Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.50.128.91 (talk) at 08:05, 30 December 2012 (→Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell": Replied to Bushranger and MuZemike). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Talk:Jay Westerveld

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

Can some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs).

The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. OK. I laid out some rules of engagement on the talk page. I may have used a conjugation of the verb "dictate". With the article on full protection nothing will change, so I have modified this to Pending changes, and will place a note on WP:BLPN to invite uninvolved editors. Barek, as far as I'm concerned you're not so involved that you can't act; basically, I've threatened anyone who makes another personal attack with a block. I hope I don't have to police that page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarky reply from User:Alan Stenberg. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irony, it seems, is alive and well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff of Talk:Jay Westerveld: Good thing this is a wiki; there's some great material here I am gonna save for later use -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you give proper attribution. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on. This article is now on Level 2 pending changes protection, which is something the community agreed would not be used. More importantly, it is being used to prevent a single editor from editing the article. When that is the case, the appropriate step is to address the issue with that editor directly, not put the article on protection. This is even more important in the face of BLP violations, which are apparently endemic in this article; even now, half the "facts" about this editor are unsourced, and there continues to be a coatrack about Glenmere mansion in the article, and other references don't even mention the article subject. Here's an alternative: block the BLP-violating account or take the time to actually explain to them why their behaviour is unacceptable, and if recurrent socking is a concern, semi-protect the article. Risker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, it was not being used to prevent one user from editing the article--maybe I need to read up on the ins and outs, or maybe I should have checked the status of those editors, but I thought that both sides (and their possible socks) would be prevented from editing it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am), but pending changes and semi-protection would have the same effect given that neither Semperfly (talk · contribs) nor Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have reviewer status. And I thought (again, I might be wrong) that both sides would be aware of how their edits are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here, the first being the use of PC-2, which did not receive community consensus for its use. The second is that neither of the two editors you've pointed out have actually been educated in any way about what they're doing wrong. We're protecting a poor quality BLP instead of educating the editors or removing them from the project. The two editors involved are editing only on this subject and, given the fact that they've both shown up at the same time, are likely to be bringing an external battle to our project. PC is not intended to be the shortcut to dealing with problem editors, or with massive BLP violations or edit wars. It's intended to deal with articles that have frequent vandalism or insertion of nonsense. This article does not meet the criteria. Risker (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to change to semi-protection. As for education, I think Barek has left enough material on the talk page, but OK, I'll repeat the salient points there. Another editor with BLP experience has stepped in as well. I'll start an SPI. I was unaware of those PC restrictions, but no longer. I think that covers it. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On a relevant note, edits by Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have been remarkably uncivil, ranging from WP:PA to WP:OUTING and good old fashion WP:HARASS. See one user talkpage and earlier series of contribs on another user talkpage in addition to this gem. One of his already-blocked socks, Bog Turtle (talk · contribs) also levied this legal threat; Checkuser hasn't confirmed a connection yet, so SPI results aren't yet in. User talk:Alan Stenberg indicates he was previously blocked for abusive editing, and I've warned him regarding civility and his real-life conflict of interest surrounding Westerveld. Think a longer block is in order? JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As all parties were previously warned, I'll be re-blocking him given his current behavior. As this is his second block, I've extended the block to 72 hours this time. My internet access is sporadic at best at the moment, so if others want to change the duration there's no need to discuss with the blocking admin (ie: me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld still pending-changes level 2 protected

The article about Jay Westerveld is still pending-changes level 2 protected, despite Risker pointing out on the 23rd that there is no consensus for use of that form of protection. Can a reviewer please remove this protection from the article? Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that request. (We actually are reviewers, and we need an admin to do it.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Does it need to be semiprotected instead or is just the move protection alright? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The troublesome editors have all been asked to play nicely. It should be fine with just the move protection. Yaris678 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing SPI result

Is the SPI result at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Enverbius really saying that both parties in the dispute are socks of each other? --71.231.75.104 (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also found it confusing. Asked DQ for some clarification. I'm under the impression it's two sets of socks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what DeltaQuad said. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the subsets are groups of confirmed, and they likely among each other. JFHJr (㊟) 01:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems blocked. This can probably close for now. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be continuing ... FaFaFohi (talk · contribs) has made his one and only edit at Talk:Greenwashing (a related merge discussion) - the idea that immediately after all existing socks are blocked, a new user would manage to discover that talk page discussion as their first and only edit and use similar arguments to socks of user:Alan Stenberg suggests some loud quacking is happening. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked FaFaFohi (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock of Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Boomage

Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"

Many thanks

Rich(MTCD) 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest Boomage is really struggling to understand how things work here, and a strongly worded final warning from an uninvolved administrator might help them see sense. Then again, it might not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree this looks like someone who simply doesn't understand the way things work - give me a short time and I'll try to explain things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks - Rich(MTCD) 14:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a word - feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the disruptive behaviour continues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Boing, that looks perfect. Incidentally, the use of the word "git" as a (mild?) insult suggests that the editor may be British, so I would hope that we extend the same forbearance that is traditional for British editors who make personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's definitely a fellow Brit, and yes it is quite mild. But it's more the attitude than the word itself - in my view, for example, it's entirely possible to say "fuck" in a way that is not a personal attack, but "git" in a way that is, and it is the attack rather than the word that is not acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite - there seems to be a lot of confusion over this, in both directions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh what fun :-) Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. I had earlier tried to give him some unsolicited advice and he had indeed not realised he needed references. I've now seconded what you said and pointed to the welcome template with which Bwilkins started his talkpage; I closed the box around it for clarity. For what it's worth, a couple of his edits that triggered Cluebot were false positives ("He is known as a hard worker" or something like that), but he hasn't taken my advice to simply report that and I'm aware of the limits of advice. At least the deleted page shows he is willing to do research. I concur about "git" - hardly worth getting in a tizzy about, but he got himself in a bit of a rut here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments too - I hadn't realised that ClueBot revert had been labeled "vandalism" (though I thought all the reverts were appropriate, for various reasons). I'm hoping that a reading of the riot act might get through - and hopefully help turn Boomage into a productive editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot actually says "possible" vandalism, so as to assume good faith. Bots jobs are very thankless :). --Malerooster (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, both Boing! and Demiurge, for your assistance in this matter - Rich(MTCD) 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.

My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Misplaced Pages page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.

Many thanks, Boomage (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage

Hey, Boomage, I think you have a few misunderstandings on a few points. First, you don't have any rights on Misplaced Pages; it is a website that is privately-owned (by a non-profit, but privately-owned nonetheless), and as such, you have only the rights that are allowed to you but the owners. So, it's better not to talk about things like human rights being violated; it carries no weight, and may in fact be offensive to those people in the world whose real human rights have been, or are being, violated.

JohnCD was correct to delete your page, as it was an article on a non-notable subject. See the notability page, and some others, for more information on this. In a nutshell, though, your "Anti-ClueBot" crusade would need to have been specifically reported on in multiple, independent, reliable sources for it to have a Misplaced Pages article. Though you cite sources in your article, none talk about your movement, and in fact were all published long before your movement was started. So they don't help to establish notability. You should really drop this issue altogether, as you will get exactly nowhere with it, but if you really want to, it would be acceptable for you to create a page compiling evidence for your complaints within your userspace, like your sandbox, for example. Don't make it in the regular article space. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon Boomage

Just a few comments from a passing admin who reviews ClueBot NG's interface.

Firstly, I have reviewed the edits that the bot warned you for and yes, in a couple of instances the edits were genuine. However, if an edit you feel was not vandalism, then all you need to do is report it here, one of ClueBot NG's reviewers will then review the edit, if it shouldn't have been reverted by the bot we will then train the bot on that edit and hopefully a case like that won't happen again. However we cannot train the bot if you don't report the edit.

Secondly, you were not blocked previously because you don't believe in ClueBot NG, you were blocked because your edits were deemed to be vandalism.

Finally, I would echo what Writ Keeper has said that you should drop this issue with ClueBot because you really won't get anywhere with it. The encyclopedia needs an anti-vandal bot and an anti-vandal bot is always going to be an on-going project because vandalism can happen in so many ways and change so many times. Without ClueBot NG there would be edits like this one (and much worse) happening all the time. Guess who reverted this edit? Yup, you got it--5 albert square (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello albert square

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).

Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Clue Bot is one of the best and most helpful bots we have: I very rarely see a false positive. "Campaigning" against it is not a wise thing to do, and a total waste of your time, as it will inevitably come to nothing. You're better off doing something productive. (Besides, if you get too enthusiastic in your "campaign", it's likely that an admin is going to find it disruptive and block you.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that if you wish to request the stopping of ClueBot and you go via appropriate channels, then you are welcome to try - someone suggested the Village pump, and that sounds like a good place. You would need to get a consensus of Misplaced Pages editors in support. However, an off-wiki "petition" will not be taken into consideration, and the opinions of individuals canvassed on an external site will carry very little weight. To succeed, you are going to need the support of existing, experienced, Misplaced Pages editors - and as a number of people are trying to tell you, you are not going to get that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Boomage

Us administrators/moderators do block vandalism however we cannot be online 24/7 (much as we'd like to be!)

ClueBot NG makes thousands upon thousands of edits a day, of which a very small percentage are false positives. On top of deleting vandalism the bots also do a lot of behind the scenes work to keep the encyclopedia functioning as it should.

I'm sorry but any idea that you have of admins taking over what ClueBot NG does is not going to work. The editor burnout rate would be much, much higher. You may even find that there is more vandalism on Misplaced Pages and that more genuine edits are reverted accidentally.

I suggest that you read this article that the BBC did on ClueBot as it may help you to understand ClueBot NG and what it does a little more.--5 albert square (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Boomage.
Please tell me where I have been so called "rude" and "unprofessional" in my exchanges with you and also where I make out to be a saint, then I may apologise to you. Rich(MTCD) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we can assume that you haven't in fact been rude or unprofessional, and that we can move on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hounding

Following a disagreement with Nableezy in which he opined that a source that published content stating that it is a historical fact that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards, a nation of agitators, are slaves worthy of punishment and are worse than feeding vampires was nevertheless a reliable source, he proceeded to summarily nominate my sandbox for speedy deletion. I find this unnecessarily combative.

Nor is this the first time of such practise. Nableezy had never edited Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants created by Darkness Shines in March, yet he felt compelled to request a speedy nomination in December after a disagreement with Darkness Shines. Ankh.Morpork 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I, uh, actually think he's right. Attribution isn't enough; we can't have non-free text on Misplaced Pages unless it's in the form of a brief quote, and while it wasn't super long, I can't reasonably call that page brief. If other admins disagree, they're free to restore, as always. You had good intentions, of course, and I'm not saying he was right in going through your sandboxes to find a "gotcha", but that kind of stuff shouldn't be held on-wiki, even if attributed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He may be right; I certainly do not fully understand the copyright rules. But I resent his habit of seeking to antagonise editors with whom he is involved in a dispute. Ankh.Morpork 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork already took this to EdJohnston's talk page, but Ill respond here as well. The above user copied, word for word, a lengthy op-ed from a copyrighted source. The "sandbox" has since been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. The user repeatedly questioned the use of a news article published by the Palestinian wire agency that also published the op-ed on the basis of this op-ed having been published. I did a google search on the author's name. Lo and behold a Misplaced Pages "sandbox" shows in the results. I clicked that link and found it to be a copyright violation of the original, and I nominated the "sandbox" for speedy deletion for that reason. AM, despite the big red box explicitly saying that if you are the creator of the page you may not remove the nomination, proceeds to remove the nomination. So, in total, a user violated the copyright of another person, violated our policies on copyright and then violated our policy on speedy deletion. At least he has dropped the personal attack that I maliciously hounded him this time around, so kudos for that. nableezy - 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I find his ideas in that discussion deeply troubling. I can't read Arabic, but he does seem to be first avoiding the question, then acknowledging that (a) the source is outspokenly racist, and (b) he still considers the source reliable. On the other hand, I don't think we're allowed to reproduce the text of a news article into our sandboxes, because copyright rules would apply. And 'hounding' would generally be more than once, and with less cause. Is it possible that you were wrong about the sandbox and he was wrong about the source? Does he have a pattern of anti-semitic edits that the problematic discussion is part of, or is there something else happening that caused him to want to use that source? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I never once said that op-ed was reliable, in fact I explicitly said that it was not and that it should not be used. That an op-ed contains such material does not however render a well-established wire agency as a whole unreliable. The "source" that AM is bringing here has never, as far as I know, been cited in any article by any user anywhere on Misplaced Pages. What AM brought was not a news article, but an op-ed so that he could attempt to disqualify actual news articles reporting on things that he would rather keep out of an article (that Israel killed a Palestinian fisherman). Is the Washington Post suddenly as a whole unreliable because they publish the rantings of Jennifer Rubin? Because that is the argument AM is making, and it is that argument that I objected to. nableezy - 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Well-established"? It was created in ...2005. Compare how the left wing Haaretz reported an incident regarding a man suspected of attempting to place an explosive device" and how this was distorted by Maan who described an innocent farmer. It is an inaccurate and antisemitic news agency and anything but reliable. Ankh.Morpork 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I really dont know whay you repeatedly bring up things that undercut your argument. Ma'an specifically says that n Israeli military spokeswoman said forces fired on "a suspect apparently placing an explosive device." That Ma'an does not accept as Gospel what the IDF says doesnt make it unreliable, despite your imagination. And finally, this isnt RS/N. This is AN/I. The only incident that I can see here is that a user violated both the law and out policy on copyrighted work, then violated the policy on deletion by removing a speedy deletion tag from an article he created. nableezy - 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Compare how Reuters reported this death, noting how militant gunmen had opened fire on Israeli forces which they then responded to, and how Maan failed to mention any of the clashes that were taking place. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

They seem to report it much how the Guardian does. Or CNN. Both of which, like Ma'an, say that it took place during an incursion. And oh by the way, that wasnt the article Ma'an had about this specific child being killed. That would be this article that says the following:

Medics said the boy was hit by machine gun fire, either from Israeli helicopters or tanks that took part in the incident.

Israeli military vehicles briefly penetrated the southern Gaza Strip earlier Thursday morning, leading to clashes with Palestinian militants.

The Popular Resistance Committees said its gunmen had confronted an Israeli force of four tanks and a bulldozer involved in a short-range incursion beyond Israel's border fence with the Gaza Strip.

So Ma'an did in fact include what you falsely accuse them of not including, and your charge of it being an inaccurate and antisemitic news organization displays your partisanship more acutely than it does theirs. Having once again provided me with an assist, do you want to stop here? nableezy - 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do wire agencies ordinarily print opinion pieces of this sort? I'm only familiar with English-language wire agencies, but I'm having trouble imagining Reuters or AP sharing an editorial that was openly racist in this way. Is the Ma'an News Agency reliably neutral in matters associated with the conflict between Palestine and Israel? The information I'm seeing indicates that its editorial position sides firmly with Palestine; wouldn't it be better to look for a source that everyone could agree was fairly reporting on the facts of the conflict? If this is a significant incident, surely it was covered on the Israeli side as well, so the accounts could at least be compared for facts that everyone agrees are accurate? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any source being reliably neutral in matters associated with the conflict between Palestine and Israel, including Israeli and Palestinian news agencies. However, we use Israeli news sources on a regular basis, they are probably the most cited sources on most articles in the topic area. There are any number of op-eds published by sources as Haaretz of the Jerusalem Post that I personally find repugnant. That doesnt mean that I can summarily dismiss their actual news reports. nableezy - 23:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This astoundingly ridiculous argument is unfortunately what editors in the A-I conflict have to put up with. If the obviously Israel-leaning Arutz Sheva can be utilized in articles then pro-Arab sources should also be utilized. Never mind that the latter regularly publish antisemitic crap of the highest order, as linked above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Unless Jennifer Rubin is dead I believe it is a BLP violation to have that she "rants" in this thread, could someone remove it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Having taken a look at the Jennifer Rubin (journalist) article, if the article is essentially true then "rant" is rather mild. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fisherqueen" asks: Do wire agencies ordinarily print opinion pieces of this sort? Expert (me) answers: Yes. Poor little Wiki lambs, you must deal with outlets that run both news and opinion. Godspeed!Dan Murphy (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please show an instance of Reuters or AP running a similar opinion piece. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

...just like I said above... and from an "expert" to boot. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern ignoramuses can start here . All wire services move opinion pieces, some in large numbers, and have for decades. This place is pathetic that it gives equal voice to experts and propagandists (yes, I'm talking about "ankhmorpork" and "brewcrewer" when I write that). If they suggest that wire services don't move opinion pieces they're either lying or ignorant. One or the other.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what, here's the massive opinion section at Reuters for the propagandists (anonymous ones, notice) who claim that Reuters has no such section. .Dan Murphy (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't so much asking whether most wire agencies run opinion pieces, but whether most wire agencies run opinion pieces which are openly racist. I don't recall having seen anything of this sort from AP or Reuters. In fact, even deeply spurious, biased 'news agencies' like WorldNetDaily wouldn't, I think, publish something quite this racist. I didn't realize that I was both a dear little lamb and an ignorant liar. Can I be both? And is it okay for the three of you to call me names just for not realizing that all wire agencies publish material that I, in my ignorance, have only seen coming from actual hate groups? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I really dont see how it is at all relevant what an op-ed contributor to Ma'an wrote to the question of if Ma'an's news reports are reliable. Above AnkhMorpork makes the false allegation that Ma'an distorted the events surrounding the killing a Palestinian youth by Israeli forces by leaving out "context" when Ma'an said exactly what he claimed they did not. Why would it matter what some op-ed in the middle of a rather rough time to be living in Gaza said? Does it matter that an Israeli paper repeatedly cited in that article and used extensively throughout articles on the topic hosted an op-ed during this same period that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? No, it doesnt. Nobody has cited the source that AnkhMorpork is objecting to, and if anybody were to cite it they should be blocked. But he is waving around a single person's opinion that was printed as an opinion of a single person as a means to disqualify an entire news organization and to discredit them (speaking of BLP Darkness Shines, if you want to be technical about it) as inaccurate and antisemitic. You dont see a problem with that? nableezy - 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If the translation is correct, and if the alleged "news organization" allows such garbage to be presented, then the alleged news organization has no credibility and cannot be used as a source. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Says you, not our policy on verifiability or the guideline on reliable sources. The BBC apparently feels they can be cited as does the Guardian as does al-Jazeera. They are not disqualified as a source on your say so, sorry. We have guidelines here that say that this news organization is a reliable source. That they published an op-ed, regardless of what it says, is a red-herring. nableezy - 02:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel comfortable throwing your support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism, then you're beyond hope on this issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that they're a reliable source for vile commentary about Jews. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quality of commentary expected of you. Your reputation precedes you, and you surely do not disappoint. Did the BBC throw support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism? Did the Guardian? Did the New York Times? Does somebody calling for an entire area to be wiped out like Hiroshima on the opinion pages of the Jerusalem Post make the Jerusalem Post unreliable for its news reports? nableezy - 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, there aint a point in debating something on a board like this, if AnkhMorpork, or you, would like to challenge a source routinely cited by other reliable sources on the basis that they allowed an op-ed to be published you can do that somewhere else, and Ill be more than happy to bat away any other line that you think is clever there. nableezy - 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Has the alleged "reliable source" in question ever allowed an op-ed condemning the reign of terror that Palestinian extremists have waged against Israel for the last 40-plus years? Was that obscene anti-Jewish editorial accompanied by a disclaimer disavowing it? I'll wait for your reliably-sourced confirmation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Youll be waiting for a while, I generally dont answer stupid questions. You can choose to either argue against the points that I made or you can try look, and yes just look, smart by asking asinine questions. Maan is cited by numerous other reliable sources, it meets all the criteria set in WP:RS. What an op-ed says doesnt change that. Just like an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post that appears to call for genocide against those dastardly Palestinians and their reign of terror doesnt change that their news reports meet the standards set in WP:RS. nableezy - 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments here, though lacking in fact and reflection, are sufficiently revealing of your true character. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lacking in fact and reflection? What are you smoking? Im the only person who has brought any facts here. AM says the source didnt include context, I show that it did. You say alleged "reliable source", I say here are links to top-rate news sources using the source. You say I am throwing support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism, I say no, I am using news sources that other news sources are perfectly willing to cite. You say the reign of terror that Palestinian extremists have waged against Israel for the last 40-plus years and I giggle. So whose comments again are lacking in fact and reflection? nableezy - 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep digging. The bottom is down there somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One last question for you to ignore. If a newspaper were to run an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey., would that newspaper actual news reports no longer be considered "reliable"? nableezy - 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, time out. This is not the incident, time, or place to re-fight the whole I-P conflict again. The deletion due to copyright violation appears proper on first inspection, arguing over the source's bias / reliability is not useful here and now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was about hounding and not the deletion due due copyright. Easy to see why it got twisted based on the nonstop rebuttals and poor attitude shown all around in the discussion, though. Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Easy to see that the two factors are not easily separated, Captain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In general - If X was appropriate (judgement, within policy, improving or un-damaging the encyclopedia), and user A does thing X (originally by user C) then that's OK. If X requires admin tools and A was in conflict with C over other issues, that's one example where it's not ok. If A is actively hounding C that's another not-OK example. Best practice in those cases is for A to notify others and let them review and do it. X not actually being appropriate is another not ok, of course.

That said, the actions here did not use admin tools, there might have been conflict but I don't see any well-stated evidence of going beyond that into actual hounding, and there seems no articulated argument that X was not appropriate. The situation is not described in terms that rise to the level of an actual problem, though some perceived there might be one. Hounding is not conflict, it requires a much more active, deep harassment.

AnkhMorpark perceived he was abused, but has not provided evidence that he was in fact hounded (or even harassed in the actionable sense, or sustained sense).

If there is evidence of actual harassment or hounding, or a good case that under policy the deletion was a problem, those are valid things to pursue. What has been presented was a dispute, but not (based on evidence I see) abuse, harassment, or hounding. There is no good evidence the deletion was wong. Ankh feeling wronged explains the report, but that does not mean the actual events rise to the level that any policy violations or abusive conduct happened.

I recommend another admin archive this, as it's generating much heat and little light now, and there seems to be no actionable incident for admins to respond to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page error

Prompt attention to ] is required, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page errors is becoming an embarrassment. The main page is the most visible page in Misplaced Pages, and one of the most visited, and most important, pages on the entire web. The process that produces its content needs to approach perfection; angsty pleas for urgent updates, which is a daily phenomenon, is indicative that the process is abjectly broken. If this process can't produce solid reliable content that meets all our standards with at least 99% first-time certainty then DYK, ITN, and OTD need to be removed from the main page, leaving only FA and FP which do. Complaints that MP/E isn't watched by enough admins misses the point - there need to be no errors in the main page in the first place. 176.250.45.76 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but while Tomorrow's Main Page is linked on Talk:Main Page, few people actually go to visit it. Unfortunately, no set of people tasked with reading the next day's Main Page will catch everything. Rather basic grammatical errors are unacceptable, as they should be noticeable to almost anyone reading the content, but issues of fact are not unless someone takes the time to thoroughly read the article or, more likely, someone knows the subject matter.

In this case, the "error" fits in neither category, and I'm not sure there was an error at all. I'll admit it'd be preferable for phrases like "today" to not appear on the Main Page, especially as DYK items are up for twelve hours (when did it change from eight?), but it's hardly the kind of error that results in embarrassment. And it's most certainly not the kind of error that requires complaining here after just half an hour of waiting. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Reduce_queues_into_two_per_day.3F. -- KTC (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As the description of the problem has been removed from the error-report page, and as says "I'm not sure there was an error at all", I'll explain here. the DYK item said "today is the birthday of..."; but was displayed, around the world, during parts of two days, the 27th and 28th December. I proposed more suitable wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, in part, but I've also seen errors and omissions, including failures to make articles properly accessible in accordance with the MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

For example, removal of fan art from today's FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Patricia Cloherty (returned from archive)

The article Patricia Cloherty has been the subject of constant bad-faith edits by User:Happy225 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who seems determined to turn it into an WP:ATTACKPAGE. The article was sent to AFD and was fixed (by me and others) to remove the WP:UNDUE weight given to some references and other attacks and accusations. A few days ago, Happy225 copy-pasted an entire old version of the article back into place including the old attacks, undue weight and old AFD tag.

Happy225 is basically an WP:SPA almost solely focussed on this article. He has been blocked in the past for edit-warring at this article and has received warnings going back 3 years - all related to this one article. Not sure what the obsession is but some form of WP:COI is obviously at play.

The latest obsession seems to be related to the subject's age which Happy225 seems desperate to include. This was specifically noted at the AFD by the closing admin because no WP:RS exists for this "fact", only social media, and I think there was a suggestion that the original DOB was wrong.

Either way, the article was the subject of an OTRS ticket from the subject, seemingly because Happy225's previous edits inserted a bunch of unsourced attacks and accusations and the subject asked for the article to be deleted. Thus the AFD nom.

Happy225 has again be warned, twice, and I asked an admin to keep an eye out, but the quasi-vandalism continues. On the matter of the subject's age, I'm probably at 2RR myself, though the timing is spaced beyond 24 hours. Either way, I would appreciate some assistance. Stalwart111 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you receive no remedy on this notice board, for the immediate problem (edit-warring), try WP:EWN; for the longer-term content dispute, try WP:BLPN. Hope this helps. Rgrds. --64.85.215.128 (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I really think this now needs a block to prevent further vandalism and/or bad-faith edits. Stalwart111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have manually de-archived this thread to try to get some admin attention before it closes. The vandalism continues - this time the "facts" were reinserted with a bad direct link as a "reference". Fixing the link produces a Forbes profile which does not support the claimed facts anyway - here. This seems to be a clearly bad-faith attempt to reinsert the same dubious "facts" using fake/bad references, again, to create an attack page. Can someone please block the vandal in question? Stalwart111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He's made a single edit in the past three days, the above edit, which doesn't appear to be an attack. Could you elaborate what edits have been made in the past three days besides this one that constitute an attack? --Jayron32 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is simply the latest in a three-year campaign to insert unreferenced, negative and POV material into this one article - a campaign I don't profess to fully understand. Eventually it got so bad, it was nominated at AFD. The "problem" sections were removed (including the unsourced DOB) and the article was rewritten. The editor in question seems to be determined to revert the article back to its pre-OTRS, pre-AFD state. I can continue to revert, every three days or so, the same vandalism and will continue to do so. But Happy225 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build WP and has contributed nothing but the same quasi-attacks since he/she registered. I don't, as I said, profess to understand why someone would be hell-bent in inserting the wrong DOB into a BLP but I think its just what he is stuck on since everyone keeps reverting the more obvious stuff. Does there need to have been something in the last 3 days for action to be taken? Stalwart111 05:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protection for 2 weeks to give time for any other necessary action to take place. I note that Happy225 is persistently trying to insert her age but wavers between her being 70 and 72. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, and the suggested "source" says 69. Without an WP:RS to verify the age/DOB, the AFD closing admin suggested it should be left out. That has been upheld since for continued lack of an RS. But previous bad-faith edits included an unsourced/undue claim that the subject was responsible for commercial loses overseas (extrapolated from a single off-hand line in a multi-page profile and inserted in the article lede) and the unexplained removal of easily-sourced information about an major honour the subject received. Very strange. Stalwart111 11:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So, dispute over content and page protection have been somewhat dealt with ... even though neither should be on this board. Why this was pulled out of archives instead of being taken to the right places is beyond me. Your next step on the user is WP:RFC/U as nothing that requires immediate blocking has been proven (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protection is obviously helpful but not what I asked for and this is not, in my humble opinion, a content dispute. We don't disagree on what should be in the article - consensus determined that previous "facts" were unsourced and inappropriate and a single editor is vandalising the page to have particular attacks reinserted. If it's being done so slowly that it doesn't constitute blockable vandalism, that's fine. I'll continue to prevent vandalism once the block runs out - I can guarantee it will continue (the editor in question removed my explaination on his talk page then asked why his edits were being reverted). Sigh!

It was restored from archive because no-one had responded (except to suggest a solution for the edit-warring). These were serious enough issues to prompt an OTRS ticket from the subject, an AFD and delete votes there until it was cleaned up (it was so bad, people chose to delete rather than fix) and all bad-faith content was from one SPA who nows wants his/her old version of the article to be returned. I've seen blocks for far less serious vandalism, especially in BLPs, but if admins think this doesn't even constitute a topic-ban, I'll respect their judgement. Stalwart111 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Maconchy

User:Novaseminary has an attitude problem, being extremely patronising to other users who are trying to be reasonable WP:OWN while insisting on removing valid information from the article including (but not limited to) links to her husband and daughter while claiming this information is "unsourced" when in reality he just can't be arsed to check the sources and has a major attitude problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm quite confused. Not a single edit you reverted here was substantive. That is, Novaseminary made some cosmetic changes to the article, fixing some grammar and the format of some references, but made no substantive changes to the article's content, and it appears you just reverted them wholesale with no actual reason. Can you explain that? --Jayron32 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Confused? Yeah me too. Sorry I thought he was continuing to be an ass but not yet at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Look further back in the edit history and see Talk:Elizabeth Maconchy#Novaseminary unnecessary removal of material, Jayron32. We're clearly looking at things like this edit, where Novaseminary removes Maconchy's daughters from the article, and this edit where Novaseminary removes all mention of the daughters, studying under Wood and Vaughan Williams, OBE and DBE, Bartók, marriage, tuberculosis, string quartet, and choral and vocal works.

    Not only is it the case that the LeFanu information is supported by the source that was cross-linked to the prose, which I've just read page 348 of and seen in the supporting source, but additional sources confirming this and all of the other information can be found in about 10 seconds with almost no effort at all. I found several without breathing hard. Maconchy has full length biographies in several encyclopaedias and dictionaries of biography, as indeed does LeFanu. Their mother-daughter relationship is amply verifiable. Maconchy's first daughter is in her encyclopaedia entry in the Encyclopedia of World Biography, which also has an entire section headed "Suffered from Tuberculosis", confirming the information about contracting tuberculosis that Novaseminary removed for being supposedly completely unverifiable. The marriage, husband, compositions, OBE, DBE, choral work, and other information is verifiable from places ranging from a composer profile at the BBC by Andrew Burn to the several page biography in Pendle's Women & Music.

    Yet these 10 seconds are effort that Novaseminary has not expended in eight months, preferring instead to grossly misapply the verifiability policy and remove encyclopaedic content (which is in encyclopaedias) that xe clearly hasn't bothered to check. It is understandable that 86.129.242.193 is peeved at eight months of such destructive and lazy "work" by Novaseminary. It is understandable that not reading what is right in front of xem leads one person to consider Novaseminary's "work" incompetent. This is not how one writes and behaves when there are biographies of and encyclopaedia articles on the subject coming out the ears that one can collaboratively check and cite in order to improve the article, and where the information repeatedly excised for supposedly being unverifiable was right there in the cited sources cross-linked to the prose.

    The venue for this, however, is, as was pointed out at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior by Blackmane, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. This isn't an incident requiring administrator intervention. This is a months-long pattern of destruction of patently encyclopaedic content, unhelpfulness, lack of collaboration, and blatant mirepresentation and misapplication of content policy that obviously requires stronger negative feedback from the editor/writer community at large to the person exhibiting it. Content writers know that this is not how one writes collaboratively.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe North8000 will need to be taken up on their offer to spend the time to gather the evidence for a RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember an offer like that but I'm the Wikipedian most familiar with the editor. The 30,000 foot view is that some guidance for them in problematic areas is in order, (although they might have already have improved.) And that this will not be apparent to someone at first glance /not fully familiar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox women

Could some involved editors please take a look at the template Template:Infobox women and impose a decision on its content, either way it goes? It has been the theatre of a slow-motion edit war between me and another editor for three months now. A previous ANI failed to put an end to this. I would like to achive any kind of consensus on this dispute (described in the previous ANI) so that this can finally end.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this infobox really needed? I'm not convinced by its title either. In fact, I'd go the whole hog and question the purpose of 95% of that category! Most of the articles could easily fit into the main country/people articles, and some of the ones that actually may have a case for an article, don't have one! (Women in Afghanistan, anyone?). Lukeno94 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We have that as a redirect to Women's rights in Afghanistan. Which should really be named to Women have no rights in Afghanistan but there ya go. Any others? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really an ANI thing -- I'd suggest WP:3RD or WP:DRN. NE Ent 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

lough neagh

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

Hi admins, Fearing a potential edit war at lough neagh so raising the issue. User:Mo aimn is refusing to acknowledge the outcome of the discussion here Talk:Lough Neagh on topic "Basin Countries". I have corrected the vandalism but as this page is under 1RR I expect Mo to be back in 24hrs. Please can someone look into this....Factocop (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• You can't be serious with this... request. Doc talk 18:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've looked into it. Looking at this diff, which spans a period of six and half years, it appears that the only content writers are this person and this person (who was also a vandal and whose content has already been partly challenged as suspect), with this person adding section headings and listifying prose and this person adding the infobox. These four people are pretty much responsible for every significant change to the article in six and a half years.

  In the meanwhile, you, Factocop, alongside GoodDay and a whole load of others, are collectively responsible for almost 500 edits of edit warring and 440KiB of talk page discussion all over one frelling detail. And not a one of you has written anything about, say, the petrified wood that is one of the things that Lough Neagh is most famous for, and that forms a significant part of its entry in several other encyclopaedias, or the inflows and outflows, or the historical differences in water levels, or the geology.

  So, having looked into it, I now have some questions: What use are you and they to the writing of this article, or indeed to Misplaced Pages? You've collectively and individually contributed a sum total of nothing on the topic in six and a half years. Moreover, you edited exactly one article during your three-month Troubles topic ban, and even that was Ireland-related, but the day it ended you're back at Troubles topics, and indeed at the very same article that got you topic banned for three months, with the same one-note melody. Are you simply incapable of substantive writing about anything else, so when banned from your one note you have nothing of worth to offer the encyclopaedia at all?

  I note, almost in passing, that this edit is a revert of this edit that in turn was reverting you, in contravention of your restriction at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Factocop unblock conditions.

  Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

apologies Doc, but I thought this was the administrator's notice board...I must be lost. I have encountered Mo on a number of occasions and expected him on this occasion to respect the discussion outcome but sadly not.Factocop (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That revert is a clear violation of the unblock conditions. I shall impose a 24 hour block. Please refer any future violations to AE for discussion and sanction. SilkTork 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman

Iamthemuffinman (talk · contribs)

Folks, just to let you know I have indef blocked Iamthemuffinman with talk page access revoked, for a series of events that should be clear from his talk page - essentially, personal attacks at User talk:MisterShiney, and escalating threats (including a threat to sock) on his talk page. Anyone who knows him will remember his past battlefield approach and personal attacks, his vandalism spree, his global account lock, and the goodwill a number of us extended to him to allow him back. In the circumstances, I think my actions are justified. I'm bringing this here to ask people to be on the lookout for any socking from him - it's late where I am, and I'm off to bed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the appropriateness of your actions, since I've not taken a look and I'll AGF, but in WP:UTRS ticket #3075, User:MBisanz said that anymore disruption will result in a restore of the lock.--v/r - TP 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

He has apparently also abused the email system, so I have removed his access to that too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've let MBisanz know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note also a statement of intent to evade the block . AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks - I meant to link to that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Editor was given a slap on the wrist for very offensive behavior, then continued the rampage and made it clear they will just abandon the account and start socking, thus forcing stronger action. I see nothing controversial in the admin actions taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given statements made at User talk:MisterShiney and Editors past and subsequent behavior, this seems needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the note. I'll do the lock when I get home (it's very hard to use CentralAuth over my phone). MBisanz
•  Done MBisanz 02:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have some socking as was suspected here. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marstarbartion, which I'm guessing needs to be renamed now if iamthemuffinman is the sockmaster. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamthemuffinman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II‎

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

Hi, can you please look into User:Sepsis II‎ recent editing practice, on the Operation Pillar of Defense‎ article.

Sepsis keep making cumulative reverts of unrelated edits/users, with uninformative outraged edit summaries(like "undoing shamelessly blatant propagandizing"). I have contact the user (#Revert) explaining that he reverted several unrelated edits(creating collateral damage), asking him to make separate edit that address each issue with informative edit summaries. To which he responded with blanking my post and making the same revert. This time his edit summary stated "undoing acknowledged collateral damage", I contacted him again(#ARBPIA_notice)(maybe this not a duck, but some kind of miscommunication) stating that the same issues still stand and that I find his cumulative reverts disruptive, asking him to self-revert and if wish reintroduce each issue with appropriate edit summary or discuss this. To which he responded with blanking my post again.

So I'll appreciate if someone can look into this. Because honestly, I am really sick and tiered with the edit warring and general incivility on this article and I find Sepsis unexplained cumulative reverts, disregard to other users and refusal to engage only to prompt edit warring, cause tension and make collaboration even more difficult. Thanks Mor. --Mor2 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit: It seem that Sepsis just(3 min ago) got posted on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as well. I am not certain if it take precedence or effect this process. personally, my issue is not with the content, but with his behavior, it either one address it I am fine with it.--Mor2 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The proper location to report violations of Arbitration Remedies is at Arbitration Enforcement. Please attend to the issue there and do not open threads elsewhere as it projects the aura of Forum shopping for your prefered response. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not reporting a violations of Arbitration, but bringing what I consider a behavioral issue. I am not part or party to the AE submission, which I discovered only when I came to post the required ANI notice on the user page. Thus my additional edit, which serve as due diligence for you, since I am not familiar with this process and what it meant for it, not some an attempt to "Forum shop".--Mor2 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

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

Reason: Repeated WP:NPA despite repeated messages and warnings:

• User talk page taunts on the number of warnings posted. Also, talk page has recent messages about AFG, which display a lack of respect for AFG guidance.
• Posted after user attempted to re-do a redirect after consensus had determined to re-direct to another article.
• Repeats "VDE" acronym (Value Destroying Editor) which s/he has created as a slur.
• Another use of "VDE".
• Another use of "VDE"

(PS: I do not recall that I've ever posted an ANI before.) --S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Just because they made up their own acronym as a personal attack, it's still a personal attack - and they were indeed asked/warned to stop. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism and harassment after closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi

After closing the above AFD as "delete", my talk page and the talk page of Explicit (talk · contribs) who had previously deleted it because of a prod have been spammed and vandalized repeatedly by multiple IPs (we are the only admins showing up in the deletion log for this title). The vandalism has all been reverted and the first IP was blocked, but successive IPs were merely given warnings by editors who I think weren't admins and probably also didn't realize that these were continuing harassment, and the vandalism in turn just spread to not only those editors' talk pages but also to other editor's pages and project pages (all since reverted). I've blocked the other two IPs and I'm thinking about semi-protecting my talk page for awhile. Below are the three IPs so far; the post-AFD vandalism is the only contribution history for all of them. Perhaps a range block can prevent future whack-a-mole? Beyond my technical know-how. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• 118.103.228.136 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.231.226 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.230.12 (talk · contribs)

Note also another IP in the same range 118.103.224.4 (talk · contribs) had only made edits related to the AFD, none yet postdating its close. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

New IP, different range, only contributions are attempts at vulgar insults about this deletion on five different user talk pages and several project pages: 111.119.164.72 (talk · contribs). All reverted and blocked now, but this is getting tiresome. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Range-blocked 118.103.224.0/20 for 36 hours; that should at least get those in the 118.* block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:72.228.190.243

I probably should have just blocked them for the portion I had to hat, but I tried to assume a little extra good faith. At this point it is easy to see they are unfamiliar, thinking they are, and are just trolling. I'm kind of busy right now so will just leave this in the capable hands of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Some sterling examples of this editor's prose, directed at Dennis Brown:

• Reading your home page you strike me as a crushing mediocrity, a dabbler and a piddler. Is that a personal attack? Only pushing stuff as main space content as your confrere did could cause me to speak as I did above though.
• I'm resisting an urge to be nice to you because I think it's important in times like this not to.
• Sounds like you'll be talking to yourself unless there's a cabal of petty administrators that trade favors in their hissy fits.

Anybody in the Hissy Fit Cabal of Petty Admins feel like blocking this person? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care about what he said to me (I get called worse on the highway, and sometimes on my own talk page, meh...), but I did mind him telling another editor "Oh shut the fuck up, I only know you as the idiot you apparently are by virtue of your degradation of this site/project with your asshole activity in defending your stupidity" which is why I gave the warning. His response is what shows he is trolling. Since he aimed it (ineffectively) at me, I just figured someone else should take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken you're both editors I've had run ins with before. You're not an unbiased set in this case. But if you do ban me please do this account, the IP will only satisfy your bitch ass Wut. This is the only account I've ever used and it's perfectly within established policy for me to use IP accounts in non-admin editing. I waste far too much time on this site and a Schelling constraint inhibiting same would be welcome. All the more so if it pits me against the wee folk.Lycurgus (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, you are very likely 72.228.190.243, and yes, I would support an indef for the reg'ed account and 4 weeks for the IP (long hold dynamic IP) until we can figure out why you think you have "admin" editing, and the other oddities that aren't consistent with an established editor. I'm not sure if this is compromised account, or an editor having "issues", but something is up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh get a fucking grip. I insist you make it indef which I take to mean indefinite. I will definitely cease to edit this site if you can do that, though there may be a lag between my IP use and recognition that the account has been blocked. I don't want to contribute any further labor to a community that can be run by individuals like you, just need a little help in that. because up to this point I think it's better than that. Lycurgus (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You are acting pretty weird at the moment, Lycurgus. And on top of that, you're flinging abusive insults against a bunch of people around on pages that get you probably regrettable attention.

You've made some good points over the last few months, in contributions, but also done some very strange things, and started making a lot of insults. The term "trolling" is rather pejorative but you are creating or finding yourself in the center of an unusual amount of inter-editor conflict, for no evident good reason.

What are your objectives in editing the encyclopedia now?

I disagree with the sockpuppetry / IP stuff; you are clearly admitting owernship of the IP, no attempt to hide it evident. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum and Cornellier

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

This report concerns a recent interaction between User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Cornellier. Cornellier started a Good Article Review of the article on ferret legging, to which Malleus Fatuorum is the primary author (by edits). In response, Malleus made several personal attacks against Cornellier. After making it clear what he thought of Cornellier on both a related article page (an ignorant idiot who can't tell his arse from his elbow) and on someone else's talk page ("now I've got some fucking idiot basically claiming that I've invented the sport of ferret legging"), he proceeded to state on the review page that Cornellier "appears to be calling me a liar and of having invented this article and its sources", and of the review that ("maybe it's just payback time for something or other"). Reading the review it's clear the insults, disparaging remarks and accusations were unwarranted and a distortion of Cornellier's posts. To his credit Cornellier seems to have ignored them - the next person might not be able to resist such provocation. Chromium Oxide (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting second edit. --Rschen7754 23:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is your second edit, ever. Your first was to WP:WER. It looks like this has already died down, but surely you understand how unusual it looks for a "new" user to bring Malleus to ANI? Since they have hashed it out, I see no point in laboring it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've indefblocked the account. Seems like an obvious sock and SPA to me. --Rschen7754 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's no reason to block a user simply for being new, but doing things a more experienced user may do. Perhaps Chromium Oxide is a longtime IP editor just creating an account? In any case, remember not to bite the newbies! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this guy is new. Anyway, a SPI was already filed. --Rschen7754 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is this SPI? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's under Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chromium Oxide. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical of a new account that immediately complains at ANI about a personal attack directed at another user. That and the wikilawyering request to be unblocked and subsequent rants on his talk page make me think Chromium Oxide was just here to cause drama. postdlf (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

...and this is rather beyond the pale. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

CrO₂ appears to believe that there's a conspiracy of sorts to do him in. He's posted a list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the unblock request, this is an obvious and disruptive sock of somebody not wanting to edit from their regular account. Dreadstar ☥ 05:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've modified the block to revoke their talk page privileges; no point in giving them a forum for their screeds. postdlf (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Careful, CrO₂ will add you to their list of bad admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reopening thread

Granted, CrO₂ does seem to pass the duck test, however I think a discussion on the merits of his original complaint (without regard for who the complainant is) is warranted. I'm just trying to figure out if we've suddenly decided that calling someone a "fucking idiot" and/or "ignorant idiot" is ok, particularly for someone with a mile-long block log for personal attacks and incivility. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You must not have gotten the memo. Yes: it's okay. It's openly tolerated, so "don't poke the bear"! Why reopen this thread? Dèjá vu. Doc talk 07:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't get the memo. I was still going off the old one. Which one are you looking at? ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 08:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong, are you implying Malleus was rightly blocked by all the blocks in his "mile-long" block log? Or rightly blocked for just some of them? What? What is your message exactly, by writing that? (How you you want readers to interpret it? Because Malleus has accumlated some blocks, that were all or nearly-all unblocked without his even appealing, therefore, Malleus is of a character of xxx? What is it you are exactly saying here? Be specific rather than drop ambiguous hints that I for one cannot understand and am expected to "fill in the blank" for you. It's your blank. Fill it in, please.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Are you implying that Malleus isn't widely known for having problems with civility? Perhaps his various appearances (and sanctions) at arbcom would sum up my message? Here, I'll spell it out for you so there's no ambiguity: Malleus has a years-long track record of delivering blatant personal attacks (in violation of WP:NPA) and incivility (in violation of WP:CIVIL), and this episode appears to be yet another in a long line. He's been blocked dozens of times for it, probably more times than any other editor in Misplaced Pages history. He's also a very prolific and talented content editor, and therefore the blocks frequently get overturned out of fear that we might lose his content contributions (not because the block was incorrect; seriously, what are the chances that dozens of admins erroneously blocked the same editor?). If we do nothing in response to this episode, then we send the wrong message (not only to Malleus) that this type of behavior is ok. It's not ok. Clearly. You can have a disagreement with someone without resorting to name-calling. This is my message. Now I'm off for the night. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 08:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked dozens of times? Really? (A minimum of 24 blocks?) However many, wasn't he unblocked for 99 percent of them, even without his appealing? So on what factual basis can you imply he was rightly blocked? (Because you wish it so?) "Donzens of times", "a mile long", "a long line", that is not very quantitative or accurate, is it? (What did you like to achieve with the hyperbole? Be specific, please.) Also, is there any precedent at ANI, where there is no complainant? (If the original complainant is removed through SPI block or removed thru other block?) If there is no complainant, how will ANI apply its much-loved charge then, the WP:BOOMERANG, if there is no editor who is there to receive the BOOMERANG?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"What are the chances that dozens of admins erroneously blocked the same editor?" Is that meant as an argument of proof? (Because, it's not. It's a fallacy.) Also, the chances you refer to, are quite high, and there are probably many reasons for this. (One is that, since Malleus is "famous", any admin editor no one has ever heard of, has the chance to become instantly known in the community, simply by issuing the block. From obscurity, to instant fame. "I blocked Mallues" might as well be printed up on T-shirts and sold. The temptation for instant fame might be great, did you ever consider? Admins are human, not robots, and subject to such temptation, could easily find "justification" for a block. It's easier than winning the lottery, the fame is "guaranteed" by the push of a button.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to close this before Malleus retires again in protest. Seriously! He may not actually come back if we don't end this latest dishonest lynching. What an impasse... Doc talk 09:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"I'm sorry. Are you implying that Malleus isn't widely known for having problems with civility?" First, you're not sorry, you're sarcastic. Second, answering a Q with a Q, is not answering at all. (Didn't you know? And if you did know, why would you do it? Oh, I forget ... part of your sarcastic response.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Perhaps his various appearances (and sanctions) at arbcom would sum up my message?" Did Malleus receive "various" sanctions? Really? How many? Also, appearing at arbcom, apparently you like us all to think, that equates to ... guilt? Wow. (Is that what you want us all to think? I for one, wouldn't and couldn't think that, unless my brain had melted down to a gray goo first.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"He's been blocked dozens of times for it, probably more times than any other editor in Misplaced Pages history." I don't know if that's true, but if Malleus has been blocked more times than any editor ever, it is not something Malleus did. (It is something the blocking Admins did.) So don't credit Malleus with it; credit the Admins instead. Also, the fact that Malleus has so many arrows in his torso, is probably one of the most sacrificial and helpful things anyone has put up with for the sake of Misplaced Pages, in its history. (Why? Because by being the subject of incivility enforcement, Malleus has caused a focus on the policy, discussion on the policy, and that focus and discussion has discovered its cracks, its unsound properties. Like examining a moon rock, brought back from the moon. We learn things that way. We've learned that the policy re CIVIL was thought intact, but really, it was not. And its enforcement then, without definition, cannot possibly be fairly applied across the board. Malleus has allowed himself to be used as 'lab rat', poked and prod'd, for the sake of advancement of 'science' (language, considerations, concept, definition, fairness, re "what is incivility"). And he (Malleus) has not quit over this roasting and re-roasting, as the community struggles to get its act together, now that the problems are known. (IMO, it would be more appropriate to *thank* Malleus, for being the lab rat without quitting over it, which has allowed planners to see the deficiencies in the current civ policy. The deficiencies eventually would have come out; so it is better they have come out sooner, than later. So less people get burned by flawed policy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Situations where "fucking idiot" is acceptable?

@Dennis: In what situations do you think calling someone a "fucking idiot" or "ignorant idiot" is acceptable? If you think that such gross violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are allowed, can you please start discussions at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to alter these policies to allow such conduct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's one Misplaced Pages:Don't be a fucking idiot, obviously necessary redirect. --My76Strat (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong should find other interests than gunning after Malleus and other editors whom he attacked before becoming an administrator and playing Eddie Haskell. "Just trying to figure out", sheesh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes agreed - "Just trying to figure out", sheesh! - I can't believe this troll food was reopened by an administrator - - Youreallycan 10:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Tom Rice and also possible threat on my talk page

I have worked hard on the Tom Rice article, but yet Moriori deleted most of the information I made on 00:56, December 23, 2012‎ that I felt was need to create a good article and the reason Moriori deleted the information according to a message left on my (talk) page that improve it from a bloggy, pov, poorly written mishmash to a reasonably encyclopedic article (an ongoing task). I took it from this abomination to this. I was trying to make the Tom Rice article to the Tim Scott article. Also to me the following left on my (talk) page sounds like a threat to me: "I have reverted you and suggest you don't revert me again. Instead, if you believe I am wrong you can report me elsewhere or ask for comment elsewhere." and this is because I accused Moriori of vandalism which I have felt she has committed on the said article. Sk8terguy27_Talk 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC) User Moriori has been notified that he/she is subject of a discussion here.

• Content/sourcing dispute. NOT vandalism.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• 8-paragraph word-for-word copyright violation, 10-paragraph word-for-word copyright violation, and 9-paragraph word-for-word double copyright violation that also presents campaign literature as fact. This is "reasonably encyclopaedic"? It's not in any way encyclopaedic. Read our Misplaced Pages:copyright policy and do not edit in this way again. Every edit page that you've ever seen here has told you not to do this. If you are not able to write original, free content, prose of your own, do not write. Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If I was informed of the copyright issue I would have re-written it, but no someone decided to delete all my hard work instead of letting me know there was a issue or fixing the article themselves. How can it be campaign literature as I don't have any campaign literature in frobt of me? Sk8terguy27_Talk 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not "hard work" to copy and paste multiple paragraphs en bloc from someone else's writing. It's the opposite of hard work, in fact. And of course you had campaign literature in front of you. You even named it. And, I repeat, you were informed of the requirement not to violate copyright with every edit page that you have ever seen at Misplaced Pages. The fix for copyright violation is to revert to the last prior non-infringing version, not the creation of derivative works. Taking your misappropriation of writing that wasn't written by you entirely out of the article is quite the right thing to do. Violate copyright no more. Otherwise I or another administrator will simply revoke your editing privileges for the protection of the project. Misplaced Pages is damaged by "writing" that is actually the filching of other people's non-free-content writing. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll rewrite the article at some point in the future and write it in my own words and not violate anyone's copyright. I have re-wrote articles before that didn't violate anyone copyright and what proof do you have I violated copyright? I try as hard as I can to re-write articles, but sometimes parts of an article have to be copy and pasted as it is hard for me to rewrite somethings. Sk8terguy27_Talk 01:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Sadly you do actually need to be able to rewrite all things (unless you both quote AND attribute very SHORT sections, like half a sentence). So although I would love it if Uncle G were to mellow his tone a bit (what is hard work for some may not be hard work for others), unfortunately he is right that if the only way you can create or substantially expand an article is to copy and paste things, then you would be better advised not to get involved in article expansion at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you think it best for me to retire from editing I will. Sk8terguy27_Talk 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, nobody said you should retire from editing. They just said that you should stop copying and pasting directly. Think of it this way: By having you copy and paste something, Misplaced Pages could be sued for copyright violations. Then Misplaced Pages gets shut down. That's kind of extreme, but it could happen. You are free to edit, but take the information and use it to formulate good neutral paragraphs of your own words before putting it in an article. Copyright means just the opposite, you do not have the right to copy it. You can't copy it into an article and then change a few words, we have tools that catch that too. The editors aren't saying retire, they're just saying stop copying things. Sorry, saw this and had to go all editor retention. gwickwire_edits 03:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on reading this and a look through your edits, a copyright investigation is looking likely, as it seems the majority of your "work" violates copyright. Already cleaned up one article and am finding more. Wizardman 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More copyvios/plagiarism found at David Bennett (American football); nearly all of the material has been ripped directly from and . --MuZemike 04:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've given a final warning, which I think is quite generous. --Rschen7754 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your opinion that it's quite generous. In this 14 Oct edit sk8erguy27 wrote: "I have worked hard and put many hours in this article and I don't want to re-do this article, so please do not make any unnecessary changes or remove and image unless it violates copyright law." This is a demonstration that he wasn't clueless and knew that what he was doing may infringe upon copyrights. A WP:CCI case needs to be opened, and the user indefinitely blocked, with the provision that the ban be lifted if he can prove to the community, somehow, that the pattern will stop. A warning? With all due respect, I don't consider the soft approach to be the most suitable course of action in this situation. PhnomPencil (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(He's demonstrated a knowledge of copyright and demonstrated he couldn't care less. AGF does not apply here.) PhnomPencil (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that all he demonstrated by that 14 Oct edit was an awareness that such a thing as copyright exists, not an understanding of it nor how it's relevant on Misplaced Pages. In my opinion the final warning is more than enough action against the editor for now, given that he now appears to have (slowly) understood the seriousness of the situation, finally stopped adding copyvio material, and has started following some of the advice he's been given. (He was advised to request WP:ADOPTION and has now done so; his last apparently copyvio addition was on 26 Dec, only a few days after the failure of the RfA that apparently brought all this to light.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, maybe I've received a hundred too many essays completely lifted from another source and have thus ended up despising that action more than is warranted... I trust those involved know how to handle this situation more than me (but I've got to say, I think we're too soft on serial copyright infringers; if it's a big enough problem to be CCIed, they've hurt the project enough to be indef blocked, IMHO). PhnomPencil (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In the real world, intent is an element of almost any crime. As Demiurge1000 said above, I agree that he was just being ingnorant and now that he knows it is a problem, he is taking measures to get educated. And I also agree that if he screws up again, he has the intent and we should throw the book at him. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that it now looks unlikely that a CCI will be required for this (though some other cleanup is), more details here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell"

The edit filter on this page: Robert B. Bell is oversensitive and is reporting multiple false positives. Two of the recent trips are described here: ] and here: ] 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EFM might be a better place to resolve this? I see the issue is already posted there, they'll handle it. Salvidrim! 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was archived once (see the second link) without being resolved, so I want to make sure this gets on whoever's radar it needs to be on.70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a false positive, but there's no way to fix that through the edit filter; that's just how it goes. Why do you say that this should be in the article? "Internet celebrity" is...exaggerated at least, I'd say. Chandler wasn't notable the last time someone tried to create an article for him; what's changed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the false positive is triggered by the edit filter, isn't that where it would be fixed? As to whether or not that information should be included in the article, well, editors can discuss that if they want on the talk page. The point is it's not "Sonichu and other repeat vandalism," as it is reporting. According to here: ] the original creator of the filter needs to fix it. Can we find out who that is? 70.241.73.164 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike was the filter's author; I'll ping him to ask about it. Long story short, though, is that false positives are not something that can be eliminated entirely. You're probably better off discussing this before inserting it anyway; I very much doubt it's something that should go into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the recent edits on the Robert B. Bell article and the recent above IP's request to unsalt and recreate a virtual BLP nightmare on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20#Christian Weston Chandler, I conclude that the edit filter is working as intended. This latest attempt is basically an end-run around the failed DRV. --MuZemike 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is not the recreation of an article on Chandler, I just want to mention him on the article on Bell, and your edit filter is claiming it is is "Sonichu and related vandalism," which it isn't. Other admins have agreed that my trip is was a false positive. Please tweak this to allow legitimate edits. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Five X-Bucks says all those IPs !voting "relist" there were the same chap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is it forum shopping if it's on the same forum? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for pointing me to this. But regarding everything else you've written here: please stop acting like an idiot. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unable to move an article

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

Just wondering if an admin could have a look at whether Givton Hanoch could be moved to Hanoch Givton. I note that three articles have been deleted at the latter title due to the identity of the author. Hack (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hanoch Givton was deleted thrice this year because it was created by a WMF-banned user, User:Nnimrodd (presumably socking since that account is also indef-blocked)... this raises concerns as to whether User:PellRubin is the same person trying to circumvent the WP:SALTing of the previous title. Salvidrim! 05:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has been deleted by User:Spartaz in accordance to our banning policy. If you believe the topic to be notable, you are free to request of a copy of the deleted article to perhaps recreate it yourself, or write it from scratch as it wasn't extremely fleshed out. Salvidrim! 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From scratch please, as the author has been banned by the foundation. The subject does appear notable but I'd be concerned the recreated page would be a magnet for the banned user. Spartaz 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION and User:Yerevanci

Recently, the mentioned user have being aggressive toward me:

• First, he mockingly questioned my ability to understand English
• justified that stating It's apparent English is not your first
• called me stubborn and refuses to discuss

Also, notice how he uses bold and capitals letters to justify his moves and refusal to discuss. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. consider Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as basis for my claims.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. The user seems to get nervous for writing on his talk page and calls it "vandalism" (, . Even when I notified him of this discussion, which is a rule clearly stated in a red box at the top of this page. An admin should also consider teaching him the basic rules of Wiki.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• User vandalizes page by reverting my constructive edits.
• Continues to remain stubborn and not comprehend that justices, military, and law enforcement are not politicians.
• Reverts pages within one minute if he doesn't hear from me.
• I have provided points in Talk Page on article List of Armenian American politicians about steps to follow when posting entries on list since August 2012. He refuses to even read or comply with these simple requests. Please see talk page discussion to see my posts.
• Has vandalized my Talk Page after I have warned him not to write on it.

Please provide guidance on how to deal with an unstable, uncooperative rogue editor who doesn't comprehend the U.S. political system, Misplaced Pages article formatting, or English grammar.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP:VANDALISM:

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. (emphasis added)

Inserting "Penis" or "I love Mary" into an article is vandalism. Disagreeing with you isn't, necessarily.

Have you tried discussing your disagreements with Yerevanci?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to hear a statement about his aggressive behavior.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 06:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content dispute, which is outside my sphere of knowledge although Gtwfan52 has made a point on the talk page. Please avoid calling edits "vandalism" if they are not blatant vandalism. Yerevanci's notification post on your talk page is required per the instructions when posting an ANI about another user. These are not vandalism and calling them such is a personal attack and continued use of this term is blockable. You can ask Yerevanci not to post on your talk page in future and by common courtesy Yerevanci should cease doing so. And Yerevanci, for your information, when XLR8TION removed the notices from their talk page it is considered that they have read acknowledged the notice so further posting isn't necessary.

There has been general combatativeness from both of you and really it's time to calm the hell down. XLR8TION please refrain from using caps, particularly bold caps, as it usually means you're shouting at the other party. If you're intending to emphasise a point without shouting, italics or bold italics would be preferable and is less inflammatory. Also, in edit your comment overwrote Gtwfan52's hence their comment that you reverted their talk page comment. Yerevanci has posted a compromise on the talk page so here are a couple of trouts for making such a mountain out of a mole hill and back to the talk page you go. Blackmane (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been general combatativeness from both of you isn't quite accurate if you think about it. What languages I speak and what languages I don't speak isn't a discussion topic, at least, it wasn't last time I checked Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Calling names, SHOUTING through the computer screen isn't acceptable also. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 06:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly a content dispute, and I have suggested to them that they go to WP:DRN. But one side of the dispute has a serious case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I am not a mediator, so I give up.Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Dalit

...by User:Smith012

User:Smith012 is an old but infrequently used account (started editing under this name on July 3, 2009) that seems to have degenerated to an activist WP:SPA on South Asian Caste related articles. These articles fall under wikipedia discretionary sanctions (discussion here), which can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Over the course of a lengthy period of time, his edits have repeatedly failed to conform to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. Here, he even revert-warred with a bot I warned him once on his talk page , and tried to engage in dispute resolution on the article talk page , but he has ignored my requests and continues to edit in a disruptive manner. Some kind of preventative measure, up to and including discretionary sanctions, may be necessary.Handyunits (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

...by User:Handyunits

This user is violating Misplaced Pages policy on neutral sources, deleting referenced sources without justification. I have requested a third opinion and have reported him as a vandal to an administrator. I have requested dispute resolution in the form of a third opinion and have taken the issue to the talks page for other editors but so far this user has not complied in the interest of the article and continues to provide no justification. I have warned him about misconduct on Misplaced Pages and provided him a warning and i have requested a dispute resolution for the second time on the talks page. However this user is not seeking the resolution. Smith012 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:SnrRailways

In re Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways; he clearly did run an unauthorized bot, but changing ] to ], where B redirects to A, is something done automatically by authorized bots. Just because "A" is something he hates, doesn't mean that that that particular edit was wrong. If he changed ] to ], that would be different.

I'm not necessarily saying that the block should be overturned, but the bot performed a legitimate, approved, function. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's SOP to block unauthorized bots due to the security risk. --Rschen7754 06:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Doing the right thing in the wrong way is still wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Individualism

wacky stuff going on at Talk:Individualism can somebody intervene. Thanks. --Penbat (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by the promised wackiness. I undid the revert of a revert with a clear edit summary and posted a message on the user's talk page, but I leave disappointed and in search of truly wacky stuff. Salvidrim! 12:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

did you see the history for the talk page --Penbat (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I stand corrected! It is indeed sufficiently wacky. I have sent you a small notification and will give the user a sterner warning about removing other users' comments on talk pages, if it continues, some sanction may be in order. :) Salvidrim! 12:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am however compelled to point out it is considered preferable to notify involved parties when bringing an issue to AN/I; in this case I've mentioned it on the user's talk page. Salvidrim! 12:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he still doesnt get it --Penbat (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bah, he may not be the most civil, but the talk page post is a start. User:Lova Falk is trying to engage the user in reasonable discussion, let's start by seeing if it devolves into personal attacks before being pessimistic. Salvidrim! 12:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really work out the way I hoped it would. Lova Falk talk 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

i doubt if he has even noticed his talk page but even so....User_talk:118.36.229.221--Penbat (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO its a text book case of trolling. User 118.36.229.221 is thumbing his nose at any reasonable rational comment or suggestion, reveling in the attention and even starting to mess with narcissism as well.--Penbat (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this very well might be a case of trolling. Would you please look into it? Lova Falk talk 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them so they get bored and go away, ref "dont feed the trolls". Whether he needs blocking is up to the administrators.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor violating BLP and making unsupported suggestions of a rape victim on RD

User:Wrk678 made this silly post about a at the time living person . They readded it when someone attempted to remove it. They then made more silly suggestions (the victim may have died by this time so perhaps technically not a BLP violation) despite the fact our article which had been pointed out to them offered fairly obvious explainations as I later pointed out here (before just deleting the entire section). If that's not enough for a indef, I have been monitoring this editor since I first saw them since I have good reason to believe based on similarity of question type (e.g. on chemicals and harm to the body) and writing style and other obvious similarities that the editor is yet another sock of User:Kci357 who was finally blocked for good for good after exhausting the communities patience at the encyclopaedia proper, to be reallowed back in after implying they would behave only to quickly return to said behave and get blocked again. BTW despite their denials , I'm confident Kci is a sock of User:Kj650 and many other identities besides at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357/Archive, quite a few of which were never blocked simply abandoned hence the fairly incomplete list. I never bothered open a CU since I believe it will have to be based on behaviour evidence alone and the editor's behavious seemed to be borderline acceptable (in particularly they seem to have stayed away from deleting stuff from articles they disagree with even when it's sourced while adding their own unsourced stuff). Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week for that obnoxious trolling. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(His allegations that a young woman who was brutally gang-raped and murdered, and a schoolgirl who was shot in the head, must have been faking it and/or actually harmed themselves, seems extremely misogynistic - and I would not object if someone decided he is not the kind of person we want here at all.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note, if anyone thinks I have overreacted then please feel free to adjust my actions accordingly - I confess to feeling revolted by this person's despicable claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW I just realised I neglected to inform them of this discussion, but by this time they've obviously been blocked and so can't respond directly. I informed them anyway since someone can copy it over it over if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hell no Boing. you were spot on with the block. I had responded to that post but ended up self reverting as I felt it would just encourage his trolling. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Lukabeograd

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

User is returning every six months or so to anachronistically credit Yugoslav results in various sporting articles exclusively to Serbia. This includes results both from the pre-1992 SFR Yugoslav era and from the 1992-2006 FR Yugoslav/Serbian and Montenegrin era.

Such edits make up the large majority of the user's contributions. They are subtle and do not necessarily get noticed within reasonable time (some of the changes I reverted this morning were three months old). But they are POV and problematic. See, for instance Water polo at the Summer Olympics. Lukabeograd's change is this. Note the presence of Croatia, another part of the former Yugoslavia, on the list, demonstrating why this is problematic (there is no reason to prefer the one over the other).

The point has been flagged up on the Lukabeograd's talk page three times before today, including two formal warnings of Arbcom discretionary sanctions applying to the Balkan region (WP:ARBMAC). I raised the issue with the admin who issued both Arbcom warnings and he asked me to bring it here for another admin to review. I've raised it here instead of at WP:AE because AE would seem to be a touch extreme and faff-filled (but if someone feels the need to transfer it, please do). Kahastok talk 15:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions are appropriate; the only question is whether it should be a block or a topic ban, and the duration. Whichever it is, even though it would be the first sanction, it should be long enough to take into account the user's historical sporadic appearances here. I'd say 6 months, although anything short of indefinite may be a waste of time. The user, who has only made 54 edits on Misplaced Pages, has never talked since they've registered an account. As an aside, the warnings should have been logged, but that doesn't preclude sanctions. I thought about acting on my own but figured I'd see if anyone else wants to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick: I don't think my reading of WP:ARBMAC#Logging of sanctions matches yours. It says we have to log "imposed sanctions" in the section called "Log of blocks and bans". I never considered the warnings an imposed sanction - it can be considered a sanction of sorts, even a formal sanction what with the boilerplate template, but it's hardly anything imposed because you don't have to be an admin to issue the warning. Over the last five years, I've probably warned a gazillion people without updating that log because I see no reason to clutter it before a block or a ban. --Joy (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A gazillion, huh? When do you have time to do anything else? :-) Honestly, I never thought about whether it was required to log a warning (and I'd only log it once), just that it was, I dunno, a good idea, but perhaps that's just me. Now that you've brought it up, though, I don't see anything that says you must log warnings. I particularly like this sentence: "This is an incomplete list of editors who have received the warning (by means of the template {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}} or otherwise) required for the imposition of discretionary sanctions." Anyway, we can now go back to the meat of the report (not that I didn't enjoy this little detour (no sarcasm intended)).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Page move mess

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

Pretty unexciting stuff I'm afraid, but could an admin cleanup the page move mess between Misplaced Pages:JumpSoft --> Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/JumpSoft --> JumpSoft. There is a substantial amount of page history at Misplaced Pages:JumpSoft that could do with merging into JumpSoft. I haven't requested this via CSD tags because Misplaced Pages:JumpSoft is not a valid redirect to article space and therefore ultimately needs deleting. Pol430 talk to me 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's exciting now. There are links of different colours. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, that's much prettier. Ta very much Pol430 talk to me 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

I think there is a personal attack in this contrubution and violation of this policy.--Rapsar (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no personal attack and it probably is not good bringing up that as an example, but I see no malicious intent or insinuation here. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. Criticising another editor's position or actions never has been. Basalisk ⁄_berate 22:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please look at WP:WIAPA; simply saying that you're incorrect is not a personal attack. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can an Administrator Please Look Into Fixing This? (Edit Filter False Positive on Robert B. Bell)

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

Can an administrator please look into fixing this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_False_Positive 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that content has been proposed and rejected before many times. Look at the history of the article. If anything we should be watching the article more closely, but I won't propose protecting the page as it seems to be only a rare occurrence. Still, the filter is working properly and this is definitely not a false positive. Looking at your own editing history I now believe youre only pretending not to know why the edit was stopped, but for the benefit of others I'll leave my answer up. ☮Soap☮ 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor Lljjp

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

Something's not right with this account that was created a few minutes ago: Special:Contributions/Lljjp. Could an admin examine this? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) was kind enough to block Lljjp. As you can see at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000, this has been an ongoing problem with this user. Thanks for noticing the edits, though. 72Dino (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page harassment by sock of User:Mangoeater1000

An SPI has been created for User:Lljjp as a sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, but now this user is continuing to bombard my talk page with accusations after being told to stop. Need some assistance from an admin to make this stop. 72Dino (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked, so this has been taken care of for now. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Yerevanci fabricating claims that images uploaded as non-free are actually public domain

Earlier today, I removed about a dozen images identified as non-free from List of architects of Baku. About half those images were included in the list section; the other half were in a gallery displaying the work of various listed architects. None of the images had NFCC rationales supporting their inclusion in that article. No argument has been advanced suggesting that such use can be allowed under applicable NFCC policy.

One minute later,User:Yerevanci began restoring all the images to the article, declaring them to be public domain. In response to my remocal of the images, he altered their underlying file pages, changing the original identification of the images from nonfree to public domain. Yerevanci was not the original uploader of the images, and there is no reason to believe, especially given the very short timespan involved, that Yerevanci made any significant efforts to verify the applicability of his boilerplate tagging. In general, the public domain claims he makes with regard to the images require that either the date of death of the photographer or the circumstances of the original publication be established; however, for all of these images, the identity of the photographer has not been provided, and the original publication has not been ascertained. These are simply photographs found on various websites, with no discernible provenance, of 20th-century subjects. Absent more information, we cannot presume these images to be PD. The original tagging was careful and correct, and Yerevanci should not have summarily altered it or restored the images.

Yerevanci is a combative user (see an earlier section on this page, for example), and the article is already entangled in the sort of disputes that often spread across articles even tangentially related to ethnic controversies. Some of his other image uploads/uses are clearly problematic at best (eg, putting a nonfree image in a BLP infobox). I suspect community intervention is likely to be more productive, perhaps necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As I understood, there is a huge confusion here. Please take a look at the death dates of the architects. Most of them have died in 1940s and 1950s and I, being an Armenian editor of Misplaced Pages for over 3 years, am familiar with most of these men. The Russian and Azerbaijani copyright laws set the age of the copyright at 70 years, which takes us back to 1942. Most architects in the list have worked as architects before the Russian Revolution of 1917 and de facto worked until 1914, the start of WWI. Therefore, it is very likely that these photos have been taken before 1942, thus are in public domain. I am admitting that I din't not manually check each one of them, because there is an 80 to 90% chance that they in PD. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 00:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not good enough - we need 100% evidence that they are PD, not just your personal reasoning regarding likelihood and your 80-90% estimate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they aren't in PD, then go ahead delete them. What's the problem here? I just gave the reasoning of my moves. --Երևանցի 01:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that the copyright period is based on the copyright owner which is likely the photographer and rarely the subject. Without knowing who the photographer is or when they died, we'd have to assume a long copyright term (120 years from date of publication, IIRC). They definitely aren't PD. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Russian copyright law (which includes Azerbaijan and whole territory of Soviet Union) says that copyright doesn't include works

If you can find the authors of these works I wish you good luck.--Երևանցի 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You, Yerevanci, have to proof the first part: that they were published anonymously or under a pseudonym. Because no source is listed, we have to assume them non-free and treat them that way until you positively proof that PD statement. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You, my dear friend, are free to do whatever you think is right. If you think that a photo from pre-1918 era isn't in PD, then delete them. Don't make a big deal out of nothing. Again, as a person who is very familiar with the topic, I'm absolutely sure that it's almost impossible to find the original authors of these photographs. --Երևանցի 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright starts from the point of publication, not creation. I don't doubt these are pre-1918 images, but there's no indication (due to a lack of source) that they were published around then. They could have been first published in 1970, for example, and that would make them well within copyright. This is why you need to positively show these images are in the PD, because we can't make assumptions otherwise like that. The fact these lack any source declaration does not help. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You folks are attempting to enforce an interpretation of copyright and Misplaced Pages policy that would basically make it impossible to upload almost anything, since the degree of certainty you are demanding is generally impossible to achieve. I assume your good faith, but in point of fact, your actions significantly harm this project and make it less useful for our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. First, we're not saying this pictures can't be used, that without any confirmation of the original likely source, we have to assume them non-free and treat them as non-free. They can be used on the article pages about the various architects in line with NFCC, but they can't be used in tables or galleries. If they were PD, then that would mean they would meet the requirements of Commons, and my experience there is the lack of a strong declaration of a source for these will cause Commons to reject them, irregardless of the apparent age of the photo. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been editing Misplaced Pages articles for over 3 years and have uploaded hundreds of images to the Commons and you can check and see that I provide as much information as possible, but in this case I simply do not know of a way to find out the authors of those photos and the dates of their first publication. Believe me, I've done a enormous amount of work for this project and I do know what you're talking about and do respect that. But you should also understand that English-language sources are much more in number and much more available online than Armenian, Azeri and Russian or any other language sources, which makes it very difficult for users like me, that work on articles outside of the Anglophone world, to find detailed information for every historic photo. Let me give you an example for a clearer view. The Library of Congress has millions of images that have pretty good description about their history, including the author or the publication date. There is no such resource that I can use for my work. See the difference? This is all I can say. If you eventually decide to delete them, I can't blame you, because we have no actual way of finding the required information. --Երևանցի 04:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some works whose copyright status is hazy enough that we cannot be sure. Despite a good-faith effort to find out and/or possible rationalization, we don't have the authority (legally--as I understand it--or per WMF-based more strict and conservative policies) to overcome that problem. Orphan works really are a problem, but there's nothing that we can do about it ourselves here. We really do need some actual evidence (doesn't have to be on-line, but does have to be actual). DMacks (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - the problem is that when we mark an image PD or CC-BY, we're enabling its free, unrestricted reuse by users of Misplaced Pages. If we are wrong about that tagging - putting a work into PD/CC-BY that is still under copyright - we are violating copyright law. On the other hand, there is minimal harm of marking what really is a PD/CC-BY image as nonfree, certainly nothing that would put WP in legal trouble. Hence, we require strong prove of an image's PD/CC-BY nature. Mind you, we do assume good faith at times since for older images tracking the exact first publication can be impossible, but this always requires at least one other source that has also published said works so that a review of their history can be started. Most of the images in question lack this source. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-report of an ad hominem

I am self-reporting an ad hominem response by myself to Doncram. If this means I get blocked, as would be likely per policy, then so be it. This type of thing has gone on for long enough. I will inform the other party. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Relatively uncivil, but not an ad hominem. @Doncram, what experience do you have with castes/what is your purpose in editing those articles? Ryan Vesey 01:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For Christ's sake Sitush, if I had a sprat handy you would get it in the mush. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram says in that diff "this is an encyclopedia-building project" so I would imagine that putting that together with WP:AGF would lead us to an acceptable conclusion about his purpose in editing any particular set of articles, absent strong evidence to the contrary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Apart from the numerous embarrassing typos (now hopefully fixed), I really do not care. I often make typos but that is not the issue. Block me for the ad hominem and for god's sake sort out the underlying mess. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, a sprat is a very small fish, hence what you said does not even raise to the level of a trouting. Get back to editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I know what a sprat is. But the initial "s" may be redundant here, in my case. I'm past caring when it comes to the "polite incivilty" that goes on where Doncram is concerned. I am fed up of seeing this person steamroller stuff, seemingly accept consensus only when it suits and misrepresent what others say. Honestly, I'm pissed off with all this stuff. I may be wrong and I know what the likely outcome of this report will be but, well, I'm past caring. Doncram himself suggested RfC was the best option last time I recall him being here, but he has not filed one and my experience of him forms only a small part of all the various complaints etc. I'm not best-place to form something for RfC and Doncram (probably rightly) seems unwilling to self-report even though admitting it is likely the best option. What can one do? I certainly cannot stand by and watch someone with so little understanding of a subject matter run riot just because they think they are good at copying an extant primary source list on to Misplaced Pages and, well, "it must be right" (paraphrase). - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel like the idea last time was that it should go to Arbcom, even Doncram himself suggested as much, but nobody ever took it there. For background on the issues see Doncram on Indic communities and subsections thereof. Ryan Vesey 02:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel honored by this. Sitush is stating at his talk page that he is "falling on a sword" towards bring me down, specifically:

....We are sleepwalking into a big problem here and someone who thinks they're good at turning a hardcopy list into a Misplaced Pages list is missing numerous relevant points while playing a very good game of pretending to acknowledge them. This is not the only sphere in which they've done this and their ability to insult without seeming to do so appears to know no bounds. I'll take him on and I know that I'll lose because the policy wonks will be unable to see beyond their beloved rules + he is very, very good with words even if less good with action. I'm past caring when umpteen admins etc are aware that there is an issue but nothing can apparently be done: block me, and let his new Misplaced Pages friends from India take pleasure in seeing that happen. Frustrated although I am, at least I will have fallen on my sword with honour.

Sitush opened a recent ANI and RyanVesey expanded the scope of that. What I think this new outburst seems to be about is my observing, at Talk:List of OBCs or Talk:List of Scheduled Castes, that virtually every comment made by Sitush seems to involve disparaging or attacking someone else. That is just what I observed. It gets in the way of any real discussion, for (almost) every entry to be presented as an attack on others' ignorance or other failings. I was giving feedback and asking him to show some other behavior. As evident from links from User talk:Doncram#Your interaction with Sitush, Sitush consulted with Salvio giulano and seemed to acknowledge kneejerk comments of that type: ""I need to back off, I think, and will try my best. My last there was a bit of a kneejerk, although verifiable. Must try to pay more attention to what you, Dennis and others have said, ie: there are many eyes. Mea culpa".

But subsequently several statements at my Talk page and at the given Talk page and at Sitush's Talk page and this ANI itself are also of this character. Sitush did make one statement at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes#Redlinks that was not of that character, but upon my reply to that he replied that I am clueless and he opened this ANI. At his Talk page he suggests "I'll take him on" and that he wishes to fall on a sword here. I don't care for a "self-reported ad hominem" attack turn into a trial of me here at ANI. I kind of would like to see some admonishment of Sitush, to tell him not to fall on a sword, not to seek to confront another editor. I hope not to comment much more here. I hope this could be closed with some response to Sitush who seems to have provoked some disagreement and seems to be seeking other admin involvement, where nothing should be necessary. Simply, at the Talk:List of OBCs and Talk:List of Scheduled Castes, just discuss the articles' contents, okay? Give Sitush some feedback: don't "take on" another editor, please. --doncram 04:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at two talk pages you link above, and by no stretch of the imagination is "virtually every comment" a disparagement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) To quote OrangesRyellow at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes#discussion and question:

....Sitush has tried to create the impression that India is a chaotic country and that the official sources on India are also chaotic (without showing any sources to support his claims). He keeps telling Doncram again and again at various places that Doncram is unfamiliar with this subject area. But then, Sitush is also an amateur and no more. I am only trying to set the record straight so that people can work on this article with official sources in the usual way. I see no unusual problems in dealing with the subject of this article and even if some problems crop up, we should deal with them when they do crop up. I would certainly like to help when such problems crop up, but do not approve the negative climate about sourcing that is being created now. I do not think it is helpful to demoralize people by talking about problems in vague terms without pointing out any specific problems in the article. I think it is quite easy to write this article by sticking closely with what the sources say.

I think it is reasonable to point out that Sitush has repeatedly suggested horrific consequences of any contributions, even if fully sourced and justified, I think with implication of inter-caste warfare or really I don't know what else being caused, which are all really vague. Editor OrangesRyellow is pointing out the vagueness. Sitush has mentioned death threats. But I think it is reasonable to say that the only outrage I have observed in any of this is Sitush's. I have not familiarized myself with past Indic article disagreements that led to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/South Asian social groups judgments, but I wonder if Sitush's aggressive style displayed recently had contributed to disagreements getting out of hand previously. He has commented to me that he has won previous ANI type discussions on Indic topics. I don't want to win anything, but i and some others including OrangesRyellow also don't see any real impediment to developing wikipedia, with sources, in these areas. --doncram 04:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest smacking Sitush with a minnow, since WP:TROUT would be too punitive here. (Here in Minnesota, in the United States, we use minnows as bait to catch other fish.) I can see why Sitush is getting frustrated -- it seems like Doncram's behavior has that sort of effect on people. I've seen plenty of people getting frustrated with Doncram's modus operandi on Misplaced Pages, but Doncram only has suggestions on how those other people should be admonished or punished or changed, while he considers his behavior beyond reproach. It's funny how that works out, isn't it? In fact, I remember how he accused me of lying about the date when the Floyd B. Olson House was built. Then again, I suspect that Doncram will vent all of his frustrations in the Arbcom case he's pondering submitting. --Elkman 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sadly, I have a sense of deja vu. In particular, I'm reminded of this statement from a few months back, by a long-active contributor who decided to quit rather than continue interacting with Doncram. He wasn't the first... --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm....well, I quit rather than interact with you, so maybe the pot should stop calling the kettle black. Lvklock (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Intentional Vandalism

This user has range of ip addresses here.Already used many for the same cause and some of them get blocked too.Some diff,s are with this range ,with other range .Did all disruption with same tone and in common articles as Vidya Balan,Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara‎ ,‎].---zeeyanketu 07:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I just hit the most recent one, let me see if there's a blockable range. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the ones you gave are from widely spaced ranges, so I don't see any way to do a rangeblock. At the moment the best solution may be just semi-protection on the targeted articles. I see that Floquenbeam has already protected the 3 you mentioned; are there any more targets? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards