Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:07, 29 March 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

YahwehSaves

Please see a long, long list of complaints spanning years at WT:MIL#Guidance question from Admin or Sysop, please, including article talk page vandalism from today. The reasons the other editors were hesitant to report this at ANI might also be of interest. This came up recently three months ago at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Recently? That link is from 3 months ago.

What is the current problem which requires admins? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, didn't you used to be the banned user "Light current"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how did you know who I was talking about? And you ARE close geographically. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's still not signing. Supposedly, refusal to sign is a blockable offense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Was already blocked 24hrs before regarding this issue. Another follow up seems appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, disruptive editing at the Audie Murphy page. Talk:Audie Murphy#Closely checking for copyvio and sourcing details what we are trying to correct just from the most recent spate of his edits. There's more, but not everything has been checked from his March edits. Copyvio, no sourcing, and (in an earlier thread on that page), "don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know" in response to editors asking him to properly source his edits. Audie Murphy is a GA, that we are trying to bring up to FA. Now we spend all our time checking and correcting the edits of YahwehSaves who lifts entire phrases from other sites and/or doesn't bother to source, refuses to learn the basics of editing in WP Manual of Style. — Maile (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Baseball, your diff above actually shows YS attempting to sign, they just got the format wrong. Four tildes present, so that is promising. I also cannot see any recent attempt to discuss the matter with YS before bringing to ANI. No admin action required at this point, I would say. GiantSnowman 11:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. So why didn't the signature show up?←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the disruptive editing? — Maile (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint - now found to be premature - was about YS not signing posts. if YS is engaged in disruptive behaviour then please provide some diffs to evidence that. GiantSnowman 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several MILHIST editors that have been monitoring this article and the complete debacle it has become due directly to the involvement of YS. He refuses to follow the MOS, has committed numerous copyvios and when reverted he just reverts and carries on as normal. The level of disruption is significant and sustained. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves was invited to join the discussion at MILHIST, and has ignored the invitation. There have been around 50 disruptive edits in March, plus long non-productive ramblings from YahwehSaves on the Audie Murphy talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you provide a few recent diffs I will be happy to take a further look. GiantSnowman 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't dug out all the diffs, so take this with whatever grain of salt you choose, but I agree that YS has become an unnecessarily time-consuming, disruptive presence there. Attempts to discuss sourcing and copyright violation on that talk page don't seem to have made progress, as YS has stated that he/she doesn't have time to learn Misplaced Pages "technicalities". Maile posted a quick summary of what's happening to the Audie Murphy talk page at Talk:Audie Murphy#Dates below reflect YahwehSaves edits, my signature date is when I made changes that may give a start to whoever wants to catalogue this properly.

And, FWIW, a glance at the talk page does show various unsigned comments besides the one cited above: , , . -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Give me some time. I'll give you the initial copyvio rv that happened and their reversal back and forth. Hope I'm doing this correctly: , , , , These all concern one copyvio that YahwehSaves kept reverting. There's so much more disruptive editing that just this. That whole article is now embedded with recent bad edits by YahwehSaves that we are having to go through. But you also need to look at the talk pages on Audie Murphy and Military History to get the full picture of what has been going on. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another copyvio revert by me (different than the one above), of a YahwehSaves March 9 edit, , YahwehSaves has not been editing the article over the weekend, so we don't know if he'll revert this or not. A lot of the YahwehSaves edits being reverted are for no sourcing. In some cases, YahwehSaves edits contradicts known sources, but he won't cite his own source. In one case, he insisted the existing source was invalid and that his source was valid, but he refused to give his source. And in a great deal of what YahwehSaves has done to the article in March, we simply do not know where he got the information. Given his history of copyvio, we can't risk unsourced prose from him on an article that is aiming for FA WP Main Page attention.— Maile (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This March 19 diff is where YahwehSaves has replied to a source challenge with, " I'm not a professional editor and don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know." — Maile (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 17 and 18 diff , in which YahwehSaves removed text and existing sourcing from both an online site named GlobalSecurity (which he claims is not good) and also sourcing from the United States Army War Department official records. He replaced the removed sourcing with unsourced scans. In spite of his being told on the talk page that scans are not sources and that the article text required sourcing, YahwehSaves did not remove the scans and source his editing. I reverted these unsourced edits of YahwehSaves on March 22. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This same editor showed similar tendencies with the Medal of Honor article around the same time as the first complaint linked by Dank above. A quick glance at his/her talk page seems to show a history of issues with this kind of behavior. Intothatdarkness 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding GlobalSecurity, he's right. As for the rest of his issues, though, I agree that this editor is not a benefit to the project, and may indeed be a net drain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose a couple of topic ban-mentoring options. My goal is to get the Audie Murphy article up to A-class at the Military History project, and eventual FA nomination. Related articles of Filmography and the Honors and Awards pages need to be in sync on content. Most of my post-March 7 edits on the Audie Murphy page were clean up from YahwehSaves. The main article is treading water on its GA status, and I would like to deter YahwehSaves from branching out to the other two articles. (The filmography does not carry the Military History banner as the other two do) . I also note YahwehSaves's history at Medal of Honor. This editor also has 195 edits on Matt Urban under his own name, and 27 IP edits under the "suspected sock" that got him a temporary block. The posts on the Military History talk page indicate that other editors have tried to engage YahwehSaves on other like articles. Therefore, I would like to offer:

• Proposal #1 - Topic ban on all Audie Murphy articles (Audie Murphy, Audie Murphy honors and awards and Audie Murphy filmography), contingent upon YahwehSaves agreeing to mentoring. The ban would only be lifted if the mentor feels YahwehSaves has made enough progress to freely edit on Misplaced Pages.

• Proposal #2 -Topic ban on all Audie Murphy articles (Audie Murphy, Audie Murphy honors and awards and Audie Murphy filmography), AND all articles that carry the WikiProject Military History banner. This would be contingent upon YahwehSaves agreeing to mentoring. The ban would only be lifted if the mentor feels YahwehSaves has made enough progress to freely edit on Misplaced Pages.

If YahwehSaves will not agree to undergo mentoring, then there should be a block for disruptive editing. Vote or comment. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• It might make things less complicated if we ask YahwehSaves if they're interested in mentoring; it doesn't seem likely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be how either of the proposals would work? I've not dealt with ANI before. But it seems if one of those proposals is decided on, then YahwehSaves is notified that this is the deal. If YahwehSaves fails to respond, or refuses the mentoring, then the block goes into effect. You put a notice on his talk page when you opened this ANI, and engaging in the dialogue here has always been his option. I might add that on March 20 a notice was put on his talk page regarding the dialogue happening on the talk page at WikiProject Military History. He didn't respond to that, either, but continues to edit at Audie Murphy and at the Audie Murphy talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Given YS' complete lack of interest in the attempts of the community to engage him regarding our concerns about his editing, I believe mentoring options would be a waste of time. I believe the only effective way to deal with him is a lengthy (6 month) topic ban on Audie Murphy-related articles, with an option for appeal after 3 months if he has demonstrated he has learned how to edit properly and in a non-disruptive manner. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a topic ban, I suggest starting a new thread, seeing as this one has gone stale. GiantSnowman 12:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The central question in the various RfA RfCs has been whether tough choices need to be made because work normally associated with admins isn't getting done. I only drop in here occasionally, so I don't know what's going on, but it's easy to imagine editors being put off by the reception these editors got, and I don't fault any of the admins watching for that ... it may just be that the workload is such that you're really not in a big hurry to get involved in cases that might generate drama or require some hand-holding or some sorting-out. Anyone who wants to educate me on the issues here is welcome to do so. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Or, it may be that there's just a lot of work to do here and not as many people doing it ... and others matters do have greater urgency (abusive socks, vandals, etc.). I've been a vocal opponent of Pending Changes 2, but it may be time for another look. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Caste sanctions enforcement request

Pnranjith (talk · contribs) has been arguing rather strongly and without a lot of regard for Misplaced Pages policies on Talk:Ezhava, an article which falls under the general sanctions placed by the community on all caste-related articles. That's irritating, but since s/he's not edit warring on the article, can be managed to some degree. However, the editor has also repeatedly been aggressive and abusive. Previous attacks for which the editor has been warned (see the user's talk page) include and . The user was also warned of the caste-article sanctions in User Talk:Pnranjith#Sanctions.

Today, Pnranjith made, among others, this edit, directly insulting Sitush. It's time for this to stop. I think that the user's personal involvement in the underlying dispute (having to do with whether or not two groups of people are actually two different groups or one group with two different names) is making it impossible for the editor to follow Misplaced Pages policies, since his/her need to get the Truth into Misplaced Pages is making her/him unable to follow rules like WP:RS and WP:V. As such, I think it's likely that the encyclopedia would benefit from the user being topic banned. But I understand that such a move requires quite a bit more analysis on the part of the ANI community, and so I would be satisfied that the user is at least blocked for ongoing personal attacks, and made to understand that any more poor behavior will result in further/longer sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the acronym soup but it is the WP:TE and WP:IDHT of this returning WP:SPA that concerns me more than calling me an idiot - plenty of people do that and sometimes they are right. In this case, I think it is caused by frustration: they think that I (and others) are using our policies as a means intentionally to deny what they consider to be true. Around April 2012, they got involved in an earlier version of this dispute when they hung on the coat-tails of Thiyyan (talk · contribs), now they're hanging on to Irajeevwiki (talk · contribs).

NB: there are admins all over Talk:Ezhava but they can do nothing (assuming they want to) because of WP:INVOLVED (Qwryxian, Martijn Hoekstra, RegentsPark, Drmies and also the ex-admin Boing! said Zebedee). - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ANI, my favourite noticeboard. There is indeed a mess over at that page, focussing around the mess SPA's, if not tigers are causing there. There is a constant influx of IP editors and new SPA's who consistently hold the same viewpoint, which suggest meatpuppeting. The personal attacks made by these SPA's should stop, because firstly, it can be immensely draining to deal with it for those facing it, and secondly, because it impedes reasonable discussion. (I'd like to quickly compliment Sitush on the patience he is showing, and the way he lets these things slide off him). The thing that is probably even more draining is the unwillingness to get the point. The personal attacks are fairly easily actionable: a clear warning that any future personal attacks may result in a block, followed by a possible escalating series of blocks is certainly possible. The question is what that would achieve. Blocks for these kinds of things may help the NPA thing (which is in itself a pretty big win), but will not fix the underlying issues, and will likely further entrench the unwillingness to get the point, which is in my opinion a far greater problem. ANI has already authorised discretionary sanctions. I would support that any editor or IP starting to make the same point that has already been made over and over be advised to edit further on[REDACTED] on different issues, warned that perceived problematic behaviour may be met with a topic ban, topic-banned for a month (but not immediately blocked! turning an SPA POV pusher with a dissenting voice into a Wikipedian who has a better grasp of how we deal with reliable sources, and how that relates to OR would be a huge win) if there is a clear indication of refusal to get the point, even if there no evidence, and that that topic ban should be enforceable by block. As I am somewhat involved, I would currently (just) like to advice both Irajeevwiki and Pnranjith to expand their editing scope, and spend at least as much time on non-caste related subjects broadly construed as on this issue. If others agree with my suggestion, and believe anyone should be warned I would strongly agree with some warnings here and there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Pnranjith for 2 weeks for personal attacks. Decisions on what further actions to take (if any) can be made in the meantime - I would suggest a topic ban outright. Basalisk ⁄_berate 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, but[REDACTED] rules and regulations are very easy to understand and i whatever i have done so far in wiki is by abiding wiki rules. Only started responding to Ezhava articles talkpage when i recognized a lot of mistakes in the Ezhava page a few weeks ago, I believe Sitush (talk · contribs) wont object if i say that since we started this communication in Ezhava talk page, he had made so many amendments to the article. He took off sub caste section completely, because i pointed out that there was no valid reference for that claim. He has tweaked many times the article and it is getting better. But with only one thing still cant agree with Sitush (talk · contribs), that is "Thiyyar". I will say again that Thiyyar is completely distinct from other castes and should not be merged with Ezhava.

Sitush is confused with Nossitor books, just like Sitush many other writers got confused and followed what Nosittor has written about thiyyar. I repeat that again, Nossitor was a political writer he was helping Kerala Communist Party by writing a book which portrays Ezhava and Thiyya same caste for political gain. Please have a look the valid and genuine book written by Ritty A lukose, Edgar Thurston, T Damu, Dr. CJ Roy, Dr. Muhamadali and so on. I can supply more book references but no point of giving valid and genuine book references, Sitush (talk · contribs) just ignore it by saying **NOT RELIABLE** I feel sometime like Sitush (talk · contribs) is legislating own rules here and only ready to accept those book references which come inlines with his views which is completely wrong.

Ritty A Lukose http://books.google.com.au/books?id=R5gNOdw9E_0C&pg=PT269&lpg=PT269&dq=The+blindness+of+insight:+Essays+on+caste+in+modern+India+(Chennai:+Navayana,+2006)&source=bl&ots=B2pj6tuyzg&sig=8Nk9Rgn0gzUktwXJb8_ci4qyF50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lf9DUc3CMeuaiQe87ICAAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tiyya&f=false

Dr CJ Roy

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Pd8aAAAAMAAJ&q=tiyya++and+ezhava&dq=tiyya++and+ezhava&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T4pOUbSlLsTRkwXskIFI&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg

Dr Muhammadali http://www.scribd.com/doc/54685053/Colonial-Knowledge-Nationalism-and-Representations-Readings-from-Malabar

There is a big controversy going on about Thiyya / Ezhava castes at the moment, http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/03/stories/2004090310670500.htm . I request[REDACTED] admins to either stop Ezhava article until this issue gets resolved or publish Two different articles for both Ezhava and Thiyya. An article is still waiting for approval in http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thiyyar which has been written in a neutral point of view and it just explains only the Thiyyar caste, culture and history. Because of POV fork issue this article cant get published.

I have placed a POV check tag in Ezhava page and we are discussing in ezhava talk page as per wiki rules and I dont know why Sitush (talk · contribs) tries to impose sanction on me, I am here trying for a consensus by discussing. If you stop someone by imposing ban or sanction then it would be unfair to that person. Irajeevwiki (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What you are doing right now is demonstrating your issues with WP:IDHT. Ritty A. Lukose has been discussed on the articles talkpage. Edgar Thurston has been discussed on the articles talkpage. The paper from Muhammadali has been discussed on the articles talkpage. Damu has been discussed on the articles talkpage. You were part of most off those discussions - actually you started most off them. Time and time again we come to the conclusion that there are issues with the sources - either because they are flat out unreliable on the subject (Thurston), because what they write about the reliation between Thiyya and Ezhava is ambiguous or trivial (both off these in the case off Lukose). But here you are again, bringing up the same subject. Over and over. Were you not part off the original discussion? How many times will you still bring this up again? Until people start agreeing with you? You've had several uninvolved admins come in, and come to the same conclusions. But you keep on insisting that everyone is wrong but you, and the slew off SPA's that at best seem to have serious difficulties in reading the article, and at worst seem to be recruited as meatpuppets to echo a repeated sentiment, without bringing anything new to the table. Bringing up new sources is fine, even if together we come to the conclusion that we can't use it. But for the love off god, everyone is getting tired about hearing you bringing up Thurston yet again. You were part of the discussion. You know how it ended. Abide by it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've been following the Ezhava/Thiyya thing (though I have not had the time to get too involved in it), and I agree with Qwyrxian, Sitush and Martijn Hoekstra. It looks like we have a concerted effort, both on-wiki and off-wiki, to raise the status of Thiyya - but nobody has offered any reliable sources to support their claims. Should the status change, it needs to be recognised by reliable sources *first* and then Misplaced Pages can echo those - the change cannot start on Misplaced Pages. This has been explained to the same protagonists over and over again, in repeated discussions covering the same ground - but they refuse to listen. This kind of caste-advocacy disruption is exactly what the caste sanctions were designed to stop, and I think we need to start enforcing them firmly on this topic. I suggest blocks and/or topic bans for editors who continue with these "wall of sound" attempts to overwhelm consensus and make changes in defiance of sourcing policy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I can understand the new editor's frustration, because there do, in fact, seem to be some primary sources that may support their version, and I even believe them when they say that their personal experience supports their preferred version. But, as Boing! says, we must follow our own rules on sourcing. If the Truth is so obvious, then, really, someone should have written about it somewhere...or, if they haven't (for some sort of political reason), then these new editors ought to try to find somewhere to write about it. Until that happens, however, we need to be able to reach a point where we don't have to keep having this conversation every 2 hours with the next new account. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The behavior of User:Pnranjith as documented here seems to be the exact type of thing that the caste sanctions were intended to address. I propose a topic ban of Pnranjith from all caste articles, per the usual phrase from the sanctions log: "All edits relating to any caste across all namespaces". At some point the editor could appeal to have the sanctions lifted if it turns out they can create a record of neutral editing in other areas. You can check the editors' comments at Talk:Ezhava if you want to study his work more carefully, being aware that he sometimes signs as 'Ranjith'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is still happening in ezhava talk page, (talk) can't say that we have come to a conclusion on those book references subject. I have read wiki policies and I'm doing things here as per wiki rules only. I'm not happy with decision of some admins to reject some authors books just because the content doesn't come inline with their views. I like to get senior admins attention into this. Have seen above mentioned authors books used as references on many wiki articles. Even on ezhava, Sitush was using EdgarThurston books. When the discussion got heated up he just remove it from the article and started saying Edgar Thurston not trustworthy. Edgar Thurstn is just example. Sitush and other admins who giving backup to him for the past many years have been rejecting all the books which I provided with valid and genuine reference, sorry to know that an editor can do anything here if he gets backup from SOME strong admins. 123.243.18.3 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Even on ezhava, Sitush was using EdgarThurston books. - no I wasn't. Someone had used it and, yes, I removed it. This misunderstanding is typical of the problems being faced in the discussion. Who are you, by the way? The only edit by a 123.* IP on that talk page offers no sources. I do hope that you are not Pnranjith because the problems of socking have already been highlighted in the discussion prior to their recent block. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are no "senior admins" - in fact, admins have no say whatsoever on content and sourcing issues. If you disagree with the current consensus on a particular source and cannot obtain satisfaction on an article talk page, you can take it to either a relevant project talk page or the Reliable Sources noticeboard (but do be aware that repeatedly bringing up the same issues with no new information can result in sanctions against you) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pnranjith is still using his talk page to make personal attacks on Sitush and Qwyrxian - I suggest his block should be upped to indefinite and his ability to edit the page revoked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• And in the last 24 hours the relatively new contributor Amal89 has been attacking and making threats, resulting in me issuing a warning. This seems clearly to be co-ordinated off-wiki, as was suspected when the issues were raised last year. I am now becoming a bit irritated by it all, despite my earlier note here that these things originate in frustration with our policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me Sitush, I have read what amal89 said in Ezhava talk page, i didnt see anything wrong with his comments. Whatever he said there is based on genuine and valid sources not sourced from novels or short stories. If you block people one by one then i would say this[REDACTED] site has been taken over by some people and no senior admins doing anything do stop that. I have noticed that you have banned docrun (I dont know it is correct username but you have mentioned in ezhava talk page) that means you will take action to those contributors who are expressing their opinion against you even though they are right.

Some people here mis using the general sanctions. Just blocking contributors by using this general sanctions . Helpless here. frustrated too Irajeevwiki (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• reading over his talkpage, I no longer believe Pnranjit is able to or willing to have any discussion not based on the idea that paid editors and admins are out to get him. I request him to be topic banned, and frankly see no other outcome than an indefinite block. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to mention the same legal threat and personal attack. Please note that Amal89 was already notified of WP:NLT (see these edits by myself and Martin Hoekstra). Amal's "defense" of "This is not a legal threat, but you should know that you will be prosecuted under the following sections of the IPC" is BS. The only way these types of articles is if we shut down the aggression, attacks, and bad faith editing ASAP. I'm a little to blame here, in that every time I show up at a new caste article as an admin, I invariably get drawn into the content dispute, and thus become unable to act administratively. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, wrt Pnranjith, I tried to selectively delete his comments on his talk page that contained a link to an attack website against one of the editors here (leaving all of the rest of the vitriol), but for some reason the link's still appearing in the history. Can anyone else figure out how to get it out of there? Note that I don't think that removal of such a blatantly offensive link violates WP:INVOLVED, but if it does, fine, desysop me; it's not worth that link appearing for even one minute more. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

These two need to be indeffed without talk page access - and I don't think anyone would be considered in breach of WP:INVOLVED to do so, not when we're dealing with blatant legal threats and blatant personal attacks (and clearly coordinated at that). This has to be stopped, and there is no way ArbCom is going to desysop anyone who stops it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: Qwyrxian, what you need to do is rev delete every intermediate revision from and including the revision in which the material was inserted, up to and including the last revision before it was removed. Currently there are three intermediate revisions, one by Sitush and two by me, which still contain the material - those also need to be rev deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I've got the diffs straightened out. As I said, all I deleted was the link to the off-wiki site making really unpleasant accusations against Sitush; I kept in all of his comments otherwise. If he starts up again, I may have to remove talk page access myself, but would rather someone else does it. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If nobody else does it first, I'll be removing his talk page access tomorrow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And also, that off-wiki blog is so pathetic it's laughable - it says a lot about the intelligence of anyone who tries to push it as being true, if they think there's any chance it's going to be believed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out someone's mistake is not a personal attack. Pointing out how legally incorrect this article is also not a threat. How can attribute the religious views of one caste to another one and say that it doesn't hurt them. Hurting the religious sentiments is bound by law. Every country has laws regarding this. Pointing it out is not a threat. Knowingly misguiding people, by writing articles based on lies and when genuine evidence is shown, trying to insult the people who are legally responsible for making those genuine sources and when someone says its not right thing morally and legally, saying that you are outside the jurisdiction of India as is evident from "I can assure you that the chances of India taking legal action against me or Misplaced Pages are as near to zero as makes no difference due to issues of jurisdiction..." is not correct either. I think If you people don't want others to give correct information, don't write pages on Misplaced Pages and spoil it. That's why you have blogs. Misplaced Pages is not for expressing your personal views. I gave those IPC's only so that you can go through it and make this article perfect. I had already assured Martijn the other day no legal action will be taken I was merely pointing it out to you as this article is clearly violating some laws, mostly the ones related to religious sentiments and knowingly giving wrong information. It's a mere guidance. I have no time to go behind this legal wild goose chase. Amal89 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Accusing people of "knowingly giving wrong information" constitutes a personal attack, and I shall leave you a formal warning on your talk page - and if you repeat such attacks, you will be blocked from editing. Now, if you want to make changes to any articles, you and your ilk have been informed numerous times of how we work from reliable sources and not from what people claim is true without any independent evidence - and people are unlikely to waste their time explaining it to you again. So, work within Misplaced Pages's policies or get blocked - there is no third option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Threatening people who brings genuine sources as evidence with 'block' also constitutes personal attack and spoils the 'Wiki' in Misplaced Pages. I think I should leave a warning on your page. If you don't want to change the article be bold and say it here that no matter what we wont change it. Stop making threats! You block me or don't block me makes no difference to me. If a person makes a mistake I'll point it out and I don't care about this so called block. Amal89 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've explained the difference between identifying mistakes and alleging dishonesty on your talk page - please be very careful to distinguish between them should you wish to make future claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: As for changing the article, please re-read what you have already been told several times about reliable sourcing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. How about when someone shows a government document that clearly shows the two castes are considered different by the Government? And on[REDACTED] an editor still uses the word 'official' to claim that the two castes are same. This is evident from this "The Ezhava and Thiyya communities are officially treated as one...." Doesn't this make a deliberate dishonesty? And that is why I said from now on keeping this article as it is will constitute knowingly giving wrong information. I don't know who wrote it in the first place. The article itself is the culprit. And of course I understood about the reliable sources. Next time when I see a news article on some local evening newspaper or in some fiction novel or a story in some book aimed for children teaching them about religion, or about a case filed by some organisation that never existed, sure, I'll definitely bring it here as reliable source. Amal89 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, as of 90 minutes ago you were still engaging in conduct unbecoming a Misplaced Pages contributor, as per your note here. These wild accusations really do have to stop. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at this before you shout around saying there is a legal threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Don%27t_overlook_legal_threats You have no idea what the article is about. Associating the revered deity Sri Muthappan of thiyya caste to the ezhavas is same as writing an article saying that Prophet Muhammed is the prophet of Christians. It's baseless and a lie and also an insult. You somehow don't get the message. Let me write it for you from Misplaced Pages itself.

Don't be a DOLT – stop and think. Always check basic facts before making assumptions Never unblank biographies without asking why the IP might be blanking it. Remember, you could be personally responsible for re-publishing libellous content. Not good. When a legal threat is made, step back and ask "why?" Maybe there's an obvious reason, and you could help the victim rather than increase their woes. How would you feel if it were you? Don't let policies like no vandalism and no legal threats lead to your editing cluelessly and adversely affecting some innocent person's life by your thoughtless action. Misplaced Pages has real life consequences; Misplaced Pages is not a video game. If you aren't sure what to do with a legal threat, email the WMF's legal department at legalwikimedia.org where specially authorized users and staff can assess the situation. Amal89 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1. pointing out you will be blocked is not a "threat" or a personal attack; 2. your comments above indicate you refuse to get it. The status of something or someone as "revered" is irrelevant on Misplaced Pages. Verifiabilty, not Truth is how Misplaced Pages operates. Misplaced Pages is not censored because some, or any, religion might find content "insulting"; your repeated accusations of "lying" also don't help make a case that you're here to improve the encyclopedia. Take a deep breath, step back, and re-read what has been said to you, considering that they might have a point, and that you might possibly be mistaken, and consider the advice you've been given, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave proof, verifiable ones. Not some legend from a fairy tale. But documents from Government of India itself. And they are in denial for some strange reason. This kind of behavior really do shed light on something vile, and yes I am doubtful of the credibility of Misplaced Pages when such pages are allowed to be made, and also when someone brings in a new verifiable evidence, they are either threatened to be blocked. Amal89 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pnranjith is accusing me of socking as Qwyrxian. Of course, they cannot file a report at WP:SPI until they've served their week's block or have had that block lifted. However, they are also referring to a blog where they plan to post "evidence". To avoid this accusation festering for a week and perhaps gaining some traction among existing SPAs and likely-to-surface new ones, would it be possible to nail the issue now, perhaps by someone doing a CU? It could save a lot of hassle, especially if the blog does exist and has a Tiyya readership. I don't mind someone running a checkuser on me, although I can't speak for Qwyrxian, of course. Ahem. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved here, so I just want to clarify something. Amal89, no one is saying that the evidence is what's blockable. What's blockable is the repeated accusations against other Misplaced Pages editors. As to the source, the trouble with government documents is that they only show what that particular branch or office of government has decided, not the government as a whole. This is why primary sources are discouraged.

As to your comment that associating that deity with that group is "an insult" has no bearing on Misplaced Pages. You stated earlier: "Hurting the religious sentiments is bound by law. Every country has laws regarding this." That's actually incorrect. The United States does not have laws about hurting religious sentiments, and Misplaced Pages is based in the USA. While it may be impolite to insult a religious belief it is not illegal. Laws in other nations do not apply. — The Hand That Feeds You:

I try to be understanding, and I appreciate the carefully considered words of other uninvolved users here, but personally, I'm sick of telling Amal (and before him, Prjanath, and a few others on the page) the same, simple things over and over again. Government documents are WP:PRIMARY sources, and as such are very rarely useful as sources on Misplaced Pages. The specific sources provided are definitely useless here; these are definitely useless, because they don't explicitly state what Amal (and others) claim they state, and so to use them would require original research to interpret the actual distinction between the castes. But what Amal and others seem to be refusing to hear is that even if we could discover the Indian government's definitive position, we still would not make our article conform to that. We would certianly include their opinion, but we have numerous highly reliable academic sources that state that the two groups are the same. So, at best, we would include both claims; we would never just take one government's position as "truth". Of course, we cannot do that until we actually get a source that clearly states what they claim to be the truth. If Amal and others don't want to understand/follow our policies, then, ultimately, they need to find another website to be involved with. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We do understand the Misplaced Pages policies related to primary sources. All we are saying is the secondary sources you say are good are not trustworthy, as we have enough proof but as primary sources. That is why I never asked to include or make specific changes. Until a reliable secondary source that also agrees with the primary sources are obtained, this article is not going to be of use to anyone. All it leads to is more arguments and accusations. I don't personally know the other users who criticize this article. I came here as a reader, saw that the article is incorrect and decided to signup with[REDACTED] only to report this issue. Amal89 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is another proof but from Misplaced Pages itself. This is an article about the deity itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/Muthappan , no where is it mentioned that the deity is worshipped by ezhavas as claimed by the controversial article. Even the word ezhava is not mentioned in this article. This is as of the time at which this is written. The following line from the controversial article clearly states that " The main deities of Ezhavas include Vayanattu Kulavan, Kativannur Viran, Pumarutan and Muttappan." which clearly contradicts the article about Muthappan. Inspite of all these proofs, the editors of the controversial article are unwilling to make changes, which naturally forces us to accuse them of having vested interests. Their claim about the reliability of the secondary sources is itself questionable. The contents of the article on Muthappan was not altered at the time of this writing. That page was last modified on 14 March 2013 and had no references to ezhava whatsoever, the article had also said that "The puja rituals and rites for Muthappan are performed by the Thiyya community." which clearly implies the controversial article is wrong. Amal89 (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Arghhh. Amal, you still just don't get it. We don't say "Okay, no primary sources in the article, but primary sources automatically win when deciding what secondary sources are okay." Here's the simple, easy rule: look at the primary source. Is there some fact from it that you can quote and understand with absolutely no knowledge of the field? If the answer is no, or "sometimes" or "maybe", then the source has no value for us. Period. The primary sources provided are between somewhat and extremely ambiguous. "Proof" is reliable secondary sources (and, sometimes, tertiary sources). Primary sources cannot, basically by definition, prove secondary sources wrong. And Misplaced Pages (along with all other texts that can be freely edited) is never a reliable source. Please. Go find a reliable secondary source. Until you do, just please do us a favor and leave. Seriously, you're not helping here in any way, shape, or form. And at the same time that you're wasting our time here, you're insulting editors on the talk page and claiming we're part of some secret conspiracy to preserve apartheid (for others watching, see ). Right now, without checking, I couldn't even tell you which of these two "groups" is the light-skinned and which is the dark-skinned; I'm only vaguely aware of even what part of India this is in. I have absolutely no real world stake in this, other than ensuring that Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are followed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course I don't get it. I mean from a normal human's perspective. On one hand I have the following documents Driving License, Passport, Voters Id, Life Certificate, Death certificate, School certificate, Insurance papers, Tax papers, Bank papers and pretty much all documents that clearly shows the two groups are totally different. And then I got the observable things like skin color, eye color, culture; thiyya for obvious reasons can easily be said middle east ethnicity(the same as that of an egyptian) and then we have the ezhavas dark skinned, of aborginal ethnicity(like people from srilanka and also australian aborginals). Then on my other hand I have an article in Misplaced Pages that says the two groups are same (evidence secondary sources). How in the world could that make sense? One of these is clearly lying( either all the day to day use documents plus our eyesight or this article). You be the judge! This article in the newspaper 'The Hindu' clearly explains this http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/03/stories/2004090310670500.htm . The hindu is a very reputed newspaper. http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Hindu Amal89 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Amal89 is "T. Damu" a scholarly source? Former journalist and writer and vice-president of Taj Group of Hotels? Has he submitted a peer reviewed thesis? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, I have no idea whether T.Damu is a scholarly source or not. I couldn't find any details as to the specific study as mentioned in that article. But the krygistan origin was proved by others using DNA test and related studies. Especially the works of Cardiologist Dr. Shyamalan. This is an article from the Times of India about this http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/kochi/30662805_1_origin-dna-testing-kyrgyzstan Amal89 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Amal89 I'll give you a simple example, there is a polytechnic in my town, it used to be called Khopoli polytechnic, now it is called B. L. Patil Polytechnic, however the source cited, is an older one which mentions the name as Khopoli polytechnic, the name change isn't covered in reliable sources, so Misplaced Pages continues to call it Khopoli polytechnic, I know the name has changed, how ever I may as well be a dog. The principle that Misplaced Pages works on is verifiability and not truth. Also to my knowledge this forum AN/I isn't for content disputes, for that there are other places. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock created with my name

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)

Please delete account admonish user. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 is a wp:doppelganger, not a sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is not a registered account. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And why are you my doppelganger? Did I ask you to do that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked with extreme prejudice. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I reduced the prejudice. But yes, Emmette, that's pretty inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh really, so now someone else has a password to an account that could be me who is blocked? I want that password. The only reason I even found out was that I happened to see Emmette's contribs; didn't even bother to tell me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a tiny difference in the apostrophes, it seems; Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) was the "real" impostor, and Im not sure how Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) figures into it but it is not an actual user, impostor or otherwise. It seems that Emmette Hernandez Coleman created the account, thinking he was doing you a favor, and there was a misunderstanding because he didn't tell you. So I hope we can all understand and forgive and forget now. —Soap— 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I want the password. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's up to you and Emmette to discuss, but I warn you both now that posting passwords on-wiki is grounds for immediate account blocking as a security risk (and to answer a variation, it's not possible for anyone *else* to look up that password if Emmette declines to give it to you him/herself). The account is indef'ed with talkpage access disabled, so there's no use for it. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What kinda bullshit is that? Someone holds the password to my name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider this: anyone who tries that not-actually-your-account right now is not actually you, so the person doing them is liable to be blocked. And whoever has that password is powerless to use it anyway (even if you had it yourself). Your best bet is to leave it alone, and avoid taking on the risk of using a tainted account. Alternately, you can discuss off wiki whatever you two want regarding trying to use a blocked account. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The account's blocked, and nobody's going to unblock it; Emmette couldn't do anything with the account even if he wanted to. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename resquested. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I created the account to keep Seb from being impersonated, that's why I used the {{doppelganger-other}} tag. I don't see how that is inappropriate, if it is why do we have the {{doppelganger-other}} tag? Seb, I don't hold password to your name, I used a radioum password that I never bothered to record. Even if I did it would be a major improvement over the previous sutetion where everyone with an Internet connection held your name, no password necessary. had I routinely create these doppelganger accounts, and nothing ever came of it before. I used to inform people when I cerated a doppelganger for them, but then I realized that someone might see one of those messages and get the idea to create an imposer account, which is exactly what I'm trying to prevent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate; you might come from a culture where names do not matter; handling someone else's name or names without their permission is the highest possible offense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of us come from such a culture, and many or most people reading this thread (me, for example) had no clue that Navajo culture was different; it would be unreasonable to expect EHC to act differently in your case from other people's cases. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to create doppelganger accounts for other users. I've nominated that template for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be reasonable to expect that no-one does this kinda shit for whatever reason. Who the fuck is this user to usurp some sorta managing position like that??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there some reason for the foul language? We get it that you are pissed off. Swearing doesn't help your cause it seems.--Malerooster (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If there was ever a good reason for using the word fuck...this would be it. This is an odd sort of thread. What is going on exactly that a user's name is being used in this manner. I think Seb should be allowed to usurp that name in some manner so that it may never be used again.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, there is NO good reason for foul language here. All it shows is ignorance and immaturity. --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't censor editors and when there appears to be a reaction that anyone could understand, why would you care that the word was used? Incivility isn't a matter of the use of a single word...its how it is used.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, He can swear all he wants to, and it's up to him to decide whether or not he cares about what others may think. Chamal  12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a serious lack of WP:AGF here. Emmette clearly didn't mean to cause any damage by doing this: he thought he was doing something good in order to protect other users, he broke no rule (and even used a template created explicitly for this purpose), and he intended to help the project, not damage it. Yes, perhaps it was a bit too presumptuous of him to do this, perhaps it was a tad inappropriate, and perhaps he should have notified Seb that he'd done this (in fact, he definitely should have), but ultimately he was acting in good faith, and there has been no damage caused. Perhaps a trout is in order for Emmette, but that's about it. – Richard BB 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Other account creations

Emmette Hernandez Coleman has apparently created a number of alternate accounts for other users. The account above was clearly not created at the user's request, so I question whether any of the others were requested. At least a few of these are rather inappropriate, and while probably well-intentioned, these account creations should stop. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They weren't requested. I understand Seb, as that seems to be a cross-cultural issue, but otherwise I don't see how it's inappropriate. Before I registered then any potential impostor could have registered and used them. Now that I have, no one, not even I, can use them (they all have scrambled passwords). If this is inappropriate, why do we even have the {{Doppelganger-other}} tag? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated that for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't make me exotic or whatever. There are numerous people who wouldn't want you or anyone else to do this, just like they wouldn't want you to cover their house with mirror-sheets so it saves energy and lowers their electricity bill. You just don't do that kinda stuff. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Best place to add comment, I guess. Totally agree that I would go completely ballistic if someone set up a "friendly" doppleganger account for me, no I'm not Navajo (peace to the nation in passing), live in Europe but take any kind of ID usurpation very badly, well-intended or not. Also, WTF, the user is entitled to let off steam and, for fuck's sake say fuck, if they are really pissed about a really serious issue, such as having one's identity ripped-off. To quote God knows who, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". CaptainScreebo 16:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this makes any sense. Don't we have the account creator right for users who are trusted to do this? If Coleman isn't an account creator, he needs to agree to stop immediately. Since he doesn't understand why people have a problem with this, he should be given a restriction. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has had the account-creator rights for use on the unblock-en mailing list, it just lets you skirt the 6 accounts per day limit or whatever the number is. -- ۩ Mask 08:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no point continuing this argument here at ANI. Misplaced Pages policy doesn't say that a doppelganger account cannot be created by one user on behalf of another. Therefore Emmette's actions (which were clearly done in good faith) are technically not wrong. Personally I feel this is inappropriate, but my personal opinion doesn't really matter for this discussion. The issue on the template is being handled separately at TFD already, and if anybody thinks a change in policy is required you can propose it at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) or any other appropriate location, but ANI is not the place. Chamal  12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I should also mention that account creators do create doppelgangers for other users if and when requested. IIRC I have created a couple myself when I was an account creator before I got the admin tools, although it doesn't happen often as far as I know (although I don't really know anything about the present situation). Chamal  14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Emmette, if you are going to create dopplegangers on behalf of other users (though I very strongly suggest you don't, as there is zero reason to), at least have the manners to notify them in future. GiantSnowman 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. I see messages up above saying User:Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 is blocked, but I see no indications of that in that User's block log. RNealK (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The account has been renamed, so there is currently no user with that name. --Carnildo (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Does that open up the possibility of the account being created again? Evanh2008  03:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very surprised at this opposition to unrequested doppelgangers, but I won't create them (except maybe for Jimbo), at least not until policy on doppelgangers becomes clearer. In response to Viriditas, there's a difference between not understanding why people have a problem with this, and not not understanding that people have a problem with this. The second has become plainly obvious. In response to the people who said that I should have informed people when I cerated a doppelganger for them, I used to, but then I realized that a potential importer might see one of those messages and get the idea to create an imposer account, which is exactly what I was trying to prevent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I really can't figure out what this is all about. Could you clarify (a) why you picked the accounts you did - of all the thousands of possibilities - to "protect" with these doppelgangers and (b) how precisely does it protect the original account? DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to take it upon youself & "protect" these users? If they want a doppleganger, I'm sure they know how to create one. What you are doing is slightly...I dunno, creepy...and if it happens again I will consider it harrasment & disruptive behaviour and will block you. Simple as. Unless consensus here from other admins says that EHC's creation of accounts on "behalf of" other users is somehow OK... GiantSnowman 20:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As for why I "feel the need to take it upon self", that's simple. To prevent impersonation, tough a few such User:Example public weren't dopplegangers, but were simply created because they are "placeholders" that should not be used. As for the block threat, I've already said that I won't create unrequested doppelgangers, at least until until policy on doppelgangers becomes clearer. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP Complaint

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

I spotted newbie/IP Complaining about dead links. Can we get‎ Sandstein to block him? Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Lack of AGF makes me wonder why this is even here. Also, you didn't even notify the editor. - Penwhale | 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING/WP:POINT edits by User:GabeMc

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

Since 1:00 UTC 27 March, GabeMc has done the following:

• Nominated Post-presidency of Bill Clinton for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Post-presidency of Bill Clinton)
• Nominated KOXY for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KOXY) ‎
• Nominated Crab puff for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crab puff) ‎
• Nominated Chili burger for merger
• Placed tags of various kinds at List of Crayola colored pencil colors, Walter Moore, Iowa Stars, Charles Amadon Moody, Jacob Zeitlin, the sporting-man culture, the 1909 Inter-Mountain League, the Pacific Electric Watts line, Leading U.S. Advertisers, Dar Tucker, and the Dali painting “The Elephants”

All of those pages are pages I created or significantly edited, as if GabeMc had gone to my “articles created” list, clicked on each one, and did the worst he could to it. There’s nothing else these articles have in common; they range from a baseball league to a bookseller to food to an on-campus radio station. This is a pretty clear example of WikiHounding and WP:POINT editing, to say nothing of “drive-by tagging”, a highly frowned-upon process, and the inaccuracy of several of the tags. User:Yaksar warned him about making a point and WikiHounding, but GabeMc reverted it as vandalism. I noticed this pattern partly from the three AfD notices on my page and partly from edits in my watchlist. Can I get some help here, please? pbp 05:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wikihounding means you just follow someone's edits around to harass them whenever you think you can get away with it. It does not include someone nominating stubs you created then abandoned years ago. KOXY was created by you in 16:24, 22 August 2010‎ and is still a one sentence stub. And Crab puff is two sentences you created, with no references at all. Things like this should be tagged for original research, that's what it looks like to me, since you have no references at all. This one is properly tagged by him for being unreferenced and possibly original research. Dream Focus 06:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that's inaccurate. This is pretty clearly WikiHounding. There's no rhyme or reason to GabeMc's edits except that they share a common creator: me. For two hours, GabeMc did nothing but tag articles I created. That is diruptive WikiHounding and he should be blocked for it pbp 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a pattern of poor article creation. It is not wikihounding if an editor notices a pattern of problematic editing and then goes through someone's contributions to find and act on other examples of problematic editing. I had a look at your contributions for new articles (here), and GabeMc certainly could (and perhaps should) have gone further.

Separately, diff, would you like to show me where it says that I've been banned or prevented from editing in any way? Otherwise, it's just an attempt on your part to bring an ally into this discussion. Classy. ˜danjel  06:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For someone so active at AfD, particularly in badgering of keep !votes with which you disagree, you're very defensive about articles that you yourself create. A clear case of WP:OWN. It'd probably help if the articles you create weren't so pathetically low quality, like Crab puff. Your usual strategy of wikidramamongering (here, and in your keep votes at the AfD's) isn't a good reason to retain those articles. ˜danjel  06:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll just point out here that being a stub, no matter how long it's been a stub, is not a valid reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• This nom (now speedy closed) appears wrong, maybe pointy, about the rest, as you are a quite experienced user, if you don't want your articles nominated for deletion (or tagged as unreferenced/ OR) it would be wise to add a couple of references as evidences of notability (and in accordance with WP:verifiability). Here you should thank The Bushranger for doing the work you had to do before moving this stub in the mainspace, here frankly I don't see any trace of notability or chance to kept the article. About the tags, all them appear correct. I don't see any action required here. Cavarrone (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the stalking edits were not actually wrong or detrimental. That being said, however, enough were that it is clear that the user's goal was to target a particular editor rather than improve the encyclopedia. The Bill Clinton article has already been discussed above, so I'll talk about Chili Burger. There's actually nothing wrong with nominating an article for a merge when it has been previously nominated in the past. But when it's already been recently nominated for one twice, and a merge was also additionally discussed at its AFD, you'd think that someone who had put the minimal effort into at least reading the talk page would know they'd need more than the half-assed sentence "A Chili burger is just a hamburger with chili on top, its not a distinct food type onto itself." This was not a legitimate attempt at improving the encyclopedia, but was an attempt to bother a specific editor. I'm all for assuming good faith, but when a user has over thirty edits in a row over the course of a few hours all targeting the articles of one user, there's clearly something going on. If this were someone else, perhaps unrelated or un-accused or recent stalking or someone who was not in what looks like what I'd think would be a god damn agreement not to antagonize each other it would be different. --Yaksar (let's chat) 11:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm mostly pissed because this all came around 24 hours after the close of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GabeMc:_personal_attacks.2C_deadhorse which you can still see above. When a user defends themself against allegations of hounding (maybe properly, I don't know) and then goes on a spree of edits purely on articles of the editor they were accused of targeting (regardless of whether some or most were proper) they're either looking for drama or have a 5 year old's sense of how to avoid trouble. Maybe what's bothering me is just how little attempt there was to at least obscure that this was pointy. Is it that hard to not antagonize each other, guys?--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, you are true, I haven't noticed the above discussion, and probably these actions were some kind of indirect response to the above discussion, a conduct that is clearly inappropriate. If not, it is a response to something else, as there is clearly a history behind these two users (I have no idea who/where/when it all started). That said, none of these actions is "patently" pointy or disruptive, and even in the Bill Clinton post-presidency AfD some editors are rising some decent arguments about merging the article's content in the parent article. The only way to solve the problems is to address the concerns, I have personally removed several tags after working on the marked issues, all the tagged/nominated articles have (as a minimum) several problems, for the main part it was just a question of time before someone else would have marked them. Cavarrone (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• In short: Obvious wikihounding. Some admin needs to trout Gabe, tell him to stop immediately. Let the noms/edits to date run their course, and strongly encourage editors to expand User_talk:Purplebackpack89#Gentleperson.27s_agreement to a gentleman's interaction ban. Don't waste time considering blocks or trying to "procedurally close" what has been done to date.--Milowent • 12:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Milowent's suggestions. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I quote Milowent: "Do not delete content but require nominator to merge into Occidental College ... he's got his panties in a wad over some surely inane dispute with article creator Purplebackpack89. If someone is going to waste our time with WP:POINTY bullshit, that incivility should be punished severely, by making the editor improve Misplaced Pages articles." 1) Real classy. 2) I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack, and 3) I have done more then my share of improving the project. GabeMc 03:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're like school in the summer, Gabe. NO CLASS. Own up to what you did like a man and move on. Now why is this thread still open and getting longer, I guess I'll have to keep reading.--Milowent • 03:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's also concerning that as PBP pointed out, an attempt to discuss this matter with Gabe by a third party before it was brought here was dismissed - an inappropriate use of rollback as well. Toddst1 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• This could have been a simple case of GabeMc recognizing that Purplebackpack89 had created a boatload of very poor quality articles, requiring the worst ones to be tagged in some manner, except for the behavior by GabeMc of unresponsiveness on his talk page, the questionable action at chili burger, the recent edit warring with PBP at Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People, the recent accusation of HOUNDING at WP:ANI#Wikihounding by Purplebackpack89, the prior conflict between the two editors at GabeMc's talk page, and the complete absence of an effort by GabeMc to explain to PBP the problems with the poor-quality articles. Seen in that light, this series of edits is pointy and hounding. Gabe should cease this avenue of toxic interaction. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent job summarizing it all. I concur.--v/r - TP 15:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The nomination of Post-presidency of Bill Clinton struck me as POINTy at a minimum. I suspect there is some merit to the hounding allegations. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. - 1) I started the tagging because I noticed that pbp had red-linked to Crab puff. I thought: "he must mean Crab Rangoon, but then a while later the link was blue. So I clicked on it to see that he had started an unnecessary stub, so I looked to see if he had created other articles in this fashion, and he had. I noticed that he creates articles and then abandons them without sourcing or ever working on them; as of last night, pbp had made 4 total edits to Chilli burger and 10 total edits to PPoBC, which certainly does not make him a major contributor or even a creator, he just peeled off someone elses work from other articles, he did not improve the articles. 2) As far as blanking and rollingback Yaskur's edits to my talk page 1) its my talk, 2) IMO, he was being a belligerent bully. Perhaps I should have attempted to talk it out with him, but a) he is a known friend of pbp, so I didn't see any neutrality from him, and b) I noticed that one of the very first pages Yaskur ever edited after joining Misplaced Pages was a Harry Potter article. In light of the recent dispute with pbp regarding Potter's inclusion in Vital Articles, I thought there was absolutely no chance whatsoever that Yaskur would hear my side, at all. So why bother? 3) Read this recent AN/I thread and them tell me that pbp wasn't defending his actions (quite similar to mine) regarding Dream Focus. I quote: "Also, looking at another editor's contributions from time to time is perfectly acceptable, so nobody is going to tell me not to do it ... Finally, 'now and again' doesn't make it HOUNDing; for it to be HOUNDing, it'd have to happen way more often than it does." (emphasis added) I quote Ryan Vessey: "Whether or not Purblebackpack is following Dream Focus' edits is irrelevant. If an editor is worried about the quality of another editor's article work or arguments, following their edits is a good way to correct errors." That's all I was doing. GabeMc 22:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• In hindsight, the Clinton tag may not have been 100% correct, but the others were IMO. I still say that there is only about 800-1000 words difference between them, and as such they should be merged. With proper editing, the BC article would gain maybe 300-500 words, and his article is currently only about 8,000 words, so its not like there isn't room. Right now, the Bill Clinton article looks like the remains of what's left after all the engaging detail has been stripped out to sub-articles, which will be a factor in any future FAC. Question. - If I noticed that pbp had a habit of creating unnecessary articles then completely abondoning them without further improvement, why can't I tag them? Also, this is all indicative of the general problem with pbp: if he likes the content, then it stays, while he brags about being a deletionist regarding the work of others. GabeMc 22:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, from today: Dream Focus to pbp: "Kindly stop making ridiculous accusations about me", pbp to Dream Focus: "No thanks, I'll keep making them." GabeMc 23:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I want to take you seriously, but considering that you seem to have, instead of responding my question, went back into my edit history and found that I edited a page in 2006 (or is it 2007, I can't remember when I joined) related to harry potter, which for some absurd reason I can't discern is related to all of this, it's really hard to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yaksar, that's exactly what pbp has been doing to me for weeks, and he has used my taste for popular music several times in attempts to humiliate me. I only looked at your contribs because I wanted to see if you were neutral. If you look at the talk page of WP:VA/E you will see that pbp and I have been going back and forth over the inclusion of Harry Potter as a Misplaced Pages Vital Article, (while the world's 3rd best-selling poet, Kahlil Gibran is not included). If I made a false assumption about you then I sincerely apologise. I wish I had tried to talk it out with you, but I may have jumped to a false conclusion based upon my feelings of being ganged-up on by numerous Wikibuddies of pbp over the last few weeks. For a brief history of pbp's propensity for hounding, look here, here, and here. GabeMc 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ok. I'm really not at all involved with that discussion, so I don't know the circumstances. The whole reason I jumped in here was not as anyone's friend or ally. I was the one who up above tried to tell everyone to just relax and stop trying to piss each other off, and seeing your edits got to me because it really does look like you intended to stir up trouble and rankle Purple. If you guys could all at the very least stop making edits designed to specifically antagonize each other, even if most of the edits themselves would be ok, it would go a long way.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, and FWIW, although I would much rather learn to work with pbp, I would be absolutley fine with an IB between the two of us, as he absolutely refuses to compromise, and he continuously demeans me in edit summaries and at talk pages. GabeMc 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

* FWIW, pbp is not a significant contributor to any of the articles I nomed for AfD.

• Nominated Post-presidency of Bill Clinton for deletion/merge, pbp has made 10 total edits there.
• KOXY, pbp has made 2 edits to the page.
• Crab puff, ‎pbp has made 2 edits to the page.
• Nominated Chili burger for merger, pbp has made 4 edits there, and he hasn't improved the article since 27 June 2010. GabeMc 00:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's strange to try to claim via counting edits that pbp is not a major contributor when pbp started them and contributed a large proportion of the text. Now you're being dishonest as well as tendentious. Reyk _YO! 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Copy-pasting material from one article into a "new" one, then completely abandoning it isn't really contributing to the article, is it? GabeMc 01:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing as it was kept, the Misplaced Pages community seems to think so. And again, by content added, in each of the articles you nominated for deletion or merger (and I might add, three of the four discussions have been closed as speedy keep), I am one of the people who has added the most content. The point, as Binksternet said above, that you did it because you have some axe to grind at WP:VA/E (not sure why you have the axe to grind, I'm the one who got called a "Type-A control freak). The assertion that GabeMc and I are going "back and forth" over Harry Potter is a bit inaccurate: GabeMc is actually alone in wanting Harry Potter deleted, and the rest of us dearly wish he would stop talking about it. Also, I resent the accusation that somebody who agrees with me is automatically my WikiBuddy. There's a difference between somebody finding that calling another editor a "Type-A control freak" is wrong and being someone's WikiBuddy. I don't even know a lot of people who post to your talkpage! And finally, my interactions with DreamFocus and Danjel, while tepid (I freely admit that I have had enough of both of them), do not give you an excuse to be disruptive towards me pbp 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @ Gabe: That seems quite an elitist thing to say. We each contribute to the best of our abilities and each of us has varying interests. Not every subject is featured-article material. It's inappropriate to denigrate another person's efforts as not being valuable, or try to dictate how others should pursue their editing careers. This guy said it well ; -- Dianna (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's really not what I meant to convey. All edits and contribs are valuable IMO. Keep in mind the context of pbp mocking my editing of "pop-culture" articles for the last month. GabeMc 01:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The "context" of PBP mocking your edits is exactly why so many people here are saying you are out of line with this hounding activity. You are basically confirming that a grudge against PBP was building for the last month and then it blew up into your hounding behavior. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Point taken, but Bink, I don't have a grudge againt pbp per se. What I don't like is hypocritical bullies who run people off Misplaced Pages so that they can dominate. He mocks and demeans and says "nix on that" and " I have to put my foot down here", etcetera, like he owns the place. That's what I see from pbp, and several others have seen the same character trait. Are you suggesting that pbp can follow Dream Focus around Misplaced Pages checking for errors and reverting him and confronting his work, but that I can't one time ever take a gander through his collection of unreferenced stubs? If we shouldn't tag-and-run, then someone should take away the tags, because I'm not going to waste my time sourcing other people stubs in topics I am not versed or interested, would you? What am I missing here, two wrongs don't make a right, but nobody told pbp to back-off Dream Focus, did they? GabeMc 02:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• If I know anything about Dream Focus, it's that he can take care of himself. He's a pretty tough guy.--v/r - TP 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would say the same thing about pbp. GabeMc 20:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Gabe, you're a brilliant guy. What say you disengage from this, informally decide to stay out of each other's way for a while? I am sure you have other things to be getting on with. I can see you have acted with the best of intentions but it looks like it's created more heat than light. It happens. Walk away. --John (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• John, FWIW, I think pbp and I have now worked out our differences, and I have apologised extensively for my rude behaviour. Thanks for your concern. GabeMc 00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Premature Closure????

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

A moment ago, I was admonished for prematurely closing AFDs.

I just happened to come across these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLA_Building

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neutra_VDL_Studio_and_Residences

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Desert_Studies_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_California_Marine_Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/W._K._Kellogg_Arabian_Horse_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bronco_Student_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cal_Poly_Pomona_Broncos_men%27s_basketball

--Scaldjosh (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And those were nominated by a block-evading sockpuppet account; as bad-faith nominations, those were speedy closed, by an admin under WP:SK2. Your closures (, , ) were inappropriate non-admin closures of disccusions that were not clearly bad-faith, and in one case you attempted to undo the reversion of your inappropriate close (). My advice (given that you just came off an unrelated block) would be to take a deep breath, and simply edit for awhile, instead of doing things like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've notified the admin who closed those of this discussion, which you failed to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not blaming anyone. I don't think that these were sour grapes because:

1. These were nominated for deletion with valid reasons (Some are only one-line atricles while others don't 've any references)

2. The articles were not vandalised or nominated for speedy deletion. The nominations were closed within 30 minutes and the result was based on one or two votes.

3. Since the nominations did not get reverted, I believe that other Wikipedians should 've a chance to voice their opinions before a judgement is passed. Misplaced Pages is a democratic encyclopedia--Scaldjosh (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A saying, the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime Scaldjosh blocked as a sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000. Elockid 13:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Enbionycaar

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

‎Enbionycaar (talk · contribs)

Obviously the same guy who edit-warred as an IP over Germanic peoples so that it finally had to be indef-protected. Though he was advised by an uninvolved editor to seek consensus and discuss the issue, said user now created a fork and wants to war a link to his fork into the article. Maybe just clueless, but definitely disruptive, esp. since he refuses to participate in ongoing discussions. The main goal seems to be to avoid them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

why are you always lying about me not posting on the talkpages if you look at them am involved in all of them and that germanic peoples modern article was not a fork since most of the text is not included in the original article and it was requested by another user at the germanic peoples talkpage Enbionycaar (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask uninvolved editors to examine the talkpage and the level of "involvement" and actual conversation by/with this editor. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• This issue appears to be about the time scope of the Germanic peoples article. One side wants to limit the time scope of the article so that the term "Germanic peoples" is limited to when certain people were organized by tribes - a time before when nation states such as German, Norway, Sweden, etc. existed and not "to any group after the Germanic polities had evolved into mediaeval states by the end of the 1st millennium AD," so that term "Germanic peoples" is not normally applied to anything later than the Early Middle Ages. The other side wants to extend time scope the Germanic peoples article to cover "modern nation states with Germanic languages." Enbionycaar recently created Germanic peoples (modern) (now at AfD). I edited the AfD to remove a bad faith accusation and posted a note on Seb_az86556's talk page. Looking at the Germanic peoples talk page and its archives, this appears to be a long term dispute in which editors have not been able to resolve and move on. As a formal discussion, the AfD might bring closure to this issue so editors can move on. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. The point is that people would welcome participation in said discussion, and have asked for input numerous times; one editor, Enbionycaar, flat-out refuses to participate. How do you deal with someone who will simply not engage in conversation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See? Now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

i simply reverted your unconstructive edits Enbionycaar (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. "I simply revert" is all you ever do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

you are not following good faith policies and you lie alot Enbionycaar (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that (use <s></s>). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's worth noting, it's clear that Ebionycaar made a series of 10 edits to his user page to bypass the semiprotection on Germanic peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with that? i just wanted to edit so i did so per wp:policies of waiting 4 days and making 10 edits Enbionycaar (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Seb_az86556

(was separate section opened by Enbionycaar. Consolidated)

this user stalks me on a all my edits and makes lies about "how i NEVER discuss my edits" he is edit warring himself by the way without following basic[REDACTED] guidelines like good faith and wp:civil and wp:3rr so can someone look on his non constructive editing Enbionycaar (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Enbionycaar (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What's your point posting that link? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What is yours Enbionycaar (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Read it. It shows your use of talkpages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I'm concerned, Enbionycaar, your the one who is being disruptive here. Seb's edits are clearly constructive to the article and you are being unreasonable. In any case, you should both see the bold, revert, discuss essay who has some helpful tips and do not edit war. Use Misplaced Pages's talk pages and discuss, that's the general convention. How is Seb stalking here anyways? TBrandley 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

what do you mean? he repeatedly revering all my edits so he is also obviosly edit warring Enbionycaar (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on fire today. Another sockpuppet blocked. That's Chaosname (talk · contribs) if anybody's wondering. Elockid 18:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

New User:Unotretre sock?

Legal threat

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

In the edit summary, "Reverting sabotaged page. We have logged the computer IP numbers and reported to police."

User seems to be a single purpose account showing serious ownership tendencies at Rebound therapy. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and explained the policy to User:Paul V Kaye. The thought of police action over this is laughable, but that's not the point. James086 15:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor User:Paul V Kaye has been using[REDACTED] as a host for advertising literature for some time. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Pgg804

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

I am concerned at this account, which appears to be used mainly for posting antisemitic smears and personal attacks. I first came across him/her with this edit on Talk:Noam Chomsky, where he claims that antisemitic attacks by Germans on Jews were actually evidence of "Jewish anti-German hatred". I removed this soapboxing, to be met with this response, in which s/he repeats the original claim, throws in a gratuitous and irrelevant about Israeli brutality in Gaza, and then talks about "people of your sort". Looking at this editor's other edits, I found this edit claiming that concentration camp deaths were the result of allied bombing of pharmaceutical factories; this edit claiming Jews "ratcheted up hatred" of Nazi Germany, and drawing a parallel with Shylock; this edit claiming that Misplaced Pages is "run by Christian hating Jews."; this edit clainming that "Misplaced Pages is a Jewish Website. It's owned and run by Jews. In regards to WW II history its primary goal, like that of powerful Jewish organizations, is to focus on Jewish suffering, attack anyone who questions their version of what happened and minimize the suffering of everyone else by simply ignoring it"; this edit claiming that the US government "is run by a Jewish elite to advance the interests of Israel and Jews" and many similar charming remarks. Since our first encounter, Pgg has continued to make antisemitic edits. The most recent edit was this one yesterday, stating that "The Anti-Defamation league is a racist organization dedicated to promoting the advancement of Jews over others. They promote anti-Arab, anti-German, anti-European, anti-Islamic and anti-Christian attitudes. They do not believe in freedom of speech and use hate speech towards those whose opinions they don't like. Along with AIPAC, they are a key driving force behind the wars, propaganda and hatred towards Muslim countries and the murders that take place in countries like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc. They believe Jews are the "chosen people" and the country they are loyal to is Israel."

The more I look into this user's edits, the more antisemitic remarks I find. and many more. In fact, just take any edit at random. In short, I do not believe that Pgg804 is here to improve this encyclopaedia, but rather to use it as a platform for spreading antisemitic lies and propaganda, holocaust denial and apologia for Nazi Germany. Could an admin please look at this and take appropriate action. RolandR (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

While editors can choose to edit on any subject of their choosing, this is uncivil POV pushing. I'd support a block, all of their edits appear to be soapboxing, not an effort to create a neutral encyclopedia. James086 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• These are clear examples of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA. This style of interaction and tendentious editing is unacceptable. - MrX 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. indefinitely. I don't see any need to discuss this at all, it is glaringly obvious what they are here to do, it isn't anything good. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I'm marked by 2channel. Being wiki-stalked, character assassination, wholesale reverts

In regards to User:Moscowconnection. It all started here(I know it's a long read but please look over it). Since then he proceeds to revert my edits outside of the current discussion , with zero rationale given. Right now he has hijacked the proposal discussion into some sort of defamation campaign. It's nothing but trying to find dirt on me at this point. He himself admitted that I'm being watched by 2channel link to site , and someone over there was requesting an English speaker to help them take care of me or something. Says that I'm " Korean :D"(?) and that I "do evil things in[REDACTED] :D". Accused me of bullying and that my edits are "tendencious". Constant ad-hominem attacks like this that just come from left-feild. This is just malicious at this point. I swear this guy has some weird vendetta against me. There's obvious POV pushing, that and 2channel has been linked with disruptive canvassing against Korean articles . I'm trying not to reply to this guy at this point. Stateofyolandia (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Will some sane and uninvolved person (I'm 0 for 2) please say something that puts a stop to this. Just one thing: Moscow Connection, article talk pages exist to talk about articles, not about other editors. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already stopped, by the way. If it doesn't look right, I won't say a thing here anymore. I was simply investigating and I thought it was useful for Misplaced Pages, etc. Thank you too. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found this edit by Stateofyolandia in the Korean Misplaced Pages: . He posted on Historiographer's talk page (사용자:Ph is Historiographer, their user pages are linked). Therefore, they are not the same person. I apologize to Historiographer for my guess. It did look strange that Stateofyolandia reverted to Historiographer's versions twice: , , and the latter edit summary was very similar to this: . So EJcarter's hypothesis was not improbable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Moscowconnection, you need to stop posting shit here unless someone else says something.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I saw the linked 2ch post. The original ja is 英語版ウィキペディアの朝鮮の歴史テンプレートで、韓国人が漢四郡を削除して隠蔽しようとします。誰か英語ができる人漢四郡を復帰させて下さい。 and the translation is At en:WP, a Korean editor is trying to remove Four Commanderies of Han from the Korean history template and conceal the fact of it. If there are en speakers, please restore Four Commanderies of Han. There is no accusation at all. I don't understand the OP and Moscow Connection. Oda Mari (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I noted to OP that he had been discussed on 2channel. I didn't understand half of the 2channel post, so I just jokingly said "evil things" and went to investigate. I don't have any idea what he thought, but I can see what he wants my words to look like. I added as many smilies as I possibly could: . Seven minutes later I explained to him what "evil" he did: . This was his reply: . He said there had been a discussion to remove Four Commanderies of Han from the template, while actually the user who started the discussion said in the last reply that it was part of Korean history. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, incivility and racist remarks by Ozan192

Ozan192 is stating racist remarks and spreading disruptive activity throughout Turkey/Kurdish/Armenian related articles which is fueled by a severe case of battlefield mentality.

• He has said, "Armenian users should not be allowed to edit pages on Turkey. Armenian sources should not be used on pages to do with Turkey. Both are bound to be biased and most likely works of fiction"
• He has said, Any source on Turkey written by an Armenian cannot be used on pages related to Turkey.
• He has implied that Kurds and Armenians are vandals by stating I'm not going to allow Kurds and Armenians to vandalize pages to do with Turkey.
• He has violated WP:NCGN by removing Armenian and Kurdish native names of various cities in Turkey regardless of whether they are sourced or not: and dozens more (please see contributions for the entire list)
• He has said that all sources of certain Kurdish related articles are unreliable and that Kurdish and Armenian sources shouldn't be allowed on Misplaced Pages.
• He has repeatedly called me and others Kurdish irredentist nationalists in his edit-summaries after I and others have reverted his disruptive edits:
• All his edits are unsigned.
• After I politely warned him, he responded by saying "was that a joke?" It is impossible to work with such an editor. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's Ozan192 (talk · contribs), and I have to agree with Proudbolsahye. Ozan obviously does not assume good faith, routinely labels people whose opinions he dislikes "irredentist nationalists", claims sources such as the BBC, Encyclopedia Britannica, the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, and a book published by Oxford University Press "dead and unreliable", and generally has a battleground mentality. Even when he has a point, such as with the removal of unsourced Kurdish place names, his attitude makes it very hard to work constructively with him, and since he simply labels sources that may be present as "biased", I don't think the lack of sources is really what his campaign is about. Huon (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely. The personal attacks and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality are extreme. One cannot simply dismiss all sources from a certain country/ethnicity as inherently biased. While the person can appeal the block, they'll need to show a 100% change in their attitude to begin editing again. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Skookum

Skookum1 (talk · contribs) was asked by me (after a really weird situation in IRC-help) about a dubious source to one paragraph in a company's FAQ page for the article Skookum. He proceeded to wave his supposed credentials in my face, and saying "that that was the first cite for this page when it began" and (same diff) " Thing is, it's a valid cite, what's on it is true" and "It's true, what's on it", showing a blatant misunderstanding of what a reliable source is. He then, after I take it to WP:RSN proceeds to make these comments: "but then this is wikpedia, where the lies of the mainstream media can be repeated as if factual because the definition of "reliable sources" includes them and excludes non-mainstream media (independent news blogs)" "pussant rulebook-follower" "has just done the lazy, uninformed route by wanting it deleted" "Look up "cupidity" in re "blogs are unreliable sources because they have no editorial oversight" is hogwash" "A consensus of fools s only foolishness.......why have you made this article so important to get rid of that you are attacking, and now threatening, one of its principal authors?" "And you're not my equal, nowhere near it." " Get 40,000+ edits and start as many articles as I have, then you might come halfway close.". "nonsensical scolds". There's some more on WP:RSN too.

The issue here is one of WP:IDHT when confronted about reliability of a source, and attempted credential-mongering (I invented that term, so if there's a better one feel free to tell me) to say a blatantly unreliable source is reliable. He also claims that he is above consensus, and that consensus is foolishness. He keeps beating the dead horse after the consensus began to (and pretty well finished) emerging at WP:RSN that he was wrong. There's also some semi-attacky comments, regarding equality of editors on Misplaced Pages based on edit count, and calling other users fools, lazy, and scolds. I was advised to bring it up here for a community decision on something, but this person is bordering on not here to be a part of a community. Any input is appreciated. gwickwire_editing 03:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also notified gwickwire_editing 03:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

gwickwire asked me to comment here. I agre that Skookum's behavior is truly opposed to the standards one might glean from the five pillars. When his source is challenged, rather than try to achieve consensus or prove it is reliable, he merely flaunts his alleged credentials as an editor or a "Chinookologist". At the very least, he needs to understand in no-uncertain-terms that he should avoid using his personal website as a source. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason I asked him to comment is he was the one who suggested I bring it here upon consultation. gwickwire_editing 03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulls**t, you threatened to come here after repeatedly attacking me and insulting my intelligence on my own talkpage. Given this and your immediate participation in User:Huon's AfD on Skookum, and your evident polling (re Someguy's post here) what I'm seeing/feeling is a witchhunt. qwickwire has also said in his attacks on me on my talkpage "I personally would like to see you gone".....oh really? So who's attacking who? Saying he felt I was "threatening" him with my credentials as a chinookologist (such as they are) then turning around and threatening me, and now coming here to fulfill his threats. Why is this being made such a firestorm when the article could use expansion and further citation, and some understanding of the subject matter instead of rejecting it out of hand......when articles like Quadripoint are allowed to stand? This happened on my talkpage, it didn't happen on an article talkpage; I was attacked/criticized and defended myself....oh, apparently I'm "unwilling to listen" and "attack-y" too (see the "debate" on my talkpage). Why the witchhunt?Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Include context. I made that comment saying that I don't want editors here who won't listen to consensus and have no regard for policy. Therefore, I said I'd like it if you left. Maybe it was a bit harsh, and I'll go ahead and say now that it was a bit over the line, but that doesn't excuse you. gwickwire_editing 03:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Skookum1's feeling cornered & frustrated, right now. Let things settle down for awhile. There's no need for a block. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So because he's frustrated he's allowed to make (albeit minor) personal attacks, claim he's above consensus, and refuse to listen to a RSN decision? gwickwire_editing 03:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is against you on the parallel AfD which you so eagerly joined in; I'm not the only one who realizes the value and meaning of the article you attacked me over; you made (albeit minor) personal attacks on me while attacking the cite you don't like (which a "real" chinookologist happened to agree with so much he included it verbatim in his book). Go head, google "skookum" and see what you find, instead of trying to tear an official strip off me here and chiming in with the deletionist agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Given your choice of username, are you in the business of selling these snookum dolls or whatever they are? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is, the term is generic, not a brand name, so no sensible admin would block him for that. They might as well block you for 'promoting' baseball in your user name. 5.12.84.31 (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There are endless sources demonstrating the notability of baseball. And of Rumania, for that matter. Not so much, for this snookums thing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, Bugs, I'd call you a cheechako, but I realize you don't live in the Pacific Northwest anyway. It wasn't all that long ago that anyone in the PNW, at least north of Oregon, who didn't know what skookum meant was marking themselves as a cheechako. These days though, even natives can't be assumed to know what cheechako means, let alone skookum. Still, it's obvious from your comments you don't know what you are talking about. Pfly (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no association with any product or company using this name; it is a username I had long before I came to Misplaced Pages and I grew up speaking it, assuming it was normal English (which in my part of the country, it is). It's Skookum-One like a CB handle but as "skookum one" e.g. "that's a skookum one" (big and hefty, or maybe a really good pie) or "he's a skookum one" (reliable, trustworthy, probably also big and solid but maybe small and tough). There is no COI or AUTO or OWN going on here, only DONOTDELETE. It's because this word is part of my culture, my upbringing, and I know its full context and all the ways it has been put to use in commerce and geography and also in music and robotics......there's more here than a dictionary meaning, and that there are standalone uses......and there's lots of cites. So instead, someone picked a fight with me, maybe triggered by seeing my username, and came at me; with threats and accusing me of threats. Yes User:The Interior is right, I do have a temper, and very often rightly so when accused of what I am not doing and threats are made out of the blue over something the assailant knows nothing about and is just being a particularist on a particular cite; instead of researching more to see if the article can be improved, to dispute the person with expertise on the subject very hostilely and drag it here, and then support a PROD. C'mon now.......do you think I'd go through all this to pitch dolls or sell my kittens?Skookum1 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Baseball Bugs thinks you're selling an adjective "thing" which also happens to be a given name for goat !. For that you should be instabanned. End of story. That's how ANI works. Or not. Behehehee. 5.12.69.171 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is going more about the topic/content of the source/articleLet's drink our morning coffee before booting up the computer. Totally read everything here wrong gwickwire_editing 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC) and less about the conduct of the user in question, just saying. gwickwire_editing 14:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be related to the weak case you've put forward for blocking a hard-working yet temperamental editor. Yes, he has a temper. And yes, if you come at him hard enough, he'll probably react by doing something block-worthy. But why bother. The inciting incident here is very inconsequential. How is the encyclopedia improved by this ANI thread? The Interior (Talk) 14:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is "hard-working" and "temperamental" isn't the issue. The issue is that when he was questioned about this source he claimed that since he knew the stuff to be true, it was a reliable source. Then, when at RSN people said he was wrong, he claimed that he was going to ignore them, selfsite an admitted unreliable source, and leave the page in its current state as a dictionary entry. In the process, he made a few personal attacks, and many comments that were incivil. You're basically saying that since he does make some good edits he is immune to a block, and that's not true. gwickwire_editing 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuuuuse meee, what's not true is that that I never said it was an "admitted unreliable source", I said that its content was valid - as any other chinookologist would back me up on, and as noted Jim Holton has used it in his book verbatim (they didn't get it from him, I know Jim); and my own site (http://www.cayoosh.net/hiyu/ - which I put up years ago and barely work on and am not here to promote - is considered a reliable source by other Chinook studies people. Skookum Tools put up a site on local folk language/history and it has some really interesting bits; and it's evidence of how current and popular this term is; so I was right, and now backed up by a published cite, and you still want to complain that I "admitted" something was unreliable when I explicitly did NOT, I averred that it was verifiable and also valid and, given that it is part of popular culture/heritage, and because of that such a cite is clear evidence of how current the understanding and popularity of it is the general culture. I can't think of any chinookologist or even a professional linguist who would dispute that citation; that such a fuss has been made over a page that has verifiable information to the degree to this has gone; to an ANI and a AfD in a double-pronged attack. Your misrepresentations of me and your overreactions to me (being "threatened" by me being a chinookologist and saying you are equal to me....not in this field, you're not, and that's not OR, that's testimony. Sources such as Skookum Tools are regularly cited in actual Chinook studies works and publications because they are the fact and presence/evidence of CJ in contemporary and historical culture and the local argot and business/org nomenclature. No academic paper on this could conscionably say that a popular source was not valid on a subject about popular culture. That this was catapaulted to ANI and AfD at the same time, after this article's been around for a while, is just silly (and kinda mean, what I'm hearing, and whiny); how many hours of my time, never mind yours, have you wasted doing this instead of actually writing an article - or finding out more about this subject and improving the article instead of just taking a weedwhacker to something that wasn't a weed? To me, this ANI isn't about the content, or about me, it's about you.Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued person attacks on other user by User:Juddhoward

User:Juddhoward has engaged in personal attacks in his summaries of his edits to the article Pope Francis such as these two "(cur | prev) 01:29, 26 March 2013‎ Juddhoward(talk | contribs)‎. . (116,411 bytes) (-20)‎ . .(Even a confused mind crammed with incoherent theology should be able to appreciate that "homosexuality" encompasses SSM.) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:24, 26 March 2013‎ Juddhoward(talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,431 bytes) (+366)‎ . .(Does the good Lord not saying something about cleaving to the truth? The paragraph does not already mention this, my lying, whitewashing friend) (undo)". I brought this up on the talk page and they suggested mentioning it here. I have asked Juddhoward to refrain from personal attacks on other people. In his most recent response on his talk page he essentially accused me of being a potential child molestor because he feels that I am a religious person. I do not think such accusations are in anyway appropriate on wikipedia. He has gone into behavior that strikes me as being totally out of line an inapropriate. He has consistently demonstated a failure to be anywhere near civil in[REDACTED] discussions. People should not be accused of crimes because of their actual or assumed religious views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Drmies (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I had typed up a long and hopefully helpful commentary on his page to try and help him see the light, but lost it in an edit conflict. Ah well. His continuing edit summaries indicate it was probably a vain hope anway as he's on a fast track to TPA revocation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't you love it when the C- student in Freshman Comp pulls out the thesaurus and overreaches? "With such efficiency and a vacuous life", I take that first part as a compliment and the second part as a wished-for blessing. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving user talk to article talk page

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

User:Candicell moved his/her talk page to the talk page for an article in the main space Talk:Dr. Adil Ramzan. The article was also created by user and has subsequently been deleted. How do you revert this type of move? I'm also unable to warn the editor as the talk page no longer exists since the redirect talk page has been deleted. Further instructions or action appreciated. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it was deleted, you need an admin to undelete the deleted talk page, and then it can be moved back to User talk:Candicell just like any other page. I've done this; the talk page should be in its right spot now. Writ Keeper (t + c) 03:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated aggressions

There are repeated vile attacks by 124.185.17.216 , , , . Both another user and I have pointed out WP:FORUM but the IP keeps continuing to violate that princople, as well as violating WP:NPA. The fact that it takes places at an article at the heart of the WP:ARBMAC-ruling only makes it worse.Jeppiz (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on now. Yes you two pointed to FORUM--in edit summaries. I find it odd that neither of you had the energy, will power, determination, or common sense to mention this on the user's talk page, for instance, which is where such things need to start, yet you had no qualms about starting an ANI thread. Sure, their comments were not OK, but please act like a grown-up and take care of these matters in the appropriate way. Did you see what it says on the top of this very page? Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Go deal with it. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What should also be noted is that this is taking place on a talk page, and generally removing another person's comments are a violation of WP:TPG --Kyohyi (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My comments were directly removed without any consultation, or link to my user page. As per above this is a form of censorship of speech against the truth of the Macedonian state and a violation of WP:TPG if the user had an issue they would be more than welcome to raise it with me, or discuss the matters at hand. This is nothing more than petty censorship. You would also take note to realise that it is not the same user making both sets of comments so this is hardly "repeated". --124.185.17.216 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually care much to discuss with IPs who compare other users to Hitler, that is true. My personal opinion is that such people should be banned from Misplaced Pages at sight. And removing comments that are purely intended to insult others and make no attempt to discuss how to improve the article is not a violation of WP:TPG.Jeppiz (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP editor, Misplaced Pages is not a forum, as you have seen. Your commentary is unwelcome here. Make such remarks or comparisons again and you will be blocked: "this is a form of censorship of speech against the truth of the Macedonian state" is utter nonsense. I hope that is clear. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum issue but a matter of reality about Titoism and other states modeled on facist ideology and the creation of modern Macedonia after World War II. It was a purely divisive name created by Tito to incite racist and nationalist hatred of the neighbouring Greek population. The irony of the facts is that it continues to work more than 70 years after the fact. This matter is not debatable. The creation of nationalism under a false identity by Tito is the issue here and any Macedonian smart enough should understand this.

The fact I raised this as a talk issue rather than an article issue does not make it a forum discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.17.216 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not about The Truth. It is about verifiable facts. "Any Macedonian" is not a reliable source, please provide sources for your claims. If you cannot, this cannot be on Misplaced Pages; if you can, it should be included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

These sources are already provided in articles pertaining to the Macedonian naming dispute and other similar articles that attempt to raise issue with the nationalist agenda of the current Macedonian state. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages has kowtowed to misinformation from Slavic Macedonians about the "history" of their nation rather than promoting education of the facts as they are --124.185.17.216 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

Legal threat

...in the edit summary: "Slanderous and if posted again legal action will be made." For what it's worth, the content in question has two reliable sources, and is neutrally phrased - not slander, in my opinion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for legal threats. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• On the basis of WP:DOLT, I had look at that section. Atrocious. Did anyone actually bother to read what was there and check the sources? I removed the second paragraph which was sourced solely to an anonymous gossip column on the Huffington Post, which was quoting this tabloid, which was quoting an anonymous "insider". The second source listed didn't mention Byrne at all. It was a review of a film in which her alleged new boyfriend had appeared. Voceditenore (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Page curation reviewer rights

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

I am concerned about User:Lgcsmasamiya's use of many Misplaced Pages tools (see contributions), not least of which are the reviewer rights they deploy most often under Page Curation. Their talk page shows that many of their actions have been reversed by other editors. They do not confine their lack of understanding to reviewer rights, regrettably, but appear to use many tools with an imperfect understanding of the policies and procedures on Misplaced Pages.

Their talk page shows no attempt to engage with any of the people having concerns about their actions, otherwise we could use a quiet word and education process to help them understand that their actions are out of kilter with how[REDACTED] works.

I have fired a strong warning shot at the current foot of their talk page, but the lack of any prior engagement does not give me confidence that this will bear fruit. Thus I am opening this discussion in the hope that they may receive the education they need. They have many good edits, but are in danger of being a wholly negative benefit for the project if we do not help them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whoa. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • They arn't constructive and this is a side point to the real matter at hand, but Tim Trent, you really need to stop calling it vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVAND. That said, something does need to be done. Can we find a mentor?--v/r - TP 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Wait--Page Curation is a tool, not a right, correct? All that's required is being autoconfirmed, so there is no box we can uncheck. TParis, good points. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That's correct, Drmies; the "reviewer" right refers to pending changes, not to the Page Curation tool, so removing it wouldn't be helpful in this case. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
        • No probs, TP. I simply chose the best available warning shot. I reserve the right to make mistakes and to be corrected :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
          • You have no rights on Misplaced Pages, no mistakes, NOW BURN IN HELL!!!!--v/r - TP 17:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
            • At risk of having a religion vs atheism discussion, I accept what you say at face value. All my friends will be in the place you postulate anyway :) Now, after edit conflict, I imagine one can remove reviewer rights if a discussion has not borne fruit, but the odd deployment of other tools does require mentoring as well. The paradox is that there are also excellent decisions in the contributions list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
              • After the list of un-Christ-like things I've done, I'll see you there.--v/r - TP 17:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
                • Fiddle Faddle, there are no user rights that you can take away to prevent someone from using the page curation tool. The only method at our disposal to do that is to enact a topic ban. That would be the next logical step if the user refuses to educate themselves on how to patrol properly. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 18:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • For the record, they have never once edited their talk page. A block might actually be the next step to get their attention.--v/r - TP 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
                    • This has been going on for months, with no sign of Lgcsmasamiya getting any clue and never a response - I think we really need a block here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
                      • I mistakenly thought that reviewer rights could be revoked in the case of misuse, but apparently that only applies to pending changes reviewer rights. I don't think this editor should be reviewing new pages until they can articulate that they understand the criteria for marking pages as reviewed. Responses like "I'm new here and i'm trying to do my best reviewing new articles, i do'nt understand why i will be blocked by "Vanndalism"." lead me to believe that they are may not have the competency for the task. Perhaps asking them to stop reviewing articles would be sufficient. - MrX 21:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The user has declared on their talk page that they are new. Newness is relative, and their contributions log shodul be checked. I feel we are at a WP:COMPETENCE stage here. This goes back to my original concern which is one of improving their wiki-education. I do not like the blocking of users who have the right spirit even when they use the tools imperfectly, even for a short acting block. If they will engage, and it appears that they mght, then I believe mentoring is the right way, and this includes allowing them to continue reviewing and using other tools. If they express or exhibit an inability or an unwillingness to learn I feel we should think again. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The issue may also be language. The editor's home wiki is es, though they have made no edits there. See Special:CentralAuth/Lgcsmasamiya which shows 1,280, presumably more now, edits on en, and no edits elsewhere, with their first edit in this diff. As first edits go it is the standard one expects from a user feeling their way, but I am concerned that they are still feeling their way today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Lgcsmasamiya is continuing on his course without responding to this complaint. For instance here he puts Lou Grant (season 1) into Category:1978 television specials, which is incorrect since specials are individual programs, not seasons of a show. He is now up to 1,291 edits and many of these may need to be reverted unless someone can persuade him to stop. My own effort on his talk page was not successful. A block per WP:COMPETENCE is appropriate unless people are willing to do all the reverts necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've issued a 24-hour block, which anyone is welcome to revert if we get an adequate response -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted a couple more {{unreferenced}} tags - there were no inline citations, but there were "References" sections with sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

What do you guys say about this? Breese Anderson (talk · contribs) seems to have only three edits, one of which is to WP:NHD & other two to articles. All of them today. I think this is the same guy as Techwriter2B (talk · contribs) and the IP at NHD. Please see the post at WP:NHD#Bad writing. Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Techwriter2B says that the physical location is Connecticut & servers are from AT&T. WhatIsMyIPAddress.com confirms that this guy's ISP is AT&T and location is CT. I haven't reported this to SPI, but I think CheckUser evidence might be needed to confirm this. --Ushau97 15:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A number of other editors and I have been dealing with Techwriter2B for years now and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this is him/her. None at all. I am extremely familiar with this LTA's telltale practices and techniques as explained in great detail in Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Techwriter2B and this current event fits every one of them. This LTA was permanently banned from WP by the community on July 18, 2010. Centpacrr (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Then report the editor to sockpuppet investigations. TBrandley 03:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

IP sock using AWS?

At the Windows 8 article I am seeing a series of edits ( , , ), also at its talk page ( , , ), by what is clearly the same person using different IPs. The ever-changing IPs are apparently coming from virtual machines at Amazon Web Services (AWS). (It is characteristic of AWS VMs that each gets a different IP every time it is started, unless you pay extra for a static IP.) I don't know if this person has done any other edits under different IPs, not without searching 256x256 possible IPs.

The edits are not really abusive yet, and may simply indicate unfamiliarity with WP. But for now they clearly show a combative tone ("I want it gone"), which combined with the IP-hopping seemed to me to warrant a "hey, you might want to look at this" notice here.

I'm notifying under the last seen IP, but I doubt that will accomplish much. Jeh (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week. -- Dianna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School edit warring

Not an emergency, but I'd like to get some more eyes on Austrian School. For the past couple months, there has been slow moving edit warring, adding and removing some criticisms of the group. Thus far, I've fully protected the page a couple of times and issued one block. None of this has changed things, and the edit warring continues unabated. I'm hesitant to spring for longer full protection or block people for the slow moving edit war. I'd love if some uninvolved users could offer some suggestions/or take action here. (Note that this wiki-conflict has received mainstream media attention.) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

thx, i will watch the ANI and offer help if possible. perhaps a good starting point would be to trim the articles length? the concept appears very straightforward not needing such a long article. one way might be ask the editors to create a sandbox version where only text can be removed then compare the results perhaps finding common ground. excess text could be recycled into other existing articles and new articles created as needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's great. I think I have read enough to say with some confidence that Byelf (talk · contribs) is an obstructionist who is guilty of edit-warring and should be blocked if they make another Krugman-related edit to that article again. As far as I'm concerned they should be topic-banned. Now, the RfC is a bit less clear and overwhelming than I'd like it to be (for the fans: it's in the talk page archive, page 6), but it supports LK's reverts. I don't know about article length--the thing as a whole seems moderately decently balanced, but the constant bickering is amazing, and I'd block Byelf for a month (they've already been blocked three times for the same thing) if those edits had been more recent than two days ago. Does that help, Mark? Thanks for dragging me into this, pal. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"I think I have read enough to say with some confidence that Byelf (talk · contribs) is an obstructionist" One, this ad hominem, and is irrelevant to the issue. Also, based on what arguments? Why am I an 'obstructionist'?

"As far as I'm concerned they should be topic-banned." Because?

"Now, the RfC is a bit less clear and overwhelming than I'd like it to be." The RfC included, I'm not making this up, literally "blah blah blah" in it. That's not a legitimate proposal for being voted on.

"I'd block Byelf for a month" Why?

"(they've already been blocked three times for the same thing)" That's not relevant to whether or not I should be again.

I'd also like to note that you do not mention any of the actual issues involved here (arguments for/against inclusion). I'll also add that I support inclusion of the Krugman material, just not in a particular form, but rather in another, because of what I see as a neutrality issue.

In any case, it's not relevant: other editors have repeatedly put the material in without consensus and without addressing opponents arguments. So I'm just following site policy and insisting that people who want content in address criticisms of it (prior to a consensus inclusion, which has not yet occurred).

Apparently, we're just supposed to take your word for it that I'm doing bad things on the page, but opponents to my edits are not? Based on what? I don't see a substantive contribution here, other than "Bfelf sucks". This isn't conducive to quality on this site. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 March 2013

Proposal: Nominally block the involved editors from editing the criticism section of the article. Failure to abide by the nominal block will result in a indefinite block from the page. --☥NEO (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support.--☥NEO (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

MC Kinky

This is probably going to be a very painful experience because I spent well over a week writing MC Kinky. User:FERAL is KINKY has been complaining that her article is full of weird information. I don't see it myself given that I've listed 21 different sources (3 primary, 18 secondary), but I want an independent opinion.--Launchballer 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of the prose needs work, but that's a different story. There are WP:BLP concerns in this article. I'm a tad uneasy that the allegations of expulsion from school and arrest for solicitation are tied only to one source - Allmusic.com, not exactly a paragon for credible journalism.--WaltCip (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Removed.--Launchballer 21:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User making threats of cyber attacks...

Issues on AE

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

An IP editor has filed an AE request at AE. this has been reverted by Giano as he seems to think IP editors have no rights I assume someone will correct him on this. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If the editor wishes to request an arbitration enforcement, they can sign in to their account to do it. That way we have transparency about who is making the request. That forum is far too easily gamed by trolls for IPs to be starting threads there. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not smart enough to figure out this AE stuff, but sheesh, Darkness, surely you have better things to do than to edit-war over a request that will most likely quickly be nixed. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP editors have the same rights as we do, Giano has now hit 4RR removing this IP complaint as well as mine. Darkness Shines (talk)

No. In this case IPs do not have the same rights. Let me remind you of the notice at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement:

• "Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themself."
• "At the discretion of the administrator processing the request, editors who repeatedly file substantially meritless requests may be sanctioned for disrupting the Arbitration Enforcement process; editors who file clearly groundless, frivolous, vexatious, or bad-faith requests may be similarly sanctioned, even for a first offense."

If IPs can file, then any editor with 'unclean hands' will simply log out to make the request and avoid any possibility of boomerang. Not an acceptable situation for such serious matters. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've just full protected the page for three hours, so hopefully there will be no edit warring blocks. I realize this is out of the norm, so anyone is free to unprotect early. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think blocks would have been more appropriate here, as that is such a highly used board that can't be shut down for 3 hours. --Rschen7754 22:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, I'll unprotect if you issue the blocks... Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yer, 14 hours without a post before the IP troll showed up. We can shut it down until Darkness Shines sobers up. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Or has finished a serving of crow. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Who the hell said I was I was drunk? I know never did. It takes a tad more than a bottle of Glenfiddich, The issue here is the removal of an AE request by an IP and also one by myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good grief you're even slurring your typing. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Goodness. Taking a closer look, that might not be the best approach either. What would people say to unprotecting, but giving both editors a warning that any further reverts *will* result in a block? --Rschen7754 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Giano nicely if he would be kind enough to disengage, and EdJohnston has notified Darkness Shines that the IP was editing from an open proxy (now blocked). It looks like Darkness Shines won't revert again, so I guess it's safe to unprotect. Thanks all. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IPs should not be allowed to make AE reports. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole point of why AE works is that it's an open system out in the open. Also, I'd like the OP to explain why they used the term "pull shit" when posting on Giano's talkpage. There was no need for cursing, nor that kind of comment, imo. If it was just a lost temper, I understand and don't really mind, but just wanted to point that out. gwickwire_editing 23:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pull shit" is rather rude, especially in the imperative, but we know where it's coming from, and Giano can handle it (and did it more eloquently). What's sad is that the IP is a player with an account, using a proxy, then finding someone to be a proxy and escalate into EW territory, all the while putting meat on what was little more than trolling... I don't care if such AE pages are permanently semi-protected. IP editors of good faith will find a good and more honest way to make their voice heard. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More Adventure Time vandalism

And, 321Wikiman's Adventure Time vandalism continues, although he has moved to a different article. Basically, he added the info he keeps trying to include in the character page on the season 5 page, however, he does not provide a source at all (and he has tried this maneuver before). Here's a compare and contrast. He knows at this point, and he is just being stubbornly defiant.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Notification to the user? I've remedied this for you Hasteur (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow

Despite being blocked for such behavior in the past and warned multiple times, User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert edits into BLP articles without reliable sources. He has inserted that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen without any reliable sources stating so, going as so far as to rudely challenging me on my talk page when I reverted his edit. This user has since re-inserted the edit, again without a reliable source. This is nothing new and has been part of a troubling pattern. This user was blocked before for multiple violations of WP:BLP after multiple warnings so it's not like this is new. In fact, this user has just finished serving a 3 month ban for an unrelated violation and already has multiple warnings for violations of WP:BLP on his talk page unrelated to the Gegard Mousasi edit. In the past, administrators had floated the idea of a topic ban from WP:BLP articles but refrained with the assumption that he would review the policy and learn from his mistakes. Based on the continuation of this, I don't think this has occurred. Although, TheShadowCrow has shown some productivity in his edits, I believe the damage far outweighs the good at this point, and if you can't learn to abide by Misplaced Pages's policies after 6 blocks in a 1 year period, it's time some type of permanent sanction is imposed. A topic ban may now be appropriate. BearMan998 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I showed a link where the person in question calls an Iranian "my country man" so the debate was over and solved. Bear man has a serious problem of always pointing out my block log multiple times whenever we are on the same page. Most of the time he is practicly insulting and taunting me. He seems to think that he is in a position of power and that he is some how superior to me. In fact, he forgot all about the BLP in question and just started typing paragraphs about my block log. I think he is the one who needs discipline now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• They were blocked for three months for socking, one month for ARBAA2 infractions, one month for socking, two weeks for ARBAA2 infractions, 72 hours for BLP violations, 24 hours for personal attacks. They've been unblocked for a couple of weeks now and what I see is personal attacks, a battleground mentality, and BLP violations. I don't see much of a reason to not block for really, really long, but I'd like to hear what, for instance, Giant Snowman thinks--they've had a set of run-ins with them. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. I was not trying to start a conflict. Bear man is being very hostile to me and I think this is being very overlooked. And my edits with GiantSnowman have actually been peaceful and constructive. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I see three twitter links, not reliable sources, just saying. Not going to comment on blocks or anything, but just fyi, sourcing the person for claims is almost always not appropriate. I can go start the twitter account "carieunderwood" with name "Carrie Underwood" and claim to be her saying whatever I want. But that doesn't make it reliable. BearMan looks right to have removed it as unsourced. Also, now that Drmies has said everything I was thinking, pending Giant Snowman changing my mind, Support an indef block until this user tells us honestly they will refrain from editing BLP articles, and a 3 (at least) month topic ban from BLPs to start if and/or when the block is lifted. gwickwire_editing 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block. gwickwire_editing 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is definitly the real twitter account of Gegard Mousasi. He uploads amateur photos of himself and has talked to the UFC President and had contact with many other MMA noteworthies on twitter with that account. I have seen twitter be used as a source before and don't see why it shouldn't be now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• What is the specific source being challenged? If sanctions is what ye seek, ANI is thataway.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 'ahem' This is ANI? The source being challenged is twitter by the way. gwickwire_editing 00:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • My bad, I could have sworn I saw this at RSN, Twitter is crap, unless the account has been verified.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer  02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Hi, as stated above, I have had recent run-ins with this editor, who I feel has numerous problems. They fail to understand - or if they understand them, accept - WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V - and there is a recent (still live) thread at BLPN which might be of interest. Other than their failure to understand BLP, RS and V, they also exhibit other concerning traits, such as (admitted!) WikiHounding - check who the previous editor was on each of these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4) - as well as disruptive and POINTy editing (AKA removal of masses of content with no rationale provided, while trying to prove some pro-English bias that simply does not exist) at 1, 2, 3, 4. They also seem to display OWNership issues, especially on anything related to Armenia. So in summary, TheShadowCrow has a slight attitude problem, and also displays a troublesome lack of competency in, or respect for, key Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Given this recent behaviour, as well as the historical issues, I would propose a topic ban related to Armenian topics and/or BLPs (both broadly construed) - recent discussion with this editor leads me to think there is some small glimmer of hope, and I would not want to indef them when there is potential to turn this around. I am just about to go to be (1am UK time) but saw this and thought I'd leave a quick message, and I'll pick up the thread again tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• No one is paying attention to Bearman's hostility or that our edit conflict (a natural, unavoidable part of life on Misplaced Pages) was solved when I provided a source for what Bear wanted. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You'd do well to heed the advice that you stop replying here. You just proved you have a lack of competency in understanding our reliable sources policy. A twitter post (even 3) is not a reliable source for any statement, much less one like nationality. Your edit conflict (term not used right btw) was not ever resolved, because you never provided a reliable source. To GS, based on this post, would you support an indef (indefinite =/= infinite) until this user tells us they will re-read and adhere to all policies, and then a 3 month topic ban from BLPs and Armenia related articles broadly construed? gwickwire_editing 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If I don't reply I'm going to be blocked! The reliable source page says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It also says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;", which there always is with Twitter. How can you prove that he made those statements? You can't. It also says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;", exceptional claim is basically a big claim. You're claiming this user is of a certain nationality, based on something that looks like they *may* have said it themselves, even then it's almost a bit synthesisey. More quotes, since you seem to need them: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." " This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Basically, twitter is never a reliable source, because you can't verify its authenticity. gwickwire_editing 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
        • How was I supposed to think all that through? The rules say there can be an exception to twitter, and you say there is no exception to twitter. I honestly thought I was adhering to the rules of Misplaced Pages. I didn't want to cause any trouble and I'm really sorry that I did. I'm just trying my hardest to contribute like everyone else. Since my sources are faulty, I'm putting Bear's version back and won't be changing it without a proper source. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
          • It should be added that you made the edit without any sources and didn't come back with the Twitter reference (which doesn't really prove that he is indeed a citizen) until after the fact. And this is not the first time either. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • • • • Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS? If not, this is a non starter and the account can't be use for pretty much any purpose here.  little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer  02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
          • That's when they have the light blue star, right? No, it doesn't have that. However, a source has recognized this as his official account (HMTTT is a thing where they post tweets of fighters on their website to show whats new in the twitter world. Mousasi's account is in the edition I linked). Although I think the source is credible because it's one of the most famous and popular MMA news websites, I'm not going to take the risk and say it is.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nazi flag on user page

I know users are allowed significant latitude on what they can put on their user pages, but is it appropriate for a user to put the flag of Nazi Germany on it? OGBranniff (talk · contribs) has placed the flag there ostensibly because he is declaring his membership in WikiProject:Germany. However, the default flag of WikiProject:Germany is that of the modern German state; OGBranniff has had to deliberately override the default with a handmade userbox to achieve this effect (see before and after). An editor requested on OGBRanniff's Talk: page that he remove the Nazi flag, but OGBRanniff has ignored the request, and continued editing. Jayjg 02:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Having an evil flag would be fine if he were a member of WikiProject Soviet Union, or WikiProject Nazi Germany if there were one, but otherwise, unless there's somthing I'm missing here no. No swastikas, no hammers and sickles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:POLEMIC covers this. "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" is not allowed on userpages, and the Nazi flag is generally considered "very divisive". To claim otherwise is to be blind to reality or to be intentionally making a WP:POINT and neither is good. --Jayron32 03:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• OG's flag should remain. If one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to look at it. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it should not. Freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • We'll have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I removed it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Jayron and Coleman. This was covered already when another user (Neogeolegend) did the same -- and sysop Uncle G changed the flag. Neogeolegend was also subsequently blocked indefinitely in August by Future Perfect at Sunrise for nazi advocacy (in August 2012; this user appeared in December 2012). See here, for discussion about the flag.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, Nazis weren't nice, but what policy are we implementing here? HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• A common sense one. I see the flag has been changed back again by another editor. I'd suggest reverting and locking if that gets reverted. Black Kite (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• The one that says we're not calling all Germans Nazis, even if we're Jewish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• There are two wp guidelines already specifically pointed to above. See Jayron's comment, which I had supported. And, of course, we have WP:CIVIL, which is one of our five pillars, and part of wp's code of conduct.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• For what it is worth... Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• So, you are thinking that there is a possible sockpuppet in the midst? There's a bit of evidence there, but I'm not sure if that's enough for this to be a WP:DUCK situation. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. However, their contributions show that both users are interested in Italy/Italians. Another coincidence, perhaps, I don't know. I've been accused of seeing patterns where none exist, so take this with a grain of salt. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• If he wants to self-identify as a Nazi I don't think it's our place to intefere with his form of expression, but I think he should move the flag out of the wikiproject box: he has the right to associate himself with the swastika but not the project. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Some here may be trying to fairly apply correct policy here (although it's not yet clear to me which one that is), but it's also obvious that some are applying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. That's not healthy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC is the policy, the use of a userpage to display divisive content is expressly forbidden. --Jayron32 03:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hilo-Editors like WP:POLEMIC, WP:POINT, and WP:CIVIL. These were pointed out to you, when you missed them in the discussion. They appear to be directly on point.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Context matters. I could see situations where the Nazi Swastika would be ok on a user page, but in this instance it is clearly polemic as Jayron points out.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy that expressly prohibits the Swastika on User pages? I assume not. In which case we are simply playing opinion games here. And making all sorts of assumptions. Dangerous ground. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:POLEMIC? Evanh2008  03:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it demands considerable interpretation and assumption to say that we have "...statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities." Such assumption and interpretation MAY be correct. It may not. We must be careful. To act with such certainty about someone else's evilness is perhaps not much better than the alleged evilness. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be impossible, ahead of time, to predict every possible "very divisive or offensive" thing that someone could do on their userpage before someone actually does it, which is why such a list has not been created. For the first case, the existence of such list would imply that the list, and only that list, would be divisive or offensive enough, and the human capacity to be obnoxious is quite expansive. Secondly, the existance of a list would encourage gaming the system. Instead, WP:POLEMIC is quite enough, it notes that very divisive or offensive material isn't allowed, and we decide what is too divisive or too offensive in discussions such as this. Your opinion is noted, as are others. When enough opinions have been given to establish a consensus, action will be taken one way or the other. That's how Misplaced Pages works. --Jayron32 04:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think the above discussion is creating more heat than light. POLEMIC dictates that divisive content is against WMF policy. The debate here is that any topic may cause someone to become hostile. Let's use me as an example. My userpage states I am in Wikiproject Mongols and Wikiproject Mining. You could argue that both of those topics could be offensive. I don't care. Pick your side. The difference is, while Mining can be regarded as evil to some, Nazis are universally regarded as inherently evil. Mining=not genocidal supremacists. Nazis=evil genocidial maniacs. Clearly you can see the difference? Herr Kommisar 04:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The question is not whether any content which could offend anyone is not allowed. The question is whether consensus is that this Nazi flag is in violation of WP:POLEMIC or not. Heat is only generated by people who steer the discussion away from that question. Either "yea" or "nay" on that question would be light. Asking whether Wikiproject Mining is offensive is unrelated to the question at hand, and is thus heat. --Jayron32 04:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe WP:POLEMIC needs a review. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:VPP is thataway. Until it's changed, however, it is consensus policy, and we need to make our decisions in this case with that in mind. If we need to change the established policy, we need to do that in another context, and not in discussions over the enforcement of that policy. --Jayron32 04:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll leave that option to OG. :) GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The thing that is missed is that this isn't a Nazi flag on someone's userpage. This is somebody using the Nazi flag in the WikiProject Germany userbox. The former, under certain circumstances, could be permitted. The second, however, creates the association WPGermany = Nazism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Does it? Really? As an absolute certainty? I'm not certain. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It does. Really. As an absolute certainty. I'm absolutely certain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't think there should be any sort of a simple ban on having a Nazi Flag on your userpage. If an editor is interested in the history of Nazi Germany, I see no reason for us to state they cannot display that on their user page. That said, it appears like this specific user is intentionally attempting to be divisive in his posts both on his user page and elsewhere. See this where he lists "sluts" as an interest and here where he states "When I'm not banging hot sluts, I'm beasting on the Chess board." at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chess. Although he redacted most of this, he initially stated "We could work together like the Gestapo and SS in Germany... you investigate and identify the deficient articles, and I'll round them up and ship them off. It'll be efficient." Taking all of these into consideration, I feel like OGBranniff is being intentionally offensive, and as such should not be allowed to keep the flag. Ryan Vesey 04:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • By demanding the removal, are we not giving OG what he wants? drama & attention? GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You betcha. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If this editor wrote "All modern Germans are Nazis" I would agree with its instant removal, but he hasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ryan, this sounds very familiar. Didn't we have another banned user who talked about women like this? Also, if anyone hasn't seen his AfD statistics, check them out. They are totally bizarre. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Update: back in 2009, User:Badger Drink referred to an incident involving a blocked user who trolled Misplaced Pages as the "Aspergic Brazillian Concerned With Hot Jewish Sluts". Although the name of the user escapes me, I'm wondering if there is a connection. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• It is clear the user was misrepresenting the project in order to creat the impression that the project itself used the Nazi flag in this manner. That is what is unacceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Harassment by a User

I have been harassed by a user Somedifferentstuff, who has leveraged a seemingly close relationship with an admin Bbb23 to swifty 7-day ban me when I claimed that several closely associated edits could be sock puppetry. Yet recently, the admin actually was giving him guidance on how to formulate a ban on my properly registered account after the editor did a write up that I was a socket puppet - I don't even want to be a part of this community at this point. Not to mention the editor in question didn't go to talk, and changed 3,750 of the article which had been posted to talk for 48 hours and cited line by line prior to insertion. Oh, and I was threatened with an instant ban by the admin when I tried to mediate that he deleted several users edits on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Here is a citation of bbb23 randomly removing interesting and good edits about the background of the guy, because the two sources are good enough, Unreliable? look at the sources they check out fine. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Here bbb23 deletes another quality submission from another user. Yet oddly he has not reverted a single one of Somedifferentstuff who has over 60 edits on this page.

When I remark here after penwhale protected the article: "Entire controversy section removed - please honor the administrators mediation and get consensus in talk.) " bbb23 jumps in and calls the undo which I complete above as 'disruptive': "Reverted to revision 544904963 by Scientiom: prior to disruptive edits." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are not being harassed. Your posts are well-nigh incomprehensible, the particulars of you complaint are beyond vague, and your comprehension of our BLP and RS policies is, judging from this edit for instance, below par. Also, you were never banned or blocked, but you may well be headed that way. It is apparent you don't listen to what other editors tell you, so pointing to WP:BOOMERANG may be redundant. You're forum-shopping all over the place and making a nuisance of yourself, and yet I still have some positive advice for you: lay low, stop complaining all over the damn place about other editors, and try to make positive edits based on reliable sources--that way you won't get blocked indefinitely for incompetence and being a time-sink. Finally, is it really too much trouble to sign your messages? Bbb23 can do it, so can you. Drmies (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• And to state the obvious: your edits on Nicolás Maduro are unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've looked at all this user's edits. They're not here to improve the project, they cannot properly verify the stuff they add, they canvass all over the place to get their way, they think this place is for soapboxing, and they're incompetent. I'd block them indefinitely but I won't since Bbb (the focus of their ire) and I used to go surfing together in the 1970s so we might be considered involved. Next admin gets to pull the trigger and do us all a favor. Drmies (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards