Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 6 January 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing

I am reporting Darkstar1st for violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behaviour here Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. He is pushing the idea that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society, and is cherry-picking sources to support his view. Darkstar1st's proposals have been unanimously rejected by all other users, and his usage of sources has been strongly criticized, but he refuses to accept consensus, and continues to push the issue.

I strongly believe that Darkstar1st has anti-socialist political views that are influencing his edits, he repeatedly edits articles in a manner that would appear to present Marxism-Leninism and fascism including Nazism as the major manifestations of what socialism is. The most important evidence I can provide of this is a cynical sarcastic-appearing remark recently made by Darkstar1st where he said "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action.", here's the diff . He also has said in the past on the Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge, saying "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's the diff . I believe that his intentions on Misplaced Pages with regards to material related to socialism, are to present socialism as a whole as totalitarian and linked with Marxism-Leninism and fascism.

He has been warned in the past to desist from similar behaviour on articles pertaining to socialism, and considerations of topic bans for Darkstar1st on socialism-related articles have been considered, as shown here: , where he was given advice by me on how to improve his understanding of socialism to avoid such assumptions of socialism being totalitarian. He has not heeded the advice or warnings of anyone there.

He has completely expired community patience at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. Many users there are aggravated with his pushing of the issue. Multiple users at the talk page are openly angry with his behaviour, some have called it "trolling". Darkstar1st neither listens nor cares about their criticisms, he just keeps pushing the issue.

Since he was warned to desist from such behaviour here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, and has completely refused to accept consensus, I believe that indefinate topic bans for Darkstar1st on all articles relating to: socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism, is the minimal of what is needed. I advise that users here talk with other users who have been involved with the discussions here: Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I fully agree with this summary and this complaint. Darkstar is an exceptionally disruptive and tendentious editor. He constantly plays fast and loose with sources, he initiates long and repetitive discussion threads, and then, weeks later, when the issue has seemed long closed, he returns and repeats his intention to carry out disputed edits, he refuses to accept consensus, and he attempts to wear out other editors by repeatedly making the same contested assertions. He appears to be here mainly to push his personal political beliefs, to attack socialism and justify nazism. Although the RfC has been open for six weeks, he has failed to respond, except for one edit in the wrong section repeating his content argument. Several editors (myself included) have reached, and gone beyond, the limits of their tolerance in dealing with his behaviour, which now verges on trolling. I am convinced that an indefinite topic ban is required in all articles and talk pages relating, however tangentially, to political issues. Then perhaps the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i have no idea what you mean about my page identifying me as an opponent of communism, or any comments i made confusing totalitarianism and socialism, please provide difs or withdraw your accusation. the edit i propose, "the USSR was the first socialist state and the USSR was the first socialist society. here are quotes from the 6 RS i presented, none of which have been challenged as a RS

• The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
• For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
• The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
• Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
• the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
• Soviet...the first socialist society.
• With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking me for a diff for a quote of what you said. Are you contending that you never said this: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action."?--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i said it. how does that make me an opponent of communism or think all socialist are totalitarian? much of the modernization of Russia can be attributed to socialism, which is what i meant with the words "shinning" and "action". perhaps you have simply read too much into my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can say such convenient stuff now when your editing is under observation now, but I am familiar with your editing history as are many other users, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It's all here as recorded by the user TFD and others: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. I read exactly what you intended to say, in context of what else you have said and how you have edited, you view the Soviet Union as the epitome of what socialism is. On your user page you are photographed in front of a building in Hungary where fascist and communist regimes tortured people and say: i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people. So by your own words, if the Soviet Union is the "shining example of socialism" and you went to a place where ""liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people", I can see no other meaning other than that you view socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical. Since you wanted a diff, here is your edit where you said that: .--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

so a photo in front of the house of terror makes me an opponent of communism? I read exactly what you intended to say, you should stick to reading what i write, not what you think i think. if you have a dif of me confusing totalitarians and socialist, plz provide here or withdraw your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people are not my words, rather from the article about the terror house. since the USA has also tortured/killed people do you think i am also anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalin "liberated" around 6 million of his own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are here because you have grossly violated WP:DISRUPT involving failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You are here for that. I have adjusted my statement in accordance with your concerns, but it is my firm belief, regardless of your attempts to deny it here to avoid topic bans, that you are anti-socialist. You appear to have indicated at Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge in your view, you said: "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's your diff . Regardless of whether you are anti-socialist or are not, I may be mistaken but I doubt it, your edits on articles related to socialism have been highly disruptive, you have ignored consensus and have pushed issues after consensus has rejected them. This is a long-term problem, identified by the user TFD here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, you did not heed the warnings nor advice by TFD, me and others there and have continued your disruptive editing behaviour. Again, that is why you are here.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has continued to argue a case despite no other editor agreeing with him. This is disruptive and I would agree to a topic ban as suggested by R-41. TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar is persistently tendentious; he falsifies discussions (see his mendacious nonsense above about the six purportedly reliable sources he uses to push his spurious agenda, which have long since been rejected by all other editors in the discussion); and he has a severe case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban would be a wonderful idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from both the talk page and RFC discussions linked above that Darkstar1st's edits have been completely rejected by other editors, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't know how to actually understand, interpret, and weigh sources on this subject. Offering rhetoric from the Soviet Constitution claiming that it was the first socialist state in history as a RS for the factual claim that it was the first socialist state in history shows incredibly poor editorial judgment and a misunderstanding of core WP policies. The Soviet Constitution is a reliable source for its own content, and that's it; it's not a reliable source for verifying claims it makes about facts external to the Constitution itself and it should be obvious why this is so.

Maybe a topic ban is appropriate now (maybe he isn't WP:COMPETENT to edit Misplaced Pages at all), but I'd like to see a clear statement of what he understands consensus on the matter to be and what he intends to do next. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i understand consensus is against the proposed edit. the edit is a bit redundant anyway since the article already has an entire section dedicated to the 1917 revolution in Russia. the same claim (and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state) is made on the October Revolution article in the Soviet historiography section, so i really did not expect this kind of resistance. many people think there were socialist societies and states that pre-date the USSR, why are they absent from this article? wouldnt it be an improvement to note where socialism began? i plan to work on the tamarindo, costa rica article next. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st, you have said that you understand that consensus is against your proposal but you are still pushing for it to be included in spite of that. You have effectively admitted then that you have knowingly violated WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and you are still rejecting consensus.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Postdlf, from what Darkstar1st has just said, I think it is time for topic bans to be organized and implemented.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

what i meant by redundant is the edit i proposed in talk, is unnecessary and not worth perusing further, sorry for the confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the article taklk page when Darkstar first offered this justification,, Darkstar here is completely misreading the article on the October Revolution, where the view he offers as neutral fact is explicitly presented as the position of Soviet historians concerned to demonstrate "the accuracy of Marxist ideology". To offer a misreading once could be ascribed to a lack of understanding and an inability to read text critically; to offer this justification a second time, at AN/I, after the error has been pointed oiut, can only be seen as deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead readers. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looking now at the October Revolution article for the first time, but it seems obvious to me your explanation is correct, that it is not claiming neutral fact for the "first socialist state" statement, but instead attributing that to Soviet historians. Particularly given that the section is titled "Soviet historiography", and the sentence about the "first socialist state" claim opens with "In this view..." as a rather obvious qualifier. To miss all that takes some rather serious carelessness or fundamental problems with reading comprehension. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you could see the section of the October revolution title Legacy which has same claim without the qualifiers. The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus you have proven to us that you have wasted everyone's time with pushing this within your proposal when it actually was referring to "the first large-scale socialist state in world history" that you misleadingly used to say that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society" in history. Now I am certain that topic bans are absolutely needed as a minimal, and considering that Darkstar1st has inadvertently shown that he either is incompetent or unwilling to use material in the correct manner that it is worded, I would propose that it would be beneficial if Darkstar1st be indefinately blocked from editing Misplaced Pages altogether because of this level of complete incompetence or misleading behaviour (whichever it is).--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

but i never cited the article as a source in my proposal, only here as an example of how similar articles have similar claims. i have also said i am no longer pursuing the edit which was two-fold and had sources for both state and society, so i only meant this as an example relating to state. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am really getting frustrated. Darkstar1st, do you realize the level of trouble you have put yourself in because of pushing the issue in violation of consensus? Do you realize that by the fact that you have admitted that you know that your proposal was against consensus, but you still kept pushing, puts you in deliberate violation of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU? Do you realize that you have made multiple users so frustrated with you because of your editing behaviour involving pushing proposals against consensus, that they are all agreeing in calls for you to receive topic bans? I am asking you this, because it seems that you do not care at all about these issues of serious breaches of policy at WP:DISRUPT, and are just attempting to side-step them.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i am sorry you are frustrated. i am also confused that you think i am still pushing the proposal when i have said twice now i am no longer pursuing the proposal. i do not intend to edit the socialism article or talk now, or in the near future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that going to resolve your long-term disruptive editing behaviour? All that does is let's you off the ticket on this one instance of such editing behaviour by us taking your word that you won't edit it now or in the "near future" (whatever that means), and I can tell this is going to happen again by the behaviour you have demonstrated today, and in TFD's report that shows you doing the same behaviour in multiple other articles. You have failed to adhere to the advice in TFD's report, you have expired the patience of multiple users with your consensus-violating behaviour. Why should we believe that such behaviour by you on Misplaced Pages is going to stop now when it hasn't despite people repeatedly telling you to cease such behaviour in the past?--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i hav e resolved my long term behavior by not wanting to edit articles in which the sources i present are not accepted contrary to my opinion. each article i have edited, as well as the articles i have authored have all included sources. some, like the mexican constitution in the article i created, Immigration to Mexico, are allowed as sources, some arent like here. i see the other editors point that maybe the soviets were lying to trick people into thinking they were the 1st socialist state. perhaps someone here knows the real answer to who was the 1st socialist state, what a great way to end this debate, with a simple answer to a simple question. happy new year all, if we are still here, we must be the only/intelligent friends we have left, egészségére! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable

per wp:disrupt, i have presented 7 verifiable sources on the socialism talk page, yet made no edit to the article unlike R-41's recent massive rewrite of the lead. the editor who reverted wrote this, Reverted R-41's mess of the lead. You've been warned about this already. You need to get some form of consensus on the talk page before altering the lead.

• source one, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within, source rejected, no where in the book does it state the Soviet Union was the first Socialist society.
• source two, The Constitution of the USSR source rejected, Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed.
• source three, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2011 source rejected, "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism" If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought.
• source four, Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia source rejected, Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society"
• source five, Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy source rejected, Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning.
• source six, Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921 source rejected, THE SOURCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE FIRST SOCIALIST SOCIETY. IT STATES THAT SOVIET HISTORIANS HELD THIS VIEW.
• source seven, Contemporary World History, 2009 source rejected, Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not put the material back in and even though I disagreed with the user, I listened to the user and opened a discussion with that user on the topic. You on the other hand have not listened to any users on the talk page. You have refused to accept consensus that unanimously rejected your stance, not one single user agreed with you, but you keep pushing the issue, even here - that is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policy regarding failure or refusal to get the point, that I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR all agree here about what you have done. You have cherry-picked sources to promote your view while having little to no understanding about the source - what it was about, what the context is, and who is saying what you have noted, etc. and multiple users have criticized you for that. But you neither listen nor care about the unanimous rejection of your proposal, nor multiple users' requests for you to cease pushing the issue; instead you keep pushing it. This kind of behaviour has gone on too long to be tolerated any further, and that is why I as well as TFD, RolandR, and Orange Mike are supporting topic bans on you.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

the point i was trying to make is i made a proposal on the talk page for a few words to be included in a subsection, you made a massive rewrite of the article lede without discussion, even tho you have been warned before not to do so. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference here is that, both here and elsewhere (Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original research, Talk:Socialism#would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?, Talk:Nazism#Rationing and shortages and many more) you have engaged other editors in exactly the same tedious time-wasting debates about misreading of sources, the origins of socialism and fascism, and other issues; that you consistently fail to hear what others are saying; that you repeatedly refuse to accept a consensus (even wheen you are the only editor in disagreement); that you will not drop an issue, but belabour it long after others have grown weary of explaining the same things to you time after time. You have exhausted other editors' patience and goodwill; R-41 has not. Your behaviour causes so many other editors to waste so much time, energy and emotion preventing you turning articles into a poorly-sourced POV nightmare thsat it is way past time that you were sent packing, enabling the rest of us to edit, and even when necessary to disagree, in a collaborative fashion. You are a drain on this project, and a net liability. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

actually the main difference is one of us attempts to win consensus in talk before making an edit, which once it became clear no amount of sources would satisfy, i never made edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that I began a discussion with the user to resolve his disagreements, the issue of my edit is moot because it has been resolved, your long-term disruptive editing behaviour involving violation of policy at WP:ICAN'THEARYOU on Talk:Socialism and multiple articles is what is at hand here, and it has been recognized by multiple users here as a problem.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i heard you several times, however since you have not read many/all of the sources to which you object, i did not feel it quite time to close the thread. you are also a socialist according to your home page, which perhaps explains your sensitivity to this topic, i truly am sorry for any discomfort my proposal caused you. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Darkstar1st's obvious refusal to accept consensus and stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd support a topic ban on Socialism articles (broadly construed). — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

actually i have accepted consensus and agreed not to pursue the proposal further, see above. please note no edit was ever made, rather a collection of RS presented on the talk page when editors objected to the previous sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about any edits, so bringing it up is odd. I only speak of your tendentious and persistent inability to accept consensus. And I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

the incident here is concerning wp:disrupt, according to the complainant. wp:disrupt does specify the term edit. each source should be given examination according to wp:weight. it was my sincere belief with the right source the edit could be made. perhaps an easier path would simply add what the sources did say, since so many think i have taken the words out of context. or maybe the topic simply isnt relevant as one editor suggests. i still feel it would serve the article by identifying the 1st socialist state however i understand it is the consensus to not include such and see no reason to continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting Wikilawyering, particularly examples 2, 3, and 4 shown in the intro of Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering. It says that technicalities cannot be used to justify actions that violate the spirit and underlying principles of Misplaced Pages. Regardless, your claim of making a distinction between "editing" of articles as being distinct from that on talk pages is inaccurate, Help:Editing includes a section on "Talk (discussion) pages". The intentions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are clear, that failing or refusing to accept consensus is a serious breach of Misplaced Pages policy. You have repeatedly ignored consensus when it has rejected your assertions.--R-41 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i wish i could be more clear, i am sorry for the distress i caused you, i will not pursue the proposal further, i have no intention of editing the article or talk page in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouting in bold and offering promises that you will not do it again are not convincing to me and appears to not be convincing to HandThatFeeds, you have ignored all complaints by multiple other users about your failure to accept consensus on multiple articles in the past. It is not a matter of distress by me, that is trivial and I am not distressed; nor is it a matter of the proposal alone; it is a matter of long-term disruptive behaviour by you on Misplaced Pages. I and other users are seeking a resolution to this long-term problem of you refusing to accept consensus on multiple articles. Hours ago you attempted to say that "editing" doesn't include talk pages in order to avoid responsibility of violation of WP:DISRUPT on a technicality, I showed that the technicality was false. Now you are attempting to bargain by offering promises in order to avoid topic bans that I and several other users here all agree are necessary. If you had listened to the advice by TFD, me and others in TFD's report that explicitly warned you about your behaviour and gave you one last chance to desist in such behaviour, then circumstances would have been different now, but you did not listen and continued your disruptive behaviour. The fact is that the patience of multiple users with your conduct has expired, I, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds all agree that topic bans should be applied, along with the administrator Postdlf saying he may endorse a topic ban. HandThatFeeds said to you "I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters", I agree with HandThatFeeds' conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling like this should perhaps just be closed now, and I'm not 100% convinced a topic ban is necessary at this point (though I can't say I'm actively opposed to one either). He says he'll drop it, and that promise in the context of this ANI (in which everyone commenting has agreed there is a problem) should be considered a serious one, with serious consequences if he breaks it. If he does break it, or continues the same kind of tendentious and poor editing at other articles on the same subjects, just come back to ANI and I think a topic ban then might be imposed in short order.

I'd also recommend to Darkstar that he look into a WP:MENTOR, because as I've said above, his demonstrated ability to interpret and use sources (and relevant WP policy) seems lacking. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at TFD's report and look at the multiple incidents TFD has noted where Darkstar1st has violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. It shows that multiple users been over this with Darkstar1st over and over again. I was the most liberal of them in that report, I gave him advice on how to improve his understanding of socialism amongst other advice, but he didn't listen to anyone and he hasn't changed his behaviour. Neither I nor HandThatFeeds trust his promises. There are limits to patience and trust given behaviour. Also, look at how he is approaching this: hours ago he attempted to use a technicality to avoid responsibility for violation of WP:DISRUPT, saying that talk pages don't count for "editing". It is my belief that he is tactically bargaining while having no real intention to change his behaviour. Accepting his promises will cause this whole thing to have to be restarted all over again, plus multiple users here believe that topic bans are necessary - me, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I just had a look at Darkstar1st's edits. It's pretty clear that he has wasted much time and effort being tendentious, and will likely be so in the future. I support a broad topic ban to prevent further disruption. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

no i will likely not be so in the future. one of the Misplaced Pages articles i created is considered high-importance, i plan to spend my time creating new articles of equal importance and leave the well established topics to the editors above. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, why are you so opposed to a topic ban? You say you have no intention of again editing articles relating to socialism or nazism. Some of us, who have requested a topic ban, doubt your ability to self-police this undertaking, and are requesting a topic ban in order to formalise a situation which you say that you respect. Opposing a topic ban suggests to me that you still intend to edit relevant articles or talk pages.RolandR (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you say you won't edit them and you say that you recognize the harm of your actions, then why not take both responsibility for your actions that have exhausted patience and trust by other users, by accepting the topic bans as a form of insurance that will guarantee that you will not be able to edit them? Promises with no enforcement risk violation. So if you accept the harm of your action, you should accept the responsibility of having exhausted the patience of multiple users, and accept the topic bans on political topics, as RolandR has proposed, as insurance to guarantee your compliance.--R-41 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

you have been reverted twice this week for editing the lede of the very article we are discussing as your edit violated wp:weight . normally editors discuss major changes to established articles before. i sincerely thought the edit i proposed for a minor section would not be opposed. each time there was an objection to the source i presented, i found a different source thinking it would clarify the previous. now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) This is ANI, not the socialism-hair-splitting page. Whether any state has ever really been socialist, and if so, which one was first, is not something anyone reasonably expected to see discussed in earnest here, much less resolved. No-one is obliged to answer your riddles. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To: Darkstar1st: Now you have jumped back from offering apologies to denouncing me and all the users at that talk page, who you just apologized to, indicating that we are "conspiring" against you because you "now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor". Wow, what a reversal in your attitude towards the other users on that talk page that earlier offered your "sincerest apologies", in only a matter of hours. And all because of a comment I said that simply asked you to accept a topic ban to provide insurance to your statement that said: "i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages".--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, i take back my apology and everything i have ever written you have read and every thought you think i thought: "I am familiar with your editing history, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. I read exactly what you intended to say" ,. we will never cross paths again on ANY article of any subject, live long and prosper. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a gross overreaction, but interesting to note that you are saying that you have taken back your "sincerest apologies" a day or so after you gave them. Yes, I do not trust your behaviour given your long-term editing history on those topics, I have strongly disagreed with other users but have trusted their behaviour. But don't make this personal, plus you are not in a position to complain about aggravated about this situation you are in, multiple users are extremely aggravated about this situation, their patience has expired with your tendentious editing behaviour, and they do not trust your behaviour given your repeated violations of policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

perhaps, but it would be better for us to simply not interact. you have made several claims about my beliefs, none of which i agree. you are a socialist according to your own page and think i am anti-socialist which i disagree with as well. it is impossible for us to interact with this gulf, therefore i choose to not edit articles you edit. so long, no hard feelings. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop trivializing this as being personal. Multiple users here have called for topic bans on you for your disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

nothing personal, we just shouldn't interact. you believe something about me which i do not, therefore we are at an impasse. since you are a socialist, and care about this topic perhaps more than others, i now choose to avoid it so i may avoid you. i assume you have no interest in the other topics i edit and will be fine working on those, or i may quit entirely. after almost a decade here i am beginning to lose my zeal for the project. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to work on other topics than political topics, and claim that you will avoid such topics given the situation that your violation of WP:IDIDN'THEATTHAT has created, then why not accept the topic bans on political topics as a form of insurance to guarantee your compliance?--R-41 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I worry for the future of articles like Nazism. Perhaps you missed this edit, or maybe not? the nazistic overtaking...the first real nazist... the source listed refers to articles in the German language wikipedia. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

This is going round in circles, like every other discussion involving Darkstar. In the discussion above, six editors (myself, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You and FurrySings) have all expressed support for some sort of topic ban. I therefore formally propose an indefinite topic ban for Darkstar1st on all articles and talk pages on political subjects, to include ideologies and individuals as well as parties RolandR (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as explained above. RolandR (talk)
• Support as explained above.--R-41 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as explained above. TFD (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm familiar with Darkstar, and they are a unique editor and have some uncompleted edges, but I've seen their edits to be sound and well sourced. I have given the situation only quick read-through and it appears that the edit that they were trying to make is very well sourced (that the assertion the USSR was the first socialist state exists, not necessarily that it is determined) and actually required by the weight aspects of wp:npov. I saw some pretty wild looking arguments contrary to their proposed edits. One was that, contrary to what the sources said, that the USSR Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics was not socialist, another that prior situations were Socialist even if the sources did not call them such, but that the sources "meant' to say that they were. Those are wrong on two levels....editor debating the source, and then editing against sourcing/wp:npov. If Darkstar has any "offense" it appears that it was that they caved to the tyranny of the majority in that particular venue, not that they didn't cave quickly enough. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you believe that accepting a consensus decision means accepting a "tyranny of the majority", maybe you should discuss your theory with those who founded Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is founded upon seeking consensus. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You are defending his motives while ignoring the manner in which he acted.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many flaws in what you just said, but I'll go to the main point. In this case by "tyranny of the majority" I meant folks in a particular venue "voting" to override policy. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls here on ANI are regularly used. They are not binding to enforce any action here, but they do show administrators what users want to be done. The administrator can look at these, evaluate their validity, and then take discretion on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Also, on process grounds, ANI is not the proper venue for discussing such an immense wide-ranging whack against someone. Due to it's orientation for individual incidents, it has neither the structure and timetable for proper review and as a result not the participation (in any one thread....usually just the original combatants plus or or two people that run across it at ANI and chime in) for proper review of such a weighty wide-ranging proposal. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. His content may even be accurate (in that it is a theory widespread enough that it deserves mention). --Nouniquenames 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you the same user as User:Youreallycan who has commented here, but are using a different account, you both use three colours in your user names for three words following each other with no spaces.--R-41 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support at least until we get a clear undertaking that the behaviour will cease. S/he goes on, and on, and on, and on .... ----Snowded 05:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: There are two types of editors taken to task at ANI: (1) "I'm very sorry; I was wrong, and I won't do it again." (2) "Here's why I'm right ..." (several hundred words later, and repeated over a dozen or two posts), followed by "Okay, okay, I'll stop, you meanies." How very many times have we seen that #2's contrition is forced, unwilling, temporary and abandoned the moment the coast is clear? No. This matter is not moot. The easiest way to ensure that this editor stays away from such topics is to declare that he is to stay away from such topics. Ravenswing 06:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As an editor who gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with on account of his editing behaviour as exemplified above, I would support a topic ban to prevent other editors from going through that experience. Kudos to TDF and others for putting up with it for so long, and for keeping a calm head and staying rational in their interaction with this editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Tendentious left-right fisticuffs at such venues as Talk:Socialism and Talk:Nazism abound. All parties need to knock it the hell off, and that includes editors from both the left and the right. Misplaced Pages is not a political blog. It is not a venue to declare black white and up down and to enforce that with 5 to 1 votes or whatever. It is not a place for trolling. Get busy writing articles and stop "debating" on big topics, all of you — that's my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is to do with a user repeatedly violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st have been identified on several articles for many months, in a RfC/U initiated by the user TFD.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support because of his long term behavior during his long running disputes, and the responses that he gave here. FurrySings (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's apologised and said that he isn't going to do it again. That's enough for me.  Tigerboy1966  22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Other users don't trust his apologies given his behaviour, such as the users Ravenswing and FurrySings here. Plus Darkstar1st keeps changing what he is saying, yes he claimed to apologize, but then later he accused all the users of refusing to hear him out, which is not true. His stances were criticized. I strongly suggest you look at the links to the discussion and the user TFD's RfC/U that are linked in the intro of this. TFD has been following Darkstar1st's editing behaviour longer than I have and has identified repeated examples of Darkstar1st violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans are not the proper means to remove an editor who is acting properly in a content dispute. The principle is to work towards consensus, not "declare a consensus first and remove those who disagree". Collect (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a content dispute, nor is this about removing an editor. This is a dispute about editing behaviour, he has repeatedly violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT on several articles, even after being informed in the RfC/U that he was violating it. The proposal is the application of topic bans on political topics, removal is not the proposal here, the user can continue to edit non-political topics. Other users agree that this is a dispute over disruptive behaviour, such as User:SMcCandlish who has commented below in another section.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this particular example, this user simply took part in a very long discussion at article talk page. I saw much longer discussions on other similar pages, and no one was reported. Are we going to report all such participants? I do not mind, but this is hardly consistent with policies. Now, speaking about the essence of the content dispute, every Soviet textbook claimed USSR to be the first socialist ("first stage of communism") state after Paris Commune which was first socialist government, not counting "primitive communism" societies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, this is not a content dispute here. This is about editing behaviour. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, he kept pushing the topic after it had been unanimously rejected.--R-41 (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the above - the area is populated by extremely opinionated users all round. Youreallycan 02:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Cynicism about users being opinionated does not justify ignoring clear and repeated examples of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st that have been noted by multiple users, and the multiple violations have been noted in the RfC/U filed by the user TFD, who is known to me to not be a highly opinionated user, but a user who seeks to follow Misplaced Pages principles to the letter. You should speak with TFD about Darkstar1st's behaviour, as TFD has been monitoring it longer.--R-41 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I consider that a topic ban is not the way out yet. I understand that, from what I've read, it seems to be the easiest solution; I find it a bit egoist. Maybe a formal case at ArbCom if DRN hasn't been proven yet would be a better path. — ΛΧΣ 03:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Moot

I commented at the RFC/U and didn't know it was duplicated here. It appears that their insertion was a well sourced minority viewpoint and a valid insertion per wp:npov even if more folks there preferred or felt that it not be in. There is a provision in the quoted-in-the-complaint guideline (which at the opening above was mis-identified as policy) which identifies and protects this. Either way since Darkstar has doubly given in on this wp;anI appears to be a moot point. RFC/U would be the only proper (and properly thorough) venue to pursue things outside of this now moot/resolved incident. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is not a response to one content dispute; it is a response to persistent tendentious editing, over several months and several articles. RolandR (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an open RFC/U for that. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR. I said in the proposal that this is part of a long-term problem and I proposed topic bans for several topics to avoid future problems altogether. Darkstar1st ignored the basic request of the RFC/U report started by TFD, that called for Darkstar1st to accept consensus even when it disagrees with his stance, a call for him to adhere to the policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, but Darkstar1st failed to adhere to WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT after being informed by TFD and others of his need to do so. Darkstar1st attempted here to avoid responsibility for WP:DISRUPT on a technicality on what constitutes "editing", that was false premise. Then Darkstar1st has begun bargaining by offering promises. Multiple users here, including myself, believe that there is little reason to trust Darkstar1st's promises given the repeated nature of the disruptive behaviour of ignoring consensus in spite of being warned by multiple users not to do this.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

it is not moot because the RfC/U is on going and this is not a content dispute. TFD (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This ANI, within its proper scope, IS about assertions of behavior in a content dispute. The RFC/U is the proper & suitable place for the wide-ranging things people are bringing up here. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's about tendentious editing, it's about refusal to accept consensus, it's about failure to hear the argument and repeating the same point ad nauseam, it's about one editor who, for more than a year, over several articles and talk pages, has wasted the time and exhausted the patience and good faith of very many other editors, who want to put a stop to this. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My point / opinion is that ANI is unsuitable for such a wide-ranging agenda with such wide-ranging actions being sought. And that RFC/U IS suitable for such North8000 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This does not have a "wide-ranging agenda" or "wide-ranging actions". Topic bans have been proposed for political topics in response to this user's repeated violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Darkstar1st ignored all the material in the RFC/U by the user TFD who filed the report, that informed him that his ignoring consensus was a violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, after he responded to the RFC/U he proceeded doing exactly the same behaviour on Talk:Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, RolandR, you seem to be completely mistaken about what this AN/I is about. It isn't about whether Darkstar1st has sources that might squeak though WP:RS, or is bringing up a minority but non-fringe viewpoint that needs to be addressed. This is about disruptive user behavior. Darkstar1st could have 5x that many sources but that wouldn't make the behavior acceptable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to refer to the user North8000, RolandR agrees that this AN/I is about Darkstar1st's disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC user not closed

• - Please note the RFC user has now been closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 08:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted YRC's closure, since it did not meet any of the criteria for closure specified in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing RolandR (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note , I closed the RFC user after a requestfrom one of the certifiers at WP:AN - see here .. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC - Youreallycan 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

From "sincerest apologies" to serious accusations

Earlier Darkstar1st recognized that his edits caused harm and offered his "sincerest apologies" and promised not to edit the articles socialism and Nazism, specifically saying:

"i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others"

Then when asked by RolandR and then me that if he accepted responsibility for what he did and the loss of patience amongst users caused by his actions, why would he not then accept topic bans as a form of insurance to guarantee that he would not do so. Then his response completely reversed from offering apologies to insinuating serious accusations. He has just said:

"now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)"

He is in other words accusing all users involved there of deliberately rejecting his proposal out of a refusal to hear him out, rather than out of criticism of what he proposed. He is also inaccurate when he says here that his proposal was to say that the USSR was the first socialist state, his proposal specifically said the first "socialist society". His proposal was unanimously rejected and his use of the sources he chose was criticized by multiple users.

He has gone from offering apologies to launching accusations against all the users in that discussion who had unanimously rejected his proposal. Should the users involved in the discussion be informed of this serious accusation by Darkstar1st and asked to respond?--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it as "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort". But the most folks here can just read it for themselves rather than you are or me telling them what "it says". North8000 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If what you said is true that he believes "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort", that does not demonstrate any respect for policy at WP:CONSENSUS or WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT at all, only an angry and reluctant tactical abandonment to attempt to avoid the imposition of topic bans that many users here believe are necessary. This is what User:Ravenswing above has stated, that this kind of response by Darkstar1st is common of users who have been caught violating policy who are only reluctantly claiming to abandon their ways, but then when they believe the coast is clear, the disruptive behaviour returns. Other users above have similarly said they do not trust his promises, given his long-term behaviour and his behaviour even on this noticeboard. He is clearly saying that people refused to hear him out, while neglecting to note that his usage of sources was criticized and he expired the patience of users by keeping pushing for inclusion of the material in spite of their criticisms, and opening up section after section to push it, in spite of unanimous rejection of his proposal by other users, a blatant violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. That policy specifically says: "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

R-41, look from my view, who would want to edit articles with this amount of resistance to ones proposals in talk? i really do plan to stay as far away from this type of situation/topic/article/etc as possible. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am particularly concerned by Saddhiyama's comment above, that s/he gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with as a result of his behaviour. That alone is sufficient to keep him away from sensitive articles. RolandR (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st: As RolandR has said, your behaviour has aggravated users like User:Saddhiyama to not even want to edit political articles where you have activity on them. You have repeatedly expired many users' patience on multiple occasions, and that is bad for the Misplaced Pages Project. Now if you really are planning to stay away from such political topics, then accept the proposed topic bans on political topics to provide insurance to concerned users here, that will guarantee compliance and the situation will be resolved. You could still edit non-political topic articles.--R-41 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Civility Issues relating to RFC on Article Talk page- Unsure How to Approach

I'm not notifying anyone at this time because I'm not sure whether this is an issue where Admins should get involved and I have no idea who I could talk to in order to determine whether or not they should short of coming here. I was hoping this problem would remain an "irritation" to me rather than something that I felt necessitated intervention, but...well, here we are.

I recently opened an RFC at an article's Talk page and I feel that multiple users have engaged in personal attacks rather than focusing on the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of arguments being made. If I wasn't an involved editor and frequent target (i.e. if other editors were being targeted) it's the kind of thing where I hope I'd likely warn the editors to knock it off, but under the circumstances I suspect that would only aggravate the problem.

I'm well-aware of the requirement to notify users if they're the topic of a discussion, but I don't know how that would be handled in this case; i.e. whether it's sufficient to leave some sort of notice at the Talk page of the RFC or whether it's necessary to notify each user individually (and at this point there are a significant number). Ideally I'd like to just have admins look over the discussion and take whatever actions they deem necessary...even if that's telling me that I'm out of bounds and should drop the matter.

In other words, I guess I'm basically asking whether it's prudent to provide more information, notify users in whatever manner you would recommend doing so and get this hopefully taken care of, or whether this is a case where I should just try to keep the high ground and hope it blows over.

Thank you very much for your time, advice, and assistance. Doniago (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Synchronous motor#Proposal B, if anyone is wondering what this is about William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Quite the cesspool attacking an editor who actually believes that "verifiability" stuff. I've removed some of the more egregious personal attacks. NE Ent 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've restored them. It's time to take the encyclopedia back from clueless editors who hide behind tags and simplistic dogma, and "civil" editors who stifle any debate of this. This is an encylopedia and it is built of content. If you're not contributing to that content, you're not building it. If you're destroying that content, you're destroying the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And yes, clueless. The root of this specific instance here is that Doniago is self-confessedly ignorant of anything to do with the article subject, sees no reason to do a modicum of basic research before commencing, yet sees neither of these as any brake on his blanking of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no problem at Synchronous motor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (apart from the fact that some minor work by editors who understand the topic would be desirable). There was some confusion on the talk page where some editors gave the standard commentary that would be applied to a WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP issue (namely, contentious material must be removed until it satisfies WP:DUE and WP:RS)—however those comments are not applicable to the article in question where everyone agrees the text in the article is fine (although a little essay-like in some parts). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Your error is threefold:
  1. Assuming that you have the high ground in the first place. You do not.
  2. Not following verifiability procedure. The correct procedure, that was in our verifiability and deletion policies in the same step-by-step fashion for some years can be found at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. What you did, on the other hand, was laziness.
  3. Making the usual "People are telling me that I'm doing things wrong, so they must be personally attacking me." leap. The only thing that has come close to personal attacks has been someone foolishly throwing around the "dirty -istas" epithets, which have never improved a discussion, which I have been explaining for some years as having no basis in either history or analysis, but which you'll find almost no-one here will treat as personal attacks (because that would involve uprooting quite a lot of entrenched nonsense that people want to hang on to, because they don't realize that they were jokes, such as m:deletionism and m:inclusionism).
• You removed content that said that a motor comprised a rotor, stator, stator housing, and slip ring for being "without sources". Content is removed for being unverifiable. That's not the same as not having little superscripted numbers. As User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow explains, verifiability is the ability for readers to check Misplaced Pages content for accuracy. It's in the name. The correct approach to verifiability, and improving verifiability, is to attempt that check, and make the check possible for others if one's own attempt fails. If it turns out that one cannot make that possible, then is the point that one deduces unverifiability.

  Moreover, inability to make it possible here does not include mere inability to understand the subject on your own part. In any case: Knowing that motors have rotors, stators, housings, rings, and other parts is something that a ten-year-old with a build-your-own kit knows. Even I know it. It's outright stupid and destructive to remove such information from an article for supposedly being unverifiable. As was pointed out, there's scant difference in action and in effect between such an edit and the edits of section-blanking vandals.

  And it's lazy to then say that it's Somebody Else's Problem to deal with fixing the damage and not lift a finger yourself. Remember: When you say that "nobody cares to do the work" you are including yourself. If everyone around you is lazy and not working on improving the article, as is so often asserted by people in your position, then so are you. It's also seen as arrogant, because others perceive it as your setting the agenda for them, demanding that they work to it, without doing any share of the work yourself, and threatening that you will kick over the sandcastles if your demands that other people do work that you should be doing yourself are not met by your arbitrary deadlines. You are not apart from the other people whom you decry and demand should be working for you.

  This is why a lot of people are telling you that you are not putting verifiability and editing policy into practice, that your approach to editing is destructive, entirely uncollaborative, to the detriment of articles, and borderline indistinguishable from the section-blanking vandals in its practice. But since one person leapt to the "dirty -istas" epithets, you're ignoring the several editors on article talk pages and on noticeboards who have all told you how to put verifiability into practice properly, and concentrating on that one. It's the old they-told-me-I'm-wrong-so-I'm-calling-it-uncivil rubbish with an assist from one over-the-top fool. That one person used the "dirty -istas" is no excuse for ignoring the many people who have told you to pull your finger out, do what editing policy, verifiability policy, and deletion policy have always required from their very first versions — even though we mistakenly removed from policy the concrete step-by-step instructions showing how to properly go about it, leaving just the goal: an error that has caused a lot of grief since from the actions of people who couldn't figure out for themselves what steps to take — and not just sit on the sidelines doing nothing except demanding that other volunteers like you jump when you shout "frog!".

  Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • *applause* Nice. Puts me in mind of this edit claiming that a source was needed to claim positrons were involved in positron emission tomography... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy is fairly clear: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." NE Ent 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• They key word in that quotation is "verifiability". The content was removed for being unsourced, not unverifiable, and those are two very different things - it blatantly is verifiable. There are also riders on the second sentence, in that there is some content that does not need a source. It is plainly destructive to insist that unsourced material should be removed, even if it is blatantly accurate and can be easily sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think "fairly" clear is about as far as it goes. The policy is not absolute, it's not mandatory. It's permissive. As such, the policy necessarily assumes the exercise of sound discretion and judgment on the part of editors applying it -- both of which have been lacking in the reflexive challenges and excisions at issue here. The policy cannot mean literally for example that any fact nominally challenged by any editor, without any articulable reason, is properly removed if thereafter no citation is provided. That's a recipe for mischief. It's also important that the policy says that the challenged material "may" be removed, rather than "must" be. Automatic, unthinking removal of content purely because it lacks a citation entails no judgment and is not consistent with the premises underlying the policy even if the removal is permitted by the policy's literal terms. JohnInDC (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• No, NE Ent, you clearly don't understand how to put policy into practice, either. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and that means helping to improve articles, not sitting around claiming that the burden is on everyone else and that one's own responsibility is only to kick over the sandcastles and set arbitrary deadlines for volunteers. This is basic collaborative-writing stuff that's been in content and editing policy for a decade. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Misplaced Pages can be destroyed by being full of crap just as easily as it can be by "destroying content." Here's more from our alleged verifiability policy:

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Emphasis original NE Ent 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the removed material -- rather than going on and on about how bad Donaigo is, why couldn't one of the editors actually spend 30 seconds googling a source (e.g. ) and just add it to the article? That would meet the requirements we are supposed to have and benefit the reader by providing a link to a more detailed explanation. Win-win. NE Ent 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• That question cuts both ways, and is more of the deflecting nonsense that so usual in these cases. Once again: Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem, and you are failing to ask "Why couldn't Donaigo actually spend 30 seconds googling a source and just add it to the article?". This is a collaborative project. And we're volunteers. Doniago had the itch. Xe should have scratched it, not tried to force the work onto other people. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am slightly troubled by the interpretation of the verifiability guidelines here. It does seem to be giving editors with general scientific/engineering knowledge carte blanche control over content on technical articles. It means they can create unsourced content that may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook, but not directly verifiable by the vast majority of potential readers. It seems to betray the central principle of Misplaced Pages: that articles should be constructed from published content, that can then be corroborated by the reader. It feels like the meaning of "verifiable" is being reduced to a game of semantics. It's reasonable for a reader to ask "Where did this information come from?" If editors cannot adequately respond to that question, either by providing a chapter or page number from a book or whatever, then a reasonable challenge has been raised to the verifiability of the content. In the case of the Synchronous motor, there should really be nothing in that article that cannot be found in a standard chapter of a standard textbook about standard synchronous motors: after all, this is an encyclopedia article giving a basic overview of the topic. Doniago is entitled to ask for a source, and someone should be able to give him a chapter or page number. That's all it takes; if there are then any claims that are not backed up by the main source, an editor should be entitled to remove those or request further citations. We are building an encylopedia, not a tutorial! Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't understand how to put verifiability into practice as an editor, either, and your argument is self-contradictory on its face. Think! Content that is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" is verifiable content. You just said it yourself. And reasonable challenge does not include "I haven't bothered to check anything at all or make any effort myself.". Accuracy is our goal, with verifiability as the only way to get there given that we're pseudonymous people using a fully open installation of MediaWiki as our writing tool. Verifiability is our best proxy for accuracy, and it is ludicrous to be so thoughtless in one's practice of verifiability that one makes no attempt onesself to determine whether content is accurate. Stop conflating "unsourced" with "unverifiable". If sources aren't cited but the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook", then the correct course of action, that was stated in policy directly in the form of how-to instructions for years before we made the mistake of taking out the steps to leave only the goal, is quite clearly not to remove the verifiable content, but to act like a collaborative editor and attempt to help make the article better still by looking for those sources and adding the missing citations. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And you are missing the point that verifiability is a process, and not a standard! Something that may be easily verifiable for someone with an engineering background may not be be verifiable for someone without one, and sourcing is the means by which such content is verifiable. They are not distinct concepts! You are confusing sourcing with citing, and while something may not be cited it may well be verifiable if a source can be provided for the article. No-one is expected to go through the article providing citations for each line, but it is reasonable to request a source for the content in the article, and it is unreasonable to prevent the removal of that content if the source is not forthcoming. We have a bunch of electrical engineers arguing for the retention of the content in the dispute, so if it is easily verifiable through a textbook why don't they just give us the name and chapter of such a textbook? If you cannot provide a source for the content how can you argue that it is verifiable? Just because you know something through your own knowledge or background does not mean it is verifiable through published reliable sources, so arguing for its retention on the basis of what you know is not a valid argument for the verifiability of the content. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't even reading what you yourself wrote, let alone what I did. Think, for pity's sake! You are the one who stated that the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook". It's right there, above. We don't have to argue something that you yourself stipulate. And it's downright daft to say to someone who is explaining how to put verifiability into practice that it's a process. Of course the putting of something into practice is a process. And it's a process that you don't have the first clue how to apply if you think that content that you've already stipulated to be verifiable should be removed from an article for being "unsourced". Once again, go and read the original instructions from the verifiability policy, preserved at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and learn what you patently have not learned: that the correct action, in a collaboratively-written project, when sources are not cited but content is verifiable is not to kick over the sandcastles and remove the content entirely.

        This is basic content and editing policy, and always has been. It's also good sense. Indeed, it's even in the {{unreferenced}} notice. It quite clearly says "Please improve the article by adding citations of sources." not "Please just wipe out verifiable content wholesale and then sit around demanding that other people clean up the mess and damage without lifting a finger onesself.". One of the biggest of the many discussions where your error here has been pointed out time and again is Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Challenged or likely to be challenged. "y definition Misplaced Pages is done by volunteers who work irregularly, who might not even be aware of challenges. Some of the worst work on Misplaced Pages is done by people who do rules-based work on articles where they do not know, or make effort to know, the pros and cons of what they are deleting." is one of the many statements there of how the robotic, unthinking, approach that dumbly section-blanks verifiable content, is wrong.

        Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

        • Amen. I could not agree more with everything you have written here. I just recently had to deal with this very issue in this discussion, facing the same attitude and same misinterpretations of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It would really help if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. Nowhere have I stated that this content is verifiable in a standard textbook. If I had a textbook that corroborated this content then I would cite it, and we would not be having this conversation. How do you know it is easily verifiable? Have you checked to see if it is? Are you assuming it is verifiable simply because a few engineers say it is? Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
          • "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" — your own words and description, right there. I told you that you aren't even reading what you yourself wrote. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No...you are taking my comments out of context. What I said was "may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook", which is an important caveat: the only way you can know if it is easily verifiable by a standard textbook is if you know of such a standard textbook. Those were my words, not the selective portion you took to make it look like I was making a statement of fact about the verifiability of the content. My point was—and remains—that if you do not know of such a textbook then you have not satisified the criteria by demonstrating the claims are verifiable, and the policy demands the information is verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I suppose, given how my original request for an opinion on how best to proceed has already been derailed...and frankly, I thought I tried to bring it up as mildly as possible...that it would be pointless to note that my reasons for coming here were, as stated, related to civility, not content. If one wants to discuss the content concerns, there is the active RFC.

I also suppose there are some editors who will refuse to believe me if I say at this point that the direction in which this has gone was never the direction in which I wanted any of this to go.

Thank you to the individuals who have shown an understanding, or at least an effort to try to understand, if not agree, with where I have been coming from with regards to all of this. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you're discovering, that "civility" stuff doesn't apply to editors who swim upstream. Wish there was something I can do to fix that but realistically I can't. Sorry. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Only one person, the person who used the "dirty -istas" was even close to uncivil. Telling Doniago that xe is unequivocally and entirely wrong to make these sorts of edits is not uncivil. Our civility policy is not a suicide pact that prevents us from telling people when they are doing things wrongly and not working in a collaborative fashion to the betterment of the project. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nor do I see where the discussion was "derailed", given that this thread was built on a false premise. Moreover, if, as is suggested, there is such a cesspool of incivility on Talk:Synchronous_motor, I'd like to see individual diffs/examples of it. I tried to read the whole thing but found nothing objectionable, excepting the RfC in the first place, a huge time and electron sink. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As multiple editors have noted, the "huge time and electron sink" likely could have been averted had any editor cared to simply provide inline cites and consequently satisfied WP:BURDEN. It appears we all prefer to discuss the principles of the matter instead, so here we are. Doniago (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, here you are, still arguing that you were right when you were wrong, both in principle and in practice. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This diff shows some specific content that was directed at Doniago and not towards improving the article -- "Neener neener" (in my chunk of the world, at least) is taunting and referring to another human as "it" is objectable to me at least. NE Ent 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Setup for suckers

Note the template which greets new editors on top of articles such as Synchronous motor

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Notice how it says " Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."? It's just newbie baiting. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I do not understand why asking for citations is baiting new members. Please could you explain.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the point NE Ent is aiming for is that while the template explicitly states that unsourced material may be removed, when unsourced material is removed editors protest the removal, even if the tag was in place for well over six months and the material was moved to the Talk page rather than simply being deleted, and we end up with an RFC on the matter if the editors protesting the removal revert any attempt to uphold it. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "May" means "it is permitted", not "it must happen". I'm generally sympathetic towards the argument that editors should be permitted to follow accepted interpretations of the guidelines on unreferenced material without being abused by editors pulling rank and shouting "it's obvious so do the work yourself", but this particular case almost seems contrived to contradict that (a fairly banal description of a common device, sans inline citations that could almost certainly be trivially pulled from online sources, being gutted based solely on process). No, having five guys on the talk page saying "this is obviously correct so stop whining" is not a substitute in general for actual direct citation, but it at least indicates that the article is not another Seigenthaler incident waiting to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Five engineers knowing it is correct is a testament to its accuracy, not its verifiability. Many people who work in specialized fields acquire a sort of general working knowledge that may not be readily accessible in sources, since ground level principles can be sometimes pretty disparate. If something is easily verifiable it is generally not difficult to provide a source for it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is why the advice to Doniago, from people who are experienced writers, is that that, rather than wholesale section blanking, was and is the right course of action, and xyr action was the wrong course of action. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Thumperward said, you are mis-reading "may". It's a warning, not a direction to be slavishly followed. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A warning? To whom, about what? A warning to the reader they shouldn't believe what they're reading? NE Ent 03:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a warning, to editors, that if they add unsourced material it may be removed without further notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Provided that the material is first "challenged", a requirement that can apparently be satisfied by nothing more that the observation that the material is, in fact, unsourced. JohnInDC (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, right now it seems like you consider it an invitation to delete 3/4 of the content on the project. Is that what you are truly advocating? This is one of what? Two or three users on here that are actively working to prove this WP:POINT? Don't get me wrong, I disagree with this tactic and I think that once it crosses the line into disruption they should be blocked for as long as it takes to understand that it is disruptive. If the policy needs to be modified, let's do that. Until then, would someone please protect the content of the encyclopedia? - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (edited formatting) - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not helping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In all seriousness

How's about we change that final sentence to "Unsourced content may be challenged, and unverifiable content removed"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case I would argue that that's exactly what occurred. The unsourced information was challenged when the CN template was applied back in March of 2012. WP:MINREF clearly states that tagging material is a legitimate method of challenging it. Material that was not established to be verifiable between then and December was then moved to the article's Talk page. I emphasize that because I feel some editors are trying to make a case that the information was deleted from the article as though it would be a significant difficulty to locate it afterwards, and simply put, that's not the case. Any invested editor with the resources to cite the material could easily determine what had been removed from the article, apply citations as needed and reinsert the information. Sadly, it seems that in some cases even editors who possess the resources to provide citations would rather argue about whether the removal was justified than take action to improve the article itself. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MINREF indeed says that tagging suffices as a challenge. But as Template:Citation needed makes clear, a fact should not be tagged simply because it lacks a citation. "{{Citation needed}} (also known by the redirects {{Cn}} and {{Fact}}) is a template used to identify questionable claims in articles that lack a citation to a reliable source." (My emphasis.) I am still at a loss to understand how an editor can appropriately or meaningfully tag an article when the editor disclaims any knowledge of the subject matter at all, and, when pressed, cannot or will not identify what of the tagged material is in fact "questionable". JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe it was made reasonably apparent that at least some of the material that was ultimately considered questionable was the material moved to the Talk page. Clearly if the material wasn't being questioned, it would not have been moved. Otherwise, material could have been deleted for lacking sources, which also would have indicated that an editor found it questionable. Of course, if any editors had issues with the article being tagged, they could always have, y'know, asked for clarification. They had quite awhile to do so. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) First, the mere act of tagging something does not make it "questionable". That has the cart before the horse. Questioned ≠ questionable. Unverified ≠ unverifiable. Second. Editors did ask for clarification. Repeatedly. Your response was, you were challenging everything that wasn't accompanied by a cite. It's not - helpful, you know? You'd find editors a lot more willing to dive into the material and round out the sources if you would describe what seems wrong about it to you rather than just complaining generally. All that being said, this discussion has become as circular as the original tagging and I think I've had my say about it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer the original question, one should not notify editors when setting up an RfC (which is posted on the article's talk page), but should note on the article's talk page if one posts a discussion to a noticeboard. Interested editors have articles on their talk pages and notifying interested editors is canvassing. While you may remove unsourced material, continuing to remove material that other editors have restored is disruptive. Follow dispute resolution instead. TFD (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• There has already been a discussion of the warning text, Thumperward. Remember Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3#Seeking consensus on warning text? Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why I would remember a discussion from six years ago in which I wasn't involved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support suggested change (with wikilinks added). NE Ent 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe Block Appeal

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

TeeTylerToe has posted a block appeal. Since his previous block and appeal were a result of discussion here I'm posting this here for discussion. I talked extensively with TTT on the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. My personal conclusion was that while TTT has the potential to be a good editor, he is still unwilling to get past his disagreement with the consensus opinion on the S-76 article. Further I expect he will not be able to accept any consensus (on any article)-edit which does not agree with his opinion, and therefore I recommend against an unblock at this point. However this needs more input than my own so I am posting here. Please take the time to review. Prodego 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI TeeTylerToe has voluntarily suggested a topic ban on the S-76 article for himself as a condition of unblocking. I would be willing to do so under those circumstances, but I want to give some time to see if there is additional support before doing so. ⇒SWATJester 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to point out exactly what Swatjester has; TTT suggests that he will be completely away from the S-76 article, consensus (which i take to mean the talk page) or dispute resolution regarding the S-76. This being the case, i would suggest unblocking ~ after all, he'll be watched, and he knows it, so surely wouldn't be foolish enough to venture back to that topic. Cheers, Lindsay 08:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any potential unblock would need to come with a thorough understanding of WP:ROPE - and an understanding that it would be a very short rope provided. Topic-banning from the S-76 article would be a good start, although a very, very sharp eye would need to be kept out for that sort of attitude that led to the problem in the first place spreading elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe's record on Misplaced Pages is full of raging disputes. (He has only 13 edits prior to June 2012, so it is fair to limit your attention to the period since June 10). All his past unblock appeals are still on his talk page, and you can get an impression of his attitude by reading them. His tendency to make personal attacks has been noted. In my opinion it would be excessively hopeful that steering him away from a single article, S-76, will allow him to have a productive career. I recommend declining. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tentatively support unblock, with topic ban. I say this with some reservations, because TeeTylerToe has shown long-standing problems, really based on not listening, and has a pretty bad record of personal attacks. However, it was all related to the S-76 argument, and with a topic ban on editing that subject (I'd say indefinite), and on the understanding that any repetition of the same problems will lead to a speedy reblock, I think we should allow a new chance. I do have fears that the extreme battlefield mentality shown by TeeTylerToe in the S-76 dispute might emerge in any fresh dispute, but I think we should assume good faith and let's see - plenty of people will be watching, and it's easy to reblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock, with topic ban and mentoring. Having come across TTT before on Higgs boson, he seems to have good intentions, but does not seem to understand WP's policies. Therefore, I think mentoring would be ideal in this situation; it would help him learn WP's policies on various things as to avoid future instances of this. Of course, the topic ban from S-76 would be necessary as well given his behavior there, but I feel that he has the potential to be a productive editor if he takes the effort to learn WP's policies. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Unblock seems fine and indefinite is not infinite. We should be inclusive and welcoming. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock' iff a mentor is found and TTT's topic ban covers helicopters broadly construed. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Any volunteers to mentor?

There appears to be broad consensus both here and on TTT's user talk page that supports an unblock conditioned on a topic ban broadly related to S-76. However, there also seems to be a subset of that consensus (without opposition so far as I can tell) that suggests strongly that TTT would benefit from having a mentor, especially as regards to policy, dispute resolution, and how to edit on articles one feels strongly about without edit warring. It would be best to try and sort that out now before he is unblocked. I unfortunately cannot dedicate the time; but would anyone else be willing to do so on? He'd stand to benefit even from just a small gaggle of admins willing to drop an eye on his talk page from time to time, if that's all we can drum up. ⇒SWATJester 12:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unarchived

I was asked over IRC to take a look at this. I unarchived it for further discussion since there seems to be a hint of something productive happening if it had more time --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I was the blocking admin here, and have commented on the latest unblock request (though I wasn't notified of this thread either on my talk page or on TTT's page...). While it's positive that TTT has agreed to a voluntary topic ban on anything to do with the S-76 article, I'm concerned about the lack of specifics in his response to the question I asked about what it was he plans to edit if the block was lifted (the response is here). This is especially the case in light of Prodego's statement that TTT was unable to let the S-76 issue rest in the IRC discussion; the extent to which TTT took this issue before being blocked was well beyond acceptable bounds. As such, it seems pretty much certain that TTT will end up being blocked again for further disruption if he was unblocked, and I see no benefit in exposing editors to this. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. I spoke to TeeTylerToe on IRC and told him clearly and in no uncertain terms what to do to get unblocked (see this message). I told him he needed a mentor but he kept skirting around that issue and eventually left the channel abruptly when I made it clear to him. I then see that he appears to have approached someone else on IRC afterwards. I'm a bit concerned he was forum shopping for an opinion he liked so he can avoid getting a mentor. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin Qwyrxian

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

Admin Qwyrxian is violating WP:Involved and WP:Own by removing information supported by WP:RS in Sri Lanka page and also using tools to block users,protect in content dispute where he has reverted to his preferred version.He was asked to stay away as he was involved and there was a discussion but instead of letting other admins to act ,he choose to use his tools in violation of WP:Involved and WP:Own.Please ask other admins to handle disputes in Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been addressed at length at Talk:Sri_Lanka#Full_protection; multiple administrators have reviewed Qwyrxian's actions and agreed that Qwyrxian's actions, including very minor edits and protecting the Wrong Version do not constitute involvement. NE Ent 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) What I see here is that Qwyrxian has reverted to the version before the edit war and protected the page. He didn't change the content (that would be construed as a violation of WP:INVOLVED) but he acted "purely in an administrative role" (quoting the policy). What I also see is that there is a discussion about what content to include, and I suggest you participate rather than report an editor for doing nothing wrong. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 12:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC here as well) Floating Boat and NE Ent have covered this much more succinctly than I; nonetheless, I'll include my statement for completeness sake.

Basically, this user doesn't understand the policies s/he is citing. First, there's no way I could be WP:OWNing the article; I don't even know what 99% of the article says, and I've made almost no edits to it. As far as the actual events, my detailed description is here:

The short version is this: I'm not involved, I followed WP:PROTECT, and several other editors have already made this clear on the article's talk page. Intoronto is indeff'd because this is just the latest in a long history of edit warring; subsequent unblocks have been declined by 2 other admins and make it clear that Intoronto is simply unable to contribute to the project w/o edit warring. Nonetheless, several involved editors seem to want to focus on this side issue rather than actually discuss the content. I do not know why this is. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: there was more than one editor claiming I violated WP:INVOLVED; someone else may want to notify the article's talk page to let them know this is being discussed here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. GiantSnowman 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Qwyrxian's actions. Protecting an earlier version of the article, under WP:PREFER, was entirely appropriate, as was the subsequent block for edit warring. I can also see nothing in Qwyrxian's article edits that violates WP:INVOLVED; of the twenty edits he has made to the Sri Lanka page, none (save for administrative actions) are related to the current dispute. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a couple of months as most IP edits seem to be problematic to that article. I haven't reverted the most recent addition as I take no opinion on it - however I recommend strongly no more reverts happen there before talk page discussion. (PS: the protection system is kabloomed... Twinkle removed the move protection, then when I manually restored it the edit protection upped to sysop... huh??) --Errant 13:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions of Qwyrxian after the discussion on Talk:Sri_Lanka#Full_protection in which the some editors including a editor he blocked clearly told him that he was WP:involved and he should have avoided taking admin actions in this dispute any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankancats (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because involved editors tell an admin he is involved doesn't make him so. The policy WP:INVOLVED determines that. You can't justify that claim in policy, in fact Qwyrxian has quoted in policy where he instructs him exactly what to do and you've ignored it. Instead you're going off feelings of "Well this is unfair to me" and in your mind that makes him involved. Well guess who cares, no one. He ain't involved, according to policy, and the whinny attitudes at that page make we want to trout some people.--v/r - TP 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I care. But I'm kind of "no one," anyway. As I've previously stated, Q's actions are righteous (except perhaps they didn't really need to comment here at all), but WP is really quite a complex place and folks are going to get whiny. So I'm perfectly fine with as many editors as Q needs saying they were copacetic before Q allows the thread to be closed, and I'll say as many times as necessary "not involved" but "no one cares" is harsh. NE Ent 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The surprising thing would be if the editor he blocked didn't claim he was involved. Also, the sudden appearance of Lankancats to comment here after not having been active since June raises an eyebrow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I too have reviewed Qwyrxian's actions and find them uninvolved. What is sad about this is that the chance of actually getting Intoronto unblocked, slim as they were, were not helped by another user pushing this accusation on his talk page. I do not think that the accusation was made in bad faith, though. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC).
  

Note he indef blocked Intertoto only after being asked to take action in his talk page by another editor involved in the content dispute.Despite questions being asked about his being involved.He should have asked another admin to look into this dispute.202.138.106.1 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Further it was fully summed up in his Rfa here :I was asked to weigh in on this. Based only on my own previous interactions with Qwrxian, I do not believe he is an appropriate candidate to be an administrator of WP at this time. I found that Qwrxian was more interested in policing Misplaced Pages than editing it. In his zeal to voluntary enforce WP guidelines, I found that the user came off as brash, simpleminded, and authoritarian. This is because the user appears to have a very narrow and rigid understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I'm afraid that if he was given the position, he may potentially abuse it. Misplaced Pages does not need more administrators, it needs better editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)202.138.106.1 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you find a problem with Qwyrxian's conduct either tell him (if he's open to recall, which I'm not sure about) or file an RFC/U, but keep in mind that, as demonstrated here and at the article's talk page, no one will agree with you. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 09:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought of initially not to raise or get involved on this issue at ANI but at RfC. But I want to clear certain misinterpretation here, before I start the RfC.

After the revert and full protection of the article by Qwyrxian, I have raised that particular incident to number of editors, they have come out the response that Qwyrxian is right.

But I have't provided the following diffs at that time to them to get an over all picture of the Qwyrxian's involvement in the Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles;

Qwyrxian has closed the discussion while the "Civil War" section is out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) from the page as No-Consensus though Qwyrxian encouraged for mediation.

Qwyrxian has blocked Hillcountries though he/she encouraged for a talk page discussion while the "Category: Sinhalese people" is in(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) on the Prince Vijaya's page.

Again, Qwyrxian has reverted the controversial content out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) and then protected the page.

But I dropped the issue pursuing further against Qwyrxian and agreed with other editors that his/her actions are right since "Qwyrxian may be an honest admin, but the coincidences made others to think he/she is biased or overly involved with his/her admin tools with pages on Sri Lanka and its Conflict."

And, "The above may be mere coincidences until someone could travel into someones' brain cells and study how things are recorded at that time and the intention and the motives behind."

But after the IndefBlock of Intoronto I am of the view that Qwyrxian acted as a Judge and a Jury concurrently on the situation and the individuals(Intoronto) involved.

I agree with IP: 202.138.106.1 that "...Despite questions being asked about his being involved. He should have asked another admin to look into this dispute."

Even User:Richwales is approached by email after the IndefBlock of Intoronto and Richwales has come out with the statement,"...I was asked (in private e-mail) to intervene in this situation. However, I am not going to do so, because I do not feel it would be constructive or helpful for me to get involved further at this time. If there are disagreements over whether Qwyrxian's admin actions here have been proper or not, I believe WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI would be the best place to discuss the matter."

If Richwales has agreed with Qwyrxian's Indefblock,he/she might have simply stated that Qwyrxian is right. So Richwales also not sure of the situation.

That is why we need a RfC not only for the remedy for Intoronto's Indefblock but Qwyrxian's involvement as an Admin in future on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles.

Again, Qwyrxian's might be a good admin elsewhere on Misplaced Pages but not with his/her involvement on number of Sri Lanka related articles which are more confused, complicated and sensitive even for a seasoned diplomat to handle.Sudar123 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sudar123, I don't think those things make me involved. I closed a discussion as no-consensus, and recommended further mediation. That was an administrative action, not me acting as a content editor. Second, I blocked a user for edit warring on a different page on a different topic about 8 months ago. How is that related to this issue? And the revert has been explicitly and directly explained as conforming to our policy on protecting pages. Seriously, could you please explain what I have done that violates WP:INVOLVED? Maybe it would help if you explained what you think that policy means, because maybe you're just misunderstanding that. That policy says, basically, that you can't use administrative tools to gain an advantage in a content decision. Is there some way in which I've tried to get the article to look in a certain way and then used my tools to enforce that way? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My guess is RichWales knew Qwyrxian was right, but was trying to guide you rather than tell you. You and the IP are simply wrong. What you describe as actions that make Qwyrxian involved are administrative actions which by the very clearly explanation in the policy do not make him involved. Further, Misplaced Pages does not work like the outside world. "Qwyrxian acted as a Judge and a Jury" is perfectly fine on Misplaced Pages. There is no jury because no one here can get the death penalty. Administrator actions can be reviewed after the fact for accuracy. In this case, the review shows that he acted appropriately, was not involved, and the block holds. WP:Involved is very often misused on Misplaced Pages because folks read the name of the policy instead of reading the policy itself. It doesn't say what a lot of folks think it does. More often than not, involved is used inappropriately for one primary reason: every admin is aware of this policy's existence and that it can be the end of the bit for us, so we're especially aware of when we are involved or not. We are experts in this policy and we make sure we steer far clear of it. The likely hood of us breaking the policy, because we are experts in it, is far less than the likely hood that you've misinterpreted it, because you are not an expert who is subject to it. The policy ain't all that hard. Administrative actions != involved. I'm passionate about this because I've personally been accused of being involved by two different people in the last 6 months who refused to read the policy. One of them is blocked, the other makes an embarrassment out of himself every time he speaks out. Try to be different, read the policy. If you have a problem with the block, WP:Involved isn't it. You need to figure out what was really wrong. Maybe you think it's too harsh, maybe unbalanced from the other user? I don't know. But this line of argument that you and the IP are holding will go no where because those of us experienced in the policy know the flaw in your reasoning and have tried to explain it to you.--v/r - TP 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only state my agreement with TParis that Qwyrxian is not involved. I'd bother citing all the policy reasons, but honestly, TParis and Qwyrxian themselves have already said it all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Qwyrxian's actions. - First, if dispute is there he should take some actions against a edit war. So he protected the page. Intoronto is a user who think as high profile user. He doesn't give reasons for his decisions ( for an example Vandalism) don't participate to discussion in talk page, but take actions think he is 100% correct. If some one gone through his edit history most of his reverts, edit are unethical. He don't care to give reasons. look it here. He has used edit warnings to prevent opposite people goes against his opinion. First, if he involved in a edit war , he should not give edit warning since he is just a party of the war. He is not in a position to judge the situation. Other thing is he should state his stand in talk page to convince others. If only no objections he can go with it. Otherwise Misplaced Pages has a process to proceed. And it is not the reporting the admin who take best actions to get the page on all agreed version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.170.32 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 January 2013‎

Doncram and NPA

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

I believe that a WP:NPA block is needed for Doncram, based on the following recent comments:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive243#request_admin_help_to_close_improper_AFD — Accusation of bad faith in starting an AFD: the nominator "fully knows this is a valid Misplaced Pages list-article topic"
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page — he says that someone else "has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors"
• I'm an idiotic non-person, and I'm "dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on".
• Accusations that someone else "has long expressed hatred and has harassed me for years. It is long term harassment, bullying, evil" and "urging on bully assistants"
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Doncram_at_lists_of_various_churches — Various bits in this massive section of which that's a part. For example, I'm "extreme and unreasonable". Another editor and I have been behaving in ways that are "unduly aggressive and bullying in nature", and the other editor has written "truly horrible things...that are not forgiveable" that have "seemed calculated to dehumanize me, to treat me as a non-person".
• Elsewhere, he says that someone else is "assert others are stupid or fools or naive or not-tough-enough-to-deal-with-tough-persons-like-yourself, or whatever".
• Just two days ago: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29, where my deletion of some recently-created implausible redirects is stated as being in bad faith: "The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria". I warned him on his talk page after this accusation of personal behavior: he's presented no evidence that I intended to violate deletion policy. If it weren't for this bit, I wouldn't have taken issue; there's nothing objectionable about the idea of someone filing a DRV about one of my deletions.
• In response to my warning, I'm told that I gave the warning "intentionally in bad faith". Over at the DRV, Doncram says that he doesn't know why my motivation is, but nevertheless he speculates that it's "driving me away from Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed articles". Again, no evidence, and likewise no evidence that my removal of images from some Indiana bridge articles (the first time I can remember a WP:OWN violation being alleged) is a WP:OWN violation regarding Ohio articles.

I've heeded WP:CIVIL's instruction to "Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue", and I'm only coming here to dispute resolution because "there is an ongoing problem cannot resolve". We routinely sanction people for making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, including baseless accusations that they're doing things in sneaky bad faith. We routinely sanction people for "insulting or disparaging an editor...regardless of the manner in which it is done", and that includes telling them that they're not even human. Someone who demonstrates a long-term pattern of WP:NPA violations is tendentious, especially when he knows that his editing drives off people and when his block log shows one block for disruptive editing (including personal attacks) and another for WP:NPA violations. Please stay on topic and discuss why you believe that Doncram should or should not be sanctioned; the last time this came up, the discussion (found in archive 778 linked above) petered out without resolution because people turned off onto other issues. Someone else please warn him about this thread; the IncidentArchive776 thread will show that he saw notification of an ANI thread by the thread-starter as harassment. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

From recent discussions, it seems that the consensus is that this noticeboard is suited towards addressing individual incidents, but not so much for discussion on a pattern of behavior. If you want to get the pattern of behavior addressed, you should consider filing an RFC/U or taking it to arbcom. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what WP:WQA was for - before it was closed with the declaration that AN/I was the place for such things... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any perfect tool for dealing with longer-term problematic behaviour. RfC/U has had its fair share of criticism too. One of the points in AN/I's favour is that it has teeth. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment about this case, but I wish admins would take NPA more seriously and warn/block when users show a rude pattern of behavior. I almost left for good in the first month of editing because of someone's baseless accusation that I was vandalizing[REDACTED] because he didn't agree with my edits. FurrySings (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:WIAPA, Doncram's recent insistence that "80-100%" of Sitush's participation on two particular pages consisted of misrepresentation, attacks, etc. qualifies, as it wasn't supported by diffs (and isn't supported by reviewing the comments). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

keepalive ping --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having been a target of Doncram's negativity (I've been repeatedly called "evil", "hateful", "nasty", "snarky" and a variety of other things) for some 4-1/2 years now -- and having interacted with him for a total of more than 5 years (as near as I can determine, we first met in late 2007, and the encounter was reasonably productive), I think that Misplaced Pages is long overdue for a discussion of the behaviors that are so upsetting to a significant (and growing) number of us. For a long time, I have contended that things would go substantially better with Doncram and the rest of us if he could somehow learn to refrain from personalizing his interactions with other users -- instead, focus on content. That's not the only issue between Doncram and the other users he spars with, but his persistent focus on personalities tends to poison his interactions. Unfortunately, I probably made matters worse between us when I pointed this out to Doncram -- telling him that he apparently became convinced that I was "out to get him" (not necessarily the words I used at the time) before I even realized that I had debated with the same person on multiple pages within a relatively short period. This period was July–August 2008, and the multiple discussions were at NRHP Wikiproject talk page, NRHP Wikiproject focused discussion page, and a featured list nomination, as well as a few other discussions in the same time period. Looking over these old pages, I notice that Doncram used my name five times in his post of 07:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) on the featured-list nomination page, which was a reply to my review of the FL he had nominated. In retrospect, I see that as undue focus on a person rather than content. That same sort of pattern has repeated itself over time in his interactions with Nyttend, Sitush, and others who he has also accused of being "out to get him". --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've just noticed this thread. While doncram appears to have a way with words when it comes to emphasising personalisation by others, my big beef is that of misrepresentation. However, as noted in the most recent prior thread concerning doncram here, it seems that they are preparing a submission for ArbCom. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unarchiving. Since I created this thread, Doncram's comments have continued in this same manner; see the "Mark a lot of pages for microformatting" section of WP:BOTR, where he calls for people to "attack you personally for gross ignorance" when talking with someone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy is plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that quite bizarre equivalence, but it was sufficiently tortured in any case that it doesn't really count as a personal attack (to you, Sitush, Andy or anyone else it was directed at). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't bother, but my point is that he's literally asking for personal attacks against someone else over a thoroughly minor issue — it's just another piece in a broad pattern of behavior. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to see it as simply playing the martyr again ("if yu were me then they'd be cricifying you and leaving your bones to bleach in the sun, oh woe is me" etc) and being generally pointy regarding trying to block a productive suggestion for the sake of it, none of which may be helpful but also none of which is really a bright-line incident. Were I completely uninvolved I may have blocked here on grounds of general long-term social competence, but I don't feel right doing that now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Water off a duck's back (though Doncram wasn't to know that), but still unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Meanwhile below... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Barsoomian's civility

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

Barsoomian needs to be more civil.

• Responding to an editor on his talk page: You made your smarmy comment on Wrathful's page minutes after mine I don't want, need and will not follow your advice or admonitions. And specifically, don't write on my Talk page ever again unless it's a required notification.
• In a discussion on WP:VPP: I have no idea why you felt the need to make these idiotic remarks
• Believes that characterizing others' comments as "idiotic" is okay: That was a pretty mild response considering how how gratuitously insulting he was to me.
• Ownership of talk page: Well, if that's your attitude, then I'll clarify things: Never write here again for any reason.
• Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian to be less "BITEy" to another editor: Haven't you got anything better to do than breathe down my neck?
• Personal attack against that user: Changed the user's initial section heading from Less teeth, please to Pompous windbaggery

I'm involved in one of these (this one).

I bring this up here rather than trying to talk with Barsoomian myself because of the response I received previously, and the later response that Barsoomian gave to User:Jack Sebastian (we each tried to address the civility issue). Sancho 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Scrap that second one (and the third one likewise)--there is nothing wrong with this remark: it's an appropriate comment to an idiotic analogy which I'd see as an ad hominem also. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I can disregard those. Maybe I was wrong about them, but I was acting based on what WP:CIVIL says: "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind.", and "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them." Sancho 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sure--but if person A says "government sources aren't necessarily reliable" and person B says "that's like saying you should wear a tin-foil hat when you go outside", then person B can be told that their analogy is not just incorrect but also derogatory--it's close enough to saying "you're nuts". Drmies (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Your statement is incorrect and derogatory" would have been a much better way to respond, I think. Sancho 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• For better or for worse, it's pretty much standard practice that editors are permitted to ask others not to post on their talk pages. The only one of the above that genuinely causes me concern is the last one (changing another editor's section heading), but it's an attack on the edit, not on the editor, so it's hard to describe it as a personal attack. I don't think you're going to get any administrative action just on the above, therefore, although clearly Barsoomian would benefit from some advice to play more nicely with others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• That would be good advice well taken. But for now, in these diffs, they're staying on the right side of 'comment on edits, not on editors'. Not nicely, but still. BTW, I agree that the changing of a heading is not kosher--"Less teeth" was appropriate and "pompous windbaggery" is an insult...but again, it's pointing at the comment, not the commentator, though it's awfully close. AT any rate, Demiurge is correct: no admin will take any kind of action on these diffs alone. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I don't recall a single instance of collaborative or civility while editing with this user - and I know I am not the only one who shares this opinion. And I believe that while one can dick with their pages in most cases, refactoring the posts of others (altering, instead of removal) is especially odious. This appears to be a deeply-seating anger issue waiting for an outlet - any outlet. We lose enough new users as it is; why bite the new contributors while they are testing the waters? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you don't have a score to settle with me, do you? Anyway, the "new user" you are so solicitous of has actually been editing for six years, as I told you earlier, so how you can still say he's a "new user" here I don't know, and despite your best attempts, we have had a productive discussion and may be working together on a new article. So you'll have to find another incident to nail me for. As for your comments on my talk page, 1) you made your post after I expressly asked you not to comment there further, 2) I did just remove them, though I admit for 19 minutes it was there under a more descriptive heading. Barsoomian (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't speak for other people, but as for me, I'll not block on these edits — but I will block without further warning (and advise anyone else to do likewise) for any future edits of this sort. After all, his block log is currently clean; it's not as if he's already in the middle of escalating WP:NPA blocks. I'll let him know this. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Responding to the specific points that have not been struck:

Regarding Sanchom's remark "I bring this up here rather than trying to talk with Barsoomian myself because of the response I received previously" -- I am astonished at this. I responded civilly, though I did not agree, and Sanchom never came back. I assumed the issue was settled. Drmies has now explained it more clearly than I did, so I hope that now it is settled.

• Responding to an editor on his talk page: You made your smarmy comment on Wrathful's page minutes after mine I don't want, need and will not follow your advice or admonitions. And specifically, don't write on my Talk page ever again unless it's a required notification.

I believe on my own Talk page, I am allowed to tell people not to post. Am I wrong? Sebastian (the person it was directed at) has on his own talk page "If I have asked you to not post on my usertalk page, please respect that request and don't do it. If you do anyway, I'll simply delete it and seek your block."

• Ownership of talk page: Well, if that's your attitude, then I'll clarify things: Never write here again for any reason.

Same point; "my" talk page. Also, this was after I had told the IP editor this was addressed to who kept putting "tb" tags on my talk page every time he responded on a discussion page. (Which each generated an email alert.) I told him at first that this was unnecessary, as I was watching the discussion page, but he kept doing it. This was in response to his comment "this won't be a problem unless you ignore my valid arguments" which indicated he was likely to keep doing so, so I was more forceful.

(added) Earlier requests had been made and ignored: ,

• Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian to be less "BITEy" to another editor: Haven't you got anything better to do than breathe down my neck?

I have told Sebastian many times I don't want his advice on any issue. His "coaching" is simply a way for him to patronisingly criticise me. This specifically was Sebastian butting into a routine and uncontroversial exchange I had with another editor that was resolved amicably despite Sebastian's attempts to make it all about me rather than the substance of the edits. Also note that he characterises my remarks as "biting a new user", when the remarks (in response to repeated reverts by said user) aren't overly aggressive and the user in question has been editing since 2007 and, if not prolific, could not be called a newbie.

(added) see here for the (non)BITEy comment and the subsequent discussion, without any drama, and no need for a "coach". Barsoomian (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personal attack against that user: Changed the user's initial section heading from Less teeth, please to Pompous windbaggery

Sebastian's initial heading Less teeth, please was patronising and implied that I was engaging in "biting" new users, which was completely false, and there was no "new user" involved in any case. And in mitigation 1) I thought better of it and deleted the whole section a few minutes later 2) this was in response to Sebastian's continuing to make personal remarks to me on my Talk page, after I had asked him not to post there again. At great length, and with great self importance -- thus "pompous windbaggery" describes it concisely. But, since I'm being charged with making a personal attack, please note that "pompous windbaggery" is a description of the text in the section, not of a person. Barsoomian (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bedtime for me, so no long response. I gave you that warning particularly because of this last section — windbaggery, for example, is produced by windbags, and more generally, statements like this about the text necessarily are statements about the one who made them. Additionally, many of your comments don't link to those comments or otherwise tell us how to find them; remember that WP:WIAPA prohibits such statements without evidence. Please provide links soon, unless you already did, in which case please show me that I overlooked them. Nyttend (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't provide new links at first since the text I refer to is on the same page as the link in the complaint. I've now added above some refs for "Ownership of talk page" and "Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian" if that helps. Anyway, since it seems that "pompous windbaggery" is a trigger for this, I will address that: First, it was on my own talk page and I deleted the words 19 minutes later. Do I get no credit for that? It could only have been seen by someone actively trolling through my history looking for something to take offence to. Also, is "windbaggery" really offensive? It's not complimentary, but come on. Definition:

Collins Dictionary: "(informal) lengthy talk or discussion with little or no interesting content". Now I know that tit for tat is no excuse, but have you seen what I was (briefly) describing as "windbaggery"? See here. For instance, Sebastian describes my edits as "nonsensical, unnecessary comment". Is that not equally, or more, offensive than describing his words as "windbaggery"? He goes on to attack me personally "You are not the smartest guy/gal/whatever in the room" (attacking both my intelligence and sexuality). I shrugged this off and deleted it, along with his various threats and misrepresentations of what I had said, but apparently such foolishness is worth opening an ANI. I am being sanctioned for deleting these insulting words with a dismissive comment that was visible only for minutes. Barsoomian (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I think civility to other editors is hugely important, especially in not putting others off the project. I found this user's recent messages on my talk page to be uncivil and uncollegiate - it was the main part of what made me decide to take a bit of a wikibreak this month, so I don't have to feel attacked. Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? I was uncivil to you? What specifically was "uncivil? I "put you off the project"? You don't seem to consider that your reverts of my edits and your subsequent actions did the same to me. That was the only thing I expressed in my comments. In retrospect I might have been oversensitive, but if you construed any of that as an "attack", I'm sorry. Barsoomian (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand why Sancho came here, as Barsoomian's attitude to others has been problematic for a long time and it doesn't seem to have improved any in at least two years. My first interactions with Barsoomian were over his addition of copyvios to List of Primeval episodes in 2010. A discussion on the article's talk page lead to further discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems where his tone was less than civil, at one stage comparing me to a troll and referring to other editors as "a bunch of self-appointed bureaucrats". One of the edits I discovered today, while on a totally unrelated matter at Talk:Tron: Uprising, was an inappropriate change to one of my edits. (God only knows what was in the zip file he added) It's very hard to collaborate with Barsoomian, his snide edit summaries, and generally offensive behaviour towards others makes interaction with him highly undesirable. During "discussions" it very quickly gets to the point where nearly everything he says seems to be an attack, and I can see why Sancho took offence at the two struck-out items above. While Nyattend is correct in saying "it's not as if he's already in the middle of escalating WP:NPA blocks", this is certainly not the first time his actions have been raised at ANI or other places. Despite this, his editing is generally constructive. If he'd just play nicely with others, and accept that we do things for a reason instead of complaining about the way we do things (as was the case here and here) he could be a real, and appreciated, asset to Misplaced Pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for reanimating all your grudges from 2010. I see you're a believer in "revenge is a dish best served cold". And "complaining about the way we do things" -- what he means is "disagreeing with me and engaging in debate". Even to complain about an obvious copy-paste error I made, again years ago, that no one noticed at the time. Even debates he prevailed in, yet still wants to beat me down for daring to challenge him. Barsoomian (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, "complaining about the way we do things" is demonstrated by the opening of this very, very recent post. Even though we addressed the issue of what constitutes a copyvio at Misplaced Pages way back in 2010, "The copyright cops will tell you that rewording a press release is copyvio -- it's not in the real world, but that's what the policies here add up to" is still "complaining about the way we do things" two years later. Accept things and move on. Don't continually complain about things that can't be changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I actually SUPPORTED YOU in that case and said what the copyright policy is. Despite my thinking it's silly, I have upheld it. I've reverted edits that violated it -- repeatedly, in that same article, for some weeks now. (, , , , etc.) Complaints about my "civility" is what this is about. I didn't know that "complaining about things" was subject to sanctions, but if you want to complain that I don't Love Big Brother, you should start your own ANI issue. And it's pretty rich to tell me to "move on" when you come here to try to make a meaningless typo I made two years ago into a sinister act. Barsoomian (talk) 9:55 am, Today (UTC−5)

Hey all, let's all just settle down a bit. This isn't a requests for comment. Admins have already taken the action they're going to take (asking Barsoomian to be more civil). That's a good enough outcome from this, so let's not get things off to a bad start by just piling on. Barsoomian, please ignore this extra stuff that's been added if you can (it is from a long time ago). Everyone else, Barsoomian's been asked to be nicer, so let's give it a chance. Sancho 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Barsoomian, I know that you've previously stated that you neither want nor plan to follow any advice I offer you, but I thought I'd point out the 500 lb gorilla in our midst: Here are several editors - experienced and otherwise, old and new (and yes, a user who has been here for almost 6 years and added less than 120 edits is still considered 'new') - who are addressing precisely the same issues with the way that you conduct yourself in your interactions. I didn't initiate this noticeboard post, though your posts seem to indicate you you thought it was a vast conspiracy to do so; a user I have never met or interacted with did.

And this is key: we are all saying the same thing about your behavior and conduct. Instead of attacking and parsing out your complaints to each of the people complaining, listen to what we are all saying. You have the potential to be a good editor, but have some significant challenges when it comes to treating others with the respect you yourself demand. And this is the same sort of complaint that has brought you to AN/I repeatedly. We are asking you to cowboy up (and that is no challenge to your sexuality gender if you are female) and take responsibility for your interactions with the rest of us, so that we can focus instead on the good contributions you often make. Even though I am the one you called a "pompous windbag" (semantic gymnastics aside, that is precisely what you were doing), I can see you being a better editor, if you can but get past this unfortunate wart of a behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, while your comments may be good intentioned, I will ask again to please just leave this topic alone now (and I'll close this). Sancho 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu

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

There is currently a disagreement at Talk:Ubuntu for Android#Ubuntu about Ubuntu's new smartphone software (see http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone) and what relationship this has, if any, to Ubuntu for Android, a previously announced project. Right now the two participants are me and User:Walter Görlitz. I argue that the new Ubuntu phone software is pure Ubuntu and should be covered in Ubuntu (operating system); Walter Görlitz argues that it is derived from Ubuntu for Android and should be covered there instead.

The reason I have brought this here instead of WP:3O or the dispute resolution noticeboard is that Walter Görlitz appears to be no longer interested in discussing the issue, and has resorted to posting single line, mocking replies in response to legitimate requests - requests like please provide some sources. For example, I posted a direct quote from a WP:RS, reporting on comments by CEO Mark Shuttleworth, which very clearly and unambiguously settles the matter, to which Walter Görlitz responded flippantly "feel free to add your source as a counter-point and tag the contentious statement". I asked him to provide any kind of source at all to support his assertions, but he responded "Of course my opinions are just those and carry no more weight than yours."

It would be nice if someone could weigh in on whether this kind of approach and attitude to dispute resolution is appropriate. – Steel 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There are three involved editors including User:Yworo.

The order of events is wrong. I did restore the referenced statements and after Steel's continued insistence to remove it I have decided that others need to discuss it.

This is entirely the wrong forum for this discussion and I apologize for wasting your time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

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

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I was looking over the history of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present) article when I noticed that it abruptly ended. It appears that a user had done a copy and paste move from the Afghan civil war article. Is there a way to fix this? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrator deleted article to make way to a manual restore; article's history lost in the middle

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

1. I move Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's) to Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's).
2. I improve the article and add some content to it.
3. User:Marine 69-71, an administrator, deletes Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's).
4. User:Marine 69-71 manually restores Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's) through a copy/paste—the article's history is lost in the process because this is the redirect created on step 1.
5. User:Marine 69-71 creates a new Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's) as a redirect to Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's).
6. User:Marine 69-71 posts the following on Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law:

Please do not rename an article without consulting it first in the article "talk page". That is the way we do things here in Misplaced Pages.

All my actions fall under WP:BEBOLD and WP:AGF.

Below is the confusing deletion and move log:

(Deletion log); 22:06 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)
(Move log); 22:06 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:03 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Puerto Rico Gag Law to Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:02 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:02 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Deletion log); 22:00 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page, making room for properly titled article)
(Deletion log); 21:59 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(Redirect is being deleted because the proper name for the article is Puerto Rico's Gag Law and that is waht should be placed there)

User:Marine 69-71 abused his administrator's privileges.

I'm requesting an undeletion of the article up to where I updated it and a de-adminiship of User:Marine 69-71.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

x

Really? Why? Bold move was reverted and is a dispute to your edit. Now discuss it on the talkpage and find consensus for the article title change you desire. You can also use Misplaced Pages:Requested moves but your initial move had no discussion to begin with so I support Tony's move. Frankly....it cuts out a lot of drama....or was at least attempting to. Try a little AGF there yourself Ahnoneemoos.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos was right that the history of the page was actually gone, with nothing before the move back being visible in the view history section. It is however now visible again, for some reason (bug or restoration?). Ahnoneemoos's reaction above was perfectly understandable in light of the fact that their edits actually couldn't be seen anymore, so it was more than just a revert. However, as it's there now, both editors can enter discussion. CMD (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tony should not have G6d the article to make way for the move unless a notification was given first. However, this is not a redirect issue (as stated on the talkpage by the OP). Its an issue with moving the article without discussion. Did either discuss first? Doesn't appear so. OK, we could go the extreme and de-syops Tony, but then a boomerang would be appropriate for the OP just as extreme. On the other hand we could just say both were not entirely in the right and not entirely in the wrong and move on.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue was that the page history was deleted, which is definitely an odd occurrence. While it'd be interesting to know what happened, it's not administrative anymore. You're right that normal dispute resolution can occur now. CMD (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing it but am I right that not only was no attempt made to properly ask the admin before bringing this here why the heck they deleted the page and effectively did a cut and paste move but they weren't even properly notified of this discussion asking for deadmining (a comment was left on the article talk page complaining and saying it was being taken to ANI but nothing on the admins talk page)? Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I made a mistake when I tried to retore the article to the way it was originally. My actions were not made in bad-faith, and I hope that someone could correct my mistake and post the article with it's history. The situation here is that User: Ahnoneemoos renamed the article without discussing it the issue in the articles "talk page". He renamed the article "Puerto Rico Gag Law", which in my opinion does not make any sense since there no such thing. I believe that the proper and correct title was the one in which it was created "Puerto Rico's Gag Law". When I tried to restore it, my computer messed up on me and hence the situation where the history was erased. I have told User: Ahnoneemoos that before he/she takes things into his/her own hands to first make an attempt in discussing things with other editors. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for input, and if it boomerangs that's fine

I'll try to be short, sweet, and to the point.

I removed some tags on an article then when they were replaced without using the talk page I re-moved them and created a place for discussion .

Since then I've had a couple of administrators giving me medium-weight grief, during which I said on my talk page that they were being "tiresome twat". Can we either tell Guy Macon and SummerPhD what edit warring and personal attacks are (e.g.:questioning competency is not a personal attack) or can we tell me why what I did was one of those things?

Oh, and can we also tell Macon that it's not cool to tell users to fuck off, as he did to me?

124.168.221.199 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think a key problem with SummerPhD's comments on the talk page is that he seemed to answer the question he'd like to answer ("What does {{external links}} mean?") as opposed to the actual question ("Why is {{external links}} still relevant for this article?) I see Canoe1967 has actually fixed the problem in the article, so the tag is no longer relevant. I would at this juncture consider the dispute resolved and advise deep breaths and pictures of cute kittens all round. --Ritchie333 09:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure...kittens all around, but let us not forget that if you remove a tag, you need to provide and actual reasoning why you did so beyond "It isn't having an effect". Simply put, the tag was a challenge to the content and the removal without addressing the content issue was not the right move. I would love to discuss why someone would tell another to "f" off when being called a "tiresome "t".....but I am certain editors already get that.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Templated maintenance messages may be removed by any user when there is no supporting section on the talk page. So, zero support for Macon's consensus that I was edit warring? That is my main concern. And, while I do take your point Amad that I was being less than cordial in calling him a twat when he was stomping around my talk page... But for that Macon told me to fuck off while telling me to stop making personal attacks.' - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of templates, I should have thought that Guy Macons detailed explanation have covered that subject quite nicely. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, and even if I was, administrators don't use their tools on pages where they are involved. Nor have I called for a block. The behavior I describe below arguably merits a warning template, nothing more.

The issue is not, as 124.168.221.199 implies, whether he did something that would call for a block, such as WP:3RR. The question is whether, as I claim, proper behavior when a dispute arises over content that has been in place without complaint for months or years is BRD (You Boldly make the change, someone Reverts it, then you Discuss it with the original content in place) or whether, as 124.168.221.199 claims, proper behavior is BRRD (You Boldly make the change, someone Reverts it, you Revert the revert and only then Discuss it, having forced your changes onto the article). I would not have gone to ANI over such a minor issue, but now that it has gone to ANI, I really won't consider this to be resolved until the BRD vs. BRRD question is answered. If left unanswered it is certain to come up again.

The civility issue doesn't concern me, as long as the targets are experienced editors. I would be concerned if the insults and personal attacks are ever used against a new editor, because of our ongoing retention issues. I think a gentle warning to all involved (myself included) that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policies that apply to all editors and all pages might be appropriate. It does give one pause when an IP editor with ten edits starts citing arbcom findings of fact. One might even suspect sockpupettry.

My exact words were "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram." This was after 124.168.221.199 said that I was lazy, incompetent, tiresome twat (five times), condescending, head up arse, idiot, boring, dick, and having trouble with reading comprehension. (From Wictionary: TWAT: Noun (vulgar, slang) A vagina, pussy, vulva, clitoris.) given the fact that 124.168.221.199 filed this ANI and accused me of a PA over my reference to Arkell v. Pressdram, I think perhaps WP:BOOMERANG might apply. ---Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, great, so you're all clever when telling me to fuck off, great for you. Do you win some kind of prize? You are being lazy when you not only warn someone improperly, but when the page you pointed me at in your "detailed explanation" says pretty clearly "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag". Since we're not all doing the kittens things here, can we start with that? The very essay I was pointed to says that my removal of the maintenance tag was fine. We can perhaps discuss Macon's reading comprehension problem (e.g. not understanding what edit warring is, what sock puppets are, or even the difference between an essay and a policy) later.

124.168.221.199 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty essay. It may have been ok for you to remove the tags once because you had a belief. However, once the tag(s) were returned, you were never permitted to re-remove them, and that's from policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See, that was both polite and relevant, thank you Bwilkins. Link to said policy, please? And not the pea-soup of letters, thank you. (The reason I pointed out that essay was because it was the first thing pointed to me when telling me I was wrong... Is that somehow not coming across?) - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first let's start by the hierarchy for a moment: a policy (set by the community) outranks a guideline (usually also set by community, but could be a subset) which really outranks an essay (sometimes written by only one editor). Guidelines and essays often amplify/clarify a policy. The essay on tagging and untagging amplifies basic editing concepts, especially related to problem articles. The policy on edit-warring states that "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions...an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". The tags are for this purpose considered to be content. You disagreed with the content of a page (its tags), so you removed them. It was reverted (as per be bold, revert, discuss). When you re-removed them, you were repeatedly restoring to you preferred version, as per policy. Note: the three revert bright line and edit-warring are related, but different - you can actually be edit-warring with a single edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually do understand the hierarchy, apologies if I didn't make that clear, I was suggesting that there were others in this discussion to whom it seemed quite vague. And is there a reason that you chose to remove "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" from the quote?

Back to the point at hand: I am sorry, but there's nothing there in the that I can't do what I did. And yes, I do understand that three reverts isn't an entitlement, but FFS, I made a section on the talk page explaining my single revert AND informed the user on their talk page of both the reversion and the discussion site, if I recall correctly. Rather than spending all this time schooling me, and with respect failing in doing so, perhaps we could re-visit what started all this: Ham-fisted warning for a single revert? I finally ask, given that the page on edit warring says "repeatedly", how can you claim a single edit can be edit warring? - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a warning, it shouldn't be ham fisted, and it shouldn't be worried over or responded to argumentatively. Nor should it be held against the warned editor (unless they ignore it, and carry on reverting, of course). No one should be using bad language, even relatively mild bad language - many people have uncharacteristically used bad language occasionally, we don't make a big thing about it, perhaps we should, but we do discourage it.

If someone uses bad language it is a bad idea to respond in kind

Be aware that most warnings are also templates, which often can be ham fisted - and some of us have worked on them to make them less so. The alternative, however, is hand written warnings which often neglect a vital point, say something incorrect or are even less felicitous.

A BRR is not the end of the world, but it is to be avoided - it result in trouble more often than not.

From the descriptions above Guy gets a trout for incivility, IP get a boomerang shaped trout for the same and a herring for the original revert, plus a mackerel for not hearing that it is BRD with only one R.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Trout accepted. I did violate WP:CIVIL, and I should not have done that, no matter what the provocation. "He did it first" is never a justification for incivility.

I believe that the BRD vs.BRRD issue and tag removal issues have now been clarified so that everyone is running from the same set or rules. I would like a clarification regarding the theory that there exists somewhere an Arbcom finding of fact that says you have "latitude" to freely violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on your own talk page.

If and only if such "latitude" actually exists, I would like clarification about the implied corollary that those who you attack on your own talk page cannot be uncivil or engage in personal attacks when they reply. (Implied by filing a case at ANI complaining about someone doing that) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original history

The {{toomanylinks}} template was added on 10 July 2011. Four days later, the same editor removed a link from that section. Perhaps that editor still thought that there were too many links but as they didn't start any talk or otherwise indicate which links were superfluous, we can't tell. Later, the template was moved from that section to the head of the article. As the template had then become considerably separated in time and space from the original concern and the original editor had also taken action himself, it seems to have been quite reasonable for 124.168.221.199 to have removed the template. It was therefore unhelpful for editors to force this template back onto the article without establishing whether it was still appropriate. Banner templates at the top of BLP articles should be used with restraint because this is a common complaint made through OTRS — that the templates seem derogatory. Warden (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP removed the template because, in their opinion, it didn't seem to be working, not because it wasn't valid. I restored it saying it was still an issue, with a template stating it may not have been their intention to remove the template without giving a good reason. It should have been clear that, if nothing else, I considered it an issue. At this point, the editor could have clarified that they had removed it because there was no issue. Instead, they restored the tag and reiterated that "It's clearly not having the desired effect" and, despite my edit summary, asserted that I must have ignored theirs. A third editor fixed the issue then removed the tag (and good for them). Whatever.

The personal attacks are an issue, mostly because the IP apparently does not see personal attacks as an issue. Edits contrary to their intent and standard templates were "made lazily and in haste". The IP has also asserted another editor's "incompetence". When another editor warned them to be civil, they decided to "be direct: You're a tiresome twat. (See, that was a personal attack.)" When warned for that personal attack, they asked for clarification of which personal attack they were being warned for (after all, how could they know that their "personal attack" was a personal attack, I suppose. This warning was also labeled a "repeated and useless warning". Unfortunately it does seem to have been useless in this case as the IP told us we were "being idiots" (but not saying it because, after all, they crossed it out "I won't stoop so low as to point out my opponent's long history of alcoholism"). They then called me a "A twat, or 'A person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.'" The other editor was told "you're being a grade-A arsehole here. F U CK OFF." and calling their discussion "self-serving bullshit" and advising "Don't be a dick. Being mildly clever in telling me to fuck off does not make you less of a dick." That the IP does not see a problem is clear enough: "I'd do exactly the same thing again. Probably including calling you a twat, because you're being one. Let me repeat that, as you appear to be having trouble with reading comprehension today: If, on some other article, exactly the same thing happens, I'll do exactly the same revert-and-make-talk-page-entry. So whatever warning you think you've given, whatever message that you are trying to impart, you've failed in doing so."

Yes, we are failing to get the message across: making personal attacks is not acceptable. A personal attacks that you call a "personal attack" is not acceptable. When warned about a self-identified personal attack, reiterating that personal attack is not acceptable. Saying that you would make the exact same personal attack again is not acceptable. The point is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages." This is the message the IP doesn't hear. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to try to answer the questions 124.168.221.199 has asked in his last few edit summaries:

Q: "Since we're not all doing the kittens things here, can we start with that? The very essay I was pointed to says that my removal of the maintenance tag was fine."

A: The essay you were pointed to (Misplaced Pages:Tagging pages for problems) lists the valid reasons for removing a tag. If you had given one of those valid reasons, then and only then does the essay say "your removal of the maintenance tag was fine". If at that point someone who disagrees with your reason reverted, at that point the two of you would have, together, followed the B and R of WP:BRD and both of you would have acted properly up to that point.

You did not, however, list one of the valid reasons for removing a tag. Instead, you removed it for invalid reason: "It's been there over a year". At that point, any editor is free to revert the removal on the basis of a tag having been removed by someone who does not appear to know what the valid reasons for removing the tag are. As before, the next step should have been D (discuss) and ideally you would, in that discussion, give us a valid reason for removing the tag. And indeed, I attempted to discuss exactly that with you but instead of calmly discussing it you went into full attack mode.

Q: "I am sorry, but there's nothing there in the that I can't do what I did. given that the page on edit warring says "repeatedly", how can you claim a single edit can be edit warring?"

A: Misplaced Pages:Edit warring contains 2308 words, not just the 28 words in the first sentence. In particular, I would once again call to your attention the sentences "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." and "Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." It's just that simple. Go ahead and be bold, making whatever edits you think are best, and if someone reverts one of them, discuss it without engaging in personal attacks. Don't re-revert.

At the time I gave you a warning about edit warring, you had every appearance of being a new editor (less than ten edits total) who simply did not know about Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. It is very common for such editors to revert again and again, not knowing that doing so is not allowed, and indeed, any request for a block because of such behavior will be rejected if the user was not warned. My decision to warn an apparent newbie in the early stages of edit warring was proper. What you should have done is to discuss it with me (are you seeing a pattern here?) in a calm and rational manner. Instead you went into full attack mode again.

If you want to become a productive part of the Misplaced Pages community, you need to calm down and start discussing things. Let's assume for the sake of argument that someone gives you a warning which is completely bogus. If that happens, just calmly talk it over instead of firing up the flamethrower. Treat other editors with respect and dignity even if you think they are wrong. It's that simple. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:MeasureIT and SPI comments

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

There is currently an SPI investigation against two users. On seeing that the discussion was developing a number of interwoven threads, I extracted my comments and moved them to a separate section (as is the norm for arbcom discussions). To date, there had not been any responses to anthing that I had written, so I did not break any threads in doing so.

User:MeasureIT, one of the editors under investigation as a sock-puppet then merged my statements back into everybody else's. I believe that he was hoping to have such a confused argument that an administrator could not find their way around the diuscussion. Although I could have initiated a discussion, my past dealings with MeasureIT convinced me that a WP:BOLD approach was needed as he would probably have disrupted everything. Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You misrepresent the situation. At least one of your comments had further comments nested under it - here is a diff of one being added: . Removing it upset the context of that part of the thread. Many of your "past dealings" with me do you no favors at all, many of them being the subject of outstanding noticeboard discussions of one kind or another, as you well know. I know it would be more convenient for you if I was out of the way, but please don't misrepresent or exaggerate my actions. MeasureIT (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of admin interest in this SPI would be welcome as there is a history of muddying SPIs where these socks are concerned, making them hard to read. A more disruptive user than De Facto / Lucy-Marie / Eff Won I have never encountered, and these new two (Curatrice and MeasureIT) are showing every sign of being the same person. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't concern yourself with comment refactoring. So little evidence is required for a check (one diff per account and a few sentences of text) that 95% of what's written on that case is probably totally irrelevant anyway. I wouldn't waste your time responding to them; if a clerk or a checkuser needs anything then they'll ask you for it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats and incivility from User:Old Lanky

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

Old Lanky has threatened to notify the police about two IP contributors (or, perhaps more likely, one contributor with two IP addresses). His reason is that they're trolls, which, apparently, is illlegal in the UK. Reading User talk:Old Lanky#Back Again, I'll agree that they're being a bit rude, but he more than makes up for it with his own incivility , even giving me shit after I did him the courtesy of not being a dolt and checking to see if there was anything of actual substance to his claims. (I mean, sure, the comments are a bit mean, but if I tried to have everyone who accused me of sockpuppetry arrested, the prisons would be overflowing.) Regardless of merits of his complaint, this seems like a pretty clear-cut NLT violation, and since he's stated repeatedly that he's willing to be blocked, I suggest we give him his wish. — Francophonie&Androphilie 13:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given this response you made to him, I'm inclined to block you both. However that would be ultimately self-defeating, so I instead choose to bash your two heads together and tell you to play nice. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone is clearly being a WP:DICK and accusing him of being a sock, without the cojones to actually file an SPI report. Continually accusing someone of socking without filing is WP:UNCIVIL. However, the response by Lanky is almost "methinks thou do'est protest too much". His talkpage isn't going to be protected as he asked for because it's not harassment, not at least how he's linked it. If Lanky wants to make legal threat, then yes, block'em. If he wants to revert and ignore (because he cannot block by himself), then it's the most intelligent way forward. If the person starts edit-warring with him, etc, it will become more of an offence (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Add: Deskana, don't forget to block the IPs :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to semi the talk page, especially if it continues. Those IP edits don't looked like an unbanned user without a problem to me. Not excusing that response in any way. BTW, I seem to have come across Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. That's the IP, right? -- zzuuzz 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point Bwilkins. IPs blocked for one month due to clearly not being here to contribute constructively. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In re my response, perhaps I was a bit crabby, but he'd already engaged in all sorts of nasty language, and I don't see much of a problem with not taking nicely to being talked down to by someone who I was trying to save from an NLT indefblock (which is what I was doing - I could've easily taken him here after his first refusal to retract the threat). Either way, as I said, the incivility isn't nearly as much of a problem as the threat. — Francophonie&Androphilie 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He's been warned for it and as far as I can see hasn't done it since, so I consider the matter resolved. You definitely need to be more civil though, because honestly you don't help your case when you report someone for violating policy and you're also guilty of doing so yourself. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really think I had a case to be helped - I was under the impression that users have to retract any outstanding legal threats if they wish to avoid being blocked; was I mistaken? To me, the incivility was just gravy, and if you really think my comment was equal to some of his, then I don't see how I can convince you otherwise. — Francophonie&Androphilie 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Been looking at some of the stuff in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive per zzuuzz above who has definitely hit the nail on the head. It is a long saga of abuse and disruption aimed at the WP:Cricket project in general and at two of its members in particular, both of whom were named in the allegations levelled at me. I note especially that the troll has formerly used this tactic of accusing new users of being an alias of one of his two enemies to try and get all parties discredited. He has failed each time, mainly because his targets have always been genuine editors, and I daresay he will not go through the proper procedure you mentioned above because he knows he will fail. He has picked on me because I found an attack on Associate Affiliate and challenged it. I see he is subject to WP:BAN which looks very final, but evidently is not. May one suggest that the site should allow members only to edit? "Anyone can edit" does tend to mean "anyone will edit". --Old Lanky (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One may suggest it but it's unlikely to happen as explained here. NE Ent 15:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, NE Ent. Very enlightening. Having read that, and given recent experience, I've decided to rejoin the ranks of the IP community and stay there among the 76% to 82% whose edits benefit the encyclopaedia. I'll miss the watchlist, HotCat, page moves and Twinkle but I managed without them before. All the best to the genuine editors and admins. So long. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the topic

Could somebody a bit more familiar with the case history here please tell me if BDOPAF (talk · contribs) looks like another Richard Daft sock? I just got this wholly unconstructive comment as I was trying to put this whole thing to bed - clearly an AGF violation, and I see no way that someone with 12 edits would have a reason to allege sockpuppetry without being a sock themselves. — Francophonie&Androphilie 15:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If an editor suspects a master spi is preferred, especially since A & F isn't following two ANI practices (i.e. discuss w/ editor first, and notify user if discussing on ANI). Spi does not require notifying a user. NE Ent 16:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I had a little unfinished business before I go. I looked at this SPI process and rounded up all the recent IDs of this Daft individual and listed them there. The IPs are either gone or have been banned per the discussion above, but F&A is absolutely right that a ban must be placed on BDOPAF. Bye now. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do all that, OL. JSYK, you should read WP:BLOCKBANDIFF before you get yourself TROUTed by any of the grumpier ANI-watchers (grumpier than most, that is ). — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a user with 12 edits tracks me down to accuse a previously harassed editor of being a sockpuppet, and there's strong reason to believe they are in fact banned, I think that that constitutes a fairly solid exception to AN/I S.O.P.. As for your other point, please remember that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. I'm well aware of the differences between SPI and ANI, and thought it would be more effective to bring it up here. If you think an SPI would be more useful, then you're welcome to start one, but you know as well as I do that "You filed your paperwork in the wrong place" is not a valid response, especially to a very simple question. — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli and User:Spacevezon, violation WP:NOPR

Hello, I see you semi-protected the Robert Agostinelli article without imposing any block or restrictions on the primary offender, User:Spacevezon, who is an employee of Bell Pottinger (worth a read given its extensive history with scrubbing Misplaced Pages bios on behalf of its clients) and he has now set about scrubbing all mention of his firm's role in the Robert Agostinelli article, as well as attempting to re-insert outlier sources discredited and removed by consensus. This is a paid editor and advocate in violation of Misplaced Pages policy WP:NOPR and I just wanted to write to you to remedy the situation as it is getting out of hand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk • contribs)

Hi, 95.141.31.4. I have notified User:Spacevezon that you have opened this thread. I don't agree with you that he appears to be a paid editor (in fact he mostly edits articles about London bus routes); it looks like normal NPOV editing to me. His sources and posts seem reasonable and neutral to me, unlike your own. -- Dianna (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Expert editor DGG has confirmed at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that the Forbes source is a reliable one: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Robert Agostinelli. -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology bases their reports on the investigations (not recommendations) of their journalists, discloses what they do and do not take into account, and differentiates be tween the assets someone has and the assets their firm controls. It has two editors for the section who list themselves and take responsibility. See for their methods and bylines. They and the magazine, put their reputations behind it. It's as reliable as anything a magazine publishes. This of course does not mean they are right in any given case: even the best financial journalists make errors, and so do all other sources. That they give only a rough approximation in this case indicates to me that they are being honest in the presentation: they don't say more than they know. A less careful source would write out $1,000,000,000. Essentially no source is 100% reliable. It's not definitive, and any other reports should be used also. If challenged, as here, the technique is to say "According to Forbes, ...". Using it does not imply someone is a coi editor or not a coi editor; both would use it. It says nothing about an editors skill or carefulness: it's the first place people look, and unless there is a controversy, I would rarely look further. Any good source will give individual net worth as an approximation. because it is the most widely used source in the field. This is not a comment on the present matter at issue at ANI, which I may comment on when I've checked the situation & the diffs. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the history. The London Bus Routes editing was from months ago. He is not a regular editor and only picked back up again when required to scrub this page. The Robert Agostinelli page is the only one he now edits, save for adding punctuation here and there to the odd random article to make his history look legit. You think Bell Pottinger Digital Team doesn't know how to appear legit on Misplaced Pages? They've already been the subject of media articles about their activities here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Based on a report at WP:ANEW, I semi-protected the Agostinelli article, mainly based on my view that the editing by different IPs was inherently suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@ 95.141.31.4: I did investigate, and have seen paid editing before; this isn't it. Your accusations are serious, and require you to present actual proof in the form of example edits where you demonstrate his behaviour is "scrubbing" articles or proof of paid editing. It looks to me more like a collection of IPs have been removing favourable content - sourced content - from the article. -- Dianna (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Go through the history of the article itself. There is a clear pattern of paid edits and scrubbing, some of which resulted in user accounts being terminated for doing so. They appear to have gotten more clever this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The very first edit that User:Spacevezon made to the piece was to scrub his own firm. That doesn't strike you as suspicious? Nor the fact that he's hunkered down on a bio belonging to one of his paid clients? http://www.pelhambellpottinger.co.uk/clients-and-transactions/financial-institutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you persist in these accusations without offering any evidence (not a single diff, let alone a pattern of diffs), I will block you for personal attacks and close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just run an IP check on User:Spacevezon already to see if there's anything suspicious or if it resolves to anything linked in the past here on Misplaced Pages to Bell Pottinger? Seems to be the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be more apt to run a check-user on User:Authentication2864, who has found his way to this discussion on his very first edit. -- Dianna (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh so no one has a right to register a Misplaced Pages username? Ah, okay then. There are several of us in the investment community monitoring this article as we have our own good reasons to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC) This might help in understanding the sudden mass interest in the article's subject since mid-December, Robert Agostinelli: http://www.generali.com/288451/Press-release-at-CONSOB-request-corrected.pdf . It's a case watched closely by the investment community involving the Italian SEC (CONSOB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on now kids. Here I'll help the poor soul out on the suspicious diffs edits: Bell Pottinger scrubbing: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Agostinelli&diff=531438962&oldid=531381639 Adding obscure gossip blog sources: Reverting to questionable sources without using talk page: And all this within the last approx 24h with no edits on any other Misplaced Pages article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a brand new account jumping in at ANI. Are you the same person as all the IPs, some of the IPs? Putting the obvious socking aside for the moment, the only diff worth anything above is the one citing to GossipExtra, which is almost undoubtedly an unreliable source. The rest is old hat and has already been rejected as evidence of nothing. As for the material cited to the Gossip website, it's been removed (I may have done that myself when I cleaned up the article a bit but didn't go back to check).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Authentication2864 for one week for abusing multiple accounts (there is a pending SPI report).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• A note about Spacevezon's edit history. They have 2,403 edits total, of which 785 are to article space. They have made 14 edits to the Agostinelli article and no edits to Rhône Group.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalism of MMA articles

188.75.201.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was warned and then blocked for vandalism and abuse of editing privileges on 24 November 2012. Since then, the IP editor has returned to vandalism of MMA articles on several occasions. On 9 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Brandon Vera and was reverted. On 11 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Gabriel Gonzaga and was reverted. On 17 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Pat Barry (fighter) and was reverted. Today, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Alexander Volkov (fighter). I noticed after another IP blanked the section, an action I thought was vandalism and reverted but then noticed that the record was ridiculous (fights in 2028, for example). The IP has not had a talk page message since the block, so an AIV post would be pointless but my just posting a vandalism warning seems an under-reaction. I have not seen any edit that was constructive, though I haven't checked every edit. Would an admin like to take some action, please? I'll post the ANI notice to the IP after saving this edit. EdChem (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted notification at the IP editor's talk page. EdChem (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is stale now, but I would like to understand why this request wasn't even worth a response... EdChem (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate actions, including talk page censorship, uncivil and unfounded accusations and edit warring

Could I please bring attention to the actions of Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), which has included to date:

• odd bits of edit warring
• further edit warring and no attempt to take the matter to the article talk page.
• false accusations of edit warring; and
• further accusations of "disruptive editing", which led to:
• an implied threat of "acting like an admin", closely followed with
• a direct threat, despite there being no indication of any further edits about to take place (as the article was correctly formatted at the time). This was followed by:
• a false accusation of my "willingness to edit war", despite there being no need for further edits, as noted above.
• censoring the comments of others; not once but twice, despite being told not to (his reversions also constitute minor edit warring on this point also).
• uncivil and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry

I think that the editor has lost his sense of perspective over this and is throwing increasingly wild and ridiculous accusations around without any basis whatsoever. I asked the editor to withdraw his baseless accusation, but no retraction was forthcoming. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor has edited in violation of DATERET, despite being informed, and has been repeatedly uncivil to me, and has directly told me that I do not understand the guidelines of which I am partly the author. Given the behavior, I suspect the user is someone I have had a conflict with in the past under some other name. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the sequence of events:

• 23:02 3 Jan - Fanthriller removes a space in a category
• 23:05 - I notice the edit and revert it
• 23:08 - I notice the date formats are inconsistent, and reconcile the access dates to the majority format, fix one access date that it not in an approved format, and fix the ref marks. At this point the article has consistent access dates.
• 23:16 - Fanthriller does a blanket undo of my edits
• 23:30 - I restore it with more descriptive edit summary
• 23:47 - Fanthriller posts on Schrodinger's talk page
• 23:50 - I provide explanation of MOSDATE there. There is no problem at this point.
• 02:54 4 Jan - despite the explanation, User:Schrodinger does a blanket revert of my edit, including the other fixes I made. This is a problem.
• 05:57 - I notice the blanked undo of my edit, and restore the date formats to the consistent form I had left
• 06:00 - I also restore the other fixes that were removed in the blanket edit, but without touching the other edits User:Schrodinger had done
• 06:04 - After noticing the edit, I consider that the user may not have understood the STRONGNAT guideline they mention, so I draw their attention to it specifically, and the blanket undo
• 06:05 - User:Schrodinger undoes again, after being informed, and while discussion was ongoing on User:Schrodinger's talk page. This is a problem, in my view.

I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute

There seems to a preliminary consensus that Cat is not a Merridew sock based on evidence presented. I apologize to Cat for my suspicions, but the similarities were there and had to be analyzed, and having been the subject of serious wikihounding for many many years, I don't blame anyone who begins to see shadows. Perhaps now folks can look at the underlying dispute with that in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also sorry for suggesting it. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apologies. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing, edit warring, spamming, personal attacks and uncivil behaviour

Rothbardanswer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Almost all of User:Rothbardanswer's edits involve either POV-pushing, edit warring, spamming, personal attacks or uncivil behaviour. His legitimate edits are outnumbered by the unproductive and negative ones. His account has already been blocked for violating Misplaced Pages guidelines, but his bad behaviour has resumed with a vengeance. He has been warned many times on his talk page but he deletes those warnings.Spylab (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Spylab, can you please provide some diffs? I checked the talk pages of Anarchism and Free market and didn't find anything considered a personal attack or uncivil behaviour. Maybe I looked at the wrong place... — ΛΧΣ 18:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the only contributor using the talk page before using edits. Every edit I've made has been preceded by using the talk page and every edit I've made has made reference to a different author article and site. Still these editors are displaying bad faith, aren't engaging in discussion on the talk page, are editorialising, and displaying ownership of the page, and political POV pushing. Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rothbardanswer just violated 3RR on Anarchism. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard report can be seen here. Finx (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• (ec x 3) Granted this seems to be a new user and we all have probably done something really stupid with a Misplaced Pages page for giggles at one point or another, but do you have an explanation for THIS ? Carrite (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

HAHAHA NO! Except to say I have absolutely NO memory of that whatsoever! This probably just can't fly on[REDACTED] because you'd have to take me at my word but that must have been one of the fam. The only thing I guess I could say is that that is entirely out of the character of all my other edits which are all cited contributions where I take care of phrasing. and also you won't find in my history any politically aggressive edits E.G. I've never gone on a Marxist page and started rephrasing things to fit my own political opinions with unsourced material. Like THIS !!! :) I've only ever tried to improve[REDACTED] pages that I know about. This seems to have hit a nerve because editors dislike free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism but[REDACTED] isn't about politics. I think It's clear just from the names they warrant a place in the article. I don't think that violates neutrality at all. I'd like to stress again I was the only person using the talk page during that "edit war".

My political take on this is that this seems to be a POV warrior intent upon link-spamming libertarian material into the big-topic piece on anarchism. A topic ban may be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain earlier on the appropriate article's talk page, I may have strong opinions too, but I don't distort topics to promote them or push my views. Your edits to free-market anarchism were based on a profound misunderstanding of what "market anarchism" has traditionally meant throughout the world and I had only tried to provide an accurate description of the term, to replace a completely unhistorical description. Notice how 'anarcho-capitalist' views are still represented, in context. Finx (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The edits you made to "free market anarchism" were your own political philosophy. You've deleted cited material from multiple users and replaced it with a paragraph that is completely unsourced. The changes you made were to an article I didn't write which is reflected in the talk page where you badger multiple contributors for correctly editing content about a concept you personally dislike. The talk page on "free market anarchism" is now full of tirades where you talk about the orthodox meaning of anarchism in between asking questions that demonstrate you don't know economics (holding the door open is economic activity. Breathing isn't. but I shouldn't have to explain any of this. We aren't here to argue politics. I don't argue politics and go on socialist pages and yell at people about how politically and economically their beliefs are incompatible with freedom and then think that gives me licence to edit pages without any reference to the people and texts we're supposed to be describing with neutrality. Rothbardanswer (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to continue this here, because it is not the appropriate place to have this conversation. If you check the article's talk page I've stated clearly and at length why 'market anarchism' is primarily a socialist topic. Despite your accusations, I had never engaged you or anyone else in debating politics. The criticism was about poor wording, undue weight and context. Finx (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Finx I don't want you to take this as aggression but your edits are personal and malicious and I am going to report you for them when I have a bit more time on my hands. You don't seem to understand what constitutes POV pushing or you're deliberately saying one thing while doing another. I may very well have been drawn into an edit war but I was defending sourced material from what may be POV pushing or censorship but CERTAINLY is vandalism. If anyone knows the proper method of protect an articles validity I'd like to know also. Your edits are your own unsourced opinions on an article the subject of which you disliked so altered. I don't think you make constructive contributions, but you may be right, so I'll let the moderators handle it.Rothbardanswer (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "I am going to report you" -- please do so. This is not the first time you've thrown accusations at me or threatened to report me and my response hasn't changed. Please proceed. Finx (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't normally touch on anarchy-related articles, but I do watch some economics articles, and Rothbardanswer's edits there are problematic too; bit by bit the articles turn into a temple of Mises &c... for instance, Free market. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Tellyuer1

Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tellyuer1 has been edit-warring at Moshe Friedman. The editor has also spammed virtually every Misplaced Pages noticeboard concerning the article. Now Tellyuser1 is canvassing editors. Will somebody please put an end to this disruptive editing? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Am consistently trying to engage in dialogue on this very serious issue concerning Holocaust denial. Simply wish for sources to be accurate. Happy to stop as long as engaging in dialogue which Shabazz and 1 other editor refuse to do.

18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellyuer1 (talk • contribs)

(Consolidating my report with the above. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC))

• Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moshe Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm too involved to take administrative action myself, so I'm filing a report here.

The actions that led to this report have all taken place in the past 24 hours, including the user's edit warring at Moshe Friedman, for which he has had a WP:ANEW report filed against him. He's then started canvassing other users' talk pages in an apparent campaigning/votestacking attempt to push his changes through the article.

I've tried to assume good faith and help this user, but the straw that broke the camel's back was this message at his user talk page. I'll let some stuff slide, but being accused of "supporting anti-semitism" (his words) counts as a personal attack in my book.

Additionally, the WP:ANEW report against him includes vague allegations by other users that Tellyuer1 may be involved in sockpuppetry.

I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to come in and address the situation—not just the edit warring, but the whole of his conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not vague accusations, he had three socks and also used an IP Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tellyuer1. Amalthea 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Rather than using fancy terms simply do what is supposed to be done on[REDACTED] - accurately reflect information. I have all accurate information and editors refuse to review the actuality of what the sources say and article says. And yes its anti-semitism to say jews werent killed in the holocaust. NY Post isnt a valid source but some obscure vienna newsletter is? Tellyuer1 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• a review of the users edits would show that the editor is a Single Purpose account here with a mission to highlight Holocaust Deniers and then because Holocaust Deniers are bad, tar and feather them in every manner possible. A ban on editing any topics related to the Holocaust might avert the disruption if the user is actually interested in contributing to an encyclopedia. They seem to be very prolific and if the energy could be harnessed in a positive manner within the WP:NPOV requirements the encyclopedia might benefit greatly.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, rather than address my edits which are accurate, you are once again informed. Read the right great wrongs page - not what this is. Friedman all of my edits are well sourced and you are simply denying them for no reason at all. What can be the possible reasoning that an obscure newsletter with 10,000 claimed readers is a reliable source but NY post isnt. Factually all of my edits have been right - and with good sources. a mission to highlight Holocaust Deniers and then because Holocaust Deniers are bad, tar and feather them in every manner possible. Am simply seeking that whats on wiki is accurate as it should be and can be if readers read sources.Tellyuer1 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hello my old friend. Have you been "travelling" again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor is now edit-warring against multiple editors at Neturei Karta. Because of the nature of the edits, it's difficult to see how many reversions theere are; I think it is so far six today. RolandR (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Am removing unsourced information. and adding good sources. everything have removed is unsourced. Tellyuer1 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Save yourself the trouble. People who are community banned don't get to edit Misplaced Pages, so all your edits will be reverted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Tellyuer1 for one week based on the report at WP:ANEW. That, of course, can be increased if warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like Babasalichai (talk · contribs) to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wahhabi

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

Please can the article on Wahhabi be protected from edits by non-autoconfirmed users. In the past few days it has been repeatedly edited by editors whose sole purpose for having an account on Misplaced Pages is to label it as "extremist"/"radical" and not "Sunni".

• 20:05, 5 January 2013 Dingdong85
• 19:28, 5 January 2013 Dingdong85
• 19:28, 5 January 2013 Hapytapy
• 00:21, 5 January 2013 Wikicrappy
• 23:16, 4 January 2013 Wikicrappy
• 09:08, 4 January 2013 Seektree
• 12:07, 3 January 2013 Seektree
• 21:48, 2 January 2013 Magnabug
• 05:51, 2 January 2013 Magnabug
• 02:31, 2 January 2013 124.190.233.226

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnabug, which deals with the suspected sock=puppetry aspect of this.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest autoblock with a/c creation blocked for a week or so. In other words if CU agree that a based block can make this socker go away the article can be left. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Hoary got one and I got the others. It was pretty obvious they were either sock or meat puppets of each other. I was giving them time to see if they would make any edits that would tie them to an earlier group of sockpuppets. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this was closed last night, three new accounts have continued the same process. If I can give an analogy, if someone is stabbing me, the solution adopted so far has been to bandage my wounds, but to allow the person with the knife to carry on stabbing. Please can this article be protected. This person will just carry on creating new IDs to continue this until the article is protected.

• 08:40, 6 January 2013‎ Theone474 m . . (55,474 bytes) (-51)‎ . . (Undid revision 531589462 by Lerdthenerd (talk)- Wahabism is a sect unto its own, references have been clearly sighted.)
• 08:29, 6 January 2013‎ Theone474 ‎ m . . (55,474 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (Elaborating on the exact definition of wahhabism, it being a sect with Islam, part of the 73 known sects to date.) (undo)
• 08:17, 6 January 2013‎ Ebomobe ‎ m . . (55,473 bytes) (-52)‎ . . (Undid revision 531583411 by CambridgeBayWeather (talk)- Again you ignorant communist who thinks they know everything, wahabism is not sunni, its a sect on its own. ,)
• 01:29, 6 January 2013‎ Ebomobe ‎ m . . (55,473 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Although they are extreme, radical would be more appropriate than extremist/ultra conservative to maintain an unbiased approach.)
• 00:23, 6 January 2013‎ ‎Samtheman78 ‎Samtheman78 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (55,475 bytes) (+125)‎ . . (Undid revision 531512656 by Lerdthenerd (talk)-The Wahabis are a sect unto their own, with extremist views. CLEAR references sighted you communists.)

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another, it does not stop:

• 08:57, 6 January 2013‎ Dudbudfud‎ m . . (55,538 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (Wahabis themselves are extremist, the religion has many extreme, radical, and terrorist links.)

--Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence is clear, I was first to notice the new ones, except the one blocked by Cambridge, I suspected ebomobe when he called Cambridge a communist, I've added him to the SPI, can you add the others--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Socks blocked. If this keeps up, I'd agree with semiprotection for some period of time, let's see if the sockmaster here is that determined. Seraphimblade 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please also block User talk:Ebomobe. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnabug has confirmed that he/she is also a sock.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, figured that one would've already been done as of the last SPI. Now blocked, in any case. Seraphimblade 09:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation Bojhena Shey Bojhena

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

Newly released "commercial" Bengali films has been a problematic area for a long time now where a bunch of registered and anonymous editors are adding absurd information currently.

Anyway, in this article Bojhena Shey Bojhena a user is adding copyrighted content from The Times of India. He has also removed the maintenance template but I reverted edits twice where I deleted the copyvio portion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed an entire section of copyvio from the article, if an admin can block now, ask questions later to avoid further damage it'd be appreciated. gwickwire_edits 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Catperson12

The above named user has been warned and blocked previously (here) for unilaterally changing the legal description of towns in Virginia to cities. Particularly Warrenton, Virginia. He has found a new, slightly less destructive way to do it now, but still is not talking about it. diff Just wanted to get him on the radar again. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that diff was not at all vandalism, and you were incorrect to revert it as such. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I too am confused why you object to this specific edit — Warrenton is a town, as shown by the fifth page of this document; it's not an independent city. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I know it is a town. The standard layout on town's info boxes in Virginia is "Town of ####" So instead of just inserting city, like he was, he is now just downgrading the visibility of "town", unilaterally. He needs to discuss it before changing it. He appears to have some strong personal dislike for the word "town". Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Nyytend - Slightly off topic: Are you sure about towns in Virginia not having taxation powers? I only ask because I'm fairly sure that towns here in New York do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to indicate that Warrenton can levy taxes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because the paragraph said "Like many incorporated towns in Virginia, the town of Warrenton has government and taxation separate from the county" — cities have separate governments, but towns are within counties rather than separate from them. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If a town has a government, and the county has a government, are they not "separate" from each other? True, the town exists within the county (and the majority of cities in the US do as well, by the way), but the governments and the taxes are separate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Virginia is very much the exception with their independent cities. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Virginia has Counties that can contain Towns, and Cities which are not part of the Counties that enclose them, but no Cities that are part of a County. These Cities are known in law as "Independent Cities" because they are exactly that - they may be landlocked within a County, but they are completely separate from it. We're a little odd down here in the oldest part of European America :-) RossPatterson (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Towns can and do levy taxes in Virginia. Chief among them is real-estate (land) tax, but there are others as well. Leesburg, Virginia, an incorporated Town within and the seat of Loudoun County, Virginia has a page describing what residents are expected to pay. RossPatterson (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

519 edits, 518 mainspace, has never edited own talk page, 3 blocks. Another apparently good faith but totally non-communicative editor. Seems a shame to have to kick them to the good curb but not sure what other solutions exist. NE Ent 00:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At least you get it. I wonder why I bothered looking up the archive if no-one was going to read it. If he sees his talk page, I disagree about him being a good faith editor. His earlier antics were persistent, even after both templated and written warnings. Would an admin consider sending him an email? Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

He was already blocked for a month for refusal to discuss anything. Looks like a trend. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but how did we know if they see their talk page? I know it's hard to imagine someone not noticing the big orange but it's happened before with other editors. I'm not seeing an "Email this user" link on their user page so I don't think anyone can email them. NE Ent 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I and others have attempted to engage Catperson12 back in September 2012, offering to discuss their intention behind these oft-reverted changes, to no avail. Reading through every one of their edits in the past, I believe Catperson12 to be intelligent enough to push a point, and perfectly capable of noticing a big orange sign advising them of new messages on their talk page. I can draw no other conclusion but that they do not wish to engage in discussion about this town vs. city issue. I agree with Gtwfan52 that Catperson12's current edits appear to be a stealth technique to advance the same agenda, whatever it is. RossPatterson (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here we are. An editor that will not discuss. We have no real policy that requires discussion. And this is that editor. One who has no record of any type of discussion whatsoever. Now what?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am incorrect. It seems they did make a single edit to a talkpage. I wonder if this attitude can be traced back to that edit. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be this, which sat unanswered for about 5 months. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you....I dreaded trying to find it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Use the "Namespace" dropdown to filter the results on User Contributions; i.e. Special:Contributions/Catperson12?namespace=1 NE Ent 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:8tsunami7

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

Please take a look at User:8tsunami7. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hardly a report, DePiep. In any event, the editor is probably a puppet of User:Guinsberg. When I have a second, I'll file the report. In the meantime, I've protected the article the user has been editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, a bad report I made here. Thankx for taking care though. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've met so many bad users, I thought this one remark here could go without notice (as a sock would). But maybe it was not that clear. All fine, thanx for the action, and I'll be better (with diffs) next time. -DePiep (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Move of Anilingus article to Boners(Erectionmasters). Compromised account?

When I saw this, I couldn't make out what is going on with this user. And I still can't. I initially thought that this must be a vandalism account, but that's not the impression I've gotten from briefly looking over this user's edit history. So I wonder if the account has been WP:Compromised.

I first went to User talk:Boing! said Zebedee about it, and then to User talk:AndyTheGrump, because I wondered if I should try to talk this over with the user first. AndyTheGrump said "straight to ANI, I'd say. I'd guess a compromised account - so you'll not know who you are talking to." But since then, administrator J.delanoy has attempted to talk to the user. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this already, and talked about it with a checkuser (the abovementioned J.delanoy), who found nothing problematic in the records. Given that, and given that there's no ongoing vandalism, I'm personally going to wait for an answer to J's question before deciding to block, unless more bad edits happen. I'll be keeping an eye on his contribs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think compromised, but given there's only about 500 edits, and that the user talk page history is colorful, not exactly a user in the greatest standing either. --Rschen7754 05:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA Project needs somebody to step in

There is a huge split in the project. A lot of articles are being put up for deletion which actually meet the notability requirements. Where one of the major problems is coming in is WP:NMMA says in order for an MMA fighter to be noteable he must have 3 professional fights for a top tier organization. The fights that happen on the Ultimate Fighter are professionally, sanctioned fights. If they weren't, they would be illegal. They are put on by the UFC, which is a top tier organization. We have people absolutely refusing to accept that they meet the requirements. We have tried to explain it, and it hasn't helped. I have tried to come up with another system for notability. They oppose it, so I keep asking them to come up with a compromise. They keep drawing a line in the sand and aren't wanting to compromise or work out something that the entire group can live with. I even have a couple of them threatening to try to get me blocked or get an admin review on me because I don't want to just drop it and do it the way that those couple people are trying to dictate. I keep asking for other ideas, asking for a compromise, but it appears as if there are a couple people who don't want to work out a diplomatic solution. I am just not sure where to go with this. What do you do when there are a couple people trying to dictate the project and don't want to compromise with the rest of us. If we try to change anything, they just create editing wars, which I don't want to get into. I think the MMA project needs somebody from outside the project to come in and help create a compromise that might not make anybody happy, but is something that the entire project can accept. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Consensus for WP:NMMA Vote Help up us out please. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this one ANI? Anyway please remember the basic notability requirement is sufficient coverage in reliable secondary source. If the criteria you're proposing doesn't tehd to only include people who meet the basic notability requirement, it's most likely flawed. In particular, any complicated 'point' based system is almost definitely not something we want. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Essentially what Nil Einne said. If these items are notable, go to their AfD discussions, and show they've been covered in depth by multiple reliable uninvolved sources. If they haven't, they're not notable and should be removed, whatever the MMA project's internal pages say to any other effect. Seraphimblade 06:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have a dog in this fight (bad pun, not intended), but this MMA stuff keeps popping up over and over, and cursory references to GNG is not going to cut it. I agree this isn't an ANI issue, and am fine if someone moves it, but it seems clear that something needs to get concretely done about an MMA criteria. RFCs that matter are always horrific processes that have walls of text... I'm not sure we have a better method here. Regardless, MMA articles right now are being handled piecemeal at AfD with all the problems that go with that. It would be nice to have a consensus criteria that put some brightlines down, so at least the AfD discussions could have some anchors to work from, instead of the current mess they are. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's been proposed before, but (if I remember correctly) no proposal got consensus from the broader community; Example. There's been so much discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability that it has 7 archive pages. Personally, I think that project-specific notability rules tend to cause needless strife and wikilawyering, but I think it could be a good "tactical" solution in this case... bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm aware there is/was an RfC about it. The extent of my involvement is that I think I've !voted in a few MMA article's AfDs, but that was when I was naive about the broader discussion. I agree with you that this issue, the RfC in particular, seems hopelessly deadlocked, but we've had these issues before. It's somewhat strange (maybe ironic) we're at this point, but Misplaced Pages has dealt with much more contentious issues too. I don't have a concrete idea of the way to fix this, but I think this issue can be resolved to all party's satisfaction better than some of our other more intractable issues. The RfC needs some really dedicated administrator (maybe a panel of administrators) that can corral that mess into a meaningful discussion. It's difficult, but not unique.
      I'm not sure what the way out of this is ultimately. It's not going to go away. This sport is essentially an equivalent to boxing, and there are tons of minor events that aren't notable, and lots of large events that clearly are. We need some logical way to deal with them. And doing it halfhazard at AfD is a really bad way to deal with them. It'd be nice if we had a better method than RfC, but short of arbcom, we don't have one for an issue like this. Shadowjams (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an impending incident that probably does need wider administrator attention is the current spate of immediate AFD re-nominations that are being made in this area as soon as AFD discussions are closed:

• Jamie Yager (AfD discussion) — renominated just over 24 hours after prior AFD discussion closure
• Antonio McKee (AfD discussion) — renominated just over two hours after prior AFD discussion closure

Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've watched passively for a long time about the constant war over the MMA articles, yes the project has had some issues with its own contributors, yes there have been some off-wiki canvassing by others, but there is also a concentrated effort by a few users to purge the content off Wiki. The simple fact is, that MMA project is decimated right now and many of the contributors have already left wiki leaving few people capable of actually making decent arguments about the material. Something needs to be done, but no one seems willing to take a stand and fill that void and at this point, who can blame them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion Close this WP:CANVASSING request with prejudice. OP doesn't like that the same proposal that's been raised 2 times previously (Both times since December 29th 2012) is getting shot down again for the exact same policy reasons as before. Consensus can change, but there should be a reasonable limit to how many times the exact same proposal can be floated without the proposer transcending to the "I didn't hear that" level of disruption. I suggest a reading of the {{Uw-mmawarning}} over the editor so as to make it clear that their efforts are disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur keeps repeating that same mis-information. The idea was brought up, there were mixed comments about it. I actually drew up a proposal and presented it and Hasteur threatened to turn me in for an admin review. There is no basis for this nor is it disruptive. I keep repeating that I don't have an issue with people not liking what I suggested but it is just a suggestion to try to move things forward with a compromise (I've even asked the people who didn't like my suggestion to propose a compromise). The only way this works is if EVERYBODY in the project compromises and comes to a solution that everybody can live with. The issue we are having is that one side refuses to compromise, which is why I requested that we get a mediator from outside the group to come in and try to work out a compromise with all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And here the first stone gets thrown. I cite Wikipedia_talk:MMA#MMA_notability where you were told no because it was too gamey (December 29th 2012). I also cite Wikipedia_talk:MMANOT#Doing_away_with_the_tiered_system as the second case where the exact list was used again and again I had to explain why the list and points are not appropriate. It is not mis-information if it's not incorrect. Willdawg111 wants to use a system of their devising using arbitrary points to brightline the Notability threshold. As has been explained 3 times before, this type of regime is inherently gameable as an individual fighter could collect the points they needed by fighing in 2000 of "Bob's Backyard Brawl MMA" events and would then be able to have the "He has the points" pushers to never let the fighter out of wikipedia. I call for an admin to review Willdawg111's behavior entirely to observe the personal attacks, snide remarks (even in his original posting here), disruptive pushing of ideas that were not appropriate, and intentional misstatemens of fact. Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Willdawg suffers from a bad case of "I didn't hear that". His latest example is his persistence to claim that UFC TUF reality show exhibition fights can be included to justify a fighter's notability as per WP:NMMA. He makes this claim, yet again, even have it has been explained, multiple times, that these exhibition bouts are not "professional competition at the highest level".(There are also multiple AfDs Willdawg111 participated in where the same explanations were offered.) This is just a single instance of this behavior. There has been similar instances in regards to changing result table formats, rankings of MMA promotions/organizations and AfDs. (I can go find all the diffs if requested, but it's going to be a long list.) I'm unsure what the solution to this situation is, other than perhaps an uninvolved editor offering WP:MENTORSHIP to Willdawg111. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

AsianGeographer

Hi all, am I crazy, or does AsianGeographer (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) seem like a sockpuppet? AG registered on 2 January and has made over 1000 edits in the four days since then with a maximum level of disruption. They also knew how to use categories and Hotcat from their third edit, and knew what "rv" (revert) meant by their seventeenth edit, just sixteen minutes after their first overall edit. Note that I've blocked this user for 31 hours for the aforementioned disruption and edit warring. Ed  09:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently Hotcat was enabled by default for all registered users starting in November. But, the other points still stand. Ed  10:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, somewhat strange. I had been having an ongoing conversation with the editor at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Proposed provinces of Indonesia, right up until he was blocked. Perfectly civil (perhaps a bit bludgeony, maybe, but AGF and all that). That said, I re-edited his comments and those from another user to fix their votes at AFD (from "oppose/support" to "keep/delete"). The WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments (again and again) is a classic new-user-at-AFD tactic. That sort of thing would seem to be either the work of a very (very) clever sock-puppet (intentionally making very public "rookie" mistakes to seem inexperienced) or a genuinely new user. 1000 edits in 4 days is insane. I have 5 times that many in 4 years. If nothing else, he should be strongly encouraged to slow the hell down. WP:NODEADLINE and whatnot. The block, I think, was justified to allow that message to be made clear and to prevent immidiate disruption. I'm not sure C-Us would be excited about a fishing expedition SPI. Stalwart111 10:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I ran into them - something about renaming a category. I'd say that the "speed" is all about their categorizations of articles - which with HotCat is a pretty quick process. As they have an interest in a particularly undeveloped area of the encyclopedia in some regards, categorization was likely very valid - although they ran into some issues with understanding how Misplaced Pages works (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing that was strange was him knowing how to this. When I created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Proposed provinces of Indonesia, I accidentally stated that it failed WP:V (instead of WP:N). I, instead of thinking to strike it out, changed it after he had asked why it failed WP:V. Then he put it back with a strike through it and left this edit summary: "If you alter your text after other people have replied, then do that by striking." I wonder how he knew that. United States Man (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I recall using the abbreviation "rm" at the age of 13 or so on my dad's article (editing on IP), simply because I'd checked the history, seen someone else using it, and taken an educated guess at what it meant. — Francophonie&Androphilie 12:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add my two pennies in. I was trying to sort out this dispute "here". I contacted User:Merbabu "here" and was contacted by User:SatuSuro in turn. Both have stated that advice given on the edits he has made has been is ignored and accusations of attacking are made on a regular basis. My own interactions with him seem to indicate that he constantly believes he is being attacked by the two users above, that he is in the right and the other users are in the wrong. Sock-puppetry wasn't brought up by either of the users I talked to. Sorry if I'm telling you things you're already aware of. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a look thru this user edits and actions while its been a while since I've spent time looking at Indonesian topics there is something familiar about the editor but its been a good 18months 2years since that person last editted so CU would find nothing. The block looks fine to me the user posted that "he" was going to bed in the middle of the afternoon local id.time Gnangarra 14:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wahhabi edit warring, POV pushing, sockpuppetry

That ended quickly. Ed  10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin take a look at Wahhabi, where it looks like there is an edit war being propagated by a POV-pushing individual who is repeatedly creating sock accounts. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

thats already been sorted out! *facepalm*--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk · contribs) protected it for a few months, two other socks blocked by me, everything reverted—I think we're done here. :-) Ed  10:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Swift and decisive. I like that. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canvassing

User:Doncsecz is sending messages to Hungarian users to influence the vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/László Kovács (writer), where the deletion of the article about László Kovács. a Hungarian writer, is requested. This comment "Yes, as the arguments for the deletions is nonsense, only the humiliation of the Hungarians or Europeans. " of User:Doncsecz has also to be noted Transerd (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The "nonsense" or "humiliation" words is not unethical words. See also other talk pages about other articles. Doncsecz 13:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a battleground mentality, you see Misplaced Pages as a war betwen nations (Hungarians vs enemies) Transerd (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also in other talk page (see Syrian Civil War) was hard talk: in my talk page, which is shouting. Nonetheless i was not Judas, and not discloses the user. Ergo this is your personal action. Doncsecz 14:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Enemies? No comment. I am a Hungarian. So what? I don't care your nationality and I have no enemies. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I only ask the users, as the wiki is great and is difficult to monitor everything. Transerd is new user, probably sockpuppet. Doncsecz 13:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that? If so, then take it to WP:SPI. If not, I would stop with the accusations of socking. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Transerd is sockpuppet?

Transerd is a new user and suddenly joined a deletion. This is presumably a sockpuppet. How is the investigation? Doncsecz 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you truly think that, then open a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI. Be aware though, that you will have to provide proof that he is sock puppeting. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat OhanaUnited - are they right, am I wrong?

OhanaUnited (Talk) just gave me a public warning on an article talk page, over a comment which was wholly irrelevant to the current discussion. This user is a WP:BUREAUCRAT so because of the formal nature of such a warning and the circumstances leading up to it, I feel it necessary to come here to ask:

• Are this warning and its placement appropriate and deserved?
• Has OhanaUnited behaved correctly?

OhanaUnited had posted this comment in a discussion, accusing one of the regular page editors (User:MilborneOne) of deliberate straw man tactics. This helped upset the editor as well as another.

I dropped a note real politely to say that some editors were upset, whether intended or otherwise, and that an apology might be appreciated.

OhanaUnited's inital response (17:56, 3 January 2013) was more abuse - this time aimed at me on my own talk page by accusing me of hypocrisy.

Nevertheless a couple of hours later the message seems to have sunk in, because OhanaUnited followed up my thought with the above "I didn't mean to" apologia (at 19:05, 3 January 2013. Meanwhile I had posted a Misplaced Pages:Forgive and forget type comment and tried to the real discussion on. Curiously, OhanaUnited posted their apologia _above_ that comment, making it look like my forgive and forget wording might be pointedly ignoring it, with only close inspection of the datestamps showing that it came after the event. Still, no real harm done.

Anyway, I soon found his insult there on my talk page. I do not feel it was valid (as I was making no judgement of intent, only commenting on the outcome of the guy's post as politely as I could), and their comment appeared to flagrantly breach WP:ETIQUETTE so I blanked it. The guy's user talk page says they don't watch(list) other user's talk pages, and somewhere (if only I could remember where) there is advice to the effect that if you abuse a user on their own talk page, you can't be surprised if they delete it with a dusty edit comment - so that was what I did: my edit summary on my own talk page just said, "dickhead".

OhanaUnited chose to push this back by warning me off, and repeating my rude word over the article discussion page too. Whatever the merits of my own behaviour, I find this a gratuitous, inappropriate and possibly disruptive escalation of an irrelevant matter: the discussion was in general well behaved and that warning should have gone on my user talk page or nowhere. Perhaps I am wrong to see it that way.

I feel bullied and harassed, the way this bureaucrat is now apparently following me around and escalating a personal gripe by threatening me publicly in an inappropriate place. I am happy to apologise, especially if that advice I recall does not actually exist and my momentary value judgement is after all unacceptable, but I feel this guy is riding me and I need to know whether the wider community thinks he is, and whether he is right to do so. So I don't feel able to let this rest. But I don't know any other bureaucrats well enough to ask them personally for a quick and informal intervention. Anyway, that's why I am asking here yet again. Have I done bad again? Has this bureaucrat let the side down? FYI, here's my list of contributions so you can check out my wider attitude. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OhanaUnited is not a bureaucrat. The very page you linked to, WP:BUREAUCRAT, tells you this. Additionally, this matter has nothing to do with the bureaucrat role, instead being focussed on civility. Your post here is, therefore, a little baffling. You may wish to refactor it to remove these inconsistencies. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Steelpillow - Your case isn't entirely without merit. I see MelborneOne's point of view that, obviously, if you are having a discussion on the validity of a source then it makes sense that someone with an opposing point of view would find items that demonstrate their point of view. I agree that OhanaUnited's argument against that is silly. I was just reading the Apteva topic ban on AN and I felt like folks on Misplaced Pages just do not like being disagreed with. However, there is hardly anything blockable that OhanaUnited has done. On the other hand, you escalated the situation by calling him a Dickhead. I wouldn't block over it alone, but you're certainly closer to that than he is. If I were you, I'd hit the brakes and try reengaging and explaining how you feel.--v/r - TP 14:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this be closed with no action. I tend to agree with TP that some actions here were far from ideal, but there's no need for blocking or sanctions. The best thing to do would be to calm down and walk away for a little while. (I think the confusion was caused by OhanaUnited's status as a crat on another project?) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to explain, seeing you say that, I suppose got confused by OhanaUnited's Biography section on their user page. It says that this user is an admin and links to Misplaced Pages:ADMIN so I take that to be true. It also says that, "On March 18, 2008, he was promoted to become the 13th bureaucrat on WikiSpecies," but with no obvious link to explain this, so I guess I misunderstood. For "bureaucrat" in my comments above, please read "Admin".

I apologised personally for my bad language when I advised OhanaUnited of this discussion, and my post here records how I feel. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock stuffing at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Josh Simmons

Can an admin please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Josh Simmons. While one should assume good faith, a large number of newly-created accounts have all weighed in to vote against deletion. I can hear, see and even smell a duck here, so would appreciate someone who knows what is the the appropriate action in these cases to take a look. Thanks. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cavarrone and I have tagged the hell out of all of the SPAs. I'll go write up an SPI - if it returns the expected result, I figure we can just hat/strike/delete/whatever all of the sock !votes. — Francophonie&Androphilie 18:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected the AfD and hatted the SPAs.--v/r - TP 19:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

While you were busy doing that, I filed a now mostly pointless SPI, for anyone interested. Accursèd speedy admin action! — Francophonie&Androphilie 19:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Aryan2012 and expiration of protection on Omar Bakri Muhammad

It appears the above user has made a return to Misplaced Pages. The user in question used a series of accounts to wage a campaign of sanitization of referenced material on Omar Bakri Muhammad. This led to the article being protected for a period which expired on 3 Jan 2013. It appears the person in question has returned now that protection has expired. He/she appears to have also returned to their other hobby-horse of subjects related to Cyprus. I have reverted their edits to National Federation of Cypriots as some of these just render the meaning of the article nonsense (as well as changing the organization's name). I also have my doubts on Nikos Sampson, its the first time a reference has been supplied here (even if it is to a book on Amazon without page numbers), however I have left the edits for now to see if someone with access might be able to verify the reference. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards