Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

117.195

Anyone willing to mentor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It'sAlwaysLupus

Recently this user changed "Disco-pop" to "Nu-disco" on the Moves Like Jagger article. He used no reliable sources, and he used WP:OR has an explanation. I reverted it. There was no edit war or anything, however I checked his contributions and noticed there were a TON of edits where he had gone into articles and changed Disco to Nu-disco, or British disco, etc, (primarily in the external links section) without any reliable sources. I find this disruptive and I think he needs to go and revert all of his edits, because he used no sources and when I questioned him he used WP:OR. I would have reverted the edits myself but there was A TON. Nicholas (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Before anyone asks, Nicholas already notified IAL.)

I don't see a problem here besides your own issues with the other users. Ironically enough the same user who is accusing the other users of OR pushing and generally disruptive behavior is doing the same things. But I'm no judge here, though. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy and personal attacks such as this one are not tolerated around here. Case closed. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this editor, after this exchange at WQA. I found the exchange somewhat ironic, considering that IAL was very sarcastic and engaged in a borderline personal attack (calling an editor "arrogant"); keep in mind this was at WQA, where IAL was the one creating the request. In addition, IAL seemed very quick to assume the worst from the other editor, taking comments out of context, which is again ironic since the request was complaining about a lack of good faith from the other editor. To their credit, I was treated courteously in the WQA discussion, so I have not been the recipient of this behavior myself. Looking at the history of IAL's user talk page, I see the removal of legitimate notices (AfD nominations, 3RR warnings, etc.) with edit summaries like:

• "i replied on your talk page, i ain't need crap on MAH talk page du"
• "as a joke funny, but i don't want these pranks on my talk page, cats, archiving"
• "your trolling attacks are not welcome, be aware that I'm gonna report you to the Jimbo Wales"
• "-stalking and trolling comment"
• "just getting rid of the garbage"
• "flush"

Needless to say, I don't have a great deal of confidence that this editor is interested in collaborating with other editors. -- Atama頭 07:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama, you would be suprised how friendly and "soft" I can be! ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's all I can say, I didn't even know about this, I wondered why is talk page was blank. Nicholas (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because all of that is old and when someone gives me a warning, I actually take notes and learn from it. You, however, delete the warnings without even acknowledging them and give a sarcastic remark to the editer, and you don't learn from it, you do it again. Nicholas (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say that an editor is allowed to remove warnings from their own user talk page per WP:BLANKING; the removal is an implicit acknowledgement of the warnings. What aren't allowed, even on an editor's own user talk page, are false accusations of bad behavior. And IAL, I'm guessing that from your user name you're a fan of House (so am I), but you've been acting a bit too much like the good doctor in your communication with others. ;) -- Atama頭 04:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well you know the rules. Your user talk page is your "castle", but apparently someone didn't get the rules. Haha... why, thank you but you know it's nothing personal. :) ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Administrators: Is request apparently made by a 14-year-old person on the Administrator' noticeboard still considered reliable? I mean Misplaced Pages is not a playground, you have to accept as a Wikipedian (or as a Bureaucrat, it doesn't matter) the laws of Misplaced Pages and you simply cannot draw conclusions and revert other users' edits "just because you personally don't like it (topic, genre, etc)" and/or suffering from the anger management issues? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We judge people on their actions, not their age. I wouldn't doubt that we've had admins younger than that. Your "playground" comments are out of line, and you're skimming close to personal attacks again. Do you think it's helpful to go back to last year to dig up dirt on the reporting editor? How about this: knock it off, work on your own poor treatment of other editors, and stop treating people with condescension. And before you ask, I'm in my 30s. -- Atama頭 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course we do. We would accept every user who is contributing to this great project even if he/she is 3 year old. However, if you act in "accordance" to your age, just like this, you should seriously reconsider if you really belong here. Don't you think? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's really old. Do I act that way now? And I didn't remove the genres because I "personally don't like it", I removed them because they were not properly sourced. I reported you here because I think you need to go back and revert all of those edits you made.

And about the anger management thing, EVERYBODY in this world gets angry. It's a common emotion. So what I got angry and out of control? I'm only human like everyone else here. And to use that against me on Misplaced Pages? I can't. Nicholas (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to not understand Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages principles in general. If you let your emotions influence your editing process then you are basically disrupting this whole project. If this is "old", then following problems with you are pretty ancient, indeed; Nicky Nicky, why are you using the same excuses? Avoid that WP:OTHERCRAP attitude already, it's not an answer nor argument. Use your wasted time to do something more productive instead, like creating a new article. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories (2)

Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs) is continuing his conspiracy theory campaign. As noted in a previous AN/I thread (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories), Mystichumwipe is a proponent of the view that Al Qaeda's crashing planes into the World Trade Center etc. is merely one of a number of "conspiracy theories". After being notified of the discretionary sanctions around 9/11 conspiracy theories, he has generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves, and instead focused on the Conspiracy theory article, where his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories., while arguing at length on the Talk: page. Today he decided to completely re-write the lede of the article, insisting that the term has a "primary meaning" and a "secondary meaning", and that one of the world's foremost experts on conspiracy theories, Michael Barkun, is a proponent of the "secondary meaning". As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe, as part of his larger project of re-habilitating the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He on-going campaign has now driven the article's main contributer to abandon the article. This cannot be good for Misplaced Pages, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reposted this to the fringe theories noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but the problem hasn't gotten any better. He continues to edit war against multiple editors,, and on the Talk: page insists that Barkun is a primary source, and that the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with Mystichumwipe. Jayjg 20:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any indication on the editors talkpage that they have been notified of possible edit warring, nor that it has been explained that it is entirely appropriate for people not involved in the discussion to revert a disputed paragraph/section/lede to the prior version while it is being discussed. Unless those steps are taken, and ignored by the party, there is not a lot admins can do - it remains a content dispute involving someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes. If you are requesting some third party provide those notifications then I, as an uninvolved third party, can certainly do that. Is this sufficient? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand - are you saying that each time someone is edit-warring, they must be warned anew that they are edit-warring before any other action can be taken? He's been warned about 3RR in the past, and even blocked for a month for (among other things) edit-warring. Regardless, please add whatever notices or warnings to his Talk: page you feel are appropriate. Jayjg 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They haven't been recently warned on their talkpage, nor blocked, when the two reverts noted by you are under 48hours old. If they have recently been warned elsewhere a link would be appreciated. I shall now warn them, noting that they have already been sanctioned previously for policy violations and thus increasing the likelihood of an extended block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! what can I say? I regard this as such a travesty of what has occurred and what has been written that I am not sure where to begin.

1. So I am apparently "continuing conspiracy theory campaign"? :-0 I thought I was just contributing to pages by explicitly following wiki policy.

2. In my opinion the accusation "He continues to edit war against multiple editors" I regard as a very misleading and biased accusation. I DID twice revert undos that were made without any discussion by people not involved in or contibuting to the discussion who claimed I violated the consensus. That much IS correct. But I requested they engage in discussion as I had reached an agreement with one involved person to actually make changes so that we had something on which to base further discussion. When they edit-warred and undid my reverts I initiated discussion deliberately to avoid an edit-war and have not done anymore undo's. In the discussion pages there were three for and three against. So i don't believe I did do anything against a consensus. Thus the claim that I was going against consensus is debatable as the two people opposed to my view never objected to my edit, someone actually slightly adjusted it, and a day later one of the two editors explicitly gave permission to "do what we will" to the lede so that they have something to discuss.

3. Jayjg has also slightly misrepresented my views in his simplified version of "crashing planes into the WTC" etc., and his version allows for a misunderstanding of my view.

4. And he has misrepresented me again by writing "his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories". In actuality I have just included material backed up by reliable sources, after explaining my reasoning on the talk page, as every editor is entitled to do. I ask you to notice how Jayjg hasn't questioned the accuracy of my sources, but merely attacks his guess regarding my intent.

5. Jayjg wrote: "As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe. " that is not correct. I provided sources for that which Jayjg has either not read or if he has, appears to be practicing a deceit. Its well known the term is being applied differently today, one a broad and neutral usage and one a pejorative usage. All this I have clearly outlined on the discussion page and supported clearly with the sources I provided. I am also not a lone voice as two other people have been in agreement with me and we have expressed our views openly and our reasoning.

6. The accusation that I have forced the main contributor to abandon the page appears to me to be another deceit and deliberate misinformation. That editor has stated that he became frustrated with the discussion, sure. But that was NOT just with me. And he has implied he is leaving as he has other concerns at the moment i.e implying untill he has more time.

7. Whatever, he had clearly been in infringement of wiki policy with his lede (VERIFABILTY) so I need no defence against pointing that out to him and insisting he change it. He left the discussion after being confronted with that infringement by THREE editors (not just me), and because of our continued disagreemenet with the lede which remains based upon that infringement.

8. Regarding:"someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes." What is that referring to? I assume it is to your acceptance without enquiry of Jayjg's misrepresentation of what is going on? I am now forming the opinion that the man has a personal vendetta against me from previous interactions on other pages. This misrepresentation of my views and what has occured at this page appears to be just another episode in that.

9. The accusation that I have' "insisted the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with " is a blatant deception and distortion of what both of us wrote. I never insisted any such thing. Read the talk page to check for yourself.

10. I did NOT "completely re-write the lede of the article": I only "completely changed" the first sentence of it. Yes, ONE sentence "completely changed". How outrageous of me. (n.b. sarcasm)

11. And then there's this: "while arguing at length on the Talk page". Hmmmm? So now discussing, reasoning and giving examples of wiki policy in support of a suggested change is now also some kind of 'crime'? Yet undoing contributions without discussion and ignoring a clear mandate to make changes is fine and dandy? Yet I am the one Jayjg accusses of edit warring?

How do articles get refined and improved then? And more appropriate to this article and these accusations from Jayjg, is the question. 'how do infringements of wiki policy get corrected then'?

12. "generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves" This again is another guess in apparent attempt to mislead and defame me. He obviously can have no idea of the amount of time at my exposal or why I have not come back to my involvement there recently.

13. Finally, I dispute that I have ever knowingly violated 3RR in the past, or that I have even been blocked for a month. Interestingly I actually was attempted to be blocked, after what I came to suspect was some dirty tricks by Jayjg in a previous dispute with him. He also instigated that attempt at blocking me. But the facts are that that blocking was lifted upon appeal as it was agreed it should never have been applied.

I have previously asked for mediation with Jayjg which led no where and the person who accepted mediation responsibilites did nothing. That person also did nothing in a similar and totally seperate mediation request around the same time complaining of the exact same behaviour of Jayjg that I also complained of.

In conclusion may I ask you what do you suggest I do with my previous complaint and now the ones mentioned above of these current examples of Jayjg's misrpresentation and clear cases of deceit about me? The above I now regard as a clear evidence of at least lack of good faith which was one of my previous complaints against him. But this example has gone way beyond that. What courses of action are open to me to address this? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Mystichumwipe the WP:RS material shows there is a serious problem with how "conspiracy theory" is defined. Thankful one of these WP:RS (Bratich, Jack Z. (2008) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 5-6) actually goes into detail as to what the problem is.

Here are some definitions that conflict with Barkun's:

"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, pg 730)

"Other historians argue that past government lies, particularly in the past half-century, have helped fuel conspiracy theories, by giving Americans reasons to suspect their leaders. (“See, I’m not paranoid, I’m right.”)

So on InfoWars, the Web site of the hypervigilant radio host Alex Jones, a list of “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True” leads from the deceptions of the Gulf of Tonkin and Iran-contra and then moves to accusations of plots by the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve." (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" The New York Times)

Alex Jones list of "Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True" is a problem as mixed in with fully documented conspiracy theories of the Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, Project MKULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Operation Northwoods, Nayirah (testimony), Iran-Contra Affair, CIA drug trafficking, Business Plot, Project Valkyrie, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Operation Snow White, Operation Gladio, and Black Sox Scandal there are boarder lines such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and several often regarded as tin foil hat nonsense such as the New World Order (conspiracy theory).

When you have a list of conspiracy theories that puts Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, and Project MKULTRA in the same category as the New World Order (conspiracy theory) you have a problem with trying to say all conspiracy theories are fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this is a content issue, and warrants attention by the fringe theory noticeboard. Phearson (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's material is somewhat more of a content issue, but the issue with Mystichumwipe is behavioral. Jayjg 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, filling up the talk pages with repetitive walls of words that don't really respond in any way to the points being raised by the other editors there. Another example would be giving repeatedly giving lists of sources that don't actually support the point being made, and ignoring the fact that editors have already pointed this out more than once. Jayjg 00:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin Dougweller and user Hrafn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No administrative action required here. Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I filed a WQA complaint against user Hrafn for personal attacks on me (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Hrafn). Admin Dougweller's first response, after such examples of attacks against me as "willfully ignorant" and "fanatic" were provided, as well as the location of other attacks on user DonaldRichardSands were provided, was to focus on not being able to find a third set of personal attacks by Hrafn at other articles, rather than focus on the concrete examples already provided. After that, the location of attacks at the Talk archives of another article was provided, as well as an instance of where Hrafn referred to me as an "idiot," Dougweller handled the complaint by leaving the following sympathetic message of practical "advice" on Hrafn's Talk page (see here):

You really need to avoid giving anyone a reason to take you to WQA - I've always felt I get a lot further by trying to be as polite as I can (hard at times) and let the others rave oon. It just gives others ammunition against you. Take the high road, see the error of your ways. Not as satisfying at times of course but it will make you a better Wikipedian and I think more productive at what you are trying to do.

As you can see in the message he left for Hrafn, he personally attacked me and the others who were personally attacked by Hrafn by giving him the advice to "let the others rave oon." Merriam-Websters gives the following definitions for "rave":

• "to talk irrationally in or as if in delirium"
• "to speak out wildly"
• "to talk with extreme enthusiasm

Dougweller said that he was talking about himself, but that is a a little hard to believe when you read the whole statement in context.

A quick perusal of the history of Hrafn's Talk page shows a cozy mutually-beneficial relationship between the two on WP. For instance, he warned Hrafn of 3RR not with the threat to block, but with the promise to watch a page for him that Hrafn was about to go past 3RR (see here. Hrafn's response: "Thanks." He also said that he'd hate to see Hrafn get drawn into a 3RR case that he might file against another editor for edit warring (see here). Likewise, on Dougweller's Talk page, Hrafn requested that he add certain accounts to a sockpuppet investigation.

It is also worth noting that the personal attacks on me by Hrafn were all related to articles dealing in some way with intelligent design. Besides the close working relationship in general he has with Hrafn, Dougweller himself also works on articles in the scope of creationism, which in WP includes ID articles.

I request that someone not associated with admin Dougweller take action against him for not disharging his duty to evenhandedly deal with WQA complaints and for personally attacking me to the very editor whose case he handled.

I further request that someone not associated with user Hrafn take action against him for personal attacks as outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Hrafn. When I initially posted at WQA, I would have been satisfied with a strong warning to Hrafn. Now that I see that at least two admins look the other way and talk to him as a good ol' buddy, either praising him for his humor in his attacks against other editors as admin Bishonen did here, or sympathetically giving him practical "advice" as Dougweller did, it indicates that the previous opportunities to strongly warn Hrafn have been passed up. The time for warning is over.

Here's the "warning" message posted by admin Bishonen in regards to an AN/I complaint filed against Hrafn (a weak complaint, but one that included many examples of at least incivility by Hrafn):

Please refrain from being funny on Misplaced Pages. People may spill their coffee all over their keyboards. If you continue to make me laugh, you may be blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Also, in both instances, I ask that admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter.

Thanks. Drrll (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You seriously need to cool down a little. We have this tiny thing called WP:AGF, and we like practicing it. That's what Dougweller did. Just because he didn't whip out the banhammer to help you, it doesn't mean he didn't take you seriously - admins are not there to help you in an editing dispute but to ensure that[REDACTED] is not disrupted and clean up the messes we editors leave. Given that this apparently long standing, and you make only complaints on his talk page behavior (rather than edit warring or vandalism), if what I have said at WQA is insufficient for you, then I think you have no option but to request a WP:MEDCAB mediation, and if that fails, WP:ARBCOM. If they accept your case, however, be sure there is no WP:BOOMERANG issues, an neither the MEDCAB nor ARBCOM like it when something frivolous reaches them. You must show that Hrafn's behavior is harming the ability of Misplaced Pages to be improved. --Cerejota (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I just from my own personal standpoint would argue that Hrafn's behavior is harming Misplaced Pages by making editors like me think twice about sticking around here. My interactions with Hrafn were very similar to those I had with Bello except a little bit less revert and definitely no sock puppetry. He I would argue engages in the exact type of actions that led to this.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This post is TLDR, so I made my own research: Drrll, an editor who appears to be editing in favour of the full scale of American extreme-right biases and beliefs, clashes with Hrafn over Intelligent Design. Drrll reports Hrafn to WQA, accusing him of personal attacks with a number of diffs that prove no such thing when read in context. Drrll is unhappy with the level of support that he or she receives from admins. Shortly after the present report, Viriditas points to what superficially looks like actual, but not ongoing, problematic behaviour by Hrafn in November, at a completely unrelated article.

To go into some detail, Drrll in the first sentence of the present report says: "after such examples of attacks against me as "willfully ignorant" and "fanatic" were provided". The version of this claim at WQA was as follows: "Here he calls me 'willfully ignorant.' Later on, he calls me a 'fanatic' here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ('kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr')."

For "willfully ignorant", the context was as follows: Drrll apparently wanted the biography of an ID supporter to say that anti-darwinists are persecuted, and in that context claimed that the National Center for Science Education, an anti-creationism organisation connected to the AAAS, is not a BLP-quality reliable source for creationist BLPs. Hrafn's comment was in response to a comment by Drrll that ended as follows: "DI may qualify as WP:FRINGE for its positions on science, but it hardly qualifies as extreme. The extremist position in the US is that a God had nothing to do with origins of the universe. I see that you apparently have no intentions of collaborating, taking a 'my way or the highway' approach." At this point, Hrafn's "I see no point in 'collaborating' with wilful ignorance" clearly did not lower the level of the debate, nor was it unprovoked.

As to "fanatic", in the diff Hrafn did not call Drrll a fanatic (although that would have been reasonable, I believe) but quoted Churchill as follows: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." The quotation introduced a satire based on the WP:DEADHORSE theme, which was in response to Drrll's following sentence, which appears to be straight out of the tendentious editing toolbox: "WP:DEADHORSE invocation is a sure sign that instead of refuting my points, you just prefer that I shut up and go away." (As I discovered while writing this, Drrll's comment was in response to my invocation of WP:HORSEMEAT .) Hans Adler 04:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see Ddrrl forgot to mention that my response to him there included "If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead. Right now though I haven't said anything about you although you certainly have said something about me." Or that another editor applauded my advice and called it diplomatic rather than sympathetic (also saying I goofed on something). I can see why Drrll though it referred to him, and perhaps I should have added (not referring to anyone involved in this dispute) and for that carelessness I apologise, but as I said, off-Wiki I've a long record of both trying to take that attitude myself of politeness in the face of both aggression and comments with which I strongly disagree shall we say, and I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote except that the phrasing made it possible for someone to say it was aimed at them (shame about the lack of Good Faith there). And yes, I warned Hrafn of 3RR not with a template but with a friendly warning - at lesat three times in fact. We watch a lot of the same pages. I always try to warn everyone in a dispute no matter what my attitude is towards them, and of course where I'm involved report it rather than act directly. And I don't care who reports possible sock puppets to me, does that really matter? Editors report them to Admins they know, especially if the Admin is involved in an SPI or planning to file one. And when did editors working together in a beneficial relationship become a bad thing? Drrll is calling for 'action' against me - presumably either blocking me or banning me from WQA. Seems a bit drastic and aggressive, although I can see why Drrll would like to have me kept out of any disputes involving him. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot, he asks that "admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter". This is of course not acceptable. Asking me not to use my tools would be fine, this suggestion would clearly help editors who get into content disputes remove some editors who disagree with them. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll's request for administrative action appears to be based on an assumption of bad faith. This dispute is already under discussion at WQA and I've recommended that interested users make use of the user RfC process if they are interested. This report does seem to be an attempt at forum shopping and as there is nothing actionable, it should be closed. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I had every assumption of good faith toward both Hrafn and Dougweller until they took actions that cast severe doubt on that assumption. Even after Dougweller entered the fray at WQA as an admin and focused on not being able to find all of the complaints against Hrafn, as opposed to focusing in on the many examples he could find, I still assumed good faith on his part. It wasn't until he handled the WQA case with his sympathetic message to Hrafn (without even a warning) and attacked me in the message that I started wondering about his intents. I suppose any posting here reveals that the level of trust in good faith has deteriated with the other individuals. I only came here because of the handling of the WQA complaint by an admin (and he encouraged me to come here himself), so the charge of forum shopping is baseless. Drrll (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• At the beginning of this section, I have been mentioned. I understand Drrll's difficulty with Hrafn. For ten days earlier this month, Hrafn and I have been debating a particular WP article. Hrafn seems to ignore WP civility. I try to take his advice and ignore his demeaning attitude. Does Hrafn harm the WP process? He knows the rules. His counsel is almost always correct. The only thing lacking is WP civility. Hrafn demeans those who frustrate him. In our situation, he eventually withdrew from the fray and is taking a break. Such an action is mature and helpful to the process. When Hrafn becomes involved in an article, the article gets better. If an editor can stomach his incivilities, that editor will be stronger for rising above the personal stuff. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly, there is an element of truth in what you say. In the military, for example, a soldier may be molded into a warrior by such a process. Similarly, a law school student might learn how to best present themselves in court through the scolding of a professor. And in the recent past (no longer true today), a medical resident might put in 36 hours on a shift, a training regimen which has its roots in preparing for attending to wounded soldiers during war, which brings us full circle. Stress can improve learning in some respects, whether it is trial by fire or being hit repeatedly with a clue stick. However, these methods are at odds with the goal of encyclopedia writing. This approach hampers collaboration when we should be seeking to encourage it. Civility is not just a policy of Misplaced Pages, it is the fuel for collaboration, and if Hrafn can't bear it, then that problem needs to be addressed. The encyclopedia building process, and writing in general, requires not just self-motivation but the intrinsic freedom to create. Hrafn's role, as you describe it, defeats this process. Again, I recommend closing this thread and letting the WQA run its course. There is nothing actionable for an administrator to do here. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor note - Drrll has reworded one of his posts. It now says "I only came here because of the handling of the WQA complaint by an admin (and he encouraged me to come here himself), so the charge of forum shopping is baseless." What I wrote in his response to him saying "Maybe someone needs to take a looksee at your violations of WP:NPA policy and keep you away from a noticeboard where instead of displaying an interest in enforcing policy, you don't mind engaging in some policy-breaking yourself." was " If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead." I did not suggest he extend it to any other editors or disputesk, which he has done. Nor of course did I break NPA or take any Administrative action, so I think 'handling' is incorrect. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it sure appeared that you were "handling" the complaint. An admin shows up to a WQA complaint, talks about having examined the evidence, and then asks for a clarification about some of the evidence. The editors from whom you requested the clarification respond to your request. What action do you take next? Not responding to their clarification, but instead posting a message on the Talk page of the subject of the complaint. Can you see how that all that looks like administrative "handling" of the complaint? Drrll (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hans, you failed to point out that when I said that you would prefer that I shut up and go away, it is in response to your head-scratchingly unrelated statement "A high-profile international encyclopedia-writing project is not a good place for supporting an essentially US-only anti-science canard." It was so puzzling because it was your first foray into a WP:ORN discussion as to whether "a high-profile international encylopedia-writing project" should be engaging in unsupported original research by saying definitively in WP's voice that intelligent design is a form of "neo-creationism," as opposed to saying that it is viewed that way by certain academics (overwhelmingly by academics without relevant academic specializations). Exasperated at you saying that such a move would result in WP "supporting" ID (assuming it did, a quick perusal of the Intelligent design article hardly shows "support" for it), after having already been exasperated by others not caring about WP policies and guidelines, I said what I did to you. As to your magical divination with certitude about my politics, perhaps compared to your "biases and beliefs" I am "extreme-right." Compared to the views of other Americans, I am firmly planted in the mainstream of politics, with multiple opinion surveys showing a plurality of Americans holding conservative views. Drrll (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can see Doug's point, though. I started looking at Drll's list of Hrafn's "personal attacks", and of the first four I looked at, two were really minor, one wasn't really a PA at all, and one would have been a PA except for the fact that Hrafn was actually quoting another editor (Jim62sch) completely. I stopped looking after that. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, that's exactly the kind of experience that I had as well. There is only so many baseless accusations that I will look at in detail before giving up and deciding that the rest is probably just as baseless. Hans Adler 17:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you three view calling someone "willfully ignorant," a "fanatic," and an "idiot," as "minor," I sure feel sorry for the people who cross your paths in real life. Do you use those kind of "minor" words with friends?. And yes, he did call me and another editor "idiots," and was not "actually quoting another editor (Jim62sch) completely." For the benefit of others reading this thread, I'm going to quote the entire thread between Jim62sch & Hrafn and let the reader decide if Hrafn was or was not calling me that:

Be careful, amigo, Missy is trying to provoke "bad behaviour". Soon, either he or Drll will be screaming "edit war". I'm not sure that Hagel's comments much matter other than to prove that he's a nutter.  :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Nagel since his endorsement of Signature in the Cell. He's basically a philosopher of mind having a hissy fit because scientific empiricism keeps encroaching on his freedom to pontificate on the 'Mysteries of Life™' (shades of the Deep Thought scene from Hitchhikers' Guide). It's difficult to see how any mention of him is merited, let alone expanding it. I don't intend to give them an edit war -- but I certainly don't intend to let their ludicrous claims go unchallenged. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot. But, maybe young and impressionable minds won't.

And yeah, sience is a bitch -- I keep hoping that someone will invent a "transporter" and the the uncertainty principle tells me it can't be done and I too throw a hissy fit. Damn.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't object to idiocy. At least not today. Maybe tomorrow.  :( •Jim62sch

Drrll (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for proving my point - as you can see, Jim62sch was the one who introduced "idiot" into the conversation ("My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot."). I think Cerejota summed the main problems up below. And I think this, and the WQA, can be wrapped up now. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Jim62sch was the one who introduced "idiot" into the conversation." Yes, he did so in reference to Thomas Nagel, as is clear from the above quoted conservation. It was Hrafn who introduced "idiots" into the conversation with regard to WP editors: "if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;)." I don't think Hrafn was concerned that Nagel might break into the WP article, do you?

"I think Cerejota summed the main problems up below": Being an admin, I'd like to know how many of Cerejota's conclusion-jumping accusations you still endorse in light of my response to him below:

• that I want to eliminate opposition via bureaucratic means
• that I exhibit disruptive behavior
• that I am guilty of meatpuppetry
• that I seek to have other editors blocked or banned if they don't get along with me
• that community action is needed against me

"I think this, and the WQA, can be wrapped up now": you are saying this as an admin. The WQA is about Hrafn and this ANI is about Hrafn and Dougweller. Can you say that you are objective in regards to Hrafn and Dougweller? You work a good bit with Dougweller, having posted to his Talk page 14 times in the past year, including 4 times in just the past 4 days. You also seem to know Hrafn pretty well, since you here added a section to his Talk page titled "Your favourite editor," in which you encourage him to get involved in an AfD discussion. Drrll (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as further exploration of all the allegations show strong disagreements but no NPAs. Drrll seems to be seeking to advance his or her position by eliminating effective opposition via bureaucratic means. Hrafn needs to tone it down a little, and give a little less of a fuck but as I said in the WQA, there has not been a single diff given that shows any personal attacks, or shows any pervasive edit warring, and as such, no admin action is needed.

I think WP:BOOMERANG applies. An examination of this discussion and the one at WQA , and of Drrll's editing behavior shows a worrying pattern of disruptive behavior and the meatpuppetry and pile-on of empty accusations (including attacking an admin who has not misused his tools of wrongdoing) are worrying too. Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki? Perhaps I am over reacting, but I think the idea that we all need to get along and if we don't we need to be blocked or banned is very dangerous, and we need to make sure it is understood that assuming good faith is not optional. --Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, you jump to an awful lot of conclusions about my behavior without evidence. WP:NPA, in answering the question "What is considered to be a personal attack?," includes the following: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

If I wanted to "eliminat effective opposition via bureaucratic means" I would have taking action 3 long months ago when Hrafn called me "willfully ignorant," instead of simply leaving that article for a long time. I had several additional opportunities to take action later with Hrafn's additional personal attacks, such as he calling me an "idiot" and a "fanatic," but I didn't. It wasn't until he personally attacked me in a very public venue that I decided it was time to act. And did I go straight to ANI with the list of various things he said about me? No, I went to WP:WQA where at the top of the page it specifically says, "Avoid intiating a request if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." I was looking for a strong warning for Hrafn. It's just one of the many baseless accusations you throw out there.

Others you throw out there include that I'm exhibiting "disruptive behavior," and worse yet that I am guilty of "meatpuppetry." Where's your evidence? According to WP:MEAT, "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages's civility policy." Yet another is that I am seek to have other editors "blocked or banned" if they don't get along with me. Where's your evidence? Explain how that throwing out all these baseless accusations against me is "assuming good faith" on your part.

This is the sixth time you've invoked WP:BOOMERANG to me in a 24-hour period. Do you have a particular fascination with that essay, or should I see your repeated reference to it as a threat?

As you say, "Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki?" Drrll (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I archived the above thread in which I did not participate because, as indicated, no administrative action was required. Drrll (talk · contribs) proceeded to challenge that closure on my talk page, accusing me of bias, and continued to make personal attacks concerning Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In normal circumstances, persistent personal attacks of that kind would result in restrictions on editing privileges. Please see WP:HORSE. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All this started out with repeated and increasingly public personal attacks against me by editor Hrafn as detailed at WP:WQA and above. When admin Dougweller gave all appearances of handling the WQA complaint, I noticed that after making one remark at WQA (a request for more information), he proceeded to leave a message at the Talk page of the subject of the WQA complaint. That message was not a warning of any type, but a friendly piece of "advice." In that advice, he advised Hrafn to let the others "rave on." Due to his handling of the WQA complaint, his characterization to Hrafn of his critics as "rav on," and Dougweller's own request at WQA, I filed a complaint against Hrafn & Dougweller on ANI. Not long into the ANI thread, editor Cerejota made a number of personal attacks against me, charging me with all sorts of bad behavior, but without evidence. Then admin Black Kite endorsed Cerejota's accusations at the ANI. Lastly, non-admin Mathsci took it upon himself to close the thread on the Administrator's noticeboard. Instead of immediately reverting as I had the right to do, I attempted to find out from Mathsci why he took the action he did, as you can see at his Talk page. When he gave no applicable justification for his action, told me he had nothing else to add, and told me not to post any longer on his Talk page, I then reverted his action as a non-admin reverting another non-admin. Instead of discussing it further before reverting me, he just preceded to revert and say that I was engaging in personal attacks, despite questions about WP:UNINVOLVED policy in regards to Dougweller, Black Kite, and Mathsci (if he is actually granted admin privileges). As you can see, I decided not to participate in his edit war. Drrll (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Threads here are not necessarily closed by administrators, particularly if they involve forum-shopping and WP:LAME arguments per WP:STICK. Nobody has agreed with your "assessment" of Dougweller, so please could you just drop this matter? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairly Ducky socking editing disruptively

Ieodoiskorean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a rather unconvincing bid to add "Russia" to list of countries where Korean is spoken. It's neither an official language, nor spoken by any significant percentage of the population. He basically immediately stopped editing after that. Today I noticed Travelguidewi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) show up and re-add russia to the list, with obviously and intentionally misleading editing summaries., I'm not sure what the obsession is. But I suspect that a CU would give us rather obvious results, and this kind of intentionally disruptive editing just isn't helpful in the slightest.--Crossmr (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin observation I haven't looked at all his edits, but that one is fairly reasonable, with or without WP:RS "The Association of Koreans of Russia hopes to resettle more than 150,000 Koreans in Primorskiy Kray by 1998.12 This plan ... the population of Koreans in Primorskiy Kray with the goal of setting up an autonomous Korean autonomous zone." It's a sore point with Koreans in Russia that Stalin resettled them to muslim Central Asia and denied them an autonomous zone where they were, happily nestled next to their Korean speaking relatives in Yanbian and the Rajin area. How many of them preserved the language I can't say, but I don't think a decision by Stalin is a good reason for not listing Korean as an language spoken in the CIS, since it is, here and there. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (what is Fairly Ducky?)

150,000 people out of Russia's population is not significant really. We don't list countries there unless the language is official or significant. Otherwise, we might as well list most countries in the world as almost every country in the world has some Koreans living in it. There has to be a threshold for inclusion in that list and 0.07% is unlikely to be it. Fairly Ducky refers to WP:DUCK, it appears to be fairly obvious that Travelguidewi is ieodiskorean. As he's a brand new account and his first edits were to that dispute and he edited it in a misleading and disruptive manner.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd Non-admin observation Crossmr Thanks for the explanation of what Duck means, I suppose that should have been obvious. Well, on the assumption that sockpuppetry is innocent until proven guilty I have notified Ieodoiskorean, as you had already notified Travelguidewi. But I can't say I think it's spectacularly significant that two Korean editors would both want Korean included as one of the languages of the CIS. (Though something totally unrelated, is whether the user name "Socotra Rock is Korean" is appropriate as a Misplaced Pages user name given that China also claims the rock?) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not always the assumption, it is why we have WP:DUCK and in fact Check users will refuse to run checks in obvious cases. The behaviour itself is enough proof. It would be much less clear if Travelguidewi was an established account, but their first edits to that make it very obvious, not to mention they intentionally used false edit summaries to hide what they were doing.--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer WP:DUCK situation. The edit summaries have the same weird style to them, and the editor is trying to push the same changes. I've blocked the new account as a sockpuppet and warned Ieodoiskorean. -- Atama頭 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently disruptive socking is going to become a thing for him. Another misleading (empty) edit summary marked as minor by Coldorangeplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We may need a CU to get the IP address and block that.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest one blocked also, and I blocked the master since this last sock was created after a warning. -- Atama頭 06:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment, Crossmr, okay I to have admit you were right - in this case presumption of innocence wasn't deserved; now very clearly sockpuppetry. Though ironically if the puppeteer had only spent 10 min researching he/she could have easily found a suitable WP:RS to support the edit he/she wanted to make.... Go figure. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen an RS that Korea is spoken in Russia, that's not the contention. The contention is whether or not Korean is spoken in Russia to a degree enough to warrant its inclusion in the infobox. % wise, I don't think it's there, and I haven't seen any RS that would indicate that it's an official language anywhere in Russia. Heck there are more Koreans in Canada, and with a lot of them being recent immigrants and students, they mostly speak Korean, and Canada is a much smaller country.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hanjinprotest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it continues, I'd suggest a page protection for the time being as well--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy. And now the sockpuppet is admitting to being a sockpuppet and swearing to continue creating accounts. Due to the persistence of this person I'm going to semi-protect that article for a week. If after the semi-protection expires, the editor returns again with another account, I'll semi-protect again for longer, and keep doing that until they give up. -- Atama頭 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2  Possible socks worth keeping an eye on: Poemshappygreat (talk · contribs), Dosamasala (talk · contribs) (note the edit summaries). Unfortunately, they are editing on what seems to be very broad ranges so IPBlock is not an option. -- Luk 16:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, are all the accounts on a very wide range, or is it just including these two that make it a wide range? But it does seem both of those counts are probably related. These accounts were created before he tried to disrupt the Korean language article though, which tells me he may have already been blocked for something. Most people don't start socking until they run into trouble--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Checkuser so I have no idea, I've been blocking on clear behavioral evidence. I will point out that Ieodoiskorean wasn't blocked when Travelguidewi began editing the article. One of the many reasons for creating a sockpuppet is to create the illusion of support, for example, if you're trying to insert something into an article and get reverted, you can create a second account to do it, and now it looks like consensus favors inclusion. It can also be done to get around 3RR, but in this case with edits being days apart I don't think that was the motive. I really don't know what the deal is. It might be worth actually creating a report at WP:SPI so that other sleepers from this editor can be found. All of the accounts have edited recently so there should be plenty of info for Checkusers to compare. -- Atama頭 22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

LikeLakers2 - Harassment and persistent WP:TPO vio

Greetings all - this was to start out as a simple WP:TPO issue, but has now blossomed into WP:HARASSMENT and I am afraid I am going to need some intervention here. The first three (TPO1 TPO2 TPO3) "appeared" innocent enough, and the user was advised of WP:TPO here. He then removed my entries on another users talk page TPO4 and TPO5, the 2nd of which was restored by another editor here. He then proceeded to insert his opinions in a discussion on my talk page as a 3rd party, was told to stop, but he persisted. I removed his last comment, which he restored (TPO6). He also continued to ignore my request for him to stop posting to my talk page. Once I removed those (1 2), he still kept posting. I then removed that, which he of course reverted again (TPO7). I am sure that by the time I am done submitting this there will be more to add. As the bulk of this is happening on my own talk page, this has clearly become a harassment issue. Why he took it upon himself to insert his comments as a 3rd party to 2 discussions on it is not known - however it is also completely irrelevant. The scope of this complaint is the TPO vios and their evolution into harassment. My talk page is not the place for him to violate TPO just to try and make a WP:POINT. I look forward to this rampant behaviour of his to stop, and quickly cease the endless violations of WP:TPO. Thanks for your time. Srobak (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does appear both of you are in the wrong here. His edits at the IP's talk page are not TPO violations; your edits at the IP's talk page are TPO violations, however. LikeLakers2 was warned not to engage again at the help desk. He has not edited since. Let's hope he sees that notice and does disengage. You, too, need to disengage from the situation. You both need to stop running around with Twinkle, reverting each other as "vandalism," giving each other warnings, and threatening to go to AIV. either way (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Understand I am not arguing with you on your points - but I want to clarify that 5 of his 7 TPOs were on my talk page, and he was told to stop engaging long before the helpdesk notif. Your claim of my having violated TPO is under dispute (dynamic anonips having "owners") and will be RFC'ed shortly - and is outside the scope of this ANI request. Even if you remove those, we still have 5x TPO vios that stand on their own and the harassment issue. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that I shouldn't have done that now, I am somewhat scared to even edit Misplaced Pages, let alone reply to this. This is mainly due to the response I got at the Help desk after simply asking for advice.

I was going to put a way longer post, but after seeing what Either way said, I am not sure I want to do so, as I don't want to cause more conflict. I can, however, post my original post text if requested. As I said, I just don't want to cause more of a conflict by doing so here, really. Sorry about the misunderstanding, Srobak. LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Srobak, I found your personal attacks warning to be completely inappropriate. There is not a single personal attack in this edit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't think an anonuser combing through my edits and contacting users who I have warned in the past and lobbying them to lodge complaints against me to be the very epitome of a personal attack? That's unfortunate and I disagree with you - but I will respect your opinion. Srobak (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe you are in the fault here. You clearly instigated this problem by violating WP:BLANKING and WP:DRC. The only messages that an IP cannot remove from their own talk page are messages that it is a shared IP. This entire problem would have been avoided if you had a correct interpretation of WP:Blanking. One final point, I think both users should be trouted for edit warring over an IP's warning. When I was a child, and I would fight with my sister, my mom would always remind one of us to "be the bigger person" and stop. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would accept all trouts, hence the {{troutme}} template on my userpage. (well, on my header templates page, but you get the idea) Also, assuming you meant to put "WP:Blanking" as the link instead of "WP:Blankingn", I have fixed your link for you, Ryan Vesey. (Feel free to put it back if you intended to have the n at the end) LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the change, and was actually making it myself when we edit conflicted. Considering the current discussion, I don't think it was the best move you could've made though Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have left a warning on LikeLakers2's talk page for his behavior at the talk page of Srobak. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't have escalated to this point had User:Srobak just got the point about anon IPs from the beginning and not caused this entire issue.--v/r - TP 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A point which I believe to be up to interpretation and debate and will be bringing to the foreground with an RFC in very short order, once I get all the T's dotted and the I's crossed. The non-removal of anonblock notices sets a great precedent to get the rest of this situation resolved. However - again... that is not the scope of this ANI. I already said above to nix the 2 TPO's on the other users page and to focus on the 5 on mine - which stand on their own as WP:TPO vios. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is how it got started. 76.190.196.103 makes a perhaps misguided but good faith edit to Kenosha Maroons. Srobak "neutrally" reverts it but then decides it's "vandalism" and leaves a 76.190.196.103 a "final warning". Srobak, please answer honestly. Was your decision to use the "vandalism warning" tag based on you seeing all those other warnings on his talk page? Would you have warned me if I had made that edit? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact - yes, that is exactly why it got the warning it did. The IP has a long, demonstrated history of vandalism edits, as well as warns and blocks to go with it, and should have been blocked from editing with unregistered accounts ages ago. No, I would not have issued you a lv-4im had you done the same edit... but likely lv-1 noting non-constructive/not-relevant. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're demonstrating a startling lack of understanding of what vandalism is and is not. Giving a final warning for such an obviously good-faith edit is simply egregious. Even a level 1 warning would have been inappropriate. Note that the use of the term "unconstructive" in the warning template is to prevent biting the newcomers, not to justify its use in every situation where an imperfect edit has been made. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't an imperfect edit - but clearly WP:COMMENTARY and an WP:OPINION piece. Srobak (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have calmed down a lot since this morning. I guess coding templates, like I did here, is probably what I should do from now on when I get mad/scared/etc. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again... just happened to notice this one from late yesterday where he replaced a page owners content with his own, and went to so far as to indicate in his edit summary that the page owner cannot remove other people's comments from their own talk page: TPO8. C'mon now - that's over the top. He has also recently edited actual user pages - not just the talk pages: (UP1), (UP2). Srobak (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have extended the warning on his talk page. I suggest that you both disengage and allow the issue to die. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would... but it continues still... TPO9, UP3, TPO10 Srobak (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have commented on it here, but my phone's Opera Mini browser decided to put the char limit at 12060 when that was the ammount of chars already on this section. Anyway, see here for my response. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't clear on my first three notices to him to stop posting on my page... *SIGH* <---- What does it take? Srobak (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you stopped posting warning templates on his talkpage . Seriously, it seems to me you are just trying to make things worse by doing that. Have you truly learned nothing from this ANI discussion? Yoenit (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to look at timestamps and think about the order in which things occurred, and also understand the root problem here. Srobak (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see two problems: one is Likelakers2 editing stuff he should not edit such as Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 13, but the second one is you reverting his edits "as vandalism" and slapping warning templates on his talkpage as I linked above. Yoenit (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As you can see in the links you provided - I reverted his 3rd party edit to another users talk page, and issued him 2 separate TPO warnings, as they occurred long after being warned TWICE by Ryan Vesey to stop. Those are the incidents I reported above (TPO9 and TPO10). Why is this not making sense to you? He has also been told and warned escalatingly to stop posting to my talk page, yet he continues to ignore it and keeps on posting. Those are the only things that have been reverted as vandalism - because it is. Srobak (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

Since this is getting nowhere and is just a collection of tattling on each other and bad feelings, can we come up with a solution? I think we need an interaction ban between Srobak and LikeLakers2. They should not comment on each other's actions, revert each other's edits, or edit each other's talk pages. Thoughts? either way (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will voluntarily stop interaction with him on my own - so no need to worry there. Sure hope you guys consider banning his constant TPO's of other users however... that is the root of the issue here, and is what needs a solution. If steps aren't taken to curb this kind of stuff, then why even bother having WP:TPO and WP:ANI? Srobak (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And there you go...you said "I'll stop" and then the first thing you do is comment on his actions. Drop it. Desist from commenting on, looking at, or thinking about the actions of LikeLakers2. Your actions are "the root of the issue" here as well. And they, too, need a solution, which is the interaction ban. This wouldn't be the "big deal" it was if it wasn't for your behaviour as well (labeling his reverts as vandalism...flouting policies inappropriately...hostile engagement, etc.). either way (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... the TPO vios stand on their own and have nothing to do with my behaviour. It appears that some folks operating in an administrative capacity is about as useless as even having policies like TPO. Why frakkin bother with either one? What a waste of keystrokes. I come here for resolution and instead get ignorance. Have fun y'all. Srobak (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he does that. I will also voluntarily stop interacting with him. I assume removing his comments from my talk page would be the only exception to the cannot revert each others edits, though? And Srobak, I was trying to be nice with that ANI response on your talk page. First off, it is NOT vandalism in any sense of the word. Second, your custom message near the end seemed to have a rude tone of voice. Please stop, Srobak. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneak editing by User:JASpencer

On List of Freemasons, JASpencer added an entry on Jonathan Rees today, because Rees was involved with the World News phone hacking scandal. He then immediately reverted it (as the diff shows). This wouldn't be a problem, except he did the same thing with Anders Breivik. In both cases, the edits were made before RS sources established membership, and in Rees' case, JA is using an opinion piece, which is not appropriate per the guidelines for adding listings (we require a RS to establish Lodge, at the very least). It is not appropriate for JASpencer to be making POV edits (he has a history of anti-Masonic POV, largely as the result of his own religious beliefs) and then reverting them, as he is clearly just trying to hide them in the revision history for some reason.

We in the article have never tried to block members from being listed, good or bad, but when it is done to cast aspersion on both subject(s) by claiming membership based on rumor and also by associating individual criminality with the Fraternity at large (as if to say Masonry is "bad" because of one bad member out of hundreds of thousands or that Masonry somehow had something to do with it) is POV and violates BLP.

I would note that JA has never made a non-critical edit wrt Freemasonry-related articles, and the fact that it was done twice pushes this beyond a content dispute (which there isn't, because it was reverted, but if it was reverted, why was it put there in the first place?) - this is now an inappropriate editing pattern bordering on sneak vandalism, and an admin needs to intervene to stop the pattern from continuing. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I discovered this diff, where JA removed a prod from an article he created, thus violating the prod policy, and subverting the process as a result. That article had been one sentence for four years (with one initial edit by JA) until it was prodded for dicdef, and it still remains one sentence today, over a month after the prod was removed by JASpencer. So perhaps a wider inquiry needs to be made into JA's editing rather than just what is Freemasonry-related. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Article creators are allowed to remove prods from their articles. They can't remove speedy deletion templates from articles that they created. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. First part of the statement still stands. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This would put it back into a content dispute. Try talking it out and educating, then try the dispute resolution process. Phearson (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As some of the vetrerans here may recall thave been differences between myself and MSJapan that go back years (in brief, he's a Freemason, I'm a Catholic, and erm that's it). Every now and again he tries to get Administrators to act like Kindergarten Cops and get me banned or disciplined.

On this case: The reason I took out both people after putting them in was that I didn't want the grief. The Brevik one was going to go in at some time any way (although MSJapan was against even listing him, he says he didn't block it so I'll take him at his word). Jonathan Rees was a different case as the sources (two articles in the Guardian and a reference to a parliamentary debate in The Independent) were going to go through strong RS challenges. Yes it would get included in the end but I've got better things to do with my life than this.

I really think that it is better to simply talk about these things, assume good faith, ask what on earth someone's doing if there seems to be an odd pattern and only if that doesn't work to go to ANI.

It really would have saved so much time. And I'm sorry to have wasted yours.

JASpencer (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested CSD G12 of Restitution (theology) it is an unambigous copyvio. I have no idea why it was proded instead of G12's, it is verbatim from source.--Cerejota (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably didn't use that because it was the Catholic Encyclopedia and so it is out of copyright. JASpencer (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the copyright of the bottom of the webpage. Apologies. However, we are not a dictionary, the article should probably be merged into another relevant article that provides context.--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Agathoclea

Hi everyone. User:Agathoclea reverted my deletion of Islamnager, which I had deleted under WP:CSD#G5, as a page created by banned user User:Bogdan Nagachop in violation of their ban. However, after a somewhat lengthy discussion with User:Agathoclea, it seems we have failed to reach an agreement. I ask that the community review my deletion and Agathoclea's restoration of that page, and take action as necessary. Thanks, FASTILY 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have yesterday restored an edit by a banned user (whose continued ban I recently endorsed myself I might add) as I would have repeated excactly the same edit becoming aware of its need (long story with articles at wrong titles and ambigous titles) The deleting admin was fully correct to delete the edit unchecked because the burden of checking every edit and article creation of a banned user for its validity is too much to ask. On the other hand the the banning policy explictly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. Speedy G5 was created as it is impossible to revert fresh articles as there is no other version to revert to. I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of[REDACTED] since its inception. I felt that this restoration would be the equivalent to restoring an individual edit as useful in a page history when it was originally correctly mass reverted. Just that In new article creations this option is technically not given. The artice (or redirect) is Islamnager the discussion sofar is at User talk:Fastily#Islamnager where I informed the admin and he disagreed. I have deleted the redirect pending this discussion if banning policy trumps copyright attribution. Agathoclea (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) I have a couple of comments:

• On the other hand the the banning policy explicitly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. -- This statement is wholly supported here.
• I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of[REDACTED] since its inception. -- This seems to be inconsistent with WP:OWN. Considering that the user was banned, the fact that the user was considered largely disruptive to the project overshadows any concern that their work might not be attributed to them properly. Recreating their material isn't claiming ownership, because no one owns the article content. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't really the correct venue for this discussion - that would be DRV, but were this here I would be prepared to bet that the outcome would be to leave things as they are as the deletion was obviously correct but any user is allowed to restore a G5 deleted edit if they are prepared to take responsibility for the edit in question. Undelete/recreate? Honestly, we need to waste anytime discussing this? Fastily you need to get a sense of proportion... Spartaz 09:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Spartaz is right about the best course to follow, but I am unsure about what to do with respect to attribution in cases like this. Misplaced Pages respects everybody's copyright, even the copyright of banned or disruptive users. If the same words are used in the recreated article, there needs to be some way of attributing them. (A possible solution is to rewrite completely, but it sometimes happens that t that banned editor did so good a job of it that this would seem pointless. Anyway, using such a source for a rewriter and not acknowledging it somehow amounts to plagiarism. I absolutely do not want to encourage banned editors to contribute, but the observance of copyright is a legal requirement and a Misplaced Pages principle that far outweighs any considerations of our local rules for dealing with editors. We can IAR -- but we cannot Ignore copyright law. Spartaz, any suggestions? ` DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. :) There's no copyright issue here that I can see, since what was restored was a redirect and that's all it ever was. There's no creativity in #REDIRECT ]. Attribution is only required for content creative enough to warrant copyright. I fail to see how this would even be an issue of plagiarism. :/ If we want a redirect, it takes almost as little effort to create a new one as to restore an old. --Moonriddengirl 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

O was asking in general, about our practice of deleting articles by a banned user & re-creating them if another user wants to adopt them DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just curious what is the right procedure for this. This user has made 1 edit, and it was vandalism.

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

Not to assume too much here, but this doesn't seem like they're going to become a productive Wikipedian.

Thanks for any advice. -- Avanu (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of one edit? Give them the appropriate warning and put them on your watchlist, that would seem sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a welcome and a warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Use a cn tag on the first day, then remove all on the second day, using the 24 hrs to come up with a suitably wry reason your own research failed. :) Penyulap _talk 06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jenakarthik

Even after several notifications, this user is continuing to run a bot under his user account to create new article stubs without proper approval. He had started request for bot approval, but has not provided the function details nor has answered the questions that have been raised. The articles are one-line stubs that use unreliable sources as reference. I would like to request that his AWB access be revoked immediately. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that he is not on the approved user list for AWB. Is blocking an option? — Ganeshk (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he is using AWB? I don't see an AWB tag on his edits. See, for example, this edit from another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just confirmed that he is not using AWB. He is not listed on the AWB approval page. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply everyone, First of all i need to say that the articles i was creating yesterday got nothing to do with my BOT request. These are different and i just created only 27 for the whole day.i was just organising some articles that was created by some one and at that time i created a few with perfect references and sources.i think the admins can understand the situation.--Jenakarthik (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable edits to kana articles

For your perusal: these IP edits, all allegedly adding trivia and extraneous examples to articles such as Ro (kana). I can't verify this, though I can say that the edits and editing behavior (no edit summaries, etc) look suspicious. But I don't want to roll them back en masse without being more sure. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor has made absolutely no effort to respond on his talk page to the concerns, and summarilly reverted all of my edits without an edit summary. The fact is, these pages contain a large number of links that are completely inappropriate, and the editor has made no effort to address the concerns that my edits corrected. I will be reverting those contributions, but will not do so again. I'm not going to get in an edit war, but someone needs to keep an eye on him. VanIsaac_WS 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And it's happened again. Ki (kana) O (kana) I (kana) and Ka (kana) were reverted without edit summaries or comment on the user's talk page. I'm going to ask for a short ( < 3 day) topic ban be imposed on User:98.237.20.196 until the editor answers for their reversions without edit summary. VanIsaac_WS 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

PS, I am voluntarilly abstaining from reversions to avoid an edit war, but I would appreciate a neutral observer taking a look at the changes and making an impartial determination on the matter and commenting at User talk:98.237.20.196 and my own talk page. VanIsaac_WS

The edits are entirely unnecessary and unhelpful in the articles. I have restord every single kana page to a place they were some time earlier this year or late last year. And topic banning an IP is pointless. The IP should just be blocked and prevented from screwing up these pages with unnecessary video game references and nonsense words that had no place on the articles to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I reported the IP to AIV and User:Ronhjones blocked the IP for 31 hours. I have notified him of this thread to see if he has opinions on further actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account of blocked user?

Some admin should take a look into that .TMCk (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a RoyPack (talk · contribs) and a Roypack (talk · contribs), both of which are clearly the same person, but the latter could be abandoned. This Upload, which lacks any licensing, is still concerning, and while I would be inclined to AGF and see if he would improve, but I'm afraid this is not the case. –MuZemike 21:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has been consistently uploading others' work as his own on both Misplaced Pages and the Commons -- including, just now, a photo to Misplaced Pages that was already marked and deleted from Commons. This user has also adopted the odd habit of trying to re-add the deleted images to articles. IFCAR (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama insisting on less reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection for List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992

Can an admin please add protection for List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992 to allow edits for only auto confirmed users? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:RFPP? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I get it. You're a meatpuppet and anti-Adams blogger. I'm sure you and a few others will be in trouble eventually. 12.184.15.242 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a very serious allegation. Care to provide any evidence? Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

According to those who reviewed you and asked that you be banned from editing her articles any further, you referred to her as a "twat" (clearly you are probably upset that you don't know her personally) and seem to be obsessed with her in your hundreds of edits. Care to seek some mental help? 12.184.15.242 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

12.184.15.242, if you continue to use personal attacks such as these I will block you. Stop.

I've also left a message about the content dispute itself at Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1992, specifically giving the ref previously used for a paragraph which included some of the information the IP is adding. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The part about Fasttime calling her a "tw*t" is apparently true, and the rest is a bit snippy but is a reasonable conclusion to draw. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only 1 IP adding the unsourced info at this point (the 12.184...above); I've issued a 3RR warning. If they revert again, that IP can be blocked; if the user switches IPs, then we can protect the page. As a side note, unless the issue is really critically time-sensitive, WP:RFPP is a better place to request page protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me where to go. One can learn a lot from this page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gimmetoo

Hi all. I flagged tagged three files: File:Tram on the corner of Pitt and Park St, 1950.jpg, File:Trams on George St, 1929.jpg, and File:Bayswater Road Kings Cross in 1929.jpg as missing verifiable source information. Shortly afterwards, Gimmetoo removed the tags I had applied, claiming that the images were available online in the edit summary of this edit (and similarily at here and here). When I visited those links, for whatever reason, I simply could not find the images in question. I undid Gimmetoo's tag removals: , , , requesting that he add the source information himself. Gimmetoo responded by reverting and leaving a rude message on my talk page. In the exchange that followed, in which I tried to explain why I applied the tags, Gimmetoo responded with trolling, personal attacks, and more rude comments. I don't have the patience to deal with this user anymore. By starting this thread, I'm hoping two things can be achieved: 1) That someone can locate the sources of the above-mentioned files and link them to the file description pages accordingly, and that 2) Gimmetoo is reminded that tenacious editing and disruptive behavior are not appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, I'm looking for an indication that you notified Gimmetoo. Have you done so? I'm not seeing it in your contribution history. --After Midnight 02:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done now. I had it open in another tab, but I guess I never clicked save. -FASTILY 02:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no trouble finding the images using the instructions provided by Gimmetoo in the edit histories of the images. I added the instructions to the image page as directions to the source and removed the no source tags. This could have been easily done by either Gimmetoo or Fastily if either had been willing to give a bit on their firmly held principles about what each very experienced editor firmly believed is required for source info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nor did I. It took me exactly 15 seconds to get to the picture. Gimmetoo's instructions were precise, and I see no "trolling" at all on the talk page. Also Fastily, since you are evidently not aware, there are some archival sources that do not assign permanent URLs to their images, so asking for a direct link is impossible. The Glenbow Museum Archives in Calgary are another such example. There was no need for this to end up here. Resolute 03:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Conduct of User:Screwball23

• Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has engaged in edit warring, personal attacks, and disruptive walls of text on the above article in regards to the inclusion of the (now withdrawn) candidate Jonathan Sharkey. While the user has certainly made many useful contributions to the page, and has sometimes engaged constructively on the discussion page, there are many instances where the user's comments have been inflammatory and have not helped develop consensus:

• --This is bullshit. Nowhere, ever, anywhere, in any history book, encyclopedia, anywhere else would this happen. ; Saturn is absolutely bonkers if he thinks that the fact that 4 candidates worked for Fox News was "irrelevant" while he wasted days, weeks of his life to edit war me on some candidate like this. People who read this article years from now will not learn history from Sharkey's candidacy.
• --You're full of shit and you know it.
• --I want the admins who completely blocked this page to look at its history and the talk page to see the facts. I've added valuable info. All Saturn has done has been editwar and display ownership to anyone who stood between him and Sharkey

My involvement in this has been to attempt to resolve conflict. I asked the editor to avoid personal attacks as they are unhelpful to the discussion () and warned the editor on their talk page (). The editor later added a general tirade/wall of text onto the Republican primary article talk page (, ). Although the editor has definitely improved the article, the editor also seems to be complaining about the wrong version, making personal attacks against editors, and has repeatedly engaged in edit warring. I'd like the community to discuss the possibility of issuing a strong warning to the editor (though many regarding 3RR and one about personal attacks have been given already),a topic ban, or some other alternative. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 02:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note that he also claims to have been removing stuff per consensus, while no consensus had yet been reached, and the motions for consensus had been moving toward just removing a picture, not deleting everything about a candidate. Thunderstone99 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• This has been incredibly sad. I supported his idea to remove Sharkey from the start. But then he decided to become a bully. A month ago, he ad a clean talk page, and now its a rap sheet, basically a full criminal record. It's troubling watching an otherwise smart, thoughtful user turn into a disgraceful vandal. I fear that if he's blocked, the attacks would continue. It is troubling to see a veteran user act like this. It's almost like his account's been hacked. SOXROX (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I endorse your view on account being hacked. He filed a time-wasting SPI page (now deleted) and listed an account name which does not exist (plus the non-existent account name is identical to an existing account listed in that SPI investigation page without the "User:" prefix in front). We were laughing that according to Screwball's evidence, this user is his/her own sockpuppet. Ok, seriously, someone with a 5 year editing record should have no problem determining if an account exists or not before listing it and asking for checkuser. OhanaUnited 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution is easy. Develop clear and unambiguous rules. It sounds like those are currently being developed.

• Major Candidates (meaning those who have filed with the FEC and participated in at least 1 debate)
• Other Candidates (meaning those who have filed with the FEC and not participated in a debate)
• Speculative (other people that seem to be newsworthy or notable)

Lack of clear rules leads to disruptive behavior as people try to hash things out and get frustrated. -- Avanu (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, I can see the discussion here. I'm going to take a voluntary leave until September 6th. I firmly believe in everything I say, and that's why my additions to the page have been valuable and thoughtful. I don't want people reading this page in 10 yrs learning garbage and following an indiscriminate load of debate dates, speculated candidates, non-running candidates, etc. I want to leave positive contributions, and I have. However, the talk page discussion has really detracted the page and myself from more productive edits. I'm smart enough to see from this discussion that it would help if I let it be. I think SoxRox, Kessy, and Thunderstone are doing a good job, and I trust them to reach a healthy and reasoned compromise.

I give admins permission to enforce that leave of absence on my editing account, since I don't know how to do it. I am not guilty of anything except telling the truth, but I could have used better words. I am genuinely concerned about the presence of speculation and trivia on the page, and I will take time to simply focus on other things for the week. I can't believe I let myself engage in such a long discussion with an editor so incompetent and over a candidate so minor. I stand by everything I said and I firmly believe the priorities that exist on the page should be focused on history. Moving forward, I am optimistic about the productive and lively discussion that has emerged on the talk page as of late and I hope to see some sense will be taken in the direction of this page. If a solid criteria on candidates is announced, which I am confident will happen, I would agree to follow the criteria. I will not, however, sacrifice the historical integrity of this page to William Saturn, who said Fox News was irrelevant to this page, and more than happy to delete that info in the heat of his editwarring for Sharkey.--Screwball23 talk 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this edit violate restrictions against canvassing? Difluoroethene (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what can you do now, except say "don't do that again"? -- Avanu (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I endorse a topic ban. I think that him not participating in this debate again would probably be beneficial for all parties involved. Screwball, I'm sorry, but you've gone too far. SOXROX (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I support liberal use of topic bans from this presidential primaries, 2012 area. Clearly there is going to be a lot of partisan disruption and COI editing here and previous elections and primaries have suffered high levels of disruption. A warning to User:Screwball23 (and to all other users wanting to contribute in the topic area) that after a warning, a continued disruptive partisan editing pattern in the topic area will result in a topic ban will likely be enough in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion on this matter that a full out topic ban is not the way to go. Yes, Screwball has made some questionable remarks, however his additions to the article when not edit warring have been productive and constructive. Is it possible to impose a more narrow topic ban, or even call it a section ban, where Screwball cannot edit areas talking about candidates in the US Presidential Election 2012 articles, but can add information as he has been in other areas? Kessy628 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid and civility

Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs) is once again having civility issues at at the talk page of Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yet another Seventh Day Adventist article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid does not appreciate being attacked when he tries to follow WP:BRD and when editors with open negative biases are ignored and other editors in opposition to the negative attacked.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It takes a very selective reading to say that Raeky has a negative bias. All he seems to have said is that he used to be an Adventist. This doesn't mean anything, in and of itself. I used to play Magic: The Gathering, and just because I don't any more doesn't mean anything. Please stop commenting on contributors and focus on content, Fountainviewkid. lifebaka++ 03:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Lifebaka my point wasn't about his being an "ex" so much as his accusation of Seventh-day Adventism as WP:FRINGE which is certainly a controversial assertion. Nevertheless I will try to keep away from him as a contributor, a task that hasn't become easier now that I am not only one in the accusations "game".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Raeky actually stated, "So I'm probably not 100% impartial as well." Assuming a bias doesn't require selective reading at all, it can be based off of a direct statement. However, that is the kind of admission I'd rather not see turned against an editor. I'd rather that we encourage editors to self-disclose when they feel that they might have a personal bias on a subject and not penalize them for doing so. -- Atama頭 06:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add that my statement that I'm not completely unbiased was to state that by attending there (which was only part of one semester) that my personal knowledge of the school would be potentially biased in some direction, as opposed to an editor who has never heard of or doesn't know anything about SAU. I didn't have a bad experience there nor do I have any animosity or grudge against the school, which I have also stated. — raekyt 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again my main dislike/negative reaction was to the WP:FRINGE label. I connected the entire statement made into an idea that to me made it appear as if the other editor were entering with a strong anti SAU/SDA bias. I'm glad to see a clarification and hopefully we can work collaboratively (by working towards rather than assuming consensus) in the future.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Being within the religion it's hard to see but SDA beliefs are certainly fringe to Christianity as a whole, which is all I was saying. — raekyt 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, a claim that has not be verified. As Donald correctly noted it depends on which SDA beliefs one is discussing. On health, salvation, and the role of the church SDA's are like any other denomination. In fact they are even classified by many as Evangelicals. The only real WP:FRINGE beliefs are Sabbath, Sanctuary, and eschatological views, though I might add that the later is in various forms within other Evangelical groups. I would suggest that Rakey not focus on the background of the commenter as he has asked FVK to do the same.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problems at Southern Adventist University, a former missionary college, are recurrent, often a mountain made out of a molehill. BelloWello (talk · contribs), on the progressive side—the opposite side from Fountainviewkid—has already been community banned for disruption that included sockpuppetry. Topic bans for Fountainviewkid have been discussed before, when BelloWello was still editing. DonaldRichardSands has complained on this board about Hrafn. Various editors have been adding probably undue content to the article, which is being "defended" by those on the conservative side of Seventh Day Adventism. Strict adherence to[REDACTED] policies would solve most of these problems. Fountainviewkid should assume good faith in Raeky's proposals on content, which seem completely reasonable. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and incivility on Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album) by Uafausti (talk · contribs)

Since this is a mixed bag of problems, I wasn't sure where to take it. So I stumbled into a mess doing some recent changes patrolling (when don't I). Apologies in advance for the length of this; I'm attempting to be very clear as I've had some problems with that recently. Since I don't actually follow the article in question, I may have some of the backstory on this off.

First I saw this personal attack and then I found the round of edits that are the source of Uafausti's ire. Apparently, on the album page, there has been some contention about the track list: media outlets are reporting (possibly) incorrect information and fans of the band are getting different info from other sources. I got the impression that their info is probably coming from places that wouldn't meet the RS policy but I'm not certain. Scanning the talk page I saw that the consensus has been to just leave the track list as it is and update accordingly if it turns out to be incorrect. The most recent source is a screenshot of a tracklist in iTunes. At first this was entered without any context but it's now been sourced to a Facebook post by a member of the band. I know we can use info from confirmed Twitter accounts from my work on film articles but I'm not sure about Facebook. In any event the article has been semi-protected recently to prevent the addition of this information, until a major music related media outlet picks it up or discredits it and encourage discussion of the issue.

So then we get back to Uafausti. As you can see from the page history, there has been edit warring over the information despite attempts to direct editors to the talk page. The actual edit (most recent diff as of my typing this) the user is making has problems beyond the factual information in terms of site wide MOS standards (capitalization, links instead of refs). Of course that could be cleaned up, if the content weren't a problem, and based on the talk page, it seems to be.

Uafausti, after a few more reverts, did finally go to the talk page, but with more personal attacks and very little helpful conversation (bonus points for logic fallacies and potentially incorrect inferences). So here I am. Is it a content dispute; maybe the source is fine? Edit Warring? Incivility? All of the above and something I haven't thought of? Beats me. I think I should stop doing recent changes, though. I always walk into the veritable shit storm, if you'll pardon the expression. Millahnna (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved, and I might be able to help give some background info. This is an upcoming album by a very popular group, and there's been a lot of speculation about it ever since it was first announced, with information changing weekly (if not daily) and sources coming in from all angles, some of the decent (WP:RS) variety and other of the bottom-of-the-barrel (Twitter, forums, etc) variety. A small handful of editors have done a lot to weed out the speculation and poor sources and keep the article in decent shape as it develops. The latest source of contention is the track listing: The one currently presented in the article was reported by several reliable sources (including Allmusic and Alternative Press) about 2 weeks ago. Evidently the original source for these reports was this document from Universal Music Group, the publisher and parent company of the record label. Apparently the bassist (Mark Hoppus) said on Twitter that it wasn't finalized yet, so we had a flurry of IPs coming in removing the track listing and the sources. Recently Hoppus posted a screenshot of an itunes playlist to his Facebook and Google+ accounts showing what might be a track list, however there's no caption or announcement confirming that it is. So again we have a flurry of IPs and SPAs changing the track listing, removing the third-party sources, and claiming this image as a source. A talk page discussion was started, and the consensus seems to be either to leave it as it was with the third-party sources or to simply remove the whole thing since there is so much contention and possibly conflicting sources. In the meantime the article was semi-protected to help prevent the IP and SPA disruption. However, Uafausti doesn't seem interested in discussion and has descended into edit-warring, incivility, and personal attacks (, , , ). I've been involved up to this point but am now choosing to step aside, having allowed myself to be drawn into edit wars before and not wishing to repeat that mistake. I think the talk page discussion supports either sticking to the third-party sources or leave the track list out entirely, but I'll leave it up to the community to decide.. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire track list should be removed until the album is released, since it violates WP:CRYSTAL, point 5. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've hidden it inside comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems so obvious now that you've done it. Heh. Thanks Ken. Millahnna (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning about civility/personal attacks on his talk page. I was tempted to just block right away, but it has been ten hours since his last edit, so let's see if he comes back and continues or changes his attitude (I'm probably assuming too much good faith here, but I'm a kind fellow...). Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and issue an actual block without any objection from me! either way (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Right about the time I posted this he stopped editing (just before I dropped him the ANI notice I think). Maybe he walked away and counted to 10. Thanks for helping me out with my unfortunate tendency to find bouts of weirdness that I find hard to categorize. Maybe I should call them "poop tornadoes" in polite company? Millahnna (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hacked account

Can an admin please check out this page regarding recent hacking of my account. I've posted in my userspace to avoid clogging up this noticeboard. Thank you. LordVetinari 13:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I can tell you- you used the same IP and computer as User:PennyDancer on the days which both of you edited (7/30 and 8/28). I'm not sure this indicates your account was hacked. TNXMan 14:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just on the technical end, you ask how Abd could be sending emails through Misplaced Pages while he's blocked - the answer is that his block prevents him from editing his talk page, but doesn't prevent him from sending emails. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to know whether that's allowed under the terms of his ban, however. Abd is not banned or blocked on wikiversity, which appears to be what the actual topic of his email was. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe banned users are allowed to email arbcom and possibly admins to request their ban be reviewed or other related requests and I guess also in case of emergencies. I can't see that other emails for general communication would be considered okay if a user is forbidden from editing their own talk page except perhaps for communicating with existing friends (although I would suggest they should establish a means to communicate outside wikipedia). Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If he was using it to email abuse at people, I'd remove it, but I've never seen a complaint about Abd misusing email since his ban, and this seems to be legitimate Wikiversity business. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comcast article

Not sure the next step ... we've tried a RfC at talk:Comcast#RFC for discussion on criticism in the lead section, and I made changes to the lead based on that discussion (although the consensus was not entirely clear, I made a good faith effort to abide by the talk issues identified) ... now Weneedmorescience (talk · contribs) is reverting back to their version again, ignoring all but one of the issues and concerns brought up in the talk. This editor has only had one edit outside of this article, so appears to be here for the sole purpose of pushing their bias into the lead.

Can an uninvolved set of eyes take a look to provide their perspective, and/or to provide suggestions for an alternate DR path (although, having already gone through an RfC, I'm not sure what could be next). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think Barek has captured quite well the consensus of the RfC in his edit. Your edit seemed to be mostly cosmetic, without really addressing the legitimate concerns expressed by other editors in the RfC. I'm sorry to say, but I think you're on the losing side here. My advice: Let it go. VanIsaac_WS 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I thought it was User:Weneedmorescience that wrote here (those dang red links are SO PRETTY!). Sorry about that. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. I think you did a very good job at capturing the RfC consensus, and I'll keep the page on my watchlist for a week or so and help revert it. VanIsaac_WS 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Turkish Jew hater IP

149.140.34.124. Chesdovi (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a few of these turkish jew hating IPs (and I think we can agree we don't want turkish jew hater ips) recently - see for example this lovely chap who is clearly a meat/sockpuppet. Worth doing a checkuser and perhaps page protection? Egg Centric 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular IP has already hopped several times today, enough variability that range blocking is unlikely to be effective. Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least an edit filter may be possible - see this history Egg Centric 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, speedy-keeps and WP:INVOLVED

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just speedy-kept two successive AfDs I started on the same article – both only ~2 minutes old – with a spurious reason, despite Sarek having strong 'WP:INVOLVED' issues with me and strong 'WP:INVOLVED' issues with the article and with Doctor Who content in general.
The AfD nominations were/are not in bad faith, and I would like them to run their course without a biased admin stifling discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh... If you agree that in three days the article will be fully fleshable , is it really crucial to ensure all the round pegs are in the round holes (...as halfway through the AFD, your rationale will become no longer relevant)? –xeno 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you should probably !vote 'keep' in the AfD if you hold the view that articles that 'will' become notable are fine. It's not a view I hold. However, this is about Sarek's outrageous INVOLVED violations and rollback abuse – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In other words, bad-faith nomination, as I said. Twice. The second time was worse faith, because TT knows that WP:DRV is the proper venue for contesting a close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also contesting your rampant violation of WP:INVOLVED, WP:RBK etc. And seriously considering asking for an interaction ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The episode will be notable and will take place (i.e. be transmitted) next Saturday. There are already numerous sources for it, including an interview with one of the actors on the BBC website, and an interview with Mark Gatiss in Radio Times. You need to stop this, pretty quickly. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF?. Seriously - its the next Doctor Who episode that airs in a week, and given that every episode of the new series has had critical review, it is completely bad faith to assume this one won't be notable and must be deleted. And then to revert the speedy close 4 times??? --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get is how there are 19K -- Nineteen thousand -- page views for the episode a day ago, which is a sign to me that it should not be deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh derr... Well this didn't go quite how I had hoped. As an FYI, TreasuryTag was blocked for ten days for edit warring, and then indefinitely for disruptive editing - I gather discussion of this will probably take place in the ongoing WP:AN#TreasuryTag thread. –xeno 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, TT, but did you try looking for sources in the references? I did, and found three, two of which were non-trivial, and one of those was quite significant. Your entire delete rationale was mooted before you began, and it appears the AfD nomination was a tit-for-tat response to your attempt at redirecting being reverted. Instead of discussing, you chose to escalate. When that was shut down, you chose to edit war. When you became disruptive, use of rollback was justified. Resolute 19:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate ending up on the same side of an issue as a potentially abusive user. But in this case I have to ask: what is the harm in letting the AfD process continue? Speedy-close as a "bad-faith nom" should be kept to remarkably clear cases, someone nominating Earth or Christianity in an attempt to prove a point. In this case there are several valid reasons to file an AfD, that the user has an absolute belief in WP:CRYSTAL, that they want to make a test case that until an episode is known to be notable there shouldn't be a standalone article, whatever. Calling them a vandal and shutting down the process isn't an appropriate response. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, the harm in leaving the AfDs consists in continuing to send the message (received by the Internet loud and clear for the past 5+ years at minimum) that Misplaced Pages can, any time one likes, be ruinously trolled by the most blatant gaming of process. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I think the message to the community that certain types of article are beyond questioning is equally dangerous to wikipedia. What is the harm of having to justify an article's existence? If I had my way more articles would be discussed in the manner of AfD, good articles have nothing to fear from a challenge. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the policies and guidelines on AfD's and Speedy Keep, it could be said that Sarek was acting as 'editor Sarek' when he closed the AfD in this manner. Non-admins *are* allowed to close deletion discussions, and even use a Speedy Keep rationale. I think part of the confusion stems from the idea that most of the time, admins are the ones to close deletion discussions (because they are the only ones who can delete a page), and it is arguably confusing for a person who is an admin to exercise an editing function that is typically left to admins, but actually acting as merely an editor. I suppose a question now is, rather than WP:INVOLVED, did Sarek violate WP:COI? The Non-admin closure essay says an editor should not close if "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate."

I'm not really sure Sarek actually did anything wrong, but it probably would have been advantageous to allow another editor or admin to Speedy Keep. -- Avanu (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Sarek didn't do anything wrong, or rather if he did it was only being slightly overzealous as an editor, not an administrator. My only concern is that I favor a very high bar for procedural speedy keeps. I've seen a disturbing trend lately of questionable speedy keeps based on the nature of the nominator or the like that poisons a subsequent AfD with the "second nomination" stigma and ends with "close bad nom, wait 30 seconds, someone opens a valid nom, start discussion all over" HominidMachinae (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on PI

I'm not quite sure on this so I thought I'd ask. If a Wikipedian posts their own personal information on their Misplaced Pages user page, is that allowable or is it a policy breach? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no general policy against it. As per WP:USERPAGE#Personal and privacy-breaching material, users are cautioned about doing so, but there's no rule they cannot. There's a general practice of revdel/oversight when young minors post too much personal information. In the latter situation, my usual practice is to contact someone at oversight rather than post it on a noticeboard (which would otherwise defeat the very issue being looked into). Singularity42 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Would my edit summary need to be removed?

On the article Bomb Pop, I noticed that I completely misread a source that I added so I had to remove two sentences that would have been interesting if they were true. Since I was unhappy about it, I removed it and I said fuck in my edit summary. I don't know if not censored protects it or if it can't be in an edit summary at all. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This would probably be under WP:NOTCENSOR. Also, this should probably go to the help desk, not here. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Only admins have the ability to delete edit summaries. Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course; I was simply replying. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Censored refers to article content, not people's conduct.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't see any need to delete it (do not think it be eligible anyway). –xeno 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The appropriate response to this thread as well as to your earlier stress level is probably "Joe, Chill." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mbiama Assogo Roger - Removing links

I do not know what this user is trying to do, but they appear to be using a bot. --Escape Orbit 23:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on what's on the User Talk page, it may be an erring use of Twinkle's unlink backlinks function. My 2p is that such a function really should be limited to use by admins, or other users who have the technical ability to delete articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:McAusten

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

This is a rather peculiar situation. There's McAusten who allegedly won't communicate with other editors, yet insists on tinkering with their comments about him at WQA. This, for example. Can or should anything be done to get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And he just did it to my entry above, also. Apparently he's trying to prove some sort of WP:POINT, but I'll be hanged if I know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This user is becoming a serious issue in a multitude of ways. In the past two weeks he's been blocked and shown up at no less than two ANI threads for three apparently unrelated issues. It is growing wearisome; he is reluctant to engage with any user directly, but is not above personally attacking them and/or being disruptive in other ways, as noted by Bugs above. This needs to stop. --Jayron32 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

McAusten, please see my note on your talkpage, and follow the advice given there, or I am afraid I do not foresee an extensive future for your editing career.

Baseball Bugs, I think you can probably leave it to others to address the situation from this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Also, he's been editing for nearly 6 years, with nary a block until this month. I wonder if his account has been hijacked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's taking my advice. I agree that the situation is a little ridiculous and I suspect a long-term block is inevitable if the disruption escalates further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards