Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 15 October 2018

• 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

• Iwog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over regarding an issue on False accusation of rape (). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic (, ). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries . In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Misplaced Pages is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added: This is the first instance you cited: It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified. Iwog (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Misplaced Pages adheres to reliable sources. Nblund 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are not correct and the implication that you are stating is completely absent from any study cited on that page. In most cases, allegations are only deemed false when law enforcement deems an allegation as unfounded or provably false. Considering the liability taken on by law enforcement when they make a wrong determination, the VAST majority of cases where there is any question of legitimacy will be kicked further down the line for investigation and/or referred to a prosecutor. In fact we can cite RAINN itself to see how rare this is. RAINN reports that a mere 3% of all cases have enough legitimacy to be sent to a prosecutor. This citation proves, by itself, that the presumption CANNOT be 5% in any study. How in any conceivable universe can an actual 5% false allegation rate co-exist in the world with a real 3% prosecution rate ASSUMING POLICE ARE THE ONES MAKING THE DETERMINATION IN ALL OF THE STUDIES?? I'm sorry but the preface in this section is grossly misrepresenting the data. Iwog (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, in this revert that you describe as "far more accurate," you add text reading Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true? EdChem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No I'm maintaining that it is absolutely absurd to claim 5% of all rape allegations are false, a conviction rate (including a citation) is 1%, and the remaining 94% of all cases can be assumed to be true. It is outrageous that this implication is made in the preface considering no study used as a source is claiming to contain the actual false accusation rate, only those deemed false by law enforcement. Furthermore I've laid out how the opening paragraph wrongly connects two completely different concepts and makes it appear to be talking about the same thing. I've had no response at all to that specific and provable claim. At the very least, it fails high school grammar and I'm not being hyperbolic. Name the subject of the second sentence if you don't believe me. Iwog (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog is a pure WP:SPA and obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. I propose a TBAN for anything related to gender-relations under the gamergate DS; any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per the GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Misguided, misinformed, and sometimes-to-frequently used as cover for sexist beliefs and language, but "hate speech" is an overkill claim, as is the notion that people who don't share your beliefs should be barred from editing certain topics. That's really not how WP is supposed to work, unless such people are bringing disruption with them, which should be decided on an individual basis. Statements like this just serve as fodder for the "left is out to get us" conspiracy theories, anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Misplaced Pages to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me on WP:AFD. Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". – FenixFeather 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Misplaced Pages should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Misplaced Pages is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here. Grandpallama (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Misplaced Pages for being misogynists", right? Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Misplaced Pages and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. – FenixFeather 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And if we see something hateful said, misogynistic or otherwise, we should respond accordingly. But there are a lot of people who self-identify as men's rights activists who are really just highly conservative. I'm not advocating giving any room for hate speech. Grandpallama (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, @MjolnirPants: I was waiting in line for the toilet the other day, and I was thinking "Man, if that thing with Chandler seeing a woman walking out of the men's room and she said that there was someone in the ladies' room and she just couldn't wait actually happened, she'd totally get away with it, but if a guy did the same thing and tried to use the women's bathroom he'd be immediately tagged as a prevert, even though men who would want to go into the ladies' room for a reason like that are probably a much smaller minority of men than men who legitimately really needed to go". :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Bah, I used to go into the ladies rooms all the time and never got much more than a curious look. Of course, at the time, I was pushing one of my sons around in a stroller that carried a certain malodorous aura that any parent would recognize, and there was no changing table in the men's room. But, to be fair, I'm 6 feet tall, was around 230lbs at the time and had a beard, two arms full of ink and just all around looked about as scummy as I am. If I didn't have the kid with me, I might as well have tattooed "convicted rapist (and occasional drug dealer)" on my forehead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support any and all sanctions that are on the table I've gone on record as rejecting the usefulness of TBANning SPAs, so I would support a community indef block, or a block with a broad TBAN set as the unblock condition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to just block the NOTHERE sock-abusing troll. Nothing more needs to be said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, a MugyuToChu (talk · contribs) was created this morning sided with Iwog in her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinking this seems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right? Nblund 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nblund for pointing this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along? MugyuToChu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock/troll/joe job blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Here's Iwog on their hobby horse: "Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true." One step at a time: there is no "likewise". One source, this source, cannot establish "generally agreed upon". Where is the "1-5%" on this page? "Total rape allegations"--the source provides data from the US; globalize, Iwog. Finally, "and can be presumed to be true" is complete BS: it's original research, POV commentary. Iwog will have us believe that 95 to 99% of rape allegations are likely false? And all this in the lede (or lead, whatever...). So, we have here a toxic soup of SPA, POV, OR, and possibly CIR (every step I laid out involves incompetence of some sort--rhetorical, logical, situational). Place a topic ban, or (someone) impose something useful via Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for gender-related topics under the Gamergate DS. A clear SPA for the area, with continued disruption and a lack of a learning curve. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So, when is somebody gonna block this guy?

Sorry to paraphrase the worst extra ever, but the above-cited WP:DUCK behaviour is grounds for immediate indefinite block of both accounts. @Yunshui: Sorry to ping you, but you're kinda my go-to for sockpuppetry issues, and buried at the bottom of a relatively stale ANI thread this ran the risk of not being noticed before getting archived. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but it's not going to be me (nor Drmies, who has also run an inconclusive CU with regards to this). There's no technical evidence linking the two accounts, and as yet I don't think the behavioural evidence is sufficient (suspicious, yes; suspicious enough to warrant the check - but not enough to warrant a block in the absence of anything else). No comment on the rest of the above. Yunshui _水 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to be User:Architect 134, a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit? Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui is correct--that is, there is no support for a CU block. And while some editors deserve to be blocked for one single edit, this is not yet the case. Black Kite, I believe you are correct too: this is a troublemaker, and it certainly quacks, but given the repetitive nature of trolling, who knows. At any rate, if this ever turns into an RfC or a more formal discussion, an admin/seasoned editor will know how to weigh such drive-by comments... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to the WP:DUCK, there's this diff that Simonvino immediately tried to undo when they realized they'd given themselves away as Iwog. Pretty sure the "talk page discussion" and "dragged to ANI by agenda motivated editors" is Iwog forgetting that they're on on the Simonvino account. Not to mention this really silly edit on User:MugyuToChu's user page . – FenixFeather 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Er no - Simonvino wasn't Iwog, they were User:Architect 134, that was proved by a CU. It's actually pretty typical joe-jobbing by A134 - writing something that "gives them away", then immediately reverting it as if they've suddenly reaslised what they've done. User:Nsmutte has been known to pull the same trick. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, that's weird. I guess I should've known better. – FenixFeather 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• This person has not edited since Sept 28, per their contribs. Gone to ground, or gone? I still think an indef is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that nothing I have ever written is as personally slanderous or as indicative of a battleground violation than many things contained on this very page. I wonder how the rules are applied these days? Iwog (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• ah it was gone to ground. They are back in the same battering style as before. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any indication that this will stop on it's own. Nblund 19:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I note that Iwog has posted a response above to my question. As far as I can see, Iwog is not stepping away from the edit / revert (described as "far more accurate") that conviction by a court of law means a rape "can be presumed to be true" – implying that the absence of a conviction raises doubt about whether a rape actually happened or suggests that an accusation may be / is false. An editor who can't see why this is a problem should not be editing an article like false accusation of rape. The latest Iwog edits on that article's talk page are also not encouraging. Some action is needed. EdChem (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960

Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~ 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements (again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Misplaced Pages neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Misplaced Pages guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Misplaced Pages article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Misplaced Pages guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Misplaced Pages to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: ) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Faustian, what you are doing is Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
• For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case:
• This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future:
• MyMoloboaccount has recently asked E-960 to “chill out”. .
• Slatersteven messaged E-960 in May to say their conduct was starting look like WP:TE:
• K.e.coffman messaged E-960 last month to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: . Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you.
• I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, at the Poland article here:
• In December, E-960 by their own account alleged a "Planned POV attack on the Poland article" which goes a long way to explain the perception issue here, which seems to motivate the behavior. User:BytEfLUSh responded by saying "I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts... " Unable to leave alone an editor who had swam away from the WP:BAIT, E-960 added: "This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country." I am the editor who had added road deaths to the Poland article (because no matter how embarrassing to the country, they are notable in reliable sources - including Polish news coverage and political discussion - because they are the highest total in the EU), before leaving it per WP:DISENGAGE. E-960 produced no evidence that I am a "suck-puppet".
• Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted my addition of sourced content which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
• At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not taken sides against the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: Similarly misleading communication has been witnessed by Paul Siebert:
• The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Misplaced Pages is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
• This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 - I'm sorry but comparable "evidence of misconduct" could be constructed against anyone who edits Misplaced Pages. I will highlight that you spent over 3 hours (from 5AM until 8AM - ) on scanning for and picking anything that may appear to look perhaps actionable, causing otherwise a standard editor look bad.GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you're one of the three aforementioned editors topic-banned from the same subject area of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII (in your case for misrepresenting sources) where E-960 has been editing. This includes the article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, mentioned above. You're very much involved. Please bear in mind the possibility of appealing your ban in December. Your position that the same things here could be said about 'anyone who edits Misplaced Pages', and your allegation that my use of diffs is 'causing otherwise a standard editor look bad' is understood. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate here and the topics are E-960, WW1, and Blue Army Chumchum7 and thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history not only E-960. Nothing extraordinary there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not recognize that similar data could be found in most editors' edit history. I said I understood your position, which is a different thing. For the record, that position and your subsequent misrepresentation of what I said indicates that you are not learning from your topic ban, which will be dealt with elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Chumchum7 Now I understand what you meant by saying " my position is understood" I would also suggest to assume good faith and restrain yourself from issuing threats.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but well... I agree with what Faustian, Slatersteven and Chumchum said, and regret the latter's decision to stop contributing to said article. I just have two things to add:
1) As you can see, this discussion already pulled in a user previously topic-banned from "history of Poland during WWII" for anti-Semitic comments and edits using a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles - tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV (the other admins had more harsh words on the matter, but that's the gist of it). The ban, I'm afraid, was ill-defined: The user should've been banned not from "history of Poland during WWII" but from "history of the Jews in Poland", which would've included both world wars. A ban that allows a user to join in on exactly the same kind of discussion because the events took place 25 years earlier is flawed.
2) E-960 tends to assume others have hidden agendas, and too often for my tastes "casts aspersions" (see admin's comment here), and blocks benign changes because they fear they're intended to malign the Polish nation. Some recent examples:

1. A simple CE blocked because it looked like material was removed.
2. A simple CE - accusation of "massive change" and trying to "sanitize" text.
3. A list of reversals with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. Notice that despite the length of the discussion, little is actually discussed - most of the changes are just blocked without further explanation. They're later joined by two other editors, but those two don't offer explanations (in fact, one of their comments is so out of place it refers to something that wasn't even discussed). Despite further "stonewalling", 3/7 changes were eventually accepted when other editors became involved, and I suspect others will pass in the future.

Bottom line: When simple CEs are blocked because someone, somehow feels they're driven by ideology, they're showing "battleground mentality" that isn't helpful for Misplaced Pages. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere - I'm assuming good faith, and I will accept that you are unfamiliar with the judgment and why I was topic banned - could you then kindly cross out this false story composed by you above? --> topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for anti-Semitic comments and edits. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel unease about Chumchum7 using my comment to E-960. To be frank I said to E-960 to chill out, because I have feeling other users are provoking him into making statements that will be used to push for sanctions. Seriously at this moment some users are doing what can only be described as spamming numerous articles with every exaggerated detail about alleged atrocities by Poles, leading to situation where 30-40% of the article lenght is being dedicated to every claim that can be found, no matter how outlandish.I don't mind covering these topics at all, but at the moment it is getting out of hand and seriously is getting non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Article was protected. E-960's proposed changes and opinion of the article were discussed here: Two editors supported him, six editors disagreed. So consensus was 3:6 in favor of not implementing E-960's proposed changes. Protection was lifted. E-960 immediately made the changes that were rejected by most editors. I restored it (talk here: ). So it goes.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In E-960's revert, not only did he defy consensus, he also introduced WP:OR -- The Jewish Yearbook of 1920 does not support In an effort to curb the abuses- the source says JULY 2. Warsaw: Anti-Jewish riot; fifteen Jews wounded, and one killed.—Warsaw: General Haller publishes proclamation in the Poranna, signed by Polish, English, and French representatives, ordering his troops to stop the cutting of beards of Jews.. - Haller order his troops to stop (before foreign representatives), however nothing in the source says this was an actual effort to effect a stop. Even, worse Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press is not supported at all, and is in fact contradicted, by the cited source - page 227 in Carole Fink's book (who scare quotes "immediate investigation" on the Polish government response to reports of violence by the Blue Army, and then describes a Polish publicity/propaganda campaign). Beyond source falsification, attributing such a statement to Fink (via citation) is a rather serious WP:BLP issue vs. Fink. The issue of misrepresentation was clearly conveyed on the talk page and in the edits that modified content attributed to Fink. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Faustian this text was added by Icewhiz on 05:26, 9 OCTOBER 2018 and 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018 in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS on the talk page to include this NEW text in the article — this is NOT long standing material, see last stable article version form 02:19, 9 SEPTEMBER 2018 . --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Incorrect - both on lack of consensus, and regarding the claim of addition. In both cases - as evident in the diffs - - this was content that was long standing in the article but which cherrypicked/ORed (the Jewish Yearbook) or grossly misrepresented to the point of being defamatory to the cited author (Carole Fink) - which was corrected to faithfully represent what is actually written in the cited source. I will note that the gross misrepresentation was retorted by E-960 in a blanket revert on 21:31, 13 October 2018. WP:Verifying sources is important.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This sequence - beginning with 10:17, 3 March 2018 is symptomatic of E-960's editing - with the false edit summary of "moved training company photos down" E-960 modified the section title from the long-standing Anti-Jewish violence to Reports of anti-Jewish violence. Subsequent consensus on the article talk page section - is clearly against this title (raising of false doubt and NPOV issue - and one should note - no credible source disputes the Blue Army's widespread violence against Jews - at best some marginal sources dispute the scale). Subsequently, and against consensus - 07:22, 15 October 2018 and mis-marked as a WP:MINOR edit (a personal attack? Seems to be insinuating vandalism) - E-960 restores the title he previously sneaked in with a false edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahmedadan1951

Ahmedadan1951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Ahmedadan1951 (not pinging)

See his talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barawa_District&diff=863587274&oldid=861918419 adds a link that I do not believe is real. As he seems to learn from my cues, I'm not going to publicly say why. But if you look at my history and his talk page, you probably know who to trust. And I'm not even interested in Somalia. I only got caught up in this shitstorm because he uploaded an image that I mass-tagged with a template without even looking at it, putting it on my watchlist.

For clarity, either the user is real (which I highly doubt) and it's some rebel leader in Somalia who shouldn't edit anything due to COI, or, more likely, we are dealing with a bored teenager. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, he just restored his unsourced crap on some articles like Barawa (and added unsourced crap to others). Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Please notify subject that you have posted here about them, as per instructions at the top of the page when you post here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: can/should I post somewhere else where that is not required? Any information he gets just helps him evade detection. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly? At any rate, they edit so sporadically, they won't even notice a short block. They've had a couple for (wait for it) making unsourced edits. I'm a little trigger happy, but leave it to the regulars for now. We aren't in a hurry.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: When I look at your history, it looks like you follow them around.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: not exactly. After his messing around with made-up flags a few months ago, Barawa and some related pages ended up on my watchlist. But it wasn't until now when he made an edit to Barawa that I noticed he woke up again. So I just undid his unsourced September edits. FYI, Ahmedadan1951 (or someone extremely close to him) operates the websites for which he adds links to articles about Somalia. https://www.parliament.gov.so/ is the real website of the Somali government and I doubt they would consider any of this very funny. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What I meant with my history is: I'm a decade+ contributor who is obnoxious, rude, likes MjolnirPants and burns things. But I've never screwed you over. Ahmedadan1951 registered 9 months ago and gave us nothing but unsourced homemade crap with a sauce of edit war. Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As there's no discussion here and the only answer I see is to indef Ahmedadan1951 until they respond to issues, I plan to do so if no one objects. They have not edited since before this is posted. Short term blocks have not had an impact.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Xayahrainie43

This user has drawn concerned attention throughout their short career here. Of the current WT:WPM discussions, four concern Xayahrainie's edits (the two on which Xayahrainie is named explicitly, and also List of polygons and n-ary). Many edits tend towards large-scale, systematic changes to some article or sets of articles, with no discussion; often, against an existing consensus. So far there have been several clean-up efforts following their edits; here is the most recent one, but earlier there was this (there are four or five relevant discussions on that page; all the "-ary" discussions and also Hyper6) as well as some AfDs. The user's talk page is full of good-faith, non-templated advice and encouragement to discuss; so far this has generated no success. One can see in some of the RfD and AfD discussions their real lack of understanding of what it means to discuss notability or policy, and to reach consensus; see here for the most sustained example.

So far all warnings and attempts at discussion have failed to make an impression, so I request a short block (with possibility of escalation if there is no change in behavior). I do not watchlist ANI, please ping. --JBL (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a block is needed yet, but would support a short TBAN against this user creating redirects. They should not be creating more redirects similar to those being discussed at deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not just about redirects; check out this recent article creation (currently at AfD). Or creating hatnotes for non-redirects for special characters (dealt with by me eventually). --JBL (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To add: I do not understand the idea that a short block is more invasive than a topic ban. This user's problem is failure to communicate and to appreciate existing consensus -- this leads to disruption wherever they work, and needs to be solved by a method that will convince them of the seriousness of discussion in the WP process. I would not support a T-ban for this user (even in the absence of a block), it will not solve anything. --JBL (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• The disruptive edits of this editor are far not limited to redirect creations. Many are aimed to name or list, as far as possible possible, objects that are indexed by integers, such as n-gons, n-ary. In this sequence of edits, they tried to extend from 8 to 12 the explicit examples for low n. I have reverted these edits because they add nothing from an encyclopedic point of view, and also because they contained some mathematical errors. Fortunately, they do not tried starting an edit war, and I considered the subject as closed. However, it is useful to mention it here, for having a global view of the problem. D.Lazard (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• The deleted version of this user's user page (if you can see it) will give you a very clear and typical idea of this user's contributions (I believe also as an IP before creating this user account): piles and piles of original research, both as walls of text and big tables of numbers, added to articles with zero references (or with only OEIS as reference), and with a special emphasis on base-12 notation. Or for a non-deleted example, see Special:Diff/863227170 and scroll down to the part starting "searched up to 1048576". Also note the complete lack of usable edit summaries. If this junk is removed by other editors, the same editor will come back days or weeks later to re-add it. I think WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE are in play. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal illustrates the fascination with base 12. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Links: Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs)

  Something drastic is needed because enthusiasm can waste a lot of time. I explained a problem at the user's talk here but got no response. That talk has been edited 72 times—three of those were by Xayahrainie43. That level of collaboration is not satisfactory. The suggestion above about a topic ban against creating redirects is not sufficient because other problems exist (see my "here" link for example). Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq (and others above): A block is necessary. An indefinite block. Lifted only when he agrees to stop the problematic edits and to actually respond to talkpage notices. It's unclear whether he can be rehabilitated, but at the very least his editing (50+ edits per day!), which is highly problematical, has got to stop. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Aziz Ahmed (general)

There are about five new accounts sequentially whitewashing Aziz Ahmed (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) It would be nice to get more eyes on this. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also whitewashing of Lucky Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the SPAs Peresh Joshi and Psykedinc (likely only one person) who have repeatedly removed sourced content from Lucky Ali per WP:NOTHERE. I believe similar blocks for similar shenanigans at Aziz Ahmed (general) would be appropriate, but have left those socks alone, for now, since an admin (Anarchyte) has interpreted the removal of negative sourced content as a content dispute and has protected the article for a couple of days. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC).

Trying to talk to a user who is often abusive

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

I have trouble with a user who is quite disrespectful, even though often I try to talk to him about his conduct.

Excerpt from one of the initial discussions:

In Talk:Maia (nurse):

There is controversy regarding whether or not lions in Egypt were Barbary lions, considering that Egypt has part of the Nubian region with Sudan, and Sudanese lions aren't Barbary lions, but definitely an African lion, and the topics are linked. Leo1pard (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

BhagyaMani Please don't try it again, you've seen what happens when you try to bully others around, like what you did recently even though I wanted to talk to you. Leo1pard (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

BhagyaMani I have reasons to do what I do, and I have invited you to talk to me in case you wanted anything. I'm not tolerating this disrespectful behaviour. Don't continue. Leo1pard (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

BhagyaMani I am trying to talk to you. Please be respectful and talk to me. Leo1pard (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
— ]

Despite trying to talk to him several times, either in his his talk-page or talk-pages of articles which we edit, the user has a habit of talking rudely to me, such as by saying "I don't need a personal teaching by an amateur!!" implying that I'm a school kid, or doing edits which ignore what I try to talk to him about in talk-pages. For example, despite talking to him since last year, using WP:reliable sources like these, that a number of Central African lions are of the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita), and that others are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), he ignored what I said to him, and ignored certain reliable sources to say that Central African lions are P. l. leo and not P. l. melanochaita, which I have told him is WP:bias, and ignored my request to have a conversation with him in the page of the excerpt above to do what he wanted like this. Leo1pard (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as BhagyaMani appears to spend a substantial proportion of his editing time in cleaning up after you in Panthera articles, I personally can't fault them for getting a little short at times. Just saying. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A little short? I have tried many times to talk to him about topics in which we had disagreements, or where he has shown contempt of relevant content or what others may have to say, but he has again and again been abusive. Leo1pard (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I scanned over the last hundred odd edits by BhagyaMani and found absolutely no indication of even borderline abusive behaviour. And WP:AN/I is not an appropriate venue to try and force another editor to engage with you at article talk.Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you not checked the links that I have provided to show where he has been abusive, such as where he said "I don't need a personal teaching by an amateur!" after I tried to talk to him about errors that he made? An issue here is his abusive behaviour. I try to talk to him about errors that he makes, but he is abusive.Leo1pard (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Leo1pard, here are the procedures that will serve you the best on Misplaced Pages: (1) Stay off of usertalk pages. (2) Only discuss edits and content. Do not discuss or mention or name other editors. (3) On article talk pages, stick to improving the article, and to arriving at a WP:CONSENSUS when disagreements arise. (4) If after good-faith discussion of the pros and cons of any edit or content, a consensus seemingly cannot be reached, consider engaging in some form of dispute resolution. (5) If in fact it is important that one particular editor respond to you (this is usually not the case, but it sometimes is), read and follow the instructions at WP:DISCUSSFAIL. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I hope that BhagyaMani will take care to see what is going on in talk-pages, because he has often ignored what has been mentioned in relevant talk-pages, and I have had to talk a lot to get relevant material backed up by the relevant references to be published in articles, or to correct pieces of information that WP:don't always reflect what is in relevant sources, because of opposition from people like him. Leo1pard (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is required to engage with you on talkpages. If you want an edit to be made, make it, with the proper citations. It's that simple. If it is reverted, then go to the talkpage and clearly make your case for the edit, providing clear reasoning and sources, and try to achieve consensus. If the consensus does not go your way, you have three options: Accept that consensus is against you; continue to politely provide additional clear reasoning; and/or engage in some form of WP:DR such as an WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And what if a WP:biased edit has been made, and there was already a discussion on that, and the editor who made that edit ignores the discussion, which is why I've had to complain? Leo1pard (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If consensus is against you, then follow the instructions I gave above. Do not hide behind claims of "bias" or "systemic bias". Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is for your desired version, you must demonstrate that on the talkpage of the article, naming and summarizing the editors who are in favor of your desired version. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• BhagyaMani, these types of comments are unacceptable on Misplaced Pages:
  • "Which school class are you going to, if I may ask?".
  • "You ain't telling me any news kid. I read Barnett et al. (2006) long before you joined wikipedia."
  • "I don't need a personal teaching by an amateur!!"

They violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which are Misplaced Pages policies. Please do not engage in this sort of behavior in the future. Discuss content, not other editors, and remember to always assume good faith. Softlavender (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and advice! Jena Fi’s comment, supposedly hinting at WP:Boomerang (?) fits: user Leo1pard was adviced on 16 Sept to disengage from discussions with me, but despite a reminder has since repeatedly u’d and pinged me on several talk pages, often with extensive {{reflist talk}}s and repeating content of pages. Most previous discussions went circular, so that I was not at all interested to continue such talks. In this respect, I agree with this comment by cygnis insignis. Some u’s even indicate that s/he followed up on my talks with other wikipedians and edits, cautioning me to be ‘careful’, as if my contributions to mainspace pages were usually careless. For these reasons, I consider it best to not respond to such u's and pings, the more so as I much prefer to contribute and improve mainspace pages. Happy editing to all! – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

After you said this to me about disengagement, I decided to avoid engaging you in any argument or discussion, before you changed your mind and decided to engage me in an argument later, forcing me to make replies. Leo1pard (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard, that is simply not true. BhagyaMani did not address you or respond to you; he simply !voted in an AfD. I'm advising you again: Stay off of usertalk pages. Stop pinging people on articletalk pages. Stop using numerous references on articletalk -- that should be necessary only very rarely. If you have a cited edit you would like to make, make it, with the citation. If it gets reverted, then discuss on articletalk; make sure you follow WP:BRD rather than simply replacing your desired edit. Lastly, stop inserting your idiosyncratic POV into articles as you have repeatedly done on Maia (nurse); Misplaced Pages is not a place for that. If you continue to operate in the way you have been, you will likely be blocked for lack of competence to edit Misplaced Pages, or topic banned completely from the subject of large cats, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Abuse, what 'idiosyncratic' POV are you talking about? I have read plenty of sources, including these, and I would use them to improve content, discussing it in talk-pages when necessary, and when other users are there to give misleading or WP:biased comments or content, I can't always improve them even if I want to, so I have to use the talk-pages quite a lot to try to improve those articles, and for your information, BhagyaMani only voted on that AfD after seeing that I was involved in there, but after I reminded him of his earlier desire to have a disengagement, he did not make another comment, but otherwise, it's not like he doesn't respond. Nevertheless, I afterwards welcomed him to talk to me in case he had anything to say, not to continue the issue of opposing what certain references may say to present a biased picture of topics like what I mentioned here. Leo1pard (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard your bizarre, rambling reply makes it more and more likely that you will be blocked for incompetence and/or disruptive editing, or topic banned completely from large cats. If I were you I would take the good-faith advice of highly experienced uninvolved editors and administrators here as a word to the wise. As it is, you are on pretty thin ice. And what does "I can't always improve them even if I want to" mean? If you don't know how Misplaced Pages works after all of this time, that's another very bad sign. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an allegation regarding your edit-war to insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know); it's a fact. On other articles, if consensus is against you, then follow the instructions I gave here: . Do not hide behind claims of "bias" or "systemic bias". Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In Maia (nurse), I have made changes like deleting unreferenced material, which is WP:acceptable according to the rules, and as per WP:EGG, it would have been a problem if I inserted a link that would have surprised the reader, or doesn't help the reader to understand what the issue is about, but that is not the case, because the issue surrounding Maia is actually mentioned in the link which I have provided, rather than the link which he provided, and as of the time that we are speaking, the consensus is not against me but against him. He has ignored the consensuses or discussions to fit his POV into articles, as mentioned above, whereas I take care to justify what I do in discussions or consensuses, or use relevant sources to respond to questions or comments asked by others there, like here. Leo1pard (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I said inserting, not deleting. Your WP:EGG is indeed an WP:EGG, and it is your idiosyncratic POV-pushing. The only way for it not to be an WP:EGG is to use the article title itself rather than linking to it under an WP:EGG. If your edit is reverted, which it has been three times, the consensus is for the status quo ante; so the current consensus is against your EGG. So you should not keep edit-warring against the current consensus; you'll need to establish a different consensus on the talkpage (which is unlikely since WP:EGGs are against MOS:LINK). If consensus remains against you, then see/follow the instructions I gave above. You can also check WP:DISCUSSFAIL, but you must read it very very carefully. If you continue to edit war, you will be reported to administrators and likely blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you said "insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know)", so you were saying that the only edits that I made there were inserting WP:EGGS. Secondly, you have alleged that I have a "idiosyncratic POV-pushing", even though I have backed up my edits or comments with relevant sources or links, and have asked you to clarify what you meant. Thirdly, as of the time we are speaking, there is no consensus against what I have done, but what he has done was against the discussions, so the way in which you treated me here was not right. Leo1pard (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you haven't taken in a single thing I've said. Well, I (and others here) tried my/our best, over and over, to help you. Now you've gone and filed an ANI thread on me for my trouble. This is yet another example of your WP:CIR and WP:DE issues, and is not going to turn out well for you. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, although that is generally well known advice that is easy to forget and somewhat difficult to adhere to. I had observed some efforts by all parties to restore a civil discussion, so that is possible it seems?! While I am here, a couple of remarks of what people might prefer: 1) recognition of their contributions to solutions in content creation, nice, however, consideration may be given to 2) receiving a notification, "you have been mentioned at AN/I … :) — cygnis insignis 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• My comment above was in reply to another user, and not for the first time, I notice that discussions with this account, Leo1pard, see comments and replies rapidly displaced and confounded in a flurry of edits and refs. Not good. The contributions are indistinguishable from masterful trolling, the motive, sincerity and intent is irrelevant because there is a demonstrable net loss to the project. Worse. Those who have viewed the actual changes in mainspace, including myself, report OR, synth, and blatant misrepresentation of sources. This doesn't seem to bother the user, that is cause for the greatest concern at this forum. My recommendation is that the account be banned from the articles and talk pages in question immediately, and ask that I be pinged to any further discussion of censoring this account (and the individual operating it, who I would request does not contact me). I don't have anything to add to this report. — cygnis insignis 08:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, you are making more allegations that I have already tackled. For example, as I have said already, I have read plenty of WP:reliable sources, and I edit articles using them to show what they say, not to make OR, SYNTH or "blatant misrepresentation of sources". For example, I have used these sources (, ) to help explain why it is the case that the size ratio of the elephant to the lion is significant as mentioned, or what they said about lions hunting elephants, but there are others who may do WP:biased edits on those articles, and oppose my attempts to correct such edits, which is why I make use of talk-pages like here to try to talk to the opposing user(s) about what they have done, but the opposing user(s) don't always want to listen, and may ignore the consensus, amongst other things, and after repeated attempts to try to talk to the opposing user(s) that I would make a complaint like here. Leo1pard (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC); edited 13:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, have you followed the editing history of Maia (nurse)? Also the talk page of lion? Leo1pard has strong views on subpopulations of lions, despite many not being recognised as genetically distinct anymore. It has made work in the lion article heavy-going and now we have a plethora of lion subarticles to look at. Also see as to some of the other articles the user has worked on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Casliber, I cannot see the last link you presented (permissions-only). In terms of the other links: (1) My advice to Leo1pard on the Maia (nurse) article has gone completely unheeded, as you can see up above. (2) In terms of Talk:Lion, I notice that he has made an average of 11 posts per month over the past 14 months, and generally speaking there is only one editor that sometimes agrees with some of his apparent points. Do you think his participation on that article and talkpages, and on other big cat articles and talkpages, rise to the level of a sanction (topic ban, etc.)? I certainly think on this ANI thread he has demonstrated a massive and intractable case of IDHT and DE bordering on or equaling CIR level, which would merit a block of uncertain length. If you believe any of these sanctions, or others, are merited, let me know, and I will start a proposal(s). Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because you have made accusations against me which I have warned that I can disprove, which is WP:IDHT or against WP:CIR, even though I came here to talk about someone who repeatedly ignores discussions or relevant material to establish his POV, so in the hope that he would stop this disruptive behaviour, and instead talks to me about concerns that he has. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jaguar versus leopard and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards. It is certainly draining. The editor is keen but they are making things difficult to wade through with the walls of text....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber, the editor does not seem to be taking in any of the concerns and advice on this thread. That could be because he is simply on the defensive, but the fact that he deliberately opened a retaliatory ANI thread about me suggests otherwise. Do you think he has the competence, going forward, to edit Misplaced Pages without disruption? Alternatively, do you think he should be given an administrative warning that if he continues as he has, an ANI thread will likely be opened up specifically about him, calling for sanctions? Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Dunno what to say really...I am not uninvolved and would recommend uninvolved users opining what action needs to be done here. I am tired and after a long day I am losing the threads in this wall of text...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The thread has become a wall of text because of Leo1pard's intractable WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, and WP:DE behaviors. I'm just noting that for any uninvolved admin who comes along and wants to put a stop to this endless nonsense. If his behavior on this thread and the other ANI thread he opened yesterday are any indication of his behavior on articles and talkpages (and we've some indication that they are), I think he is due for some increasingly incremental sanctions, or at least official administrative warning of such. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is your fault for making allegations even if I have provided evidence to the contrary, or those who like to ignore discussions or references to make biased or misleading edits or comments. For example, I have references to counter allegations of "SYNTH" or "idiosyncratic POVs", other people like you ignore it and repeat the allegation. As for myself, I have made edits like using the five tildes where necessary, after you mentioned them, and have backed up my comments or edits with relevant material, so no more accusations against which evidence cane be provided. It is because of disrespectful people trying to disruptively edit articles that I have had to use talk-pages a lot, and according to the rules, it is acceptable to do that when a situation like that arises. Leo1pard (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that you have credibly refuted anything I have mentioned, or any evidence you have taken on board the advice given you regarding how to edit articles or how to behave on article talkpages. Instead, you have doubled down on your attacks on those trying to advise you or work with you, including this absurd and spurious attack thread about me, and spurious claims that I have been "warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid by DIYeditor and Thucydides411" , and other such nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I do see where I have refuted things that you have said. For example, this shows that your comment that DIYeditor and Thucydides411 "have not even posted on this thread or indeed said anything about or to" you is wrong. Leo1pard (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

They certainly haven't posted on this thread. The fact that they said something to me on a completely unrelated article talkpage more than six months ago has nothing to do with this thread or anything I have brought to your attention regarding how you should operate on article talk or articles or what problematical behaviors you have been engaging in. It does however point up your repetitive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of attempting to deflect attention from your own edits by accusing others of absolutely unrelated trivia. Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they were talking about the way you treated a reference by saying that it was "provably wrong", and that is similar to the way you have been treating reliable sources that I have used to show what is wrong with what you have said. You have used your POV against material backed by references, which is what WP:BATTLEGROUND is about, whereas I have backed up my edits or comments with references. Your POV is not more relevant than the reliable sources, so you have been unfair to pick up a personal conflict against me, making accusations without fully considering the facts or reliable sources in the first place, so stop your accusations and arguments. Leo1pard (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of users who were previously uninvolved, before getting involved here, seem to have a lack of understanding or personal bias regarding what is going on. For example, if I provide reliable sources, and mention what they say, others may say that it is 'SYNTH', and if I provide a link to show what has happened, some may deny what is in there. Leo1pard (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My question was to Cas Liber, not to you; and your repeated accusations against me are simply adding more fuel and more evidence to the case against you. Especially since DIYeditor and Thucydides411 have not even posted on this thread or indeed said anything about or to me anywhere that I am aware of. At this point you should read The First Law of Holes. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You were talking to Casliber about me, when I am involved here, and I have proof against your comment that DIYeditor and Thucydides411 "have not even posted on this thread or indeed said anything about or to" you. Leo1pard (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm, no you don't. The thread that you linked to does not contain any edits by yourself, DIYeditor, Thucydides411, Casliber nor Softlavender. - Nick Thorne 08:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean that this thread was about me, but about what she was warned. Leo1pard (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, none of the editors you mentioned in this post were involved in any way in that thread. You had better start posting some diffs to back up your allegations or you'll find yourself in more trouble than the early settlers. - Nick Thorne 09:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, in here, DIYeditor said "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong ..." and Thucydides411: "For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not ... You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." Leo1pard (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

So on this usertalk message on my talk page from over 6 months ago, how does DIYeditor's comment equate to me having "been warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Please be very specific. And please pray tell where has Thucydides411 "warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

After you criticised an OED and talked about venerable sources being "provably wrong", DIYeditor and Thucydides411 criticised you for saying that, and Thucydides411 said "please stop saying the OED is provably wrong" and "You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." Leo1pard (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This was after you said this about the OED. Leo1pard (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

How does DIYeditor saying "What you quoted seems to be saying what I'm saying. You don't embody or represent something that only exists after the embodiment or representation." equate to DIYeditor and Thucydides411 having "warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As for your question, I am referring to the following statements by DIYeditor and Thucydides411: "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong ..." and "For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not ... You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." Leo1pard (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs, please. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

For example, this was after you said this about the OED. Leo1pard (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

How does Thucydides411 saying "You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false (complete with the relevant passage from the original Washington Post article that the OED got its snippet from)" equate to DIYeditor and Thucydides411 having "warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

After you said "the OED is not an authority on Russian or Russian usage or the USSR. It cannot be used as an authority on Misplaced Pages as such." and "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong," DIYeditor and Thucydides411 respectively said "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong ..." and "For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not ... You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." for example. Leo1pard (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC); edited 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs, please. Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Already provided for you to see. Leo1pard (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Casliber Did you remember what I also said about the fact that the Cat Specialist Group had trouble with their recognition of subspecies of lions, and that they continued to recognise the different populations or subpopulations as populations or subpopulations, even if not as subspecies, before involving someone else in an issue which I showed was more complicated than others may gave expected? Leo1pard (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Those pages are divided into geographical areas first, with relevant felids then listed. It doesn't mean we have to follow them on that basis. Looking at https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/32616/A_revised_Felidae_Taxonomy_CatNews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y this] the group is pretty clear on the (non) validity of all but two subspecies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

With the exception that lion genetics has proven to be more complicated than the mere classification of 2 subspecies, as signified by the use of a question mark in their map on subspecies of lions in Page 72, and the lion is not the only species for which they used a question mark to express uncertainty over taxonomic classifications. Leo1pard (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You want them to remain split into as many distinctive subspecies as possible and are seizing on any uncertainty to support that view. This is bordering on OR and is certainly not an accurate way of reading the material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I already said that I don't want to create articles for every described subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Leo1pard, please stop outdenting so much. It interrupts the flow of conversation and makes this already overlong thread very difficult to read and follow. I have redone your last two outdents. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  You can request me to make a change to my comment, but not edit my comment, which is against WP:Editing others' comments. Leo1pard (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC); edited 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Leo1pard, please read the page you linked to. It is perfectly okay to edit someone else's comment when Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels... Nihlus 10:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPO allows for correcting or improving the layout of a thread. See "Fixing format errors". Your last two outdents in particular rose to the level of needing to be changed to fix the readability of the thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Leo1pard, you have been making a number of changes to posts of yours that have already been replied to. When you do that, you need to indicate that the post has been edited and when, by adding ; edited ~~~~~ (the five tildes create a timestamp) after your signature; see WP:REDACT. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Barnett, R.; Sinding, M. H.; Vieira, F. G.; Mendoza, M. L.; Bonnet, M.; Araldi, A.; Kienast, I.; Zambarda, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Henschel, P.; Gilbert, M. T. (2018). "No longer locally extinct? Tracing the origins of a lion (Panthera leo) living in Gabon". Conservation Genetics. 19 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10592-017-1039-2.
2. ^ Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. PMC 4973251. PMID 27488946. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
3. ^ Asiatic lion, Species Survival Commission, Cat Specialist Group, retrieved 2017-08-01
4. ^ African lion, Species Survival Commission, Cat Specialist Group, retrieved 2017-08-01
5. ^ Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11). ISSN 1027-2992.
6. Pocock, R. I. (1939). "Panthera leo". The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. – Volume 1. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd. pp. 212–222.
7. Dubach, J.; Patterson, B. D.; Briggs, M. B.; Venzke, K.; Flamand, J.; Stander, P.; Scheepers, L.; Kays, R. W. (2005). "Molecular genetic variation across the southern and eastern geographic ranges of the African lion, Panthera leo". Conservation Genetics. 6 (1): 15–24. doi:10.1007/s10592-004-7729-6.

Edit war at City Rail Link

An ip, who has changed ip address at least once, began a slow edit war on 29 August. Tonight he/she is continuing at a rapid pace. I left an explanation about the term "car" in one of my earliest edit summaries, and have tonight left an explanation at the ip's talk page, to no avail. The edit war has continued. The editor either has serious competence or language difficulties, or is deliberately being disruptive. Either way, a block is needed. Due to the time zone I cannot find any New Zealand admin online (it's 3:25 am as I write this). Requesting a block.

No doubt someone here will say that I should have reported this at the 3RR page. Let me tell you that that page is very user-unfriendly for those like me who use iPads. The amount of copying and pasting required is almost impossible on an iPad. Akld guy (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The only issue here (as this is clearly a content dispute) is that both editors are currently in violation of WP:3RR in that both have 8 reverts to the article within 24 hours so Akld guy may wish to duck for the WP:BOOMERANG.

This is clearly a WP:ENGVAR issue because trains are made up of 'cars' in US English and 'carriages' in British English. Since the article is about a New Zealand railway, it should be whatever term is used by NZ railways (most likely the same as Australian railways which I believe is 'car'). The only other observation is that AG has attempted to WP:COMMUNICATE whereas the IP has made no such attempt in any of his incarnations. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not an ENGVAR dispute. As I pointed out in the edit summary of one of my earliest reverts, the term "car" is used in the reference. Australian usage has nothing to do with the topic. New Zealand is not part of Australia, and does many, many things differently. The term used in NZ for Auckland's electric train sets (which are self-propelled) is "car". Akld guy (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm highly annoyed that TheVicarsCat has attempted to turn this into an ENGVAR issue and has forced me to respond on that side issue. Please look at Tangiwai disaster and scroll down to the "Public inquiry" section. Notice that the official investigation in 1954 used the term "car" in reference to the carriages. NZ does not necessarily follow UK practice. Akld guy (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In a dispute like this the winner is the first one who stops. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I've protected teh page for two weeks. Now the two have no choice but to argue/debate someplace other than in the article. Have fun with that... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I requested to TomStar81 to remove an edit on the article but I probably should have come here first. I had also participated in the article editing, removing one of the users edits while Akld guy removed the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. Certain English variants use 'car', and others use 'carriage'. If New Zealand used 'car' for self propelled vehicles and 'carriage' for non self propelled, then it is unique in the English speaking world. Further, the words used by the source are irrelevant. One expects words used in a source to be translated into the language in which the article is written (if different). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I came here to complain and will never do so again. It would have been better to have waited until the NZ admins, who have better appreciation of NZ terminology, got out of bed and then complained to them. Or, I could have continued the edit war on a slow basis, probably dragging on for months until the ip lost interest. My attempt, knowing that the term "car" was correct and used in the reference, to bring the matter to a head by exceeding 3RR and getting quick action here from overseas admins, has backfired and very nearly resulted in my own blocking. I will never again risk a boomerang by coming here. Meanwhile, the ip who caused all this and has uttered not a single word anywhere, gets off scot free. Akld guy (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy, edit warring is never an acceptable solution to such a problem. Never, ever, ever. So please change your attitude about that. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to tell that to the ip too? The ip who, thanks to page protection and the fact that I quit first, has actually won for the next two weeks so that the article now uses the wrong term. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that unregistered user edits (with no history) appear to have just as much weighting over those of a regular and active registered user. Ajf773 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ajf773: IP editors have as much right to edit Misplaced Pages as registered editors. As in: "Misplaced Pages - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit." I have observed in the past, that any editor who tries to 'discourage' IP editors ends up being blocked. When you say the IP has no edit history, how do you know this? The IP is a dynamic IP which means that it changes every time he logs onto the internet so may well have a long edit history (whatismyipaddress.com is wrong on this point, but then what it reports is based on user submitted data). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

As a registered user my history is all there for everyone to see, whereas an IP hopping non-reg user does not have a history without using the fancy IP searching tools as you describe. In my experience of editing non-regs quite often are disruptive users primarily because they are either newbies who don't understand how WP works or they are previous banned users. In this case, those edits were definitely disruptive and Akld guy and I were right to revert those edits. Ajf773 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ajf773: In every case, a user who uses a dynamic IP address has no control over their IP address. They get a different one every time they log on and there is nothing that they can do about it. There are many IP editors who do not fall into the categories that you list (and in my experience: probably the majority). I myself was an IP editor for many years without problems until I had to create an account to raise an SPI complaint (as IPs cannot create new records). That they appear to have a short edit history is not their fault and purely a knock on effect of the way things work (Misplaced Pages has no problem as long as the differing IPs are not used to !vote stack or support each other - though it is usually very obvious when this happens). The usually touted position that they should create an account is not, as of this time, a requirement of Misplaced Pages and therefore cannot be a requirement of you or anyone else. Another oft touted claim is that, "IPs cause more disruption than registered editors". A check of this page on any day invariably shows more complaints against registered editors than IPs (as of this time 15 for registered editors but only 6 for IPs).

Your categorisation of the IP's edits as disruptive is irrelevant, and a poor defence of your own equally disruptive behaviour. You and Akld guy had no right to serially revert the IP in the way that you did. You were edit warring just as much as the IP was. The nature of the IP's edit was not an accepted exemption to the three revert rule. The fact that many English variants use 'carriage' for railway vehicles means that the IP's edit must be assumed to be good faith in the absence of any other evidence (possibly mis-guided but certainly good faith). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

When pages are protected, the admins are not endorsing any particular version over another. They protect the page at whatever version it was at merely to force the combatants to discuss the matter on the talk page and come to a consensus. That is what you now have to do to get the article changed. Though to be fair, it was the IP editor's responsibility to initiate the talk page discussion after your first revert (per WP:BRD). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

These are the units involved. For those on this board who have no comprehension of rail systems and have probably never taken a train ride in recent times, they are self-propelled units, not pulled or pushed by a locomotive. Notice that the article uses the term "car" throughout, which is the common New Zealand term for self-propelled units. Akld guy (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy, what's with the note that you left on the ip's talk page? Namely, "Please note that you are not anonymous - look here". Quite ominous, without explanation. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The return of User:Daniel C. Boyer

Because of a pretty good edit filter we haven't had much trouble recently from frustrated unknown artist and LTA self-promoter Daniel C. Boyer, who was community banned last year . But he's reappeared recently as Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E860:5500:30CE:29B1:3721:C3C9 with some edits that escape the filter and insertion of a "work" of his own that resides at Commons .

We need a block (or range block -- experience shows he'll keep coming back once he's found away around the filter). If someone wants to tinker with the filer, take a look at User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer#Oct_2018_socking. Pinging John from Idegon, Beyond My Ken. EEng 02:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, is he still about? He was spouting garbage right back at the very dawn of Misplaced Pages; you'd think he'd have got bored by now. ‑ Iridescent 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a week. I guess for a range block we need an evidence that they have used more than one IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My vague understanding is that there are some low-order bits that are almost always a block of addresses for a single customer or whathaveyou. Anyway, let's leave this thread open a few days to see if he comes back in another guise. Any edit filter wizard who has a minute might want to follow the link a gave earlier to get an idea of what's needed as far as extending the filter. EEng 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, he's nothing if not persistent. Revert and block on sight, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know I was dealing with a celebrity. Just thought it ludicrous that we are supposed to accept that there is a new form of surrealism that involves cutting holes in photographs without a source. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that thing has been marked {{cn}} since 2009, and the only "sources" I could find which defined it were just copies of what the Misplaced Pages article said. Nice to see it's finally been expunged, but it's a shame it's been there long enough to taint so many other sites. I also see it was added to Ted Joans in 2003 (where is has also always been unsourced) with the edit summary "(adding from outagraph)". Outagraph, which was deleted in 2005, was created by Daniel C. Boyer in 2003. I've also removed the claim from Ted Joans now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Portraits of the artist as a pretentious dork: . His latest work is "The Green Woman with the Tiara Does Not Elope but Marries the Man with the Seventy-Dollar Ears". So deep! So avant-garde! So boundary-challenging! It's even acrylic and gauche! EEng 05:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• à chacun son goût -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they used to call it "the disease of kings" -- Henry VIII and so on.. EEng 07:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the current version of the Consensus reality article he created way back in 2002 includes An Analysis of the Metapragmatic and Therapeutic Dimensions of Vampiric Live Action Role-playing as a 'source'. Someone should probably look through those pages he created over the years and see how problematic the rest of them are, regardless of whether or not they're direct spam for him. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I can't face the thought of that today, but here's a list of his page creations in case someone wants to formulate a plan for dividing up the work. EEng 21:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I checked the A's and the B's and didn't find anything. EEng 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I did a randomish dip sample—there's a lot of drivel like Fax art and Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion, but I'm not seeing much that's problematic. Because his main burst of activity was over a decade ago, it looks like for once Misplaced Pages's model has functioned as it's supposed to, and the garbage like Mattila Square, Quad-ruled paper and J. Karl Bogartte has been removed by Misplaced Pages's natural processes of article patrolling. ‑ Iridescent 01:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Arid desiccant, I've been meaning to ask you for some time: what's the difference between a dip sample and a just plain sample? EEng 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Are not all desiccants, by nature, arid?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the natural destiny of desiccants to lose their aridity in the performance of their duty. EEng 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

très tragique-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng For a dip sample, you take the whole list and select entries from it at random; for a representative sample, you divide the list into chunks and sample one entry from each chunk. Usually when people on Misplaced Pages say they've checked a sample, they mean a representative sample as the way contribution histories are displayed makes it easier to keep clicking "older" and sample one entry from each 50-entry page of results, but in this case I genuinely did pull up the whole list and click on it at random, which IMO is a fairer method when you're looking to see if there's a pattern of problems (representative sampling top-loads your results towards either the oldest or newest edits depending on which way you're working through the list, as even if one starts out with the intention of checking the entire history one tends to abandon the checks once a pattern becomes apparent). ‑ Iridescent 12:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated harassment or threats by a person involved in ANI

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

After I filed a complaint against someone else, a user involved in this ANI has repeatedly made accusations or threats against me, even if I justified myself.

Excerpt from one of the initial discussions:

...Leo1pard, that is simply not true. BhagyaMani did not address you or respond to you; he simply !voted in an AfD. I'm advising you again: Stay off of usertalk pages. Stop pinging people on articletalk pages. Stop using numerous references on articletalk -- that should be necessary only very rarely. If you have a cited edit you would like to make, make it, with the citation. If it gets reverted, then discuss on articletalk; make sure you follow WP:BRD rather than simply replacing your desired edit. Lastly, stop inserting your idiosyncratic POV into articles as you have repeatedly done on Maia (nurse); Misplaced Pages is not a place for that. If you continue to operate in the way you have been, you will likely be blocked for lack of competence to edit Misplaced Pages, or topic banned completely from the subject of large cats, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Abuse, what 'idiosyncratic' POV are you talking about? I have read plenty of sources, including these, and I would use them to improve content, discussing it in talk-pages when necessary, and when other users are there to give misleading or WP:biased comments or content, I can't always improve them even if I want to, so I have to use the talk-pages quite a lot to try to improve those articles, and for your information, BhagyaMani only voted on that AfD after seeing that I was involved in there, but after I reminded him of his earlier desire to have a disengagement, he did not make another comment, but otherwise, it's not like he doesn't respond. Nevertheless, I afterwards welcomed him to talk to me in case he had anything to say, not to continue the issue of opposing what certain references may say to present a biased picture of topics like what I mentioned here. Leo1pard (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard your bizarre, rambling reply makes it more and more likely that you will be blocked for incompetence and/or disruptive editing, or topic banned completely from large cats. If I were you I would take the good-faith advice of highly experienced uninvolved editors and administrators here as a word to the wise. As it is, you are on pretty thin ice. And what does "I can't always improve them even if I want to" mean? If you don't know how Misplaced Pages works after all of this time, that's another very bad sign. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You have made an allegation that I have an 'idiosyncratic' POV. I asked you to clarify what you meant by that. Regarding "I can't always improve them even if I want to", what I mean is that users have made WP:biased edits in articles like that, ignoring a number of WP:reliable sources to fit their POV, and they may oppose my efforts to correct those errors. Leo1pard (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an allegation regarding your edit-war to insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know); it's a fact. On other articles, if consensus is against you, then follow the instructions I gave here: . Do not hide behind claims of "bias" or "systemic bias". Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In Maia (nurse), I have made changes like deleting unreferenced material, which is WP:acceptable according to the rules, and as per WP:EGG, it would have been a problem if I inserted a link that would have surprised the reader, or doesn't help the reader to understand what the issue is about, but that is not the case, because the issue surrounding Maia is actually mentioned in the link which I have provided, rather than the link which he provided, and as of the time that we are speaking, the consensus is not against me but against him. He has ignored the consensuses or discussions to fit his POV into articles, as mentioned above, whereas I take care to justify what I do in discussions or consensuses, or use relevant sources to respond to questions or comments asked by others there, like here. Leo1pard (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I said inserting, not deleting. Your WP:EGG is indeed an WP:EGG, and it is your idiosyncratic POV-pushing. The only way for it not to be an WP:EGG is to use the article title itself rather than linking to it under an WP:EGG. If your edit is reverted, which it has been three times, the consensus is for the status quo ante; so the current consensus is against your EGG. So you should not keep edit-warring against the current consensus; you'll need to establish a different consensus on the talkpage (which is unlikely since WP:EGGs are against MOS:LINK). If consensus remains against you, then see/follow the instructions I gave above. You can also check WP:DISCUSSFAIL, but you must read it very very carefully. If you continue to edit war, you will be reported to administrators and likely blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

— ]

Firstly, this user said that the only edits that I made in a particular article were inserting WP:EGGs ("to insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know); it's a fact"), even though I have shown that

HUGE WP:BOOMERANG required. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The thread in question is this one: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trying to talk to a user who is often abusive. I tried to warn Leo1pard several times that he was heading for sanctions, but it didn't take. Now that it's spread into yet more time-wasting and epic WP:IDHT, I think it's time to consider: (A) A block for WP:DE and WP:CIR, and/or (B) A topic ban from big cats, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Boomerang One spurious AN/I thread in a week is certainly enough. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• I see no "accusations" or "threats" of any kind in the wall of text above. Leo1pard, as far as I'm concerned the onus is on you to explain why we shouldn't be enacting sanctions against you, given that it's clear that you're involved with multiple arguments with multiple editors on multiple topics (your talk page at the time of writing looks like you're playing a game of bingo on how many different forms of complaint you can receive). If you do feel you can give such an explanation, do so succinctly and without using references on a talk thread; posting unnecessarily long comments and refusing to adhere to Misplaced Pages conventions on what we do and don't include on ANI threads is itself evidence of disruptive editing, since it demonstrates that you're refusing to follow the instructions at the top of this page. ‑ Iridescent 14:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Per Iridescent / Simonm223. ANI is not your personal court-martial to direct as you see fit, Leo1pard, and opening another massive thread, while another is still live, seems tendentious at best, trolling at worst. Any reason you can give as to why the community should not remove technically your ability to waste other editors' time on an hourly basis? ——SerialNumber54129 14:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly, I edit articles like Lion using WP:reliable sources, but there are others who may do WP:biased edits on those articles, and oppose my attempts to correct such edits, as I have told Softlander already. Secondly, when an issue like this arises, I make use of talk-pages like here and here to try to talk to the opposing user(s) about what they have done, but a trouble is that the opposing user(s) don't always want to listen, and may ignore the consensus, as demonstrated by edits like this, and they may show a lack of respect, like here. Thirdly, it is after repeated attempts to try to talk to the opposing user(s) that I would make a complaint like here. Fourthly, after coming here, Softlander comes here to make accusations like that I made "idiosyncratic POVs", and then when I give her evidence to the contrary, by showing her some of the references to show that I did not do what she alleged, she accused me of giving a "bizarre, rambling reply". I have references to disprove what she alleged about me, if you don't want them here, then I have no intention to bring them here, but if you ask for the references to show what I mean, then I may give them. Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What happened to Thirdly? But I think "your bizarre, rambling reply" is not an unfair appraisal. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Corrected the error, and I have relevant material to challenge allegations like about me pushing a "idiosyncratic POV", in case you ask for them. Leo1pard (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

IP editor 103.60.175.15

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

This IP is a prolific editor, but I don't know if it's a case of WP:CIR or simple disruption. Their talkpage is full of warning messages (several from myself) about various issues that have been encountered with their editing. The last one I added was specifically around BLPs, asking them to respond to the concerns raised on their talkpage. There are several such requests to acknowledge the problems raised, all going unanswered. Today, they're are still continuing with unsourced BLP additions (one, two). IMO, this account should be indef'd, with the proviso of the block being lifted if/when the IP actually responds to the issues raised. Thanks. Lugnuts 13:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a year since we don't usually do indef blocks on IPs but it looks like this one hasn't understood sourcing policies already in 2017. I also couldn't find any obvious sources for the edits in question, and some looked like name confusion to me, i.e a given person was born in a given place but the article is about a different person with the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts 16:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

More Sugar Bear disruption -- rangeblock request

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

User:Sugar Bear was blocked eight years ago for socking, edit warring and disruption in music and film articles. As may be observed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive, a great many IPs and socks have been blocked since, including a rangeblock on 166.182.80.0/21. The latest IP is 166.181.243.218. Can we get a rangeblock on the disruptive range Special:Contributions/166.181.241.155/21? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

166.181.240.0/21 range blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good block. I'll watch the articles of interest to see what happens. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential socking on Lethal Weapon TV series page

Hello everyone. There's a small issue on the Lethal Weapon TV series page that I would like to bring to your attention.

Long story short one of the shows stars earlier this month announced that he was leaving the show when the shows filming wraps in December. However recently the series received a two episode additional backorder and according to the source the stars concerns were addressed and that he would feature in these episodes and potentially further seasons if the show is renewed.

However a user called Dibol is adding (seasons 1-3) to the credits of Damon Wayans despite being told that this is factually incorrect. When I reverted him the first time an IP address appeared within half an hour and restored his edits, see . When another user reverted, Dibol appeared to revert them . Now today this same IP has appeared to restore Dibols edits .

I'm fairly sure this editor is using his IP as a sock and is attempting to force their changes through without discussion. Could an administrator please take a look at the Lethal Weapon (TV series) page history and take action. They're clearly the same person. Esuka323 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My statement below about empty talk pages not withstanding, I'd note that in this case that Dibol appears to have broken 3RR if this is true, but no one else reverted more than twice, but the socking means I'm not sure if this would be easily dealt with on WP:AN/EW if it really did occur. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly remove and add non-sense without explanation

• 101.13.165.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.216.135.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.219.147.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.82.66.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.15.218.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.217.6.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.204.195.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.9.131.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.218.8.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.15.133.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.216.129.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Han Xinyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems the same person who changes his IP every day to make vandalism. And I found surprisingly he has made vandalism for a long time. He likes to remove Chinese in the article and distort the content including ranking time and again.

Here are his vandalism: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Could the article be protected and the vandal be banned? 14.220.230.65 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

given the almost complete lack of sources in that article, how is anyone supposed to know what is or isn't vandalism? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A lot of the IPs you listed appear to be stale so I'm not sure they are actionable. Just checked the page itself, and the amount of disruptive editing doesn't appear to high either. Sakura Cartelet 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Slow edit warring from Phenix City, Alabama

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

A slow form of edit warring has been underway from various IPs geolocating to Phenix City, Alabama, US, with part of the problem being the addition of unreferenced birth dates, while another large chunk is the addition of unreferenced recording dates. At the Eisuke Asakura] biography, the first such disruption was on January 13,], followed by a repeat on March 23, April 1, April 5, April 24, May 9, May 28, June 5, July 3, July 9, July 27, August 4, August 9, August 10, August 11, September 14, and September 18. The same sort of slow edit warring can be seen at many other articles, for instance the Brian McKnight album where Phenix City IPs warred over the recording dates on March 5, June 8, September 14 and September 18. One further type of disruption is the removal of birth date and age templates, replacing them with plain text, which loses the benefit of the automatic age change every year.

As far as I can tell, this person has never communicated by edit summary or talk page. What can be done to stop this person's disruption? One or two rangeblocks, plus a few individual IP blocks? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Phenix City IPs

• Oct 13 Special:Contributions/72.145.167.21
• Sep 23 Special:Contributions/72.145.166.146
• Sep 22–26 Special:Contributions/2602:304:891A:6929:0:0:0:0/64
• Sep 13–21 Special:Contributions/72.145.167.139
• Sep 9–11 Special:Contributions/72.145.167.177
• Sep 1–9 Special:Contributions/72.145.168.46
• Aug 24–28 Special:Contributions/72.145.166.85
• Aug 16–19 Special:Contributions/72.145.168.153
• Aug 4–7 Special:Contributions/72.145.168.126
• Jul 27–30 Special:Contributions/184.47.185.136
• Jul 9 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:9679:0:0:0:0/64
• May 28 – Jun 9 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C489:0:0:0:0/64
• May 13–21 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B8A9:0:0:0:0/64
• Apr 27 – May 11 Special:Contributions/184.47.187.129
• Apr 13 – May 12 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B819:0:0:0:0/64
• Apr 12–13 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B149:0:0:0:0/64
• Mar 10 – Apr 11 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C4B9:0:0:0:0/64
• Mar 1–9 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:CBD9:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 23–26 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C4E9:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 19–21 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:CA19:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 7–19 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:95A9:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 2–5 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C4E9:0:0:0:0/64
• Jan 11–28 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B159:0:0:0:0/64

• The IPv6 address range is obviously shifting, so I have blocked the latest one, which is different from most of the previous ones, for a month. I have rangeblocked the 72.145 IPv4 addresses for six months. If they come back on the 2602:30B:82FB:XXXX or 184.47.XXX ranges, let me know, and I'll block them as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Right on. I'll be sure to keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Daweibj

• Daweibj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StarTimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Access to Satellite TV for 10,000 African Villages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has mainly edited these two articles, and I couldn't find any single sentence of criticism against both subjects. If the user is somehow related to the StarTimes company, I'd like to declare it's against WP:COI, but I couldn't find any sufficient evidence. (I do believe these articles need to be retouched, however.) JSH-alive/ 19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

JSH-alive, I haven't looked into this yet, but I'm just letting you know (if you don't already) that there is also the WP:COIN, which investigates these matters, if you get no traction here. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Zozr789

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

Zozr789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Violation of community sanctions at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The following two reverts were made in the same 24 hour period:

• Revision as of 12:50, 14 October 2018
• Revision as of 18:01, 14 October 2018

I alerted the user on their talk page, but they immediately reverted my post and took no action. (I am assuming this is the right place to report this?) Endymion.12 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The user has now self-reverted, presumably in response to this post, so this can now be closed. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted my changes in the page anything else????? Zozr789 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: c:COM:ANU#Zozr789. Good times. Not directly relevant for enwiki, but provides a little insight. User may have trouble understanding English. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: Zozr789 has been blocked, so this can now indeed be closed. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

70.178.127.37

Since this ANI thread was archived with no resolution, the anon has continued his mean streak. Reverting correct information, edit-warring on that, repeatedly. I made an attempt to show the anon where they were wrong on the WAZR page, for example, and was accused of "stretching market definitions" (whatever that means).

The anon has ignored logical information, for example, WELY uses the branding "End of the Road Radio". It is listed on the station's website, it is listed on their Facebook page, on their Twitter page, and of course they use it on their live stream (which is a simulcast of their broadcast transmission). The anon claims all of this "unsubstantiated AND out of date", "outdated website and a stream". The anon does not explain, though, how the website and stream is outdate. Perhaps he was thrown by the "2013 MN Twins Radio Affiliate of the Year!" in the lower left.

The anon has also repeatedly removed any instance that the station's signal can be picked up across Lake Superior] in Cook County, Minnesota and Thunder Bay, Ontario. WGLI is located on Michigan's Western UP. Their is a source for this, but the anon ignores it because he claims it doesn't show the information. Ignoring the fact that stations can and do exceed their broadcast coverage areas and go past their 40dBu signals into a 30dBu signal (which does exist).

It is abundantly clear, especially from this post, that the anon is not interested in communicating, working with others, but only OWNing articles and putting information that is correct only to him. I would be greatful for any help that I could get. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01 on October 15, 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not going to say anything regarding the content dispute itself, except to say it's highly inappropriate to issue a 3RR warning to someone that you yourself are engaged in an edit war with. Also, as per this discussion, there's no evidence that either of you have heeded User:Marchjuly's suggestion by taking the discussion to Talk:WAZR to get a consensus from a wider array of editors. Even if the IP didn't want to discuss things, you still didn't try to discuss things with anyone else as suggested by User:Marchjuly. Without saying who's right one way or the other, I'm just going to say that this ANI thread is evidence that you failed to take whatever course of action that was recommended to you, so you can expect others to look at not just the IP's behavior but your behavior as well.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Mythdon here. As I've often said, the article talk page being empty is never a good sign when you're trying to get someone blocked for edit warring or not discussing (barring simple 3RR which don't generally belong here). Getting into semantic over who should discuss first per WP:BRD and other policies and guidelines generally misses the point. And while it's helpful to try and engage an editor on their talk page, especially a new or possibly new editor, people respond to such attempts in various ways and discussion over article content ultimately belongs on article talk pages. The best way you can demonstrate that the other editor is the problem tends to be by ensuring people can easily see you made a good faith effort on the article talk page and received no response. Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And I think there is good evidence here for why it's quite helpful to at least attempt discussion on the talk page. While we don't rule on content disputes, in one of the disputes cited above namely that relating to coverage having looked into it I'm currently siding with the IP. I don't see where the map shows the claimed coverage as I've pointed out in the article talk page Talk:WGLI#Coverage. I assume the OP isn't saying we should ignore what the source actually says because we should know from our own OR that coverage is often wider than that given in the sources we use. Instead I assume what's being said above is that the info is somewhere on the source, simply less obvious but I haven't yet figured out where the source shows this info. If this was already explained on the talk page, I wouldn't be so perplexed, but it's not. Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this more, it seems the IP has raised similar concerns on the OP's talk page although then decided to remove their post (doing it poorly at first) . While this discussion should have been in the article talk page, since the initial discussion begun on user talk pages it's hard to completely blame the IP for the mess. And while the IP for whatever reason decided to remove their comments, so they could not be directly responded to, the simplest solution was simply to explain on the article talk page where the source actually shows this coverage in the claimed areas so that all of us would know that instead of staring at a map which does not seem to show what is being claimed. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:FilFootyGuy

• FilFootyGuy (talk · contribs)
• 2018 Bangabandhu Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup

I don't see any hope he will stop his disruptive editing. Refuse to read the consensus in the talk page of the article, refuse to leave any word in Dispute resolution noticeboard. After the expiry of the temp block, disruptive edit the article again (Special:Diff/863577825, Special:Diff/863990580). Please let us know how to deal with the issue. Matthew_hk tc 01:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Das cray. I don't know what to do about the problem, I only know what to do with the editor--a week-long block. I don't if there is an iron-clad consensus on the issue; that talk page section isn't perfectly clear. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing from KaijuFan4000

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

KaijuFan4000 (talk · contribs) has been continually on and off disrupting various sections of the project with POINTed edits. Most recently, this includes editing a number of pages to discuss how various concepts were ripped off from the Power Rangers. Before that, it included such things as adding info on Bill Cosby's sexual assaults to various pages tangentially related to him as well as edit warring over various other things related to kaijus, with a small number of constructive edits sprinkled in (hence why I'm not taking this directly to AIV). Some level of action needs to be taken, as continued talk page warnings and short-term blocks have not helped. --Nathan2055 02:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) After reviewing some of their contributions, definitely WP:NOTHERE. The user appears to have an agenda and after many warnings and a block and still not showing that their here to contribute to this project's aims, I'd fully support an indefinite block.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ultraman and mechagodzilla are power rangers rip-offs tho --KaijuFan4000 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

^ I mean, this response pretty much proves my point for me. Not much else to say. --Nathan2055 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ultraman sucks and he ripped off the power rangers. mechagodzilla is a dragonzord wannabe. --KaijuFan4000 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oh for the love of Pete. endorse block. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP 1.42.39.16

User:1.42.39.16 has recently posted some legal threats on their talk page (replacing several warning templates, including a final warning, if that's pertinent). Not sure what to do about it, not even sure if anything needs doing, but figured I should report it here. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih reverted them without fueling the fire. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

RefDesk header urgent

Nasty vandalism affecting the RefDesk header. Look at the desks or at Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/headercfg. I can't work out where the vandalism actually is. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Found it - this edit by User:Seckroots. Please can they be blocked forthwith? DuncanHill (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone really needs to block this editor now and carry out appropriate revdel.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist mere seconds before I could.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Great Land o' Goshen!. I'm at work and won't have the opportunity to revdel this mess.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a very weird account history Special:Log/Seckroots. I thought it had been created ~104 days ago to get around the RD protection but it seems it was actually in 2009. The edits for autoconfirmed happened just before the spree. I'm not really sure what happened but I'm assuming that means a CU to look for sleepers will definitely be useless. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If someone is using for this purpose an account created in 2009, it is quite likely that this individual has been actively disrupting Misplaced Pages in many ways for a long time, including currently operating multiple accounts. I therefore wouldn't rule out the possibility that a checkuser will be able to find something. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be another sleeper, created in 2010 (now blocked) Mirroringelements (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think it's almost certain that this user has other accounts, including "good hand" ones. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm about 95% certain this is Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. They haven't otherwise mentioned Nazi-ism, but everything else about the nature and ferocity of this attack matches him quite well. Using registerred sleeper accounts, deep familiarity with various ref-desk regulars, and repeatedly hammering the desks to force protection all match perfectly. --Jayron32 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope making transphobic comments isn't the cool thing to do here...

This and this right here are some examples of this "exceptional" user making the extremely transphobic claim that being trans amounts to surgery. The whole verifiability issue is a whole separate thing that I've been discussing with another editor, and have come to understand. On the other hand, I don't plan on being okay with someone saying " not trans because hasn't had surgery!" any time soon, thank you very much. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that user making the statement " not trans because hasn't had surgery!", nor anything else I would characterize as transphobic or bigoted. He has simply stated that the the surgery has not been performed. Otherwise, this looks like a normal editing dispute. Saying this is not saying that his intended edits are factually correct (they may very well not be, I haven't looked into it), but I don't see any evidence of bigoted comments. Maybe there are other, more explicitly transphobic comments, if so, can you link to them as well? --Jayron32 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"he was not operated" is literally right there. Your editor friend used the wrong pronouns and the fact that Kublbock was "not operated" was his rationale. What more do you need? An actual biological woman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, you did revert war which, as you acknowledge below, was not the best action to take, but that comment was as explicit as it gets. (I am not familiar with the case, but Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Gender_identity is clear on the use of pronouns and other linguistic expressions of gender identity.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged that. However, Serols does not, anywhere state " not trans because hasn't had surgery!" which you claimed. Can you link to that? At no time did he say the person was not trans in the comment you linked. --Jayron32 15:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: That's exactly what he said when he used the wrong pronouns. Splitting hairs won't make you cool. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cool. I'm trying to assume good faith on the part of all people involved in the dispute while I extract more information from both to understand what the nature of the dispute is. --Jayron32 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you were. What I was implying is that you've been going to great lengths to cape for someone who made a transphobic comment. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said "Splitting hairs won't make you cool" what I thought you meant was "Splitting hairs won't make you cool". I apologize for reading your words exactly as you wrote them. --Jayron32 16:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, nice! You've outed yourself as someone who resorts to condescension once they realize they've probably screwed up! An actual biological woman (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

An actual biological woman, you broke 3RR. Your political/personal beliefs don’t matter in edit warring; someone disagreeing with you in good faith isn’t an exception to 3RR. Vermont (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with beliefs. The user was not acting in good faith. Forgive me for not taking a cis man's opinions on trans subjects as gospel(!) I'll freely admit to reverting too much though. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That might depend on if we count her as dead for the purposes of WP:BLP - BLP edits are exempt from WP:3RR and this could easily be considered a BLP issue as in her home jurisdiction, she can't be declared dead until she's been missing at sea for six months. So no. It isn't an unambiguous WP:3RR violation. It is a content dispute. In which some comments that at least border transphobic were made. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the purposes of the policy people are to be presumed living absent confirmation of their death in reliable sources. Missing =/= dead. But even if they are confirmed dead, WP:BDP very likely applies here. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:An_actual_biological_woman_reported_by_User:Jake_Brockman_(Result:_Page_protected). Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Err forgive me if I'm missing something but I can't actually see any reliable sources confirming this person was transgender? GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment So far I'm not seeing any source in the usual places, including Pink News - but that doesn't mean that An actual biological woman is wrong. Especially considering how fraught gender transition can be for somebody in a position of celebrity. And honestly, whether they identify / identified as male, female, or genderqueer, doesn't change that some of the statements from Serols regarding whether they'd had surgery are borderline at best. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It was mentioned in reflist 7, 16, and 17. Could we possibly find better, clearer sources? Yeah, probably. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to quibble about what technically defines "living"--BLP covers recently deceased people as well, so BLP can certainly apply to this page (though to which side, I don't know).

Regardless of the charge of edit-warring and the BLP considerations, though, I don't think we should dismiss AABW's concerns so readily. I think "transphobic" might be too harsh a word, but it is certainly misguided to only classify post-op trans people as trans people, and that is definitely the implication behind this edit (that AABW links to above), where Serols reverts pronoun changes with the edit summary "he was not operated" as justification. Weak sourcing is not a bad reason to revert pronoun change, but "he was not operated" definitely is a bad reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If Serols were stating that we "only classify post-op trans people as trans people", then I would be right with you there. He never said that. Now, as I noted above, his edits may or may not be correct for various other reasons that need to be examined, but I have not seen any overtly bigoted or transphobic comments. I agree that if his edits are incorrect, they should be open to scrutiny for reasons of being, well, wrong. If the sourcing does not support his edits, for example, or whatever, that should be examined. However on the narrow charge of being "transphobic", I'm just not seeing that here. --Jayron32 15:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Quick question, how much experience do you actually have with anything trans-related? An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, I think the main point is that Serols used "he was not operated" as the justification for reverting from Dana to Daniel. That would be a nonsequitor if they didn't mean that Küblböck couldn't be Dana if they hadn't had surgery. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why Serols wrote what they did. I was looking at the content. You may be right there, and if you are I would agree that Serols is not correct; but until they respond, I don't know what they meant; the comment itself contains no text I would characterize as "extremely transphobic" as initially characterized. --Jayron32 15:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c) Perhaps "trans-uninformed" rather than "transphobic" would achieve the same results with less pushback. @Serols: as several people have told you now, having/wanting surgery is not the same as gender ID. Also, please don't report good faith editors at AIV. Regarding what state the article should be in while this is discussed on the talk page: This is a more complicated case than is typical; there is apparently some question of what was going on during the last days of their life, and what Küblböck's actual desired self-identity was. Each editor could make a case that they are trying to enforce BLP. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd suggest reverting back to the reliably sourced "Daniel" for now as the status quo ante. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: If editor person was just uninformed, the rationale would be different. I think it's pretty clear what Serols thinks about trans people based on the rationale provided. But I do mostly agree with what you've said so far. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know; I can imagine myself saying something like that 10 years ago, not out of malice but out of a complete lack of understanding. You've had to deal with this crap and I haven't, so maybe you have a better ear for it than I do, but FWIW it struck me as more clueless than mean-spirited. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not familiar with the article subject we're talking about, but no, transphobic commentary is not welcomed here. Deliberately misgendering someone is transphobic bigotry, and the surgery comment could easily be interpreted that way. However it's also policy to assume good faith, and the comment could just as easily come from a place of good-faith ignorance and misunderstanding as being a deliberate hateful action. Nevertheless, one editor's opinion of a person's transgender status is 100% irrelevant; what matters is reliable sources, and as such this is a content dispute and should be settled by discussion on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no opinion here. There's just a bunch of (cited) information pointing towards what I've been saying. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any of these comments as transphobic in this context; rather there's a dispute over whether this person was transgender (I'm not sure if any of the sources make any claims beyond this person identifying privately as "Dana" for a few days before jumping off a boat in an apparent suicide). That content issue can be discussed on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you don't see it. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant I'm not surprised you don't see Serols' comment as transphobic. although Serols literally said "he was not operated". An actual biological woman (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the article to use he/him pronouns with the summary "he was not operated" is at best ignorance about transgender people. Serols has not yet responded to this discussion so it's hard to know if it's ignorance or transphobia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignorance or malice, is there really an excuse in an environment like this? An actual biological woman (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, "he was not operated" was in the article, not the talk page? I missed that detail. That's much more concerning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Braxton C. Womack

Braxton C. Womack became a rollbacker on October 10, but the user used his rollback rights on 2018 Atlantic hurricane season. In my opinion, User:PatriotsFOREVER126 just count the deaths from Spain as the fatalities of Leslie, see Special:Diff/864168319. This is not an obvious vandalism, and it is inappropriate to use rollback rights. --B dash (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards