any event, this doesn't have to be adjudicated by a single person, so I'm bringing it up here. With regard to admin involvement, I have to also mention a recent incident where I was blocked by User:JamesBWatson after having imposed blocks in a manner that could have reasonably put my impartiality into question. An unfortunate coincidence is that this story also involved Antidiskriminator, and he's proceeded to use that against me in discussions.

Yes, it's possible to continue toiling away at this rate, engaging in numerous mind-numbing discussions, !voting in numerous RMs, fixing various unreliable source issues, and trying to make sense of user talk. But it's an unreasonable drain on our collective resources. Volunteer time is a scarce commodity, and we shouldn't waste it on repeating the same errors and error corrections all the time.

I have no intention of using my admin powers here (despite the myriad slaphappy accusations by Ad of how I'm abusing them...), and instead I'm asking for others to help. Some sort of a topic ban should be imposed that would break this disruptive pattern. --Joy (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston. Since the lifting of his topic ban on 10 January, Antidiskriminator has started over 45 new sections on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, making over 560 edits on the talk page. In the entire history of the article, he has made only 46 edits in article space. A quick skim of the talk page and its two most recent talk page archives will give you a taste of the behaviour, which includes him placing "Not resolved" tags on threads, and refusing to edit in article space despite the fact that on numerous occasions there has been no opposition to material being added. It has recently been extended to Talk:Vojislav Lukačević, where Antidiskriminator has started 19 new talk page sections since 17 June.

Because of the incredibly frustrating behaviour, circular discussions and constant going off on tangents, my judgement has slipped on a couple of occasions, and I have consequently unilaterally imposed a ban on interacting with Antidiskriminator on both these articles unless he first edits in article space. This appears to have had no effect, but at least now I am not being drawn into more and more discussions that go nowhere, and his WP:IDHT approach. I have also banned him from posting on my user talk page, because he was effectively harassing me there as well. The evidence is that the lifting of the topic ban has only encouraged him to continue with his disruptive behaviour, and that it is getting worse. I consider that a three month topic ban on Yugoslavia in WWII (broadly construed) would be appropriate, and might have the desired effect of getting him to ameliorate his behaviour. If it doesn't have the desired effect, an indefinite ban will probably be necessary. He just isn't making enough of a contribution to the encyclopedia to justify the disruption. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add, for anyone watching this, that Antidiskriminator is not only aware of this discussion (because Joy obviously advised him), but since it was logged, he has been busily working away in areas that are not the subject of this discussion, with over 75 edits in less than two days. I am afraid that he has no respect for consensus-based processes, he just soldiers on regardless, in the hope that it will just go away and he can return to the same pattern of behaviour. God help the editors that work in late 19th century/early 20th century Serbian history, because that is what he is editing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by IJA

I think it is fair to say that me and Antidiskriminator don't see eye to eye. I'm no angel, but then again Antidiskriminator is certainly no angel either. He isn't the easiest editor to work with, but then again, neither am I. In February he went through a phase of harassing me on my talk page making weird comments, making false accusations (mainly that I was personally attacking people when I hadn't) and just general spamming. and I warned Antidiskriminator back then to stop harassing my talk page . After this, he stopped harassing my talk page. I had previously told him that "Your harassment and spamming on my talk page is irritating. I will be deleting anything you post on here." I just wanted to be left alone and not have a constant barrage of comments from him on my talk page. It is like he has to have the final word on everything.
I recently spent ages upgrading the history on the "Prizren" article and Antidiskriminator just out of the blue reverted it and he tried justifying it by saying that the history added to the article makes Serbs look "particularly bad". All I was trying to do was upgrade the history section and he wanted to censor bits he didn't like. As a Brit, I know we have one of the darkest histories in the world, but I'd never say we shouldn't include something on Misplaced Pages because it makes Brits look "particularly bad". This was blatant stonewalling by Antidiskriminator.
I'm in no position to say whether or not he should be topic banned and I certainly don't think it would be fair of me either as I tend to have disagreements with Antidiskriminator. This is Misplaced Pages, everyone should be free to edit. I think it is worth mentioning that Antidiskriminator can be a useful editor and he does sometimes make useful contributions to Misplaced Pages, even though he does tend to be a thorn in my side. He can be an asset at times. Regards IJA (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

From my own experience with Antidiskriminator, I would second Joy's and Peacemaker's complaints. It's difficult to provide diffs because it's just such a pervasive and diffuse long-term pattern of behaviour, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. I've unfortunately got involved in disagreements with him on a small number of occasions myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved (although I have no involvement in any of the disputes Joy is talking about), but I'd say it's high time somebody pulled the WP:ARBMAC trigger on him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joy and Peacemaker, but Fut.Perf. has really hit the nail on the head. Antidiskriminator occasionally does something blatant, like adding hoax content, tag-teaming with obvious socks, using fake numbers, creating pov-forks &c.; but really the main problem is the pervasive low-level pov-pushing on Balkan history and geography, and the stonewalling. It's been going on for years. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pm67 proposed a three-month topic ban above. The previous topic ban, narrower in scope, lasted between 2012-11-02 and 2014-01-10, that is, 14 months. If there is consensus that the previous topic ban had no positive effect, I see no point in a new topic ban that is shorter than 14 months, and the scope also has to be wider. --Joy (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get. IJA (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin, IJA. WP is run by the community, which empowers admins to do certain tasks on its behalf. They are a bit like the police in that respect, they operate with the consent of the community. If community consent is withdrawn, the mop is taken away. That doesn't mean we are governed by the admins, or that they are the only ones whose opinions matter. For Joy and Bob, I believe a shorter but much wider ban would permit the community to see if Antidiskriminator can edit outside Yugoslavia in WWII without being disruptive. That topic is my concern here, because that is where I deal with his behaviour. However, you and others may be aware of other areas where he is being disruptive, in which case the scope of the ban should be widened further, perhaps to include anything to do with Serbia or Serbs (broadly construed). If he returns to the behaviour demonstrated after the ban ends, then I think the only answer is an indefinite site ban, just as he has on Serbian WP (for similar behaviour). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT the topic area that encompasses the articles where I've noticed Antidiskriminator to have been disruptive would be 20th-century Serbian history, broadly construed. That should cover both the '09 Dedijer book stuff at Talk:Skaramuca and the '90s war stuff at Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. Since we have a pretty clear case of recidivism here, I just don't see a point in a short length ban, but obviously anything is better than nothing. --Joy (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't work on the World War 2 stuff if you paid me, because the editing environment there is so toxic. I work on other topics, for instance more recent Balkan history; but where that involves Serbia, it involves Antidiskriminator, and similar problems appear - kneejerk reverts, stonewalling, pov-forks, misrepresentation, &c. There is also highly asymmetric use of sources - where content fits a Serb-nationalist POV, sourcing requirements are very low; but where it doesn't fit that POV, suddenly even the strongest sources are somehow disqualified and the content swiftly removed. More frustrating is that when some other (more blatant) pov-pusher (or sockpuppet) appears on the scene and other editors are trying to contain the damage, Antidiskriminator gives the POV-warrior support and helps them with a few reverts. For instance, the most destructive Balkan POV-warriors who have been kicked off the project seem to have one thing in common: Antidiskriminator gave them barnstars (Example 1, 2 3, 4 5). As far as the scope of a topic ban is concerned, I am pragmatic. I just want to make it possible for other editors to fix some of our neutrality problems. Half the scope means half the benefit, but that's better than nothing at all. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Serbia and Serbs from 1900-? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. There are probably some potential conflicts in the 19th century (or in the Ottoman era), but I think your proposal would tackle the most serious problems. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate topic ban would be a ban on topics involving/ relating to "Serbs, Serbia, Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslavia" 1900 to Present? This way it will stop any topic ban from being loosely interpreted. IJA (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Antidiskriminator

Consensus from the two involved (Joy) and possibly involved (Future Perfect) admins and the other editors in this thread (bobrayner and I) appears to be coalescing around proposing a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving "Serbs and Serbia 1900-current" (broadly construed). Given we have yet to get any non-involved admin comment on this thread so far, and Antidiskriminator appears to be avoiding the issue, I believe it is appropriate to make a formal topic ban proposal for the admins here to consider. I would particularly like to get User:EdJohnston's perspective, given he was the one who lifted the original, much narrower ban. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I tried to work with to three requested moves and Antidiskriminator's "stonewalling" wasted a lot of time and energy in the moves, repeating things which weren't accurate or had be refuted, and it spread to other pages like user talk and move review. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hours after I supported a topic ban, sockpuppets have started reverting my old edits, like this  :-( Now Look What You've Done (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• People, what we need here is more input from uninvolved observers. As much as I would want this topic ban to happen, it's no use for us involved people to be proposing or "!voting" for things here. Without outside attention, nothing's gonna happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, FP, if we don't make some attempt to progress it, it will just get archived as "too hard" by the admins that work here every day, because those admins aren't willing to dip their toes into ARBMAC territory, because that is generally not where they work. I've been here before, and I'm sure you and Joy have seen it too. That is the reality of bringing anything of mild complexity and longevity to this board. Easy stuff gets dealt with quite quickly. That is why I have tried to progress it, given it is already half-way up the current list, with no uninvolved admin comment at all, even from Ed Johnston, who was the one who lifted the ban. Frankly, I think that the admins that were involved in the original ARBMAC discussion, the ban and the lifting of the ban should make some time to at least give it their opinion. Short of pinging them, what else is a non-admin supposed to do? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, it has taken me hours to read the history of Pavle Đurišić and other pages, but that is the problem: The tendentious editing of Antidiskriminator, and always arguing over any little detail for POV. I am not sure about how long the ban should be. I don't think I'm involved, at worst I did give a WP:3O on a different Serbia page, years ago. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for spending the time reviewing the history, Dentalplanlisa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed much of the material on the Đurđevdan uprising, which led me to the conclusion that a topic ban is warranted at this time. My previous interaction with Antidiskriminator was at The Holocaust, where my perception was that he intended to block the removal of peripheral content from the article, which meant it would be impossible for the article to reach GA status. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was briefly involved there too, and his behaviour there was classic Antidiskriminator, working every angle to retain POV material. The question of "is the mass killing of Serbs in the NDH part of the Holocaust" is a victim-centred Serb POV issue from the 90's which is well documented by a wide range of scholars. I don't think your involvement there makes you "involved", Diannaa. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Starting from tomorrow I will be on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries. I expect to be able to reply to questions with not more than 24-48 hours delay. With all due respect for a group of editors (who were all except Dentalplanlisa involved in disputes with me) I don't think they presented valid arguments for sanctions against me. I still believe that Joy should simply initiate WP:RM as explained to him multiple times, also by another administrator in his replies (diff and diff) to Joy's and Peacemaker67's complaint about my conduct. If in the meantime the consensus is reached that Joy was right that there was something wrong with my editing, I sincerely apologize in advance and promise not to repeat same mistake in future. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's good timing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with the tendentious editing accusation being leveled at Antidiskriminator. I don't see much wrong with his contributions overall. Or I should say I don't see anything more wrong with them than with the contributions of the involved editors preparing the groundwork for his ban here. He's clearly got an inherent bias when it comes to Balkan history, as do many of the editors going after him here. Skullduggery and douchery, whether active or passive, that stem from those opposing views and biases have long been the editing norm on those articles and this proposal is basically just another battlefield of a fued that's long crossed over into personal territory.Zvonko (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I pretty much expected you to say something like this after how you behaved at Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo - a lot of general claims that just don't hold up to scrutiny. --Joy (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sinful "behaviour" of utilizing cognitive capabilities and coming up with output different from yours. Oh, the blasphemy! You should seriously consider suggesting a ban for my "behaviour".Zvonko (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If it were only so innocuous. You advocated, in rather strong words, a position that was a essentially a trivially disingenuous misreading of search engine output, which in turn had to be explicitly debunked by myself and several other users - and then you failed to acknowledge the error, let alone change your !vote or even apologize for insisting on something so easily disproven. So, like I said, I don't really expect you to understand what Antidiskriminator's disruptive behavior is, when you willfully engage in it as well. --Joy (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you would definitely know about disingenuity and disruption, I'll give you that. This is why you're so comfortable accusing others of it. Psychological projection is one helluva a defense mechanism. From pretending Dado Pršo's first name isn't Miladin, and blatantly ignoring reliable sources confirming so, to this episode where you're a.) misinterpreting my position on a different talk page and b.) attaching sinister intent on my part, both in a pathetic little attempt of disqualifying my opinion when it comes to this ban proposal - it's just the kind of obnoxiousness that's par for the course with you. Also, lest anyone takes your distortions at face value, the only thing you and "several other users" (by which you mean PRODUCER, another all-star power forward from the same school of disingenuous as you who got forced into early retirement) "debunked" are your own concoctions that have nothing to do with what I argued for.Zvonko (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly did not blatantly ignore any reliable source, I in fact argued for the adherence to Misplaced Pages verifiability policies with regard to a biography of a living person, way back in 2006. The claim that Dado Pršo was actually using the name Miladin has apparently been a Serbian nationalist talking point on Misplaced Pages, and I nevertheless extended the assumption of good faith towards the anonymous user who was pushing that POV, trying to explain to them how policies are supposed to work. We got WP:ARBMAC only in late 2007, and from that point forward, this kind of a thinly veiled political advocacy has been easier to deal with.

BTW, User:JamesBWatson, see, this is exactly what I meant when I told you earlier about having been around for a long time and editing in a topic area that is rife with axe-grinding. I get insulted today over a good-faith effort I had engaged in eight years ago. --Joy (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(*facepalm*) Classic Joy. The posturing, the scrambling empty rhetoric, the conceit, the dishonest nudge to the admin that recently blocked him for abuse of administrative powers, which can essentially be summarized as "look at me being victimized here, JamesBWatson, look, look, my edits have a statute of limitations after all you know, I told, I told you, I'm surrounded by axe-grinding Serbs out to get me, who don't even mind bringing up things I did 8 years ago" .... it's all here on sad display. I need to go detoxify myself after taking in this much BS in one sitting.Zvonko (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You have serious issues with the WP:BLP policy if you think that anyone is going to interpret my ancient insistence on the use of the name X Y for a person whom all existing sources call X Y, or else insistence on a smattering of sources attesting otherwise - as an act of anything other than trivial, essential policy enforcement. The amount of assumption of bad faith you're showing here should lead to a ban for yourself, too. --Joy (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Threatening me with a ban is the best you can do, you're getting less and less creative with each post. As explained to you ages ago, by it seems multiple users, the fact that a relative "smattering" of sources refer to Sol Campbell as "Sulzeer", as "Jacobus", Cotton Fitzsimmons as "Lowell", Red Auerbach as "Arnold", Toe Blake as "Joseph Hector"... (and literally hundreds of other examples just to limit it to sports) doesn't mean their first names stopped being what they are and are not worthy of inclusion in their respective bios. Only you see a Serb conspiracy in including Dado Prso's real name in his bio.Zvonko (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not "a Serb conspiracy", it's merely anonymous editors who appear to be interested in promoting an unverified Serbian name claim over the preponderance of verifiable evidence - a glaring violation of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOTHERE... Besides, you didn't appear to even check that Sol Campbell's article now actually has a proper inline citation that verifies that full name to what appears to be a book source. If someone simply did that in the case of Pršo's full name, there would be no problem. Instead you appear to prefer to stand on the sidelines for eight years and then start lobbing insults at me. --Joy (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But they offered you a bunch of references that you all readily dismissed so how's it an 'unverified claim'? And how did AFP become a 'Serbian unverified name claim'!?..... And yeah sorry for not becoming aware of the Dado Pršo issue earlier so that I could have been keeping a vigil for 8 years beside the Dado Pršo article protecting it against angry Croats who kept removing the references. You know how it is, I was too busy plotting your demise for 8 years and I didn't want to blow my cover too soon.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, IIRC they offered a link to a single AFP story that mentions this name. When I asked why wasn't this name mentioned in all the other stories, something that would at least attempt to explain this discrepancy, there was no actual answer.

As for 8 years - well, you brought this up. How did you become aware of it now? --Joy (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, great deflection. You merely asserted that you were misinterpreted in that debate, and that I attacked you in this debate, without providing any actual plausible explanation for anything. Instead, you turned to smearing me with a blatantly flawed argument. And then you have the gall to talk about empty rhetoric. This is true sophistry. --Joy (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Had you actually bothered to read and look into the context of what i wrote there instead of quick-skimming through swathes of text looking for any ammunition that you can remotely cobble together for the purposes of making me into a "disruptive editor cut from the same cloth as Antidiskriminator" all in a pretty pathetic attempt of disqualifying my opinion here only because it doesn't happen to fit into your current needs, you would've perhaps known what I argued for there. PRODUCER (well known all over Misplaced Pages for being a lovely, open-minded, balanced, and all around brilliant guy who is in a well-deserved retirement) wanted the article describing what happened to the Sarajevo Serbs and their property in the immediate hours and days post-Ferdinand-assasination on June 28 and 29, 1914 to be named "Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary", a gross misrepresentation in my opinion both spatially and in terms of the nature of what took place. He went about his goal by framing the discussion from the start as a puerile Google Books hits measuring contest garnered with very creative interpretations of the hits while avoiding at all costs the discussion of the gist of the matter of what it is that took place in Sarajevo in those days and coming up with a suitable name for it based on Misplaced Pages:Name. Several editors, including you followed him along this path while I, among other things, attempted to demonstrate to you all (using extremely clear and simple 4th grade reading level statements of what it is I'm trying to communicate) what an exercise in stupidity this is by offering the sizable number of hit returns for some truly ridiculous terms that definitely do not accurately describe the events yet get some traction. Your concoctions of sinister intent, disruption, or whatever other accusation you're throwing my way make about as much sense as your conduct and reasoning on Talk:Dado Pršo and Dado Pršo, both recent and back in 2006.Zvonko (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we keep this on topic? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus decision of that move discussion (by User:BDD) says clearly that the term "demonstrations" is better and more common in sources than "pogrom" (and then also that "riots" is the best solution). It also says while there wasn't consensus for using the wider geographic scope, there wasn't prejudice to doing so if more content is added. So the two things that the User:PRODUCER proposed to change - he wasn't actually wrong to do so. There was certainly no consensus that it was "puerile", "stupid", or "ridiculous". His initial method wasn't completely precise, because it didn't use quotes in search queries to connect words into phrases, but neither was yours. All you achieved with that flawed argument was to make the discussion that much longer and less focused on building consensus. And with this explanation, it's actually clear that you weren't into it with the necessary assumption of good faith, rather it was just a case of battleground attitude. It's not sinister, but it's definitely disruptive. That you continue to think so badly of your fellow editors is usually a sign that you're not going to become less disruptive when dealing with them in the future. --Joy (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Antidiskriminator's comment here is the same old misrepresentation. No, Joy isn't the only person to have issues with Antidiskriminator's editing; many editors in the Balkans have. (All of whom are "involved", by Antidiskriminator's definition). It's not just over one article either, but swathes of articles; misrepresenting sources, cherrypicking, and systematically reverting other peoples' work - regardless of how well it's sourced - if it doesn't fit a radical Serb nationalist POV. Strangely, Antidiskriminator's "vacation" means that he can't explain those problems here, but he still has free time to edit-war over POV-forks like this (He originally wrote it as "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo", and still talks at length about pogroms, even though it wasn't a pogrom). Some articles have included hoaxes like Serbia's NUTS regions for years - it doesn't matter whether or not these are actual NUTS regions (they aren't); as long as Antidiskriminator is editing, it stays in wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, reverting those anonymous blankings, which are probably work of some long-time abuser evading a block, was the correct immediate course of action on the face of it. This is why this is not a simple complaint. Perhaps you can invest some time to explain why that "Demonisation of the Serbs" draft is a bad idea - since on the face of it, it looks like a well-referenced article in the making... it's not necessarily immediately obvious in what way it is tendentious. --Joy (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: given you proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted the 2012 ARBMAC topic ban on Antidiskriminator, and he has demonstrably engaged in "further tendentious editing on the topic of the Chetniks", I would like your views on the above proposal. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Given what I've just read I'm not sure why we aren't talking about an indef block and community ban. This is exactly the kind of subtle POV pushing that Misplaced Pages needs less (or none) of. --NellieBly (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ezzex

Sorry to escalate this to this board, but rather than edit war, as we are now, and I apologize for that, can an admin please ask this user Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop using the talk pages as a place to voice his views on the subject matter and the state of this project rather than improving the article per WP:SOAPBOX. I will not revert again, since this goes nothing but annoy me, but see and . It would be nice to have these comments redacted. I will go to this user's talk page and let him know about this thread right now. I also used his talk page to ask him to stop as well with little luck or feedback. I know that this might not seem like a big deal, but I really feel that it does poison the atmosphere of the talk page and is why many folks probably avoid this topic area, as I usually do and will probably do so going forward. Again, I will step aside at this point and defer to others. Thank you in advance, --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have informed the authorities here on Wikipedis about what have been going on here the last days. I will not tolerate that users remove my post on a talk page unless it's clearly offensive.--Ezzex (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezzex, you can't accuse the project of "being a tool of Israel" or other comments about the ongoing conflict and who is right or wrong ect, just tone it down a notch, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a reaction to all the israeli sources in the article.--Ezzex (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather than deleting wrong-headed and biased comments, it's better to simply refute them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Or ignore them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that several members and IPs that have written something on my side. All of them have, for unknown reasons, been deleted and the historic hidden by admins.

I will have my say on wikipedia, and refuse to bend to artificial debate-rules (who seams to be created more or less to shut people up). Some seams to be very eager to read these rules, perhaps only to use them as a tool against people they disagree with. I will not read them. They are in my mind more of a straight jacket than help.--Ezzex (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I remind you all that the article is under Arbitration Remedies which includes discretionary sanctions. Editors acting not based on the purpose of Misplaced Pages with edits like "It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap" will find themselves sanctioned. If you are here to pick a fight, you'll be shown the door. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Which it is.--Ezzex (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly important to be able to distinguish between Israeli crap and Hamas crap. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in ARBPIA, it's a revolving door. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezzex - Cognizant of the fact that you have been previously warned on this topic (very recently, according to your talk page), I am going to strongly urge you to make sure that all of your edits on that topic are dedicated to the improvement of the article rather than promulgating or refuting an ideology. If you are incapable of this, my suggestion would be that you disengage from the topic area so as to avoid being blocked, which will likely happen very quickly in an area with discretionary sanctions in place. Go Phightins! 02:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

24.56.15.29 edits to I Wear Your Shirt

I wrote at User talk:24.56.15.29:

Please stop changing "Kelly and Steve Sadler" to "Kelly and Vincent Stein" in the article I Wear Your Shirt, which you did 9 November 2013, 3 January 2014, 3 January 2014 again, 1 June 2014, and 4 July 2014. Your change contradicts the article from The Leader (http://www.webcitation.org/5l7u87VZ1). If you can find a reliable source that verifies that "Kelly and Vincent Stein" are the parents of I Wear Your Shirt's founder, please provide it on Talk:I Wear Your Shirt. Otherwise, further edits like this to I Wear Your Shirt will lead to a block by an administrator. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

24.56.15.29 made the change again at 20:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

I am not posting this at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism because that noticeboard says:

The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.

The user is not active right now.

Would an admin review this and block 24.56.15.29 for a lengthy period of time? 24.56.15.29 appears to be a static IP since the IP has been making the same incorrect edits since November 2013, eight months ago. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If the IP is not active then there is no reason for action. Chillum 06:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP has made the series of incorrect edits to I Wear Your Shirt on the following days: 9 November 2013, 3 January 2014, 3 January 2014 again, 1 June 2014, and 4 July 2014. Although the IP has not been active within the past hour or day, the IP has been used by the same person since 9 November 2013 to make incorrect edits.

I am asking for a lengthy block (perhaps six months) to stop the IP from continuing to vandalize I Wear Your Shirt.

I am frequently inactive for long periods of time, so the IP's subtle vandalism to the article can be uncaught for nearly five months. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't do long term ip block except under the most extreme circumstances. 6 edits over the course of a year does not warrant a 6 month block. If they become active again we can block, though I doubt it will do any good as the person just edits once and goes away for weeks. Just revert and ignore.

I have added the ip's talk page to my watchlist. Chillum 06:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Six subtle vandalism edits by the same person over eight months does warrant a six-month block to protect the encyclopedia. Especially since no constructive edits have been made from the IP.

Watching the IP's talk page does no good. Watching I Wear Your Shirt would be more effective in reverting the subtle vandalism. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps another administrator agrees with you. I do not think it warrants a block at this time. Chillum 13:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave a blunt final warning. Here, I agree with Chillum. If he came back as soon as this week, I might hit it for 2-4 weeks for having 4 vandal edits in 6 weeks, but no way would I jump to six months this early in the abuse cycle. Really an AIV issue. Frustrating, I know, but it is the system we all agreed to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Frustrating, I know, but it is the system we all agreed to. – I did not agree to a system where I'd stand by idly while an IP inserted into an article BLP-violating information (that a person was born to his mother and a man who is not his father).

The reason I requested a lengthy block of the IP was to put a stop to the vandalism edits, one of which was uncaught for five months.

Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) and Chillum (talk · contribs), I will consider the matter resolved if one or both of you watchlist I Wear Your Shirt in case the article is vandalized again to avoid vandalism being uncaught for five months. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've already watchlisted it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for User:Overagainst

Overagainst has been on a crusade to correct what he sees as an incorrect POV in Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, which he believes should be changed to reflect that Van der Sloot did the crime, because, after all, Van der Sloot was convicted of a completely different crime five years later in a different country.

The particular section he is after at this point is is a section summarizing an article in Aruba's largest and oldest newspaper, Amigoe. He has taken it to WP:BLP/N twice, where each time he has failed to gain a consensus that the section relected any BLP problem: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive191#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway.23Amigoe_article was the first. By the time he had taken it to BLP/N a second time, no one would even bother to reply to him any more. It survived an FAR re-review with the section intact. Despite not being able to achieve any consensus that the section contains a BLP violation, he constantly adds tags and removes the section:

This POV issue has been discussed with Overagainst to completely absurd lengths, at the BLP boards, the talk page (Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Side notes, Talk:Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway/Archive 8#'Amigoe article' section and refs 190, 191, Talk:Disappearance of_Natalee_Holloway/Archive 7#Continued from .27Van der Sloot kills in Peru section.27 archived page.

At his own talk page, we have this discussion, where he finally agrees to stop, an agreement he broke a few months later.

The level of ridiculousness this can get to can be found here, where Overagainst argues that we can only describe something as "unknown" if reliable sources describe it as "unknown", not that we can't find a reliable source that claims to know the answer, and here, where he attempts to create his own style for handling the capitalization of Joran van der Sloot and won't listen to anyone with familiarity with Dutch names.

I've pretty much had it. I don't see that having Overagainst involved with Natalee Holloway has any positive results. I'd like to see a topic ban of indefinite duration for Overagainst on any topic related to Natalee Holloway.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes can read those selected old discussions KWW has provided but don't blame me if you feel your time is being wasted by being pointed to that which is difficult to follow and irrelevant.

The issue is very simple, there is a section of the article Amigoe article section that alleges certain discreditable behaviour by Natalle Holloway's mother and stepfather who are alive, thus making the section contentious BLP. The section only draws on one source, so it does not have multiple independent sources. KWW himself brought this up long before anyone else here_

"Renée Gielen subscribes to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production ... he doesn't lie, but can scarcely be accused of neutrality. When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)

I didn't. That is why I was hedging with the "the article states" so many times. A lot of these claims have been floating around the Internet for two years, by the way. Let's see if they gain any currency now. Your edits are fine, I may sand off the rough edges to make it smoother later.--Wehwalt 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article more carefully. Looks like Amigoe is reporting on the source material, the interviews themselves. It does not sound like the film is ready yet. I've rephrased. If you think I'm off base, feel free to edit.--Wehwalt 18:42, 4 July 2007 ".

I think policy is contentious BLP needs multiple independent reliable sources, so I removed the Amigoe article section, giving my grounds in an edit summary each time. KWW keeps putting it back in and saying I am edit warring in his summaries. history."

The specific issue of the Amigoe section was taken by onlooker -George Ho to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard in Nov 2013 and the opinion which you can read here was "I would say that you can't really have a whole section dedicated to an article from a source that introduces new/controversial information without some kind of supporting coverage by other sources. In other words, there is an assertion that the article is notable and merits inclusion, and so that notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)"

I try to take this monosourced BLP section off and KWW puts it back. But an independent source is something beyond a single magazine's (Amigoe) reporting of hearsay in a documentary. Where are his independent sources?.Overagainst (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I love being quoted against myself: Yes, I said "Renée Gielen subscribes to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production ... he doesn't lie, but can scarcely be accused of neutrality. When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)". That's precisely why the section concentrates on the Amigoe's review of the interviews used in preparing for the documentary, which were with people that are widely quoted in numerous sources, not with Renée Gielen, and not with material pertaining to the documentary itself. The material isn't monosourced, and has been largely supported by Vanity Fair interviews. Your trips to the BLP noticeboard have never generated a consensus that the material is a BLP violation. The issue here isn't the section itself. It's that you refuse to listen to or acknowledge any discussion on the article and are apparently attempting to win by simple perseverance as opposed to there being any merit in your position.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Without comment on the merits, I've notified Wehwalt of this discussion as he is being quoted here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: This is one of the worst examples of not dropping the stick I have ever seen. I worked on that article a little bit in the past and remember this user being a problem then. He's STILL at it?? The user's behavior suggests some kind of an obsession and given that I was last involved with that article sometime last year, if he's still at it, yes, time is overdue for the banhammer to drop. Montanabw 22:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Sadly, I don't have time to read deeply enough into this incident to comment just now. A while back, though, (here and here) I looked carefully at User:Kww's and User:Wehwalt's behaviour on that article and found them to be both blatantly violating our BLP policy and lying to newcomers to the talk page about an imaginary consensus "in the archives" supporting their POV. User:AuburnPilot, Wehwalt and Kww are owning that article and really need to be sanctioned for their behaviour there.

I urge !voters here to look very carefully. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering I have made a grand total of 6 edits to the article in the last four years, I'd greatly appreciate an explanation for your claim that I should be sanctioned and diffs pointing to my supposed terrible behavior. Note that only 1 of those 6 edits was content related (relocating a section), while the other four were reverts of vandalism or otherwise less than constructive edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

As for the talk page, I also haven't contributed to the discussion since 02:57, 22 August 2010 with the exception of a single head-banging-against-the-wall-stupid discussion with Overagainst regarding categories and the word "sensationalism" (see here). Note I quickly disengaged when it became apparent I would not be able to have a reasonable conversation with Overagainst. Please do provide some facts for your claims that I should be sanctioned, Anthonyhcole. --auburnpilot talk 02:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Overagainst has always been reasonable. You just don't agree with him. Your behaviour on that article's talk page has been less egregious than the blatant lying User:Kww and User:Wehwalt engaged in (at least I haven't encountered any lying on your part yet - though I haven't read all the archived talk page threads) but you have worked as part of a team to present the victim as a stupid loose slattern who got what she deserved and her mother and step-father in the meanest possible light.

Others thinking of commenting here should make themselves very aware of the background. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody could read the conversation I had with Overagainst and see anything reasonable in his contribution. Again, I ask you to provide facts for your claims. Your statement that I and others have "worked as part of a team to present the victim as a stupid loose slattern who got what she deserved and her mother and step-father in the meanest possible light" is an egregious attack. Please provide diffs to show where I and others have done so. I have spent countless hours contributing in good faith and do not appreciate such a libelous attack on my character and work. --auburnpilot talk 03:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, please do not worry about responding. This bullshit isn't worth my time and I prefer to remain in my happy corner of the project. I refuse to be drawn into such nonsense but sincerely hope your baseless attacks cease. Best, --auburnpilot talk 04:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I started a bit off-kilter admittedly. However, I brought up some legitimate proposed charges for the article in the last several months, because sometimes Wehwalt and/or Kww agreed to a modified agreed version of my proposed change being made to the article. Sometimes they reverted and I had to admit defeat. Sometimes when my edits got reveted other admins came in and insisted what I had removed from article was against policy, and took it out, like here. The discussions turned into into a boring trench war at times, but I can't take all the credit for that and it was no fun being up against 3 admins I can tell you. Anyway, there have been a few changes due to me pointing things out (some of the things removed were IMO indeed open to the interpretation that Natalle was a stupid loose slattern) and the article is better now than when I arrived. Kww, you do not complain that I misrepresent the tenor of your remarks in 2007 about the Amigoe article as a source. A report of what a know-to-be-polemicist documentery maker claims other people said might be permissable as part of the sourcing of a section of contentious BLP, if it was one of a number of sources which were independent of it, but such is not the case.

George Ho took the issue of the Amigoe section to BLP noticeboard, and he tagged the section on the basis of the BLP noticeboard opinion from Free Range Frog. From the section ref 191 "They also indicate that within a day of Holloway being declared missing, a medjet, unauthorized by Aruban authorities, had arrived on Aruba and had remained for several days. They further indicate that, while the purpose of the medjet was not even known to its crew and medical personnel, it was in fact to spirit Holloway off the island if she were found. Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities" the ref for this is 191 "a b c "The other side of the Holloway-case: 'Police Aruba hindered by FBI'". Amigoe. 2007-07-03". How can a jet land without permission, how can any interviewee in a documentary know what was in other peoples minds, and how can a single magazine article reporting on a documentary be sole ref for three seperate contentious BLP accusations being added to a Misplaced Pages article.Overagainst (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that it isn't about the views of the documentary maker, as has been explained to you so many times that the letters are wearing off my keyboard. It's precisely that repetition of misconceptions that you cannot be dissuaded from that makes me believe that you have no place editing the article. The documentary maker interviewed people that are widely considered to be relevant to the case. The documentary maker made the tapes of those interviews available to the oldest newspaper in the country, and that newspaper wrote an article summarizing the statements made by those notable people, not the filmmaker. Here we go again: the oldest newspaper in the country wrote an article summarizing statements made by people widely considered to be relevant to the case. There are no statements by a "polemicist documentery maker" to be found.

George Ho also later removed the tag, and appears to have only placed it there because you were swamping the article talk page with your issue. I've pinged him, and we can see what he says. You should also note that one single opinion by FreeRangeFrog is not a consensus: it's a single opinion by FreeRangeFrog.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When something is BLP and may be challenged the sources have to be better than 'X said they know this is true'. What is presented in the Amigoe section are accusations about the the parents of Natalee. Yes, Amigoe may be a source that some people may have said certain things when interviewed. Going by your characterisation of the documentary filmmaker, he is not unlikely to have made what was said rather stronger statements by editing. Anyway, that things have been alleged does not mean they can be put in an article. There is the added concern that the accusations are making odd claims. How can a jet plane land without permission? How can interviewees have had knowledge of what was on the minds of Natalee's parent's? The interviewees may well have surmised certain things, but that is not good enough for Misplaced Pages to include such BLP speculations, even if Amigoe printed them.Overagainst (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And once again, you demonstrate that you don't read when discussing. The Amigoe did not view the edited documentary and report the results that may have been made "stronger", they reviewed the interviews themselves. If you do not read what people write in response to your statements, there are no discussions, just these endless futile sessions of you repeating the same position constantly.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It was you not I who said the documentary maker subscribed to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production, and was not necessarily neutral. Let us put that issue aside, each BLP allegation traces back to what someone said in an interview for the documentary, which Amigoe reported on. That may be good enough for a news source but not for Misplaced Pages. Can you understand why not everything that appears in a newspaper article about discreditable behaviour by living people gets in the Misplaced Pages article, unless there are other independent sources for it?_Overagainst (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is precisely that you don't read an understand comments that are made to you, which you have just repeated. There is no material in the article which traces to the documentary. None. You've been told that literally dozens of times. Yet, you constantly make arguments related to the neutrality of the person making the documentary. You've been told dozens of times what the Amigoe is, yet you refer to it as a "magazine" above. Ditto for your repeated failure to acknowledge that the interviewed parties have had similar statements quoted in multiple sources. The only conclusion I can reach is that you are not reading any replies, or, if you are, are not actually considering their content. If you do not read and understand the material being discussed, your presence in the discussion serves only to be disruptive.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was too blind and tried to be neutral. However to be honest, before FA review was concluded, I took no sides. After FA review was concluded, I got confused by the whole issue still. Did the reviewer overlook such issue? That's not the point. Somehow, battle between Overagainst and Kww has gotten tiresome, so I stayed out of it. Overagainst pointed out concerns about allegations on the possibly living missing person, but s/he didn't help by removing the content repeatedly. Kww abode to policies regarding verifiability, but... I wonder if the references are reliable. However, the issue regarding the BLP isn't the matter, as well. Regarding Overagainst, I agree that overdue topic-ban must be done now! As for Kww, I don't think he did wrong by re-adding the "controversial" content, which no longer matters. The topic (the disappearance of the missing person) itself was excessively covered by media circus, yet I don't believe that the "missing person" exists. Probably the work of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a he. This is not an ongoing edit war over someone now legally assumed to be dead (Natalee). Some of my proposals have been accepted by Kww and Wehwalt. In some cases other editors (admins) have came in and agreed with me that long-standing things must be removed immediately. Those are improvements that would never have happened but for me concentrating on the article, which I have more or less finished doing. Most of what I asked for I've given up on. I am on to other things now.

The one thing I am still involved with on DoNH is the Amigoe article section. It makes allegations about living people, and my understanding is biography of living persons that contains material that is contentious must be removed if it does not have multiple independent reliable sources. If Misplaced Pages can reproduce allegations about living people simply because a single newspaper has printed them, then I'm wrong to keep trying to take the Amigoe article out. My opponents said in 2007

"When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)

I didn't. That is why I was hedging with the "the article states" so many times. A lot of these claims have been floating around the Internet for two years, by the way. Let's see if they gain any currency now." (Wehwalt).

Well 8 years later, the Amigoe is still the only source for these claims.

WP:BLPSOURCES: "Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Overagainst (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stating your failure to comprehend arguments in bold italics does not improve your comprehension, and simply makes it appear that you are attempting to mislead people that skim the discussion. The allegations made by Renfro and Dompig have been repeated in various forms in multiple sources, and the Amigoe is not now, nor has it ever been, "tabloid journalism".—Kww(talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment & Suggestion: I have been following this for some time after Kww posted it here at AN/I (my only intervention in the article was to restore text from what was clearly an edit-warring situation, ); this discussion also partially interests me since I have read much about Joran van der Sloot in Peru (mostly at the time of his arrest/conviction, due to the contemporary media stories).

That aside, there is clearly an issue here, but the WP:TLDR situation makes it too complicated for anyone to discuss (both in the past and present) or properly assess which side is right or wrong. The contention here is whether information in the article in question meets WP:BLP standards or not. I would recommend that independent experienced editor(s) assess the article (including the "Amigoe" section) and reach their own conclusion on the matter following the guidelines at WP:BLP (this would probably be best achieved at the appropriate noticeboard). As for this request, perhaps the correct action to take here is to recommend all involved editors (mainly Overagainst and Kww) to avoid commenting on the matter (including the article, its talk page, and BLP noticeboard) until the independent evaluation is complete. If both sides agree to this in a friendly matter, then the matter could surely be resolved much quicker and professionally. Otherwise (if this is to become more technical), I would suggest for topic bans to be placed on all involved editors until the independent analysis is complete; anyone breaking the temporary topic ban should then be subject to blocks and so on. Regards.--MarshalN20 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I sympathize, and will try to cooperate. I will point out that this issue is just one of many. Please read my opening statement again. It's not just this. Every issue in which Overagainst engages turns into this kind of thing, where he does not read the response, but simply restates his own erroneous opening position again and again, from wanting to invent capitalization systems to insisting that reliable sources specifically state "unknown" to his argument with AuburnPilot above to his insistence that JvdS should now be treated as guilty to any and every issue he encounters. Things certainly do go TLDR where he's involved and that's the issue. If the result here was to say that other people do have legitimate arguments with the section and Overagainst is topic banned, that wouldn't make me particularly unhappy. The issue I have is that Overagainst repeatedly makes the same easily-refuted argument and never varies from it. I will point out that this particular issue has been taken to BLP/N twice without there ever being a consensus that it has a BLP issue.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

MarshalN20, OK I'll leave it all completely alone. As far as I am concerned it's now for others to decide in whatever noticeboard they think appropriate._Overagainst (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both of you. Considering both of you have accepted this, let me again state (for general awareness) that this is being done under the assumption that any intervention into the topic (while it is being evaluated) will result in another AN/I case (be it for a topic ban or whatever). I hope any uninvolved admin will take action in the future given the accepted agreement by both parties.

The next step is to take this to the WP:BLP/N and (if there are further issues, non BLP related, perhaps an RFC). If you both agree, I can post a neutral statement there for both sides. If this is acceptable, I please request that both sides first make your separate statements at User:MarshalN20/sandbox and use the talk page for discussion. I will then summarize both perspectives and raise it at the aforementioned noticeboard. This is the mediation method that I followed when writing the Falkland Islands article, so hopefully it works again as it did back then. Best regards.--MarshalN20 21:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that I won't work on the individual issue that Overagainst has been harping on recently, I repeat that it isn't the issue I brought to this noticeboard. BLP/N is not the venue to discuss the fact that Overagainst continues to indefinitely grind away at the article. The reason I listed diffs on multiple issues was to demonstrate the pattern. There's a reason I included the phrase "the particular section he is after at this point" in my description. Once this one is past, another will inevitably come up an result in the same interminable repetition.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that Overagainst's tagging and reversions have been disruptive in the article, but the diffs presented mostly relate to the same contentious problem: the Amigoe section. Considering WP:BLP is a very strict policy, there may be some consideration to his actions (assuming good faith). There may not be one either, but we don't know since the WP:BLP/N hasn't decided anything on the case. Overagainst above indicates he is willing to abide by the suggestion and avoid the article & discussion while an independent party of experienced editors analyzes the WP:BLP case. If it turns out that you are right, then the matter should be over (and any further disruptive editing on the subject would result in a very quick topic ban by the community). Regards.--MarshalN20 23:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As it stands now, the majority of editors whose opinions can be counted are in favor of a topic ban now (myself, George Ho, Montanabw, and Auburn Pilot). I discount Anthonyhcole's unsubstantiated personal attack as just that. I think you have misread the diffs if you see this issue as any more than an example of misbehaviour rather than the primary misbehaviour. I'll cooperate with the discussion, but would hate to see this discussion close when it is running something like 4:1 in favor of a topic ban.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On my "unsubstantiated personal attack":

• Regarding Kww and Wehwalt being liars, the substantiation is here (also linked above). It's a bit of a read, but, essentially, when new editors came to the article's talk page over the years, asking why it was named Natalee Holloway instead of the usual "Disappearance of ..." formulation, Kww and Wehwalt both repeatedly misled them that there is an existing consensus in favour of the former - when they both knew it was a lie.
• Regarding these editors' contempt for the victim and her mother and step-father, these things are hard to establish in one or two diffs, but take a look at this thread (linked above), which began with User:Newyorkbrad deleting a prurient intrusion into the later divorce of the victim's mother and step-father, Kww reverting him, and me reverting Kww; or this thread, where User:MastCell describes their focusing on the perceived sexual promiscuity of a female victim of violent crime as repugnant. Kww and Wehwalt are agenda-driven.

Regarding a topic ban for Overagainst: although his arguments have sometimes been weak, in those threads I've followed, his instincts about the behaviour of the named editors and about respect for living and recently-deceased people have been spot-on. I haven't read into the Amegoe issue that triggered this attempt by Kww to shut down an argument, but on its face there does seem to be a serious weight problem, and I hope, as others have asked above, that someone with brains and time will have a good look at it.

There has been serious misbehaviour on that article - misrepresenting consensus and repeated breaches of our BLP policy - by at least two admins. We all know what a time-sink it will be to properly resolve that, though, and I'm obliged to just let it ride because I can't afford the time just now. But if one of the perpetrators manages to have Overagainst - a genuinely neutral editor - banned from the article, I'll have no choice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

1. I always said that there was "no consensus to move", not that there was a consensus not to move. You've been around long enough to know the difference, and to know that in both cases, no move occurs.
2. Your mischaracterization of language surrounding a no-fault divorce was vile when you did it the first time, is vile now and will continue to be vile into the future.
3. Your mischaracterization of me as a "perpetrator" is no less vile.

As for the remainder of your complete misprepresentation of events, my intentions, the article, other editors, I will take George Bernard Shaw's advice.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus to move. Until 20 October 2008, everyone who expressed an opinion about the title in an RM, AFD, or talk page thread, except you three owners, supported moving it to "Disappearance of...", and you were involved in most of those discussions, so you knew the score. List of those who spoke in support of the move up to 20 August 2008 (details and links here):

• User:DejahThoris
• User:KimvdLinde
• User:Grandmasterka
• User:User:Thivierr
• User:SqueakBox
• User:Crockspot
• User:Jmh123
• User:Edison
• User:SesameRoad
• User:Dystopos
• User:Robofish
• User:Dhartung
• User:Dougie WII
• User:Cuchullain
• User:J Milburn
• User:HisSpaceResearch
• User:Mira Gambolputty
• User:Moonriddengirl
• User:Avb
• User:Brewcrewer
• User:Baseball Bugs
• User:AjaxSmack
• User:Sceptre
• User:Karanacs

And yet, on that date you told User:Ilse@, "The naming has been discussed multiple times before, and the consensus has been to leave it here.

In one of the AfD discussions you said, "Bad faith nomination by someone who's attempts to rename the article against consensus were reverted twice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Guilty of misphrasing twice in the last eight years. Mea culpa. Doesn't rise to "blatant liar", nor does it excuse the rest of your distortion. Your list above includes numerous editors that never came to the article talk page, and neglects to mention that the AFD was a bad faith nomination by someone that had moved it twice and was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:WatchingYouLikeAHawk. All of these little details you leave out in order to make it look like I'm an evil twisted being.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus to move. You knew it. You lied about it. More than twice. Shall I list all the times you told people there was no consensus for a move? I can do that if you like. And then I'll focus on your (plural) breaches of BLP. If you'd like this to play out. If you drop this for now, I will. I have other stuff to do. But if you want this to continue, I'll carry on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line I see from reading further into the discussion (including the long history of it, based on the presented diffs & the talk page archives) is that this is a dispute between groups of editors rather than just individuals. The animosity clearly is beyond the content of the article in question, and the attempts at communication simply ooze out so much anger that it's not surprising barely any outside editors want to deal with this kind of problem. I don't think even trying to understand why this faction war is taking place will help; at this point it's just arguing for the sake of hating each other's guts.

The clear conclusion here is that neither side is innocent of misbehavior. If both of you want to go down to practicalities (without sugar-coating any of the events), then, yes, Wehwalt was misleading in his comment about the article title consensus, and Kww was wrong in stating that there was a consensus when there was none. Their side of the dispute has also been very blunt and uncooperative when it comes to having some heart for a missing (probably deceased) girl and her living family, and there has been some considerable article ownership problems. As for the other side, the intention is generally to anger the other users and take discussions into long, boring, and unreadable lengths; and that's without forgetting to point out the blatant uncivil name-calling (although the insults are bilaterally flowing, some more sophisticated than others). This side of the dispute is characterized by being overly sensitive about the victim and her family, and very much against Joran van der Sloot. At the end of the day, all of your discussions apparently turn into battlefields, and all of you end up looking like a bunch of jerks and cynics.
If you want to resolve this issue professionally, all of you seriously need to disengage not just from the article but also from each other. You've all placed yourselves in a position where the boomerang will strike, some harder than others. Please write all you need to write at User:MarshalN20/sandbox, and allow me to take this to WP:BLP/N so that uninvolved editors can have a proper analysis of the case. Kww and Overagainst have already added material into it, which is a good sign from their part, but further contributions are still welcome. While ultimately this places the outcome of the situation out of your hands, further disruptive editing and antagonism is only going to take the lot of you to WP:ARBCOM; and whatever ends up happening there is about as dangerous and random as being forced to play Russian roulette. Take your pick. Regards.--MarshalN20 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm not opposed to the topic ban, and Overagainst certainly has done enough to bring that upon himself at this point; however, if the editor is willing to cooperate and allow third-party editors to analyze the article, I cannot support it either. I'd willing to support this if editors at the WP:BLP/N had reached a consensus and Overagainst disrupted the article against such a consensus. Regardless of how this turns out, I'm still willing to help out clear up the matter at the BLP noticeboard. That said, I enjoyed reading the article (not so much the talk page, but overall well worth it). Regards.--MarshalN20 01:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Kww's complaint above says, The level of ridiculousness this can get to can be found here, where Overagainst argues that we can only describe something as "unknown" if reliable sources describe it as "unknown". Elsewhere, Kww takes the opposite position, edit-warring without consensus to remove material on the grounds that the sources don't specify "unusual" with exactly the wording that he seems to require. This therefore seems to be a case of WP:POT and so I oppose the proposed topic ban unless it applies to all such ridiculous reasoning. Andrew (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mondolkiri1

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

Mondolkiri1 (talk · contribs) has twice added completely off-topic material to Talk:The War Against the Jews. Please note that the material he keeps adding has nothing to do with the subject of the article, the book The War Against the Jews (1975). I originally contacted the user and had a discussion with them on their talk page about the problem. The user speaks English as a second language, and I thought we had solved the problem, however, they have not only restored the off-topic discussion, but they have expanded it! I am bringing this to the attention of the wider community because I feel I have done everything possible to address the problem per WP:NOTAFORUM. I can't imagine any scenario where this material should remain on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I left the user a strongly worded note. He clearly stated that his content on the article talkpage is not about the topic of the article. DMacks (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. Even though the user has admitted the material is completely off-topic and has nothing to do with the subject, unbelievably, the user has ignored my warnings, ignored your warning, ignored this ANI thread, and has just added the material to the talk page again. Please, can we get a block on User:Mondolkiri1 to prevent this ongoing disruption? The user has had many chances to change his behavior and has refused. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Level-4 warned for disruption. Leave a note here but please let someone else handle the cleanup the next step if he re-posts it so he can't complain about it just being you vs he edit-warring on that article. DMacks (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ricky81682 looked at more history than I did and dropped the hammer. Looking myself now, I agree with that and his reasoning. DMacks (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's indefinite which everyone knows doesn't mean permanent. Semi-legal threatening edits like this to very benign edits shows a lack of emotional competency for being here and it's not worth our time to deal with that. I pointed the editor to the systemic bias stuff so he sees the proper way to channel his focus. If he acknowledges my point, feel free to consider reversing it but now is not the time for people inflaming stuff for no reason (as if there is a time for that). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to appeal on behalf of Mondolkiri1. He is a good editor at heart, if a little dense at times. Many of his problems come from the language barrier. Nevertheless, he does make good edits, and I find an indefinite block incredibly harsh. I really don't think that the warning templates were an appropriate way to explain to him what he was doing wrong. He didn't someone tell him properly, not just throw a template around. Given the language barrier, warning templates are really vague and unhelpful. As far as "legal threats", it is quite clear that that was a misunderstanding and not any kind of "legal threat". How can editors be expected to contribute if the policies as such are not explain? The idea of blocking him indefinite outright seems wrong. I could understand a week-long block, or whatever, but indefinite is just too much. You fellows need to assume good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support an unblock provided he stop engaging in FORUM-like banter. He has attempted to say as much on his talk page, but I'm not sure he understands the problem. Maybe you could help him with the unblock request. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mine was a custom-written non-warning-template message. It spoke with links in simple language (I think), directly and with use of his own phrases to avoid confusion. He may be a good editor at times, but if he's not willing to collaborate constructively and/or yield to community norms, this is not the place for him. I would not object to an unblock request that specifically addresses the article talkpage problem and his plan to avoid repeating it (but I'm not prepared to override the blocking admin on my own). DMacks (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock granted. I hope I provided some helpful direction. As I said before, indefinite is not permanent but there wasn't really a time period that made sense (especially when there was week in between editing) to me if he didn't acknowledge the issues. At the same time, jumping into extremely tense subject-matter with such aggression and vitriol is not helpful and requires the utmost in collaboration skills. To be honest, you either get it or you don't (and he's been here for months so you should get an idea of why that's not appropriate). I didn't think a short-timed block without knowing that he truly has the right reasons for being here would have accomplished much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeetpal Yadav

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

Article Jeetpal Yadav was nominated for Misplaced Pages:CSD#R2, after reviewing the references and quality of the article I revised it to Misplaced Pages:CSD#A7. But the contributer of that article removed the CSD even after several warning. For the same I informed him on his talk page and even on the talk page of the article, but he not responded me anywhere. It is requested that please see the case. As well as the rights given to @VQuakr: is questionable since he moved the article without reviewing it. Thank you! CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 13:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor also removed the BLPPROD even though it was suitably placed. I've replaced this. Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly it was a perfectly good CSD:A7 (no claim of notability) and so I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Followup note: I have just blocked the editor in question, Yadavjeetpal, as not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia; he has continued to insert his name into articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tigreroar

• Tigreroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• reallynicehomes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Self-promotional spam related to a real estate website (reallynicehomes.com). As for the edit into his user page (done this night and deleted per G11 after my tag), it seems that the user is an agent (or a director) working for this society. Well, after a promotional edit in 2008 (warned) he did nothing more still this night. After this "strange" edits about Julio "Koko" Sosa, he created its user page with that promo and added a promo link to that site into Clarksburg, Maryland. Two notes:

• Note 1: In 2008 user was warned for promo also for the article The Real Estate Roundtable. This edit doesn't appears within user contribs but, reading article's history It seems that the chronology was completely cleaned up on December 30, 2009.
• Note 2: I've searched about the death of Julio "Koko" Sosa and found nothing, apart this post in which appears a surname that reminds me to the one read this night on User:Tigreroar. Anyway, seeing again the "strange" edit on Sosa's article and following YouTube link, I found a surprise: uploader's nick has "that" surname and, below, you can read: visit us here: www.ReallyNiceHomes.com... And this could explain why only this edits were without a link to that site.

IMHO, the self-promo usage of Misplaced Pages seems to be clear. I would suggest also the possibility to add this website into the blacklist. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Added to spam blacklist. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 05:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• You've already given them a final warning, they don't have that many edits, 3 this year (2 obvious spam, one with subliminal spam). If they do it again, you can ask any admin to block but I'm inclined to just leave it alone and see what they do next. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, I'll watch in case of reiterate spam. Greets. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mario252

Hello I come here, because really this case is a bit complicated, you mentioned falls in constant edit wars only for wanting to add irrelevant information. Try to explain in discussion and just ignore the messages that leave you, I'm starting to believe that this is WeirdPsycopath locked user, since the two accounts edited in the same way, at least not quite understand how to request a verification of account.

Diff

• Lo que la vida me robó: Your issue is irrelevant in this article, I explain in their discussion and what all it does is ignore my messages
• His only edit summary in the article "Lo que la vida me robó" these have been: Relevant information for Erika Buenfil (Televisa). Jorge Horan, Chema, Milán...¿Quién eres tu?
• Osvaldo Benavides, This money all content, giving in your edit summary "irelevant informations
• Mi corazón es tuyo, This article also try to do the same

About the article "Lo que la vida me robó" explain it 2 times and the only thing the user does is ignore my messages. Do not know which is the problem of this person, but at all attempts to communicate or reach consensus on anything.--Damián (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I also want to add this message left by WeirdPsycopath in discussing Mario . I also add the user deletes the messages left for me, because I do not know why or why you do this.--Damián (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the blocked editor User:WeirdPsycopath is the same person as User:Mario252. Same style of editing and the same interests. Caden 00:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have time to fully investigate, but if you look at this: , you see all the articles they have in common, which is extraordinary considering how few edits Weird has. Find two edits in one of those articles where they are doing exactly the same thing, or helping each other edit war, you likely have a winner when combined with other factors. Old fashioned SPI investigating stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they are the same person, because it is very strange that both defend the same point. What is clear that this person brings days falling in edit wars, ignores messages are left in their discussion which was also WeirdPsycopath and even delete messages from your discussion to erase any evidence, it is clear that the user reads all messages that have been left in their discussion, but ignored. I've reversed several articles and even I explained that revierto editions, but it does not seem to care.--Damián (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This editor rarely uses an edit summary and has ignored repeated requests (even one from me in English and Spanish) that he engage in discussion regarding his contested edits. We know he is aware of these requests because he regularly deletes them from his user talk page. He has made 342 edits to article space but none to article talk space. Perhaps a topic ban is in order if he is unwilling to engage in discussion? Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Damián80 filed a report at WP:AN3. They didn't notify Mario of the report. No one has notified Mario of this report. I know Mario deletes everything put on his talk page, but still ... I've notified him of both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer not to leave messages on your discussion, because simply ignores and deletes.--Damián (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Preference or not, it's a requirement. I prefer not to pay taxes, but sadly... the panda ₯’ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Mario252 for edit warring. No prejudice to this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User Blackjack

Continuation of disruptive activity by a SPA account

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

User:Djmex9205 is a SPA account that has been causing disruption at Motion picture rating system. Their conduct was reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive250#User:Djmex9205 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 48 h) where they received a 48 hour block.

Another SPA account was registered today as User:RazorShotter and has yet again installed the same disruptive and unsourced edit at the same article: . This edit was followed by an act of vandalism just 20 minutes later by the original SPA, Djmex9205, which was reverted by a Cluebot. The editors are clearly one and the same, since they enclose their edit summaries with the same typography i.e. /* Comparison */

I don't think this editor is here to serve any useful service so please will someone disable both accounts permanently, and perhaps put the article under semi-protection to prevent further disruption by SPAs. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"/* Comparison */" is the name of the sub-section they're working on. That's a default edit summary. They're edit-warring over the color of a rating tag? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Last week, Djmex was edit warring with the bot. I'm starting to think there is a CIR issue at hand. I don't definitive reasons to think RazorShotter same person, although the slightly paranoid first edit to their own talk page is odd and they may know each other. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell from the diffs, but there is a clear explanation at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#US_PG_rating. Basically what they were initially doing (and what the new SPA has continued doing) is installing an age restriction on the American PG rating that does not exist. The MPAA does not stipulate an age restriction for the PG rating at all (the PG-13 rating is a separate rating and already accounted for in the table). The MPAA source is provided in the article itself and at the discussion on the talk page. Since then they have started adding false summaries to the guidelines, and in the most recent edit they have changed one of Mexico's color bars so it contradicts Mexico's age rating guidelines. This isn't a content dispute, these are edits that flat-out contradict the age rating summaries and their sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked both, the diffs made it clear, plus behavior. Socking, CIR, WP:DE, etc. Too much coincidence here, socking is the only possible answer. I tried to see them as just "friends", but in the end, the behavior is just too similar. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and semi-protected one month as well, since obviously they are willing to sock to introduce that info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

Hi I am Tamravidhir. I have a problem and the problem which I am facing is that there is this article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, which is an article on an Indian soap opera. Bade Achhe Lagte Hain is a Hindi phrase. It's difficult to make a direct translation, but the phrase vaguely means "looks too nice". The thing is that I have made major edits to this article. In fact its the article which has been most edited by me. I have added some useful information, kept in mind that "Michelangelo created David by cutting out what was not David" and kept the plot short and blah blah and blah. And what should be mentioned is that I have added extensive references to reliable sources such as articles published by national newspapers. And now there is a user known as TheRedPenOfDoom who has always dismissed the article saying that the references cannot be accepted "as per Misplaced Pages guidelines" and has been keeping on deleting the information which has no reference. I have almost ended up doing an edit war. This user is the only user with whom I have had terrible experiences. Now, after a break the user has come back and is again deleting information. Firstly, the soap opera aired at 10:30 pm so that means that it is late evening, and there's even a reference regarding the time slot but he says that: You may NOT keep reinserting your personal interpretations of "sporadic" or "very late" without providing a reliably published source that verifies the claim.

Except this there is also an info which says that the soap opera's broadcast on Thursdays in 2014 was sporadic. The user again says that there is no reference so he or she has been deleting the info. I guess that there is a "citation needed" tag which I have add now. But I have seen many article without references or such tags in the lead paragraph. For instance, the article The Simpsons and there are more, such as How I Met Your Mother and Muhteşem Yüzyıl. And I don't know why the user is always up to prove me wrong! He or she is somewhat engaged in WP:BITE.

And this is not ending by a healthy discussion. And the biggest problem is that we have discussed the matter in our personal talk pages and note the article talk page. The is very dominating, dogmatic and adamant. It will lead to something terrible after which I would have to take a long break and come back later (now I think that I would have to). I don't want that to happen. So I want help. Please help me. I would also like you to know what another user has written on his talk page:

I saw what you did at Supriya Pathak. I asked you nicely but you took it on your ego and vented your frustration by blanking more sections of the page. If you really want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced info then why don't you give some time to other editors so that they can properly add sources. You are clearly discouraging other editors who are still learning like me. You just want to be superior to others. First you want sources and when you are provided with them, you call them bad and unreliable. You should be encouraging people but it seems like you are on a mission to prove something. Sorry for my this behavior but you kind of disappointed and demoralized me today...

And this is true. I am not hatching a plot against the mentioned user, but just expressing my views and opinions and begging for help. Help this poor user! Please I need a help! The user is just not understanding. There has to be my fault but what the user is doing is also wrong and s/he is not understanding it. S/he just boasts about Misplaced Pages rules even if he doesn't know how to properly use and implement them. Please help me. I will be more than grateful to you!Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tamravidhir: this appears to be a content dispute. Please follow the steps at WP:DR. I see you have added a "citation needed" tag, but this is to show unsourced content and not to replace a citation. Additionally, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - just because one article is lacking in sources does not mean every other article on Misplaced Pages needs to go down the slippery slope of less and less sources. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, Tamravidhir, once an editor has challenged information as untrue, no editor can restore that data without providing an inline citation that directly supports the information being provided. Tags do not suffice. In general, attracting TheRedPenofDoom's attention can be an unpleasant experience, but in these matters he is typically right. Material needs sources, and your opinions about what constitute "sporadic" or "late" require citations to support your characterizations.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The only "complaint" I have about TRPoD is that he hasn't taken Tupac Shakur (back) to good article status yet. Other than that, this looks like a content dispute. Ritchie333 21:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom is blunt but a very knowledgeable and capable editor. If he is removing sections, odds are very good that policy is on his side when removing it. I suggest taking a different tact and engaging him, learn from him. Much of that cut info may be able to be restored if it was properly sourced, so your best chance for success is working with him, and don't work against him. Just ask "why is it removed, and if I sourced this, would it make sense to put it back?", and accept his answers for now. I know this is difficult at first, but it has some very good rewards if you do. He isn't unreasonable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Doritoqueen

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

Check his/her/its contribs: all blatant (and rather uncreative) vandalism. He/she/it is ignoring vandalism reversions, so a block ought to give us some peace. EDIT: Looks like that's a bit too late. Damn, you guys are efficient. Baconfry (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:User340 and TrueCrypt

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

Hi.

We have a problem with User340 (talk · contribs): He is engaged in gaming the system and bludgeoning the process in TrueCrypt article. He nominated the article for deletion on the ground having lost notability because of discontinuation, which is nonsense per WP:NTEMP. But apparently, 9 people having unanimously said so in the deletion discussion isn't enough. He has twice reverted the closure of the AfD instead of taking it to the review venue.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to create this report, but Lisa beat me to it. I note that this is an WP:SPA account where the users only actions are to nominate this article for deletion - and they did so manually, not via twinkle - an amazing level of sophistication for a brand new user (/sarcasm) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly a returning user coming back with a single purpose account. It would benefit everyone if a close eye was kept on this account. Chillum 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And they reverted the close again. Can someone protect those pages and block him so we can move on with real work? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely with the understanding that they can be unblocked if they agree to stop undoing the close and head to WP:DRV if they believe the close was improper. The block can last 30 seconds or forever, the ball is in their court.--Jezebel'sPonyo 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Actually, this is not the first heavy-handed destructionist treatment of TrueCrypt article. I believe a CU would be very much surprised by checking up User:User340. So, I'm not really sure forgiving so rapidly would be a good idea. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm doubting you Codename Lisa, but you need to provide diffs of previous similar activity. Just noting that there has been previous disruption in an article with 1,791 revisions and 747 authors isn't particularly helpful.--Jezebel'sPonyo 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, Ponyo; you are right. Please see Special:Contributions/TrueCryptEnding and Special:Contributions/Truecrypt-end. (Don't worry, they are short.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, User340 is a sock of Truecrypt-end. I've modified the block to reflect as such and tagged the account.--Jezebel'sPonyo 19:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Two involved admins on MH17 article

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

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Reedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned with the behavior of two admins on the MH17 article. Reedy created the article and has edited it extensively. However, when IPs were adding Russian sources, Reedy removed those sources saying "remove russian links", "removed load of russian refs", and "Russian references are useless on an english site". Despite other editors continuing to use Russian sources, which is appropriate per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Quoting_non-English_sources and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, Reedy then protected the article and violated WP:INVOLVED.

Despite the clear evidence of being involved, Ymblanter, who has also edited extensively on the article, has threatened another user with a block for pointing out Reedy's misbehavior. When I pointed that out to Ymblanter, he made a accusation against me w/o evidence. WP:NPA requires that serious accusations require serious evidence. I've laid that evidence out for Ymblanter, he failed to do so for me. He has since redacted that remark. But the issue of the threats and involved-ness remain.--v/r - TP 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just bullshit. Get any evidence that I have broken any policies and then come back here. Concerning the accusation you have yourself some time ago admitted that you have been involved in paid editing. I have never ever been involved in anything close to paid editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you or are you not removing Russian-language sources from this article? If so, why? Non-English references are perfectly valid and always have been. While I can see some argument against using certain sources pending verification in an article that's about a developing news story, that they're Russian-language sources is not a valid one on its own. As to page protection, I see no reason why this article should be indefinitely semi-protected. Even if semi-protection were warranted, it should be for a definite period. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed twice a link to youtube which was posted as a proof that DNR separatists shot the plane down. (For the record I do believe that they did, it is just youtube is not a RS, and the movie did not even say this explicitly, it just showed a smoke column nd nothing else).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv - As far as I know, Ymblanter has not removed Russian sources. Only Reedy has done that. Ymblanter has only threatened to block users for pointing out what Reedy has done.--v/r - TP 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood; got it backwards. My apologies to Ymblanter for addressing comments to him that should have been addressed to Reedy. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, not for pointing this out, but for persistently calling it vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like one of the admins thinks he owns the article. See my comments elsewhere about protecting it. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The protection of the article was entirely necessary - even protected, edits like this have occurred, and given the evident lack of understanding of elementary Misplaced Pages policies, I have no doubt that protecting the article is the only way to prevent it descending into chaos. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi protect is not necessary for current events articles because there are an overwhelming number of eyes on an article to protect it from vandalism. If only a couple of incidents can be shown, then vandalism is not that serious on this article. --v/r - TP 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

TParis, having been involved with the editing of multiple rapidly-developing incidents involving large numbers of contributors, I can assure you that semiprotection is necessary if even a semblance of conformity with policy is desired - there is no way that experienced contributors can keep up with the level of editing otherwise. Take a lok at the edit history, and ask yourself how long it takes to check each edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. So, the reason for indefinitely protecting it was mostly laziness. Current event is going to be unclear for a while. Felt easiest. Please feel free to revert/change/whatever it. As for removing of the Russian references; it was a mistake on my part. And once brought to my attention that it was actually allowed (I had it in my head that it wasn't really), I stopped. They might be necessary to have un-biased article, but also when you have a conflict in the geographical area.. One blaming the other? Also, semi-protecting a page isn't going to stop a user with an established account editing, is it? Reedy (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FYI, this section seems to be under DE per WP:ARBEE. If people can't play nice with each other here, short term topic bans will be handed out --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reedy - that seems like a reasonable response and I would've been happy to wait for you to give it had I not been concerned about blocks being handed out prompting my urgency. Thanks for responding. I won't remove the protection, I'm now part of this dispute and another uninvolved admin has said that he would protect it himself. So I'll just keep my hands off.--v/r - TP 18:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't protect. This kind of article needs multiple eyes and multiple edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection is a very very good idea here and should've been done as soon as the article was created. As far as the removal of sources goes, it looks like simply removing of non-reliable source which happened to be Russian. They were removed because they were not RS, not because they were Russian. The admins are not involved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There you go. I've just registered, but I can't edit it (yes, I know why!). This is crap. It's a fast moving article that has the potential to attract new editors, but no. The anti-IP brigade have moved in to lock it down for the usual spurious reasons. Well done! UniversalBowman (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the kind of IP editors that this article will attract is precisely the kind that Misplaced Pages does not need.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

At this moment, there is no reliable source that can tell us what happened to the plane, other than the obvious - that it crashed in eastern Ukraine. There are plenty of theories and accusations being thrown around, of course. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

High profile recent events are often left unprotected to allow for editing by a wide swath of interested parties. (For example, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was unprotected for all but about 27 hours during the first three months after that crash.) This comes at a cost of some vandalism, but because of the high profile that vandalism is usually resolved within minutes. Of course, if things get bad then protection is appropriate (usually for a short duration initially). It's a balancing act, obviously. I looked at this history of the article prior to semiprotection, and I don't personally see much there to recommend protection. The most persistent dispute seems to involve the use of Russian language references to support some material. As noted above, such references are allowed though not preferred if an English alternative exists. I don't see why that dispute can't be resolved by discussion. There were also some low quality links added and removed (e.g. travel sites, youtube), but that's not a huge problem. And, of course any true vandals can and should just be blocked, though there don't seem to have been many. More significantly, Reedy was both the creator of the article, involved in the dispute about Russian references, and the one who protected the article. Notwithstanding the issue of Russian language references, Reedy appears to have generally been helpful as an editor. That said, I do think it was inappropriate for him to also act as an admin and make the decision about protection. He was very involved in the article and should have let someone else handle it. If it were me, I would have left it unprotected for now. Dragons flight (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above "Don't protect. This kind of article needs multiple eyes and multiple edits.". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a different situation. Highly politized article, international conflict, paid international internet commentators, propaganda war, crazy IPs, scores of banned users returning as sock puppets, history of persistent disruption on ALL Ukrainian-conflict related articles...... like I said, semi-protection is a very very very good idea here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully support semi-protection. We'll still have plenty of eyes on the article, and much less of the noise Volunteer Marek refers to. OhNoitsJamie 19:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You've both got it right. This kind of article has potential to be a mine field, a troll magnet. Let's try to make Misplaced Pages look savvy about things. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the policy , so kindly explain how this article is exempt. UniversalBowman (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, protection should be reactive rather than preemptive. Using protection because bad things might happen, runs counter to the culture of openness that Misplaced Pages should strive for. As I said above, in looking at the edit history prior to protection, I don't see much evidence of issues that the semiprotection would prevent. In particular, a second look showed that most of the anonymous edits prior to protection were fine (with some exceptions). So, we have thrown out several productive anons for the sake of maybe a couple bad ones. Not a good trade, in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted by others, this article is a breaking-news event and a part of the Ukraine-Russia hot-button topic area. It is bad enough when just one of those situations are present, but when 2 intersect there is no harm in a little extra security for a few days. If an IP editor or a non-autoconfirmed editor have legitimate editing suggestions, they cna be be made via request at the article talk page. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Should users be threatened with blocks for questioning it by an involved admin?--v/r - TP 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: I am reacting for the second time, in case you missed the first one up the thread: I threatened with the block not for questioning the protection, but for repeatedly calling it vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your threat "No. If you continue to persist, I am going to block you per WP:NOTTHERE." followed this comment, "Reedy (talk · contribs) made this page protected. I suppose it is just because of the fact that it was him, he is now the protecting admin. Can the protecting admin be changed?". Please tell me where the accusation of vandalism was in that comment that caused you to threaten a block.--v/r - TP 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The same user posted several comments accusing Reedy in vandalism. Note that after I threatened them with the block, they stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a new user wouldn't understand our very Misplaced Pages-centric definition of vandalism. To someone on the outside, removing content that complies with policy without reason would be considered vandalism. It's only here that we make a distinction between intent. Vandalism is an appropriate term to the outside world. You should have explain what vandalism means here rather than threaten them with a block. Especially since you were involved in editing. Reaching for the block button should be a last resort.--v/r - TP 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I just said elsewhere (accidentally): Ok, hang on. A new editor tries some edits, has them reverted. They think that's considered vandalism (because many new editors do think that). They get threatened with a block for still calling it vandalism, even though nobody thought to tell them the Misplaced Pages definition of vandalism. Have I got this right the panda ₯’ 21:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Riza1234

Riza1234 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been repeatedly changing information at beauty pageant-related pages specifically Miss Universe 2014 where the user continuously changes sourced information to unsourced incorrect information despite receiving numerous warnings. In addition to this, the user has created unsourced biography pages for beauty pageant contestants with false information claiming that they won pageants that they in fact have not (ex. Nadine Stroitz). The user ignores all warnings they have received and continues to vandalise pages. Also, the user has previously uploaded several images with false or missing copyright information. { } 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and appointment of Catholic bishops

Currently affected articles:

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainer Woelki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archbishop of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Current discussions:

• Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne#Woelki has not yet been installed and is not archbishop of Cologne until that time
• User talk:Elizium23#Archdiocese of Cologne

Users involved:

• Jamesbondfan (talk · contribs)
• Aa75253 (talk · contribs)
• 124.150.17.249 (talk)

Past discussions and affected articles are available on User talk:Elizium23#Appointment of Catholic Bishops. The chronic problem here on Misplaced Pages is that Catholic bishops are put into their offices before their installation dates. This is analogous to a Presidential Inauguration, in that the bishop does not have possession or control of the diocese before that time that he takes it. Unfortunately, the news media makes a lot of noise when the appointments happen, and less when the installations occur, and so the tendency is to report the news as if it has already happened. Further complicating matters are unreliable sites such as gcatholic.org and catholic-hierarchy.org which don't make the distinction. This is an intractable problem because it is spread out over many articles, over a long period of time, and many editors who aren't regulars. There aren't enough regulars available to patrol here as I've tried at least twice on WT:CATHOLIC to generate consensus. The last straw for me, which brings me here today, is a profanity-laden accusation of vandalism and personal attack by Jamesbondfan. Quite unnecessary and over-the-top. I have always sought to uphold policy and be civil in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In your first example, at least, it says so-and-so "2014-present". I assume what you mean is that it's some later date in 2014. Maybe if the specific date were given, it would clarify things. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The mention of a future bishop does not belong in infoboxes, lists, or succession boxes, or otherwise portrayed as current in the article. It's fine to talk about the appointment in the article prose. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous for a space that's supposed to list incumbent officers to include a future date? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What is being added is most absolutely not "speculative or unconfirmed" data. That's what WP:CRYSTAL refers to, not the misplacing of data - and that's all this is. The editors merely misunderstood the difference between the announcement date of an installation and the installation date itself. I don't agree with expletive-ridden replies, but you wouldn't have got one if you'd explained the issue to Jamesbondfan instead of templating him with a completely inaccurate template. Again, the problem here is not that the information was speculative: there was an official announcement. --NellieBly (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would prefer, I can use the "factual error" template to be added, because this adding to lists and infoboxes as "already in office" is plain inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How about if you enter the date the guy is scheduled to start the job? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what i did! i translated the cologne release into english and that's what i got! --Jamesbondfan (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)--Jamesbondfan)

It shows Woelki as the current officeholder. Is that correct? Or is the previous guy still in there? Or is it technically "vacant" at present? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Code of Canon Law: Diocesan Bishops; Code of Canon Law: The Vacant See. It's presently sede vacante. What happens is that the outgoing bishop tenders his resignation to the Holy See and it's accepted nunc pro tunc (now for later) and he continues as bishop while a search is undertaken. Then the appointment of the new bishop is announced, and typically this goes together with the acceptance of the outgoing bishop's resignation. At that point the see is vacant. The incoming bishop retains his previous post and his title of e.g. "Archbishop of Berlin" but his powers are limited to that of a diocesan administrator. See also, Appointment of Catholic bishops. Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So if the guy has not actually assumed his new duties yet, then the article should say "pending" or some such. Like a newly-elected US President is the "President-elect" until he assumes office on January 20. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox reflect the actual state of matters instead of a future one? Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The article should state, somewhere within it, that so-and-so is scheduled to take office later this year. Currently it doesn't, and if you just say "vacant" in the infobox, without an explanation, the article is uninformative. The explanation you gave above, about how it works, should be incorporated into the article as a generic explanation, and then add the name of the guy who is the "pending" officeholder. Then it becomes informative. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the news can be discussed in the article prose. I have never opposed that. But I don't see the point of cluttering up what is supposed to be a current, factual list or infobox by putting two things into it. If it's sede vacante until the next installation then read the article to find out who is incoming! Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If he's not actually in office yet, he shouldn't be stated flatly as the office holder. But I don't see why he couldn't still be in the infobox, with an abbreviated explanation, so that the reader knows immediately what's going on: vacant (so-and-so pending). Something like that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Because an infobox is for current, concise information, not to cover all the possibilities. He has no powers of office yet. Do you also suggest, in the BLP of the bishop, to write both offices everwhere with (current) and (pending) next to them? Elizium23 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to inform the reader. If I want to know who the guy is, the word "vacant" without an explanation is useless, and makes Misplaced Pages look stupid. Rule number 1, which trumps everything else: "Try not to make Misplaced Pages look stupid." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So this was wrong, then? Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What about this stupidity from 2008? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference: there's a much longer period of time between the appointment and the installation of a bishop (months, sometimes) than there is between the appointment and the swearing-in of a US Cabinet minister (hours to days) - and not even a micro-instant between the end of one Presidential term and another. But we shouldn't be templating regular editors in any event whatsoever for a good-faith mistake. --NellieBly (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Installation of foo scheduled on" whenever or "installation pending" or similar are options. Again, though, I think calling attention to this at WP:MOSBIO would probably get some help. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone ever tried to get MOSBIO to address all announcement/installation discrepancies in general? I imagine there are at least some others, and I think maybe having clear guidelines what to do with these matters might help. Maybe having uniform infobox standards for announcement and installation (or similar) could be made too. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editor at 80.181.225.114 changing English terms back to French

There is a disruptive, contentious editor at IP 80.181.225.114 who is reverting my attempts to anglicize some French terms in France-related articles. Some links:

• User_talk:80.181.225.114 – Other editors' comments here as well.
• revert of my edit anglicizing French terms There are four others like this on similar articles; see the IP user's contributions below:
• IP user's contributions – Note the contentious edit summaries.

I'm not sure if I have raised this issue in the proper place or way. Please let me know if I should take a different approach. Thanks. Eric 23:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Errrr...you were WP:BOLD and it was reverted. That makes it necessary for you to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. My understand is that on France-related topics, the consensus is to use the words such as départemente on all related articles the panda ₯’ 23:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. That is not the consensus, though it has been put forth by some editors. Long back-and-forth "discussion" on that topic here if you're curious. Eric 00:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't "long" and it's also 7 years ago the panda ₯’ 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Long enough to make my eyes roll--and I was part of it. And the meaning of the word department has not changed in many times seven years... Eric 01:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good morning, here my comments. I think that this IP follows the typical pattern of a disruptive editor. On Italianization, he kept removing the adjective "many" from a sentence about Italian concentration camps, pretending that it was unsourced. When I wrote him that the sentence is very well sourced (the source being a list showing 135 camps and coming from an Italian book), he reverted again telling me that "many" is anyway subjective, and challenging me to add up all the camps and put the number there. On South Tyrol, he contested the origin of the region's name, writing that the name's origin comes from the opinion that the country originated from the southern part of Tyrol. Now, all this could be acceptable if he had used the respective discussion pages to write what he thinks, but he goes there very grudgingly, and reverts also when the discussion has started, as he did in South Tyrol after the intervention of User Mai-Sachme: the same did on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) (a guideline page). I think that starting an edit war per article is not a very good beginning for a new user. Alex2006 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Carriearchdale abusing her talk page while blocked.

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

See these edits:

A contributor, Vin09, posts a question regarding a proposed merge, not knowing that Carriearchdale is blocked.

User:John Carter points out that Carriearchdale is blocked, and can do nothing.

Carriearchdale deletes John Carter's post, and asks that Vin09 contacts her by e-mail.

Give that discussing merges (or anything else concerning content) while blocked is contrary to policy, I suggest that Carriearchdale's talk-page editing privileges should be revoked. Nothing on her talk page indicates that she has any intention of either appealing the block, or accepting responsibility for the behaviour that led to her being blocked in the first place, and accordingly there is no merit in continuing to allow her access to her talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lolwut. Discussing content while blocked contrary to policy? I think not. --NE2 00:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Notified her. —LucasThoms 00:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've been watchlisting her talkpage since the block - she almost pushed the envelope once, but mindless chatter doesn't seem to warrant removal ... yet. She should, however, pay attention to the sage advice rather than simply delete it the panda ₯’ 00:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It definitely looks to me that she has been soliited for effectively editing while blocked which isn't good, and appears to be willing to effectively meatpuppet that user, which is worse. Repeating the "seven year" claim in her edit summary doesn't help.John Carter (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From her talk page:

I would say that equating his verbose and evilly creative attempts at translation of the actual meaning of the exact statement I typed in message to vin09, "Please email me any help requests by clicking email user in the left column of the talk page here," with intention of what statement meant would be impossible. It is quite difficult to understand how user john carter knows exactly what meant when I typed those nineteen words. How about keeping all the casting of aspersions to a minimum this time!!! To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

—LucasThoms 00:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion: That is proxy editing, which is problematic for an indef blocked editor. We've tolerated it from temp blocked users when asking if someone would fix a few things for them, which I think is harmless and improves the encyclopedia, plus puts them in the right frame of mind to be unblocked. However, proxy editing from an indef blocked editor should only be tolerated to a degree, to fix pre-existing issues, but not if it becomes an ongoing way to bypass the block itself. We can be generous without being fools. If someone decides to NOT seek an unblock, then how they are using it falls under greater scrutiny and eventually the clock simply expires. Then it becomes a webhost and a way to bypass the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe disable e-mail? John Carter (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Give that discussing merges (or anything else concerning content) while blocked is contrary to policy..." When did this policy change occur and where do I go to revert it? Protonk (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah I had a WTF? moment there too, clearly if you're asking other editors to proxy for you whilst blocked then that's not happening, but discussing it? Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah - I could have worded that better, though I've seen it said often enough that blocked users get talk page access solely to permit appeals. Anyway, it was the combination of removing John Carter's post and then asking for e-mail that looked dubious, and it certainly carried the implication of proxy editing - or at least of engaging in a discussion that has the potential to involve someone in unwitting proxy edits. I can't see a legitimate reason why Carriearchdale would want someone e-mailing her not to know that she was blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "I've seen it said often enough that blocked users get talk page access solely to permit appeals" I don't see it anywhere at WP:BLOCK. Is anywhere else in policies which relate to blocking? Protonk (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sufficient unto the day" applies here - unless you have direct material connecting her to an improper edit, this is all mental youknowwhat. Unless, of course, you have the means to examine the emails - but I suggest that is overreaching a tad. This is absolutely "have a cup of tea" territory IMO. Collect (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I took care of the user's request myself, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing something off wiki. Maybe it's more convenient to chat through email than on her talk page (which multiple users say that that's "privilege abuse" anyway). The other user just wanted advice on a merger (and giving advice is not editing by proxy) which I gave anyway, therefore I don't see the point of this discussion? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just let it be, using their talk page in such a manner does not violate policy that I would see, and if there is some such policy that does apparently prohibit such things; let me know so I can spearheard the RfC to change it. Also, while we're here, I'd like a review of other editors editing her userpage to remove revoked rights, as well as correcting an 'apparent error' of join date so to speak. and which I've reverted the latter. Tutelary (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see why you think that allowing an editor to deliberately misrepresent their Misplaced Pages status is a good thing. BMK (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is she "deliberately " the fact that she's blocked if she hasn't deleted the big and colorful "YOU HAVE BEEN INDEF BLOCKED" notice? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand, we're talking about the userbox on her user page which says that she has been here for "6 years, 7 months, and 27 days", when in fact, although she created the account then, she only began editing on January 3 of this year, making her time as a Wikipedian actually 6 months and 15 days. That is deliberate misrepresentation, which, unfortunately, is just par for the course for this editor. For instance, she trumpeted that she was an active participant across 38 WMF projects, whereas the truth was that in the majority of those projects, she had done nothing more than create a userpage. She's deceptive, and seems to have no hesitation to tell the Big Lie again and again. BMK (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this thread is about her "abusing" her talk page, and one of the given examples is of her deleting a message from another user that stated she was blocked, so sorry for not realizing you were talking about something else. To address what you're talking about, the template doesn't specify the date as being the registration date or the first edit date, so it's up to the individual user to input the date. So what if she didn't make an edit until seven months ago? She still registered seven years ago, and it's perfectly fine for her to showcase that. I registered almost two years ago and only made a handful of edits, then nothing until this January. If someone vandalized my user page by changing my User Wikipedian For userbox, I'd be furious. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Unethical? Sure. Against a policy or guideline? Pretty sure no. There are a lot of people who exaggerate what they do on userspace, and there was a Misplaced Pages controversy for a person who did so. (I'll let you Google that one.) What I'd like to review is the application of policy/guideline towards correcting these supposed mistruth's she's stated. I don't think there is, which is why I reverted. Tutelary (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think one core policy, WP:IAR, covers it just fine. WP:BURO, you know. BMK (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

amazing what passes for arch-villany these days. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, in your book, all enforcement of rules and policy must rise to the level of "arch-villainy" in order to be dealt with? Seems rather limiting, doesn't it? BMK (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No, but deliberate misrepresentation is just trumping up what should either be ignored or laughed at. They say they've been an editor for 6 years but they didn't make any edits for 5.5 of those years! Get the fainting couch! Absent evidence of proxying, what exactly are we doing here except feeding the ego of a blocked editor? Protonk (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I just realized why her behavior bothers me: she a bully who, when she is cornered, plays the victim and claims everyone else is bullying her. That kind of thing really annoys me, in real life, in politics, and on Misplaced Pages. I suppose you're right and that the best thing to do is to apply liberal amounts of WP:DENY, but it just rubs me the wrong way. BMK (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the impulse but if they're blocked (not banned), DENY is mostly about ignoring what they're putting on the talk page. Not saying this editor is a troll, but DNFTT should be the order of the day (IMO). I don't want us to start normalising the practice of heavily policing blocked editors on their talk page because A: It's a waste of time for all involved, B: it's likely to eliminate any hope of an indefinite block being shortened in the future and C: it leads us to treat blocks more like time-outs where the editor has to sit and think about what they've done and not technical measures to prevent disruption. The last point mostly applies to timed blocks, but enshrining the practice for indeffed users makes it easy for us to mentally apply it to any blocked editor. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I always thought the arrogant, dismissive, self-aggrandizing imperious attitude was the most off-putting aspect I saw, along with the very doubtful grasp of apparently many policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All the point I'm trying to make is that if they want to feel the top of the world and want to think that she's been on that much and on that date, even if in context it's totally wrong, we should let her do that. You have every right to judge her for it but editing a person's user page (especially in this case when the editor does not like it) is a very dangerous road to thread absent speedy deletion criteria. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from preaching at me. Thanks. BMK (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• "You cannot use your talk page during block other than requesting unblock" As I asked above, when was this policy implemented and where can I go to revert it? Because it's bananas. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No, this user is not abusing their talk page, although I understand the argument. Blocked users can apparently use talk pages to initiate content discussions. I was just in a discussion where a blocked user was using their talk page to ping people to discuss content and category deletion discussions. Apparently that's not considered block evasion, so I can't see how this user would be guilty of it. I think Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Blocked_users can be interpreted strictly or loosely, but it's probably ultimately administrator discretion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:UNBLOCK#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process: "A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Misplaced Pages, while the block is active." So it seems blocked editors can do other things besides request an unblock. --NeilN 03:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Per WP:BLOCKBANDIFF, she is "still part of the community" and is allowed to use her talk page for talk-page-ness, unless she abuses it. Along with that, @OccultZone: Russavia was banned by the community, not just blocked. That explains why the talk page access was revoked for having done anything besides appeals.—LucasThoms 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to address this to me. I was just stating what the guidelines have with respect to the assumption that "you cannot use your talk page during block other than requesting unblock". --NeilN 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As the user who first put in the proposal for the indefinite block, I wanted to chime in on this. While Carriearchdale is certainly still digging herself, she hasn't done anything egregious or blatantly disruptive on her own talk page. In addition, it is imperitive she be allowed talk page access so that some day when she realizes the disruption she has been causing she can request the unblock and return to the community. I strongly feel that the user is re-habitable but she has to make that initial choice to stop being disruptive. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably not as it would be easier to just dust off another sleeper account registered in 2007 and begin again anew. Hence the rather bizarre insistence that she has been around for seven years. She could be the greatest sock-master Misplaced Pages has ever seen, but unprovable since it's a sly move done over many years (seriously this goes deeper). I find that more believable than a user that doesn't do a test edit in seven years after registering an account. Froggerlaura 03:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Actually, please see Template:User Wikipedian For. It says and I quote "Add this template to your user page, with the year, month, and day your account was created. If you don't know the day your account was created, see your preferences here." Your edit to her user page was perfectly legal, the first change to the template was a good faith mistake, but BMK's revert and later edit after Carriearchdale explicitly opposed others editing her user page, while not exactly vandalism, I know it at least goes against WP:NOBAN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care who edited what talkpage. The history says account was opened in 2007 but not used until January 2014 (gigantic red flag flapping in face IMHO). The user is also not exactly honest as evidenced by this edit where John Carter informed Vin09 that Carrie was blocked (big red blocked banner does not appear at talkpage), Carrie erased that notice and blatantly told the user to email her for help with changes. That was not nice and an attempt to downplay the block. So no, the issue is greater than a tit-for-tat over talk page bling rights, but the issue is unfortunately unprovable until the blocked user jumps ship (countdown begins now). Froggerlaura 03:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When you click "Edit" there's a pinkish-red banner at the top of the page that says "This user is blocked". I'm sure she realizes this, so it's really not logical for her to try to "hide" the fact that she's indeffed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. But she did anyway. Why delete only the block notice and suggest talking behind closed doors? Vin09 asked her to work on the article anyway despite the block notice, so it seems he/she did not know what a block entails, therefore that edit was devious by deleting John Carter's clarification to the user. Froggerlaura 04:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Also what would lead to you suspect by these affairs that logic is involved here? Froggerlaura 04:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Froggerlaura: Based on my observations of her behavior in the last week, I assume she deleted the comment because she felt they were butting in on her conversation (or some similar train of thought). Her talk page is still full of chat about her being blocked, and that's after she's already deleted some of it (from users she is always having conflict with), the diffs are still in the page history no matter what she removes, and she's never attempted to delete the block template itself, so I don't understand why you've jumped to the conclusion that she's trying to hide something that just screams at your face regardless. Whether she uses any logic isn't the point; doing what you're accusing her of doing is a fruitless waste of time (she'd be better off socking) and common sense would tell anyone that. This is just a case of misinterpretation and WP:ABF. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Carriearchdale....

Could someone either speedydelete or send to MfD these four copies of a deleted article? There at User:Carriearchdale/Niotso, User:Carriearchdale/sandbox, User:Carriearchdale/sandbox1 and User:Carriearchdale/sandbox-13. BMK (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why? Protonk (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• My understanding is that the userfication of deleted articles is done so that editors can work on improving them, with a eye toward correcting the problems that caused them to be deleted. However, this article was userfied on 6 February, and not a single edit has been made to any of the copies to bring them up to standard since then. My belief is that if userfied articles aren't actively being worked on, they are subject to deletion -- am I mistaken in that? BMK (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You're not mistaken, it just seems a bit needless. What purpose would deleting those three pages serve? What harm (however marginal) do they cause the project right now? Protonk (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So, as you agree, they exist outside of policy, but you believe it's needless to delete them -- that's fine, I wouldn't expect you to delete them or nominate them for deletion. Others may believe differently from you. That's what makes horse racing. BMK (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I could suggest (As you do above) that we should ignore those rules because we aren't a bureaucracy. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Touché! BMK (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
          • As you note, other editors may disagree and end up deleting it. Just as I don't think there's a real harm in keeping them there's no real loss in deleting them. If the editor is unblocked and wants to work on them again, they can be pretty quickly restored. But I think it's worth not spiking the football in cases like this, or at least asking if we really want to. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Um, given that it is blatant copy-paste plagiarism of this (not a copyvio, as it is public domain), I think that deletion might be advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
              • DangerousPanda deleted the three sandboxes, and Orange Mike sent the other to AfD. Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Understandable, sorry for implying otherwise. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Folks, you are feeding the situation needlessly. I think Protonk is correct (I don't remember crossing paths with you much before, but we seem to agree on much). Right now, I feel everyone is just too excited and worried about minutia. To quote the great Scorpius, "My patience may be formidable...but it is not infinite". Carrie has a very large shovel to dig with, I'm sure it is only a matter of time. What I will NOT allow to happen is to let someone like this push me into doing something that is against policy, even if the community would likely back me. We are all bigger people than this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have left a notification on her talk page, explaining my perspective (and I assume the perspective of a number of the community). As I have taken the time to explain it in great detail, there shouldn't be any "shock" if her talk page and email access is eventually removed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds good, can we close this three-fold discussion now? I don't see the point in keeping it open now that all the problems brought up have been addressed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick block needed

• 82.102.15.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IP is posting huge amounts of who-knows-what at User:Bilby. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• That is...a lot of text. Blocked. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• There's a bunch of emails there. Is that stuff that needs to be revdel'd? Protonk (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I don't know if it needs revdel, but I see from the page history that it has been attacked before, and revdels occurred in November 2013. I tried to Google text copied from the first few lines of the post because I thought knowing where it came from might identify areas that needed attention here. Amusingly, Google gave User:Bilby as the only hit, and that was about 40 minutes after the text had first been posted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like inaccurate info (IP listed as Luxembourg is actually in Lethbridge, etc). But there may be real people / real email addresses therein for all we know, and like Johnuniq says, they're showing up on Google search. I have revdel'd -- Diannaa (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks to all for taking care of that - it was one of the more unusual attacks I've seen. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Urgent - talk page abuse

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

Can an admin please revoke blocked user Fatty les's talk page access, and then RevDel this mess of personal attacks? Thanks! —LucasThoms 04:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Especially revisions starting at 04:37. —LucasThoms 05:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I outright just deleted the talk page, and re-blocked with access revoked. There was nothing salvageable there and too many revisions to delete. §FreeRangeFrog 05:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FreeRangeFrog took care of it, but before we close this, the sockmaster has had a plethura of recent socks targeting me and several others with BLP Vandalism involving Maria Sharapova. Forgive me if I don't know this aspect of policy terribly well, but is it possible for a CU to toss a lengthy block on the underlying IP? ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for a WP:RANGEBLOCK? —LucasThoms 05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoety did it before, I know range blocks are terribly limited in scope and length as there is much collateral damage when it comes to their use. I'm more requesting the most common IP that the CU sees involved in the creation of these socks be blocked for a lengthy period of time. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Don't you just love triple edit conflicts?) At some point during that talk page fiasco, FL either signed out or used his/her phone to insert the same vandalism to his/her user talk page. That IP WHOIS's to a mobile phone operator, for what that's worth. I'm not certain how 3G IP assignment works; I have no idea what kind of collateral that would have, or even if that is the underlying IP.—LucasThoms 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know, from what I can find online, mobile IPs are fluid. If that is the case, well just have to deal with Evlekis socks just like JA socks: revert, redact, block, repeat. However, if an enterprising admin (NawlinWiki pointing at you!) could go into the deleted revisions of all the various socks, note the BLP vandalism common to most of them and make a few edit filters, that might help too. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just silverlocked Solarra's talkpage, before seeing this discussion. Yunshui _水 08:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how effective it will be, but a range has been blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing another user's comments on Talk:David_Horvitz#Suitable_Image

Could an admin please remind User:TheRedPenOfDoom that it is inappropriate to edit another user's comments on a talk page?

• Original edit to User:Nowa's comment. See second paragraph for removal of “:”
• Second edit to User:Nowa's comment
• Third edit to User:Nowa's comment. --Nowa (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen and I have simply made it so the photograph does not display on the talk page. Nowa needs to stop adding the photos across the project where they were removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Concur with Ryulong. This is nothing. Not even a tempest in a teacup, it's the ripple from a pin dropping. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I would argue that given the questionable copyright of that image—given it's a self-licensed image of himself, but not a selfie—there's no way in hell it should be displayed on a talk page. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When an image is either non-free or controversial in some way, changing it to a link by inserting the colon is not just preferred, it's a requirement. Hence the editor was right and within the rules, to edit the other editor's comment to insert the colon. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Horvitz can't make useful contributions. Contrast this with the work of User:David Shankbone, who has also had some controversy, but has also contributed many, many good-quality photos, and knows which side of the camera to stay on at any given time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is one of those cases where I would suggest to defer to the wisdom of other editors and add the : mark. The file is up for deletion as a copyright violation. Three people have indicated on that talk page that the : belongs, this IS an article talk page, consensus applies. This is an editorial issue, not something an admin needs to get involved in. Unless you war to remove the : mark against consensus, that is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, he has been warring, to some extent. If Nowa is neither a sock nor meat puppet of Horvitz, he's certainly doing a good imitation. Ironically, I don't think there's really any hard rule against self-portraits in Misplaced Pages. If Horvitz had uploaded these things strictly to put on his user page and/or he had properly identified what he was doing, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Putting aside any sock concerns as I don't see any evidence to warrant an investigation, I did leave a message on his talk page that should clear up any misconceptions about "status quo", a phrase that has little meaning on a Wiki. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic ban I recommend that a topic ban be applied so that Nowa (talk · contribs) performs no further editing or commenting regarding Horvitz or images that are probably intended to display pieces of Horvitz's body in Misplaced Pages. These edits from 17 July 2014 show Nowa adding such "look at me" images: diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff to eight different articles. Per not bureaucracy, let's not debate whether there is proof that the appendages belong to Horvitz—it's clear that even if they aren't, Nowa is trying to make some point that is not related to improving the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• it seems clear that Nowa is either Horvitz's agent acting directly on his behalf to continue his "art" campaign on Misplaced Pages or or acting in such a manner that it is indistinguishable from him/his agent and certainly WP:NOTHERE to actually improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a recent issue with Nowa, so maybe a topic ban is premature. But I have to say that his involvement in the David Horvitz topic area is almost uniformly negative. He either makes light of the disruption by David Horvitz or edit wars to keep his images on Misplaced Pages. Therefore I support a topic ban.--Atlan (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Support per Nowa's behavior. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooh a spanking. A spanking!--Nowa (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks for trolling. I have zero patience for that, and the community shouldn't have to tolerate someone antagonizing for fun. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that any admin reviewing should note all the intentionally disruptive edits, snide remarks and obvious intent to antagonize the community. It isn't the individual edits, it is the trollish behavior and delight in taking up what could be useful time. Anyone who takes joy in causing disruption doesn't belong here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dennis. It's comforting to know that even you, with the patience of a saint, can get fed up! BMK (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • What do people think? The two-week block will expire. Do we rely on Dennis for the future, or is a topic ban worthwhile? Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blanket changes of English variants in violation of WP:ENGVAR

User:Jaguar has blanket changed the English variant on around 100 pages by script without any sort of justification. See his contributions. Changing the variety of English used without any justification, much less consensus, is in clear violation of WP:ENGVAR, the policy he himself quotes.

If he wishes to justify the blanket changes, it also seems more fitting to have a centralized discussion rather than a hundred separate ones (although I recognize that this is an unusual place for it). I have reported it here as such a staggering number of changes would be difficult to revert without a rollback tool. Oreo Priest 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For the Canadian articles I checked, at least, Jaguar does not appear to be changing the English variant so much as ensuring they consistently use EN-CA. I am not seeing anything problematic in those examples. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo, my justification is that all the articles I edited were either Commonwealth Realms, former British territories or any UK related product that used British spelling. Belize, for example, is a Commonwealth Realm and uses British English (there's no such thing as Belize English). I also edited Canadian related articles and implemented Canadian English into them (Ontario, Quebec, Totonto etc) so my reasons for this are 100% justified and correct? The policy I quote you mentioned is an automated edit summary provided by the script. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Canada and the Commonwealth, I have no issues, and I should have been more clear about that. Many others are clearly not Commonwealth Realms, and they clearly have no strong national ties to the UK. Belgium, for example, is not only not in the Commonwealth, but the article has always been in US English, and consensus is to leave it like that, not that you checked. Other obvious examples, include Brazil, Russia, South Korea, YouTube, television and World War II. Not only is there no obvious case to be made for changing these, but you didn't even attempt to make the case. Oreo Priest 14:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

World War II has always been in British English, YouTube was a mistake and I admit that, television I'm not sure why, even though it ties with being invented in Scotland I guess? And the other countries have no consensus? There's no policy saying that they shouldn't be in any variant of English? To be honest I didn't think anyone would even mind - it's only a few characters of changes (colonize to colonise for example)? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a very clear policy, it's WP:ENGVAR, the one you quoted yourself. I suppose you didn't read it at all if you thought changing the English variant was legitimate. I invite you to clean up your mess by reverting each and every one of your non-Commonwealth edits, and to begin a discussion about why it should be changed in the cases where you think it should be. Oreo Priest 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Some of the changes that you made do not seem to be supported by WP:ENGVAR. Most topics should stick with whichever version of English it was first written in. Only in cases where there are strong national ties is it appropriate to switch from one variety to the other. For example Belgium is not a topic with strong national ties to Britain and therefore would not use that variety of English if it was first written in American English. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Belgium is famously "A country invented by the British to annoy the French" , perhaps UK English is preferable, and has the advantage that Belgium can now annoy the Americans too. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo Priest, did you try to discuss this with Jaguar before bringing it here? From my limited review I can see no indication that you even tried. It is best to try to fix the problems between the two of you before complaining here. GB fan 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GB fan, I did not, as explained in my initial post. I realize it is somewhat unconventional to begin here, but it seemed to be the most elegant solution. Oreo Priest 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: After looking only at the top of your editing history, I've reverted you at Italy and Argentina, where a search of the history established in both cases that the earliest identifiable English variant used was U.S., and there is no association with the UK that would warrant the use of British English. As others have said, this is part of the ENGVAR policy, and you should have familiarised yourself with the entirety of the policy before implementing a script. Also, I suspect you are unaware of Oxford spelling, which is used far more on Misplaced Pages than I had expected. This is an area that is far less cut and dried than you appear to think; I don't think it's a good area for automated scripts. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I'm a A-Level student and I took English Literature and Language - I'm aware of Oxford Spelling. Trust me, I've read through WP:ENGVAR and I understand the policy. In fact I understand it better now - the script is also manual, I have to edit articles myself. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Jaguar, having had it explained that changes require a consensus, or strong national ties, has continued unilateral script-based changes of the English variants. See his contributions again. Among these are the Suez Crisis, which Canada and the US were also involved in, and Suriname, with no clear logic at all.

At this point, I move that he be blocked, at least from using a script, and that he undo all of the script-based ENGVAR changes he has done. In cases where he thinks it should be changed, he should begin a discussion about why it should be changed, and in no cases make such a change unilaterally. Oreo Priest 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out why he changed Suriname, other than a desire to remove all USENG from neutral articles, which would be against policy. Jaguar, you've never been blocked and have almost 20k edits behind you, is there a compelling reason to not block you now? I hate to be the first, but you appear to be giving the finger to the community here by immediately going and modifying articles against policy while the discussion is ongoing. That is, by definition, WP:DE. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo, are you kidding me? Disruptive editing? Is that what you seriously think? I can't even believe I'm being threatened to get blocked - the thought of it is just like what? Suriname is a former Netherlands colony, it gained independence a few decades ago and by then some of it was known as British Guiana (neighbouring French Guiana today). I was going to do Guyana instead, but accidentally mistook Suriname for the British colony - they were historically tied. That warrants British Spelling. My recent contributions are not 'disruptive' and far from it, I'm just trying to place British English into its correct articles for a change, maybe I have made a couple of mistakes then, Japan, Argentina etc. Now I have been told that the original English should be kept in the articles I will happily leave them be. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Here is the problem Jaguar, you are going about this in a way that forces multiple people to watch your edits to catch things like Suriname and Suez Crisis, neither of which requires British Eng. Had they been started with it, fine, but changing the style of English on article that do not demand it IS disruptive, as is the way you are going about it. Some of your changes are obviously fine and even obvious, like Commonwealth of Nations and Greenwich Mean Time. Let me help you out a bit: If it isn't painfully obvious that the article should be in UKENG, like the two I've linked here, then ask on the talk page first. The fact that you mistook Suriname for a British Colony is the problem, your mistakes are the problem, you are erring on the side of "made the change" when you should be erring on the side of "don't make the change". I mean seriously, you made TWO such errors in the amount of time I took to type this paragraph, while it was being discussed at ANI. That is not a show of good judgement. I am wondering if Yngvadottir was correct above, and maybe the script should not be used. It is a convenient way to get in trouble and rapidly make lots of mistakes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As has already been mentioned above, you (Jaguar) don't seem to understand the concept of Oxford spelling. The "-ize" suffix is not and never has been incorrect in British English, and is standard in publications ranging from the Times to the Oxford English Dictionary. You continuing to make these changes is getting well over the line into disruption. Mogism (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not kidding you Jaguar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not intend for your edits to be disruptive, but that is certainly the effect. I see that you have a long track record of positive contributions, which is in part why I find this so puzzling. Certainly, you know the importance of consensus when making controversial changes, especially when it was just explained to you.

I am also quite serious about you cleaning up the massive mess you have left. Hundreds of script based edits, many of which are no longer the most recent and not easily revertable, are a massive burden to undo. At this point "I will leave them be" amounts to "now that things are the way I want them, let's keep them that way". Once again, in the cases where you think there is actually a good rationale, make sure you actually provide it and first obtain consensus (after reverting your unilateral changes that is). In the case of Suriname, for example, the only logic was an implicit 'makes sense to me', and you even had the audacity to tag it to say that it should stay British English in the future. So once again, seriously clean up the massive mess you have made. Oreo Priest 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, let's be amply clear. "The UK was once involved historically with the subject" does not constitute a strong national tie. Oreo Priest 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• • On what bases was the variation of English changed form US to British on Sudan, ], Suez Crisis, Poland, World War I, World War II among others. You have never provided an explanation or pointed to a past consensus as to why the variation of English were changed. One could say that these edits are nationalistic in their intent. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo and Farix are completely correct here. If you could use that rationale, then everything about America that is east of the Appalachian Mountains would use UK English, which happens to be where I hang my hat. I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive either, but WP:DE isn't about intent. Whether someone is intentionally disrupting or just needs to be smacked with a clue bat, the end result is the same. In this case, I'm recommending the clue bat. You seem to have a misunderstanding of when to switch to UKENG and when to leave it completely alone. Before you do any more of this, you need some mentoring or something, so we don't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have self reverted all of my edits regarding non-British related articles, except from Norway. I don't know why, but neighbouring Sweden was already written in UK spelling, so I've left Norway out. Everything else is UK-related. World War II was already British Spelling, I did not change it. I took that as an invitation to convert World War I to UK spelling, so you can revert me on that if you want, I'm going to leave it. The mess isn't as massive as I thought, less than 100 edits and only a handful were mistakes which I've mostly corrected now. My intentions were good, I didn't mean to be disruptive in any way. From now on I will stop using scripts for non-UK related subjects (save Canada). ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jaguar: I wish this were true. Of over 100 edits, you only reverted 8. You changed South Korea back, but not North Korea. Minecraft remains at UK English, again with no explanation given, as does television. Suez Canal, Spain, the list goes on. You have also made no effort at justifying why you think any of the remaining articles you left where they were have strong national ties to the UK. Please check WP:ENGVAR to see examples; in short the connection must be incredibly strong and incredibly clear. Please don't stop with this token effort, but finish what you started. Oreo Priest 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is really not a bases to ignore WP:ENGVAR, however, there are far more articles that still need to be reverted. Remember that the key words are strong ties. Not just any kind of ties that are remotely connected to either the UK or US. —Farix (t | c) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very serious about getting some mentoring from someone who knows ENGVAR inside and out. What you are attempting to do is fine, but you have to realize that Finland might be USENG while Sweden is UKENG and the reason is that the original version was just written in that version. Neither version of English is preferred for these articles. In a few select circumstances, one version or the other is more appropriate but most of those are already changed over except for a few words that need cleaning up due to us Yanks editing Brit articles and vise versa. If you see an article that you think needs to be wholesale converted, odds are good that you are mistaken. You say you have started reverting, but as Farix points out, you really need to examine all the edits you have made, or maybe make a list and let someone else look and objectively say if it needs reverting. That is a very time consuming task, unless you have a script to convert UK to US English as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: I'm not going to get into qualifications with you because it's not really germane plus I don't want to out myself! However, your responses here suggest that you still have not realised that not unnecessarily changing the variety of English in which the article was originally written is part of WP:ENGVAR. In fact it is its essence: the guideline was developed to prevent destructive edit wars based on individual preferences. It does not matter what variety of English Sweden uses; Norway appears to have used U.S. English from the start (things are complicated by an import from NostalgiaWiki, but I find "aluminum" in 2010), and failing consensus on the talk page that there is a compelling reason to change, the guideline says leave it be. At World War I such an argument has been made on the talk page, and I've expressed my opinion there. I suggest you do too. However, the diff of your change at World War I provides what I consider a decisive argument that you should not be making script-assisted edits in this area, because apart from the issue of policy, you are not verifying the changes acceptably. You changed ] to ]. Stop using the script. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• We should not have to repeatedly come here and have you revert your switched from American English to British English (because you are only reverting article that are being brought up in this discussion). This is further compounded by the fact that you did not explained why you made the switch for each article, which means that all these switches are suspect unless they are blatantly obvious. It's one thing to say, "harmonizing language to established WP:ENGVAR", or "Novel by a British author, using British English per WP:TIES". But by the appearance of your edits, you seem to have taken the position that if the subject doesn't have strong US ties or has very week British ties, it should use British English. However, this is not what WP:ENGVAR says. —Farix (t | c) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just floating an idea here...

I know this is not the place for this idea to be extensively discussed, let alone decided, but I do want to mention the idea that perhaps we shouldn't worry so much about mixing different version of English in our articles. I grew up reading both American English and British English books, and as an adult I worked on many productions of British English plays, so it's never really bothered me to see "colour" and "honor" in the same article. Since we carry articles in a variety of different type of English, I think the presumption is that our readers can deal with reading those different versions when they switch from article to article, so why should it be so important to keep them segregated within an article?

Mind, I'm not saying that ENGVAR shouldn't be enforced when ignoring it becomes disruptive, as in this case, I just don't think that mixing varieties within an article is all that big a deal, unless something specific is impeding the ability of the reader to understand the article. BMK (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Like --v/r - TP 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are differences of grammar and word usage, too. (These are more evident with Indian English, which many of us not from that part of the world are less familiar with.) It's an imperfect world, and the encyclopaedia is full of more obvious errors such as apostrophe errors, we have an imposed usage with respect to quotation marks and terminal punctuation to prevent fruitless edit-warring over that issue, and links can do a lot to help the reader (as with billion, truck, football) but for precision and clarity, I think we need to recognise that the different dialect groups do differ, and mixing them increases the potential for confusion rather than mitigating it. We can't impose "world English" even if we wanted to. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should be concerned about those things, but it's relatively simple to write "truck (lorry)", "football (soccer)" or "billion (10)" in places where ambiguity needs to be cleared up. I think it's an erroneous assumption that simply having the article written in one version of English is going to clue in the reader as to what meaning they should give those words, especially if they're read out of context, as is often the case.

Again, I'm not saying let's wipe out ENGVAR altogether. It's entirely appropriate that articles about Indian subjects use Indian English, I'm just saying let's not lose sleep when versions get mixed, especially in articles for which there is no logically preferred variety. BMK (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't lose sleep, no, and I sincerely hope no-one does. But the usefulness of having a rule in this case is that it resolves disputes. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is spot on. Unless the changes are blatantly disruptive. I read things daily that are a mixture of both forms of English, but if someone wants to go into articles and make them one or the other I see no issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• A gigantic trout to BMK for this outrageous suggestion—what will the good folk at WT:MOS do if there are no rules to be enforced? Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They'd have time to take us all out for a beer! BMK (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to ban script use for a limited time

I don't think the disruption is intentional, but that doesn't make it any less problematic. I also don't think Jaguar really fully accepts the responsibility for the script's use either, in spite of a number of people trying to explain. I'm left with only a few tools in which to deal with this problem, and "ignore" isn't an option. I don't want to go so far as to ban ENGVAR as a whole and think that perhaps he can learn it in time, thus I propose:

Jaguar be banned from using any automated script or tool relating to ENGVAR, broadly interpreted, through Dec. 31, 2014. Manual ENGVAR edits would not be affected. Jaguar must also participate in cleaning up the damage done to the satisfaction of the community. Violations of this ban would be dealt with using escalating blocks.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I came here to ask on what rationale he changed Minecraft to Oxford spelling, and in what way the structure "in order to" violated the rules of that variety of English. This script needs to go back on the shelf and the editor needs to talk through the issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest just deleting the script. While it may be helpful in some respects, it yields itself far too easily to abuse and rash actions that most of us consider disruptive—such as this case. It is the hammer that is always looking for a nail. If a similar thing happened with AWB, they would have had their usage of that editing tool pulled. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I know I could be fighting a lost cause, but I must get this point out - perhaps this is being taken too far? Is there a possibility that we could be getting carried away with the problems of the script? As far as I see it, the script itself doesn't need to be re-evaluated and neither do I. I've already reverted the non-UK articles I've implemented the spelling in, so what is the point of these sanctions? So that I can never do it again? What if I just say that I will never use the script for non-UK and non-Canadian articles? I already have done, so why the sanctions? Will it get us anywhere? I will accept responsibility for what I've done, but I disagree with these threats of escalating blocks. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Syria, China, Egypt, Kenya, Belize, South Sudan, Russia, Television, Computer, and Personal computer are all non-UK articles that you converted but have not reverted back. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Farix, did you check them? I have reverted all but three back! Belize and Kenya are English speaking countries and they use British Spelling! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  What about Personal computer?--v/r - TP 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I've just reverted that one back. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Great proposal. Though I do think that he should be allowed use of a US English ENGVAR script to clean up the damage. (I strongly doubt he will go overboard with this one.) Oreo Priest 22:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  If you mean under your personal supervision for a day or two, then that would probably be fine, but not on his own. He still hasn't shown an understanding of the policy in general. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I understand both the policy and all what you have told me. In a nut shell, stick the national spelling to their respective national articles. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is not with the tool, it's that the user doesn't understand the ENGVAR policy. His "In a nut shell" comment just above only confirms that he doesn't understand it. Given that, he should not be encouraged to change the variety of English used in any article, whether manually or with scripts or other tools. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Using a script to change the variety of English is basically a bad idea. That should be done manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This seems like a good way to go to encourage the editor to learn ENGVAR by doing manual changes. BMK (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question Editing with a script is not a subject with which I am at all familiar, so this is clearly a question asked from a position of ignorance: Is the problem the script itself, or in Jaquar's misuse of it? Would the exact same script used by someone with better judgment be non-problematic? BMK (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Even when you use a script, you are responsible for what that script does. If it screws something up, you don't blame the script, you blame the user. Here, the script made errors that he didn't check, PLUS the script is helping him make judgement errors at an accelerated pace. The problem is still Jaguar and his judgement, and removing access to the script may keep him from getting blocked or topic banned altogether. He still needs to learn ENGVAR, as his understanding of it is very, very flawed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Od rance mate is inserting the same contentious text into multiple articles across Misplaced Pages about the recent airplane crash and not doing any other constructive editing. He's been warned multiple times, but is continuing the activity. I'd give diffs, but all the edits on his contributions page are the same thing, q.v.. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

He appears to have ceased - hasn't edited in 11 minutes. But these attacks are nothing new, since the first place most people go to when they have their own theories as to who did this and who did that when big events happen is, aside from Facebook and Twitter, Misplaced Pages. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Kelapstick, just needs closing. Amortias (T)(C) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That was just Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Runtshit casually exploiting the deaths of ~300 people to harass an editor he doesn't like. Next time, and there will be a next time, there's no need for anyone to waste their time issuing warnings. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Complete deletion of new edits with no discussion

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

I have no idea how to do this properly. User:Bender235 Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page Military production during World War II. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this shit head "editor". Please reverse all the deletions and keep this moron off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this. --Brukner (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, you messed up the notification to him by putting it here, but I went and notified him. No harm, it can be confusing. Next, don't call anyone a moron, it is uncivil and unnecessary. He did delete a HUGE chunk of your work, and frankly, I didn't see any explanation other than an edit summary and a deletion that huge really needs more explanation on the talk page. Let's just hear him out before we get excited and assume anything. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Let me note this: Nothing is ever really lost as it is all in the history, and this is most likely a pure content issue that will need to get moved to the talk page, but at this point, a reply would be helpful to understand the true nature of the problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can think of three huge reason it should have been deleted or reworked.

1) One can't read the dang thing. There is dark backgrounds with black text in the tables. The text is set at 60%. WP:ACCESSIBILITY says text should go no lower that 85%.

2) The article is entitled, Military production during World War II. But the tables say nothing of U.S., Japan, China or France.

3) Using blogs, Misplaced Pages and other unreliable references.

One shouldn't take this to ANI and start canvasing other editors without actually talking to Bender235 first. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Encouragement of personal attacks

Obviously conflicted edits to A2 milk

BlackCab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BC has declared (in a way) a conflict of interest with regard to, "extensive work I carried out on the A2 milk article". BC has not declared who paid the "fee" in question but has suggested that as their contract or agreement didn't specify "promotion" in particular, they are exempt from the provisions of WP:NOPAY. Nonetheless, the original "extensive work" constitutes this major rewrite of the article in line with this draft.

That edit did a number of things -

• It increased the prominence of "fringe" claims (including the suggestion that A2 milk might diminish the symptoms of autism)
• It introduced (twice) a story about the mainstream milk industry trying to "discredit" A2 products
• It introduced a story about a rouge operator fined for making dishonest medical claims, described by the edit as "a small Queensland start-up" but by news media as "one of A2 Corporation Ltd's major licensees in Australia"
• It inferred scientific and medical concerns with regard to A2's competitors (the makers of regular A1 milk) framing each claim as being backed by strong science thus forcing "denials" from milk producers, framing "adverse effects" as being "disputed by some scientists" rather than those adverse effects being assertions from a handful of fringe scientists (as they are).
• It listed a number of studies on (non-human) animals with regard to a particular element of non-A2 milk, inferring danger to humans if extrapolated (without acknowledging that no such human trials had been conducted).
• It introduced a suggestion (in Misplaced Pages's voice) that regular milk should be compared to opioids or narcotics by comparison to A2 Milk.

...and made a significant number of other changes. The edit was reverted but then reinstated by BC after they "reinforced" their position on the article talk page. This has been a fairly consistent MO since - BC posts what he/she believes is a strong argument against a particular criticism on the talk page and then shortly thereafter reinstates a section citing no immediate argument with their claim.

Whatever the arrangement with BC's employer, BC's original edit, edits since and draft article are all obviously designed to promote A2 Milk in general and the a2 Corporation in particular. BC should absolutely be held to the provisions of WP:NOPAY at a minimum and be confined to editing the talk page with {{Request edit}} templates. St★lwart 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Response: I am a consumer of A2 milk, which is now a leading milk brand in Australia, and am interested in the subject of why it is different to normal supermarket milk. The article on A2 milk on Misplaced Pages was a stub and flagged for poor grammar, poor construction and poor sourcing. Considering (a) the market share it has in Australia and its entry to the UK and US markets, and (b) the conflicting views among scientists on its potential health benefits compared with normal milk and (c) the range of news stories and serious television coverage it has received in New Zealand and Australia, I considered I could, with extensive research, greatly improve the article.

I approached it the same way I approached other articles I have completely rewritten and expanded -- among them East West Link, Melbourne, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). The exception in this case, knowing it would be a huge task, was to arrange for a fee for my work. I have not set out to promote A2 milk; my intention was and is to present more information about it, its history and the scientific disagreement -- issues that have also spawned a book, Devil in the Milk by a NZ agricultural professor, and widespread media coverage of the milk and a number of questionable tactics by rivals who have lost market share. I posted a disclosure notice on my user page before replacing the shitty stub with my much bigger version..

A couple of users objected to my use of Devil in the Milk and some primary sources (scientific papers) in the science section and immediately began a campaign of denigration and canvassing, labelling the article and its sourcing as "fringe", "weird", and the lie that it was "based on anecdotes and a few primary sources".. (At that stage it contained more than 40 citations to news reports). I fully accept that I was not familiar with WP:RSMED or its requirements and was content to have that section removed while I reworked it with better sourcing. User:WhatamIdoing also intervened to point out that a couple of editors were misusing BRD: instead of deleting sections or flagging sections for better sources, they simply reverted the whole article. I also agreed with the removal of a section on digestive benefits of A2 milk, agreeing that anecdotal claims were unacceptable.

Throughout the process I have endeavoured to be co-operative and collaborative. However I have encountered rising levels of antagonism towards me and my edits, particularly once it became more widely known that I had accepted a fee. This is all laid bare on the talk page, culminating in a personal attack by User:Stalwart111 which blatantly breaches WP:AGF. That user has also demanded that I cease editing the article and offer suggestions on the talk page.

I have zero confidence in this system working because of the collection of hostile editors who are acting as gatekeepers.

On 16 July Stalwart111 removed a paragraph from the "background" section, then on the talk page requested "incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing". Since then I have provided a string of high-quality sources to satisfy his request and finally a grab-bag of statements from a range of websites by Googling a couple of terms to demonstrate that the fact I added as background is widely accepted science. When there was initially no response after I listed those quality sources, I reinstated the paragraph; he promptly reverted it again claiming that "consensus among others is contrary to your opinion". That was a lie: there had been discussion up to that point, either agreeing or disagreeing with the list of sources I had provided. Still no one has discussed what is a plain statement of scientific fact -- a fact completely supported by the sources I provided and typed out as quotes.

On 19 July User:Roxy the dog altered the wording in the article's lead section from "There is no consensus that A2 milk has benefits over "A1" milk" to "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". This is a very clear case of cherry picking, and provocation: the statement, although correctly sourced to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is not an accurate and balanced statement for an encyclopedia. I started a new thread, pointing out that the EFSA review was just one of four reviews I'm aware of: two others said no such thing and referred to scientific evidence they found "intriguing" and worth further study.

In short, a number of editors on the A2 page have now become obstructive and are, I suspect, editing the article -- and blocking my edits of the article -- in order to denigrate A2 milk as a form of pushback against my edits. In the current version of the article I see nothing that markets or promotes A2 milk, or makes false claims, or presents fringe science. This is what others claim is there and as a result are questioning my motives. I say again: I am now promoting A2 milk. I have read WP:NOPAY carefully and I am convinced I am not bound by its requirement to edit the article through the talk page using them as mediators. I have been working on Misplaced Pages for many years, have created, expanded and improved many articles. This one, to me, is no different. It was shitty, and I can improve it. And I have not finished: I am still reworking an extensive section dealing with the conflicting science findings and the series of reviews of published evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:24.201.213.251

Self admitted sock account: that and disruptive editing over at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It also left comments on its talk page and on my talk page. Dustin (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User was reported to AIV just prior to this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting them here, as you beat me to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

24.201.213.251 has been blocked by Chillum for 72 hours. Dustin (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I had blocked this IP for being abusive to other editors. However now that I see he admits to block evasion I have extended the block to 2 weeks. There is a shared IP notice for the IP so I am hesitant to block any longer. I suspect this person will change ips soon. Chillum 05:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I added that notice based on the geolocate link, which indicates that it is a dynamic IP address. I have started to do that more often because it seems to help. Dustin (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

hoax edits from User:Nikita Pavlunenko

Nikita Pavlunenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created what appear to be hoax articles for two Toronto buildings, CinéGroupe Building (Toronto) and Lionsgate Building (Toronto), both now speedily deleted as hoaxes. The editor has also attempted some cut-and-paste moves (which other editors have reverted) to PBS, and made an edit to Franklin (TV series), an article which has been vandalized by IP editors in the past. There have also been some edits that appear to have been made in good faith. The editor has not been active in the past few hours. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:QuackGuru

I took a look at AN/I logs and see that this user has been topic banned multiple times for things like this. I made my initial contribution to Acupuncture. QG was quick to remove the edits in a very calculated and tenuous manner. I reworked the submission with a better ref and resubmitted. It was removed by another user. After that I did try to reinsert the material but for some reason got an edit warring warning.

Quack started harassing me almost immediately. first request to stop hounding me about sources

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards