Misplaced Pages

Whup-whup-whup-whup. Recognise that sound? It is indeed a boomerang on its way back to you. I did indeed accidentally template TT about something a while ago. I apologised, and it was a genuine slip of the mouse. It has happened exactly once in my 20-odd thousand edits.

I did not notify TT of this thread; Cerejota did. What is more, I spoke with TT prior to the thread being opened and, despite allegations of me having a hair trigger, you will note that I did not open this ANI nor did I immediately respond when it was opened. Please retract. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Having following the seemingly neverending dispute on the Yadav article (because it was automatically watchlisted as a result of some wikignoming), I have seen how this evolved, and as such I reluctantly support a topic ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons given by Fowler&fowler«Talk».The three weeks ban expired on 24th and this proposal was made in 25th. Looks like a pre-planned and motivated proposal. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny, a lot of the rest of us see something different; namely, "The three weeks ban expired on the 24th and the user immediately started the same type of disruption that got them blocked in the first place." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Making fun of editors not voting your way is unbecoming of an administrator. You are a new administrator . It seems you need some mentorship for the role.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - MangoWong is there any valid reason why you have posted a notice about this ANI report at Talk:Yadav and Talk:Kurmi ? Perhaps of more relevance, why you have neglected to do the same at all the other articles in which Thisthat2011 has been involved? I do realise that the list could be lengthy but yours is a curious approach on both counts. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These are about the two articles which have been mentioned here. The James Tod article has also been mentioned. However, I have not known TT2011 to have been there.-MangoWong 10:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? You have an odd definition of "about" as there are quite a few others, eg: the original article (2008 Mumbai attacks) and Christian terrorism, the India project talk page, India ... do you want me to go on? Arguably, you should also consider Mathematics etc because those are referred to indirectly, as covered by the previous topic banning ANI report. Your definition appears to be somewhat skewed. Or is it something else? - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These are the two articles on which I have known TT2011 and which have been mentioned. If you think it is relevant to put notices on other articles which have been mentioned, you can go ahead.-MangoWong 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite the same reason you originally gave. Since you have started the process, I suggest that you continue to post to the other articles or, alternatively, remove the ones that you have done so far. You have targeted two articles where it is probable that TT2011 will have support from newbie IPs etc, you worded the message in a poor manner (not making it clear that this discussion is about TT rather than the articles), and you appear to have selected only articles at which myself, Qwyrxian and MatthewVanitas have contributed. I find this odd and distinctly non-neutral, but the ball is in your court. I will not be removing them because they are your posts, but neither am I prepared to indulge in what might be construed as subtle canvassing by selectively posting elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to think that there may be something odd about those notices, I have removed them. I have not deleted your comments. You can delete them.-MangoWong 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I undid those, before I came to look at ANI, not knowing there was a reason behind them. In any event, the notices can stay, there's no real harm (I don't see this as any sort of WP:CANVAS violation0, and removing comments from talk pages tends to mess up the conversation, especially if others have responded. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My problem is not that the notices were there but that the placement was selective and somewhat misleading. A load of IPs coming here to comment on the articles in this thread seemed to be a possible outcome. OTOH, trawling through numerous article talk pages to insert notices, as it was suggested I do, is almost certain to lead to an accusation that I missed one somewhere. - there are lots, and where does one draw the line? Those articles are tangential to the purpose of this report. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my posts again.-MangoWong 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fowler&fowler«Talk».--Snowded 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to request that, if possible, an uninvolved admin make a call as to whether or not there is consensus for the proposed topic ban and enforced mentorship; if so, we can continue on with the conversation below about finding a mentor. If not, I think we're definitely starting to shift the wrong way on our signal-noise balance, and the discussion should be closed. If any of the other editors who are trying to turn this into a fight against the god-like tyranny (I paraphrase from the closed thread near the bottom of the page) of myself , Sitush, and MatthewVanitas would like to continue the complaints against any one or all of us, I recommend a new discussion, or perhaps a different venue like WP:RFC/U. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

117.195

New section

The point I was trying to make was that some editors bring biases from their own personal situation or, from the community they belong to, in their editing preferences.

In my opinion, the varna situation became important again only with the rise of the Marathas and British colonialism. Otherwise, Indian castes were just tribes of different social standings. I compare Hyacinth to the Kurmi caste because both have the pretensions of being of higher social standing. The Kurmi started working on getting elevated to the Kshtriya status more than a century ago. By now their Kshtriya status should be acknowledged. One can write the history of that "struggle" in the article but there is no need to rub the "Shudra" status in. I applaud F&F for cleaning some of the caste articles to get rid of the "offensive" content. This is my last word on the Hyacinth analogy and I don't think this piece was off-topic or or irrelevant. Regards. 50.11.153.223 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone willing to mentor?

Qwyrxian queried whether anyone might be willing to mentor Thisthat2011 per the proposal but it is lost in the noise above. So, anyone? Of good standing etc as per the proposal, of course. If not then this is likely to become a straightforward topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've long thought I'd be well-suited to mentoring. What exactly is involved in mentoring? Nightscream (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an essay at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship. Qwyrxian has recently mentored someone and I am aware that Kansan is doing so, so they may be able to give you some background info. It has to be by mutual agreement, obviously. A specific mentor cannot be imposed on a contributor, and so if TT2011 does not "like" you then I guess it would not happen. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If one is offering to do mentoring, ones block log could also possibly become an issue of discussion.-MangoWong 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly true, MangoWong, although even for RfA I think that there is no requirement that a block log must be clean. I wonder if one day you may actually contribute something positive to a discussion? Indeed, this could be your moment: can you possibly name someone who might be both willing and suitable? It is one of several points which I have raised and you have chosen completely to ignore despite your general verbosity in this discussion. Every time and everywhere that you and I converse, I seem to find myself trying to move things forward and being faced by a constant negativity. It is dispiriting, especially since that negativity is often founded on misunderstanding and even when the misunderstanding is communally demonstrated to you there remains an almost complete failure by you to acknowledge it. User:MangoWong, including its history, perhaps would explain a lot to those willing to delve into it, as would recent removals from your talk page per WP:POLEMIC. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as you three continue your irrational obsession for inserting S***** S***** S***** S***** into caste related articles and as long as you three continue your campaign to drive away Indian eds from India related articles and as long as you three continue your campaign of obtaining blocks/bans on Indian eds (so that you can have a free run on caste articles and keep inserting S***** S***** S***** S*****, by googling and by performing misrepresentations and OR and synthesis etc.), you are likely to continue to encounter negativity from me. In the previous ANI, you guys are the ones who said that I am unsuitable for explaining anything to anyone. Apparantly because I had a block record. You say that I misunderstand things. Actually, you are the one who misunderstands things. You have previously alleged that I do not understand what is weasel word and even went on to suggest that I may be stupid. But ask anyone, "Claim" is a weasel word. My understanding is not at fault. If you continue to argue even after the MOS has been shown to you, which lists "Claim" as one of the words to avoid, it is your understanding and attitude which should be questioned. If you guys insist that "citation needed" tags justify edit wars and that such tags are somehow unnecessary in the lead and the infobox, your understanding should be questioned. I think that both the lead and the infobox are covered by WP:V and WP:NOR as much as other parts of the article. I see no reason to relax core policy requirements of verifiability and NOR in the lead and the infobox.-MangoWong 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For reference, MW was casting doubts on infobox/lede statements on caste articles by cn'ing them, though the content was explicitly expanded on and clearly cited in the pertinent sections of the article. Further, when an RS says "John Johnson claimed that he did XYZ", it is not "weaseling" to state "claim" in the article in that context, since we can't well say "did" when the RS cites only the individual/group's claims vice substantiating the fact. MW, TT, and crew have also wasted pages and pages of Talk literally over one word, "Shudra" (labouring mega-caste) no matter how nuanced or backed by RSs, while showing zero concern for WP's horrendous over-use of "Kshatriya" (warrior mega-caste) which is the tip-top favourite claim for those using WP as a soapbox to glorify their personal "ancient and honourable" caste and then defend the POV-pushing to the death. Another favourite technique of caste-glorifiers is to turn around and accuse the NPOV editors of perpetuating the caste system as evil Orientalist outsiders, despite the fact that it's fictional caste narratives and "rah-rah go team!" caste partisanship that serve to perpetuate caste discrimination. MW's allegations of anti-Indian bias are ridiculous wolf-crying, and insulting to the many Indian editors struggling to maintain NPOV on the highly emotional caste articles, including self-declared Indian editors who have worked in harmony with Sitush, Q, and myself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is a highly skewed interpretation of events. As usual. For example, folks may like to know that the trio could never provide a proper ref for the sentence in the infobox (the one which I had tagged). It has been deleted. It was in the Kurmi article infobox. We had discussed "Claim" being weasly or not at Talk:Yadav#Yadavas History. That sentence has also been removed. However, I now find that even after the MOS had been shown, and even after the "Claim" word was removed by agreement, another truckload of "Claim Claim Claim Claim" has now been added into the Yadav article. Is this some kind of a joke? Why must one go on explaining the same point repeatedly? Why can't you guys stick to a point once it has been accepted by you? And don't try to give the impression that the sources were also using the "Claim" word. None of the "sources" were using that word. Plus one of the sources turned out to be a non professor toilet designer. Presently too, I see tons of new poor sources and misrepresentations. And don't try to give the impression that I am here to push Kshatriya claims. In fact, I had "OK"ed your wish to take down rubbish Kshatriya claims at talk:Kurmi. I have known you guys at Yadav, Kurmi and James Tod. And all I could see was you guys trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you. Thanks.-MangoWong 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the spiel, MangoWong. Now, would you care to answer my query? - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In an above post, you have linked Misplaced Pages:Mentorship. Did you not read it? That page clearly says that it is uncivil to volunteer someone else's name for mentoring.-MangoWong 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does. However, I did not ask you to volunteer someone. You talk with people and could discuss the matter then suggest someone here. It seems to me to be a better approach because time and again you have demonstrated a refusal to accept suggestions (of various types) put forward by others such as myself. I was giving you an opportunity. The nuances of the language seem to have got in the way again, sorry. Anyway, a couple of people have put their name forward below. Thoughts?- Sitush (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this could be your moment: can you possibly name someone who might be both willing and suitable? You did ask me to volunteer someone's name. Don't be snide about it. And I am waiting for the discussion to progress before I could say anything more.-MangoWong 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I volunteer to mentor. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
_Contribs 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I volunteer to mentor. Please keep me informed on my talk page. — Kudu  16:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The mentoring part is a little presumptive and premptive at the moment, it assumes that a mentor is needed, it would make someone assume that the user offering mentoring supports that mentoring is needed for the reportee. This discussion could go in any direction, Cerejota who made horrendously provocative remarks, or Quigley who attacked the reportee with such vigour that the NPA flag should have been up. Why are the three musketeers so desperate to get an editor out of the way, or would inquisitors be a better word, one of them has put it like my way or high way, is that how Misplaced Pages works? Or is it about consensus? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has recieved a warning for making personal attacks. There are only two names above, and against both this user is complaining against. An editor/admin perhaps thinks a complaint is a personal attack. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Making a complaint against users is one thing, comparing them to inquisitors is another. Unless you have proof that they've been culling out heresy for the Roman Catholic Church, I don't think such a descriptor is accurate. It is not a complaint against an editor's behavior, it is a derogatory remark about an editor's personal behavior that lacks evidence. This is why I left that comment on your talk page. - SudoGhost 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh! I used it figuratively, is that also forbidden? lynching has been used above, we use impaling, I wasn't thinking of its literal meaning.117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Webster uses it in a secular (non-religious) sense too "He had to answer his inquisitors' questions or be thrown out of school." The simple English meaning of inquisitor is "a person who asks many difficult questions in a harsh or unkind way" no personal attack or Catholic or hersesy or culling involved here. Please withdraw your templates on this users talk page. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you made accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. That is, by definition, a personal attack. The template was simply a reminder to please back up what you say with evidence, you'll find your arguments much more effective that way. - SudoGhost 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do you wish I provide diffs? (First you said it was about Catholics culling something), what is your point? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The following comment has been made by an admin who is involved in this report on TT2011: "...Indian culture is, I think, not matching to Misplaced Pages culture (which is based primarily in Western academic culture)" , can this be explained? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is explained by carefully selecting your quote to leave out the context. It begins with "this is one of those awkward cases where..." That is very different from what you imply above which is that Q. is stating that Indian culture in general is not a match to WP culture. LadyofShalott 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor contrasted "traditional Indian culture" with "international academia", which, of course, included Indian academics who adopt international standards. The post you condemn was an attempt to recognise and acknowledge cultural differences while pointing out that international standards prevail here. This who discussion is becoming sidetracked by the constant attempts at obfuscation. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back your statements? If not then you are violating TGP. The diff is given, where that particular quote and on the page the entire discussion can be followed. I am not implying anything, don't accuse me of anything, such as careful selection. Are anyone of you reliable sources on the relative merits of traditional Indian culture and Misplaced Pages culture of which one manifestation is the closure of a discussion which was not favouring a particular view? Anyways let Qw answer. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's preposterous to ask for a "reliable source" to interpret a Wikipedian's talk page comment. Paul B (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't preposterous, please see wp:TPG, talkpages are not blogs, whatever you say, you should be able to provide evidence. Please read policy.117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of policy, which you are misrepresenting as sophistically as you misepresented the very comment you quoted. I do not need a reliable source to comment on what someone said. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman, I did not misrepresent the comment, Q's comment has been linked to, a diff has been provided. Please explain in simple language what other issues you have. Short sentences please if you can. I cannot understand you (my fault), and I do not want to jump to conclusions. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you blame Indian tradition for what one IP editor wrote. Very unfortunate. Why do you assume that the perceived faults are not just one person's but endemic to Indian culture? The least you could is say say sorry? On the other hand you seem to be taking some kind of high ground, broadcasting a lot of condescending and patronising. Looks like you owe a big apology. One that is heartfelt, and comes from an acceptance of wrong doing. Like a Zuggernaut said above, the closing admin should take a hard look at wp:COMPETENCE. 117.195.68.177 (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize because you are correct that I do not know for certain that this problem is endemic to Indian culture. I know, from both personal experience and from reliable research (Ilona Leki comes to mind off the top of my head) that the perspective is common across other parts of Asia. Perhaps, though, the perspective is not common in South Asia/India. I have strong suspicions that it is common, because that IP editor is not the only one from India I've heard make claims that a specific historian or historical text is above criticism. This is basically no different than Evangelical Christians in the US using "But the Bible says X" as their one and only argument to support a particular point--it's fine within their community, but it doesn't work on Misplaced Pages. Again, I submit that my intent was to help improve the situation by showing that sometimes problems occur not because one party is behaving badly, but simply because the two parties are behaving differently, and the other side looks completely wrong due to cultural issues. Too often Misplaced Pages editors who come from the U.S. and Europe fail to understand that a lot of our rules (the ones I notice most often are related to verifiability and copyright/plagiarism) literally make no sense in some other cultures, and so we have no right to get all angry because the person breaking policy "should have known better". We have the right to make people follow our policies or force them to stop editing, but we have to be aware that the failure to follow policy is often not due to malice, but due to different cultural paradigms. My goal in the comment was to get the IP editor to understand that xyr perspective on James Tod is not acceptable here even though it may be acceptable in xyr home community, and to indirectly get other editors to see that it's a more complex difference we're facing here than just "Obey policies or get blocked." Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(There was an edit conflict, but I am putting this anyways)Does familarity ( I am familiar with from interacting closely with other Asian cultures as an ESL teacher.) make Qwyrxian a reliable source on Indian cultural traits. The whole concept of cultural traits is dubious and racist imo. Each individual is unique imo. I am sorry Q, you are displaying extreme cognitive bias. As an admin you should be looking at evidence, and not work off your experiences off-wiki and the assumptions gathered there from, these short cuts you take hurts editors. Please take each case on its merits, based on diffs.117.195.68.177 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Again the same thing: You say some Misplaced Pages policies are hard with some cultures. An apology that does not come from an understanding of the wrong doing is no apology. You can say user:X shows he has not understood wp:V, you can say users x, y , z , a, b, c have not understood wp:V, you cannot extrapolate, that is taking a short cut, that makes one's judgement wrong.117.195.68.177 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The more that people contribute to ANI reports while logged out (whether they by accident or otherwise), the more I start to wonder whether this entire noticeboard has a useful future. Sure, stylistic evidence often gives the game away but it is morally wrong. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This behavior does not seem to be common practice across this noticeboard. I think there are grounds for a sockpuppet investigation, as the user who's hiding behind the IPs has been acting very abusively throughout this discussion: evading scrutiny, personally attacking other users, and starting many off-topic conversations. If the user has genuinely made a mistake (although one edit summary contradicts that), then he should have his contributions correctly attributed to his user account and the IP addresses oversighted if necessary. Otherwise, "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles." Quigley (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For anyone interested and able to contribute, I've filed for a sockpuppet investigation into the funny business in this thread. Quigley (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up

First, we need to choose a mentor for Thisthat. I am still available. Secondly, it would be great to compile a nice list or chart/table with all of the evidence and the underlying aftermath of each element. That would be good both for the record and for the mentor, as although I will read over all of the evidence, for such a long discussion, it's easy to forget some things. — Kudu  21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Thisthat choosing xyr own mentor, subject to approval (Black Kite, the closing admin, has already implied support for the three who previously offered mentorship; if Thisthat doesn't like any of those, I'd recommend xe recommend someone else to Black Kite). As for a list of evidence, that is neither necessary nor desirable. In fact, collecting evidence of a user's wrong-doings isn't allowed unless the intent is to take that evidence relatively shortly to some form of sanctioning (like arbitration or an RfC/U). Since this topic ban is the sanction, there is no more need to develop at list of what xe did wrong that lead to the topic ban. What should be done is for tt2011 to work with xyr mentor and develop positive editing skills for the future. There are already some great messages on xyr talk page that indicate that this is occurring, so I, for one, look forward to seeing improvements. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama insisting on less reliable sources

Reikasama (talk · contribs) has refused to get the point that Anime News Network's encyclopedia (WP:A&M/ORS#Situational), MyAnimeList (WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable), and the Japanese Misplaced Pages (WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable), are not reliable sources because their contents is user generated and has demanded that Kodomo no Jikan‎ be unprotected so that s/he may "correct" the article despite the fact that the article was semi-protected in the first place because s/he was edit warring as an IP. Reikasama has been pointed to WP:V and WP:A&M/ORS multiple times during the course of the discussion but still insists that s/he is right and that the three are reliable source. S/he has also stated that Lolicon#Genre characteristics is completely wrong and that the sources there, which include several academic papers and books, are made up and even threatened to extend the edit war to this article as well. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is absolutely false, i've 100% reliable source as example like ANN, the best, proefessional and large community in the web. Also i have MAL, another big community and the same japanese wiki, where the word is created in origin and here is stated the correct definition by japanese people. The lolicon word in origin is not a genre but define a behaviour like hentai and ecchi. I provide 3 sources while the moderator for a reason i don't get insist to use the wrong terminology and linking me a blog with personal opinion made by 1 guy. I don't get also what's the issue to use another word instead of the improper use of this one. . Also the improper use of this word is often use as internet meme in the west for practical use not because is correct like in original. If Farix deny this, it consider pratically japanese people where the word is originated liars. Like the pizza invented in italy is a lie. You also can ask directly to a wiki japanese administrator the meaning of this word in Japan. Reikasama (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk about hoisting yourself by your own petard. But Reikasama has now attempted to inserting their personal POV into Lolicon using unreliable sources such as the Japanese Misplaced Pages and ANN's encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Source i provided are 100% reliable and accurate more than the source you post (1 person opinion), i provide links in the matter as proof and fix errors. Is not my POV, is the point of the enire anime and manga community as a fact. ANN is a professional website, one of the main hub of the www anime fandom. Fix errors is helping[REDACTED] for the best not for the bad. I gain nothing in this, i just don't like disinformation and false statements so i try my best to help with reliable and correct sources. also a classification in the west don't mean is the correct explanation of terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reikasama (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You should find some sources that are deemed reliable by Misplaced Pages standards, then. These are clearly not acceptable as the links provided by TheFarix shows. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you blind? I provide you link, every link i provide you told me that aren't reliable source. This is not a matter of cources, you attack me personally abusing your authority only because you don't accept my sources.Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User generated content will never be considered "100% reliable and accurate", and continuing to claim that they are "100% reliable and accurate" will not make them reliable under Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They are, ANN is linked in[REDACTED] in every manga and anime post, if isn't a reliable source why is linked everywhere? simply because it is and is reliable without any doubts. Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear for all to see that Reikasama is engaged in tendentious editing and disruptive behavior by repeatedly insisting that unreliable sources are reliable, even after being pointed out to policies that state that those sources are unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 11:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I provide 100% reliable sources, on the other hand you abuse your privileges to lock topics at random refuse to accept my sources as a proof. ANN is one of the most reliable sources on the www about anime and manga. Linked everywhere in the wiki too as database. You refuse the avidence and attack me personally. Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a correction needs to be made above. Anything can be a reliable source for some purpose. However, it depends on how the item is used. It bothers me when people use a blanket statement like "such and such CAN'T be a reliable source", because it all depends on the context. It is equally bad when people say certain things are ALWAYS reliable sources. For example, saying anything put out by the New York Times is automatically valid. It simply isn't true. Our guideline on Reliable Sources needs to be applied as written, not as we would like it to be.

Back on topic, Farix, I don't know a thing about MyAnimeList, but without having seen it, I would tend to agree with you. My question to both you and Reikasama is, what sources are available for general research on Anime? If the statements made in these articles are reasonable, just leave the sourcing off for a bit until you find something in a source you both agree is fine. WP:V does support this type of process.

Reikasama, maybe if you work slowly for a bit while you learn the process for Misplaced Pages, it would help you succeed. You appear to be a very new editor, and sometimes new editors and old editors take time to learn to work well together. See if you can use different sources that everyone agrees are acceptable, and maybe over time, you will have a different view of the processes at Misplaced Pages. -- Avanu (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way? ANN is the most know website on the net, the ANN database is linked for every anime and manga posted here in wikipedia. If you ask people into anime and manga what ANN is, 99% know the website as valid source. Moreover i linked another pretty popular website called MAL. They are the biggest. Biggest mean 90% of the community agree with these tags. More sources i provide and less accurate they will be because they fall into the small communities and personal opinions. I don't get also where is the issue to use the properly usage of a terminology. If you ask to a japanese administrator here on wiki i'm 100% sure that he give you the same explanation as me, as ANN, as MAL. Since the word was created in Japan, deny the original meaning mean that japanese are liars and don't know thir own alphabet. In the end i only want to edit tags and adding the ones used on ANN and MAL, removing the lolicon one because is inappropriate and incorrect. But i can't because this guy continue to block the webpages and delete my sources and post, he don't listen, he is selfish and do what he want. That's all. Reikasama (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's look at the sources mentioned.

• ANN - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com
• MAL - http://myanimelist.net

At first glance, I would probably say ANN is a news source. Personally, I have no idea if they are considered reliable, but they seem to be.

MAL seems to be written by various volunteers. How do I know something written at MAL is accurate? It seems like it would depend on each user. So it is likely to be a less reliable source than ANN.

Like I said above, find some sources for Anime that both of you can agree on, and use those. -- Avanu (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, have you read this: Misplaced Pages:General Disclaimer? It says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" (not my caps ..). Sites with user-generated content are not a reliable source. That includes the English Misplaced Pages, and hence, also the Japanese Misplaced Pages. Yes, sure, most of the info there is true and correct - but you can not be sure that it is correct (it does not have editorial oversight, parts may be wrong (even temporarily), etc.). You can not use it as a reliable source. That does not mean that the people who write the Japanese Misplaced Pages, or the other websites are liars .. the problem is, that you will have to find other sources to show that the work on these websites is correct (and not e.g. written by someone who is mistaken, or made a small mistake, or even a vandal who just passed by), which makes those the sources that you actually want to use here. --Dirk Beetstra 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by generated content. Anime and manga are part of the fandom, everything related to this media, info and databases are generated by communities and people around them. ANN is made by professionist that are anime and manga fans too since the beginning. MAL too. Animenation, the only source the moderator Farix use as a proof is a community too. If we deny these sources as a reliable source then everything is a lie. Also these are the only websites of news and databases on the entire internet (i point out that every anime and manga posted in[REDACTED] has a link to ANN, so i assume ANN is a reliable database). Also you can ask directly to a japanese administrator or moderator of[REDACTED] japan, he will sure know at 100% the meaning of this word in his motherlanguage and the proper usage of the terminology. Reikasama (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User-generated = made by volunteers. We have no idea if each volunteer is honest, even if 90% are honest, maybe 1 volunteer isn't. -- Avanu (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah i get now, no the database is made by professionist and locked, the community can only report errors but can't modify the database at all like here. Reikasama (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"i point out that every anime and manga posted in[REDACTED] has a link to ANN, so i assume ANN is a reliable database" - what do you mean .. do you mean that every Misplaced Pages page has an external link to ANN, and that therefore you think that ANN is a reliable source? Please do note then, that external links do not need to be a reliable source, they follow another set of rules on Misplaced Pages. --Dirk Beetstra 13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you go back to the kojikan page a lot of sources are linked to ANN, like the interview to the original author, because ANN do interview to mangakas and translate news from japanese media. So i assume that these are all reliable sources and ANN is automatically a reliable source. Is what i mean by linking news. Reikasama (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. I just looked at Lolicon#2010s - present .. and all the references there go to ANN. All those ANN-news items are based on other (sometimes questionable) sources. As such, all those sources are useless without checking the actual sources. The actual sources should be used (when reliable), where the blog post can be used as an additional note-reference (to back-up the real source, and for readability). Although probably true, I would not trust the Misplaced Pages text in that paragraph based on the sources that I see here. Anyway, it is not a good idea to base conclusions on 'they do it there, so it must be fine here as well' .. maybe it is suboptimal or wrong 'there' as well. --Dirk Beetstra 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, if you consider ANN not a reliable source then 90% of the articles about anime and manga are a lie. ANN provide translations of japanese news and interview with mangakas, and more content like reviews, preview, and a solid database (locked not open to everyone). Is one of the few professional websites that provide these services. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

'not reliably sourced' does not equal 'a lie'. And some of the ANN items I checked in that section actually have a link to a better source, which, I presume, will say the same. Still, the linked site is then more reliable than ANN I would say, even if both say the same. --Dirk Beetstra 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, I don't want to have to argue the WP:RS page again... just read my post above. Sites with user generated content CAN be a reliable source, but they must first come under exceptional scrutiny. Please read the guideline, not make blanket statements. -- Avanu (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that, Avanu .. --Dirk Beetstra 12:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

An outside opinion from an uninvolved editor. I don't know much about anime/manga and have not looked closely at the sources he is trying to use but what I do see is several experienced editors banging their heads against the wall trying to convince Reikasama that the sources he is trying to use are not reliable sources. After looking at Reikasama's contribs I think this is a futile effort. When a typical editor loses an editing dispute, he can shrug, drop the stick and go "do something else". However, Reikasama seems to be here to remove the lolicon tag from Kodomo no Jikan and apparently that's the only thing he is here to do. That stick is permanently glued to his hands. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, because based on the sources i linked, expecially ANN, i get that lolicon is not a genre but a behaviour in Japan, here in the west is usend in a improper way like a category but originally isn't. ANN report it as a theme to go more deep in the description but not a genre. I want only edit the tags with appropriated tags picked up from ANN and MAL and discard the lolicon tag. I do not intend to edit more about the manga, rest is fine and properly explained. I've no more to say on this matter, choice is you admins to allow me to edit or not. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we can all agree on what Reikasama is here to do, it might be best to explain to him/her how to accomplish that goal. I'll give it a try.

The sources you provide, Reikasama, aren't necessarily wrong. What you need to recognize, however, is that they are not considered reliable by our standards. To get your way, you will have to understand why that is and find sources supporting your position which do not have the same problem. You seem to have understood already why the Japanese Misplaced Pages can't be used to back up your position, so I won't go into that. The same is the case with MAL, which is essentially a combination of a social networking website and an online encyclopedia. The situation is a little bit more complicated with ANN, which contains several kinds of contents all in the same web domain. It contains news (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/) which are widely used on the English Misplaced Pages as sources for release dates and the like. It has a forum (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/) which is essentially useless for our purposes. It contains reviews (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/) which are often used in "Reception" sections of our articles to cite the reviewer's opinion. Most importantly, it features an encyclopedia (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/) which is linked from just about every manga or anime article's "External links" section. This encyclopedia was once very widely used on the English language Misplaced Pages as a source for all kinds of information. That stopped following this discussion.

Bottom line: Misplaced Pages is not MAL or ANN. It has its own goals and policies. If you want to get anything done around here, you'll have to do it Misplaced Pages's way. Read WP:V and WP:IRS. Try to understand them. Ask questions if you don't understand. We are not evil gnomes trying to promote false information. You just have to give us sources we consider reliable. Continuing to insist that your sources are reliable will only get you blocked (meaning you won't be able to edit anymore) in the long run. And nobody wants that. Goodraise 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Then link me source that you consider reliable because i fail to see the difference. Keeping the word lolicon as a genre is a false information. Since a lot of references are picked up from ANN i don't get how this website shouldn't mark as reliable, 80% of the references in the kojikan page are from ANN articles translate from this website. The database is locked, and you can only report errors so is not that everyone can edit content there. The database is maintaining by professionals reviewers. Since all references are from ANN why i can't use the same ANN for change a mere tag used improperly here? If you don't consider ANN reliable then remove all the ANN reference in that page and others, comvalidate them checking the original source then re-approve or delete. But is complicated and make no sense at all. Since the tag used on ANN stated that lolicon is not a genre but a theme i completely trust them as reliable source since the same ANN website is used to make articles here on wikipedia. I intend to change the tags into and remove the tag because inappropriate use of the original terminology and i base my source on the same source used to made these articles. I don't get why some source there are reliable and some not? Also the source linked by Farix are the same as ANN, but what he link isn't related to kijikan but stated a general opinion. also why don't ask directly to a japanese dmin or moderator the meaning of the word? A motherlanguage know what mean so you can have more proof. Reikasama (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ANN's encylopedia is not "made by professionist". It is made by any and all users who is willing to register an account on ANN's website. There is also no oversight of any of the contributions to their encyclopedia section and once information is entered, it can take months to change or correct. Even ANN's chief encyclopedist, who simply sets policy and doesn't actually verify any of the information, once stated that the encyclopedia section should not be considered a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is made by professionist, people that once was anime and manga fans like me, now they work and get payd to maintain ANN database, do reviews and previews. The sources are reliable because all the articles translated are based on the original japanese page of the company or the author, from twitter and from personal diaries. All kojikan references are picked up from ANN translation articles. If ANN is not a reliable source then you have to remove all the reference used to write articles on wikipedia, kojikan included. Because is weird, all is ok but when i come here and edit a tag picked up fro the same source website is not ok anymore? There is a contraddiction. Reikasama (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, I regularly use ANN's encyclopedia, including often reporting errors when I find them, and I can tell you that their encyclopedia is certainly not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. While ANNs reviews, articles, and news stories are written by paid professionals and are certainly reliable, the encyclopedia information can be freely added by anyone. Since information can be added by anyone, but cannot be removed or edited except by staff members, mistaken information is often introduced and then sits for years at a time. There are currently only about half a dozen people who can edit or remove information from the encyclopedia, and there are simply too many error reports for them to deal with them all in a timely manner. Furthermore, since the staff members only review information that is reported as erroneous, there could be errors that sit for years without ever being discovered. You just need to understand that even though ANN is in general a reliable site run by professionals, the encyclopedia portion just isn't relaible by Misplaced Pages standards. Calathan (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is managed by competent people for what i know and can't be edited by anyone, try to make an account and change it, you can't. This database is well managed with reliable informations about every serie not managed by the community. But since both ANN and MAL share the same tags and wiki not, how do you know that the wiki is a reliable source and the tags are correct? I've checked anime.nfo too, and even this website share the same tags, everything but wikipedia. So is not more a matter of this is right this is not, if 200 person told you that this is wrong and only 1 told you is right what do you do? You follow 1 or 200? Moreover what are Misplaced Pages standards? Before you told me that[REDACTED] is not a reliable source, i've linked the japanese[REDACTED] page as a proof but you discard it cause this, then i assume that also the english page is a fake and not a reliable source, so a question arise: who made the kojikan page at the beginning and put in the current tags is a reliable source? He just build the page and use these tags, but where is the source that claim that these are reliable and correct tags for this specific serie? I propose a fix because i know the proper terminology from a lot of different source about this serie, and all my sources aren't different from the source in here. They are still sources. Then again if everything in the web is not a valid source then even the actual kojikan page is a lie and is a fake and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch with reliable and valid sources. -_- Reikasama (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, in meantime i find another source that use a different tag for this serie and the correct terminology. The author of the article of the AnimeNation staff use "lolita anime" or "loli anime" (abbreviated) as GENRE and not Lolicon as genre, because lolicon is not a genre but a theme. . Is this enought to trust my sources now and the tags i intend to use (listed before) to edit the kojikan page? Reikasama (talk)

The source you link supports the one that Farix has and completely undermines your own position. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? He stated clearly that "lolicon" is not a genre, is an improper use of terminology, infact i propose a lot of times to use as tag, completely different. I want point out that the tag i propose has the same meaning. since i linked several sources that clearly state that the tag isn't used or is used as a theme but genre. Reikasama (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you can actually read English or you are just selectively reading what you want to. John explicitly states that it is a genre. —Farix (t | c) 10:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to believe anyone else who tells you the truth about ANN's encyclopedia, perhaps you will believe what Chris Macdonald, Chief Publisher and CEO of ANN, said about using their encyclopedia as a source and vicea versa. "Dan and I recently discussed this. Misplaced Pages is to be avoided as a source for the exact same reason that ANN's Encyclopedia should be avoided as a source at Misplaced Pages." —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you talking about? Misplaced Pages, stated by an administrator before, is not a reliable source for the reason that everyone can edit the content, on the other hand ANN is a reliable source not only because tons of references and articles are pick up from there but because is a professional website and sources there are reliable because they are directly translated from the original authors. I don't get your point. Reikasama (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are calling ANN's CEO and publisher a lair because he admits that the encyclopedia section is unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, ANN is not a reliable source. Most information is right and true, but you can not be sure what information is right and true. Even if there is, under thousands and thousands of editors, one single editor who cleverly inserts wrong information, then until you know who that one editor is who inserts the mistaken information, you do not know which information is wrong, and hence, all the information is suspect. As you say, 'they are directly translated from the original authors' -> those are the articles that are the reliable sources that Misplaced Pages should be based on, not on the translations, even if 99.99% of them is correct. The ANN could there be used as a quick-check source, but it should never be the source where information is based on. In Misplaced Pages: 'Statement.<ref>a reliable source</ref><ref>ANN source saying the same</ref>'. And note, in the section I mention above, there are ANN items based on twitter posts. ANN may correctly state what the original source says, but if the original source is not a reliable source, then ANN does not become a reliable source either. It can be used, but with very, very much care. --Dirk Beetstra 10:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If ANN is not a reliable source then you have to remove all the information gathered from there, delete the page and rewrite with reliable source discarding ANN. But since several website report that isn't a genre and label kojikan a simple manga i trust them as reliable source. Is enought, is not 1 but several. You know japanese? If so link me sources in japanese as reliable. Translations on ANN are correct and made by people who has study japanese language not random users. In the lolicon page another user point out that there aren't source and information that define a genre after some research he made through japanese wiki and other info websites. Lolicon is used in west simply for practical use. So if there isn't any reliable source that prove that is a genre there aren't reliable source that prove countrary and the terminology should be put on hold and not used till some concrete data coming out as reliable source. Reikasama (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. I explained that already. And note, the term used is 'verifiable', not 'verified'. --Dirk Beetstra 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And if the owner of the site says "ANN's Encyclopedia should be avoided as a source at Misplaced Pages" .. how do you know that all the translations are correct? --Dirk Beetstra 11:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine then, if you don't consider ANN translation reliable as a source then remove them all from the[REDACTED] kojikan page and relate pages to the side-terminology. Put the word in hold from usage till someone post another fully reliable source. If ANN is not a reliable source everything related to ANN is not. I can't accept that some of the translated source on ANN are reliable and some others not, and who decide that some are reliable and some not? You? Me? It make no sense. Or is all reliable or is all false, there aren't middle ways. Also consider that other users point out that doesn't exist a source that explain the word as a genre. If you keep the actual tag on kojikan without a proper reliabe source you keep on[REDACTED] a false and not confirmed statement. Reikasama (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, Reikasama, that is not how Misplaced Pages works. I would strongly suggest that you don't remove the references. --Dirk Beetstra 14:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Then i don't uderstand how wiki works, provide me argouments please. Because make zero sence that some articles from the same source are reliable and some not. Who decide and why some reference are ok and some not? Can you provide me links that you consider reliable source about the matter? Can you provide me a source that stated that the tag in a genre in Japan? Can you provide me links where you consider reliable a translation and where not? Because you continue to repeat "is not how wiki work" without provide example and reliable sources on how should work. Seems that you are forcing a one side vision and a personal opinion for principle and not using facts. No doubt various communities consider[REDACTED] a crappy and not a reliable source, you keep in false statements and discard true statements, spreading disnformation and providing no sources and allow your moderators (or people with high rank dunno) to block pages without any apparent reason even when people post sources, they simply decide that is not valid. I'm not good at use[REDACTED] but this is ridiculous and beyond any logic. 80.182.44.218 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's try and cut through all the arguments on either side and boil this down to brass tacks, folks, getting rid of the sidetracking as to whether ANN qualifies as a reliable source, and whether the American fanboy meanings of "hentai" and "ecchi" are correct Japanese. The short version, as I see it, is that Reikasama believes that lolicon isn't an appropriate term to use in the "genre" category for Kodomo no Jikan, as it's the Japanese contraction of "lolita complex" into a term that's much easier for Japanese-speaking people to say, and lolita complex isn't a genre, it's a psychological disorder (at least, under the current DSM-IV). Therefore, he removes it from the article's infobox, which is supportable since loli manga is already included as a genre. At this point, others revert his removal, and he re-reverts. This technically is the start of an edit war, but because the others continue reverting back to their version, rather than attempt to engage in discussion on the talkpage, we end up here. Is that an accurate summary? If so, then I'd say that:

• Reikasama did start an edit war, though through a good-faith attempt to improve the article.
• Other editors, rather than follow WP:BRD, responded by edit-warring to reinsert the removed tag, just making things worse.
• Reikasama has a valid point; I've not found any sources that define "lolicon" as an anime/manga genre, while the derivation of the word refers to a psychological complex that is distinctly not a genre of fiction, though its name is derived from a work of fiction.
• Those against removal of the tag from the genre insist that Reikasama provide a reliable source that it is *not* appropriate; this goes directly against WP:BURDEN, which states that the burden of proof lies on those inserting or restoring the information. This is a core aspect of the Verifiability policy, and is present because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. (Proving that it would be an inappropriate term would basically require showing that every single reliable source to the genre does not use the term lolicon, which would be a forever-moving target anyway, as new sources pop up every day.)
• While everyone involved behaved badly once the edit war started, Reikasama's initial edit was not disruptive and was supported by policy. The use of "lolicon" in the genre category isn't sourced, and is thus subject to removal as unsourced, with the same information implicit in the "loli manga" genre that is supported by sources.

My verdict: Trouts all around, and a suggestion to take the discussion to the article talkpage and/or the reliable sources noticeboard if you still want to hash out whether or not ANN qualifies under WP:RS. Just my non-admin opinion, of course, but that's my read on the situation. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yout statement is correct, the only thing i edit was remove the tag and use different tags picked up from these sources i provide. Then i told to the moderator that he can use instead because is more appropriate and is considered a genre both in the west and in Japan. Lolicon in Japan is considered only a behaviour not a genre. Then the moderator lock the page, he insist that my sources aren't reliable where in the same page there are a lot of resources picked up from the same ANN source i do, this is a contraddiction. After we are here to discuss. Speaking back in the discussion page of Kojikan is useless at this point, moderator still lock the page and think in one way. I've contacted the superadmin Fastily 2 days ago about the matter too, he told me that i have persmission and rights to edit the tags when the page back unlocked based on the sources i provided. Honestly now i have no idea what to do. Reikasama (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@rdfox 76: One detail I think you missed is that at least some of the editors in opposition to the removal appear to hold that this article supports labeling Kodomo no Jikan as belonging to the genre "lolicon". What bothers me somewhat is that I don't find the term "loli manga" anywhere in the article. You said it was "included". Where? As for your verdict, I'm in agreement with you.

@Reikasama: Have patience. That's what editing on Misplaced Pages is all about. Take a deep breath. Never mind that the article temporarily shows incorrect information. Try to understand why people disagree with you. Read Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines (starting with WP:V and WP:IRS) to learn what those editors are talking about when they tell you that something is not how Misplaced Pages works. Misplaced Pages is much like a body of water. You can dive in slowly and softly or fast and painfully hard. We're all human and making mistakes. Try not to get too frustrated with us. Goodraise 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in hurry don't worry, just i read these link you provide but still i don't get why some articles of the same source are considered reliable and others not, i don't get the principle and who decide if a source is reliable and another not. I link this website on AN because the guys who respond to the question refer to kojikan as “lolita anime” as genre. and have 2 completely different meanings. The first is an offensive word used on the original country to explain a behaviour and don't belong to the content of this manga that has a seinen demography. Since i'm a reader of this manga and find this error in the wiki page i propose a simple fix with different tags, or in alternative a tag that 1) don't change the meaning of the old tag because has the same interpretation 2) is not a denigratory terminology. All the websites that review this manga do not use this tag but a different one and more than 1, the ones i propose from the source i linked. Only here in[REDACTED] this manga is tagged in this improperly way. Reikasama (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"why some articles of the same source are considered reliable and others not"? "who decide if a source is reliable and another not"? -- ANN is one source and many sources at the same time. It depends on how you look at it. Also, there is no reliable sources. And there is no unreliable sources. The same source can be reliable for one piece of information and unreliable for another. The decision whether a source is reliable for a particular purpose is made by the community of Misplaced Pages's editors (all of them, including you). How that works is explained here: Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Goodraise 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that that's not true, Goodraise. If the ANN is an open wiki, then it's not reliable for anything other than non-promotional comments about itself (such as would be used in an article on ANN itself). This is a case where it's pretty cut and dry: open wikis aren't reliable sources; if this is an open wiki (or nearly open) as it seems to be, then all references to it should be removed from all articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind telling me exactly what part of what I said you don't agree with? Goodraise 03:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama's (I presume you were logged out) reply to me of 15:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC): If a statement is there without a reference, it may be true or untrue, that is then difficult to check. Those sentences get tagged with a {{cn}} if one gives it the benefit of the doubt. If there is a reference, it is more likely to be true, even if it is referenced to an unreliable source. That does not mean that the statement is false, but that it needs a double check. The lousy solution is to add {{verify source}} and move on, the best solution is to actually check whether you can verify that what the unreliable source says is actually verifiable in a reliable source. For ANN that is very often possible, as they do link on to reliable sources (but also sometimes in themselves again to unreliable sources). If you can find a reliable source which verifies the ANN statement and which also verifies the statement on Misplaced Pages, then you should insert that reliable source as a reference (the statement on Misplaced Pages then gets 2 references), if the statement is not supported by any reliable sources, you will have to make the consideration, whether the statement is likely correct, and then consider to either remove the statement with the reference, tag the ref with a {{verify source}} or remove the ANN ref and replace it with a {{cn}}. In some cases, it may also be necessary to remove the ANN source, and replace it with a reliable source you found.

As it stands now, statements with an ANN source are likely correct, and the ANN source should lead you to better sources in any way. Removing them without question would be destruction of information which could help in improving the article in the end, and that is what I suggested you should certainly not do. That approach should only be taken when the unreliable source has been shown to contain a lot of completely wrong or misleading info, and that is certainly not the case here.

These articles aren't checked as reliable, the information are just picked up from ANN by someone and put in the page. Nobody touch them, i wont because i find them ok. Then i do the same with the tags but the moderator locked the page. There is something wrong here, seems that the moderator want the information on this page like he want and refuse everything else. I don't get it. Reikasama (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The key to it is, that "'unreliable source' does not equal 'wrong'". Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source. Still, I guess that way over 95% of the info here is correct. Hardly anything here is verified, a lot of it is verifiable through reliable sources, and of the amount of data that is verified nor verifiable (or verifiable only through unreliable sources) still a lot is correct as well. A massive number of pages here do get some attention from specialists who do generally weed out gross mistakes. Removing everything that is not verified/verifiable would remove a lot of valuable and correct info.

Then you consider these info valuables and mine not, i deserve to be locked and my post deleted? Using this concept everything not reliable should be put on hold and checked before approved. Reikasama (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And though specialists do use data from Misplaced Pages, they will hardly ever use it as the definite source, it all needs to be double checked against reliable sources (but Misplaced Pages is a great resource in getting there). For ANN it is the same. I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wont delete anything as i said before. I only point out the contraddiction that some articles are reliable and some not and some people here decide that these info are ok and others not blockin the pages and delete fixes only because they can. These sources on ANN are used to made the kojikan page but that, using your logic, doesn't mean that they are reliable. So my conclusion is that if you consider ANN not worth then everything picked up from ANN isn't and should be put on hold and checked one by one by an expert. Amirite? I agree with Qwyrxian on this point. Honestly i find these resources translated by ANN correct but is only my opinion and don't matter, infact my only purpose is to edit a tag not the entire article. @Goodraise Well, i provide sources to clarify that this terminology is wrong as a tag, since you said that wiki is not a reliable source because managed by everyone then i find nothing wrong to change the tag with a tag that i consider reliable. I explain already several times why i intend to change it (read before about offensive terminology in the origin country), Rdfox 76 explain the situation too. Reikasama (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not "is this particular information at ANN accurate", which is arguably 90-something percent correct. It's that "this site has no professional editing and fact checking process".

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source by our own standards, because we have no professional fact checking, editorial review, etc. We have a lot of amateurs, and we're pretty good, but we are not a source of facts. We list references to sources which are good sources that meet our reliability criteria.

ANN is not a reliable source by our standards.

We're not insulting ANN saying that. You need to respect Misplaced Pages's reliable source standards and abide by them here. That's not negotiable.

This is a nuanced fine point of english language. It's very important. Please work hard to understand it and work harmoniously with Misplaced Pages standarts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, not necessarily on hold. It is still a useful place to get info, but it should be accompanied by a reliable source.

Fine, then with this same logic i can edit with my sources and put in them, they still are usefull like the rest till someone will accompany them with more reliable sources. Amirite? Reikasama (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And it is not an assumption that it is not a reliable source, it is even what the website owner of ANN is stating. Again, unreliable does not mean that it is wrong, that is NOT what we are saying. Not knowing if it is correct is not the same as wrong.

You say here 'i find these resources translated by ANN correct' - so, they are translated from something, that is the reliable source (if that is a reliable source in itself, of course) that should be used, and the ANN translation can then be an additional source. If you use ANN in that way (adding both the original ánd the ANN translation) then that is the way to go. --Dirk Beetstra 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Then my source is reliable and i have the right to change this improper terminology and improve wikipedia. Because the ANN enciclopedya is translated from the summary of the original works. Episodes listed are translated from the original source along with cover images and the link to the company page. Unlock the page and let me change the tag, you can check yourself the links from ANN where the same ANN translate and gathering info or you want me do it and put here japanese pages? But you know japanese? Ehhh no i assume so you need a translator and the loop start again because you don't know if the translation is correct assuming that ANN is not a reliable source like you have stated till now. Do you see the fail in all this? I don't believe that in other wikipages people is so blind like here and do a war like this for a mere tag (that have the same meaning). Reikasama (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No .. because there is no editorial oversight on the translations. ANN is not a reliable source. Yes, if the reliable source is in Japanese, then so be it. We are talking about verifiability, Reikasama, the ability to verify. We also have sources behind paywalls. Some of those sources are not available to me, but that does not invalidate them as a reliable source, or that we can not use them. --Dirk Beetstra 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Then the actual infos are considered verifiability or not? Because you told me not before, so why they still are there? Let me put more info and when more source are availbale edit and fix them. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never said that ANN is unreliable in its entirety. Its news and views sections are reliable sources. However, anyone and add information into their encyclopedia section and there is no verification of any of the information entered. But getting that information changed when its proven to be inaccurate talks a long time. ANN's encyclopedia is not based on translations of the original Japanese sources. Instead, much of the information is based on fansites, forums, twitter, episode credits, official website, and yes, Misplaced Pages. In fact, none of the genres listed in ANN's encyclopedia entry have any sources. I know this first hand because I have contributed to ANN's encyclopedia and flagged several errors, many of which have yet to be corrected. I can go right now and add science fiction as a genre to ANN's encyclopedia entry and it will show up. But I'm not going disrupting ANN's encyclopedia just to prove a point. That is why WP:ANIME has a detail explanation of which parts of ANN are reliable and which parts are not and it specifically lists the encyclopedia section as unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, only ANN admins can modify the encyclopedia page, the same who write articles posted here, it is managed by them. Random users can only report errors and admins correct the info after. It is, infos are picked up from original websites. Episodes titles, covers and summaries. Kokikan has. They don't fix error if they aren't accurate. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, either you have absolutely no clue how ANN's encyclopedia works or you are being completely disingenuous by ignoring all facts that doesn't fit your view. For now, I'm going to assume the former. What I stated about the information on ANN's encyclopedia is completely correct. It is not written by the ANN staff, instead it, like Misplaced Pages, is written by volunteers like me and others. If you don't believe me, then go ask them yourself. The fact remains that the genres listed on their entry do not have any reliable sources if they have any sources at all. Quoting from ANN's entry, "Genres: comedy (i) audit | no source , drama (i) audit | source , romance (i) audit | no source"." Oh lookie there, they are citing Misplaced Pages as a source for one of their genres, which is no longer supported do to lack of verifiability on Misplaced Pages's end. —Farix (t | c) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also want to stress Farix's point above, as I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding what Anime News Network is and are making incorrect statements on its reliability. Anime News Network is primarily a website reporting anime and manga news, reviewing anime and manga, and containing other articles written about anime and manga. In that respect, ANN is definitely a reliable source, as the people working on it are experienced professionals, and all news, reviews, and articles are overseen by professional editors. In fact, as stated at WP:A&M/ORS#Situational, ANN is essientially the newspaper of record for anime and manga news, as it generally has the most significant editorial oversight and most experienced writers among sources dedicated to anime and manga news. While ANN learns of anime news from other sources (just as a newspaper or magazine must get their information from somewhere), it does not merely translate news stories from Japanese websites or anything like that. Once the news is reported on ANN, that means it has been vetted by ANN's editorial staff, and can be trusted as reliable (again, this is just like how news reported in a newspaper works).

This is valid of all articles published, so why those articles are here in[REDACTED] as reliable? Have you checked them? Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That being said, ANN has other sections of their website besides the news, reviews, and articles. These include a press release section (which obviously wouldn't be considered independent from the companies making the press releases), an "interest" section which is not necessarily reliable (again see WP:A&M/ORS#Situational), forums (which obviously aren't generally reliable), and the encyclopedia. While there is a paid staff member who oversees the encyclopedia, it is primarily user submitted data (not necessarily translated from a Japanese source), so it isn't reliable. As Farix stated above, before citing something from Anime News Network it is necessary first to check which section of the website it comes from, as parts of the website are reliable and parts are not. Calathan (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama: Here's something you don't seem to understand: The editors involved in this incident (including you) have misbehaved. That is why it was brought up here at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. The page wasn't locked to endorse a particular version of the article. It was locked, because you and several other editors were edit-warring instead of discussing. Here on this page, we're not concerned with article content (such as what anime belongs into which genre). We deal with editor conduct. What you (and everyone else) should have done is to discuss the issue on the talk page until resolved. Being the inexperienced editor that you are, your misbehavior is completely understandable and forgivable. But now that you've been told, you (and the other editors involved) are expected to go back to Talk:Kodomo no Jikan and try to come to a consensus. There will be no higher power intervening on behalf of either side. It's not what has happened and it's not what will happen. Another thing: Editing Misplaced Pages articles is not a right, but a privilege that can be revoked at any time if the editor in question doesn't play by the rules. Goodraise 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Since them don't provide me links that stated that the terminology is a genre and the word has unreliable resources to begin with it should be put on hold and re-checked with properly sources. There is no consensus on this, is a fact. Lolicon is japana is NOT a genre and will never be. There is only a solution and is to change the teminolgy with a word that have the same meaning both in the west and east, and is or . Or keep the page locked forever with false statements and not reliable sources. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources at Lolicon#Genre characteristic that demonstrates that lolicon is a genre. But then, you've been dismissing those as well because it doesn't fit your view. —Farix (t | c) 23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to ANN i find exactly the main page of the producer in Japan. , the retailer and the original author blog . So you continue to claim that ANN has no reliable sources. All infos are gathered from here. Comic High is a seinen magazine and is the publisher. Where is this genre that the arctile on[REDACTED] claiming? I'm not able to find this word anywhere there. So what? Maybe is because is a bs and a false statement invented in the west? Can you provide me a link where explain that kojikan belong to this hypothetic genre? Since i provide you original sources now is your turn, can you provide me a valid link that convalidate at 100% what is written in the actual locked page of Kojikan? Unfortunately i presume you can't because these links point out to the original creator and publisher and there ins't anything else reliable as much as this. Deny that is not a genre is pratically say that the publisher and the creator aren't reliable sources and liars. If you provide me proof that 1) is a genre and 2) Kojikan belong to this genre with reliable sources i give up and leave the page alone. Reikasama (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reikasama, please stop inserting replies in the middle of other comments. I see you have placed a reply into the middle of my last comment, placed replies in the middle of the comment I was replying to, and placed replies between my comment and the comment I was replying to, while also changing the indentation of some parts of some comments. That makes it very difficult to follow the flow of the comments or to tell who wrote what. Please don't do that. Please read Help:Using talk pages and try to follow the instructions there on replying to comments and indentation. Calathan (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, this entire situation and long discussion could probably be prevented if someone would just ask on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if the two sources Reikasama wants to use are considered reliable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do it just now to listen more point of views, but who is people that decide there if a source is valid or not? The same as here? Through a pool? The only way to decide is to have an administrator that know perfect anime and manga genres, expecially a japanese mother language. This is the only way to have an impartial verdict on the matter. Reikasama (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that ANN has been to WP:RSN and that MyAnimeList may have already been there as well. The verdict for ANN was that its encyclopedia portion was not reliable, yet Reikasama doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts his/her point of view. —Farix (t | c) 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not true, you wont accept valid sources and lock the page only because you can and want use a false statement and wrong terminology without providing reliable sources to prove your point. You abuse power and refuse to accept the truth. Also i ask you to link me reliable sources but you fail on this because you don't have any. Only because a word is used as internet meme elsewhere but original country doesn't mean that this usage is correct and reliable. Reikasama (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, I just want to chime in here as an uninvolved editor who has been following the discussion. It looks like you're starting to get very frustrated because you're not getting your way here, and I think that a language barrier may be affecting the communication of a few points to you. First, none of us are here to make Misplaced Pages represent the truth. While it may bother you for the article to state lolicon is a genre, have you ever considered that lolicon is considered a genre in places outside of Japan? Lolicon may be considered a genre in other places in the world because of idiomatic use and if this use is supported by sources that Misplaced Pages considers reliable, than that information can be included in the article. One of WP's problems is that it's too U.S.-centric, but being focused solely on what the meaning of a word is in only one country (Japan, in this case) is just as problematic. You need to accept that WP is about people working together; if several people object to what you're trying to do, that may be a sign that you're doing something incorrectly. This is not abuse, it's simply an element of a collaborative environment. Chillllls (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not frustrated, i just reply when i'm called. I told to Farix that if he provide me valid and reliable resources that confirm the matter i apologize for the time wasted and i leave this page alone. Since he refuse to provide me links that comvalidate the actual sources i assume that them are false or improperly posted there. If[REDACTED] don't state the truth then what's the point to have a wiki in the first place? Is this a joke? What's the point of blocking people who try to correct info with more info if someone is so selfish to abuse the system? Considering Lolicon a genre outside of Japan is false, because the word is japanese, i have no objections if you use a synonym, because in Japan is a debigratory terminology and so in the resto of the world. Again i ask several time to post here these reliable sources but i've no reply. This support my thesis and my sources as reliable and the actual ones not because you don't have data. To counter my sources as invalid you have to prove valid sources but you can't. Only because someone stated a thing doesn't automatically mean is the truth, you have to prove it. Amirite? If is collaborative i have the rights to add or correct infos based on more sources, if you don't accept help from the community and keep the pages and info for youself and you decide what is right and what not then keep the page close. Reikasama (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason nobody is supplying references here for you is because that's what this board is for. However, in case it will help, I will provide the references that you are asking for to demonstrate that Lolicon is described as a genre in reliable sources in English. Because that's not what this board is for, I'm putting a few of the sources I found at the Lolicon talk page. They were not difficult to find.

But this is all besides the point. What matters here is that Misplaced Pages has behavioral policies. You must work within those behavioral policies or, even if you are right, you are likely to be blocked from participating. If you follow dispute resolution but can't gain consensus to change an article, you can't change the article. It's as simple as that. --Moonriddengirl 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama: You will have to get this point into your head somehow: Misplaced Pages's administrators don't have the authority to decide things like that. There is no single person who could make that decision. On Misplaced Pages, basically all content decisions are made by community consensus. Misplaced Pages:Consensus explains how that works.

The protection of Kodomo no Jikan already expired at 23:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC). Nobody is abusing power to keep you from editing the article. But you have to engage in what we call "consensus building". I know it would be easier if there was some expert admin who could make an "impartial verdict" and I know you're tired of hearing this, but that's just not how Misplaced Pages works. Goodraise 17:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If all decisions are made by community consensus why the page is locked? This Farix decide to close the page without the community consensus, and without prove facts that convalidate what he caliming and the actual sources. I prove facts but i get blocked. Nobody here provide facts and sources that prove that 1) lolicon is a genre in Japan 2) kojikan belong to this genre. Nobody because these sources aren't existent but someone decide that is ok anyway over all. ALSO i ask opinions if ANN is a reliable source in the reliable_source_noticeboard and again this Farix try to deviate the main discussion into something personal with the same redundant fake sources. Seems he is scared that more people may agree with me, while i want only provide correct sources and improve the kojikan page, a manga i like since 2007. Unaccettable. Reikasama (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama restarts contentious editing

Reikasama has just removed a sourced genre that he disagrees with and installed a series of genres that don't have any reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely provide, otherwise will be pointless don't think? Here you have. . And before you start with the unriable wall ot text, people in reliable_source_noticeboard tend to agree that is RIABLE. Reikasama (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty frustrating case of WP:IDHT. Reikasama is definitely making good-faith edits, but this refusal or inability to realize why other editors are objecting to these unsourced genre changes is only going to get the article full protected again or him blocked or both. I feel like he should be cut some slack because of the language issue. Chillllls (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is so much of a language barrier as it is a complete refusal to accept anything that contradicts his/her point of view. —Farix (t | c) 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well not at all, you are selfish and refuse other user sources, edits and opinions, i ask to you seversl times to provide source but you wont so i assume you are only a mouse clicker, a blocker and nothing constructive at all, only QQ. Also if you notice another user add the tag , at least i'm not the only one here that i think you are wrong. If i was a mod i will leave the article open and only the community should manage it not you just because you can lock threads as u like with the illogical undo war. I'm sure too that u have no idea what kojikan is in the first place since almost all summaries of tv series are user made without sources. Reikasama (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also in the reiable_source_noticeboard finally people agree with me that ANN is a riable source and concur that this terminology doen't exist in the west and has a different meaning. But i'm sure that Farix, even with evidence he refuse to accept my fix and continue to lock the article only because for him is a personal battle. Is sad. Reikasama (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, that is not at all what happened at WP:RSN. In fact, the person said, "I want to say while I disagree with the sources Reikasama as being "reliable" or "not reliable"...." No one--let me make this clear--no one in the entire discussion above or at RSN has accepted your claim that the encyclopedia portion of ANN is reliable. If you continue to treat it like a reliable source, you are going to be blocked for disruptive editing. Furthermore, the fact that it was never called lolicon in Japan does not mean that it is not properly labeled "lolicon" here, on Misplaced Pages, since we take not just one country's perspective, but a world-wide perspective. It doesn't even matter that the manga was never published in the US--if reliable sources, from wherever, call it lolicon, than it is properly categorized this way. Furthermore, you say that no one has given you references to say that is categorized that way, when, in fact, Moonriddengirl has said that she did exactly that at the talk page (I can't go check right now because I can't visit a page that might be related to this topic at work). Even if one person on RSN had actually said "ANN is a reliable source" that does not mean you can suddenly go and edit the article the way you want, because one person is not consensus. At this point, let me make this fully clear: you must stop editing that article until such time as there is clear consensus to make the changes you want. If you cannot get that consensus, then continue to follow dispute resolution. And if consensus continues to be against you, well, that happens sometimes. But continuing to edit war is simply not an option, and will result in you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New account creating a bunch of other accounts

In the user creation log today, I observed User:Little Red Corvette Guy creating a bunch of other accounts; see account creation log for this user. I asked the creator why he was doing this, but he failed to respond. Thoughts? User has been notified. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do I hear the unmistakable quacking of MascotGuy? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seems clear to me. I have blocked all the accounts. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't we had checkusers shut down his IP so he can't register accounts anymore?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy suggests he repeatedly changes IPs. It might be a temporary fix to block a current IP or range, but considering his persistence, unlikely to be useful in the long term. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but are these account farms even him?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been going on for years. There's an edit filter setup to detect his account creation. Talking to him is a futile effort. Just block and ignore him until the next day. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He's all over the CIDR spectrum, making it impossible to make any single rangeblock to stop him. –MuZemike 21:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

why are non-autoconfirmed accounts allowed to create others? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• An excellent question. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• To annoy the hell out of people who watch the new user log, perhaps? When I see MascotGuy pop up, I don't even bother saying anything beyond "get the accounts he created too", and it almost always gets responded to within seconds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is so accounts with inappropriate usernames (i.e. company names or website names) can create a more appropriately-named account after being blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but is there any reason for non autoconfirmed accounts to create more than one extra account? TNXMan 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for anyone (aside from ACC folks) to create more than two accounts in the same day? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support lowering the threshhold for account creation from 6 to 2 accounts per IP/account per 24 hours. Really, the only people who go above 2 accounts are sockpuppeteers. The ACC folks (like myself) all have (or had, in the case of admins) 'accountcreator', so they can ignore the limit anyway. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For non-autoconfirmed accounts, couldn't the limit even be 1 per day? I can't see any reason for them to need more than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but shouln't this conversation be on the policy section of the Village Pump? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It can be here, but lets RfC...--Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Lower the limit of account creation in a 24 hour period by non-autoconfirmed accounts

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

A discussion at WP:ANI on sockpuppets creating other sockpuppets seems to have consensus to lower this limit. The reason not to eliminate this ability altogether is to allow for a bad username to be changed by the user as they familiarize with WP:USERNAME policy. There are two proposals, one to lower the limit to two accounts per 24 hour period, the other to one account per 24 period.Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Two accounts - Otherwise, inappropriately named accounts cannot create a per-policy account except by waiting 24 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be on VPP or a subpage of WP:RfC or somewhere that's not ANI? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a discussion is already happening at VPP, so the RFC should be there; definitely not for this board. —SpacemanSpiff
    • (edit conflict)There is already a discussion going on at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Remove_ability_for_new_users_to_create_other_accounts, perhaps the RFC should happen at that discussion? Monty₈₄₅ 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

I started a discussion at Talk:Brandon Marshall regarding the placement of images within the article. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who uploaded one of the images, was in disagreement with me about whether an image of Marshall in his current team article, though it is bad quality, should be in the infobox. The consensus appeared to be going against Chris, so he conceded defeat by making the changes per consensus and posted an irrelevant and highly inappropriate response, "I will not tolerate this racism from all of you. I removed the comment as being a violation of WP:TPG (but keyed in the wrong acronym later, and thus it appeared a redlink). He restored his comment, and removed again, threatening to take him here if he continued. I received this edit summary in reply: "don't be such a fucking asshole". In February, Chris was blocked for one month for making personal attacks and he will no doubt attempt to attack me here in this venue as he did the last go-around. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseless charges of racism are perhaps the most damaging type of personal attacks. IMHO at minimum the comment needs to be retracted promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The racism assertion was made purely for disruptive reasons, FWIW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked again. Since the last one was for a month, this one is longer--three months. As much as it pains me to block a long-time contributor, such charges and the accompanying edit summary are unacceptable. I gladly invite review. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I support this block, especially in light of this response. either way (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm a bit embarrassed about that; besides, I can't blame him for his response. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Based on his recent edits, perhaps his talk page access should be revoked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Agreed, he's just trying to be disruptive at this point. He clearly has no desire to request an unblock. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree with Eagles; he's only interested in being disruptive now. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 04:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
            • ironic really since his reworded template says he has no need to edit because he "has a life" and yet he's pretty much edit warring to keep his block notice.--Blackmane (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have disabled talkpage access during the block. The type of refactoring he was doing to his block notice almost led me to extend the block, but I decided that time heals all wounds. Let's not have any piling on or bear-poking in the meantime (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the current bastardization of the block notice reads more like a "goodbye" vent, and I see no reason to remove it at this moment. As it does not contain any specific WP:NPA situations (unlike some recent ones), let him vent - but he can go vent in his "real life", as opposed to disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just like Martin Luther King? Fo shizzle. And I'm Hitler, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his block history, I have to wonder if 3 months is long enough in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I invited review, Sarek... But he has done good work here as well, I think, and surely that counts for something. That they come across like an ... is more than a little unfortunate. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Drmies, if Chris socks, do you agree that he should be indeffed? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I hate to speculate, but I would probably agree to that. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User fails to respond to messages

Azumanga1 (talk · contribs) nevers responds to messages in her user talk page. Should an admin block her on not? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Block the user indefinitely with email and talkpage disabled for not responding to her messages. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL. You can't be serious? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What? She never responds. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 23:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to block someone... Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what they're not responding to. This is a community and users need to communicate. If a user refuses to communicate it can cause issues. Even if their edits aren't necessarily terribly disruptive, if they ignore all attempts by anyone to communicate with them, that in itself can be seen as disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And after having a quick look, that doesn't seem to be the case here, they've responded to people in the past.. I'd question NYmets here. They go to their page to offer them being nominated for adminship, and when the person doesn't answer, they come here insisting they be blocked and have their talk page locked.. were there some serious editing concern they weren't addressing that is one thing, but in this case, perhaps we need to have a look at NYmets edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of response are you looking for from this editor? Quinn 23:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I notified the editor this is directed toward, as I didn't see where that had been done. Quinn 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Boomerang: NYMets2000 and WP:CIR

Per Crossmr above, this appears a classic WP:BOOMERANG and WP:CIR. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/NYMets2000 and NYMets2000's talk page, where he has previously shown no inclination of co-operating with others when they were trying to dissuade him from his RFA and again when another user asked him to declare any past accounts, should this be pursued further? I would think that to prevent further disruption, we should be thinking about assigning NYMets2000 a mentor, stat. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since he has shown no desire to cooperate, I think you mean to suggest a block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't he at least be warned before being blocked? The Utahraptor/_Contribs 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling for a block here is also kind of boomerangy in an odd way. Anyway, mentoring might be a good idea. I was unaware of WP:CIR, and I can only hope that it's a simple test (I assume there's a test?) or I'm gone too. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at NYMets' userpage, and taking into consideration the way he talks and processes things, I would assume he's a younger editor. I think mentoring, rather than a block, would be the best thing for us to do at this point. If his bad behavior continues, and if he is sufficiently warned, then a block may be warranted. But let's see what mentoring does for him first. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit of a waste of time. NYMets2000 isn't acting like a clueful or mature member of the Misplaced Pages community, and I suspect that is something only time can cure. Time away from Misplaced Pages, anyway. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd block him myself because of User_talk:NYMets2000#RfA and the "other accounts" thread below that. He's clearly unable to communicate properly in a collaborative environment or apply common sense to situations like the section directly above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at everything again, I agree. I still think he deserves a second chance, but based on everything he's done, I don't think we'll see much improvement. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 05:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's done anything blockable as of yet. I do believe it is heading that way. He's also making some article-space edits that are problematic: for someone who has "circa" birth and death years, he changed the categories to be the specific years listed instead of the decades. LadyofShalott 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do the problematic edits include creating pages highly subject to XFDs, miscategorizations, etc.? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's those, then there's the two things that SP mentioned below, many things similar to the things SP mentioned below, and the "RfA" and "What other account(s)" threads on your talk page. As mentioned below I think mentorship would be good for you. Your mentor could address these problem areas as well as introduce you to new areas that may interest you. Would you be willing to consider mentorship? The Utahraptor/_Contribs 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to consider mentorship. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• His latest gems... Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cipspic and WP:BN#Desysop Jinian. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like NYMets doesn't understand policy very well. Like I said earlier, I think we should try mentorship before doing anything more serious such as blocking. It might not do him much good, but it's at least worth a try. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The SPI is problematic. I wouldn't consider the Jinian thing that bad, after all it's probably not that common to have someone doing admin actions but not editing so easy to miss. The bigger issue is their failure to follow Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators the notification requirements but considering it doesn't seem Jinian was notified last time their admin bit was removed (the log seems somewhat broken so I don't know when that happened), it seems this requirement is not always carried out (unless the requirement didn't exist then). In other words, yes there are things that ideally should have been seen and more importantly should have been done before asking for someone to be desysopped and considering it's a fairly big thing even if just procedural, it isn't a good look taken together with the rest but still seems fairly minor. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For further information on the July desysops performed by stewards (logs are at meta ), see Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22#Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins. –xeno 20:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've invited the editor to participate in this discussion on his talk page under Strange Passerby's notification of this thread. He's edited since that happened, but not in the last hour or so. Northumbrian (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since then they have added a stub tag to a new article that was already catagorised and demanded that a page at AFC be indefinitely protected. *sigh* Perhaps its high time for a competence block. Spartaz 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The AFC thing is because one AFC was declined 7 times. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you a regular at AFC and is full protection the norm for repeated requests? If not, it seems to me you should let others deal with it. I presume they have a way of dealing with repeated requests for review which don't appear to address the concerns (if that's what's happening here). I don't really see why full protection is going to be needed, simply informing the requestor that they don't appear to be addressing the concerns and asking them to either seek further help then the confines of AFC can provide or stop and ignoring the request would probably work a lot of the time. Are you even sure that 7 reviews is abnormal or that progress isn't being made? Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

nymets2000, Utahraptor has a question for you above about considering mentorship; looks like it got lost in the course of this discussion, but now might be a good time to answer it. Northumbrian (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeffed

Looks like HJ has tossed the banhammer at him. It saddens me because I tried to help the guy, but I have to concede Fetchcomms is probably right and the best thing for NYMets2000 is to take some time (off-wiki) to develop the communication and collaboration skills needed for fruitful contributions here. Hopefully after he's had a chance to mature some he can come back and try again, with some mentoring. 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) While it's something from which I derive no pleasure, I have indefinitely blocked NYMets2000. From the comments here, and my own observation, I do not think they (yet) have the competence to properly contribute here, and there's a real risk that they'll cause damage, albeit likely inadvertent, that's not as easily repaired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone would want to jump in at the deep end if they can't swim. Templates, more templates, desysoppings, SPIs, and the expectation of an adminship... Drmies (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Golb12

Golb12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Golb12 refspammed quite a number of articles likely as promotional. Another user removed the refspam and reported it at Wiki Project spam. Subsequently, Golb12 has adopted the attitude that if his link can't be included then he will remove all constructive edits that he has done. I told him that he could use other sources to help improve the articles but he insists on doing mass removals now. The contributions that he is removing look sound and could probably be sourced given time. I believe he is in violation of our users' agreement and need help getting him to stop acting destructively.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again

I'm afraid that a previous ANI case, namely this one has resurfaced.

A read of the above and the talk page at Celtic F.C. supporters should give you a good idea of the problem. Essentially Adam has been insisting on adding information that is not neutral into the page, one from the Celtic FC web page, one from a footballing agent dealing with a Celtic player, and one from a marketing company that works with Celtic. All with no secondary sources. See Talk page here ] He was also advised to change his behaviour and received warnings on his talk page from a number of fellow editors, including some he works closely with .

When this came to the ANI board before, the suggestion from various adims was a topic ban, but this never materialised, which I think was fair enough as it was worth giving Adam a chance to take stock and change his editing behaviour. Unfortunately this hasn't happened, so what do we do now? Mattun0211 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there was consensus for a topic ban before but the thread was archived without being closed properly. I think we could now enact the topic ban if there is still a problem. --John (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I cant believe this is still an issue. I have repeatedly tried to find a middle ground to meet on with this issue normally relating to supporters groups and where large fan bases have developed (normally due to certain players signing for the club). All it would require from my perspective is for adam to agree to tweak his wording on these issues. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• In light of this, I now think that a topic ban would be helpful. Adam is making valid contributions, but on Celtic-related pages I think he is being led astray (from guidelines, policies, and even common sense). John, do you agree? Drmies (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. That's a terrible edit and summary. --John (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

A POV-warrior Scythian77 (talk · contribs) keeps removing relevant information about Cricket in Afghanistan from the Afghanistan article. Can someone please warn him to stop this. He accuses me of being some kind of a "game" promoter with an agenda but I'm not that. In fact, I never watch the sport but today it is the most popular game because millions of Afghan refugees who returned from Pakistan to Afghanistan brought this sport with them. Even this and this Afghan news site shows how popular the sport of cricket is among the Afghans.--Dupree fan (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, simple as that, and there's editing and discussing going on--little for an admin to do here. Let me make a few notes: Scythian has no business removing the entire section, as another editor pointed out on the talk page (Scythian has not visited the talk page yet, but neither has Dupree). Also, the links you give above in no way establish reliably that cricket is one of the two most popular sports--you'll have to do better than that. But, again, that is not a matter for here. I propose this be closed until someone actually does something calling for action--an accusation of having an agenda is not serious enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

A edit war is continuing in the article Lotfi A. Zdeh. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated. Takabeg (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see this, which I posted on WP:ECCN earlier today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And for background on why Takabeg filed this, please see the following threads from various places:

• Conflict begins here, on T's talk page when I inquire as to why he has created Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent when there is already a Category:Iranian Azeris. I don't understand what, if any, the distinction is supposed to be between them. This leads to
• this CfD discussion, in which T can't or won't explain the distinction. Eventually a consensus is reached (I think, I stopped following it), but not before some personal remarks are made by T about the motivations of other editors, including myself.
• To complicate the matter, T was canvassing, behavior that he's done before.

• A second point of conflict begins on T's talk page, when I inquire why he is removing a map from a large number of articles without consensus to do so,
• and gets kind of personal again (from T) with these two threads on my talk page, this leads to
• this discussion on WikiProject Ottoman Empire, in which T makes what I believe to be a personal attack (not towards me - although he's made similar comments about me which I've pretty much ignored). I redacted his comment, he reverted, I restored and told him why I thought they were a personal attack, and restored the redaction, saying that if he removed it again, I would bring it to admins' attention.
• Here, I explain specifcally why his remark goes against NPA.
• And Takabeg responds by coming here.

Where does Lotfi Zadeh fit in? Well earlier today, an editor (not Takabeg) started to make edits there that were distorting the article. Discussions on that can be found on the other editors talk page, on my talk page, on the article talk page, and, of course, on the WP:ECCN report I filed, linked above.

A reminder that Lotfi Zadeh is a WP:BLP.

Sorry for all this stuff, it's going to be an awful bore for anyone to wade through it all, but there's a lot in it all that shows Takabeg's behaviorial problems, so it might be worth taking a look at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is a geopolitical ethnic and religious conflict. But it's very clear that edit war is continuing. Administrators can approve some options, protection the article, warning both sides etc. Takabeg (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPREMOVE, removing unsourced or badly sourced material from a BLP article is exempt from 3RR restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, consider this: Takabeg seeks out advice from a third party, who patiently, carefully and politely replies, but T. ignores the proffered advice, instead restating his editing POV:

Neo-Ottomanism is very popular in Turkey in last decade. That map is also created under the influence of Neo-Ottomanism. At the same time, traditionally Turks are under the influence of Pan-Turkism (most of them are not so extremist). This is caused by Turkish Historical Theses (formerly), Turk-Islam synthesis (since late 1970's) were adopted as a official historiography by the Ministry of National Education. They are very harmful to neutrality of Misplaced Pages. But some users cannot understand it.

Now, T. could well be right, I don't know enough about the subject to make that judgment, but this is the lens through which he sees Misplaced Pages, and the basis upon which he acts. He does not assume good faith about those who disagree with him, but automatically assumes that any editor who questions him or his edits is a POV-pushing nationalist, and then escalates from there, personalizing the conflict. His goal of preserving neutrality on Misplaced Pages is an excellent one, it's my goal as well, but his method of going about it is flawed, and leads to conflicts such as the current one which would never had come to this pass if T. had simply explained the reason behind the creation of a new category, or had bothered to have a consensus discussion before making changes in a contentious subject area.

I don't think that any sanction is warranted against T., as long as he keeps his behavior in check, but I do think it might be worthwhile for other experienced editors to offer him some advice: perhaps a number of non-involved people doing so might awaken him to the flaws in his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

One last thing before this thread gets archived, more input on the WP:ECCN discussion I started here would be useful. I can totally understand editors and admins staying away from contentious ethnic/nationalist conflicts, because they are both a quagmire and a minefield – I usually try my best to stay away myself – but if someone brave would like to wade in and offer an opinion, it would be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ken, you didn't notify me about this discussion, but anyways, since I am being indirectly mentioned here, I would like to note that I responded on all relevant pages, and want to re-emphasize that your statement of the problem is quite unfair and making a problem out of nothing. Beyond My Ken has removed at least two new sources - video's of Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh speaking himself and being interviewed, in 2007 and 2009, at his university, UC Berkeley. The article Lotfi Zadeh is a biography of a living person (BLP), and those video's are invaluable and more credible than any third-person reporting in any print publication. All my sources are reliable and authoritative, and enrich the article about the professor. For some reason Beyond My Ken thinks he is the only one who can make edits, automatically reverts all my edit despite absolutely no reason for it. I do feel he has good intentions, but he does assume bad faith and thus becomes trigger-happy. Meanwhile, there is no requirement about any "self-identification". Although he is quoted by Betty Blair from Los Angeles-based Azerbaijan International as considering himself both American, Azerbaijani, Iranian and Russian - and that quote has been in the article long before I or Ken took any interest in the article (I came to edit the article after being told about it in a conversation between Beyond My Ken and User:Takabeg). At any rate, Prof. Lotfi Zadeh was born in Azerbaijan - this is an indisputable fact. He also states in his video speech at UC Berkeley that I cited that he considers his years of life in Azerbaijan as being the most important to his life. So this is also indisputable. Finally, he is an American, a US Citizen and has lived in US for almost 70 years. Thus, he is Azerbaijani-American. Of course he can also be, at the same time, Russian-American and Iranian-American - the latter have included him on their page, even though he was not born in Iran, he lived there for only 11 or so years, and his parents were not Iranian (his father was originally from Iranian Azerbaijan, but left for independent Azerbaijan Republic and then stayed there after it became part of USSR - anyhow, he lived there for well over a decade, had an Azerbaijani and later Soviet citizenship). Sorry Ken, but no "permission" is needed to describe any famous person as being some hyphenated American - please show me such a rule, and better yet, show me a pile of "waivers" or "authorization sheets" from all the different living persons (or dead persons) who have allowed to Misplaced Pages editors to call them as Irish-/Scottish-/Russian-/Iranian-/Azerbaijani-/etc.-American. You won't find such a thing. So PLEASE, let's be reasonable here and not create artificial problems out of nothing. Especially since despite rejecting my edits, you have in the end revised the intro and removed the improper information that was leading to misunderstanding and violating WP:WEIGHT by over-emphasizing Russia or Iran as a factor. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't file this discussion, and I haven't mentioned you by name or discussed the issues underlying our dispute, simply asked for some more participation on the ECCN thread, so there was no need to notify you. This thread was filed by Takabeg about me (in the guise of a neutral notification of an edit war), and I responded with my concerns about Takabeg.

As for your comments above, there's little point in having that discussion in two places, and I've already responded to these same arguments in the ECCN discussion (which I did notify you about). In any case, even though they are repetitve of what you've already said, they would be better posted there. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it's a natural mistake, but the "Ken" in "Beyond My Ken" is not short for the name "Kenneth", it is the English word "ken", derived from Scottish and meaning "knowledge". "Beyond My Ken" or "BMK" are good for addressing your remarks to me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Alessandro57 using powers unfairly to revert edits and label them "vandalism"

Hi. I typed in "Misplaced Pages request help from admin" on Google and found this page - I hope it's the right place. I recently made some edits to the "Istanbul" article. The edits were carefully worded, and sourced. Alessandro57 immediately reverted them saying "Reverted to Version edited by LlywelynII at 20:30, 31 August 2011 because of vandalism".

So I then clicked on his "contributions" history, and found he appears to show a pattern of unjustified reversions - i.e. deleting sourced additions and describing those additions as "vandalism". August 23rd , On August 20 he twice reverted Wolcott's insertion of a seemingly innocuous but informative image, , again calling another user's edit "vandalism" , etc.

I'm sure I could find more if I had the time.

I checked his page and it says "This user has reviewer rights on the English Misplaced Pages." I don't know what these means, but I assume it's some kind of privilege, and I would hope in light of his disruptive behavior he is warned not to use this powers in such a way - and not label other user's good faith attempts to improve Misplaced Pages as "vandalism".

Best regards,

Manocihr (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

He continues . He has not only marked by contributions as "vandalism", but also marked his own revert as "minor". Manocihr (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree calling it "vandalism" wasn't correct – but that said, I was about to revert your changes too when you reinstated them, except that yet another user (Dinkytown) apparently beat me to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that he's using Twinkle, which automatically marks vandalism reversions as minor. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely that makes his behavior even more careless? On my talk page he says I am "wasting his time". A little civility wouldn't go astray. Manocihr (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

...and have you raised this issue directly with the user before coming here in order to try and resolve it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

yep, see his Talk page. Manocihr (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? Please give us a pointer to the diff. I can't see anything from you on User talk:Alessandro57 until after you'd raised it here on WP:ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I only posted that notification there according to the instructions on this pace. But note that he reverted me twice without discussion or responding to my edit summaries, so I assumed he was going to stay non-communicative. What's wrong with asking for help? I'm a new user and unsure of how all this works. Notice he hasn't appeared here to defend himself. Are you an admin David Biddulph? Manocihr (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. I appreciate that if you are a new user it will take you a while to get used to how Misplaced Pages work, but I would recommend that you read carefully. For example at the top of this page, it says, in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." - David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Manocihr (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Manocihr, just to clarify, Alessandro57 does not have any special position and didn't do anything (e.g. using special powers) that you couldn't do. "Reviewer" relates to a currently inactive experimental program. So "misuse of powers" is not a valid complaint. But step one is always to try engage in a discussion with the individual, or to discuss the content issue at the article's talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. And point taken, I will be sure to do so in the future. But I do believe the most important point is escaping us here. Looking at his edit history, it is clear that he routinely describes other people's genuine edits as "vandalism", and has displayed a marked lack of civility and common manners. Manocihr (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct: improper use of a tool (especially one like Twinkle) is problematic. If another user removes a notice from their talkpage, it's considered to be at least acknowledgement that it has been read. In a collegial environment, we rely on editors to work it out ... civility issues are often dealt with at WP:WQA and not through admin means. Arguably, the misuse of a tool plus a reaaaallllyyy bad case of invicility would end up here pretty quickly. You did you part - you let him know that your edit was not vandalism, and using Twinkle to say it was is wrong - later/repeated violations would become problematic. The other thing is that this is the internet: apologies are few and far between, so don't go looking for them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored TPO vio issue

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

Bringing the WP:TPO issue with LikeLakers2 back to the active page as it was prematurely archived without resolution.

The scope of this issue is 8 WP:TPO violations - each of which stand on their own;

TPO1x,TPO2x,TPO3x,TPO4x,TPO5x,TPO6x,TPO7x,TPO8x

He was warned by Ryan Vesey after TPO5x to stop yet continued, and was warned againand continued.

In addition, there are these userpage edits which do not fall within the scope of WP:UP#OWN;

UP1,UP2,UP3, UP4,

Thanks all, Srobak (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of this previous ANI thread, which included a proposal for an interaction ban between Srobak and Likelakers2 and was archived without closure. Perhaps that should be restored and this section added to it, but I don't know the neatest way to do that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All 8 of those TPO diffs are before his warning for dickering around with other's comments (and a few of those, such as fixing your archive, were even helpful). He has not done it since he was warned. The three edits to Ezekiel153746's user page were clearly okay with the user as the user continued to edit his page afterwards. The final diff ("UP4") was a straightforward category fix. Not much misconduct there. Srobak, I suggest you leave LikeLakers2 alone and I'm sure he will leave you alone, too. fish&karate 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The pertinent issue was restored - less the focus-shifting clutter. An IB doesn't resolve the issue and is redundant as there has not been any interaction for some time. TPO's 1-5 were conducted before the warn, 6-8 after (like already stated above). As for "were even helpful", please see the opening line of WP:TPO. It is presumptuous to say Ezekiel153746 was "ok with the edits" simply because he continued afterwards as LikeLakers2 continued posting to, editing and reverting edits on my and other users talk pages after being told to do none of the above. UP4 was a fix that was not necessary and was undone afterwards. The issue is not "leaving each other alone", but is the WP:TPO violations and UP edits listed above - which stand on their own. Srobak (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Warning - 18:31, 28 August 2011
• TPO 6 - 20:06, 27 August 2011
• TPO 8 - 21:06, 27 August 2011
• TPO 7 - 21:23, 28 August 2011

So, TPO7 was after the warning. But this was not a bad edit, it was in good faith and was trying to fix an issue with a user's talk page. fish&karate 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That was the 2nd warning. 6 and 8 happened after the first, as did some of the UP edits. If you are invoking WP:GF for 7, then WP:TPO needs to be re-written as there is a contradiction in place. Srobak (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Srobak, I read over your talk page and you seem (to me) to be rather rude and confrontational with your fellow users. This will not encourage people to want to help you. fish&karate 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this. Please don't shifting the focus. If you have another issue you wish to address separately, then please do so. We don't need more unnecessary focus shifting and cluttering up of a perfectly valid issue. Srobak (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But it is not a valid issue; you seem to be trying to get a user in trouble despite their having done nothign wrong since being warned. It is not shifting the focus; your generally uncollegiate attitude seems to be at the root of this. Let it drop. fish&karate 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be an inactionable and perhaps overly aggressive report - there's no clear TPO violation, only one editor who doesn't want to interact with another editor on their talk page. Fish and karate's right, the underlying issue here appears to be that Srobak is in a prickly state and lashing out. A certain amount of prickliness is usually tolerated by the community but all the same most people's experience here will improve if they try not to get into conflicts with others. It's not immediately obvious what brought them to this point but it shouldn't matter. Formal interaction bans are usually a bad idea. Informally, anyone is free to ask another person to avoid their talk page and having done so the other ought to respect the request, save perhaps for the most essential of notices. That would seem to solve the problem, no? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. This is pointless to continue here. I see it will just have to be escalated as folks can't seem to maintain focus. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As you have talked about escalation, you obviously need to read WP:BOOMERANG, as well as WP:DEADHORSE. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The topic was archived because the community did not feel that it needed any administrator action (except perhaps for an interaction ban between the two of you). Please read WP:DEADHORSE, and take note. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"I see it will just have to be escalated as folks can't seem to maintain focus." I sure hope I'm misunderstanding this, but in case I am not, DO NOT ESCALATE this. We are keeping perfect focus, and by now that focus is on you and this continued badgering. Your focus is on these TP edits, and (as has been pointed out to you) this horse is dead. Do not escalate this, do not pursue this any further--and do not suggest that we are condoning everything that Lakers did or does simply because we won't, at your whim, start handing out blocks. Let me propose a modified interaction ban:

User:Srobak will stop complaining about User:LikeLakers2. No complaints allowed anywhere--on talk pages, noticeboards, article talk pages, template documentation pages, and in user boxes.

Sorry Srobak, but you have taken this farther than it should have gone, and it's time to quit. BTW, LikeLakers2, I hope you have stopped messing with other people's user pages, even if out of good will--it does not look good. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why stop with just one TPO user then? Why not impose such protection for everyone who invariably vio TPO? You appear to be under the assumption that this is a problem with a specific editor - it is not. He is not the first to have vio'ed it, won't be the last, and isn't the first or last that I have warned and/or reported for it. The only reason I re-listed it here is because it was left un-resolved. That's not a very good position for admins to take on policy vios. Srobak (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was resolved, just not in the way you wanted. I don't know what kind of protection you're talking about, but whatever that is, it is not a matter for this board. Drop the stick. The horse is dead. So is the parrot. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see a "Resolved" tag on the earlier report and I don't see one on this one either. Just because one or two people say "drop it" doesn't mean that the situation is miraculously fixed. It just means they don't feel like dealing with it under the provisions of the policy - which sets a very bad precedent. Srobak (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

... and the case to the banhammer has been unlocked... Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of a discussion and because I'm asking questions? Don't threaten me. If you think this conversation is grounds for enacting a ban, then do it - otherwise stop taking pot-shots. Srobak (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Realhistorybuff and India

A couple of hours after the expiration of a 24-hour block for edit warring Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs) resumes the same behaviour on the same article (India). Rather than joining the discussion on the talk page, said user is engaging in odd edits such as removing other's comments. Could an uninvolved admin please deal with this situation. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Also see WP:AN3#User:Realhistorybuff reported by User:Elockid (Result: ), the report that was filed a few minutes ago. The editor doesn't engage in any discussion but been told that his edits include copyright violations, synthesis and generally unreliable information. All his edits to other articles have also had similar problems and been reverted. Apparently every admin watching the article is currently involved in this round of reverting. —SpacemanSpiff 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Realhistorybuff's problems don't begin and end with India. Almost every single edit from that user has been disruptive or vandalistic, from China to multiracial to South Asia. Quigley (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of problems with Realhistorybuff's edits. Almost all of his/her edits are basically to booster Indian related topics at the expense of other topics. What I mean is upgrade to how good India and other related topics are and downgrade the competition.

This edit here to Model minority was basically to showcase Indian Americans as the "best" group and removed other groups that are widely considered as a model minority. This edit to China was used to lessen the status of China. This is clear promotion and POV. For example, "The intellectual contribution of India to the world is unmatched". "In fact, India was the wealthiest civilization and possessed the most advanced economy throughout most of human history". That statement is so wrong in so many levels. Elockid 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern was the resumption of edit warring, especially as there was an open discussion on the talk page, but the subsequent diffs added here suggest there is a more troubling pattern of disruptive behaviour here. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that OrangeMike has blocked him for 72 hours, but given the quantum of disruption and no benefit, perhaps the next one should be the last. —SpacemanSpiff 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could this be a puppet?

Given the recent topic ban of User:Thisthat2011 and the puppet-like IP activities surrounding it, could this be a sock related to this drama? I am not familiar with India-wide controversies, but if a topic keeps popping up at ANI that is a good quack quack quack for there being some sort of puppetry (sock or meat) going on. Thoughts?--Cerejota (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I had doubts that Realhistorybuff is a sock. But when he/she created Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/India, I had more suspicions. Requests for Mediation are not exactly a common place to go especially for an account that's only been starting to actively edit for the past couple of days. Elockid 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a net negative to the project. Their very user page is an indication that they value their truth over anything else and are not willing to agree to some of the basic principles here like neutrality, verifiability, and collaboration. I would support the banhammer coming down, regardless of whether it hits a sock or not--and perhaps some friendly CU could check into some of these other suspicions. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User is already blocked. Yeah some CU should CU this so we can say CU later to any related accounts.--Cerejota (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh....the style and vocabulary in xyr edit summaries seems really familiar to me, but I can't for the life of me remember from who, and I checked contribution histories of a few suspects and none seem to match. One possibility is that this is someone who previously edited as an IP on somewhere I've watched, explaining both why they have familiarity with (though no actual understanding of) DR, as well as why they seem familiar to me.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding and harrassment

User:Ruairí Óg's despite me having already warned them here about it along with examples, has recently decided to plow through my edit contributions to either revert changes or make changes where something doesn't suit them.

Proof that they have been stalking my edit contributions is the fact that from 21:15, 31 August 2011 to 21:58, 31 August 2011 (here is their contribution list) they edited at least 18 articles where they had never made a contribution, but where i just had. You could argue that they were going through people articles to make changes, however when every single one is an article that i had just edited shows that that is not the case.

Not all instances of his edits are reverts, however Ruairí Óg's is clearly trawling my edit contributions despite being told that it is harrassment.

Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule ], where he simply removed it calling it vandalism.

Regardless of the 3RR and any content disputes - stalking and harrassment is very uncivil.

Mabuska 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Ruairí Óg's is definitely following Mabuska's contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that regardless of stalking etc. their edits on Luke Wilton seem not neutral, and their edit-warring is certainly not acceptable. The talk page discussion indicates that they are not even willing to engage in reasonable discussion on sometimes tricky issues. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Some problems with article ownership and tag removal

Neutrality tags, POV and other notices are being systematically removed by the page's regulars here, stifling any sort of improvement or collaborative editing. One of the tags have been there since May and nothing has changed to the article, but the tags has been removed with no reason given. I've added a citation needed and an expert request and those have been removed also. I don't think this problem will be solved with me just re-adding the tags every 2 or 3 days I manage to log-in.KaraKamilia (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article, and the most recent edit series, I've re-added the maintenance tags. We'll see if the WP:OWNership or WP:TAGTEAMing issues continue. If they do...well, now there are more eyes on the article and its Talk page. Maybe that requested expert will be one set of those eyes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(KaraKamilia did not bother to notify any of editors he is accusing of "ownership" of this thread, and I am unsure of who to notify.) An accusation of tag teaming is an accusation of meatpuppetry, which is uncivil if without evidence. KaraKamilia's edit-warring with multiple users is less a sign of "ownership" than a sign that he is trying to act against consensus. In fact, KaraKamilia's entire edit history is one of constant edit-warring to promote a Korean nationalist point of view on controversial Korea-related articles. (There are at least half a dozen editors like him, for whom the accusations of tag teaming are much more plausible, some of whom can be seen at Goguryeo controversies)

As for the maintenance tags, they're not supposed to be impediments to reading the article; they're supposed to be indications that there is some active dispute on the talk page. There isn't: the last person to make such complaints, a similarly singular Korean nationalist edit-warrior called User:Kuebie, was recently indef-banned for the same behavior. The contention of these editors—that the subject of the article does not exist—has lost an AfD, despite genuine (closing administrator-acknowledged) meatpuppetry on their part. If KaraKamilia has any specific suggestions towards improving the article, besides placing tags on the article that just say "I don't like it", then he is welcome to start a discussion on the talk page. It's a very simple thing to do; starting a discussion, but apparently these edit-warriors aren't interested in doing it. Quigley (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with at least part of that assessment; the article did not read WP:NPOV to me, and if someone's asking for an expert opinion, I see no reason to arbitrarily reject that request, past history notwithstanding. Indeed, if more experts in certain fields were to weigh in on article Talk pages, we'd likely see more WP:GA and WP:FAC nominees that meet muster without significant rewrites. Now, with that said, I'll also stipulate that there are some who see maintenance tags as a means of casting aspersions on the content of some articles, for no other reason than they don't like what the article has to say about a particular topic. I'm not convinced this is the case here, though, which is why I was WP:BOLD in reinstating all three maintenance tags to the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you started a discussion on that article's talk page, I'd prefer to keep the discussion in one place (there). But I will say that as a matter of principle, drive-by tagging is discouraged; readers who want POV-changes or expert attention should give "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" if they are serious about improving articles rather than casting aspersions, as you say. Quigley (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A persistant pattern of tendentious editing by User:Bus stop

I think it is readily apparent that User:Bus stop and myself have had disagreements in the past, and I'll readily admit that on occasion my own behaviour has been less than examplary. However, in recent days, in a discussion over our Adam Levine article, Bus stop has displayed a pattern of systematic obstruction to reaching a consensus. To cut a long story short, the debate has been regarding Levine's ethnicity, ancestry, and faith, and the degree to which any of these should be discussed in the article. We are all agreed that none of these matters are related to his notability, but there seem to be reasonable grounds for adding a little background information. After much discussion, Bus stop proposed the following text:

Levine is Jewish. "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."

"Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop."

In terms of content, this seemed to meet the concerns of the others involved in the discussion, but it seemed to me to be problematic from a style point of view. I therefore proposed a rewording, and after some discussion with User:All Hallow's Wraith, we arrived at this wording:

Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side. As was noted in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop."

As can be seen, there is nothing in this that wasn't in Bus stop's proposal, other than an attribution of the quoted text to the Jewish Chronicle (as required by WP:INTEXT). I had assumed that this would be acceptable to Bus stop, but he has for some time gone out of his way to avoid either accepting it, or explaining what he sees wrong with it. Instead he has moved a comment I made in reply to User:causa sui against my express wishes, and in violation of Misplaced Pages:Indentation guidelines, attempted to start a debate about a statement of mine that was irrelevant to the text being discussed , repeatedly ignored my request that he explain what he sees wrong with the proposed text, again proposed versions which use direct quotations without inline attribution (as required under WP:INTEXT), and complained that the version proposed by me doesn't state that Levine is Jewish, when it self-evidently does . Finally, after I suggested that I would edit the article anyway, unless it was explained what the problem was, Bus stop finally replied by suggesting that my wording "Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side" was somehow unacceptable on the grounds that I am "insisting on taking two sourced assertions and writing them as one assertion". Frankly, I cannot see any logic in this at all, given that it can all be sourced from the Jewish Chronicle article, as Bus stop is well aware. At this point though, I think I've just about had enough. This endless nit-picking over words (on talk pages as well as in relation to article content), diversionary tactics, unwillingness to give a straight answer to a simple question, and general obstructive behaviour when things don't go his way, are symptomatic of a pattern of behaviour grounded in Bus stop's obsession with labelling people as unequivocally 'Jewish' regardless of its relevance to article content. Frankly, I think he is a net liability to Misplaced Pages, and is likely to remain so, for as long as he is permitted to persist in this manner. I understand that he was topic-banned in the past over this, but he evidently feels free to behave like this regardless. I can see no solution other than a permanent topic-ban on him in relation to any article regarding the ethnicity, faith, or other 'Jewishness' of any individual. He is just too emotionally involved to adhere to WP:NPOV, and to behave in a collegial manner.

At this point, I think I'd best leave this for others to respond to - if further evidence of Bus stop's obstructive behaviour over the long term is required, I will of course be prepared to provide it, but think the latest episode alone is quite sufficient to demonstrate why I see his behaviour as unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sambokim's latest sock

If someone gets the chance could you indef: Mckmoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) latest sock. He still can't control himself and insists on spamming up every article he touches.--Crossmr (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't you just get a mop yourself? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'd never self-nominate.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1rr at Austrian School

Following this 3rr report on User:Misessus by User:Dark Charles, I have put both of them under a 1rr restriction at Austrian School for two weeks. There has been way too much back and forth at AS for too long. Taken altogether, I thought it might be more helpful to do this, than to block both editors or protect the article.

Review and any comments are welcome. I'll also tell them both they can appeal it here. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to appeal this. Misessus violated WP:BURDEN and WP:3rr multiple times. I've done neither. I don't see why I should get proportionate punishment.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly because you're edit warring; WP:3RR is not a license. lifebaka++ 02:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like she evenhandedly gave you both the same restrictions in order to stop the edit warring.Heiro 03:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is not, were equivalent restrictions given. The relevant question is, was Charles and Misesus being equally disruptive, both currently and in the past? And should Gwen have reclused herself from judging this issue, as she has been a long-term partisan in this matter?

Misesus has been a long-term disruptive editor, as can be seen from his contributions and talk page history.

Gwen has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. I will have to dig to provide the diffs. But a recent comment shows where her partisan sentiments lie:

LK (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You and Dark are assuming this is about punishment for disruption. Sanctions here, such as restrictions and blocks, are not punitive, they are preventative. In lieu of blocking participants in an edit war, Gwen gave both a 1RR restriction to convince them to use the talk page and work collaboratively. Seems preferable and legitimate to me. Unless you would prefer that an admin block both for edit warring?Heiro 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Charles' contributions? Was he being disruptive? If he wasn't, then he shouldn't have a 1RR restriction.

The point I'm trying to make is that Gwen is a partisan in the matter, and she should not have made this action. It looks to me like she took this action to prevent a more severe restriction on Misesus. LK (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to help out on this article back in July (I don't recall why I first came across it; likely a report on some noticeboard), but left after only a few weeks because I felt like I didn't have so much help to contribute after my initial comments (my knowledge of economics is somewhere between zero and nothing). So I'm still mostly uninvolved. Looking over recent edits, I see edit warring from both parties. While my past experience leads me to believe that Misseus has the most difficulty engaging productively on the talk page (or, at least, used to), looking at more recent edits shows equally problematic behavior from Dark Charles on the article itself. I support the 1RR restriction on both editors. Heck, I'd support a 1RR restriction on all editors to the article, if that would help things seem more "fair". But I definitely see DC and M going back and forth on several points, and there's no clear evidence that one is more at fault than the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What charge is being levied against me? I didn't break WP:3rr, nor WP:CON. The material I restored had been in the article for years, and the argument being used to remove it was not solid.--Dark Charles (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, WP:ER and possibly WP:CIR

This might be silly, but I see no other place to do this.

Recently, I came upon an article, Vietnamese Trotskyism, that was in awful shape, tagged it with a few improvement tags.

Then User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, possibly alerted by my "expert" tagging started editing. I disputed a number of his edits etc using the NPOV template. Normal BRD, so far. In fact, most of my edits stand, and so do his, and indeed the article is improved. This is just background.

Before this, I opened an editor review to gather opinions etc: Misplaced Pages:Editor_review/Cerejota During the editing dispute at Vietnamese Trotskyism, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz placed this which I reverted He posted this, I reverted it and put and edit summary explaining why. Wikidan61 did ask me why I did it, and I replied, and he didn't even after I TB. - see note diffs coming I posted this in his talk page ], trying to explain why I was reverting. It developed into this:

At first I thought he had simply reverted the change, so I was going to raise the WP:CIR issue, but then I saw that in fact he had included a relevant review, so I striked that thru, and said so. I also removed the comment on the ongoing dispute. Then he did this as I wrote the initial ANI report. Without disputing what the template says, such templates are reserved for escalation or clear new account type vandals. WP:CIR.

So I ask:

1. Am I mistaken in assuming that WP:ER is not intended as a place to vent current disputes, but solely for reviews, even negative ones, of past issues?
2. Are my reversions, and my explanations, vandalism?

1. Are they otherwise incorrect?
2. Are ER pages talk pages like in articles, or is the editor being reviewed within his or her rights to refactor reviews seen as unproductive or otherwise out of scope?
3. Was my behavior such that such a template escalation had to be done?

I am assuming good faith because the editor seems extremely experienced (ie has a large number of edits). So I can only conclude, in good faith, that this is an issue of WP:CIR. While I am fully aware of WP:BOOMERANG, I have no beef in terms of the behavior at Vietnamese Trotskyism, etc, and that is not what I am reporting. What I am reporting is the stuff around my editor review. If I am wrong, so be it, but if I am right, could someone please tell him to stop this behavior? I have attempted to explain this in many ways, but it seems either he is ignorant of the intent of the process, or I am ignorant and he is unable to relieve me of my ignorance in a constructive way. That is the first WP:CIR issue. Just look at the editing history for the other WP:CIR issues, like not being able to decide what to say (I got three emails from talkpage edits for what amounted to the same edit, an no courtesy "minor" edit so my inbox wouldn't get full. Sounds petty, but in the context it increases my view that WP:CIR is something be looked at here. He also continued to expand the thread on the Vietnamese Trotskyists in his talk page, but didn't notify me via TB (as I ask in my talk page) nor took it to article talk, as I requested. WP:CIR seems to me.

NOTE: While I write this, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz seems to have exploded, so I am posting an incomplete version and refactoring and adding diffs later just to get this out. My apologies. --Cerejota (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC) (refactor/expand: --Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

In my opinion, both of these editors do useful work here. I see no reason to exclude discussion of recent incidents such as the Vietnamese Trotskyism matter from an editor review, but on the other hand, I see no reason for these editors to battle about it. I encourage both editors to cool it. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer does tend to be more, err, 'forthright' than he should be – which does tend to create unnecessary friction. However, your removal of his comments seems, at the least, in poor taste. After asking for comments about your editing, you should let all such comments stand, (unless it's obvious vandalism). Removal of another's comments on a public board is not really kosher. LK (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments, I have refactored and expanded the report.--Cerejota (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards