Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:28, 1 January 2016

• 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

Help with cleanup

I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I like the coordination page - I'll get started on some of these right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, Ymblanter, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz raises a good question about G5 eligibility. As the admins involved in this mess, how do you see this? If an article is problematic, should I G5, or send to AfD? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    I would say unless it is a brand new (clear block evasion) creation and does not fall under PROD/speedy criteria it should be sent to AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I have no true issue deleting these as G5, but I will hold off at this point since I do see some valid points brought up as to why G5 wouldn't entirely qualify here. I'd argue that we should give G5 a little wiggle room here since this will potentially mean hundreds of articles flooding AfD or PROD, which would be more time consuming than if we were to just G5 them as a sock creation. I'd say that this should only apply to articles that are obviously non-notable and cannot be redirected to a valid target like a director filmography. Anything that seems like it could potentially be notable (ie, two usable RS) should go through the other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, AfD is usually overwhelmed with candidates as it is and we have a person here who has created 900+ articles. If even a fourth of that goes to AfD, that means that there will be over 200 articles going to AfD. Some of these articles are very quickly checked, so this could mean dozens of AfDs open within a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running across a new issue. One of the creations by the sockpuppet includes a year-by-year discography for a composer with 1000+ film credits. Many of those films do not appear to be immediately notable, so this means that these pages (spanning from 1976 to 2015) will likely require just as much in-depth inspection as the sock articles. Some of the film pages were created by the sock, but some weren't. I don't know that we need to have a complete discography for all of Ilaiyaraaja's work, even if we were to compile the pages by decade rather than by year. Thoughts on this? There's a merge request at Talk:Ilaiyaraaja discography, if anyone wants to give their input. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Ymblanter; after reading your thoughts, it seems to me that this would be a reasonable place to invoke WP:IAR, and tag non-notable creations of this author with G5, so as to avoid flooding PROD and AfD. Unless there are any serious objections to this, I will switch to doing that shortly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That strikes me as a very bad idea. IAR is rarely if ever validly invoked to justify out-of-process speedy deletion. And G5-ing articles that don't meet G5 requirements will be disruptive for editors reviewing those speedy nominations. If there's no issue about the factual accuracy of Ilaiyaraaja's credits, I don't see why the article needs to be scoured of non-notable items. We have many musician discographies which list nn albums/sinbles/songs, and many author bibliographies which list complete works, not merely those notable enough to have individual articles. Notability standards don't apply within articles, and one of the appropriate functions of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic and appropriately complete. Biographies don't mention only notable children, parents, and spouses, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment I'll note that we do not have a written mechanism for reversal of G5 at the moment. There's a current discussion at WT:CSD about the fact that G5 is technically a zero-tolerance rule. G5 the whole lot of them would be in line with policy, keeping or restoring articles would generally be done under IAR. However that first requires us to determine if G5 is applicable here which is a different matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Hullaballoo, part of the issue with this particular composer is that his credits are 1000+ films long. This is separate from the albums he's released, which are listed on the main discography page. The list that the sock created appears to be any film he composed music for, regardless of the length of the contributed work. This means that he could be the main composer for the soundtrack or he could have contributed one piece of music - we have no real way of confirming this with some of the movies, as many of them are fairly old. At some point this goes beyond being a discography and at some level becomes an issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if we condense this into pages by year, this means that we have at least 5-6 pages that just list films that he composed music for. I'm aware that we do have composer credit pages, but those are for people whose works are a smaller amount, usually under 100 credits. This guy has thousands and churns out a good 20+ soundtracks a year at the very least - he did about 40 in 2015 alone. At some point we have to ask if having a complete listing of every film credit is really worth it, given that the pages for this guy will run the risk of being mammoth chunks of information with little to no true encyclopedic value other than being complete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone have an idea on what we should do as far as the idea of G5 goes? I have no problem with doing all of the G5s myself, if it comes to that, as long as the pages have been checked over to ensure that we're not getting rid of a valid page. If no one has any truly major objections, here's my proposal: once we complete a section, I'll go through and check to see which pages were tagged as not meeting notability guidelines. I'll check the page and the sourcing, then if it fails, I'll delete it via G5 so that it's not a huge mass of PRODs or AfDs waiting to be handled. Both arenas are usually swamped with entries with relatively few admins monitoring them (relatively speaking) so putting them through those avenues only delays a problem that could be dealt with right away. I'm aware that this process will likely take months to complete, but I'm willing to do this. I just want to make sure that this is relatively acceptable so that I don't get in trouble for doing this. I'm not endorsing an outright deletion of each page (although I can see the merit in doing this), just saying that I don't think that the pages should have to sit in PROD-land for a full week when we could cut through the red tape and deal with them faster. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This would be fine with me, though I think in practice we are looking at the articles rather slowly and do not really flood PROD and AFD--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  User:B.Bhargava Teja seem to be a sock of the blocked user; they recreated Apne Apne which I spediied several days ago, adding there the same copyright violation. Whoever is familiar with the style of the blocked user may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  They were tagged as a sock of User:Bhargava Krishna but there was no SPI as far as I can see.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppetry and edit-warring by jordandlee

This involves both edit-warring and sockpuppetry, from a very new user (about two months) who has apparently ignored and rejected all advice.

I've been copyediting on Philadelphia Phillies since around June 19 of this year (2015). On December 22 I made four consecutive edits, the last of them consisting of a couple of minor wording changes. The next day Jordandlee reverted the last one, in § 2008 World Series Champions, with no edit memo. I asked him why on his talk page; and seeing that he was a very new user, I requested advice from Sir Joseph, who I saw had had talks with him before (November 2015 — December 2015).

Jordandlee replied on my talk page:

Please pay attention to your edits. Your contributions to the Phillies' page were very careless. Also, there was no need to bring other people into our most recent disagreement. Also, I undid your other edits because, they did, indeed, have many grammar mistakes. Jordandlee (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This was inaccurate in every way. I replied there that in accordance with WP:DR I was taking the discussion to the Phillies talk page, and did so; see there (§ 2008 World Series Champions) for details.

(Everything after this point is in Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series.)

He replied with false statements about my edits* and complaints about interactions with another editor, demonstrating his own ignorance of Misplaced Pages policies and standards†:

Thnidu recently added and took out a couple of paragraphs to the 1980 World Series section of this article–and I undid them using †my second account, Jorduf. The problem with his/her edits is that *they were not about that subject and what was taken out was. Yet, for some reason Materialscientist undid my revisions. If anyone can explain to me why they are doing that, it would be very much appreciated. Jordandlee (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

In reply, I quoted and cited the guideline against multiple accounts, urged him to seek help, and pointed him to the Help Desk. He denied my accusations. I itemized the evidence against him, in detail and with links; he rebutted with an insult. Meanwhile he (as Jorduf) thanked himself (as Jordandlee), further demonstrating his sockpuppetry.

This novice user has been warned repeatedly, first by Sir Joseph, then Muboshgu, and now by myself, and has failed to show any learning or contrition. I request that he be banned.

--Thnidu (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Just starting to look into this, but he does seem to admit both accounts are his here. SQL 11:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And here. SQL 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That being said - I don't see him using the second account to support itself on talk pages, or to skirt 3rr. Just because someone has more than one account isn't necessarily grounds for a ban. I honestly don't see anything actionable here - but I am pretty tired. SQL 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. Doesn't seem to be any actual sock puppetry going on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The "admission" didn't come till after misuse to conceal edit-warring. In looking through the page history to analyze and document Jordandlee's behavior, I had seen "Jorduf"'s edits with no idea that they were by the same person, despite his claims that

I make it quite obvious I am the same person by stating so, and VERY similar usernames.

That refers to

("and I undid them using my second account, Jorduf").

In fact, until then he had done nothing like "stating so". That was his first mention anywhere of multiple accounts, not disclosed anywhere until well into my exchanges with him. See Talk: Philadelphia Phillies#thn-counterevidence. And that's on top of, and in support of, his edit-warring. --Thnidu (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Misuse to conceal edit warring? They've made 3 total reverts to thar page between 2 accounts. There's no evidence that they tried to hide this and they came out themselves that the accounts are theirs. There's been no illegitimate use of either account shown in any evidence you have provided.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs
The more I've looked into this, the more I see that it isn't primarily a matter of sockpuppetry so much as persistent edit-warring.Here is a still incomplete list of diffs. I can't work any more tonight; tomorrow I'll pick it up again.

I'm collating the diffs for all his edits, starting from his Contributions page and then working through the Revision History of each article he's touched. I haven't gotten to his alter ego Jorduf yet, but there aren't that many there.

Besides Philadelphia Phillies, he's handled Menorah (Hanukkah), Hanukkah, Baseball field, and Peter Bourjos; the big list is in the last of those, which I haven't finished processing. Most or all of the Phillies documentation is above or referenced above; I'll get that into this list after Bourjos.

For each article, the diffs are in chronological order, and unrelated sets of edit and reversion are separated by a blank line. The comments in square brackets are mine.

Menorah (Hanukkah)

• 21:36, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (It is a chanukia, not menorah. I just don't know how to change the name of the article.)
• 21:42, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee to last revision by 78.147.130.162. (TW))

Hanukkah

• 20:20, 28 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Proper terms)
• 20:22, 28 November 2015‎ BethNaught: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk): That spelling is acknowledged, but the article is called "Hanukkah" so we should use that. If you want to change that, file a move request. (TW))
• 18:14, 29 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (A menorah and Hanukia are two entirely different things (look it up before changing if you don't believe me). Also, 'sundown' is the proper term.)
• 20:02, 29 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted good faith edits by Jordandlee (talk): No, you are incorrect. If you have a concern, use the talk page. The page uses hannukahmenorah which is correct. (TW))
• 21:33, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (USE OF PROPER TERMS! DO NOT UNDO! A menorah is NOT the same thing as a Hanukia.)
• 21:34, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Samsara. (TW))

Baseball field

• 21:32, 21 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation errors)
• 17:23, 30 November 2015 Sir Joseph: (→‎Home plate)
• 19:59, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation)
• 20:00, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Warning track: Turned dash into hyphen)
• 21:42, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted to revision 693134844 by Sir Joseph (talk): Rv, to more grammatically correct version. (TW))
• 21:41, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Sir Joseph, please stop trying to undo everything I do. There is a reason why I change it.)
• 21:46, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Sir Joseph. (TW))
• 01:09, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Use of correct punctuation ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES)

Peter Bourjos

• 19:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Phillies)
• 20:02, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (More Phillies)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top: it's still 2015 on my calendar)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎St. Louis Cardinals (2014–present))
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎References)
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎External links)
• 20:15, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 21:51, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473355 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 21:52, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693486357 by Jorduf (talk) Yeah it's still December 2015, we don't know if he'll make the Phillies roster or be cut/traded before the 2016 season.)
• 21:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473647 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:03, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693486518 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:07, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693469794 by 64.9.4.8 (talk))
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693487401 by Jorduf (talk) Seriously? Quit it.)
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 00:56, 3 December 2015‎ 71.229.45.29:
• 00:59, 3 December 2015‎ Muboshgu m: (Reverted edits by 71.229.45.29 (talk) to last version by Yankees10)
• 03:00, 3 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (adding Phillies)
• 03:24, 3 December 2015‎ Yankees10 m: (Reverted edits by Jorduf (talk) to last version by Muboshgu)

Good night. I'll be ba-a-ack! (tomorrow). --Thnidu (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So not a sock but an edit warrior now? Yep, certainly seems to be some editwarring. I notice for instance that on the Philadelphia Phillies He's edit warring with you and you are edit warring against him.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

His notice was sockpuppetry and editwarring. As someone who dealt with him I can feel his pain. While I'm not sure a block is the right answer, I think a mentor/warning might do the trick. It took an almost block to get him to the talk page. He does not seem to want to dialogue and could use a basic course on how to Wiki. Sir Joseph 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of sock puppetry is half ass. He thanked his other account. A warning against edit warring for everyone will suffice. The appropriate place to take sock puppet allegations is WP:SPI. There's a tendency of new users to edit war, it certainly helps to have older users to lead by example and not themselves edit war. It probably also help to also remember not to bite the new comers.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with -Serialjoepsycho-, you were being very hypocritical. As both of you, Sir Joseph and Thnidu, long time editors, told me what to do and not to do, then you immediately proceeded to do them. I'm just wondering how long I have to be editing before I'm allowed to edit war, like the two of you. Jordandlee (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jordandlee: Perhaps you might explain the purpose of your alternate account?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I did so on the Phillies' talk page under the section '1980 World Series'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordandlee (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL, Serialjoepsycho, Sir Joseph, Muboshgu, and Jordandlee: Please see the latest exchange between Jordandlee and me at Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series. He now understands why I suspected sockpuppetry, and I now understand that he had no such intention and why he was so argumentative about it. That being so, I withdraw the complaint of sockpuppetry.

Serialjoepsycho, I hope you see now that my suspicion was not "half-assed" but reasonable at the time. Also, if you look at the diff list above you will see that most of his edit-warring was with other editors than me.

Looking again at our last exchange on the Phillies talk page, I think Jordandlee has calmed down, and I know that I have. Jordandlee, I hope that you will read those bits I recommended there, as well as looking through the WP: Help area and getting more familiar with how we do things here. For myself, I don't think there's any point now in finishing that diff list.

And with that I think we can close this issue. Jordandlee sees the necessity of considering others' view of a situation, and hopefully will be less quick to dismiss an opposing opinion.

Happy New Year to all, and to all a good night! --Thnidu (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As this is resolved I'll simply keep the answer to that question to myself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person

I am requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person David A. Bray as I am the subject of the article. While I have not been involved in past edits of the article, I have monitored them. Personally I never thought I rose to the level of warranting one and would prefer not to be involved in such debates. If it is possible to request a deletion review and courtesy blank upon completion, I would prefer not to be a topic of a Misplaced Pages article unless required. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernva (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'd prefer not to matter honestly. Is there any chance for a living person to request a speedy deletion and and courtesy blank upon completion out of a right to personal privacy? Or is there a Misplaced Pages version of the right to be forgotten? Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion at WP:COIN (permalink). – Brianhe (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Brianhe. Northernva (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is strange. Over at WP:COIN, it's been established that someone created a modest sock farm and created three articles about computer science researchers, all of which are rather favorable to the article subjects. That looks like COI editing. David A. Bray passes the usual tests for notability; he's a high-level Federal official with long articles about him in Forbes and the Huffington Post. He has 114K followers on Twitter.. There's nothing particularly unfavorable in the article; it's rather positive. This seems inconsistent with a request for deletion from Misplaced Pages. I'd suggest that Mr. Bray mail in an ORTS request (see Misplaced Pages:Contact us) to establish that they are in fact who they claim to be, and the ORTS team should confirm this. In the presence of sockpuppeting, I'm reluctant to assume that someone claiming to be Mr. Bray is in fact Mr. Bray. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm not the only one wondering about that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle's course of action makes sense to me. BMK (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed through OTRS. Have requested it be deleted to remove personal information and recreated as a stub if appropriate. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. From Bray's comments on the article talk page, the problem seems to be not the current state of the article, but the history. Previous versions of the article had much more personal information.. The reason there's so much personal information is that the article subject self-published a book-length autobiography in 2002. He apparently regrets that now. He's not yet notable enough that he has to have an article. He's chief information officer of the FCC. That's two levels below the FCC commissioners. Anyway, the article is at AfD, and arguments are moving towards deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. We can wait and see how that goes. John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This could be a textbook example of how much better an article subject serves his goals by asking calmly and giving reasons, instead of the usual legal bluster we get from subjects unhappy with their coverage. EEng (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Similarly, it's a good example of how we (who know the rules) could better steer an article subject (who doesn't), away from the path of confrontation, rather than being reactive and confrontational ourselves. Offering to work with, or help people who are confused or upset seems like a productive thing to do. Begoon  16:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk page harassment and general incivility

I'm involved in a few content disputes with Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) on motorcycle articles. We both have similar interests and seem to bump into each other on these articles. I accept that we have differences of opinions on these articles, and as long as content disputes follow[REDACTED] guidelines regarding 3RR, civility, NPOV, etc, I see no major issues. However, I am starting to feel that the above user is taking things rather personally and his edits (in particular on my talk page) are harassment.

Firstly, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed, which was followed by him undoing my removal of that comment.

initial warning

removal by me

restored comment

request from me, for him not to restore comments on my talk page and for him to leave me alone.

So, I posted a request on his talk page, asking him not to restore removed comments, and not to post anything on my talk page. I made it clear that if he wanted to discuss an article with me, he could do so on my talk page, if he was concerned about my conduct as an editor, he could file a report, and that if he did file a report, I would allow him to post the report notice on my talk page (as I think posting that notice is required). He simply replied "no" to those requests. So, I posted again and said that if he undid my talk page revisions or posted on my page again, I would report him for harassment.

He then reported me for being a sockpuppet/master? I'm not sure which as he claimed I was the sockmaster, but one of the other accounts he reported is a really long established account. The conclusion from the admins involved was there the accounts mentioned were not connected. That's fair enough, I will have good faith in his sockpuppet report, and assume that it was not harassment.

Today, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed. I've already stated that I don't require his comments, so that alone was not something that I wished to see. He restored the warning, so I removed it again.etc,etc,etc. In the end, he restored the warning three times on my talk page, in the space of five minutes.

initial warning from the above editor.

restored comment 1st time

2nd time

3rd time

He has been editing[REDACTED] for about 10 years, so I would imagine he is really really familiar with talk page and harassment rules. He has also made numerous ANI reports on other editors, so he is also very aware of the consequences.

This is not the first situation in which the user has used templates/warnings to harass another user. For example:

also of blatant incivility

I feel bad about this, because I know this user is trying hard to improve wikipedia. He isn't a troll, he has the best intentions when he edits articles. However, when something doesn't go his way, he has a total disregard of[REDACTED] rules and a total lack of respect for other editors. I now have really mixed feelings about editing any motorcycle related article, as he is quite likely to harass me on those articles too. Can someone please take some action, he needs to understand that a mere content dispute is not grounds for harassment. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar behaviour from the same editor. Fake warnings, ignored requests to stay off my talk page, continued restoration of harassing comments when I deleted them. I compiled a timeline of events here, including some very uncivil language on his part. It is odd that after ten years of editing he is apparently unfamiliar with some basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where this "stay off my talk page" rule comes from. It's how we send editors messages. If two editors disagree about a talk page warning, then of course one of those editors can call the warning "fake", but that's only begging the question. I think putting a {{Globalize}} tag on KTM 390 series takes the cake for "fake" templating.

Spacecowboy420 is a troll and serial sockpuppeteer who is only here to disrupt Misplaced Pages. He searches for the most controversial possible changes he can make in order to kick off an edit war and bring down anyone he can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) recognized him immediately, as yet another in a long line of socks from somebody who intends to go on making new troll accounts forever. Zachlita (talk · contribs) is, by an obvious WP:DUCK test, another sockpuppet, though checkuser says they're unrelated. I have no problem saying either Zachlita is a meatpuppet, or an account created while the sockmaster was traveling among different locations. The tag-team editing pattern is blatantly obvious.

Here is a perfect example of Spacecowboy420 deliberate battleground behavior. Or this. Kicking off an effort to expunge all of the expert debunking of the supernatural claim that the Dodge Tomahawk could go 420mph is more of the same deliberate disruption, as is the idea what we cannot talk about the KTM 390 series as Indian motorcycles, and must delete all mention of India and Bajaj. None of it makes sense unless you realize that this person has been doing this for years, picking insane fights and whipping up maximum drama.

Skyring (talk · contribs) is just piling on because he's got an old grudge. It's as unseemly as when he threatened to use his admin powers to block others in a content dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am only here to comment about the edit warring on the user's talk page. I just recently went through that on my own. Dennis, please know that WP:DRC applies here. Whilst it may be an essay, you should not edit war on a user's talk page after they've removed notices/warnings. Reverting the user on their talk page is not an exemption from 3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding on that point. This series of edits occurred because I was trying to correct an error, where my attempt to copy-paste a line of text from an msn.com article was resulting in the URL being pasted in; apparently that's their copy protection scheme. All I wanted was to to get one complete and correct version of my post saved before it was deleted. I wasn't edit warring to try to get the same thing to stick, just to get the message right.

The real issue here is this: Spacecowboy420 wouldn't be having this kind of conflict if he weren't making blatantly absurd, trollish edits, such as insisting that the source cited mentioned only KTM, and not KTM and Bajaj working together. This content issue matters here: pretty much every article about KTM's Indian-made bikes says that they are Indian bikes, and that Indian company Bajaj builds them in a close partnership with KTM. Spacecowboy420 is here to delete any mention of India and Bajaj for no reason except it's his "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" troll assertion that he knows will incite a the battle he seeks.

I might be a 10-year editor with 40,000+ edits, but there's no doubt in my mind that the sockmaster behind Spacecowboy420 has edited more and for longer than me. This guy is good at what he does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is obviously confused above – I'm not an admin. I don't hold grudges; there's no point in this community, nor in life itself. Less stress to just live in the present and not the past. Having said that, SpaceCowboy's description of poor behaviour on user talk pages above struck a chord, because it is very close to how DB behaved a few months ago. Edit-warring, name-calling, gross incivility. Now that I see this is not an isolated incident, I might look to see if I can find other examples. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I mixed you up with User:John from the same old grudge. Regardless, I don't think it's a appropriate to stalk your enemies and jump in whenever somebody else has a beef with them. The whole issue that's being dredged up here, over Volkswagen emissions violations, was resolved as a content dispute. Having you lurking and waiting to come back at me with that is not appropriate. If you had a problem, you should have brought it up back then and not used this new issue as an excuse to get your digs in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over Dennis's contributions, I'm seeing a history of harassment of other editors on their talk pages, particularly new or IP editors. Edit wars and calls to 3RRN are common, and accusations of sockpuppetry seem to be par for the course. A quick look, but I see other editors complaining of harassment in a pattern of behaviour stretching back years. This is one example, but there are others. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

People like User:Tiptoethrutheminefield certainly do find themselves butting heads often with people like me. You're right that I have a long history of conflict with editors with multiple blocks to their name. It's funny that you link to that incident, where Tiptoethrutheminefield "adopted", in Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s words, one of en. and de. Misplaced Pages's most persistent and disruptive sockpuppeteers, Europefan/GLGerman. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pull me into this, and certainly not in your defence. I still remember the way you hounded Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) User talk:Bridge Boy#Changing Article Name Without Discussion.2C Again! (Yamaha Rz350), another GF motorbike editor, off the project (albeit with some help).

Throwing around blame against others is no excuse for how another editor behaves. So I'm not seeing anything of either of these two editors as being relevant as to how well or poorly the other has acted. But neither is impressing me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending me. I accurately characterized your words about a specific incident. I am not the one who blocked Bridge Boy (talk · contribs); he was blocked for disruptive editing, socking, and personal attacks. There were several other editors besides me who found him impossible to deal with. All the mean things I said about Bridge Boy were true, and then some, and multiple admins had no qualms about showing him the door permanently. If you want him back then I guess you should be asking an admin to unblock him. I'm glad you brought him up, though, because like Spacecowboy420, or Tiptoethrutheminefield, you've identified the pattern here: editors who are not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia have successfully goaded me into returning their offensive behavior with "incivility", and then someone tries to boomerang it back on me.

Brianhe's comment in the same thread as above is quite relevant: these habitually disruptive, serial socking editors know that they are going to draw a series of warning templates from regular editors, so their defensive ploy is to delete the templates and then play the "get off my talk page" card. The templating is a necessary step to getting action taken to stop the disruption, so they pretend they're being "harassed" on their talk page to bully and intimidate anyone who tries to stop them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editors should of course be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered and whatever. However we clearly disagree as to just who falls under this. I too found Bridge Boy hard work to deal with, but I'm happy to accept them as a GF editor who had something to contribute. You seemed more interested in finding reasons to decide why another editor was an outlaw, and for why you were just the sheriff to organise the lynching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree that some of his contributions were invaluable. Much of Spacecowboy420's contributions are wonderful. But the reality is that with editors like that the cost of keeping them is too high, and there's no point in delaying the inevitable. And even then, you can read on his talk page that I spent something like three months trying to politely cajole Bridge Boy into behaving himself. And wasn't it actually SamBlob (talk · contribs) who, technically, initiated the actions that got Bridge Boy blocked? I was there, and I helped, but it's unfair to make it seem like I'm the only one behind getting anybody blocked. And you might have noticed that the admins don't exactly like me. They don't block anybody just because Dennis Bratland asks them to. If anything, they cut them more slack if I'm involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dennis Bratland. I remember reading this and being highly unimpressed. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. You took one side in a content dispute and abused your Admin power by threatening blocks against anyone who crossed you. Funny how that spiked the subsequent discussion, isn't it? I still think that threat successfully discouraged any moderate editors who were thinking of participating from sticking their necks out. I stood up to your bullying, and now we're not friends are we? Yet you got away with it, scot free. Lucky you.

  Looks like somebody is working hard to canvass anybody with an axe to grind to come back here and show their willingness to use Misplaced Pages noticeboards to settle old scores. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I stand absolutely by what I said in September. I am not sure what part of that you find objectionable. I am only contributing here because you pinged me earlier. You seem easily confused, repeatedly mixing me up with Pete, and then mixing up my clear statement which referenced WP:INVOLVED with someone threatening to breach WP:INVOLVED. If not for that I would ask you to clear that up by properly reading the comments. In your case, I fear we would be here a lot longer than any of us have patience for. Can I ask that you at least consider that when everybody says you are out of line, that you may in fact be out of line, rather than everybody else being part of a conspiracy against you? Or would that be asking too much... --John (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have perfectly amicable disagreements with lots of other editors all the time. The simple fact is that you are hopelessly compromised when it comes to me. As long as you remain an admin, you should recuse yourself and stop trying to play a role in any noticeboard discussion involving me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see. So, given this "simple fact", why did you ping me at this discussion of your behaviour? --John (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real here. Dennis is a long-time productive contributor to WikiProject Motorcycling and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group with two GAs under his belt and countless other good deeds. The editor(s) you held up as a "good faith contributor" "hounded off the project" by him are blocked for their inability to abide by community standards. Give him a slap on the wrist for incivility if you must but this ad hominem endoscopic examination is exactly why people leave Misplaced Pages, and should stop immediately. – Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If one is a productive editor, one may harass less productive editors. I get what you're saying.

I found DB to be short on some of the basics of editing, such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. He seemed to think that if he thought something sounded reasonable, Misplaced Pages could say it, even if we had no external source making that statement. He also seemed to have a very poor grasp on what constituted edit-warring, which is odd considering the number of times he's appeared on WP:3RRN.

Be that as it may, what we're looking at here is editor conduct, not content. Dennis Bratland has a history of abusing other editors on their talk pages, including edit-warring to keep his abuse visible when it is deleted by the editor. Whether that other editor is a newbie, an experienced Wikipedian, or just someone Dennis Bratland has a difference of editing opinion with is immaterial. We are civil to each other, and we don't call each other motherfuckers when our views differ..

I think it is high time Dennis accepted that, even if he has a difference of opinion, it is wikipolicy – and more productive to the project – to be polite instead of abusive. He has been around Misplaced Pages long enough – and yes, produced enough excellent work – to know this. --Pete (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated that one of my interests is controversial articles. I enjoy the debate, and getting some form of resolution and consensus on a controversial article is very satisfying. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet/master and that it being confirmed that there was no connection. I should remind you Dennis, that you thought Flyer was a sock of mine as well, so perhaps your judgement of who and who isn't a sock, isn't quite perfect. But this isn't about me. It's about you and your conduct. You refuse to accept the findings of various 3rd party opinions and dispute resolutions, so you revert me on every article you can find, continually slap templates on my user page (despite being asked not to post there) and restore comments/edit war on my talk page. And it's not as if I am the first editor you have done this to, judging from the comments above, your editing style seems to attract this sort of drama. I don't. I have content disputes on various articles that are far more controversial than some silly motorbike article - they stay on the talk page and don't require ANI reports. They get discussed and resolved. The only difference between those articles and this one, is the fact that you aren't content with leaving it on the talk page. You need to take it to other articles and revert me, you need to take it to my talk page, when asked not to. You need to make sock reports with zero evidence pointing towards me being a sock. The difference is you and your way of dealing with other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't about sock accounts, so I will try to keep this brief. Brian, you accused me of being the sock of Flyer22 reborn. That accusation was so unrealistic, that an admin removed that name from the sock report. You also accused me of being connected to Zacklita, and the admin looked into it, using their techy tools and found my account and Zacklita's had no connection. You're clutching at straws in order to try to justify your harassment of me. All of this comes from you giving more attention to the editors than to their edits. Don't assume that every editor who has a different point to yours is a troll. We aren't, we just disagree with you. Don't assume that when two editors are both in disagreement with you, that they are socks. They aren't, they just both disagree with you. All of this chaos and annoyance started because you couldn't accept the removal of one single word from some article you feel that you own. Be a little more flexible and respectful towards other editors and we won't have weeks of dispute resolution, sock puppet reports and ANI reports. Jeeeeeeeez! the removal of the word extraordinary from an article has resulted in this FUBAR situation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey sometimes sockpuppet investigations turn out not to have actionable results and I'm okay with that. I take your word for it AGF that you're not socking now that I know you better. So take this as an apology for the misfire. At the same time may I make one small retort and note that Draft:Dodge Tomahawk does not contain the word "extraordinary". I really think starting with it is the best path forward but we don't need to keep discussing it here; maybe on the draft talkpage instead. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"All blocked editors are evil, otherwise they wouldn't have been blocked" is an obvious fallacy. However the usual wikiexplanation of this is based on the many editors who are blocked, then react badly to it (and may even sock) and that later bad reaction is then seen as an excuse for their blocking, rather than a reaction to it. This supports the clique of "good people" and excludes the newcomers. As such we have to be very careful against it.

I think at least one of these editors was wrongly blocked. I think Dennis' responses to many editors, particularly newer editors breaking the minor rules, isn't as generous as we might like (although few editors, and not myself, manage much better). We're supposed to welcoming of new editors, we certainly need them, and that means putting up with early and minor infractions. Then it means putting up with the same, all over again, if needs be. The alternative is merely reinforcing what's already seen as a clique. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you changed my words "inability to abide by community standards" to "evil" which is a straw man, also an obvious fallacy. I carefully chose those words to describe Bridge Boy's situation precisely. And laying what you consider to be a wrongly enacted block solely at Dennis's feet is also an error; he is not an administrator and only gets to present his evidence and arguments like anyone else. I hear what you're saying about not forming a clique and actively try to welcome, recruit and enable new editors to all parts of WP, especially the motorcycling article base. Dennis does too, and in fact he created the invite template {{Motorcycling invite}}, among the other "good deeds" I alluded to above, so please give him some credit. I think a GF understanding of the situation here is that there's an established editor (not a cabal) trying to extend the best of the community standards, including high standards of authorship and research, to new editors. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

They're not your words, they're all mine. There's a problem here, it's pervasive, it's a bad one, and several editors are involved it. This is just one example of it (Dennis' involvement summarises here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Bridge Boy will not drop the stick), but nor is it the only one. There is a tendency on WP to turn on new editors and block them permanently (when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of "indef", then this becomes unwarrantedly permanent by default). We need to be careful to avoid doing that, and part of this includes dealing with the same nonsense over and over again if needs be, with a vast amount of patience. There are plenty of outright trolls around, there's no need for us to find ways to lump others in with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bridge Boy was not a "new" editor. He was just a recent incarnation of a long-term abuser, whose earliest account (that I know of) User:LevenBoy began editing all the way back in 2008 up through 2011. His User:Triton Rocker sock was active in 2010. His most recent sock was User:Salty Batter. Before we saw his dark side, Bridge Boy was treated with a warm welcome and kid gloves, all through January, February, March, April, and May of 2012. It wasn't until June, his fifth month of editing with his latest sock account, that I and several others began to lose patience with him. Your accusations that I bite newbies are demonstrably false; anyone can read the record of the gentle help I offered him for during his early months editing on many article talk pages. I created a new barnstar, just for him, to thank him for his edits. You're inventing a narrative about me, a caricature, that doesn't fit the facts.

I guess the only sense I can say I agree with you is that it does seem very much like Spacecowboy420 is Bridge Boy all over again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Spacecowboy420 and Pete here. In my limited experience of Dennis Bratland, he is liable to adopt eccentric interpretations of sources and then get very personal very quickly when others don't agree with him. It's hard for any of us, let's face it, when we find we are in a minority but Dennis regularly doesn't seem to get the thing about how consensus works. There's a bit of work to be done here; whether it is necessary to enact any formal sanctions at this stage I am not sure. Spacecowboy420, what admin intervention were you looking for here? --John (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

For my part, it's clear that Dennis Bratland has a history of personal attacks against other editors, including gross incivility and abuse of any number of behaviour conventions. Don't bite newbies, have a regard for the talk pages of other's etc. etc.

Intimidating and attacking other editors is not how we improve the Misplaced Pages. DB does not admit any misbehaviour in his comments above. In fact he defends his actions.

I think he should be given a chance to admit that his behaviour is improper, and if no acceptable admission is forthcoming, he should be blocked for 24 hours, and warned that similar activities in future will result in longer blocks. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

i agree with pete. there should be a short block, as dennis doesnt understand or accept his actions were wrong and have been for some time. once he gets a block he will understand that he wont get away with it in the future and i hope he will change his style. Zachlita (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Outside (but not uninvolved) Comments

These two, User:Dennis Bratland and User:Spacecowboy420, are at it again. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 129. My recent experience is that, while Dennis Bratland is a good-faith editor and is probably a productive editor, he is also a stubborn editor who does not seem to understand the concept of collaboration. As to whether he has a history of personal attacks, his comments here consist largely of personal attacks. The two editors in question came to the dispute resolution noticeboard recently with regard to Dodge Tomahawk and to the exact language to be used about its manufacturer's claim that it had a top speed of 420 mph. Although Dennis Bratland kept suggesting that WikiProject Physics be asked whether this claim was physically possible, the question had never been whether anyone was supporting that claim, only exactly how to characterize it in the voice of Misplaced Pages. Dennis Bratland says that Spacecowboy420 is a troll and a serial sockpuppeteer. Has a sockpuppet report been filed? (If not, this is just a case, all too common, of yelling “Sockpuppetry” in order to “win” a conduct dispute.) I won’t say that Spacecowboy420 isn’t a troll, but I will say that I haven’t seen them being a troll, and I have seen a number of trolls in action at DRN. I concur with other editors that Dennis Bratland’s behavior in this section (aside from elsewhere) rises to the level of blockable personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The end result being that a few highly-skilled Wikipedians show up out of the blue with "newbie" accounts, and produce, via wholesale deletions, an article about a product which contains only information which originated with the product's marketing team and press releases. Rejecting entirely even one word of criticism from a comprehensive version (written by 3 experienced editors, not just me) of the article that gives space to a dozen other high-quality sources which are actually independent of the subject. Nope, no trolling here. Anybody who would object to deleting every word of criticism and dissent must not "understand the concept of collaboration". Better block a guy like that, because we want the kind of guys who write this and reject this; they're definitely here to build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, I do see that a sockpuppet investigation was filed. It didn't attempt to link User:Spacecowboy420 with User:Bridge Boy, but with two other editors. (In other words, in claiming that Spacebowboy420 is Bridge Boy, Dennis is yelling "Sockpuppet" to "win" the conduct dispute.) I see that the sockpuppet report was closed as unrelated. I will also note that the issue at DRN never had to do with whether the Dodge Tomahawk was capable of 420 mph, but with what to say in the voice of Misplaced Pages about that claim. Maybe Dennis Bratland is right and there is a vast murky motorcycle cabal, or maybe Dennis Bratland needs to reread no personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not claim Spacecowboy420 was Bridge Boy. Andy Dingley brought Bridge Boy into this, accusing me of hounding an 'innocent noob', and I merely pointed out that yes, this is often how it goes when I'm confronted with a disruptive, socking troll. Referring to the actual SPI case, Zacklita has not edited from the same IP as Spacecowboy420, we've proven that, but the close connection between them is glaringly obvious. Both Flyer22 Reborn and User:STSC could smell "sock" all over Spacecowboy420 too. Read his deleted talk page history. It's not just me.

I think the net effect of what choices we make here matters, not merely whether we check off compliance with a list of rigid rules. One course of action leads to a certain kind of encyclopedia, promotional and devoid of independent criticism, and another path leads to what I think Misplaced Pages is actually supposed to be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting it, Dennis. Blaming your poor behaviour on the (possible) shortcomings of another editor just inspires poor behaviour all round. No personal attacks is a core policy, and you are doing it over and over again, whether the other guy is a sock, a newbie, or another editor with years of experience. The only common thread is that they disagree with you. You've been given a chance to accept this and declare an intention to act better in future, but all I see here is more of "I have the right to attack the other guy". Well, no you don't. --Pete (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Restatement

I think that Dennis does “get it” in his own way. First, it appears that he is saying that Misplaced Pages has constructive editors and non-constructive editors, and that the development of the encyclopedia requires that the constructive editors be allowed to create and improve content and that non-constructive editors are a problem. So far, so good. I think that we all agree. The differences of opinion have to do with who is and is not a constructive editor and with what privileges the constructive editors earn as a result of their contributions. I think that we all agree. Dennis appears to be saying (by his conduct) that he has the privilege of identifying non-constructive editors and engaging in personal attacks on them. That is where some of us disagree. Dennis also appears to think that constructive editors do not need to compromise on matters of wording in Misplaced Pages. (After all, the Dodge Tomahawk issue was never whether it could go 420 mph. We all agreed that that claim was balderdash. The question was whether it was encyclopedic to say that was balderdash.) That is my observation of what Dennis is saying. Maybe he can restate it. Maybe he didn’t mean his attitude to be as high-handed as it came across. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunate Conclusion

Dennis is an editor who contributes substantially to article content, but is uncivil in the process and is stubborn. Such editors polarize and divide the community. Unfortunately, “the community” at WP:ANI cannot deal with such editors, because they polarize and divide the community. Such editors can be blocked by one admin, but are likely to be unblocked by another admin. The ArbCom can deal with such editors, but Dennis’s conduct does not rise to the level of warranting an ArbCom case. Therefore, in my opinion, there is very little that can be done here other than empty discussion. I would support a block, but I don’t expect consensus for one. This thread will sputter along until the community gets tired of it or some administrator is bold and closes it as no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist96

I've tried my best and continued to engage User:Terrorist96 in what I hoped would become a meaningful discussion at Talk:Liberland, but they've instead told me that I have a 'personal problem', that I'm 'undermining' an article, that I'm not being constructive and threatened me to leave. diff

We've been here before over a month ago - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation.

Surely this apparently routine level of casting aspersions and acting as if one owns an article is below the acceptable standard of behavior?

--Joy (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tried your best? Just like how you tried your best to find the flag of Liberland used in a news article before you unilaterally decided that it should be removed? evidence. You start a 'meaningful discussion' by removing something so innate to an article as the flag of a country? And if you don't see what's wrong with that, then it IS a personal problem. I'm not gonna waste my time and explain to you that the flag of a micronation is in fact relevant information to be included in the country infobox template. Yes, your edits have been disruptive and undermining, consisting of solely removing relevant information rather than adding information. Asking you to contribute constructively or leave is not a threat. Please look up the definition of threat. Using such words to try to paint a picture in your favor doesn't help your case when any neutral party can see that there was no threat to you. And yes, we were here a month ago, because you were adamant at removing the infobox from the article. We had an RfC and the consensus was to keep the infobox. Since you lost that argument, you're now back to undermine the infobox as best as you can without removing it. In order for me to cast aspersions, it would require a lack of evidence. I've laid out the evidence. And to accuse me of attempting to 'own' the article is laughable. How about you provide proof of that, lest you be accused of casting aspersions? Terrorist96 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant discussion is at Talk:Liberland#removal_of_trivia which frankly is a terrible section title and is going to cause friction when worded as it was removed "for obvious reasons." I also don't see anyone actually linking to the MOS style section, just people stating it past each other. Terrorist96 (I'm not particularly with the username either) is not being civil either but it would be better if people actually slowed down and explained their thoughts rather than simply stating that "it's obvious" and "per policy" to remove stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the phrase "for obvious reasons" because we've been having a discussion for several months about these various items, and after two RfCs there's still no consensus that the three specific elements I had removed were worthy of inclusion (I have specifically looked at the discussions and haven't found a very coherent argument in favor of keeping them, most of the time people were talking about other issues). Surely at some point we need to apply WP:NOCON. Granted, it's hard to pinpoint the time some of these things became contentious, but because the article was created relatively recently, and has been the topic of AfD and protection because of disruptive edits literally within the first week of its existence, we can't assume that any of it is really settled matter. In any case, the thing that needs to be observed is that TDL has been arguing a similar position (opposed to mine), and they haven't been grossly insulting. That's the kind of behavior that should be promoted, unlike that of Terrorist96. --Joy (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The two RFCs seem to relate to the infobox and to "promotional elements". If you want to be vague and claim that it's been discussed thoroughly, fine but I can't figure out the prior discussions since it's long arguments in all directions all around. When I ask for a specific citation to the MOSFLAGS section that's at issue, I get "it's the only section that's relevant" with no further explanation and people now stating that they agree (with what I don't know). It's no wonder the discussion hasn't gone anywhere for months, no one wants to be specific. As I stated there, a number of other micronations have flags and the like so I don't get the objection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the main reason the discussion is so vague and opaque is that this is completely uncharted territory for the encyclopedia. There are apparently no definitive reliable sources on micronations that we can rely on and just simply reference and be done with it. We're literally constructing what we think should be encyclopedic coverage of a new concept as we go along. How do you think this issue should be approached? --Joy (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it uncharted territory? A brief glance of Template:Micronations shows a number of articles that have been around for years, most of which I believe have their flag. Now, that's not a particular great reason to have the flag there but at least people should be consistent and either remove them all (per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG or whatever because they aren't really considered countries or other various reasons). Besides, of all the issues with that topic, the flag and coat of arms are the least of my concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, my appeals to the spirit of WP:V/WP:RS have been consistently argued against or sidestepped. Do you really think I'd have had more luck convincing people if I had appealed to MoS, which has less weight?

I'm saying it's uncharted because despite the existence of all these policies and guidelines, many of these micronation articles are covered in this dubious manner, and yet more tend to appear whenever someone starts a new project. Liberland is actually great as far as WP:GNG is concerned, but we also had Principality of Ongal and Kingdom of Enclava this year, and who knows how many others. It's hard to argue for consistency in the face of so much inconsistency. --Joy (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want Ricky, you asked a specific question, you got a specific answer. KoshVorlon stated the part of MOSFLAGs he thinks applies, I stated that would be the relevant section but disagreed that it did apply (as did TDL) you still seem to be at a loss. If you look at the history of the talkpage, it has a common theme which is of Joy wanting to remove perfectly valid and sourced information under some sort of misapprehension that having a micronation article on Liberland is somehow promoting it. Now above she thinks its 'uncharted territory'. No its not, there are plenty of micronation articles which has been explained and referenced repeatedly to Joy on the talkpage. Its neither vague nor opaque. Terrorist96 may be getting a bit short, but he is not the only one getting fed up of going in circles over and over again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

How about a flat which section do you think applies? Not you saying "KoshVorlon believes that the only relevant section applies", just a flat "this section says X." There's seven sections to MOSFLAGS along with at a half dozen subsections. I'm just wandering in and I have no zero idea what people want and that's after having read multiple pages with two RFCs (which no weren't all about the flag) and just various disputes. There's disputes in that section alone about a lack of references, about whether it was the "novelty phase" or whatever that was (refer to both the historical considerations, non-sovereign states sections of MOSFLAGS) and then there's the whole flags as icons issue. Is the problem that it's a micronation? Is it the lack of sources? Is it the actual one? It seems like it's now "a flag is an icon" so no matter the sources, no matter the nation's status, it wouldn't be included. Ok, but it's included on pretty much every major country article so if you think MOSFLAGS doesn't support including it here, fine. People keep arguing but when pressed, it's all "the only section that's relevant" and "per MOSFLAGS" and you finally respond that you hate the entire infobox so do you want the flag separate like how Tomás Cloma does it? As I said, I don't actually get what people want and I understand fully why people are disagreeing there when people keep moving the goalposts in response. I get some people think this whole thing is a joke and don't want it treated like a real country (I lean that way) but that doesn't exactly resolve any issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Striking this. I don't care. If you think rounds of "it's the relevant section" and "the whole thing should be removed" is helpful, that's on you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. There's plenty of precedent for dubious coverage in micronation articles already. So people logically assume that Newton's First Law applies and that there is organic consensus to keep things as they are. And then when an even less conventional new country project is started, they just keep applying the same kind of window dressing on its Misplaced Pages article. And then when I challenge that, I'm the bad guy. --Joy (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to demand a change based on one article and I think it's fair for them to disagree based on the inernsia already here. A proper discussion would be at MOSFLAGS about micronations since it's a broader topic (assuming we haven't already had it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you if it was one article out of a consistent set of N articles. But it's actually one out of a fairly inconsistent set. For example, the flag of Sealand has actually flown at that platform presumably since the '70s. I can imagine numerous boat travellers in the region have come across it, so it merits explanation. The flag of Liberland was just invented this year, and its physical appearances have mostly not been seen by any appreciable number of people. Surely that's a meaningful differentiation? --Joy (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive behavior and edit-warring by User:Legacypac

For the last few months there has been a concerted attempt to clean up Longevity related articles. Various relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Oldest people, Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. User:Legacypac is a more recent contributor to this topic but has repeatedly carried out multiple edits (such as consolidating multiple articles) either without discussion or while discussion is ongoing. Despite requests from both sides of the discussion this user has continued to edit in such a fashion. These edits (omitting a few) are a prime example of disruptive bahavior: , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696466509], https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696634187], , , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696717136] and resulted in this this rather petty edit summary. A more recent sequence , , resulted in Legacypac initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the reverting user (the result of the investigation was that it was completely unfounded).

Another user has recently joined in the discussion and their edits reflect the issues with User:Legacypac. See ], ], ], ] and, unfortunately, ].

It appears to me that this users contributions on this topic are not only unnecessary but their behavior and attitude is in fact disruptive and is impacting on the resolution of the current discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific diffs provided concerning Legacypac, I will note for the consideration of other editors who may wish to comment here that the "oldest living people" area of Misplaced Pages has long been a WP:walled garden in which the regular participants vigorously resist any changes made by editors from the outside and have promulgated their own unique standards for what is and is not acceptable in the way of sourcing. The entire subject area is in dire need of a shake up and a good cleaning out, and possibly a block or two or three as well. Some thought should also be given to shutting down the WikiProject, as being detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The wall of that garden has been reduced to a picket fence with several gaps, through which Legacypac is attempting to drive a bulldozer. And FYI, I have suggested shutting down the project on more than one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty new participant in this topic. The overlapping super old people lists (5 layers deep in some cases) and serious inconsistencies between lists took a lot to understand, but we are making progress condensing things down to something that can be maintained going forward. If anyone is really interested I can provide diffs of SPAs and vandals who don't like any efforts to consolidate and rationalize. It's pretty brutal. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree on one thing: that these merges and moves are contentious and should require requested mergers and requested moves discussions, not unilateral actions. Nevertheless, I think the prudent place for these discussions is WP:AE if people want to request sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• We need more comments on Super Old People topics from experienced uninvolved editors, not campaigning like , and
• Before commenting on this ANi interested editor should read the vicious attacks from people opposed to the cleanup all edits by this vandal created just to attack me and this vandal also created just to attack me with such gems as (User:Legacypac is the most evil person in the world, not is the most evil wikipedian in the world). A threat refusal to accept strong evidence of socks or topic banned editors and disruption on AfD just a a few recent examples.
• The editor that started this thread has reinserted duplicated info 3x into the article that they complain I edit warred on when I moved out all the info 1x (to a very closely related article) and redirected again after it was restored.
• Even after starting this tread Derby is busy reverting changes by other editors without discussion. even with threats of ANi .
• Far from avoiding discussion or acting without following process, my delete/redirect success rate at AfD on Longevity articles appears to be driving some editors into very uncivil behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Legacypac has a history of concerted backstabbing, ad homien attacks, harassment, and divisive behaviour that demonstrates a clear pattern that is by no means limited to his tendentious behaviour regarding the entire suite of longevity articles. This user is fast becoming a net negative to Misplaced Pages and if spared the block hammer right now, is advised to significantly moderate his presence on Misplaced Pages or expect to be blocked without warning or another long drawn out discussion at ANI. I will be returning to normal duty on or just after 4 January at which time I will be happy to provide numerous diffs that will turn the air blue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your drive by slander away please. There is the matter of your uncivil behavior when questioned nicely on why you acted as an Admin to close a edit warring report that you did not read and tell an editor they were not aware of the 1RR template they were edit warring over. . Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kudpung you are required to provide diffs at the point you make accusations or your above statement is entirely an unsubstantiated personal attack which needs to be backed up or struck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, adding threats with the purpose of creating a chilling effect is a reason for a block, Kudpung. Be careful when you want to follow the chilling road. The Banner talk 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Back to the actual point here, I agree that Oldest people merger discussion isn't going smoothly. I believe the pages are protected to stop the forced mergers but there's now both a straw poll and a separate RFC created on the subject so I'd ask an outside admin to merge them just for simplicity. Otherwise, while the AFDs and prods are a bit much, I don't find them particularly disruptive outside of the chaos regarding the Oldest people article at the moment. Given that Alansohn has edited here for a decade, the SPI report looks like witch hunting (which has been a recent problem in this area) so I would ask for some outside view on it too. DerbyCountyinNZ if the Oldest people page is under control, is there anything else that's a problem at the moment? The AFD discussions are all heated no doubt though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Alansohn issue was already actioned by an Admin. While not found to be a Sockmaster, there IS socking going on all over the topic, and he did improperly remove my comments about an obvious sock. I'm not planning to pursue that uncivil behavior at this time, but if he takes action against me as he keeps threatening to, it will be dealt with then.

That leaves User:Kudpung's inappropriate conduct here. So which admin will step up and block him? If Admins are allowed to just say any slanderous threatening uncivil thing they want with no evidence then regular editors should also be allowed to say anything they want without fear of sanctions. Admins should not be above the rules. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think all around the sockpuppetry allegations are fruitless and not productive. I doubt there is actually sockpuppetry here, more like WP:MEAT-puppetry which is a different issue. I really doubt that it's only one or two editors involved here with multiple accounts, more likely a group of people told to come here and voting the same way, at which point they vanish for months at a time. The single working one was a topic-banned editor socking to return and we don't have a lot of those cases anyways. As to Kudpong, I'm too involved in this area so I'll leave it someone else but frankly, attacks with a "I'll be back on Monday with evidence" won't cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't block an admin for something that a "regular editor" wouldn't be blocked for. Is there a pattern of behavior here? Why is a warning insufficient? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a clear consensus developing by editors not to merge, and Legacypac doing all she/he can to make the merges happen. On that note, can we get Oldest people reverted back to this version? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Bushranger I've had minimal interaction with Kudpung so I believe this attack is the result of being one of three editors User:Johnuniq, myself and User:Viriditas that called him out on an obviously incorrect 3RR close and preceded by . He also made unsubstantiated allegations about User:Viriditas in that event which appeared quite baseless when I looked into them. (I recall it was User:WWGB who was using inappropriate language but I'd need to do more digging to show those "f-ing" diffs and we are not talking about WWGB's conduct here anyway). I took the issue as far or farther then I felt I could, knowing that holding an Admin to account for acting badly is pretty much impossible. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to the ping above. I'm trying to focus on minimizing drama and conflict in 2016 and I would encourage everyone to join me by closing this thread. Haters gonna hate and all that. HNY! Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK's analysis is spot-on. I'm with Viriditas, please shut this thread down with no action and here's to less dramah in 2016. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be entirely fair to Kudpung, who has indicated he is on a wikibreak, but might like to return to expand on his remarks in a day or two. Perhaps we should wait until then? Begoon  16:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not doing anything is going to result in this issue festering, unless you see a clear consensus to merge the articles then this needs to be dealt with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

COI and BLP issues at an article

Due to the nomination for deletion of M.A.M. Mansoor, bulk of new users and IPs are running COI at M.A.M. Mansoor and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor. Now, they start to attack me/us as racist(s) (See Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor). I am a Wikipedian who contribute for better encyclopedia instead of own policies. I have reported to sock puppet investigation too at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Riyazifarook. Before the COI increase (already started), admin intervention is appreciated. Thanks. --AntanO 06:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for the duration of the AfD to put a stop to obvious socks and meatpuppets attempting to !vote in the article itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about the AfD either, AntanO. The obvious socks will be ignored by the closing admin. I've removed the attack on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

Style changes after final warning: 188.222.58.239

In this edit User:188.222.58.239 changed the spelling of an article from American to English after a final warning about unilateral changes to spelling had been added to the IP editor's talk page. Editor edited Determination of the day of the week, a calendar related subject, before the warning, and the edit of concern for this thread, to Equinox, is also related to calendars, so I conclude the same person is using the IP address before and after the warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous incident with this IP was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#User:188.222.58.239. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 h--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Trolling again from Hengistmate

Hengistmate (talk · contribs)

Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as ] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD

Reported to WP:AIV by Amortias. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I would appreciate an admin's (or anyone's) eyes on the edits of 2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly misrepresented sources on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases about Phil Donahue's role in "popularizing" the cases (, , ). He/she also has repeatedly put his/her point of view in the lead of the article. This appears to be a case of a single purpose editor with a personal agenda who refuses to try to maintain a neutral point of view. He/she has made comments such as "The truth hurts" and "The truth has to come out" in response to warnings. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Popped it over to AIV definitely here to right great wrongs. Amortias (T)(C) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Intimidating remark

Please take a look at User talk:Legacypac where an IP editor just made a threat of disruption. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional eyes on the Miss Earth series of articles would be appreciated given these comments to my talkpage:

IF YOU WILL NEVER PUT BACK ALL THE INFORMATION YOU DELETED IN[REDACTED] especially in MISS EARTH, EXPECT DANGER TO YOUR ACCOUNT!Miss Earth and... Legacypac recently defaced all the biggest information about article of "Miss Earth". Most of the information was shortened and all the important details turned into summarization. Legacypac is now considered by fans of Miss Earth as a big threat in providing correct and precise information.

The topic has a long history of commercial promotion, sock and meat puppets, SEO link building campaigns and editors who appear allergic to anything we call a RS. Forth vandal acct targeting me in about a week - my work must be annoying some people with a non-wiki agenda :) Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Folkprofessor

User:Folkprofessor warned about copyright violations on his talk page. Any further violations can result in a block. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Folkprofessor is an WP:SPA that adds unlicensed images to the article Owsley Stanley‎ claiming they are public domain. They have been removed seven times already. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've given him a copyright violation warning. If he keeps it up, he can be blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Also, be sure to sign your talk page messages, like the one you left on his talk page. I signed it for you there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! and thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Continuous uncivil behavior and comments by Akbar the Great

This isn't the place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I am reporting this after getting completely fed up, I think it's time for an admin to take over from here, please see the diff for the most recent message this user left me. I completely feel insulted by his comments and feel that it was a personal attack against me. Please also see discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan), about how he accused me of political motivation for that AFD based on some of my userboxes at my user page and I feel that was a personal attack against me as well and the editor had no right to accuse me of that. After reminding him continuously to base his arguments on Misplaced Pages policies, he continues to personally attack me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a good candidate for dispute resolution. It may also be good if you both try to avoid each other for a while as it seems you've each gotten under the other's skin. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I can consider seeking the dispute resolution as well for the content dispute we have ongoing at Bangladesh and A. K. Fazlul Huq (from which I have been taking a break for some time) but at this time, I am reporting his conduct. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff, I am absolutely sick and tired of this. It's the new year, take a break. Please assume good faith.--Akbar the Great (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you are asking me to assume good faith after leaving this on my talk

What a petty editor with an abiding hatred.

Why don't you apologize and strike your comment so that I can assume good faith? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Shhhhwwww!! editing based on personal preference, not established guidelines

There is person who goes by the username "Shhhhwwww!!", which ironically, doesn't exist, at least the text is red when you click on his username. He's been making random edits on the Filipinos article, and reverting my edits based on "personal preference" of images, not historical significance. He has a history of making random edits, that are inaccurate.

First quote on his revert, "please do not edit the pix without commenting first, they are organized by gender, historical era and aesthetics, don't add statues or full body pics because they do not appear to be recognizable", next quote on revert", on the talk page for the Filipinos article, there was no established rule, ruling out "images of statues" for famous people. Secondly, I did put an edit note. Next quote from his edit, "avoid statues since they are interpretations of appearance not the actual one. photos that obscure the face should also be avoided".

Overall, his username just sounds suspicious. I'm reporting this here, before an edit war ensues, because if I revert his edits, even with explanation, it's going to result in an edit war.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

his edits look like good faith edits. but they are generally wrong. ive reverted a few Zachlita (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@PacificWarrior101: Please provide links to the revisions in question.

Note to outside observers that this conflict relates to an article's ethnic group image array. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering , and . Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire[REDACTED] will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me , and .
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire[REDACTED] will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC

1. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
2. There is no sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I gave my word that I shall try to adhere to 1PR and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
3. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation till now.
4. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

New user improperly reviewing articles at NPP.

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

User Thalassaxeno is a relatively new editor (account created December 17, 2015) who has been quite active in new page patrol. They have been asked multiple times by myself and other editors to stop reviewing articles until they are more experienced and understand what they are doing. They are marking pages as reviewed, which removes them from the queue, when they should be marked for deletion. This includes multiple copyright violations as well as many articles whose notability is dubious at best. They have refused to answer requests on their talk page to stop so I really see no other option except administrative intervention. They just need more experience and the understanding of what needs to be deleted and what can be reviewed and marked for cleanup. Until that time happens they really shouldn't be doing new page patrol. --Majora (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked to post a message here which I left on Majora's talk page earlier this morning: "I apologize that I didn't respond until now. There is no excuse for that. I also realize that whatever I say here will likely not change whatever will happen to me, but I still feel it necessary to write this, just so that I may try to make you understand my actions. It does honestly frustrate we to be told that I should hold off on new page patrol until I've made 500 mainspace edits. I think I made that much clear through my actions, although I did make a deliberate effort to follow these instructions yesterday by making more than 120 mainspace edits, but eventually stopped out of a personal sense of futility. I fail to see how a number like that could ever make a difference between understanding the rules and guidelines of the new pages section and not doing so. Furthermore, it frustrated me when you, a user who only has roughly two months more experience than I do, took authority over me when it seemed to me that you were in no position to do so(again, I am trying to explain the motivations for my actions). Most importantly, I did not trust that only ONE actual citation of my misconduct in the new pages section was really enough evidence that I was more a boon than an aid, and not the other way around, as I believe. I realize that my proceeding against your wishes and admonishment is your reason for taking such harsh action, but I beg you to consider; you gave no warning of the consequences if I did not stop; you only waited till I had ignored one message instead of taking the time to post two. I can give you my word(which is something which I never gave to Kolbasz)that I will avoid the new pages section for whatever term you see fit, if you can explain to me, without any vagaries, why I should avoid it. I believe now that it is possible to avoid administrator intervention, and if I ever break my promise you clearly have every right to proverbially sic the dogs on me. I await your response and thank you for your consideration." --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It really has nothing to do with the length of your tenure and personally I think the 500 mainspace goalpost is a nonsense statistic. That isn't the point. The point is other editor's have had to repeatedly clean up after you. NPP needs to be done correctly to ensure that articles that have serious problems do not exist in the public for too long a period of time. The missed copyright violations are far more concerning to me than anything else. Especially considering that both the ones mentioned above had a CorenSearchBot notice on them. It has nothing to do with tenure, it has everything to do with doing it right. I have no control over what happens to you and I waited for any indication that you had even read my message, let alone any of the other messages on your talk page. Even a simple removal of the section I posted there would have at least been an indication that you knew about it. This drastic step was taken after deafening silence. --Majora (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that the two of you are talking, perhaps you (Majora) could mentor him (Thalassaxeno) to help him become better at the whole process? It sounds like he wants to help out and that he isn't doing anything maliciously. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

ARA Piedra Buena (P-36) Eleven seconds of review (that's what the barnstar on --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203's page says) let in a clearly erroneous statement on the ship's dimensions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That has now been corrected. There was apparently a transcription/template error. Mistakes happen. But somebody doing a review should have caught it, I think. If you are doing new page review, one can't just Rubber stamp them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never mentored anyone before but if that is acceptable to Thalassaxeno that is fine with me. If they are unsure of how to handle a particular new page or are confused about specific guidelines Misplaced Pages has they are welcome to ask. I tend to hang around IRC as well so if they want to get immediate answers there is that option too. Like I said, I only took this course after hearing nothing at all from Thalassaxeno and seeing them continuing to review pages. I too believe that they aren't doing this maliciously, it just has to be done right. That is all I ask. --Majora (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I would really appreciate being mentored. I would like to know at what point it would be possible for me to return to the new pages section, but I fully understand that I am not ready for it. I will likely return to using the random page function to find pages to edit, and will make mainspace edits. In any case, I am glad that all parties involved have been so understanding. I have also been writing out the bases for a few articles I am hoping to post, although I probably won't be back for a few days. Happy New Years. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note, you'll want to have your user name in your signature. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Future of Food

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

Could someone close this? As Schmidt (snarky bugger, but also correct) pointed out, there's decent sources, and I concede that "Keep" is the right decision. There's been no delete votes, and I've withdrawn the nomination. Adam Cuerden 12:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent hoaxing

There's a persistent hoaxer hitting Sausage Party pretty hard. If you look at it, the last two weeks worth of edits have been nothing but people reverting vandalism. The IP is repeatedly hitting several BLPs with the same hoax, including Michael J. Fox, Tommy Chong, Ray Romano, and Adam Sandler filmography. If you take a look at 101.186.148.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 180.216.24.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you can see some of the scope. I filed a request at RFPP for Sausage Party, but it looks like this requires too much research to act on. Example diff: . If you click on this, you'll see that Adam Sandler, a high profile American actor, is being added to the article and sourced to two existing citations. Neither mention Sandler (or any of the other actors added in this edit): , . Further Google searches reveal no coverage of this casting, either. Several people been reverting this vandal off-and-on, and Materialscientist has blocked a few of his IPs. However, he just comes back under a different IP address and reinserts the hoax. I think we're going to need to semi-protect at least the film itself, if not a few of the actors' articles, too. The most recent, and currently unblocked, IP address used is 180.216.27.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I will alert this one on his talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for 3 months. Btw WP:RFPP is backlogged now, we could use some help in cleaning it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also blocked the last IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also semi-protected Eddie Izzard, Michael J. Fox, and Tommy Chong for 2 weeks/1 month--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Composcompos12

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

Composcompos12 has an obsession with dumping the contents of his nursing textbook into any vaguely associated template. He has a fixation for adding the logo of a Filipino nursing school as if it applies to ALL nursing schools (,), and Snow's Cholera map at a scale where it's no more than a QR code and with adding an "above" section to templates, almost invariably containing redlinks.

RHaworth's attempts to alert him to wikilinks led to a rebuke and a threat, "if this is really world you enter my yard, I will use my hunter rifle blow out you head.".

Slack about logging in to repeat his clumsy edits. When called on it in an edit summary he doesn't deny it, just calmly reverts. It's happened so often (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that it's impossible to tell whether he genuinely forgets to log in (despite the warning you get when you edit while not logged in), or whether he's using it for sockpuppetry with plausible deniability.

A block seems unlikely to have any effect because he doesn't care whether he's logged in or not.

I've reached the point where I need to carefully view the edit history of any topic (or more pointedly, ant template) in this area for fear of accidentally hitting WP:3RR. I'm unwatching them and leave it to community to decide how to deal with this incompetent, arrogant editor who refuses to learn or collaborate. Bazj (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for the totally unacceptable "...blow out you head" remark, but have not looked at the other problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:RHaworth wasnt just drawing his attention to wikilinks, he was editing the guy's user page. of course he got annoyed. hes obviously not a native english speaker and i think he could be cut some slack. the full comment made is clear he wasnt threatening anyone "if this is really world you enter my yard, I will use my hunter rifle blow out you head.but we are in wiki, so I will flag you as vandals." with anything more than a vandalism report for messing with his user page. he got trolled by someone messing with his user page, and he took the bait. this seems unfair. Zachlita (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In no way, shape, or form is it ok to insinuate that you would murder another editor for their edits if the events took place in the real world. Blaming it on a language barrier is irrelevant - you don't make comments such as those to anyone regardless of your irritation. --Jezebel's Ponyo 16:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

agreed. but he didnt threaten to murder someone. as per stand your ground laws etc, saying "if this was the real world and you invaded my property, i would shoot you" is a sad but acceptable comment. read around his poor grasp of the english language and you will see there is no threat. the threat he made in regards to someone editing his user page, was to report them as a vandal Zachlita (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not an acceptable comment to make to a fellow editor on a collaborative project. Ever. Composcompos is free to make an unblock request if they would like to clarify their remarks, however I would have blocked them if Boing! said Zebedee had not.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

it might have been a better idea to talk to him, and ask his opinion before banning him. ive lost count of the number of times a non native speaker has sounded offensive to me in real life, and when i took 30 seconds to clarify the true intent found that it was far less offensive. shame people dont take that time on wikipedia. i guess if he had been a long standing editor there would be a 500 paragraph report before an indef block was considered. i guess as hes a non native speaker and only been here 2 months, its not worth admins time to actually work out what he meant. Zachlita (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

They are not banned, they are blocked. Previous attempts to talk to the editor have led to them simply blanking their page. If their grasp of the English language is so poor that they cannot express their concerns without comparing one single edit to their talk page (which corrected the templates used there) to trespassing and insinuating they would shoot someone in the head with a rifle in the real world if they did such a thing, then they should not be editing here. It appears that you have had your own issues with civility in your week long Misplaced Pages life (at least with this account), so I can see that your judgement may be clouded.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

from your comments above, compos and myself are not the only ones with civility issues. you are unable to deal with someone disagreeing with your opinion without making comments about clouded judgement. chill out, i was defending someone i thought had been dealt with wrongly, there is no need to make this some personal drama. this wasnt about me, neither was it about you. Zachlita (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Debresser: highly disruptive editing, intimidating and aggressive behaviour, and a racial slur

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

Hello, could some admins get involved here please?

There has been some kind of editing conflict going on on Ottoman Palestine. This has been a redirect for years, but was recently tagged with a disambiguation tag. Whilst, for everyone who knows a thing or two about dab pages, this page isn't one, neither in the way it is formatted, neither in the content it proposes. Something of which some users involved in the discussion are quite appreciative .

Now, the problem is that this change is highly disruptive as this page has more than a hundred links pointing to it. Sticking a dab tag on there means that this page is now ranking at the top of the "links to disambiguation" page to be cleaned up list, and will go into tomorrow's monthly cleanup list, drawing all kinds of editors who will start tearing up those links. In the current circumstances, with a page that was disrupted only recently, without a clear consensus on what needs to happen to it, this is unacceptable.

Both User:BD2412 and myself (, , , ) have been making edits to get this point across, but have been reverted aggressively by user Debresser who doesn't seem to be bothered by his lacking knowledge of dab pages and the problems he's causing.

What's more unacceptable is his behaviour, including intidimation, menacing, and even a racial slur:

• "you will establish consensus first, or risk being reported", stressing will as if I was the one who was at the heart of the disruption
• Comments such as "you will stop or be reported", "You come with an opinion and state is as a fact", "Bogus claim about policy", "Reply to aggressive editor, who is hereby warned to abide by consensus and not wave the flag of non-existing policies" , ,
• Again threats on my page of being reported, and even a "WP:ARBPIA" violation (not even sure what this has to do with it???)
• To top it off, even a racial slur, "Why are you Dutchmen so obstinate" . I'm not even Dutch, but this language is completely unacceptable. You German, you Englishman, you this or that is completely out of the question.
• Just scratching the surface, I've noticed he has been showing similar behaviour to other users, User:Moonraker12 , Neutralhomer here , User:Drmies involved as well, etcetera
• ... Forgot to mention I'm on my last warning, and "my ass is off to WP:ANI"... well, I guess it is now

I believe I depleted my fair share of reverts here, so can I ask the admins to enforce some decisive action here? For one, the dab page needs to be reverted to a state where it will not be causing any harm for as long as the edit conflict lasts. And needless to say nobody, including myself, needs to be confronted with menaces or borderline insulting slurs. --Midas02 (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User informed, but I've just noticed he was already involved in another ANI procedure just this morning. --Midas02 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to Midas02 decided to start this post, because I had warned him repeatedly, that if not the spirit of the season, I would report him. He makes edits to Ottoman Palestine, in the beginning apparently not aware of the discussion on the talkpage, and later in defiance of the consensus there.

Per WP:BOOMERANG I propose he should be blocked for a day or two, to bring home the point that WP:CONSENSUS is not something that should be ignored. Not to mention the fact that he is edit warring and seems oblivious of the good advice at Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

As to the phrase "Why are you Dutchmen so obstinate". I explained in my reply there, that I am Dutch myself, and that this was meant humoristic. I am not to be held at fault for Midas02's lack of humor. If he doesn't appreciate it, he can remove it from his talkpage.

This is basically a content dispute. I am aware of the workings of disambiguation pages, but disagree with Midas02, who thinks erroneously that the fact that a page shows up on a to-do list is reason to make incorrect edits to the page. Edits that propose to do things that do no need to be done, should not be done, and are against consensus. I have explained this in both my edit summaries and on the talkpage at Talk:Ottoman Palestine#Redirect. Unfortunately, Midas02 has turned a content dispute into behavioral one, by ignoring consensus and edit warring.

Legitimate warnings are not attempts at intimidation. I they were, every state could be accused of intimidating its citizens. This is nonsense. My warning, both in edit summaries and on the talkpages were geared towards getting Midas02 to understand that he can not edit against consensus and he can not edit war. These are important points, that if an experienced editor can not abide by them, he shouldn't edit on Misplaced Pages. That is policy.

But me no buts, Midas02 ("but I've just noticed he was already involved in another ANI procedure just this morning"). I see you have quite a lot of warnings and WP:ANI posts on your talkpage as well, including warnings for edit warring, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Please also note that that post was summarily closed. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

looks like a content dispute with drama regarding debressers tone. threatening to take onwiki action is fine and his comments fall the right side of civility rules. i suggest dealing with content issues on the article talk page or dispute resolutionZachlita (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) After reading through the talk page it looks as if Midas02 simply jumps into a discussion which had formed a rational and reasoned consensus and threw a spanner into the works by making disruptive edits against consensus. Midas02 can and should raise whatever issues they feel appropriate at the article talk page but I see no good reason for this ANI report - they started editing against consensus while a discussion was ongoing and without consideration of the prior discussion and got called on it. I suggest strongly that they withdraw and close this complaint. Right now they have done nothing to be sanctioned for but, based on the tone of the complaint, they seem in danger of digging a hole which will lead to a BOOMERANG. Best for all that that un-needed drama be avoided. Jbh 16:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested range blocks (again) for serial vandals

Copy/paste of previous request that was archived before anyone addressed it; issue still continues

Once again IP-users are subtly vandalizing tropical cyclone articles and abusing numerous addresses. The first user utilizes a base IP of 50.153.x.x and an IPv6 address of 2601:3c6:8000:e7c0:x:x:x:x. Given that the vandalizing is nearly identical and the addresses trace back to either Tennessee or Massachusetts, I'm assuming them to be from the same person. The second user is a returning person from the summer whom was subjected to a week-long range block. The second person's IP base of traces back to Mexico, and given the similar nature of their edits I'm assuming them to be the same person as in the linked incident. It's been spread out over several months, with the IPs mainly adding fake tropical cyclone names or altering intensities to incorrect values. Since I don't know how to do so myself, I'm requesting range blocks be implemented as these people likely won't stop for quite some time.

I'm honestly getting quite tired of having to make sure I double check my watchlist (>5,000 articles) every day for these serial vandals. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Range 50.153.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): This is a very busy range, with over 2600 edits from the start of October, of which only 332 were to articles with "Hurricane" or "Typhoon" in the title. So there's too much collateral damage to consider a range block.
• Range 187.151.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since November 8.
• Range 187.198.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since October 25.
• How to do it: For regular IPs, I start with the template {{blockcalc}}. Go to a sandbox, and place the list of IPs inside the template, and it will calculate the range for you (see an example of output here). Then, go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php? (alternate: https://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/) and plug in your range to look for collateral damage. For super busy ranges, change the start date for the output so it doesn't take so long for the results to come up. I don't know how to calculate ranges for IPv6, I always ask the worthy admin @NeilN: for help -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor

Disruptive editing, User:Noel darlow has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references and inserting unsourced and unverifiable material in its place which contradicts the sources within the Crown Estate article. Has refused to work collaborative in improving the verifiability of the article with other editors in removing over 20 inline citations without prior consultations on the Talk page, despite at least two editors proposals to improve the page, and continuously and "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" in contradiction with WP:DDE. Has also reverted and reinserted unverifiable and counterfactual information three four times over the past two days in contravention with WP:TRR (its spirit if not its letter).

User trackratte edited the page inserting roughly 13 inline citations based on the best possible reliable sources (in this case House of Commons Committees, the Crown Estate's own publications, Parliamentary Reports, Legal explanatory notes accompanying legislation, British Government publications, and sources from Buckingham Palace, amongst others) in an attempt to improve the article as the lead was completely unverifiable in that it lacked any citations or sourcing. This is user trackratte's first involvement with this article, and has no prior formed opinions regarding the article subject prior to conducting cursory fact checking as the article lead was lacking any references. In finding that the sources directly contradicted the opening sentence, and that the opening sentence had no supporting citation, user trackratte began further research, editing, and adding verifiable sources.

User Noel darlow removed all of the material along with all of the inline citations, putting in its place unsourced material which directly contradicts with the sources.

User trackratte then initiated a conversation on the Talk page, outlining a variety of the sources concerning the critical issue of ownership.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crown_Estate&type=revision&diff=697368041&oldid=697302863 User trackratte then restored the verifiable material inline with step one of WP:DDE ("Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material.") in order to continue improving the article and adding verifiable sources, making a further 9 edits and adding roughly 8 more inline citations.

User trackratte added further information to the Talk Page, describing the root cause of the issue, and explaining Misplaced Pages policy and how it is disruptive to actively remove verifiable information (WP:DE: "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources"), and how inputting unsourced information which is blatantly contradicted by verifiable and official sources is not inline with WP:NPOV.

User Noel darlow again removed all verifiable information and supporting inline citation once again replacing it with unsourced, non-verifiable POV information without further engaging in the Talk.

User trackratte restored the last verifiable version in order to continue improving the article] inline with WP:DDE step 2 ("If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage."), making a further 12 edits and adding a variety of inline sources, bluelinking to wiki articles containing critical conceptual information, and various copy edits for clarity and readability inline with supporting citations.

User Ninetyone joined the conversation on the Talk page stating that "it looks like Trackratte is doing a good job in sourcing the claims and they've obviously got the facts right so far", and adding a proposed copy edit to Trackratte's latest edit to improve the article's clarity and readability.

User Noel darlow for a third time reverted all changes without engaging in the Talk page with either users trackratte or Ninetyone, for a third time removing all verifiable material and supporting references, and re-inserting non-verifiable POV material in contradiction to Misplaced Pages policies (WP:TRR "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." and WP:DE "editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable source"). User Noel Darlow removed roughly 18 inline citations, a substantial amount of verifiable fact, and reinserted their own personal views without any sourcing, substantiation, or coherent argument on the Talk Page beyond their not liking it.

Looking at the user's previous contributions within this article, this is not the first time this editor has shut down other user's similar attempts to improve the article by reverting and removing verifiable citations which conflict with their own POV, and seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as telling other user's attempts at clarifying the article with "I'll edit the article as appropriate".

According to WP:DDE step three, if "the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Subsequently, I have followed policy and have requested an administrator, and will have reverted the editor's reinsertion of unsourced information as another editor has also begun collaboratively working on the last sourced version which User Noel Darlow has removed. I want to make it clear that my last reversion is being done inline with the explicit direction of the steps outlined to take in WP:DDE and as such I have followed steps 1 through 3 in order and subsequently understand my last restoration of sourced material as not falling under the rubrique of WP:TRR. However, in line with TRR and DDE, this will be my final revert to allow User Ninetynine and any other editors to continue to collaboratively improve the article, and I will reduce my involvement with the article in awaiting admin response.

User Noel darlow has for a fourth time removed over 20 inline citations and inserted unsourced information, some of which is runs completely counter to the sources. This also cuts off another editor's proposal, which was building off the sourced version.

As I clearly explained the relevant policies pertaining to the wholesale removal of sources to User Noel darlow in the talk page and the how "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is against WP, I do not believe that ignorance of policy can be an excuse in this case. I therefore propose that the user receive a topic ban from the article for a suitable period of time as deemed appropriate by an administrator. trackratte (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact Trackratte has refused repeated requests not to proceed with his own POV without attempting to resolve our differences first. Once he/she did engage in Talk he/she failed to consider points raised and simply attempted to push his/her own opinion as fact without any real discussion. This disagreement is about presenting a clear explanation of Crown Estates ownership and thus mostly concerns the opening paragraph(s) and nothing else, despite what has been claimed in the complaint. I'd like the article to be locked while differences are resolved in Talk. Basic issue is that the reality of ownership is (counter-intuitively) NOT well-explained by literal, legal technicalities and the general fog of tradition and ceremony which inevitably surrounds a monarchy. Trackratte has not grasped this yet but I'm sure he/she will - if he/she is instructed to engage properly with other editors rather than reaching for the shotgun at the first sign of disagreement. Noel darlow (talk) 01:39, 1 January 20 moi16 (UTC)

PS: The technicalities deserve to be mentioned too, of course, although not at the expense of a clear statement of the practical reality. Crown Estate ownership causes massive confusion Noel darlow (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Noel, you refused to respond to to my request that "If there is a specific point which you find lacking, or a specific source you find lacking, bring it up here", but instead you simply continue to remove all sources and insert unverifiable and counterfactual information in its place, and this is not the first time you've done so. As as far as I can see going back, this is your sixth time removing sources and placing unverified information in its place, despite five different editor's attempts over the past year or so. For example, here, here, and here. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do not have a POV for this article, I added content inline with verifiable sources, ever sentence I added had one or more verifiable inline citations. Your removing over 20 inline citations and replace the material with non-verifiable and unsubstantiated information in contradiction to the sources you continue to remove is what is at issue here. This compounded by your unwillingness to build on the material collaboratively with other editors. To note, over my twelve and a half years as editor here, this is the first time I've had to resort to ANI. trackratte (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There is every opportunity that our disagreement can be channelled productively to improve the quality of the article but first you'll have to engage properly with other points of view. I think it's reasonable to expect to thrash this out in Talk first and only then start editing the article.

The POV (IMO) is an over-emphasis on technicalities, symbolism and tradition. A monarch without real power inevitably becomes surrounded by a fog of irrationality and this seems to be the fundamental problem. Of course the details and traditions are relevant but I think they have to be handled carefully because they can easily obfuscate and obscure the practical reality of state-ownership. It is possible to be technically correct and yet wholly wrong.

I intend to reconsider my own opinion on how best to draw a line between reality and tradition - and in fact I'll be discussing this tomorrow with an individual who has advised governments and committees at Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont on issues relating to the Crown Estate as well as other matters. I'd respectfully ask you to do the same.Noel darlow (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal

I am proposing that the community definitively ban Starship9000 for cross-wiki abuse, endless socking, and persistent harassment.

For previous ANI complaints, see here: .

Some of the many, many instances of socking can be found here -- there are far more than just these listed ones: .

I have prepared what I believe to be a comprehensive list of socks (named accounts) here: . It totals 42 socks.

See here for cross-wiki abuse resulting in indefs on wikiquote and commons for socking, as well as global locks: .

And finally, for long-term harassment of users (including me and Andrewman327, although there are likely others), see the user talk page histories here (the sock names are very distinctive so you can probably tell which they are):

Overall, the user has wasted the valuable time of countless admins, checkusers, and stewards who have worked diligently to stop his abuse. Furthermore, harassment of other users by means of socks (the ones in the SPI are just the tip of the iceberg) is unacceptable, period. The user was previously described (in the links above) as immature, and having serious WP:IDHT problems; the flagrant socking and cross-wiki abuse compounds things further.

Since I will not bother to recount the whole case, I will quote the lock request by Andrewman327, which sums it up nicely:

"When I first encountered Starship9000, he appeared to be innocently ignorant of Misplaced Pages rules and I believed that he had the potential to grow into a productive editor. Several of us offered support and Go Phightins! adopted him. He promptly blew off his adoption exams and I was one of several editors who supported a voluntary one year Wikibreak. He refused to take a voluntary break and continued making improper edits. Since the block took effect, he has started vandalizing a number of other Wikimedia projects and engaging in good hand-bad hand sockpuppetry. His sock IP is currently blocked globally and his account is blocked on every project where he is active. I have two concerns that justify a block: 1. Wasting admins' time on each respective project; and 2. I am concerned that he will keep skipping from one project to the next doing exactly the same thing, and I'd rather not have to follow him to WikiBooks et al like I've tracked his vandalism spree across English Misplaced Pages, Simple Misplaced Pages, WikiQuote, Commons, WikiSource, and WikiNews. He is indef'd on WikiQuote and his editing history is sufficient to justify indefs in all of his other projects as well. Andrewman327 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)"

I have grown frustrated with the seemingly-endless stream of socks on my page, and my patience is certainly exhausted here. This is getting old.

Thanks,

GAB 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like his account is locked globally. Have they semi protected you page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for now. GAB 01:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that can be done is if you have evidence that the sock is his or that they are a sock then they can be blocked. He's jumping ip's. That's very easy to do. Can't do anything about that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor: User:Calicutspecialist

User:Calicutspecialist has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references to the article, Parvathy Nair. The editor has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with other editors and has continued to make disruptive edits to the page for close to a year now. The editor's main aim is to keep the page as they wish - with no regard to any of Misplaced Pages's precedence on actors, while they also continue to ignore rules suggested on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

• The editor's edits only comprise of articles close to the actress (her article, her films, her awards etc)
• Under the ridiculous excuse of "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph", the editor has used his own self-believed precedence to remove several films from her filmography - reverting (or re-editing) the page to reflect his wishes over 50 times.
• The editor refuses to co-operate with editors who seek to talk about the issue, as seen here and delivers threats when he feels they can't revert any longer. They also remove warning template and fail to make necessary changes .

This persistent reverting has gone on for too long. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no discussion opened on the talk page, it's generally a lot easier to discuss content disputes on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries or here at ANI.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question blindly reverts either way. Regardless of any previous discussions. His excuse for removing sourced films is merely "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph". It's been like talking to a wall for months. Editor 2050 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Help!

Help Required with User:heyilickbigtits. Rquesting a Nuke and Talk Page Access Revoked. Thanks, TF 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:HighInBC. TF 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done HighInBC 19:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC. Just after the talk page access was revoked for "h" this previously blocked editor Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) returned making the same kind of attacks on Titusfox. IMO talk page access for "S" should be revoked whether they are socks or not. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry SwisterTwister. I had to reopen this to report the new attack. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

More edits by Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) show that they are WP:NOTHERE if nothing else. HighInBC seems to be offline so of any other admin could remove talkpage access it would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. CIreland (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you CIreland MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As he said, this may be a long night. Wait until tomorrow to close this thread. TF 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for the removal of vandal account intended to slander me

I noticed earlier today that someone has made an account using my real name and is using it to vandalize certain pages on Misplaced Pages. As the account is made using my real name, I will not be revealing which account it is here, although if there is any way in which I could contact an admin in private to have the account removed, I would be very appreciative. Again, the person who made this account is using my real name in an attempt to slander me, and I could face serious consequences if someone mistakes this account for me. The user account hasn't been active for several weeks, but nevertheless it is still a threat to me.

Any help is appreciated,

Asm20

@Asm20: The best way to handle this is to contact the oversight team via email using the link at the top of the page Misplaced Pages:Oversight. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you very much for your help. I will be contacting the oversight team shortly and will hopefully have this matter resolved as fast as possible. -- Asm20

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards