Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:27, 11 May 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Ejacyoolayshun

• http://sco.wikipedia.org/Ejacyoolayshun

Can someone with more experience/language skills look into this?

Originally, User:Hoots Hagis Kilts Porridge added an interwiki to our Ejaculation article. The article name seemed oddly satirical even for another language, so I was suspicious and tested the link. It led to an article page that wasn't created yet. I reverted the interwiki link as vandalism and warned the user.

Now it seems the article page has been created at that other language wiki, and so our Xqbot added the interwiki link again to our Ejaculation article. My suspicion is that this is still vandalism, but I'm not entirely sure, and would like another opinion. Can anyone make sense of this? Equazcion 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article at the other language wiki, it looks like an exaggerated phonetic version of some English text, ie. a joke. I'm still not entirely sure what to do with this though. Equazcion 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

you may want to click through.. for example http://sco.wikipedia.org/Penis this is apparently some kind of written version of a scottish accent.--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that a report to their admins on sco.wikipedia would be more useful; it doesn't look like we should interwiki to that, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, this is a legitimate Misplaced Pages in the Scots language, which is asserted to be distinct from Scottish English (a matter I take no position on here). They do have an orthographic standard as well, see sco:Misplaced Pages:Spellin_an_grammar. It is not a joke. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That article is par for the course for the Scots Misplaced Pages; consider http://sco.wikipedia.org/Moose . This is a matter for our sister wiki – none of us speak the language I imagine, so we are in no position to judge the content and so ought not to mess with such interwiki links. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was reading through more of the wiki and was about to ask. Thanks Gavia. This makes it pretty difficult to determine if individual pages constitute vandalism or not, cause frankly they all look ridiculous. I'll have to be ignorin' all ye' olde sco: links from no' on, aye. Equazcion 02:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, can we get that guy over here, it's just what enwiki needs:

• http://sco.wikipedia.org/Mao - Mao dyed of a hart attak, in 1976 wyul wochin' Star Wars. PMSL
• http://sco.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bazza#Ma_block - PMSL
• http://sco.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hoots_Hagis_Kilts_Porridge - PMSL

Surely we have an interwiki invite system in place? --Russavia 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No t'anks; we doon't need moor Demodins. —Jeremy 03:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That whole project looks a crazy joke and it may be appropriate to bring it to Encyclopedias for Deletion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We do have articles on Lallans and Modern Scots. I'm sure those editors who like making fun of languages other than English would enjoy reading them. DuncanHill (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's necessarily making fun of it, the question is whether a phonetic transliteration of English as spoken with a Scottish accent is, in fact, a separate language. I know a few Cornish speakers, a fair few Welsh speakers, but nobody who purports to speak a separate Scottish language, though such exist, so I personally can't ask anyone whose opinion I can directly verify and trust. This has been discussed before, there is I believe a very small movement for the resurrection of Scottish Gaelic but it is not clear to me (or to several others) that the Scottish Misplaced Pages project is actually written in Scottish Gaelic. I would think the best idea would be to involve some language scholars. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Scots is not the same as Scottish Gaelic, which is a Celtic language and rather closey related to Irish. Scots is a dialect of English; a dialect being different from an accent, which only involves pronunciation, while a dialect also has a distinct vocabulary and disctinctive grammatical features. Some people maintain that Scots is a separate language rather than a dialect, and there are definitely arguments to be made for that, but this isn't the place for it. Suffice it to say that Scots certainly is a language variety in its own right, it is not just a phonetic transcription of a Scottish accent. I'm sure some people write joke articles or use bad Scots (or phonetically written Scottish-accented English that isn't even Scots) on sco.wikipedia.org but that's no reason to throw the good articles out with the bad. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a FYI, this is the Scottish Gaelic Misplaced Pages. --bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy, the Scots Misplaced Pages is written in Scots, not Gaelic - if you'd bothered to read the articles I'd linked to you might have found something out about the language and saved yourself the embarrassment of making such ill-informed comments. Still, reminds me of our first interactions. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, one learns something every day. I am unconvinced that "Scottish" as a language can be said to formally exist; it sounds to me more like a dialect. We do not have a Scouse Misplaced Pages or a Geordie Misplaced Pages, do we? Guy (Help!) 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, Scots is formally a language of the UK, as one of the three recognised languages of Northern Ireland (see the Norlin Airlan Assemblie website for example). – iridescent 11:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ulster Scots is not the same as Scots. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would, for one, have been more judicious to use the word revival rather than resurrection. Sadly, judging by the lack of sources given and signs of it only being in the early stages of development (there is no article on plooks for instance) I would suggest that cross-linking to sco.wikipedia's articles should be avoided. I see no reason to seek its deletion, though. It looks like a harmless enough endeavour and, clearly, quite a lot of effort has been put into producing it (though it looks to me as though a lot of it is written in very "cod" Scots). I passed a few enjoyable minutes surfing round it and, with a bit of luck, it'll keep a few bored people from engaging in more antisocial activities, such as spray-painting old ladies, head-butting bus shelters and stealing the neighbours' television set.     ←   ZScarpia   13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just look at that guy's user page on Scots wp and especially the talk page (especially all the racial slurs towards the bottom). Obvious vandal of the more obvious kind. I know that's now our problem as such, but can we perhaps not interwiki-link to this user's "contributions". 80.135.8.220 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely flabbergasted. After looking around more, I really don't know what to say about it. It is more or less (99.9%) readable by an english speaker. Can scots speakers parse english? If they can is something like this even necessary?--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really a vandal, trust me

sco:Ejacyoolayshun is not real Scots. It's a vandal making fun of the language. Scots is a very silly looking language, yes, but they still use -tion and other endings the same as standard English does. The Scots wiki has very few active admins, so I've nominated the page for deletion but that doesnt mean it'll get deleted any time soon based on my (limited) past experience there with cross-wiki vandals. —Soap— 12:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the account indefinitely. –Juliancolton |  13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read the culture article off the main page and while it's of higher quality, it still reads very similarly. perfectly understandable by an english speaker. Can a pure scot speaker read english?--Crossmr (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be very much surprised if there are any Scots-speakers who don't, but what relevance does that have? Language is about much, much more than intelligibility. There are many languages in the world that are close enough for almost perfect mutual understanding, but that doesn't mean that only some of those languages should be singled out as being suitable for Wikimedia projects. In fact, the strategic goals they talk about at the top of all Special: pages list "more diversity" as one of the top priorities. Allowing people to use their own language must surely be part of that, and since nobody would accept Scots in English Misplaced Pages articles, the obvious solution is to have a Scots Misplaced Pages if there are people who are seriously interested in working on it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

While I've argued elsewhere against continued support of the low-readership wikis—including Scots—"I'm sure they can understand English" is a ridiculous argument. By that logic, you'd merge Norwegian, Danish and Swedish into a single project, likewise most Slavic languages, German/Seeltersk/Bavarian/Zeelandic/Dutch, Spanish/Portuguese… – iridescent 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the comparison between this situation and Norwegian/Danish/Swedish, Slavic, German/Dutch, Spanish/Portuguese etc. is not really a good analogy (after all, there are plenty of Dutch speakers who don't understand German, plenty of Portuguese who don't understand Spanish, plenty of Poles who don't understand Russian etc.) A better analogy would be Swiss German compared to standard German (as spoken/written in Germany, Austria). Spoken Swiss German is almost unintelligible to a standard-German speaker, to the extent that when Swiss people appear on German TV, their speech is almost always subtitled to make it understandable. But written German in Switzerland is always standard German, and a newspaper published in Zurich, say, will be perfectly understandable to anybody who reads German. 80.135.8.220 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The analogy with the Scandinavian languages is very apt, though. The spoken forms of Danish/Norwegian/Swedish can sometimes be unintelligible to speakers of the other languages, depending on which accent the speaker has, but written Da/No/Sw is 99.9% comprehensible to speakers of the other languages. Not to mention the fact that there are two separate Norwegian Wikipedias, because there are two distinct Norwegian languages. Nobody is questioning the existence of these four Misplaced Pages versions, so "mutual intelligibility" is not a good criterion. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's actually a good example. Written Danish/Norwegian/New-Norwegian/Swedish are reasonably close and mutually intelligible (at least in written form), yet are definitely considered distinct languages. (In fact spoken Norwegian is probably close to Swedish, but the written form is much closer to Danish, for historical reasons.) In fact the situation with Bokmål and Nynorsk is probably of relevance: while speakers of one of this languages will definitely understand the other without problems -- i.e. native Nynorsk speakers will have no problems with Bokmål -- yet they are still considered distinct languages, and we have separate Wikipedias for these two languages. 80.135.30.136 (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Because, if I can understand what they've written, and they can understand what I've written, is there any point in duplicating content, which is basically just a pronunciation difference? There might be some grammar differences but we already have those between American and British English. It seems to me no different than having a stereotypical bronx encyclopedia or a southern US encyclopedia, or a newfiepedia (which I'm sure exists but probably not as a genuine alternative language on wikipedia).--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate: it is not basically just a pronunciation difference. If it were, I'd agree with you. I think you may be confusing it with Scottish English. Apologies for repeating myself, but a dialect is more than pronunciation and slight grammar differences, Scots is considered by many to be a language rather than a dialect, and being able to parse the text is only a very small part of what language is about. The comparison with American and British English is not a good one - the very minor grammar and spelling variations there are not true differences in the same way. A better comparison there are the different dialects of Scots, which could possibly be compared to the differences between British and American English. Scots has been a written language for a long, long time, and it does have political recognition in the UK. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of duplicating content. Currently there is a separate Misplaced Pages in Serbian. And a separate Misplaced Pages in Croatian. And a separate Misplaced Pages in Serbo-Croatian. Yes, that's right. Serbian and Croatian are indeed mutually intelligible -- the major difference between them is the alphabet, Serbian is using the Cyrillic alphabet and Croatian is using Latin alphabet. Other than that, the difference is minimal. Imagine having a separate "English" Misplaced Pages, a separate "American" Misplaced Pages, and a separate "English-American" Misplaced Pages, and you get the idea. 80.135.30.136 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, stick to the topic, don't try to draw the discussion away from the original topic. Don't hide behind the IP to promote your personal attitudes. Admins must delete the message of user 80.135.30.136. Kubura (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There was once an attempt to fork off a Brazilian Portuguese version of Misplaced Pages. And then of course there's the infamous Siberian Misplaced Pages. The Brazilian one never got approved, and the Siberian wiki was closed when it was decided that it didn't really qualify as a separate language. (I believe Scots should be considered separate, though ... even as far back as 1300 AD there were marked differences between the dialects of England and those of Scotland.) —Soap— 19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the alphabet difference between Serbian and Croatian be fixed with something similar to the hans/hant switch tabs on the zh.wikipedia? 68.248.235.144 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a non sequitur (not to mention comparing apples to oranges, as hans/hant are different writing systems for the same set of languages). There is no problem here that needs fixing. Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are separate languages linguistically and politically, and because they are Ausbausprache it is extremely likely that they will become more different from each other more rapidly than what would be the case if the languages developed organically. And the Serbian and Croatian Misplaced Pages projects are both very active from what I can see, with 114,000 and 80,000 articles respectively. --bonadea contributions talk 09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a missunderstanding, Serbian language uses BOTH, cyrillic and latin alphabet, the alphabet difference is that Croatian language uses ONLY latin. Regarding this issue, yes, you have 4 wikipedias with almost identical language Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian. The real news is that now we have a attempt to crate a separate Montenegrin language (regarded as dialect of Serbian until now) with a separate Montenegrin[REDACTED] (it was rejected). FkpCascais (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is no longer an AN/I matter, is it? The original question has been answered a long time ago, and frankly it's rather uncomfortable to have a discussion about whether various languages are "real" or "different" or whatever - Misplaced Pages is generally all about the sources and the established knowledge, so why not look at the considerable body of established knowledge about all these languages, instead of making guesses based on superficial differences? And in any case, if there was a question of any of the Wikipedias for any of the languages mentioned being deleted, that question shouldn't be raised on this board. --bonadea contributions talk 09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably correct, but this sudden realization comes after you've been discussing that very thing on this board yourself for a while now ;) I feel like commenting on this, and will do so here even though I agree this isn't the venue for it, just because, well, it's being discussed here already. A language should only get a Misplaced Pages if it's truly needed to allow a group to read and edit. We have a Spanish Misplaced Pages only because if we didn't, a large group wouldn't be able to use Misplaced Pages. If you understand English, you should be using English Misplaced Pages -- not using the fact that we have separate language Wikipedias as a cultural pride tool, saying "we have a real language so we deserve to have a separate Misplaced Pages". I have to doubt that the people at sco: would really have that much trouble using en:. But I acknowledge it's possible I'm wrong. Equazcion 08:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi

Although another complaint against User:Ahmed shahi was submitted earlier (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#User:Ahmed_shahi), but this current complaint is from my own part. There has been a persistent inaccurate editing in Kabul article by User:Ahmed shahi over the urban and metropolitan population figures.

• User:Ahmed shahi insists that Kabul city's urban population is 615,000 inhabitants relying only on a SINGLE source. Here is his first un-explained edit (). The only source which states that Kabul city's urban population is 615,000 is Naval Postgraduate School () which itself bases its estimation on official statistics of the government of Afghanistan (like the Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and those of the UN agencies operating in Afghanistan. Apart from the NPS, there is NO single other source which supports this point..
• There are numerous sources, both official statistics and secondary reliable sources, which estimate Kabul city's urban population at around 2.5 million, and the metropolitan population at 3.5 million. For example CSO (Urban: 2.8 million; Metropolitan: 3.4 million; est. 2008), CPAU (Urban: 2.4m; est. 2004), UN DATA (Metro: 3.3m, est.2007), AIMS (Urban: 2.7m ; est. 2007), Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.), and numerous other sources. While User:Ahmed shahi cannot provide another single source for Kabul's urban population being 615,000.
• User:Ahmed shahi uses an incorrect approach in determining Kabul's urban population. He tries to compare Kabul with other cities in the world, as he did in here, while he forgets that we cannot compare Afghanistan with other countries which have different territorial administrative division. Countries in the world differ in determining the area of urban section of the cities. In France, for example, they consider Communes, while in Afghanistan the government considers Districts.
• The Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan reported the following statistics for Kabul in its 2006 Statistical Yearbook: Rural (601,700), Urban (2,536,300), Total (3,138,000). Following that, Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.) considers CSO's "Urban" figure as "Kabul city's Urban population" and CSO's "Total" figure as "Kabul city's Metropolitan population". I used the same approach in updating Kabul's population as of 2009, but User:Ahmed shahi writes: "Encyclopedias are mainly used for history but when it comes to data on population we should use government sources." and then he does not even accept the government sources such as CSO and MRRD which I present, and goes for the NPS which is an American institution based in the USA.
• Instead of using the latest figures, he goes for outdated figures such as MRRD. Or instead of being specific and exact about the figures - since there are numerous sources that have provided exact population figure - he writes vague sentences like between 2 to 3 million. He is doing the same thing in Kabul Province (), while there should be NO dispute over Kabul Province's population, because all the sources are clear, direct and give exact figures.
• I provided several references and sources (Talk:Kabul#Latest), and all his response was that "The reason why Kabul appears over-crowded in some images is because most of the people don't stay at home, they all come out in the day and walk around." ().
• It is not only me who disagrees with User:Ahmed shahi over Kabul city's population being 615,000, but there are also User:Ketabtoon and User:Alefbe who did not agree with using the NPS as the only source (Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), but User:Ahmed shahi is still insisting lonely at his part against the view of three editors.
• He lacks cooperation, makes false accusation at me being an "associate" of User:Tajik (here and here) and directly makes a personal attack and insult (You're in college in Europe and you can't figure this simple thing out? ) which indirectly insults me of lacking enough intellectual capacity to understand the issue despite being enrolled in a European University.

I am asking for the intervention of an Administrator. User:Ahmed shahi does not show any cooperation as a member of[REDACTED] community in editing an article. Not only in Kabul's article, but also in Afghanistan and in Ghurid Dynasty articles which are currently Protected as a result of Edit War. Ariana (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Ariana310. Despite the fact that User:Ahmed shahi is constantly violating WP:NPA (for example here), his actions are being ignored by admins. He is an extreme POV pusher, does not understand what sources to be used, and he removes authoritative academic sources from articles in order to establish his own POV and WP:OR (here is a very good example). His behavior is very disturbing. Tajik (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Both editors (User:Ariana310 and User:Tajik) are trouble making edit-warriors who has been blocked before for edit-warring They are working as a team to get me blocked so they can go back to placing false and misleading information in articles that I've corrected. Both editors are spreading Tajik or Persian-ethnocentric POVs, and, they are going after me because I'm not an ethnic Tajik and I disagree with their POVs.
I cite the most reliable undisputed sources but they still disagree with them. I discuss my corrections on the talk pages in a civil manner but they leave discussions and instead start saying bad things about me and say that I don't know anything. They are provoking me to start edit-war but I learned to ignore them. This is just one example of what Tajik has been saying about me to Ariana310 "Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..." Ariana310 and Tajik should follow the rules of Misplaced Pages because this is not a place to discuss content disputes. Making such baseless reports is disturbing me and is disrupting Misplaced Pages.Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you focus on the edits, with diffs -- as they have done above, rather than non-diff comments about the editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: which "most reliable undisputed sources" are you talking about?! As everyone can see here, you are actually removing the most authoritative sources available (Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam) because these sources and the countless experts and scholars cited in those works do not support your nationalistic, ethnocentric, misleading and wrong claims which are only based on your own POV and OR. Tajik (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik, you know very well why I removed those 2 sources, I gave a good reason in the edit summary that 3 sources for Afghan is just too many in the intro of Pashtun people article. I left one source which is 16th century work explaining what Afghan is, and, the even the word is wiki-linked. You are pressing your POV in Pashtun people article that all Afghans are Pashtun people but this is false, Afghans are citizens of Afghanistan who belong to many different ethnic groups.Ahmed shahi (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: Please don't falsify what is going on. You remove the official sources and yet you write in the summary that "Reverting Ariana301 because he/she removed properly sourced content coming from the official Afghan and US governments" . You are using the figures of DIFFERENT YEARS by various sources and you write: "The population of Kabul province is any where between 2.5 million to about 3.5 million.". Such a method is totally inaccurate and false. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_statistical_data where it says "Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.".

Please don't change your position, and please don't falsify my edits and approach. Ariana (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmad shahi has once again removed authoritative sources, in order to falsify the general consensus among scholars as presented in the two most authoritative academic sources of oriental studies. Instead, he quotes a 16th century historian of Mughal India (the Persian court writer Ferishta) who is only citeable by modern scholars. Ferishta was not a modern scholar and his writings need to be evaluated and validated by modern experts. His words cannot be used as a source to propagate ethnocentric POV. The word "Afghan" is still synonymous with "Pashtun", as can be read in the aforementioned encyclopedias. Leaving that aside, he cannot even name the sentence he is pretending to quote! The meaning of the word "Afghan" is explained here: From a more limited, ethnological point of view, “Afḡān” is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paṧtō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paṧtūn. The equation Afghans = Paṧtūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan, because the Paṧtūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically. This is an authoritative academic source which is being removed and falsified by Ahmed shahi. That's ethnocentric POV-pushing at its worse and it is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages rules! Tajik (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Afghan" refers to any native, citizen or national of Afghanistan. This is mentioned in all dictionaries and encyclopedias as well as in the Afghan constitutions and in books, articles and etc. Editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stating and claiming that ethnic Pashtuns should be Afghans , which is totally wrong and misleading.

I also want to report that editor Tajik and Ariana310 are totally removing information that comes from official Afghan (Afghan Rural ministry) and US government (Naval Postgraduate School) sources. Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, please don't falsify the things around here. This is what you did; removing the exact figure of Kabul Province's population with its official source (Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and which was the latest estimation (as of 2009). And you replaced it with three outdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writing in the article "......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." This is absurd and scientifically wrong; you should be specific about the data (you should not say between this number and that number, unless the source says so).

Unlike Kabul city's urban population, there should be no dispute over Kabul Province, because there is no urban or metropolitan areas that you are confusing the definitions of. The CSO is completely direct and specific about the figure: Kabul Province's population as of 2009 : 3.4 million. That's it! Ariana (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Administrators are ignoring User:Ahmed shahi's behaviour (falsifying the sources, falsely describing and portraying other editors' approaches, making a personal attack, committing 3RR violation several times, removing reliable and scholarly sources, etc.), they can at least ask a neutral editor who is qualified in statistics and demographics to look at the issue and find out who is employing the wrong approach. The issue of Kabul's population might be a minor concern, but I am afraid if User:Ahmed shahi continues like this, it will be hard for editors to contribute in Afghanistan-related articles; as he/she has made me completely irritated and impatient with his non-cooperation and disturbing behaviour. Ariana (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

More WP:NPA by Ahmed shahi: . Tajik (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stalking me, harrasing me, and making false accusations.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The many links provided clearly prove your disruptive behaviour. Tajik (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (from a non-admin): this issue has been up for a couple of days now, with no input from admins or non-involved editors. I suspect admins are finding the issue as difficult as me to decipher. Could I suggest that the various parties summarise their views in one paragraph, providing diffs to demonstrate their concerns? Otherwise this is going to continue going back-and-forth with no outcome. Cheers! TFOWR 11:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Summaries

Ahmed shahi

Almost every page I edit, the three editors (User:Tajik, User:Ariana310 and User:Inuit18) work as a team and revert my edits. See how they keep removing the reliable sources from the Kabul article . These three editors are ethnic Tajiks from Afghanistan who are editing mostly ethnicity of people. They don't like my edits because I provide reliable sources that go against their POVs so then they come here and make up lies against me. I believe one of them (User:Tajik) has been placed on a one revert per page per week so this explains why Ariana310 and Inuit18 come to help revert for him.Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tajik

Actually, diffs have been provided above: Ahmed shahi is insulting other users as "racist" (), he is removing authoritative academic sources (), and (as already criticized in the previous complaint at WP:ANI) he does not understand the difference between reliability of sources (). He is actively falsifying quotes and sources (see second link), and it is very obvious that he fully misunderstands the meaning of Misplaced Pages. He truly believes that Misplaced Pages is a place where national interests are to be defended, no matter if they are factually right or wrong (). See also this comment by User:Eaglestorm. As for the Kabul article: see the detailed summary of User:Ariana310 above: it is in fact Ahmed shahi who is deleting official (!) data provided by the Afghan government in 2009 (!) in order to replace them with outdated numbers. So far, we have not seen any reliable sources on his side. In fact, he actually believes that websites such as www.sabawoon.com are superior to academic standard reference works such as Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica (he is constantly removing these 2 sources from articles; see my first diff and the comment by Eaglestorm). Please see also his disruptive, ethnocentric edits in Talk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity and the respective article. Tajik (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, but the thread above is very long, and I suspect people simply aren't prepared to wade through huge amounts of text just to get to the real issue. Thanks, both of you, for summarising. Note to admins/other-interested-parties who haven't trawled through the thread: another editor, Ariana310 (talk · contribs), has also participated but has not yet had an opportunity to provide a summary. Cheers, TFOWR 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310

User:Ahmed shahi intentionally falsifies the sources, insists at his own part alone on an issue against the view of three other editors (for ex. on Kabul's population : Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), bases all his argument on a SINGLE source (() and when is asked to present his arguments cannot provide satisfactory and coherent answers (Talk:Kabul#Latest). He removes the latest official statistics (as of 2009) for Kabul's population, and uses several outdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writes "......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." ; his approach is entirely incorrect. He makes direct personal attacks () and accuses of me "helping" or working as an "associate" of User:Tajik (here and here). He is trying to deviate this current complaint and tries to show it like a situation of Misplaced Pages:Don't take the bait. He continuously removes scholarly sources which are in contrast with his POV and lacks cooperation as a member of[REDACTED] community. Ariana (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Thanks to all parties for summarising and providing diffs.

Regarding resolving this issue (and this is addressed to non-involved editors and admins) what's the best way to move forward?

Cheers, TFOWR 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help mediate, and I have several ideas, but I'm very keen to get input from others. Anyone? Cheers, TFOWR 11:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I really do not know how to mediate. I mean, after all, User:Ariana310 had already offered him a discussion in order to reach a consensus, but Ahmed shahi is stubbornly pushing for POV. Just check his latest edits, especially in Pashtun people and Kabul where he is once again removing and falsifying academic sources and quotes. Admins ignoring his provocations, insults, and POV pushing further motivates him to continue. After all, he accused others of "spreading racism" (only because a reference of the Encyclopaedia of Islam was used to disprove the nonsense he had copied from an unimportant website) without being sanctioned. Tajik (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of you should, to be honest - I think it's important a non-involved editor does. I'll give this a wee while longer; if no one steps up I'll offer to, and we can reconvene over at my user page. Cheers, TFOWR 17:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Any time someone levels serious charges of "racism" and claims that any collection of editors not agreeing with their POV is a conspiracy, alarm bells sound and neon lights flash.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity where editor Tajik (talk · contribs) is wrongly labelling the latest terrorist as an ethnic Pashtun. Editor Tajik does similar things in many other articles, trying to make ethnic Pashtuns look bad in any way possible. I don't know what is the best description of an editor who claims to be an ethnic Tajik (User:Tajik) and is constantly editing articles of a rival ethnic group (Pashtuns) in which he is pushing negative POVs.

As for me, my every edit is properly cited by a reliable source. If you dispute my sources then I'll present more until you finally agree and give up. This is how I edit, the other editors whom I named (Tajik, Arian310, Inuit18) are removing from articles the sources that I cite because they don't like the outcome.Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed shahi, what you totally fail to understand is that nobody in here except you has an ethnocentric POV. Faisal Shahzad was not named a Pashtun because he was a terrorist (as you so wrongly comment), but because it was mentioned in various news articles, including Forbes. It is you who is calling that source "dubious", because you feel insulted in your national pride. On the other hand, you persist on your POV that the Ghurid dynasty was Pashtun, a claim that is explicitly rejected by modern scholarship. Again, you delete academic sources, present unreliable internet sites as a "counter argument" and insult your opponents as "racists". You believe that Misplaced Pages is a place where national interests are to be defended against the consensus of modern scholars, and THAT is the biggest problem with you. So far, we have not seen any reliable sources on your side. In fact, you are on some kind of a crusade against scholars and academics, you quote selectively. If a scholar is more or less supporting your POV, you cite that one quote 10 x on 10 different occasions. If the same scholar is totally contradicting your POV (for example Louis Dupree in the article Pashtun people, where you delete authoritative sources in order to justify the word "historical" which is not mentioned in any of the sources but is your own ethnocentric POV) you quickly delete the links and claim that "it is not needed". You alter and falsify academic sources and quotes. On the other hand, you proclaim yourself an expert who has "read 100s of books" about this or that subject, yet you are not even a student at a university and do not even know or understand the importance and validity of an academic encyclopedia such as Encyclopaedia of Islam. That is very disturbing. And when faced with these problems, you call others "racists" (see links above). Except for insults and name-callings, you have nothing else to offer. Tajik (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• This relates to the Pashtun discussion at Faisal Shahzad discussed above. I try to be gently with users who don't seem to "get it". They may be newbies, and therefore deserve kindness ipso facto. They may be young teenagers. They may have markedly low IQs. At some point, one reaches a conclusion as to their editing, however, and from what I have seen I can no longer conclude that Ahmed deserves special treatment due to his falling into any of those categories. He simply, despite my many discussions with him, and great patience, "refuses" to understand. That's disruptive. I would appreciate someone addressing it before he does further harm to the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Next step

I'm going to look over everyone's points and diffs, and then I'll post on your talk pages with a link to a user page I'll set up. At that point we can reconvene there, and clear some space here on ANI. It's past midnight where I am (UK: timezone is UTC+1, so it's nearly 1am for me right now) but I expect to kick this off in the next 12 hours or so.

In the meantime, could I suggest you all refrain from posting here? I realise you're all frustrated, but I don't think anything will be solved by repeating complaints in the meantime.

Cheers, TFOWR 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Cptnono

I feel I am being harassed over my attempts to preserve information, including an image, at Teabagger. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This IP is continuing to delete a speedy delete template from an image that does not have the appropriate FUR and has multiple problems. There is currently a review at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. From this review, one editor suggested opening a sockpuppet investigation (now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight) and an admin reinserted the tag with the following edit summary: "please see WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. Add a fair use rationale, per our guidelines, or this image gets deleted. if you need help formatting a FUR, then ask. but DO NOT remove tag w/o a proper FUR".

To make matter worse, the IP has reverted all recent work to the article as it looked on April 25. The biggest change was turning the page into a redirect based on a deletion discussion and more at the Tea Party movement talk page. Other issues with his mass restoration was re-adding the non-free image, several lines by other editors removed or added, and multiple non-reliable sources.

The IP has received multiple warnings and refuses to discuss most of the issues. It is more than likely a sockpuppet but at the best it is just a disruptive editor. Reporting this as harassment is also an abuse of process.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention is now needed. IP 74.162.147.17 just reverted another editor at the page. It is very likely the same editor. Evidence is submitted at the SPI. He is skirting 3rr by using a different IP. He is making edits although there was ample discussion and has a history of abusing alternate IPs and edit warring. I believe User:Mbhiii should be indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive behavior.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a talk page consensus for keeping this as a separate page from the main article. It looks like a POV-fork to me. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely looks like a fork to me (as tagged). The problem here is not the content but a continuous abuse of IPs over a few years with a splash of edit warring over and over and over again.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - First, the IP editor failed to give any evidence to back up their accusations, which seem unfounded to me. Second, having no knowledge of the dispute or article itself, why isn't it just a disambiguation page with links to the two groups of people called teabaggers? ← George 07:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying something George. Just for transparency: George and I have similar off Misplaced Pages interests. We don't always agree on here though. This really is a case of an editor abusing IPs and continuously getting away with it. Something should be done since it has been the cause of several disputes after looking at the history. People are free to not agree but flagrant disregard for the standards is a concern. I am surprised it has gone on this long.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And he is still doing it. Now under a different IP in the same range. He has added a fact tag to the article even though there are plenty of sources. I think the article should be redirected completely so don;t really are how much he botches it but it is certainly inappropriate to be editing like that. Can an administrator intervene?Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Since an administrator has not intervened here or at SPI I am going to make the changes again. This is based on people here, at the deletion discussion, in the edit history, and at the merger discussion leaning that way. I would appreciate if the disruptive nature of the editor was addressed but enough days have passed without him opening up a discussion on the talk page on something that has already been discussed.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Time allotted and nothing.Cptnono (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to say I've never known Cptnono to harass an editor. We've had our own disagreements about content but I believe he has the best interest of the project in mind. In fact he usually steps in to referee when other editors (including myself) have been less than cordial. Sorry if this testimonial is inappropriate here. PrBeacon (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks PrBeacon.

So I made it a redirect again. He reverted Two others have reverted him but he keeps on going. There were discussions on this. If he doesn't like the outcome he can open up another but until then it is clear that it needs to be a redirect. His continuous reverting and abuse of IPs is still a problem.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric144

Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with " reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page
2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." Again in a subsequent month saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" . The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.

He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.

Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

I removed the poorly sourced pov material again , and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the patience to deal with[REDACTED] troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Misplaced Pages account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

--Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this idiot seems to think the Guardian is a tabloid. He is no more than semi literate. Why are you backing him up ?

--Eric144 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't help your case with Personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs show, they've been warned for personal attacks before. They've been blocked for different ones and disruption.
After being warned by NW their actions related to the article were 'completely inappropriate', their very next edit was to comment here without accepting why their article/talkpages actions were unacceptable (as before), with bad faith accusations and claims both of us are "threatening him". His next edit removed longstanding RS-cited content from the article he disliked by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview article as a "daft opinion piece" article. The edit after that was to make further personal attacks here on ANI as you can see.

The unsourced alleging of implication of a living person in what're among the worst crimes against humanity in history, in the 2nd diff, are exactly the sort of blp violation we don't need. The namecalling insertions on the article from a pov/attack piece are also unacceptable, as are the personal attacks. It's hard to see much else in order but a block. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the whole history, but on one thing at least Eric is certainly right. The IP and other editors have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of an assertion that Goldsmith "is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition", Eric has removed this. Even if the statement were in the source cited (it isn't), this would be a ridiculous piece of puffery. Some of the claims against Goldsmith may be inappropriate (I haven't yet checked), but this sort of statement has no place in any WP biography. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat incorrect, RolandR. No editors myself included have "repeatedly insisted" on anything regarding that statement. It was inserted by a registered user in August 2008 during their partial rewrite, copyedited as part of the article by others since then, and unchallenged. The only time I've done anything related to it directly was to correct it to adhere to the reliable-source yesterday (per verifiability), removing the words 'his mother and', as the original user had confused it. Eric most certainly did not remove it as you say. He removed the fixed version while misrepresenting the full-length interview article source as an opinion piece. The statement is in the source: <quote>There is nothing flash or aggressive about the editor of The Ecologist. The first thing you notice is how gentle he seems.</unquote>. For whatever reason many interviews describe him as 'genteel', 'soft spoken' etc. That's probably why it remained. I've never suggested it Has to stay. If I had to guess (OR) it might be because he speaks in RP or similar; regardless, even if it sounds silly to us it's what reliable sources say. The claims and names the user's tried to insert are inappropriate, as is their conduct, and the user's been told by multiple people they're unsuitable in any WP biography. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has just posted this WP:NOTTHEM/MPOV-style conspiracy tirade:

"the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants ... all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being ... These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success ... subterfuge"

including yet more smoke and mirrors talking about the wholly different Edward Goldsmith article, failing to accept (choosing instead to talk about a statement a registered user added in Aug 2008) why adding "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the Zac Goldsmith article having made wholly unsourced accusations suggesting that person (of Jewish ancestry no less) is a nazi on a talkpage is unacceptable. They continue their personal attacks. This has to stop. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Drork again

Drork has been indefinitely blocked for edit warring, topic ban violation and abuse of multiple accounts. Despite this, he has created dozens of sock puppets to continue these edit wars.

He has now used an IP account to place his preferred version of one article in a subpage of my user talk page (now removed), as well as at Harlan Wilkerson's and Taelus's talk pages. Can any steps be taken in order to prevent this serial vandal from continuing with his contempt of Misplaced Pages, and to protect editors with whom he is in disagreement from suffering this harassment?RolandR (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the two new creations. I've semi-protected the targets I'm aware of. He's bouncing around IPs over such a wide range that I'm not able to think of a better strategy.—Kww(talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Time for a WP:LTA entry at the very least. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps even an abuse report also. He's been busy IP hopping. Elockid 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have counted so far 27 IPs, all registered to Bezeq, that this vandal has used; there are probably more that I have missed. How do you submit an abuse report? RolandR (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Go to Misplaced Pages:Abuse response and follow the instructions there. Elockid 11:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion and multiple accounts

Hello. Rudeboysliketoska (talk · contribs) has engaged in block evasion and multiple account usage by creating a new account following a block, as he himself states on his user page. I am reporting this here because I believe this does not exactly fit into a sockpuppet investigation. Regards, Anna Lincoln 14:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why you think "this does not exactly fit into a sockpuppet investigation". Opening a new account to avoid a block on an existing account looks like sockpuppetry to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be a username block, but I couldn't find a likely candidate.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down guys look at my edit history I don't vandalise with this account, I am fairly certain most changes are just simple grammar edits. my user page is a joke Rudeboysliketoska (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a strange sense of humour, but I'm not willing to block you because of it. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's hilarious. He even managed to get on ANI with that comment. I think that says more about our sense of humor, rather than his. Buddy431 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to assume good faith. However, if I consider which is more likely, a brand new editor thinking it is a joke to pretend to have been blocked more than once, or an experienced sockpupeteer making a defiant gesture by saying in effect "so you've blocked me again, and I've got round it again", and if I think of past cases I have known, then I find my AGF-unit is having to work quite hard. However, I can't find any signs of disruptive editing, so I suppose we can accept it as a joke. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

IP editor consistantly editing rants

• 78.101.113.233 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.79.63 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.211.184.161 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.50.151 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.71.20 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.113.233 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.241.160 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 213.130.115.74 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.220.107 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• *78.100.207.50 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The following Ip's (And possibly more) have been consistantly adding rants and removing content from Islamic views on anal sex, on it's talk pages as well as personal attacks The most recent as of now is this one who was blocked, after his revert. The article has been semi protected because of their actions (Who I'm almost certain is one person due too WP:DUCK) and two more have been blocked today see here, for further evidence see both pages histories. Is there anything we can do to prevent this? A rangeblock perhaps? I'll go through and alert the ips of this.--SKATER 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, we have another , added to the list.--SKATER 18:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already sent an e-mail to a checkuser inquiring about the consequences of a rangeblock. Meanwhile, I'm continuing blocking and rolling back. Horologium (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked the C/U only about the 78.101 rangeblock. I think that adding in the other two will have to be done separately. Horologium (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll keep finding and reporting them to you and HJ as well as adding them here.--SKATER 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is anon-only, then you don't need to contact a CU unless a hardblock is desired. –MuZemike 18:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to make sure that the collateral damage from a large rangeblock is not unacceptably large. Blocking 65,000 addresses can be a problem, and at least one of them resolves to Qatar. Horologium (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there's a good possibility of knocking out an entire country or two with a rangeblock on just that one set of IPs. Looking at the range contribs for 78.101.0.0/16, there seems to be a few good faith edits in there. Hence, based on my observations, I would not recommend a block on that range. –MuZemike 20:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate...Is there anyway we could prevent these Ip's from adding this rant? Perhaps semiprotecting the talk page? I know it's unorthodox and I've never seen it done before but it would at least force autoconfirmation.--SKATER 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think in this situation we could make an exception and semi for a while--looking at the history, I'd suggest a month or two. The intensity of activity there otherwise is not very high. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't forsee any real problem; the only IP edits made to the talk page this year have been him. HalfShadow 21:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, we got another today, *78.100.207.50 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) can we do something please?--SKATER 17:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP's targets seem to be expanding... TFOWR 17:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So what're we supposed to do to fix this? Semi-protect all the articles he hits? That seems a bit much.--SKATER 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(Not an admin, sorry, should have mentioned that earlier) Would a range-block on 78.101.*.* be too excessive? I suspect we could narrow that down further if it was too wide. What's the widest range-block acceptable? TFOWR 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

...though note that the IP's ISP is "Qatar Telecom", which I'm guessing is Qatar's primary ISP. TFOWR 17:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

{ec} I've seen you around TFOWR, I knew you weren't an admin (Somewhat surprising to me but that's a different story). Apparently blocking just that set of IP's could take out a country or so, his main target has been semiprotected, that should hopefully slow him down or stop him.--SKATER 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• You should probably follow the same rule-exception; again in Talk:Western world, the only IP edits to the page have been him, and he's been doing this literally for months. HalfShadow 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've protected Talk:Western world for a month. I normally don't agree with semi protection talk pages. But, considering that this page was protected 4 times prior to today's protection, there has been, if any, few recent legitimate edits from IP/new users, and this has been going on for some time now with little chance of rangeblocks due to collateral damage, a longer protection is needed. Elockid 01:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit filter could be a solution. He does usually say something like "...DO NOT REJOICE" In the edit summary, and it's a clear copy paste because it's the same everytime.--SKATER 02:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist frequent attacks

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

Is there anything that can be done about frequent snark/attacks like this? This guy constantly makes unhelpful swipes like this in already-heated discussion, which I equate to throwing molotov cocktails. The sole intent of those sorts of comments is to (1) attack and denigrate other editors; and (2) further escalate an argumentum ad infinitum during content discussions. I post this here because the editor has ignored civility requests in the past, and refuses to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his conduct. It should be noted that this editor recently had to apologize for frequent, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against me and others. He shouldn't be allowed to continue to attack editors at will. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• This shouldn't even be here. This is an incredibly weak "attack". Blaxthos has a history of snarkiness himself and carries it from one discussion to another with certain editors (myself included). An example is this edit , where he complains about an editor typing a single word in caps for emphasis. His form of complaint is to type nine words in caps and characterize the other editors use of caps in a single word as "dickish". Snarky? Maybe. Ironic? Oh yeah. If Blax had been nothing but civil, non-snarky or sarcastic in the discussion, this might appear more legit. But when you're acting dickish in the same discussion, you can't really complain about "snarkiness". If it were a blatant attack, yeah. But to complain about this.... Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift conveniently leaves out the history of other editor previously requesting him to STOP SHOUTING, not to mention the fact that I was capitalizing to make a point (not to shout); I also challenge his assertion that I have a "history of snarkiness". His rush to defend his ideological brother by attacking me (especially by cherry-picking a rather weak/transparent example) only further validates my point -- whenever challenged, they revert to attacking other editors. Perhaps this wouldn't be so significant if Badmintonhist hadn't been rebuked by administrators just a few weeks ago for this very behavior. Editors who continually fall into the pattern of sarcasm and attacks shouldn't be allowed to continue poisoning our project. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't conveniently leave anything out. Whatever another editor requested does not justify your snarky response. You could have politely pointed it out. You could have done it without doing the exact same thing you were complaining about. But you didn't. Then your defense here is to start your subtle name calling about "ideological brother", "they" etc, like there is some secret cabal. You couldn't even make your first response without going making this a political issue. Cherry-picking? No, I limited myself to the most obvious example in that particular discussion. One example is sufficient to illustrate that you can't play the victim card here and act like you're being set upon by the cruel BH. Challenge my assertion about your history all you want. Your edit history is there my friend. "Editors who continually fall into the pattern of sarcasm and attacks shouldn't be allowed to continue poisoning our project"? Now that drips with irony.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As Niteshift36 attests to, Blaxthos is hardly an innocent party. In my short time running across him on WP, he has come over to my Talk page to ask if I was "still confused", accused me of trolling, accused me of not acting in good faith, said that I was ignorant of policy, and said that I was wikilawyering.--Drrll (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blax made those statements a number of times (ignorant, wikilawyering) too. He intentionally choses words like "ignorant", knowing that while their use is correct, it can also be offensive sounding. But he will repeatedly call a person "ignorant", subtly insulting them while being able to claim innocence. I'll give him credit, it's smart, but also transparent. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Blax was just trying to disprove the point I was making when I said that he was David Gergen (i.e. a gentlemanly. polite, moderate political personality) in comparison to young PrBeacon. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• And that's the funniest part of it. You were actually being snarkier (is that a word?) towards Beacon. But in the rush to be a victim, it appears that fine point got lost. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and I had reason to be snarky with Beacon. He said the only reason I had criticized one of his entries was that I had gotten "whooped in raquetball" (sic). He didn't even get the sport right. It's BADMINTON. Right in my user name! Badmintonhist (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Can you go away please. I really don't think this sillyness requires admin action. Just try and sort it out among yourselves, admins are not playground supervisors. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, enough of this racket. Stop flipping the bird at each other. HalfShadow 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hello. Unfortunately I wasn't notified that I'd been mentioned here but I'd still like to respond. At first I just ignored Badmint's insult. Honestly I didn't think much of it. Just that he was lashing out or something. Why feed that. But since its gotten to ANI then perhaps there is a pattern. Now I figure that he was trying to provoke me again, after our discussion about Clinton-hater Gerth & the NYT, etc. where he called my argument a joke.
          What's actually quite laughable is that Niteshift has taken it upon himself to lecture another editor here. I'm no saint, but Niteshift is not objective on the issues either. He engages in sarcastic condescension, veiled insults, and assumption of bad faith, thus inevitably provoking others (myself included). He then retreats with denials or indignation. Or worse, with the cloy of insincerity like "my friend".
          @Badmint: I didnt get the game wrong, sport. A twist too subtle, perhaps you thought otherwise. But odd how you still think that's reason enough for the characterization. PrBeacon (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we're still wasting space here, Beacon, thanks for the explanation; however it's racquetball. Badmintonhist (talk)

• Since you aren't the subject Beacon, you aren't required to be notified. In fact, Blax only notified one person, BH, because he is required to. The rest of us found it on our own. If you have a complaint about me, at least get it right. I have never retreated a step from you, despite your blatant name calling. BTW, calling you "my friend" isn't a "cloy of insincerity". That's just what I insert when I'd really prefer to call you something much more accurate, but doing so would make me run afoul of the NPA policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User:X!'s adminbots

Should we desysop MPUploadBot and EyeEightDestroyerBot? On May 9, User:X! gave up his bureaucrat and admin rights, and only an admin may operate adminbots. PleaseStand 19:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a grey area. Since X gave up the tools voluntarily and not under a cloud he can request them back at any time without having to go though an RFA, I doubt it will hurt to leave the bots be, both seem very useful --Jac16888 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jac16888. Would be a matter for WP:BAG in any case, and this really belongs at the WP:BON. –xeno 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That would simply be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Just leave them be. NW (Talk) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. MPUploadBot at least is incredibly useful. I believe the policy is there to stop a non-admin bot owner hijacking the admin account, but if X! wanted admin tools, he could ask for his own back at any time, I assume. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait for there to be a problem, then block/desysop. Admins know where the buttons are. - Jarry1250  20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing about giving up admin rights voluntarily is that in most cases, the user is still has the rights to admin tools, just not the ability to use them. By that I mean that I am still an approved admin and crat, and that means that I can still operate adminbots. If it comes down to having them desysopped due to my resignation, I will then request my tools back on the BN. (Honestly, I hope that it doesn't happen. I really like not having the burden of the tools over my head. :)) (X! · talk)  · @999  ·  22:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that X! did not get desysopped, but gave up the bits voluntarily, a message at BN would enough to get them back! As far as I am concerned, I am happy for his adminbots to be continuing to operate, as they are useful, and there is no problem with them. As Jarry1250 says, they can be shut down/blocked/desysop'd if there were to be problems. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon sock of Harvardlaw back again

• 72.222.174.25 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 72.222.168.12 (talk · contribs · block log)
• Harvardlaw (talk · contribs · block log)

Blocked user Harvardlaw appears to be back again. This time the offensive edits are reporting his own alleged business deals with Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego. Overlapping edit at Dennis DeConcini, a usual page to edit by this user. Also found him adding himself to Young Americans (2011 film). There's probably more that I haven't found yet. User is following usual MO of making dozens of incremental edits, so I can't pick out 1 or 2 diffs. Most recent blocking incident was as User:68.106.15.134 on April 30, 2009, detailed in this incident discussion. I don't know what the right kind of block would be. ~Pesco 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's him alright. I'll block those and any more I can find. Thanks for spotting him and for posting the notice.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep watching the usual pages. ~Pesco 08:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough and automated edits

Several strange edits on my watchlist recently (such as ) alerted me to a massive undiscussed change made by User:Rich Farmbrough to Template:Portal and Template:Portal box. The change involves not just a change to the templates, but edits to thousands of articles, without any public announcement apart from a brief discussion on Template talk:Portal box in which Rich said that he was editing "a few hundred articles". For the edits, see Rich's contributions over the past few days.

I pointed out yesterday at Template_talk:Portal_box#Named_parameters that some discussion and announcement is necessary before the usage of a highly-used, protected template is changed on thousands of articles. Without responding to this post, Rich Farmbrough ran an unapproved bot task tonight to change the syntax of approximately a thousand articles, using AWB on his main account.

I am strongly considering reverting the AWB edits from this evening, as they represent not only an undiscussed and unapproved bot job, but they also seem to include severe errors. In particular, the edit on my watchlist removed see-also links for no apparent reason . This sort of error is one thing that bot approval is intended to catch.

Could someone else contact Rich to impress the importance of discussion for large-scale bot jobs? Access to AWB does not grant automatic permission to edit thousands of articles without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary the initial changes to {{Portal}} were made by User:Svick, and discussed on Template talk:Portal. One of the consequences is that the syntax of {{Portal}} has become considerably simplified. Further to that additional changes to the internal workings of the templates were made and {{Portal box}} was simplified massively both in use and implementation. Discussion of the templates welcome on their talk pages. Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

...and what of seeking bot approval for the task? And the errors CBM mentioned? Equazcion 00:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of the error and tried to correct it in the following edit. Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

And you neglected to seek the bot approval that might have avoided the error to begin with because...? Equazcion 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a manual run of about 120 edits over 2 hours. Followed by a more substantial run of about 500 a few hours later. Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

According to your contribs, today you made 763 edits with summary "Update portal box using AWB" and another 661 with summary "new portal syntax using AWB". There are another couple hundred with edit sumaries that look like section edits. In total you made over 1600 edits with a summary including the word "portal". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The next edit did not restore the see also links, though (). They were still missing hours later when I noticed the page on my watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly correct, my correction was wrong. I am glad someone picked it up. Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

• While we're waiting for Rich to actually offer a candid response above, I'd like to propose that something be done to assure that he can't run bot tasks without approval again. I don't know if that's possible, since he's been using his main account for automated tasks... but as much as Rich has been invaluable to Misplaced Pages, he seems to be taking shortcuts lately and not respecting process. Equazcion 00:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Pardon me, stupid question alert, but why would Rich need bot approval for something he is doing manually with AutoWikiBrowser (AWB)? You still have to actually hit the "Save Page" button on AWB, so it isn't a bot and wouldn't need bot approval....right? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  It is quite obvious to this observer that Rich has modified the AWB code to allow him to run in auto mode from his main account. –xeno 00:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, then if it is modified, then yeah, that is bad and would need approval. I was assuming (and you know what they say about that) that he was just using the standard AWB program. I didn't read the code or anything (wouldn't know where to go and wouldn't understand it if I found it). Doesn't Rich have a bot of his own? (User Edit: After looking, he does...User:SmackBot.) Since he is one of the more prolific users here, he could easily get bot approval for anything and do it correctly with his own bot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  This thread may help lend some insight as to why Rich doesn't always engage the BRFA process (execute summary: it can, at times, be akin to molasses). Since that thread, I've been BAGged myself, so maybe Rich could prod me into reviewing his BRFAs as punishment for my incessant nagging =) –xeno 01:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  In some cases the slowness is a good thing. For example, the issue here is a wholesale rewriting of a highly-used template. That sort of thing should be announced on a village pump and people should have time to comment. The BRFA helps ensure that such notice is given, because the BAG members should be looking for announcement like that before they approve bots. We don't want people to fundamentally change a highly-used template without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with anything you said. –xeno 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rich has been running bot tasks, both approved and not, sometimes insignificant, from his main account for some time. I've approached him several times with the suggestion that he move it onto an actual flagged bot to no avail. I eventually brought this to this noticeboard, but the rough consensus seemed to be to leave him be, so I left it at that and haven't bothered him since - but I still think he should move these various tasks onto a bot, and seek approval. –xeno 00:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of my AWB edits are on SmackBot, and I have submitted a fair few BRFA's, and intend to continue to do so. Xeno's advice on the matter was well taken. Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

"was well taken"... Does that mean you'll be seeking bot approval for all automated tasks in the future, and running them from your bot account -- or does it mean you see yourself as having taken his advice already, and don't see what you've done now as having opposed that advice? Equazcion 01:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As per my original post, I rolled back the edits to namespace 0. Will look into the ones in the category: namespace tomorrow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What a waste of time. Rich Farmbrough, 08:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

Wait. If most of the edits were correct why they were rolled back? This one is a very back example of rolling back. The new portal box syntax was discussed from April 5 to May 5 to its talk page and they were no disagreements. If they are problems with some templates we can fix them too. Per Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature "The rollback feature is a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." I don't see any vandalism nor nonsense in Rich's edits.

Carl, I strongly disagree with these rollbacks even if you are right in some other points. I noticed that you did the same when an anonymous IP started replacing otheruses4 with about. The edits we correct even if there were not supposed to be done with this way. After the rollbacks the watchlists were alerted for 2nd time at the same day.

On the new portal box syntax: I think we had consensus on that. If people think that this should be done by a bot or more slowly this is something we can discuss. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a, dare I say, misuse of Rollback by User:CBM. When some of these edits are clearly not vandalism or nonsense and are not unproductive. I would recommend that CBM quickly revert his rollbacks and not misuse the Rollback application again, else it be taken away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can remove rollback from an admin. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re Neutralhomer: see the section Misplaced Pages:Rollback_feature#Mass_rollbacks. Rollback is a standard tool for reversing bot edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Have we actually confirmed that Rich was running an unapproved bot or we just assuming? You know what they say when you assume. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re Magioladitis: Yes, the issue is that it needed to be done more slowly and thoughtfully. I asked Rich for evidence that the changes had been well announced as early as May 6 ; he didn't give any. He also did not respond to my note on Template talk:Portal box, or to this note from another user on May 6.

In this case, the changes were not to support a new syntax – they were to make existing features not only deprecated, but actually forbidden. That sort of change, if it affects thousands of articles, requires more than a template talk page discussion. The procedure that was followed for the ambox rollout is an example of better practices: use village pump posts, keep everyone informed, make sue that the right features are implemented.

Now, I don't agree that most of the changes were "correct". At best, they represent a stylistic change. Worse, many of the edits removed named parameters, such as "break", that had been intentionally placed by article editors. Worst, at least one edit erroneously removed "see also" links; probably the same happened to other articles that used col-break around a portal.

The edits were also flawed in that they attempted to force a large-scale change without any sign of community-wide consensus. Running large bot jobs like this presents users with a fait accompli – if all the articles have been changed, the new syntax starts to look like the default. The use of unapproved bots to implement such changes without consensus is not appropriate (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli and the other findings there). The simplest way to respond when someone makes this sort of attempt is to simply to roll back the edits, restoring the status quo.

I agree that it's unfortunate to have to roll them back, but if the unannounced, an unapproved bot is like BRD then this is the R part of it. The scale is larger, but that's exactly why it should be discussed completely before the edits are made. That is: bot edits are not supposed to be Bold, but when they are, they can still be Reverted like other edits.

To be clear, I am not focused on the bot approval for bureaucratic reasons. The point of bot approval is to guarantee public discussion and announcement of changes, and reduce the chance of errors. When bot operators make unapproved bot runs, they cannot be too surprised if the edits are rolled back. The point of the rollbacks here is to remove any errors unintentionally added by the bot, and to restore the status quo so that the changes can be discussed properly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this use of terms like "forcing through without consensus". There's far too much pointless bureaucracy in templatespace already. There was rough consensus and a belief that the new code worked, and that's all that should be required. To me, the only issue here is that the task looked automated and that there may be discrepancies in the way that it was carried out. I certainly don't see that running to ANI to admonish people should be the first response to what amounts to a red tape problem outside of a few technical edge cases which nobody had previously spotted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This entire change could be described as "pointless bureaucracy" – the previous template worked, and the only reason for these edits seems to be that a few editors felt that it required some sort of cleanup. Still, I would be fine with the change if it was actually supported by a village pump discussion that agreed that the previous behavior should be forbidden (as with the ambox changes). But in this case, it is not obvious that the "break" and "left" parameters should be forbidden. Instead, it looks like a small number of editors may have decided that their preferred implementation of the template was better and then forced that change on thousands of articles via unapproved bot jobs. If they had made the new code backwards-compatible, that would also have been fine, but then they would not have needed to run a bot job in the first place.

The reason that I brought this to ANI is that Rich has a history of doing this sort of thing. Had it been the first time, or had he made any effort to reply to the notices on his talk page of the template page, I would not have come here. The key point is that even when an editor has the technical ability to make changes to thousands of articles, via AWB or otherwise, such massive changes should not be done without widespread agreement that they are actually worthwhile. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, your talk page comment didn't bring up any of the technical problems; that might have given Rich a bigger pause for concern than concentrating on the bureaucratic angle. That said, apologies for insinuating that you hadn't pinged him first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruption at Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools

User Elvey seems to be persistent that there is an open dispute, but has failed to follow the dispute resolution policy. In addition to this, this user has been hostile toward me with regards to this. Further assistance is required. --Hm2k (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only one disrupting that article is you, as I explained on talk there. Pcap ping 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be hostile. You've not explained anything. I will await somebody else's view. --Hm2k (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I see a pattern of avoiding responding to questions you don't have answers to and responses you don't like. --Elvey (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Pcap, thanks for pointing us to WP:NNC! Glad to see that what I'd written, "Lack of an article or evidence of notability do not imply lack of notability. (That is circular reasoning.)" is supported by a formal rule. The disruption was caused by an apparent understanding of the rules that WP:NNC directly contradicts. Also, it was WP:POINTY; see for action that recently got Hm2k blocked. Also note his rollback/undo of my warning from his talk page (See also this undo: . Also note that lack of an article as evidence of notability was the ONLY justification for the mass deletion I have noted. Note, I didn't even undo the deletion, but I do think undoing it would be good for the project.--Elvey (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging with this user. However, as a resolution I would appreciate it if the user would follow the dispute resolution policy instead of a trivial notice on the article. Further assistance may be required if the user continues to be uncivil. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have very little support for Hm2k's actions here on wiki but nothing here seems actionable on either side. It doesn't appear he has risen to the level that the last afd was at and I would suggest that he reread WP:STICK. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:RyanG222 Repeated Ignoring of Warnings on Talk Page and failure to follow MOS

What a shame. User:RyanG222 has been problematic for a long period of time. He fails to understand that[REDACTED] has rules for style and formatting WP:MOS and so is constantly editing discography pages in an inappropriate way. He sometimes has issues with following rules at WP:record charts too.

• On March 20 2010 he was warned and cautioned by another user for vandalizing Pixie Lott discography by
• And a third warning on March 21
• Then on April 19 he recieved a series of warnings about using TBA/TBR and unsourced details which resulted in a two week block.
• Then on April 28 he attempted to impersonate the blocking admin and was blocked from editing his own talk page for the remainder of his original block.
• As soon as his block was over he continued vandalism of discography pages with this edit even though he's been pointed to MOS:DISCOG
• I reverted this which he went ahead and re-changed on 9 May even though it was explained to his why it was incorrect and i had left this message on his talk page.
• He was further warned by other users , and .
• I looked through his contribution history and found a long list of this kind of abuse: On Esmée Denters (, ); at Noisettes discography (); Rihanna discography (); Alicia Keys discography (); Jason Derulo ().

Though his damage my seem minor it clearly discredits WP:CRYSTAL, WP:verifiable, MOS:DISCOG and more importantly due to its vast scale is causing mass damage. His clear reluctance to respond to messages and warnings or take heed of them is surely a sign that this user is claiming WP:IDHT and editing tediously. Despite recieving a final warning today at 18:58 he made further edits a to previously untargetted discography here at 21:55. Please note he requested to be unblocked previously stating her "promised not to vandalize again" but he disobeyed a final warning - what more can i say? Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and no attempt to change their behavior or seek guidance. — ξ 02:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How does RyanG222 (talk · contribs) stay unblocked for so long? Users like him should have been blocked long ago. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he was blocked previously at least once but for only 2 weeks.... ???? Anyways i'm glad we've finally blocked him now. I've already started undoing the massive damage he's done to all those discographies. In a short period of time he's edited quite a lot. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

woohoo! i've been undoing his edits for weeks! good riddance :p Mister sparky (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with IP2Location link

The IP2Location (seen as GeoLocate) link is seen at the bottom with WhoIs tags and others on all IP user talk pages. Problem is IP2Location has been down since Friday (maybe longer). Not sure what the problem is over there but it is effecting on finding out where users are located. This could cause problems for people who are looking for a location on someone for a threat situation or other problem. I request that the IP2Location link be changed to something else (possibly TrustedSource.com) for the time being while the problems at IP2Location.com are worked out. It would at least give us another source to find information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried it, it doesn't seem to be down. Jayjg 05:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stange, I tried and keep getting a "Firefox can't find the server at www.ip2location.com" message, IE gives me an "Action canceled" message. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No problems where I am. either. Nate • (chatter) 06:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Back up on my end. Must have been a localized problem....either that or my computer hates me. Making this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it down for everyone, or just me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently both my fiance and I are up SGGH 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Rabbi"

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) has been removing the word "Rabbi" from in front of the articles of a lot of rabbis. He started on Avraham Chaim Naeh . When I reverted him with an argument in the edit summary, and later posted on his talk page he didn't answer on his talk page, but instead started doing the same thing to another 30 or so articles! When I undid these and wrote him again on his talk page that he should really engage in discussion first when he sees somebody disagrees and tries to discuss it with argument from Misplaced Pages guidelines, he ignored that too and repeated all his edits, including one of them with the edit summary "I need not "refute" your arguments. You are just wrong on this issue. thanks!" Debresser (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Chesdovi (talk · contribs) does not wish to communicate. Unless he starts responding, he should be blocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi is entirely correct, per Misplaced Pages:MOSBIO#Academic_titles. What is more baffling is that User:Debresser knows he is correct, and has conceded as much in the past; see Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#Rabbi. Jayjg 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg seems to address another point than I did. I addressed the behavioral issue. Jayjg addresses the question who is right. Personally I disagree with him, on the arguments I mentioned in edit summaries and Chesdovi's talk page. As to the discussion in Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#Rabbi: that was an old discussion where I merely gave up my oposition, but I have now though it over more. Debresser (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg is entirely correct on this one. Per WP:MOSBIO#Clergy, the "Rabbi" honorific "should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper" unless the "honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it". You should be discussing the issue on the WP:MOSBIO talk page if you want to have that guideline changed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser’s reading and understanding of WP policy is flawed on this occasion. He firstly confuses Honorific prefixes with Honorific titles by claiming to quote from Honorific prefixes and actually quoting policy from Honorific titles. He then assumes that "Rabbi" is an Honorific prefix, when it is more correctly an Academic title. (Besides from the fact that point 3 of Honorific prefixes states: "Styles and honorifics related to clergy...should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper.") (The titles listed for Christian clergy at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (clergy) do not really have corresponding terms in Judaism, hence the matter is not addressed at all.) He then misses the point totally when quoting policy from Subsequent_uses_of_names which only advises to use the person’s surname throughout the article, and not using "Mr" to precede the surname. That does not mean that "Mr" or "Rabbi" has to have already been used once before.

On my behavior in response to his misunderstandings of policy, in retrospect, I could have maybe acted with more understanding, but I thought that my explanation in my first revert would suffice. I was also a bit surprised that after I had corrected a few articles, Debresser straight away reverted all my changes without waiting for a response to his posting on my talk page. As is stated "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is sometimes controversial on Misplaced Pages", so we must try and understand that Debresser may have different views on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this has any place at AN/I. It is principally a content dispute. Yes, there may be an issue of civility, but it should be taken to the appropriate noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Of concern is the mass reverting and re-reverting. Editors should not take large scale actions that may be controversial without first engaging in discussion. To all participants, please de-escalate this problem by leaving the articles in the current state (whatever that may be), and commence a discussion somewhere. When the discussion resolves, then make the necessary edits to bring the articles into compliance and consistency. Unless somebody wants to continue edit warring (thereby risking a block), this discussion may be concluded. Jehochman 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy we are discussing this now. That was the preferred outcome of this thread for me. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Rabbi. Debresser (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

WP:AIV is backlogged, could an admin or two take a look, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

A removed personal attack against me has been restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement of fact. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. Not entirely supported in fact, but trying to hide your history by referring to just criticism as personal attacks isn't on. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A personal attack, a lie, and entirely unsupported in fact. I have nothing to hide. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not tried to discuss this with the other user. You have not notified him of this discussion. And even if you had done those things, this still wouldn't be the proper venue for this, WP:WQA would probably be better. But in general, when you get comments referring to past behaviour, ask for diffs. If the other can't provide such diffs, then it may be considered a removable personal attack. If he can, on the other hand, it becomes a rather pertinent remark which has its place there. Anyway, please follow WP:DR. Fram (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't notify the other editor is because we edit-conflicted here while I was still entering my initial comment; thereby confirming that he was already aware of it (as you can see, there's a one-minute difference in the time-stamps of the first two post, above). He'd be welcome to provide diffs proving his claim, were there any. Also, I am following WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly will provide diffs once I get home from work and can dig through edits. Easy enough to do since I have stumbled onto many occasions where you have made claims that weren't substantiated. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy, what was so urgent about this personal attack that it couldn't be resolved with a discussion on his talk page, a note that you don't agree with that characterization at all, a request for diffs, and/or a wikiquette post? Fram (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The other editor's determination to edit war in order to repeat it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, one revert is an edit war? I think you have now passed into attacking. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One revert on such a checkable attack, without further discussion attempts, is not an urgent matter requiring the attention of ANI. On the other hand, Djsasso, calling a back-and-forth edit an "edit war" is not an attack either. Fram (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, and its restoral was justified and in no way an edit-war. Stop inflaming the situation. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 14:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Falsely calling someone a liar is not a personal attack? Since when? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I declined an unblock request, even though I'm not an admin

See here.

The user made what I feel to be a totally disingenuous unblock request. I thought it would be best to not waste admin energy on it, and show the user that he can't use the unblock template to troll. I thought I'd let everyone know, in case this was a big no-no... if so you can feel free to revert me and formally answer the unblock request. Equazcion 19:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cannae spell "haggis". Admin or no, the decline was richt. The editor's a bampot. TFOWR 19:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR should be warned for {{uw-english}}, but as my step mother-in-law is a Glaswegian, I'll let is slide. ;) —DoRD (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously the unblock request was not serious, and I've removed talk page access so they can't keep making silly requests. However, my own opinion is that unblock declines like this are best left to admins who patrol CAT:UNBLOCK, if only to prevent the need for notes like this (which end up taking up roughly the same amount of admin time), and to head of the inevitable third unblock request on the grounds that the second one was by a non-admin. Still, no harm no foul, and others might think differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Point taken. I guess it is rather counterproductive. Equazcion 19:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with Floquenbeam, you made the right call, but if we still have to double check it no effort has been saved. So, there's no current nominations at WP:RFA if you would care to eliminate the middleman... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - candidate has no MediaWiki namespace edits . –xeno 20:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha right, I'll consider that. And xeno, cute :) Equazcion 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing; I'm not an admin and I've declined unblock requests too, though they were in every case ones far more abusive even than this (essentially just insults against the blocking admin, sometimes with shock images, and in all cases with no actual rationale given). As an aside, I suppose this could have been prevented if in my haste to get him blocked on sco.wiki I hadn't forgotten that he was vandalizing over here too. —Soap— 20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. You made the right call there. If I were you, I would leave it to an admin, but I'm fine with you doing it. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) keeps on removing information about the American release of the manwha Recast because he thinks that info is trivial. Despite international releases being added to articles of films and books all of the time. What should I say to him? Discussing so far didn't work. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got to be honest, the information Dinoguy1000 removed does seem trivial - there's an explanation of "manhwa" vs. "manga", which really doesn't belong in a specific manhwa article, and a review from a reviewer who thought Recast was originally written in Japan. Perhaps the fact its written left-to-right (instead of right-to-left) is notable? I've only limited experience with manga/manhwa, and it does seem notable to me, but not hugely. Either way, your best options would be dispute resolution - maybe get a third opinion? Cheers, TFOWR 19:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the difference between this publication and the other publications. I'll take those links into consideration. Thanks for your advice. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure you've given discussion enough of a chance. I note the talk page of the article is nice and empty, awaiting discussion; maybe move the conversation there, to get more eyes than your (and his) user talk pages? You could ping WT:COMICS (as Dinoguy himself suggested) and ask them to chime in on the article talk page. Unless I'm missing something, he doesn't seem to be acting unreasonably, not sure why this is at ANI at this stage. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where best to get advice. I mean, I don't know much beyond article building and deletion debates. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good place to start, and a thrid opinion is another good place (it's part of WP:DR. I don't want to push WP:3O too much, but it's really useful to get a fresh set of eyes on an issue, sometimes. Cheers, TFOWR 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone mark this as resolved? Joe Chill (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Feel free to ping me on my talk page if you need any pointers re: WP:DR in general or WP:3O in particular. Good luck! TFOWR 19:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One final comment: Asking at ANI is certainly not the end of the world, but probably WP:HELPDESK is better to ask general advice like this. At ANI, I (and others, I suspect) can mistake it for a request for admin action of some kind, even when, upon re-reading, you didn't ask for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EAR is probably even better. –xeno 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Or User talk:Xeno, since he's so smart. :P --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Touche =) –xeno 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Block evading by OttomanJackson

See here for background. 166.137.143.239 (talk · contribs) and 166.137.140.101 (talk · contribs) appeared today, participating in a Michael Jackson-related AFD and unredirecting a non-notable Jackson song article. OttomanJackson (talk · contribs) recently got blocked for vote-stacking in that AFD and the second IP uses virtually the same edit summary as OJ recently did. Pyrrhus16 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the second under WP:DUCK, however not sure if I could justify ducking the first one, lots of people participate in AfDs and they do get sorted through Wikiprojects where a passing newbie might go. SGGH 21:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And I've doubled OJ's block. SGGH 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked both IPs using this, which states that they are in the same area. Pyrrhus16 21:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Using that gadget, does this come from the same place as the above two? SGGH 21:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not for me. It puts 24.15.54.202 in a different location to the 166.137...s. But they appear to be all linked to OJ to me, so the only thing we can do is keep an eye on them for any further related edits. Pyrrhus16 22:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, it puts me 300 miles from my actual location! But so long as the above three all route to the same location that would be ducky enough for me. :D SGGH 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz: edits and legal language claimed to be from article subject

Someone might want to take a look at Leonard Horowitz, particularly in light of these edits by DrLenHorowitz (talk · contribs). MastCell  22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a slightly WP:BOLD use of WP:NLT here, considering that the notice placed at the top of the article makes threats of "civil or criminal" charges to any Misplaced Pages editor that does not conform with the user's concept of what the article should say. I've also reverted the changes to the article itself. I'll explain carefully on the account talk. SGGH 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing bold at all. Good call. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left a {welcome-auto} and an expanded message explaining the problem. Since it was a legal threat not directed at a specific editor (just all editors of the article that might disagree with the user) I would appreciate another admin reviewing my actions. SGGH 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block a perfectly valid application of WP:NLT in my opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, people have. Crackin' SGGH 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He's now posted a reply on his talk page, if anyone wants to look at it and take action. I've also removed the resolved tag (because while the block issue may be resolved, the overall issue isn't), and also removed a potential BLP violation from this thread. Buddy431 (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, WP:V and WP:BLP

Despite a strong consensus at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of Jewish American entertainers/List of Jewish actors, Wikidemon is insisting that entries in lists do not need to be sourced, and that the onus for removing material lies in the editor who wishes to remove it, despite WP:BLP saying the exact opposite. As a result, he's restored a bunch of unsourced and/or improperly sourced names to List of Jewish actors. For example, he's restored Scott Caan with this link as a source, despite the source itself nowhere actually stating Caan is Jewish. He includes Jerry Orbach, without a source, despite the fact that Orbach had a Catholic mother and was raised Catholic. But more important that any specific item, given the complete repudiation of his views at WP:BLP/N, is it appropriate for him to be doing this? Jayjg 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the argument is whether or not list articles need an inline citation verifying each item's justification for inclusion in the list, or if sources contained in the linked article are enough. I'd say Wikidemon is correct -- either do the work to carry over the citations to the list article, if you'd prefer they all be cited, or leave them be. Equazcion 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed and decided a thousand times in the past with these lists, and the policies are clear. Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged, and they need them on the page in question, not on some related page. That's true of anything, but even more so with living persons. SlimVirgin 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly the question. The question is, if it's know that sources exist, should chunks of items nevertheless be removed on the grounds that they're unsourced? I don't see that benefiting the encyclopedia. With some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be removing those items instead. Equazcion 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One that was deleted was Ron Silver. Someone read that article and tell me he's not Jewish. Also, he's not living. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be easy enough for the person adding the name to source then, wouldn't you think? Jayjg 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be established, so this may not be the appropriate venue. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What "seems to be established"? Jayjg 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Equaczion you appear to have the onus exactly backwards: WP:V is says quite clearly that any that if material challenged must "be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". Or, to use your words, with some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be adding those items. Jayjg 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's too much policy wank for me. We're faced with a situation where we have a list of items that we know are verifiable, but you want to remove them anyway, based on the letter of the policy. We've got polices that guard against that sort of staunch interpretation, too. What would be best for the encyclopedia would be to allow the list to remain complete. Equazcion 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How do we know these claims are verifiable? Actually following policy is not "policy wank", and there are no policies that "guard against" enforcing policy. What would quite obviously be best for the encyclopedia would be to have the list comply with WP:BLP and WP:V. Jayjg 03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that in the amount of time you're taking to delete something that you're "challenging", you could be getting the citation from the other article. And if there isn't one, then removing it would be justified. There is one list that I can think of where its primary watchdog is death on anything unverified, but that's a little different, as List of U.S. Presidential nicknames is an OR magnet. The question is, what exactly is being "challenged"? Is it the assertion that something is factual? Or is it simply because of the lack of a citation? It's not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems obvious to me. If someone challenges something in regards to our living subjects, we only reintroduce it with a source. Unless Wikidemon has managed to definitively answer the question "Who is a Jew?" we should probably only reintroduce subjects with good sourcing. AniMate 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, to begin with, there are important principles at stake here. One is the principle that all items in Misplaced Pages articles must be cited, per WP:V. For some reason some editors claim there is an exemption for lists, despite policy actually explicitly repudiating that notion. Another is the principle that it is incumbent on the person adding material to ensure it is properly cited; again, that's basic policy, but for reasons that escape me some editors fight the notion that they should actually have to cite claims they add to articles, or imagine they have another "exemption" if they add the material by way of reversion.

In addition, many of the items are or were erroneous, or had citations that did not support the claims being made. This is unsurprising; my experience with these lists is that they are often filled with dubious or erroneous material, which is a good reason to demand that all items in them comply with policy. And finally, the lists are filled with dozens of items like this, and there are many lists; if it were just one item, then yes, it would be easier to try to source it (assuming a source could be found, which is not a given). However, as there are hundreds of items like this, it's better to re-iterate policy here, rather than having to fight this battle again and again. Jayjg 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you were actually just fixing errors, that would be one thing. But you're apparently not even bothering to see if the items are factual or not. Your deletion of the Ron Silver item is a dead giveaway of that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the same battle that happens all the time. One side removes an unreferenced statement. The other side demands that the statement be returned, and then demands that the deleters should reference the statement rather than delete it. Let me refer the entire cadre of combatants in this little skirmish to WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If someone wants any article, including a list article, to say anything then THEY need to add the reference. It isn't the responsibility of anyone except the person who wants the statement to remain in the article to provide the reference. The person who objects to the statement is well justified in a) referencing it themselves b) adding the "cn" tag or c) removing the statement altogether. They may choose any of these. Choice a) would be nice, but choice c is fully justified for any contentious statement. If its easy to reference, rather than coming here to complain about someone removing it, return the statement with the reference. Ultimately, the person who wants to say something must provide the backing for what they want to say. It isn't the responsibility person who doubts the veracity of a statement to find proof that the statement is true, if they doubt its truth to begin, then why would they believe that a reference even exists?!? --Jayron32 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Jayjg's latest edit here as apparent disruption. I hope that it was a simple mistake, but this is starting to look like a WP:POINT problem. I'll answer in more detail shortly. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So now you are restoring unsourced content and calling its removal disruptive and pointy? Quantpole (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

. I count 10 unsourced entries that you restored. You are acting completely against policy and all the advice from others both here and at the BLP noticeboard. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Look a little harder. The correct count is zero. I did not restore any uncited claims about living people. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source on that page to say that Ron Silver is Jewish, or Susan Strasberg? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Quantpole (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantpole, these people are dead, so his claim that "I did not restore any uncited claims about living people" is correct (although a link to Amazon is hardly sufficient for one that is living). I have no idea why he just doesn't source those eight entries though, but then again, I have no idea why we even have such a list. It's not as if most of these people are being notable for being an actor and a Jew, they are actors who happen to be Jewish. We don't have a list of blue-eyed actors either. This should be a category, not a list, just like many similar categories. Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't specify that it was living people. All I asked was whether he had restored unsourced content, to which he said 'No'. So he was just lying then. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Jayjg is correct. WP:V requires that any editors trying to add or re-insert unsourced material, even to a list, do so citing reliable sources. I don't think policy can be much clearer on the subject. If it's obvious that someone is Jewish, then there should be no problem finding reliable sources to support their inclusion in the list. If no such sources exist, then maybe it's not so obvious after all. ← George 08:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what the policy says. As I mentioned in the last forum, before Jayjg shopped it here, we've been through this drill a number of times here, at RfC, and before ArbCom. There is no policy basis that permits blind mass deletions of verifiable content for being uncited, without more - and WP:BURDEN does not give those making such deletions an end-run around by prohibiting good faith reversion of their disputed edits. Anyway, that's not at issue here. Jayjg reported me not for adding unsourced claims that living Jewish people are in fact Jewish, but for adding carefully considered sourced claims to that effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote it for you: "The policy on sourcing is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious or negative material about living persons must be removed immediately." You claim that Jayjg removed verifiable content, and he claims that he removed unsourced or poorly sourced content. Above, he gave Jerry Orbach as an example, which is indeed unsourced in the current version of the List of Jewish actors. While not a living person, his Catholic upbringing makes the label questionable. Where is the reliable source that Orbach is Jewish, that makes his entry "verifiable content," as you claim? ← George 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A clue for you - Jerry Orbach is dead. BLP does not apply to non-living people. If you want to claim that all Misplaced Pages content needs a citation and can be mass-deleted otherwise, you've got an uphill battle policy-wise. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." And did I claim that all Misplaced Pages content needs a citation? No, just contentious material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This material was challenged, and someone's religion is often an inherently contentious issue. These entries should be cited to reliable sources; failure to do so - or worse, reinserting the entries unsourced - is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages policies. ← George 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty random. Jayjg's twisted account of the edit history notwithstanding, it's sourced that Orbach's father was Jewish, and that's apparently the reason why some editor (not me) decided to include him in this list article. It's not a policy violation to include deceased Jewish entertainers in a list of links to Jewish entertainers. If you think it is, you're welcome to lobby to change the policy on verifiability, or a guideline for when we call people of Jewish ancestry Jewish, but this is not the place. This is a notice-board to handle behavioral problems that necessitate administrative intervention, not a place to complain about editors who oppose mass deletion sprees. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And the ten other actors you re-added without sources? Where are the sources that they are Jewish? It is indeed a policy violation to add entertainers to this list after their inclusion has been challenged, without providing the proper sources for their inclusion. ← George 09:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to search for and add sources to the list article with respect to those non-living people, or to any of English Misplaced Pages's several million articles articles, as you see fit. That's not a behavioral issue and it is not the source of this complaint. Are we done here? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district. That's the deletionist's first clue. Then I googled and found quite a few references to his passing in Jewish publications, and about the fourth or fifth line down there was this in which Silver makes reference to himself being Jewish. In a fraction of the time the deletionist has spent arguing about this issue, he could have found this. If he's got doubts about an entry, he should apply a citation tag to it rather than a meataxe. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Hello There India! an unapproved bot?

The edits from it make it look like a bot to me. They're all edits to user pages, all welcoming users. It looks like something that PyWikipedia's bot framework would use. Pilif12p 01:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

he seems to be picking people who've edited certain pages, not necessarily recently, that are related to India. I suspect it's not a bot, actually, just a user with a lot of time on his hands, because a bot would probably be more random as to which editors it welcomed (unless it was very well designed). —Soap— 01:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I doubt it; if you look at the three edits around 18:15 on 8 May 2010, they made a typo that they then fixed; that isn't bot behavior. Look like someone cutting and pasting a welcome, and they aren't doing any harm. Also, a note on their talk page asking them, before coming here, might have been friendlier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not cutting and pasting a welcome, he's substing a welcome template, which is a nice thing to do, and helpful to new editors. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on that, as a fellow welcomer. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Adam Kontras

Seems to be irregular activity here

• Adam4tvs (talk · contribs)
• Adam kontras (talk · contribs)
• Ibbn (talk · contribs)
• 7ObFuScAtoR7 (talk · contribs)
• Bradcwriter (talk · contribs)
• 98.151.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 64.149.233.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:Adam_Kontras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has consistently demonstrated the use of multiple single purpose only accounts to create some sort of Misplaced Pages notoriety, in order to translate that into actual notoriety. This has been shown in edits made only related to himself, as well as through several instances of controlling the debate when it came to questions of his notability.

This behaviour has also been perpetuated through the use of his own personal meat puppet User:GPHemsley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who is also largely a single subject editor and seeming promotor of Kontras. Through the subjects own website this relationship is known a simple google search turns up with these two people seeming very connected ] There is an obvious pattern of other meat puppet abuse in discussions as well (check history of AFDs and edits related to Adam Kontras). Kontras has also been making a number of WP:legal legal threats.

VJHall (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Philippine presidential election, 2010

• Hi guys. This page needs to be semi-protected now. Rage from presidential candidate fans leads to vandalism specially the ones with just IP addresses. The election is stil ongoing and the page is being updated from time to time, and having vandalism from IP addresses just doesn't help.--TwelveOz (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days, based on the edits I saw in the history tab your observation concerning isp edits appears to be accurate. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

This entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI. –MuZemike 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Timestamp as still active: 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 69.228.170.24 (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 00:17, 10 May 2010 A.Prock (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Timestamp as still active: 08:11, 11 May 2010 A.Prock (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards