Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 19 June 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Rothschild family article

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

I feel more eyes would be beneficial to our article Rothschild family - there seems to be a history of veiled (and not-so-veiled) conspiracy theory type additions by IPs. Not sure if it approaches the threshold for semi-protection, so I thought I'd raise it here for your input. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked IP 31.208.7.22 per the local policy against open proxies. It's on the EFnet RBL database as an open proxy and has previously been blocked by ProcseeBot as an open proxy. This doesn't relate to the Rothschild family article though I realise this IP has been editwarring some content into the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• 91.211.125.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same person as 31.208.7.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) judging by their contributions, some of which appear to me to be blatantly racist. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Excuse me, how is clearly stating the involvement of Muslims in the first world racist? Are you upset that you don't understand the banking system, and how debt must be originated/tied to purchases/hard goods? You're not even qualified to discuss immigration policy and how it's changed, coincidentally, with all the "wars" that have happened lately. There is no racism in any of my statements, contrary to what you may claim. You sound like Tom Perkins, the man who I linked in the discussion, who is a recipient of money from the Royal Bank of Canada, when he said the attack on rich people is equivalent to the holocaust. So please, tell me, where is the racism? None. In fact, one could argue using the holocaust as a way to deflect the criticisms of rich people is racist. Everything I stated in the page was fact.
• You've reverted edits without justification. Where is your comment on why the Rothschild Rockefeller connection has been removed? Why haven't you discussed how you've failed to justify its removal when I produced an article that definitively states it is at least fifty years (original reversion was on the basis that there was no longstanding relationship, and that the current source that was supporting it did not state a time frame).

• Further, you ignored the FACT that the Rockefeller family name was in the infobox for YEARS and only RECENTLY (when initially reverted by a muslim, check the log and look at the IP's edit history) was contested. It was then re-inserted with a proper source, which was removed by User:Johnbod (who has a conflict of interest, see edit history full of Rothschild related articles. I suspect his job/position at the Royal Society brings him into contact with these people)

• User:DuncanHill then initially reverted the newest insertion, even though Johnbod's first two reversions (one for the FT.com article, another for the first telegraph article that is not the same as the one being used now) were fair based on his original argumeent (which was, again: articles did not state any duration of relationship and thus did not justify retaining infobox field). User:DuncanHill has not answered as to what is missing in the most recent insertion, because there is nothing to argue. It conclusively states fifty years, and they are trying to revert based upon a discussion that has not moved since I provided the most conclusive evidence (instead they've tried to call me names). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.211.125.85 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• The IP 91.211.125.85 has been blocked by Floquenbeam for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'd like to also call attention to these two difs which show that 31.208.7.22 and 91.211.125.85 are likely the same person (thus sockpuppeting, meaning they should BOTH be banned for 6 months, not just 91) as well as this dif by a 3rd IP, whish should warrant a block whether its the same guy or not.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

When we block an open proxy, the user is not the intended target so it's not sockpuppetry as such here. 91.211.125.85 however was blocked for disruptive behaviour so using another IP will be straightforward block evasion. 142.105.159.60 45.40.143.57 I've blocked as another open proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, I haven't been blocked...142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 45.40.143.57. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax

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

After I nominated an article at FAC, Checkingfax (talk · contribs) made a number of large-scale (semi-?)automated edits to the article. This introduced a number of problems, including changing the citation style without discussion (compare my version to Checkingfax's), which is contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Due to the problematic nature of these changes, I reverted them. Checkingfax reverted me (subsequently introducing a variety of other problems to the article), assuring me on my talk page that we were on the same page. This led to a long and frustrating discussion on my talk page; I repeatedly explained that the user had changed my citation style. This they repeatedly denied; it became clear that they simply did not know what a citation style is. A choice quote: "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout." The user was not keen to listen, and eventually declared that they were disengaging. The user then received firm warnings about respect for WP:CITEVAR from me (twice) and from another administrator. Given that the user had failed to provide any reasons for their edits and was (at that time) refusing to engage, I then reverted to the original citation style. Despite the warnings they had received, Checkingfax has once again tried to force their preferred citation style into the article (and again introducing other problems), even mysteriously citing WP:CITEVAR in their edit summary. This stands on the article at the time of writing. I am at this stage very frustrated, having wasted many hours of my time on this problem (and delayed making changes to the article in line with the comments of FAC reviewers). As such, I am requesting a block; Checkingfax's actions are clearly contrary to WP:CITEVAR, WP:IDHT, WP:EW and, perhaps, given the introduction of many errors unrelated to citation format and a lack of understanding of what a "citation style" is, WP:COMPETENCE. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly, I have been there, done that and got the T-shirt. My advice is this - millions of people read Misplaced Pages day in, day out, possibly including your family, friends and co-workers. Almost all of these do not give a flying toss about citation formats, they want to find factually correct information that is well presented. The only winning move at FAC is not to play and I can think of at least 2 or 3 reviews where things like citation and template formatting have reared their ugly heads and thought "this is not worth my time", walking away from it. I don't think a block is going to get consensus unless Checkingfax has a mad civility meltdown on this thread, so I'm not tempted to do that, plus he does so much work in article space I find it difficult to assess whether or not such a block would be a net negative for the project. Plus blocking Checkingfax won't actually help you get the article passed through FAC. All that said, I'm going to drop a note on his talk telling him to lighten up a bit. Ritchie333 09:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts. First: While I appreciate that my experience isn't a typical one, I assure you that lots of my friends and colleagues have very strong opinions on citation formatting! More seriously, though: I do not know whether blocking Checkingfax will help with the FAC; that's not my motivation. What I do know is that it will (at least in the short term) stop his/her edit warring, and perhaps hammer home that their actions are problematic (something the user has done her/his best to ignore so far). I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, citation formatting really isn't that big a deal, but we have a problem when someone who literally doesn't know what a citation style is has taken it upon themselves to review citation formatting at FAC and make large-scale, script-assisted edits to citations. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have reverted the most recent edit and am about to drop a note on their talkpage. Since at least *two* editors disagree with their citation changes they will now need to seek consensus on the talkpage to make said changes. Suggest this is closed until said discussion is had. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I note that, in accordance with both WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, the user was already obliged to seek consensus or at least engage in discussion. There was discussion, but it wasn't exactly productive. My takehome message was that Checkingfax did not know what a citation style was, and that he had no interest in learning. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with this observation that you posted to CF, visible on your talk page: "I have tried to explain why you are mistaken. You have now chosen to disengage on the grounds that I am not being "collaborative" or "civil", and that I am "belittling" you. This, of course, is untrue; you are clearly very uncomfortable with being told that you are mistaken, and would rather make vague accusations of wrongdoing." I've seen this happen with this editor, even when an admin, and in this case two admins, try to explain policy or guidelines to him. CF does a lot of rapid automated or semi-automated editing but apparently not a lot of content work so there are many policies and guidelines he is unfamiliar with, and I've seen him get defensive and reactive and edit-war instead of trying to understand the relevant policies or guidelines when he is apprised of them. WP:CITEVAR is very clear in that citation styles are not to be changed without discussion and consensus on the article talk page: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Since I see no such discussion or consensus on the talk page or FAR, and on the contrary everyone including the article reviewers and another admin are backing you up, it should be time for CF to receive a directive to back off, and a warning that if they do not they will be blocked. In my opinion you should restore your preferences as they originally were, and move forward. If there is blowback from CF, then he should be blocked at that point. But I think he should probably be given the opportunity, now that this is at ANI, to voluntarily stand down and desist before a block happens. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• The first thing I found on Checkingfax's talk page of note was Talk:Planned Parenthood/GA1 - that really doesn't sound like somebody who does "not a lot of content work" if you ask me. Ritchie333 10:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I would be interested to here Softlavender's definition of "a lot of content work"... Of CF's contribs, nearly 15,000 edits (60%) are in article space. FYI, etc. _Muffled 10:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you might want to review WP:NOTHERE. EEng 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe they are referring to Checkingfax's editing which tends to the gnome/semi-automated fixes than to actual content creation. Both are in article space but the 'content creators' tend to get picky about the distinction ;) (This is not to suggest their work is not needed or useful, a large amount of times I see them they are adding/fixing refs, a very valuable task. However in this case they are dicking around with citations expressly against CITEVAR) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, automated and semi-automated edits to article space; not a lot of content creation. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie: If you check the amount and nature of his edits to the article , you'll see it is not content work. He has added less than 8.5% of the text of the article (mostly citation text, etc.) , and most of his edits are of the automated and semi-automated technical type -- filling out refs, disambiguating, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If I had the sysop right, I'd look at the situation, see edit warring, block all edit warriors, and move on. There is a well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path, this is no doubt known to both editors, and nobody used it. And I don't buy the idea that behavior standards should be lower for high contributors. Didn't when I started three years ago, don't now, probably never will. So no RfA in my future. 2¢ ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support ...Mandruss's RfA _Muffled 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, if you think that I have engaged in edit warring, I'd be interested to hear why. As was explained in my initial post: Due to the errors it introduced, I reverted (in accordance with the BRD cycle) the user's initial changes. I was then reverted; as explained, I then engaged in a very long and frustrating discussion with the user on my talk page. The user said that they were disengaging. Given that they had not provided a reason for changing the citation format, and given the guidelines over at WP:CITEVAR, I changed the citation style back to my preferred version. The user then changed it back, citing, of all things, WP:CITEVAR. Where do you believe I have gone wrong, here? Or was that not what you meant by "both" editors? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, my views appear to be inconsistent with the prevailing community views on this, but here's how I look at it. CF's first re-revert started the EW. At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere, but instead you engaged in a mostly one-on-one battle with CF. Then, eventually, you "then reverted to the original citation style", in violation of WP:EW "'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." Thus you participated in the EW. In my warped view. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere" Please tell me what I should have done. Start a request for comment? "Hi everyone; I'm starting this request for comment to make sure that WP:CITEVAR applies. A user has changed the citation style in this article; now, discussion with them has failed. They've illustrated that they don't know what a citation style is, and denied that they are changing it, and now said that they're not going to engage any further. Can I please get consensus to change it back?" I'm sorry if that comes across as sarcastic; I'm genuinely not sure what it is that you're suggesting. I stretched my ability to assume good faith as far as it can go; I gave the user a chance to explain why they had changed my citation style, and then, when they displayed their ignorance of the issues at stake and said that they were disengaging, I reverted- in accordance with WP:CITEVAR, which is the relevant guideline here. And you think I should be blocked for that? Should Only in death also be blocked? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The first choice would ordinarily be the article talk page, but it looks like that wasn't an option due to low interest in the article. The next step in my opinion would be to review WP:DR, which would lead you to its section, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. Multiple options there. But neither the FAR page nor your user talk page seem like good places to seek consensus, since they both lack the necessary quorum for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Violating WP:CITEVAR (and also creating new errors thereby) isn't a content issue, since formats aren't content. So I don't think WP:DR would have been appropriate. I do agree that keeping all of the discussion on the article's talk page would have been and is always the best policy, even if it seems "cluttery" (it needn't have been on the FAR page, it could have been right on the article talk). Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Misplaced Pages:Citing sources is a content guideline, I don't see how violating CITEVAR is not a content issue. In any case, every content dispute is about someone claiming that someone else is in violation of some policy or guideline. The purpose of DR is to determine whether that assertion is true or false. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At one point should I have gone to the dispute resolution page, please? When Checkingfax first made a mess of the article? When (s)he reverted my revert? When (s)he started a thread on my talk page assuring me that (s)he could explain (and, to be clear, it was the other user who chose to start the discussion there, not me)? When it became clear that (s)he didn't know what (s)he was talking about? When (s)he claimed he was not interested in discussing it further? Or some other time? And at what point should I have been blocked, please? I am left feeling that your expectations are unrealistic. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I've already stated that my views are probably inconsistent with the community's. That means they are irrelevant. I expected to make the one little drive-by comment and be done. I apologize for wasting time and space. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What or which "well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path" are you talking about here? We have two guidelines, WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, both of which were repeatedly violated in spite of repeated explanations and discussions and examples of the problems being created. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My reply above might partly answer your question. The main thing is failure to use the tool called consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I don't think you've looked (or looked closely) at the extensive discussion on the FAR page and on JM's talk page , which JR immediately engaged in after CF's re-revert. Those lengthy discussions were in my view attempts to seek consensus on JM's part, and CF seemingly kept changing his intentions about whether he was in agreement or not or what the facts were or what the nature of the issue was. (Ideally, all of these discussion should have been on the article's talk, and this is a good example of why content discussion should not occur on user talkpages, but even so, JM did in my mind attempt discussion and consensus.) Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's my problem. This edit from Josh is similar to one of mine where I lost my temper a bit with someone who I thought was doing hit and run editing. The subtle, but important difference, is my edit summary ("if I thought adding a dot would make a SHORTENED footnote easier to type I'd have done it myself") is referring to the content (albeit in a not very civil manner), while yours ("Your "cleaning" and "fixes" have already made a mess of one article, you can stay away from others") is directly about the editor. That makes it difficult to come down one side or the other when considering any administrative action, as it has to be fair to all sides. Blocking everybody is one way of being fair, but the problem with doing it to established editors is you end up with a big stink kicked up from third parties (indeed, I would say the problem is the reverse of what Mandruss says - it's not that we have lower standards for established editors, it's rather you can more often kick a newbie punitively and get away with it!) A 24 hour full-protect and talk page notice (recent example) is one way of doing it. Ritchie333 11:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The user, while I was explaining (or doing my best to explain) why their scripts were problematic, decided to apply their scripts to a related article. That's a display of poor judgement at best, downright provocation at worst. I found error after error in their script assisted edits in other articles; I thought it was fair to assume that there were going to be errors in that one too. My comment were indeed directed at the editor, but I think they were quite reasonable; someone messing up articles with sloppy scripts shouldn't be applying those same sloppy scripts to other articles; especially not when they are at that time engaged in discussion about how sloppy their editing is. Your suggestion that I could be blocked or that the article could be protected is utterly ludicrous, and an illustration of why I hate these noticeboards so much. I am reaching out (in desperation) for assistance in dealing with an incompetent and disruptive editor. I'm getting some help- I appreciate the revert and the warnings left on the user's talk page. But I also have a variety of people talking about blocking me for edit warring and making jokes about supporting each other at RfA because they'd be willing to block me. This is not a productive environment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie: You're singling out one edit summary, but this situation consists of dozens of edits and lengthy discussions and repeated denial of the situation/facts/guidelines. I don't think one edit summary outweighs that. You've been comparing this situation to your own experience but in this case I think you need to step back and just look at the longterm disruption instead of "what would Ritchie do ?" Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides, and it's something I emphasise with as it's easy to get frustrated when you have put a lot of work into an article only to find somebody make changes you don't think are particularly required. However, in my view, Josh has come across a little too confrontational; above he's taken exception to being blocked, when I've not said that (I said a block would be unhelpful). ANI isn't "requests for punishment", it's a way of getting administrators to look at conduct disputes and see if they can resolve them so people can get back to work. (alright, it's actually closer to the Slough of Despond, but one can dream...) Anyway, Checkingfax has been told about this thread and I'm awaiting a response; we'll see what happens when he replies. Patience. Ritchie333 11:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides". Yes. The difference is that the other party has displayed ignorance of the issues at stake and an unwillingness to follow the guidelines. "hanges you don't think are particularly required" is something of an understatement when it comes to the edits they have made to the articles I have written. And do you seriously think I am behaving inappropriately by " exception to being blocked"? I suspect you'd take exception to me saying that you should be blocked, too. (And please don't try to wriggle out of it. You raised the possibility of blocking me, even if only to reject it. And you're not the only one in this thread who's done so.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Rightyho, this isn't getting anyone anywhere. Edit warring took place, misused edit summaries happened, and dispute resolution wasn't sought before this drama board was used. Time to step back, everyone. Let Checkingfax have an opportunity to contribute to this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is everyone pretending that this is some kind of content dispute that needed a thirty-page RfC to determine? This is a disruptive and incompetent editor. I am out. I am done. I will not comment here further unless addressed directly. It's clear that there is no chance of anything resembling resolution. I'm sorry I asked for help. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well. That seems overly harsh; although it does indicate why you perhaps did not get the 'help' you wanted. _Muffled 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And it is incredibly lopsided to bring this directly to ANI and expect a block to be dished out to someone who hasn't edited for nearly six hours. That's called a punitive block as, right now, Checkingfax is neither harming Misplaced Pages nor had a chance to engage in this thread. It looks wise for Josh to leave it alone for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolutions do not always mean the resolution you want. Actually I think Rambling Man described this thread aptly as "Drama Board". What is up drama board nation, I'm your host Keller Keemstar, let's get rooooight into the news... honestly if even one person has a chuckle at that then I have done my duty. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is another sad and sorry case where the onus has fallen on the reverter to justify his revert, instead of being on the newcomer to justify his edit that caused the dispute. This is a failing of Misplaced Pages that leads to great frustration. The 3RR rule is weighted entirely against the protector of longstanding content - he reverts first, so he reaches 3RR before the newcomer who made the edit. The way it's set up is an abomination. Akld guy (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that neither editor involved is exactly a newcomer, both of the editors involved here are experienced editors and ought to know the policies that they're applying. Besides, no point beating the dead horse, especially given that the horse is not even around. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with some of the comments above, I think J Milburn was well-justified in posting to this page. That said, I agree that there isn't much more to say until we hear from Checkingfax. I ask Checkingfax to respond not just to the issue regarding this specific article, but to the more general question of how he deals with articles that employ a permissible citation style that is not the one he prefers, and whether there are issues with his scripts that would warrant adjusting them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, NYB. WP:CITEVAR is a clear guideline here, regardless of some other's feelings about citation styles. People here may disagree with it, but it's still a guideline that should usually be followed. I'm disappointed in some editors here for not seeming to recognize that. As such, J Milburn was completely justified in reverting Checkingfax—who I might remind you came onto the pages of his own volition and started editing disruptively. So talking about J's edit warring, Mandruss, may be true but it's hardly the point.

Ritchie333, calling J "confrontational" is like the pot calling the kettle black, given your entrance into this discussion (which was very needlessly combative). Also, Checkingfax is in no way, shape, or form a newcomer.

The Rambling Man, you've clearly missed the large amount of discussion between these two editors on this topic. While I appreciate the desire to follow policy for policy's sake and have the discussion on the article's talk page, it's pretty silly to dismiss the dispute resolution already attempted by J (he certainly followed WP:BRD). Of course, the amusing thing is that Checkingfax is violating an approved guideline, and we're telling a clearly frustrated J to go to dispute resolution. Like both sides have legitimate points. Which they don't. WP:CITEVAR, again.

ANI is supposed to be a place to tackle editorial disputes. Whether or not J should have asked for a block, don't shoot the messenger for bringing a legitimate dispute here. Ed  15:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What I most objected to was the request to block another editor when (a) he wasn't editing (b) he wasn't given a chance to respond here. If there's a long history beyond that already noted by Josh above, then I'm sorry to have missed it, but simply popping up here to ask for a block doesn't feel appropriate until all parties have had a chance to respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) "ANI is supposed to be a place to tackle editorial disputes" - sorry, it isn't - that's WP:DRN or talk pages. As Checkingfax was not committing obvious vandalism or BLP violations (or any of the other things that WP:3RR exempts from), then all behaviour should be looked at. I'm sorry you feel we're having a go, we're just trying to work out who has done what and work out how to close this down gracefully. (And what TRM said). Ritchie333 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Fine, then say that next time (Redacted). This may come as a shock, but there's a lot of pages around here and we can't all be expected to know which one is perfectly applicable to our particular situation. Ed  15:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ed, while you have the chance, at the very least retract the personal attack from your comment. Also, as has been repeatedly said, wait for Checkinfax to respond. All these comments are redundant and don't help to solve the dispute (like at all). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) If you're referring to "Almost all of these do not give a flying toss about citation formats", I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at; I was merely sympathising with J's situation, having been in the same boat myself, and suggesting that edit-warring over citation templates wasn't worth worrying about. Ritchie333 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I misread your comment, Ritchie333. I'll redact my comment above. Ed  22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose temporary thread closure: nothing is likely to be done until CF arrives, and now we can sit back and watch two admins scrap it out I suggest this as a far more dignified stance for us all. Striking out as seemed to have a certain soporific affect, intentionally or otherwise... _Muffled 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't read all of the above. Josh nominated an article for FAC (which can be a nerve-wracking, time-consuming process) and Checkingfax arrived and started changing his citation style over his objections. That's a violation of WP:CITEVAR and of standard practice at FAC. Checkingfax then went to another article Josh had written and did the same. So that needs to stop. I can't see a need for a block, but I hope Checkingfax will agree not to do this kind of thing in future. SarahSV 16:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: If Checkingfax could poke his head in here right now at his earliest convenience, as a demonstration to the community that he recognises its concern, that would probably be a start. _Muffled 16:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax

Josh Milburn's Featured Article promotion request for Alasdair Cochrane's textbook is moving along quickly. All the reviewers are engaging collaboratively with Josh to that end. A lot of red herrings have been brought up in this discussion. This report is a distraction to Josh that he does not need.

This edit which Josh shotgun reverted introduced no "problems" nor did it change any citation styles. Neither did this one in another article that Josh shotgun reverted. "Shotgun" refers to wholesale reverting rather than reverting objectionable edits discretely. There was no engagement from Josh prior to either of the shotgun reverts. Administrator, Misplaced Pages Blogmaster, former Signpost Editor-in-Chief and Misplaced Pages editor The ed17 shotgun reverted the second one again citing BRD in his edit summary which is ironic because he was reverting a reverted edit without discussing it with me and he still has not. I went to his talk page immediately to discuss the reversion but he has not responded to me. He has offered no reason to justify the revert. I have never had any contact ever with Ed on Misplaced Pages and I am not sure why he became fixated on this nor why he has not been willing to discuss this with me (in spite of his BRD edit summary request).

As an essay, WP:BRD carries no obligation to follow it, and there are numerous counter-essays using it. In spite of that, I went right to Josh's and Ed's pages to discuss my revert or theirs.

The Bibliography of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, the main article at the root of this AN/I, has 22 references. 21 of them are in citation template style and one of them is in plain text style. I pointed that out to Josh at the FA review and left him to fix it which he did not. He said it was throwing an error. After some time passed I figured out a way to remedy it and harmonize the citation style but I used the {{cite book}} citation template (like the 3 other Garner books) instead of the {{cite journal}} citation template (which was more germane) and Josh reverted it instead of simply changing the word book to journal.

The 2nd bullet point of WP:CITEVAR guides us to stay with templates consistently if templates are in use which they were by 21:1.

When I went back in to change book to journal in that one bullet item I made a blunder and edited from an old page version. That fact is impossible, AFAIK, to glean from the Diff of my most recent edit. Even in its imperfection it did not cause any problems or change any styles. It just needed to be cleaned up and still does. My only intention in that edit was to edit that one reference and here we are.

Josh is under a lot of stress and I am sorry to have exacerbated it with the above mentioned blunder.

The way the Bibliography metadata is currently formatted does not allow usable COinS parsing of the metadata. No change in citation style is needed; only tweaking the parameters.

I am here to build an encyclopedia and look forward to getting back to putting my shoulder to the wheel. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:COinS ability to parse metadata from the article is not relevant to changing another person's citation style. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The claims that Checkingfax makes are transparently incorrect. Checkingfax's initial edit, which (s)he claims in the post above "introduced no 'problems' nor did it change any citation styles", clearly changed the citation style in the article (it also introduced other problems, but that's not the point of this thread). Compare the bibliography before the user's edits to the bibliography after the user's edits. I have explained this to the user multiple times (see here, for instance). They point blank refuse (or are unable) to get the point. I hope this is illustrative those in this thread of why I have found this situation so frustrating. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• These kinds of disputes are why people think Misplaced Pages is ridiculous. I suggest that:
  • if User:J Milburn defends their behavior at that article one more time, they receive a 24 hour block.
  • User:Checkingfax should weigh in here and acknowledge they made a big mess of things. If they don't recommend I 24 hour block for them. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC))

Can I point out the double-standard I'm facing here, please? I have received quite considerable criticism for calling for a block of a disruptive and incompetent editor. Yet others are apparently free to land in this thread and throw all kinds of shade at me, and call for a block for me for laughably spurious reasons. Not only that, but others will then joke about supporting them at RfA. Why do I have to tolerate this? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I propose a 24 hour block for J Milburn for an inability to STFU and listen to the community, more nicely described in WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: That's a completely unhelpful suggestion. In general, you are making far too many references to blocking. I suggest that you leave this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • +1. Ed  23:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WIthdrawn. Nothing is going to break here as long as people are not listening and insisting What I Did What Was Perfect. But withdrawn and feedback heard. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2¢ - I don't think it really matters that much who was right (or, perhaps more accurately, the degree to which JM was right, or whether JM could've edited rather than reverted). Differences of opinion were had, mistakes were made and acknowledged. The core of the problem is just WP:BRD. Yes, it's an essay, but based on a model that has pretty broad consensus. During an FAC, that pretty broad consensus should be considered even consensusier. If you make edits to an article at FAC (doesn't really matter if they're all that "Bold") and someone working on the page Reverts, then take it to the talk page and talk about it until consensus consensusizes. Doesn't seem like any action needs to be taken unless edit warring continues. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish mistakes were acknowledged. Checkingfax is still posting to various places making the same insistences that (s)he has been making all along and displaying the same shocking levels of incompetence. Check out this post, for example, made just after I went to bed last night. Still showing the same ignorance of what a citation style is, and still insisting that her/his actions were legitimate. (S)He has learnt and acknowledged nothing. I've learnt a lot about Misplaced Pages, and I've acknowledged my mistake in hoping for anything productive to come out of this board; unless that's what you're referring to, I think you have a too-optimistic view of what has been achieved here. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, Checkingfax does not acknowledge mistakes, and he routinely indulges in self-justification and misrepresentation of guidelines and policies. So do not expect him to acknowledge any error, mistake, guideline violation, etc. Your goal was to stop him from disrupting and changing the article and your other articles. This has apparently succeeded, and there are eyes on the article now. I suggest you stop tracking CF's edits, and let this thread be closed. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

All this dispute seems to be over Josh Milburn's insistance on calling "using the cite templates badly" a style. These templates, when used properly, produce Citation Style 1, probably the most common citation style on Misplaced Pages. But "used properly" includes splitting out author names into separate first and last name parameters. This produces a consistent style, usable metadata, the ability to link to the citations by the harv series of templates, familiarity for readers, and a consistently designed author name ordering that is unambiguous to read. Instead, Milburn thinks that using these templates with the |authors= parameter, with authors formatted in a mishmash of forward and reversed orderings and with commas used both to separate parts of some names and to separate names from each other, is a separate style that should be protected. At least, that is the only difference I noticed in the comparison he posted at the top of this thread. This is WP:LAME and I have no sympathy for Milburn's position. If gnomes want to go through cleaning up Citation Style 1 templates so that they generate proper Citation Style 1 references, they should be left free to do so. That's not changing the style, it's just good gnomery. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I don't care about whether I am using the citation template "right". I care about how my citation looks. That's what a citation style is. That's what the other user changed; "lame" or not, they edit warred with me despite WP:CITEVAR, despite repeated explanations and despite their wilful and continuing ignorance of the issues at stake. Are you seriously suggesting that because I'm not using the citation templates "right", my citation style does not warrant protection by WP:CITEVAR? And people are allowed to edit war with me all they want? What policy is this based on, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Let's just be crystal clear about this. Let's say you come along to an article and there is one citation. There are no templates, because this is a utopic world in which nobody cares about templates. That one reference is formatted like this: "Smith, John and Jane Jones (2000). Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press." As a good Wikipedian, you know that you can't change citation styles. But you can be a good gnome. Pop quiz: are you allowed to change the one reference to "Smith, John; Jones, Jane (2000). Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press."? Because I'd say that that (which is what Checkingfax did to the article in question) would be changing the citation style. But you've just called that "not changing the style ... just good gnomery". No doubt people will want to tell me that this post misses the point or is combative or something (and five points to the first person who comes up with a reason to block me for it...) but it really is this simple. Templates or no templates (and if it really helps, any gnome is welcome to remove the citation templates altogether provided they leave my citation template intact) another user has arrived at an article I've written, changed the citation template and then edit warred with me to keep their preferred version, all the while displaying real ignorance. I've come to AN/I for help, and faced all kinds of criticism and abuse and had calls for me to be blocked. What do you think I should have done? Given the other user a barnstar for their gnome work? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I can explain what David Eppstein is talking about, and also why J is getting upset about it. The reason we like to use author1=, author2= (and, optionally, in combination with authorlink1, authorlink2...) is it means some nice bits of metadata can be parsed easily from an article and re-used elsewhere, as David says. The problem with this is relating to the difference between a program model and a user model. The essay I've just linked to explains the context, but in short, David is asking J to change his user model (editing Misplaced Pages as free text) to match the program model (structured text with a context-free grammar for the lexers and parsers for templates). This is a remarkably hard thing to do for human beings, especially when they do stuff in their spare time for a voluntary project (if this were not the case, command line interfaces would still be widely used as they were in the early 1980s and graphical user interfaces wouldn't have been seen as revolutionary as they really were). So it's small wonder that J is getting frustrated.

The alternative, is of course to change the program model to match the user model, and I'm certain that if Google threw a couple of talented software engineers at this, they would come up with a way of parsing metadata out of articles without requiring the basic user editing model to change. It might not be an easy parsing algorithm, but computer software is quite amenable to changing its behaviour if you reprogram it, without complaining too much. However, we can't work with what we want, we have to go with what we're give, and I think it's fair comment to say that the technical bar for WMF staff does not match Google's.

tl;dr - you're both right in your own way, this argument is going nowhere except to remind people to watch out for edit-warring. Ritchie333 10:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that WP:CITEVAR specifically encourages, "Fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and <ref> markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly." It goes on to clarify the meaning of citation style as "major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's." I'm no expert in this area of policy, but I'm struggling to see J Milburn's understanding of it in quite such black-and-white terms as he obviously does; I think the changes at the core of this dispute are at least arguably in line with the guideline. Neither editor seems to have particularly covered themselves in glory in the way this dispute has been carried out. I'd suggest Checkingfax go and make a coherent, polite argument for why his improvements are improvements, not violations of policy and appropriate at this stage of FAR, and that J Milburn consider that someone else's edits to the article may actually be an improvement. GoldenRing (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe this is a stupid question but @J Milburn: are you using a standard well known style, to some purpose, or is this just your personal aesthetic preference? I really could see no significant differences between the two samples you gave and I would be inclined to say use the citation method which allows the project to be improved by being able to obtain and use metadata. Jbh 12:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I did try and discuss peripheral matters yesterday with @J Milburn: but he deigned not to reply _Muffled 12:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at a selection of my Intl. Relations and Pol. Theory books and they indeed do use Smith, John and Jane Doe style for multiple authors. I do, however, think that, as this article is for use on Misplaced Pages, it would be best for the project that Josh show some flexibility to use the templates in such a way that allows data scraping. Jbh 19:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

My view is that when an article contains a statement (maybe on the talk page, or perhaps in an HTML comment) that it uses a certain well-known stye that is in use in many articles and/or the outside world, editors should follow the style manual or other instructions associated with that style (for example, APA style or The Chicago Manual of Style). The appropriate manual or instructions may also be implied if the article adheres much more closely to one well-known style than any other. In the case of the cite family of templates, they form a well-known style with instructions at "Help talk:Citation Style 1" and the documentation pages of each template. Making an article adhere more closely to the manual or instructions for the well-known style is not a violation of CITEVAR.

That does leave open the possibility of a sub-style, where some detail that is not specified in the style manual is made consistent within an article. For example, the instructions for the citation templates leaves some flexibility about whether an institutional author should be listed in the template as the author or the publisher. But I believe the instructions are clear that it is preferable to list multiple individuals with the |firstn= and |lastn= parameters rather than listing them all together with one |author= parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am of the view that this issue is as resolved as it's going to be. Other users have taken up discussion with Checkingfax about possible problems with her/his scripts, edits and conduct at FAC. I am optimistic that these will be productive. I have no intention to engage with the user further. Some final comments from me: 1) I appreciate people (or, at least, those who have made an effort to look into the issue) having taken the time to comment in this thread. 2) I can concede that I was over-hasty in calling for a block. 3) I have decided that I will avoid using citation templates in the future. 4) I have found this thread and associated discussions incredibly stressful. I hope I do not have reason to come here again. 5) My sincere apologies to anyone who asked me a direct question that I have not here answered. If there are any issues outstanding, colleagues and friends are always welcome on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Gaberz.Jackson and use of user talk page

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

Hi all, I recently came across User:Gaberz.Jackson and saw that they have used the user talk page as some sort of social network. The page history also shows other IP addresses editing the talk page. I blanked the talk page because there was some links posted. I don't think this user is her to contribute usefully, rather than just use their user and talk pages as discussion. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumably that IP is either the user in question or the so called "linley". As for the talk page, any potentially identifying information is still available through the view history function. Checking the contributions shows that no edits have been made outside of the user and user talk page. I have to agree with LuK3, don't expect any useful contributions from the user. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted under WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't want to block the user right now since the registered account hasn't edited in five years, but if this attack stuff persists we can do that and/or lock the page. Katie 15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to leave both users a note pointing out that this is not a proper use of Misplaced Pages and especially not leaving messages using other people's full names. I can do it myself but not for a few hours, so let's see if someone else reading here beats me to it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wilco, since I'm still here. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done one userpage, the one mentioned here, am not sure who the other user is, somebody else will have to tackle that one. I went for a friendly welcoming approach, I get the feeling we're dealing with a "young'un" here. If anybody needs stern, feel free to take-over. Good night. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The other would be User:Linleybrown. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, more Wilco on the way. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Only noticed how long those chat logs have been around, there's one on LinleyBrown's page which I semi-censored (removing any personal or unnecessary information). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, censoring out a first name and a gender isn't very helpful. The most recent edits were by IPs. The accounts haven't edited in 5 years, and blocking them per NOTHERE is perfectly appropriate. Since IPs can create talk pages and presumably can continue using these for their chatter and jokes, I'll semi-protect them. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Chandresh3

Has repeatedly removed a CSD tag on his non-notable autobiography. I have given them two warnings, an initial not to touch CSD tags as the author and a final one after they did it again. They are now clearly edit-warring. Diffs: The first diff demonstrates that they created the page, the other three demonstrate that they are engaging in edit warring and also removing CSD tags. Should I take this here or to WP:3RR? Also I am requesting that an action be taken, whether blocking or just deleting the page. Discretion is left to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry link to the page in question, and has again removed CSD tag. Yeh, I'd like a block to be honest. The page: Orianzgaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr rnddude (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's fine, but you can also report blatant vandalism such as this to WP:AIV - you'll tend to get a quicker admin response there, providing they have been adequately warned and are continuing the disruptive action(s) -- samtar 17:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently at 8RR (as of this post but increasing), so WP:AN3 my also be an option. --Elektrik Fanne 17:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've heard of AIV but hadn't been there before. Will remember for future instances. Thanks again. Also they were at 3RR when I came here, I knew there'd be more but wasn't going to entertain them. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Now deleted, but I'm not confident the article won't reappear. --Elektrik Fanne 17:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I'm thinking, but unfortunately I can't deal with it, I need to go to bed. The discussion has been opened on it, if they try again then they're digging their own grave. I'll be notified in the morning when I log on and find 300 alerts. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now, but I think you're overestimating them. Holding off on the block for now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As my last post of the day, it is 3am here, so I'd be overestimating the threat of a squirrel if it came at me. Best leave it for now and come back on when I'm fresh. Not like I'll miss the AN/Ipocalypse now will I. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In the spirit of recursion, it happens every day here ;) _Muffled 18:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bendybit

Bendybit (talk · contribs) keeps changing mostly science fiction related articles, without any reason. After lvl 4 warning, removed science fiction from Face/Off. Other annoying edits include removing the WP:SF banner (as well as changing the WP:VG assessment for no reason), removing science fiction as a category from the article on Android (robot), and removing "military science fiction". Several warnings have not worked, and user does not communicate at all. @EauZenCashHaveIt:, this is the right place. @Dimadick:, I've seen your interactions with them too, perhaps you would like to respond. soetermans. 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Before I saw this report, I had already decided to block the editor for a while, in the hope that it might prompt him or her to start responding to messages. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• I actually have several of these articles on my watchlist, because various anonymous editors are removing templates,ratings, and any mention of science fiction for several months. Most of Bendybit's recent edits seem to consist of deletions. He even removes films from lists about the science fiction and fantasy genres. For example his edit in List of fantasy films of the 1980s consisted of removing 4 films without explanation. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Jo Cox protection?

This British Labour MP and "remain" advocate in the British EU referendum debate has just been shot and stabbed. First reports are saying a well-known British fascist has been arrested. Opinions of level-headed and experienced admins would be appreciated at Jo Cox. There's a bit of editwarring in its history over the last hour or so. Hopefully protection won't be needed, and some targetted warnings with polite reminders about BRD and BLP will suffice. --122.109.101.223 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN has semi'd for 24 hours. Thank you. --122.109.101.223 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Two days, filling a request at WP:RFPP. --NeilN 16:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. Darn time zones. Thanks. --122.109.101.223 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User:193.60.234.210

Not entirely clear what is going on here. But anon user is repeatedly edit warring with other editors. Has already been blocked once for same. Could someone please take a look into this? https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/193.60.234.210 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This user restored a lot of material to my talk page which I had removed, without explanation and in contravention of WP:TPO. I can't see that their intentions here are good. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This IP is quick to cite WP:TPO when someone restores content to their talk page, but this obviously doesn't apply to them -- samtar 18:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This IP is deleting content on Ohio State University Radio Observatory without giving any reason, in spite of requests on their Talk page to do so. They are also edit warring on Around the World in Eighty Days. The requests and warnings on their Talk page have been deleted. This IP has been blocked before for the same type of disruptive "editing". David J Johnson (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have explained all the edits I've made. Others such as Mr Johnson have undone them without feeling the need to explain why. I think it's clear who is being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Any edits I've made included an explanation. In spite of requests, you have not explained your deletions of my edits. David J Johnson (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • User:David J Johnson, I'm sorry, but your explanations ("Revert POV edits by IP.") are not convincing. I am glad that Floq chose to reinstate the IP's edits: I don't know either what "noted" signal is, or how the primary source can verify that the observatory got its "greatest success" on that occasion. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're yet to explain why WP:TPO doesn't apply to you - I'd be very interested to hear your reasoning -- samtar 18:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we're not going to get an answer - blocked by JamesBWatson -- samtar 18:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't this the classic "best known for IP" kabuki theater? Where he's almost always right about the revert (which he is in this case too), but people mindlessly revert him because he's an IP, and he cannot stand that and flips out, and then there's a stupid ANI thread, and then the IP is blocked, and he goes to another one? ad nauseam? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Circle of Life -- samtar 18:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Uncooperative, uncivil, arrogant, edit-warring, personal attacks, evasion of an earlier one month block, etc etc. Blocked for three months. If Floquenbeam is right, well we'll just have to block the next IP, and the next... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The block was necessary, of course, because once he gets revved up there's no stopping it. But the arrogance and self righteousness isn't limited to the IP here; everyone reverting without explanation was being as ass too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I smell Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP too, and Floq is right, half the problem is that people edit war with him without really grasping the merits of the edits, and it just creates ANI thread after ANI thread. Ritchie333 19:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and Ritchie333: Yes. Quite often the IP editor is absolutely right, and those who revert his/her edits are wrong. The problems are mainly to do with his or her attitude to other editors and how to deal with disagreements, rather than with his or her editing intentions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not "editing intentions", but "edits", James. If an edit is good it shouldn't be reverted. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been going around blanking articles. And not just huge chunks of articles...but entire articles. This is against the WP:Preserve policy and other rules that are in place for dealing with unsourced material. Furthermore, we do not blank entire articles unless it's a serious WP:BLP or WP:Copyvio issue. If the article really needs deleting, we take the matter to WP:AfD; we do not simply blank the article and then go about our merrily way. I first warned Spacecowboy420 about inappropriate removals when he removed easily verifiable content from Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) solely because it was unsourced and incorrectly cited the material as possible WP:Original research. He did not do a check to see if the material was original research; he simply removed it based on a guess. This sparked a recent discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability (see Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 64#Preserving a burden), and the most current discussion going on there. It also led to the current debating going on at Misplaced Pages talk: Editing policy. While some might be able to excuse his behavior in the Child grooming case, I do not see how this, this and this type of blanking is acceptable. Neither did Piotrus and Materialscientist, who reverted him at two of the articles. And in this case, he failed to do his WP:Before job before proposing that the article be deleted. As seen here and here, Arxiloxos came in to save the day in that case. As seen with this edit, Spacecowboy420 is also mistaken about WP:Primary sources, assuming that they are inherently bad.

I took the matter to S Marshall's talk page since he was as alarmed as I was about Spacecowboy420's behavior in the Child grooming case and his nonchalant, dimissive attitude regarding removing material. While S Marshall declined to get involved on his talk page, Piotrus stated, "I concur that blanking is not a good approach. There are deletion processes for that. Spacecowboy420, those three diffs above are basically stealthy deletion, and that is not far from the v-word. Please do not blank articles in such fashion. If you want them gone, Template:Prod is not difficult to use." Spacecowboy420's response was, "I'm merely deleting unsourced content. If someone wants to add content to an article, they should provide sources. If they are too lazy to provide sources, it gets removed. I guess I dislike poorly sourced content, unsourced content and lazy editors, as much as some others dislike content being removed. If an article ends up blank because none of it was sourced, the blame lies with the lazy editor who didn't provide a source. I would like to add, that if the content is notable and someone restores it, with suitable sources, I would not go back and remove it again." He soon made edits like this and this.

Some intervention is needed here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing this, this, this, and maybe particularly this are some of the edits being questioned here? John Carter (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, that's part of it. When it comes to blanking the entire article, or essentially the entire article, this, this and this is also a part of it. Spacecowboy420 has been clear that he believes this type of blanking is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how anyone can believe that blanking of an entire article put together by others is "fine". Opening deletion discussion, maybe, but not blanking an entire article. If his beliefs do permit that, then it is definitely time for him to be advised to the contrary. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. Surely the way to go about dealing with completely unsourced articles with no notability is to stub them down to the basics, and then PROD them. Stuff like this is basically vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Laura Jamieson, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were "completely unsourced articles with no notability"; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I expect this type of edit to stop until Spacecowboy420 comes here and engages in discussion. --NeilN 23:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I got tagged to this conversation, and will weigh in that I don't think the content being removed from Cebu Pacific falls so obviously short of sourcing requirements as to justify these removals. Specifically, while I share much of his objections to the use of primary sources, material sourced to primary sources is sufficiently acceptable as to require discussion. For Dasmariñas Village, though, the problem is more that he doesn't delete cleanly: replacing it with a redirect to Makati City would have been quite justifiable. Leaving the article as it was, after being tagged as unsourced for seven years, would have been completely irresponsible. It's an example of exactly how useless the "citation needed" tags are.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that at least some of the material removed from the Cebu Pacific article, particularly including its having merged with other airlines, probably merits inclusion, and, I assume, could probably have sources found if in fact the editor who removed it were more interested in improving the article than in, basically, unilaterally removing everything with sometimes questionably phrased edit summaries. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I see the behavior of Spacecowboy420 as very concerning. This editor does not understand sourcing guidelines or policy at all. We all know that material needs to be "challenged" and may be removed, but the mere existence of a refimprove or noref tag is not, per se, a challenge of contentious material. Absent a BLP violation or blatent copyvio, the standard procedure is to initiate discussion. My take:

1. WP:PRIMARY is widely misunderstood; it does not prohibit use of primary sources, it simply explains where they are and are not appropriate. In the case of the Cebu Pacific article, it was filled with a lot of cruft, but some of the material removed was fine, and taking out something apt to be verified simply due to a cn tag is a lack of due diligence.
2. this was just inappropriate content removal without discussion.
3. this was a completely inappropriate edit summary
4. this had no justification for blanking. and properly reverted. Unsourced, yes, but blanking was overkill$.
5. prodding and deleting content of an article in this fashion was completely inappropriate.
6. this was at least in response to a discussion, so OK in style, I make no coment as to the validity of the content or arguments advanced.
7. completely inappropriate edit summary. Also inappropriate blanking.

• That's all for now from me. I'd say a restriction may be in order that in the future Spacecowboy420 cannot blank or prod tag any article, if he has issues, he can either file a proper AfD, or if there is a prod concern, ask someone else to do it for him. Spacecowboy420 should be required to make blanking requests via either the BLP noticeboard or Copyvio noticeboards. If he chooses not to respond here, I'd suggest a one-week block might get his attention. Montanabw 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a prod restriction, but I do support a restriction on blanking articles, per mine and other arguments above and elsewhere. Ha, I'll even ping User:Kvng with whom I am having a disagreement on some prods - see, there are people who go far, far further then me... Perhaps instead of deprodding my prods you could see if there are improperly blanked Spacecowboy's articles out there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take aboard the constructive criticism and advice given here and accept that when I removed unsourced content on some articles, it might have been a good idea to consider 1. checking that I didn't remove valid content. 2. contacting the editors who inserted the content in the first place and asking them to provide sources. 3. redirects instead of virtually empty topics. If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This might just have been a case of an editor with a previous negative interaction with me, getting a little too overzealous with ANI reports. I'd rather say "yeah, ok, I'll be careful" than get involved in another prolonged dramafest, over a really simple issue. C'est la vie. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, as made clear before and then again, we both know that I've had many previous negative interactions with you, not just the Child grooming case. But, as is clear by others expressing the same concerns about your editing, that is not why I reported you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, like you I love lyric poetry more than drama, but this was not a dramafest over a simple issue. I mean, it was a simple issue, but repeated frequently and zealously. Few people like trimming articles more than I do, but wholesale blanking is quite another, and as such this is a matter for ANI. Had you not responded, and continued with the simple issue, there is little doubt you would have been blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmies My reaction was probably more to do with the source of the complaint, than the content. Rather than insult the source of the complaint, or comment on their motivation, it would be more constructive of me to pay attention to you, as you've always spoken total sense. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, if I could get that last bit in an affidavit, I'd be mighty grateful. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: I find it curious that you "banned" Flyer22 Reborn and Montanabw from your talk page over this. Are you trying to make it harder for them to resolve issues with you in the future? Rebbing 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Rebb - No, I'm trying to get a little peace and quiet in my editing life. A quick "ping" gets my attention to any post, if required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I must comment that Spacecowboy420 needs to be explicitly warned that blanking material simply for being uncited or for having an old {{cn}} tag is an improper response per WP:PRESERVE. If an article is overly promotional or COI in tone, appropriate tags should be placed and the editors in question be properly informed. Most of all, it is completely inappropriate to use language in edit summaries such as these (all in his last 500 edits) no matter what the provocation—or even accuracy of the sentiment:

1. "buying planes and having routes is not fucking notable"
2. "shit article. POV/OR/NO sources."
3. "Do I want an ignorant template on my pretty talk page? Nope. It can fuck off." (in response to a warning, no less)
4. "fuck this article sucks...."
5. "not a collection of fucking pictures"
6. "This article sucks. ..."
7. "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?"
8. "promotional crap..."
9. "Promotional crap."
10. "more crap removed"
11. "lots of crap removed, for numerous awesome reasons..."

• Spacecowboy420 appears to be an erudite individual and perfectly capable of using a thesaurus to find synonyms for these assorted four-letter expletives. (I did not note uses where the individual used said words to describe his own actions, which is acceptable as it is either self-deprecating humor or commentary on one's own actions) My suggestion is that any further behavior such as these examples above result in an immediate 24-48 hour block for each occurrence. Inappropriate blanking or inappropriate prod-tagging may need to be addressed on a case by case basis, but Spacecowboy420 needs to be strongly admonished that this is not appropriate. Montanabw 17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's not spend time on trying to figure out what kind of individual Spacecowboy420 is and focus on addressing the behavior. I think the whole matter of blanking material has been settled, and I expect not to see it come up again. Spacecowboy420, the swearing in edit summaries is needlessly provocative and adds no value to the work you are doing, so please drop it. This summary is not an acceptable way to talk to other editors. There are other ways to explain the removal of material you think is problematic. I JethroBT 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The thing is that a literal reading of WP:BURDEN does support Spacecowboy420's behaviour. As written, editors can remove content if they don't like the sourcing, and there aren't any limits or qualifiers on that power. WP:PRESERVE suggests otherwise but we have a number of editors who are seriously arguing that BURDEN trumps PRESERVE. It's not proportionate or reasonable to warn editors for doing what our policies specifically say they can do. In my view the correct response to this isn't to impose sanctions on Spacecowboy420. It's to clarify WP:BURDEN by explaining how far it goes.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Another option might be to either place the removed material on the article talk page, allowing people to still have access to it for the purposes of finding sources for what it says, or alternately adding a wikilink of the edit history of the article showing the material removed. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, I would prefer not to visit your talk page. Indeed, my visiting that talk page has been a rare occasion. I prefer not to visit the talk pages of those I have a tempestuous history with. But Misplaced Pages requires that I notify you of a WP:ANI report I've started on you, regardless of already having pinged you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank S Marshall for presenting the devil's advocate position, above, since he's firmly in the opposite camp; it was a very classy thing to do. I'm one of the people who are arguing, as he says, "BURDEN trumps PRESERVE". However, even those of us who believe that make a couple of possible exceptions to the removal rights given by BURDEN. First, most of us concede that it is likely a sanctionable practice to make a regular or habitual practice of removing material merely because it is unsourced without making a good faith effort to find a source for the material, especially if it appears that doing so is pursuant to a topical agenda or POV (it being somewhat unclear whether or not it is sanctionable without that factor being present; most cases which have come here to ANI without it that I've seen or been involved in — which may be simply luck of the draw — have ended with considerable criticism of the practice, but no sanctions). Second, and much less certain, is the idea that even a single removal of a large amount — blanking — of material from a single article may be sanctionable. (And, of course, even if neither of those exceptions is present, edit warring over a removal is not permitted.) I have not looked and do not know whether Spacecowboy420 has engaged in either of those practices, but I do find the edit comments quoted by the good Montanabw, above, to be disturbing, especially if it is combined with one of those practices, and I wanted to add this additional information for what it's worth. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What's interesting here is that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN redirect to policies, and both state pretty clearly that editors should "consider" fixing problems rather than just blanking things. Use of the {{cn}} tag is encouraged. My own position is that tagging is superior to blanking, as it gives the article editors an opportunity to fix problems. At the very least, going around and declaring that articles "suck" or are "shit" is WP:BITEY at its worst, highly incivil and does not contribute to the good of the encyclopedia. It's one thing to become irate at a well-established editor or a true vandal, but where we have these low-quality-but-good-faith articles, it is more appropriate to use tags or at least a more educational edit summary. The idea of moving large swaths of blanked material to the talk page is also a good one. Montanabw 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the totality of the editors blanking career, but just looking at his edits to Child grooming in particular, since that's part of my long-term area of watching. Edits such as this and this... twice removing the blue-sky statement Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being... is an action that makes me quite nervous about that editor. I'm not saying that this proves anything, but it would be consistent with a highly problematic editor. It's a red flag to me. However, based on the above, it seems highly likely that this editor just likes to delete material generally for some unclear reason, and happened to pick that passage more or less at random. I guess. It's still not something I like to see. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"...just likes to delete unsourced material" would have expressed the apparent situation as it stands rather more precisely, I think. _Muffled 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced content

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

Parsley Man keeps putting back in to the lede of the article Omar Mateen that Mateen killed 49 and wounded 53. He doesn't provide a specific source, is only saying that the source were somewhere in the #Shooting and death section of the article. But that section is not repeating that Mateen is directly responsible for all 102 victims. This is Parsley Man's last such edit. Please remind him that he has to provide sources. --Distelfinck (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this for real? Look, in that section, it says, "In the end, Mateen had killed 49 people and injured 53 others." It is followed by this citation. However, Distelfinck has made a number of edits in which he/she removes Mateen from responsibility of all 49 deaths and 53 injures in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and claims that police may have been responsible for some of the casualties:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

These claims were hypothetical and have not been confirmed by any official involved with the investigation, let alone widely covered, for I have not heard of these claims until the edits came up. However, Distelfinck has consistently been rewording sentences in accordance to that, which seems to be a WP:OR move. Parsley Man (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute but also edit warring... going to look at edits and see if AN3 needs to be filed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like 3 reverts (initial edit, 1, 2, 3). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

All the sources I've seen are saying 49 and 53. Maybe an investigation will indicate some of the casualties came from crossfire, but that's speculation. And no matter what, Mateen is responsible for all of them (including the 50th death, his own, from police gunfire). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I had looked at the wrong version of the article, and therefore failed to see that, as Parsley Man pointed out here, what he wrote in the article lede is indeed a repetition of the article body. Above report of mine is hence inaccurate, and this thread can be closed --Distelfinck (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:KatrinaMcCaffery has requested admin intervention

KatrinaMcCaffery has requested admin intervention at User talk:KatrinaMcCaffery#Nomination of Oliver Trevena for deletion. I understand she is unhappy that a number of her articles have been nominated for deletion and is alleging WP:HOUNDING. I'm involved in recent actions w.r.t. Ms. McCaffery at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:KatrinaMcCaffery_.26_User:Kittymccaffery and in subsequent AfDs, and so will not venture an opinion here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Lofall54

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

New user that appears to have been a IP until today is going in and messing up metropolitan areas in Washington/Oregon. (literally every edit is wrong). My guess is they are going off of their thoughts, and are not sticking to the Census Bureau's definitions on these matters. He also turned a could census designated places into cities, which I'm pretty sure only a vote of incorporation can do that. Left a message on their talk page, but they keep on editing. Needs to be blocked and all edits rolled back. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this too and reported it to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pylonrudy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Appears the account is related to User:RKBetsy as well, that was blocked ten days ago. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is an obvious Vodkapoise sock.- MrX 11:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is Vodkapoise, now blocked. I don't have time to do all the reverting that's needed unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Siuenti

For the past day, Siuenti (talk · contribs) has been involving himself in edit wars on various film articles, insisting that the plot summaries should include the cast members. I have told him numerous times to read WP:FilmPlot, but he has ignored my advice and claims that I am "inconveniencing readers solely to decrease the work count". - Areaseven (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you may have forgotten to notify the editor, so I've done that for you :) -- samtar 14:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask that Areaseven refrains from editing in this area until s/he at least realizes that their is a downside to his/her edits? Siuenti (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe there has been previous consensus at WT:FILM that it is unnecessary to include actor names in Plot summaries if they are provided elsewhere, though I'm admittedly having some trouble finding a specific link. I believe editors would generally agree that in such cases, removing actor names to comply with WP:FILMPLOT is appropriate. A relevant discussion from six months ago can be reviewed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film#Cast names in plot summaries. My reading of that is that the editors who participated in the conversation felt that when there is a Cast section, including actor names in the Plot section is redundant.

In any case, edit-warring over such is highly inappropriate. WP:BRD would obviously seem the reasonable path to follow in such cases. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would note that WP:FILMPLOT does say specifically, "(Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)". So, if discussion is not occurring, that's a problem, and the guideline as written appears to favor summaries that are within compliance. DonIago (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So let's have a discussion maybe at WP:FILM and then you can go back to reducing the work word count if you still think it's justified. Siuenti (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to start one. In fact, you probably should have started one before matters escalated to this point. I see no reason to start one myself as I'm satisfied with the existing guidelines. I'd go so far as to say that if you're willing to cease your current editing pattern for now, initiate a discussion on this matter, and then abide by whatever consensus emerges, that there's no need to pursue this further. DonIago (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm not too sure that discussion you linked to shows consensus but I'll take your word for it. I'd still like to ask people who think there is no downside to their actions not to engage in edit wars until they have listened to the other side. Siuenti (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User Tony Loiacono repeatedly inserting self-promotional material into article

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

• Tony Loiacono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite numerous warnings and reverts by other editors, Tony Loiacono has continued to repeatedly insert ungrammatical, unsourced, self-serving material into the Drs. Foster & Smith article. 32.218.41.1 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please provide diffs as proof of this if you can. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course I can: , , , , , , , , . Conflict of interest. Addition of unsourced material. Spam. Edit warring. Need I say more? 32.218.41.1 (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that the editor has been warned by the reporting user, however, when reporting the user at AN/I you also need to notify the editor. I will do that for you right now. Your diffs should serve as enough proof for a reviewing administrator. Also for future reference you can report instances of edit warring at AN/Edit Warring and 3RR. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I see Tony Loiacono has had a go at communicating, and has said we can just google the sources. We know that's not enough to meet WP:V, but as a brand-new user, he doesn't. Let's see if he can have a quiet chat here, and hopefully we'll get this sorted out. Ritchie333 17:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Let's see if he can have a quiet chat here, and hopefully we'll get this sorted out" does not mean "smack the banhammer on them and tell them to sod off". Jeez.... Ritchie333 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A large number of possible CSD U2s from semiautomation

Hi, I noticed that many of these pages here would qualify for CSD U2:

• Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:User:  Awaiting administrative action
• Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:User talk:  Done

Some of these are sockpuppet notices by other users (who must have mistyped in Twinkle), or misled moves. I believe they should be deleted, but it would take me a while to CSD tag them. Did not want to spam MfD either... unless you think that really is the appropriate venue. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just moved one which was moved to the wrong location while attempting to archive. So some additional manual review should be done. --kelapstick 02:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If you use link classifier, it's easy to pick out the redirects, which can just be deleted, vs. the ones which actually should be moved. I am looking at user talk at the moment. --kelapstick 02:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: Thanks. I have this bookmarked for now, probably won't be able to get to more of this until tomorrow. But yeah, tons of U2s. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think stuff like User talk:User:figure8state should just be deleted; twinkle created page that doesn't have any use since the account is blocked. Maybe this should be one of the checks enforced on Twinkle -- preventing "User:" from being added to the username field at ARV - sockpuppet or ignoring it if it is added. One option is to add verified links over to something like Misplaced Pages:User or user talk pages of non-existent users for deletion. Any admin can then delete the whole list using Twinkle batch delete, this won't bloat up CAT:CSD or MfD. —SpacemanSpiff 03:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the user talks are archiving errors, I am almost done fixing them. Haven't looked at the user ones though. --kelapstick 03:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Many of these pages came from Twinkle sockpuppet notices and welcomes. Also, a non-trivial number of these pages came from October 2014, which leads me to believe there was a Twinkle or MediaWiki bug around that time. A couple are automated bot postings or message services delivered to incorrect pages due to setup error. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just brought a good number of these to MfD to clarify why they should be deleted, although, truly, they all satisfy WP:U2 as they currently stand without moving. I'm wondering if, after this is cleaned, it's reasonable to add these prefixes to the title blacklist? (Possibly including "Misplaced Pages:User:" and "Misplaced Pages:User talk:" as well?) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted that batch as uncontroversial housekeeping because they were obviously created in error, are mostly no longer relevant and the probability of the user reading the messages is extremely small. MER-C 12:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

30/500 in response to Никита-Родин-2002

For the background on this, please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. Since mid-April, this sockmaster has had 36 usernames and 22 IPs reported at SPI. These are by no means the only IPs he's used; there's probably at least another 50 in that time period, but it's often not useful to report them since he changes IPs frequently.

The modus operandi of this sockmaster is to introduce false information relating to the chart rankings and certifications of Green Day songs and albums. He occasionally also introduces similar false information to Kelly Clarkson, The Who, and Fall Out Boy related articles, mostly as part of a pattern of edits across multiple articles that reinforce his edits related to Green Day. For example, he might edit a Kelly Clarkson article to say one of her songs never topped the charts and also edit a Green Day article to say their song topped the charts during that same period. This often also extends to articles such as List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Here are some example diffs:

This vandalism is sneaky and often goes undetected by recent changes patrollers, who assume the change is in good-faith. Semi-protection has recently proved ineffective, as the master has adopted a new strategy to get around it without detection. As seen with Ohlava, he registers an account weeks in advance, rapidly makes 10 edits in userspace, and then jumps right into semi-protected articles making disruptive edits for hours until blocked. When he decides to activate his "sleeper" accounts, he uses multiple accounts at once to maximize disruption and make it more difficult to effectively respond to the sockpuppetry. See the most recent report at the SPI link above for an example of two sleeper accounts being activated at the same time immediately after a non-sleeper vandalized articles that were not semi-protected.

I requested full protection in the midst of this most recent spree, but it was denied by MusikAnimal as too severe a response. A WP:30/500 restriction on these articles is the ideal solution. Kelapstick, a sitting arbitrator, recently commented at User talk:Opabinia regalis indicating that the Arbitration Committee does not have full control over the 30/500 protection level, and the community has discretion to support its use on any articles.

Should the community authorize administrators to apply 30/500 protection at their discretion to any articles where confirmed socks of Никита-Родин-2002 have continued their long-term pattern of vandalism despite semi-protection? ~ Rob 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: is it possible to have some manner of edit notice for recent changes patrollers to see to alert them to specific page issues, in this case to be wary of sneaky changes to rankings or anything Green Day related? If not, 30/500 makes sense. I've encountered this user before and their persistence and perseveration is remarkable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I could create an edit notice, but that doesn't pop up on Huggle or similar anti-vandalism tools. Most anti-vandalism tools won't even flag this in the first place and an edit notice can't change their algorithms unfortunately. An edit notice would only be shown once an editor clicked the edit tab, which I doubt many RC patrollers do. ~ Rob 05:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the absence of pending changes level 2 as an option, the only alternative for persistent subtly vandalizing sockpuppetry that semi-protection fails to stop is full protection. 30/500 raises the bar but still allows editing. Fences&Windows 11:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until a more specific list of pages is given. I am worried about the potential for collateral damage: we have to recognize that pop music articles have high traffic counts and are more likely to be edited by "casual" editors. For example, a good-faith music fan who is only interested in a few artists may only edit sporadically, perhaps only when newsworthy events occur that involve their artist. It is easy to see why casual editors would accumulate enough edits to be autoconfirmed, but not extendedconfirmed. This is exactly the kind of editor that the broad use of 30/500 protection would drive away. With a more specific list of pages, at least the community could read through the page histories and examine the potential for collateral damage. Altamel (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but I'm confused. BU Rob13, when I saw your request for page protection for Wake Me Up When September Ends, I decided to apply 30/500 for a couple of weeks in preference to full protection for a few days. Then I saw your comment that 30/500 doesn't have community consensus. But it's in the drop-down menu of protection options, and the ArbCom hasn't said that it can't be used. Is there a community discussion somewhere saying it shouldn't be used outside certain areas? SarahSV 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Having looked around, I assume people are relying on this January 2016 RfC – New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection – where there was agreement to introduce the new usergroup. Robert McClenon closed it and added:

"Consensus is in favor of implementing this feature, with the noted reservation that it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation, not in response to a request for page protection or any other reason."

I've only glanced at the RfC responses, but it's not clear that those restrictions gained consensus. SarahSV 18:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Meh I don't particularly care for the precedent, and I was someone who dealt with Nikita way back when he was primarily doing Rainbow Fish and Ice Age vandalism (tbh I've always questioned the relationship between that Nikita and the current Nikita, but that's neither here nor there; both are sufficiently disruptive). My worry is that allowing 30/500 for articles targeted by persistent sockpuppeteers will create a situation where the exception—and 30/500 is clearly intended to be an exception—will swallow the rule, that we're an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 30/500 was crafted to deal with mass disruption from a variety of unconnected or unconnectable accounts—where no conspiracy between individuals could possibly be proven. Have edit filters been tried? PC for specific affected articles? In any event, I concur with Altamel that even if we consider this appropriate, we need an indication that there's a limited number of articles, or that we can describe them with specificity. In general I just think the administrative practices involving the application and administration of 30/500 is not sufficiently sussed out that we should be considering an expansion of the mandate merely for convenience. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a broad deployment of ECP to a large category (music album related articles?). However I would likely support a definite length PC2 after the targets were better identified. — xaosflux 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until more clear general guidelines for 30/500 are created. This rollout doesn't need any further complication. Re-examining PC2 is a good idea. BethNaught (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Having further reviewed the evidence, that the current situation is being allowed to continue is absurd. PC2 would be bad because someone would still have to verify changes, with outsiders to the situation possibly being duped, and someone who knows about it having to fix it anyway.
  • This would be a provisional measure until the community decides clear guidelines in the RFC which appears to be upcoming. BethNaught (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per above. I'm concerned that these folks will then be aware of the 30/500 requirements, make 500 dummy edits, wait a month, and start vandalizing. We really need a guideline for WP:EC-P set up soon. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Andy M. Wang: By that logic, shouldn't we get rid of semi-protection? Achieving extended confirmed status takes substantially more time and effort. That translates into less socks and less vandalism. ~ Rob 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ... Yeah I'd agree. I think semi-protection is effective for cases where folks don't want to wait. EC-P might be fine for one or two cases then. If EC-P is rolled out in a big way, the amount of dummy/useless edits from new users might see increase, which is probably detrimental to the encyclopedia. This was a weak oppose for this one case, and don't feel very strongly, and would go with consensus on this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Some pages that are particularly in need of this restriction at the moment include Wake Me Up When September Ends, Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song), List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 number-one songs of 2005, and List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Take a look through those edit histories, which are typical of the Nikita-hit articles. It's almost exclusively socks and editors reverting those socks. Very few people edit song articles from over a decade ago which have already been expanded to include most information on the subject. We have two options here, really; either accept the fact that newer editors won't be able to edit these articles or accept the fact that they will remain in a near-constant state of factual inaccuracy. Both options suck, but one provides an accurate encyclopedia to our readers. I'm a strong supporter of the "anyone can edit" philosophy, but this is a situation where that philosophy is stopping us from providing factual content on an entire topic area. I should also mention that if the community fails to grant 50/300 here on procedural grounds, I plan to file a full ArbCom case relating to the topic area of Green Day, broadly construed. We need some solution here, because failing to implement a protection level that can effectively stop this sockmaster is implicitly volunteering dozens of hours of editors, SPI clerks, and CheckUsers who have been trying (and failing, really) to keep these articles factually correct. ~ Rob 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  For that list, I'd consider a short term (say 60 day) IAR PC2 level to see if it is effective over ec2 - for immediate relief you can just go full protection while this is worked out. — xaosflux 20:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  There isn't even consensus for PC2 to exist as a protection level, though. Full protection was declined at RFPP with the rationale that it should be handled at SPI (which has never been used as a venue to protect articles, as far as I'm aware). ~ Rob 21:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  No comment on the merits of this use of ECP for obvious reasons (but see also this thread on my talkpage about procedural matters). But I was surprised to see the suggestion for IAR PC2 over (sort-of) IAR ECP for this. @Xaosflux:, why would PC2 be better? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Opabinia regalis: - here is my IAR reasoning for this specific case: while not heavily edited, these articles are more likely to have casual readers hit them then many other random articles (as they concern popular music) - PC2 presents more of a "encyclopedia anyone can edit" interface than ECP does that could possibly convert a reader to an editor. If these articles were on more "controversial" topics, I'd be more in favor of ECP. FWIW, I'm still in favor of the community guidelines for ECP being completed so that people can either stop asking for this, or point to the standard conditions for use. — xaosflux 23:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Thanks. Looking at the example articles, it seems like Rob is right that there's little to no editing going on other than reverting socks. So ECP vs PC2 doesn't matter much, probably, except that PC2 requires a little more work from admins (not sure if that's a feature or a bug). I agree entirely on your last point :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless I missed the link to the discussion where Arbcom authorized the use of 30/500 in this case, as is currently required for any new deployment of 30/500. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Arbcom provided some guidance for how to use it in the context of AE and DS. What to do outside of that context is up to the community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Pinging just so you see the above. Multiple ArbCom members have explicitly stated their guidance was not intended to be a list of exclusive uses of 30/500 and that they consider community application of this protection level to be valid. @Opabinia regalis: An interesting thought to ponder: If enough editors mistakenly think that the community is unable to handle 30/500 protection, does it de facto become true? ~ Rob 22:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that interpretation. Arbcom authorized 30/500 for use in areas which it authorizes, and it has not authorized it for use here: this is neither discretionary sanction nor arbitration enforcement. The question of whether or not the community supports its use outside of those deliberately restrictive criteria has not been asked, and as I'm sure you know questions on changes to protection policies traditionally attract very long and heated discussions. We're talking about applying a very high level of protection to a large range of frequently edited articles here. I sympathize with the situation, but this is not the way to develop a solution. A very good way is the draft RfC advertised below, and a very bad thing to do would be to start applying it in advance of that discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  If your view of this is what's maintained by the community, then fine, but this will probably become a full ArbCom case against an already indefinitely blocked editor, which is fairly absurd. ~ Rob 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. We have an unusual vandalism case that our usual tools are inadequate to deal with, but we have a new tool that may solve the problem, and there's nothing stopping us implementing that tool except beauracracy. Well, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Yes, we do need a broader discussion to delineate exactly when using this new tool is appropriate, but that's no reason not to use it in a case as clear-cut as this. Plus, this first use of 30/500 as a countervandalism measure will provide useful data to inform that discussion. Adrian J. Hunter 06:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Since this community clearly isn't ready for elimination of IP editing and a one-person/one-account and sign-in-to-edit policy that would make this sort of unbannable sneaky vandalism difficult to cause and easy to correct, this sort of restriction is the best available tool... Carrite (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Extended confirmed protection policy

Before I went to GLAM-Wiki Boot Camp, I started a discussion to gather ideas, but we need more voices. Mz7 has a draft of an RFC here. If you haven't done so already, please comment or edit the draft, because we need to move forward with this. I'd like to take the RFC live in the next week or so and we need input. Katie 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Closure of move request for Sport Aerobics

I'm asking if someone could close the move request of Sport aerobics to Aerobic gymnastics. If this can not be done or I have not done the proper steps may I please get the instructions on what else I need to do. I appreciate it. :) -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOP. Doc talk 08:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Doc I was not aware of that rule but I admit I broke it and apologize. Would you like me to remove it from one board? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

My statement on that board has been archived and I cannot edit it. I followed the instructions on that page and am now trying to get the page moved. Will you help me?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think that this is really a case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Rainbowofpeace asked at AN on 10 June for the page to be moved and was directed to WP:RM. They started a requested move discussion and now they are asking for it to be closed. Nothing wrong with that other than this is not the usual place to ask for a requested move discussion to be closed. These are simply the actions of an inexperienced editor. Rainbowofpeace: there are a number of people who work at WP:RM on closing discussions listed there and they will no doubt get round to reviewing your request today or tomorrow. If you want to raise this anywhere, Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves would be a better place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm I'm sorry for not following the procedures correctly I haven't edited wiki for a while and have gotten rusty on the different noticeboards. I appreciate you assuming good faith. I will wait a couple of days. What steps should I take after that? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that it has now been reviewed and relisted, that will be because there has been no participation in the discussion. I'm afraid that will mean waiting another week or so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Joseph2302

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

This user has reverted one edit that he characterized as vandalism, and did some nepotism with another user against me. If he talk with me before its vandalism characteriztion, thats called consensus, if he did not, by this:can this user be blocked or removing his extra user priveleges? Thank you, BerendWorst (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

1) Diffs please; 2) where have you attempted to discuss this with him before coming here?; 3) you haven't notified him - this is not nearly sufficient. GiantSnowman 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Boomerang as although competence is required, the OP shows none, as GS's dif above demonstrates; whilst edit-summaries such as this also suggest that he does not possess the right attitide to contribute to the project collegially. _Muffled 10:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The diff in question is , the only time we've ever interacted to my knowledge. It was a revert of their diff , which is clearly not assuming good faith.

I've done nothing wrong, but if BerendWorst persists, they might be looking at a boomerang. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, this was sort of notifying me of the discussion here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a threat against me, i idd not persist and you said that im a vandal. BerendWorst (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. My edit summary says "not needed"- which is correct per MOS:OVERLINK which says that "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions" should not be linked. Unlike your edit summary "Screw you", which is much less civil. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It was my understanding from a previous thread that here at ANI we're supposed to say "Intercourse you". EEng 11:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• BerendWorst, everything you've written in this ANI thread is complete bullshit. I suggest withdrawing this ANI thread right now before a WP:BOOMERANG hits you and you are blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• BerendWorst, linking France in an inbox is generally discouraged per MOS:OVERLINK as said above, and I don't believe it is policy to respond with "micturate you". This thread was not necessary, and to use the old cliche you really need to drop it. Ritchie333 12:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this complaint is unwarranted, that the OP's response was unnecessary (especially given the extremely minor quality of the revert), and that the OP should withdraw it before a curved stick heads their way. I'm also wondering what all this about "nepotism" is. To quote a favorite film "I don't think that word means what you think it means." BMK (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nepotism apparently means "The practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs" according to the OED. Definitely not something I do on here. I think they meant tag-teaming. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And I am a persoon. In your face, normal people! _Muffled 12:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought I knew what nepotism meant in a Misplaced Pages context, but I guess I didn't. I thought that, in a Misplaced Pages context, it meant writing a conflict of interest article about a family member (and so not an autobiography but still COI). I thought I knew. But I can't read the ESL mind of the original poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Damonlamb

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

Almost certainly a sock of User:Pylonrudy, User:Lofall54, and User:Vodkapoise. Identical edits to the same articles in "Editor Interaction Analyser". Also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodkapoise. Any assistance in blocking this editor would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Vodkapoise. Katie 21:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Old legal threat discovered on talk page

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

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Contact us#please read carefully there is a legal threat from 2014 i discovered it needs to be deleted as it violates[REDACTED] policy Flow234 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Since nothing on that talk page relates to the edit notice in question, I cleared the page. -- ] {{talk}} 13:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Eyes re retaliatory edits on BLP page

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

Although I rarely edit any more, I entered a delete vote at this AfD this morning:

Douglas Ousterhout AfD

Within the hour, the only user who has voted to keep, User:Msnicki, started obvious POV editing of the WP page about me (i.e., James Cantor, not User:James_Cantor):

BLP edits.

Any input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised by your reaction. I expected you might thank me. There was nothing at all retaliatory. When I see an otherwise content-free WP:PERNOM !vote at an AfD, I'm often curious who this is, the same way my curiosity draws me to so many other articles where I may pop in to read more, start clicking through to the sources and end up doing a little research and cleanup of my own. On your own user page, you make clear you are the one and only James Cantor. You appear to want people to know this so I can't imagine you should be surprised if people go there.

Re: the cleanup I did, you tell me: When you were quoted in the article about self-identified shemales, did you really did mean for your remarks to apply to all transgendered women? I thought that was a tenuous and somewhat inflammatory conclusion, likely WP:SYN, so I replaced it with what I certainly intended as a neutral summary of your position on the actual controversy, which is over autogynephilia, not whether self-identified shemales change their stories, citing your own written, considered remarks, not just something possibly taken out of context by a reporter.

Based on the remarks I cited, I thought you sounded pretty reasonable and I was wondering how you could get into so many fights. I guess I found out. It should be possible to disagree at an AfD without making it personal. I was trying to be nice. Msnicki (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I notice that Beyond My Ken has already reverted my edits but without any comment to explain his reasoning. I don't edit war, especially not with people I know like edit warring, so I'm walking away from this one. I don't actually care what we report about Mr. Cantor. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Established article was replaced with description of a newer band with the same name

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

I'm not sure what category of problem this is: do we treat it as simple vandalism? The page for the 1980s recording artists Slow Children was completely blanked in late April by what looks like a single-purpose user Slowchildrenpunk, who turned it into a page describing a hardcore punk band under the same name.

Here's the diff:

The current page has been revised repeatedly since then and contains what looks to me self-promotional material, but I don't know of this band and have no opinion on whether they are notable enough to merit an independent Misplaced Pages entry. Clearly the earlier group does, though, and the page that had stood since at least 2009 has been unilaterally eliminated by the editor's change.

-- BTfromLA (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The two pages in question are this and this, and to be frank I doubt either has the slightest chance of surviving AFD. I note that neither incarnation deigns to include anything vaguely approaching even a single reference. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The first band are probably notable. Two albums on a major label (Ensign) means they pass WP:BAND#5 and on a casual look, there are certainly sources about them out there. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@LauraJamieson: The first band *is* probably notable. _Muffled 20:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Over here we use plural pronouns for bands (and sporting teams). Check out most articles about UK bands :) Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@LauraJamieson: "Over here"??? How bleeding far from Leyton are you? Up north or something? _Muffled 22:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm even further away (across the Channel and way east...) but I just learned that according to note a, even the venerable BBC can't decide which style to use. De728631 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm about ¼ mile from Leyton, and I say the band *is*. RolandR (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not something I'd lose any sleep over, but if I was writing something about a band I'd probably stick with 'are'. While 'Pink Floyd is' and 'Pink Floyd are' both read well, 'the Beatles is' is clumsy and ham-handed compared with 'the Beatles are'. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have now restored the article to this version about the first probably notable band. If someone feels like forking out the material about the second band, please do so but I don't see much notability for that one. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, Misplaced Pages has dedicated pages for singer/songwriter Pal_Shazar, producer Jules Shear and each of their albums. BTfromLA (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tidied up the page and added a couple of references, so at least it's not unsourced now. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'd fork out the punk band's page as a courtesy if it wasn't such a self-promotional piece of............... self-promotion. Carrite (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack to shut down discussion about Omar Mateen's foreign travel

On the Talk Page for the Pulse night club shooting, a discussion about the foreign travel made by Omar Mateen was shut down after an editor used an ad hominem attack against other editors, who supported including the foreign travel information in the article. The editor said that others were engaging in "racial paranoia" for supporting factual inclusion of the foreign travel information, and the editor removed cited references to Mateen's foreign travel from the article. Despite requests that the travel be factually described, the edits were not reverted. This issue could not be resolved on the Talk Page for the Pulse night club shooting, where material or well-sourced information was provided by others. An effort to discuss this with the editor, who is gate-keeping the Pulse night club shooting article, on the editor's Talk Page proved unsuccessful. Is there a protocol to follow when ad hominem attacks are used to shut down discussion about edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslowsneeds (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I see no personal attacks in that edit summary or on the talk page. I'll ping InedibleHulk since the plaintiff didn't notify them. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maslowsneeds: Are you talking about InedibleHulk? If so, you did not notify him of this discussion; I have done so for you. Where is this ad hominem attack? I read the talk page and I did not find any ad hominem attacks about anyone in the section to which you linked. Katie 23:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And what discussion was shut down after said ad hominem? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor accused people, who were requesting the inclusion of factual descriptions of travel, of racial paranoia ("it would seem less like racist paranoia"). As noted, references to the travel were removed by the editor, and appeals by people requesting the inclusion of material and cited facts about the travel went unheard, indicating that the requests were not going to be acted upon, despite their merit, revealing that obviously one editor is gate-keeping the article according to one editor's beliefs. I'm not interested in anymore ad hominem attacks from the editor merely by having made this request for protocol. My request here was for protocol for when ad hominem attacks occur as a way to block edits. Maslowsneeds (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Maslowsneeds, you haven't pointed at any ad hominems. The "it" in the quote refers to the language in the article, not to ... well, "it" wouldn't really refer to an editor anyway. When attacks occur, one can warn the editor via the usual templates; see Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace. But, again, there were no personal attacks here, no matter if you may feel that way. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor can be referred to as "it" for three reasons, with different degrees of acceptability. First, the editor is a bot. That is an acceptable use of pronoun gender in English. Second, the editor is suspected of being a bot. That is an aspersion. Third, the editor either is or is said to be LGBTQ. The use of the neuter pronoun for humans is insulting, even if we don't know their gender, and even if they don't want to specify their gender in the usual way. However, "it" did apply to the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The language being invoked here is that advocating for the inclusion of travel information is tantamount to engaging in racist paranoia. How is that not an ad hominem attack on people suggesting the inclusion of factual information about the travel ? This isn't about feelings, and I don't get where you are coming from about that, except that by hiding behind the semantics of "it" is pretty weak. Nobody was requesting that travel information be included with any opinion or editorial connotation, malevolent or otherwise. The requests being made was for inclusion of factual description of the travel. The fact is that the spectre of racist paranoia was invoked by the editor. Nobody discussing edits chose to invoke inflammatory language, except the editor, who removed the cited travel information and who is apparently gate-keeping the article.Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:66.25.171.16

I want to draw attention to 66.25.171.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who I warned on 16 June for making this posting in which they offered a commentary on a recent event. I was accused of being hysterical for my troubles (see here), and most recently in what could be construed as a personal attack, of being someone who will bring about the next world war (see here). I realise the most recent post is some hours old, but given the nature of the topic I feel this should be brought to the attention of yourselves. Given the nature of what was said in the posting I almost mentioned this here on Thursday, but an admin removed the discussion so it didn't seem to be a problem. This is Paul (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Given talk page screeds such as this and this, I suspect the IP is only here to make a point. clpo13_(talk) 23:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I felt some of it bordered on the menacing, particularly the comment that was posted to Talk:Jo Cox, and "It's SJW's like you, and your penchant for speech suppression, that is going to be the cause of the next world war, and given your disarmed state, you'll be the losers. I look forward to a world without you". This is Paul (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised that POVW isn't blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, eh, stupid question: why wasn't the user simply reported to AIV? I blocked them. Those accusations, that kind of commentary, is unacceptable. I see that AusLondoner also warned the IP, earlier on: AusLondoner, This is Paul, Clpo13, please remove from those talk pages the offending edits, redact them or whatever, including the unacceptable comment about Islam. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, just been through the edit history and taken out some stuff I thought was either an attack or libellous. At least one thing needs to be run past WP:OTRS since it appears to be libellous. I'm planning to log off for a few hours now since it's late so hopefully someone else can email them in my absence. If not I'll do it in the morning. This probably also needs someone more familiar with US politics to go through the edit history as well, just to be sure I've not missed anything. This is Paul (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• This person has been racisting and right-winging here for a while: the content of their edits suggests it, and certain idiosyncrasies in their edits prove it. I'm going to extend this block. This is Paul, thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanity check, please

I asked مجتبیٰ (talk · contribs) why they had made a certain, now deleted, edit, and got the reply "Bishonen, hello. I think someone is using my account. I have to change my password as fast as i can. Thanks". So I blocked them, with a note encouraging them to create a new account and take good care of their new password. They're sad now. Was I too strict, or is that what we do? Bishonen | talk 08:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC). PS, they have now requested unblock. If it's considered acceptable to unblock them, I'd be happy to, of course. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC).

No, you did the right thing, blocking a compromised account. They can say they've regained control of it now and changed the password, but there is no way to know it's really them or the person who took over the account. So unless someone can confirm their identity, I would keep them blocked.--Atlan (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, I don't think that the account was compromised. More likely an edit conflict occurred and the user didn't understand that he was over-writing someone else. When confronted with this, he still didn't understand what had happened, and thought something along the lines of "well, i didn't do that, so someone else must have". IMHO, I think this is just a misunderstanding. Rami R 09:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's the right call. Unless they had an SHA security key, or some other way of proving their identity, we really have no way of knowing who is talking to us now. I have declined an unblock request, though anyone else is free to unblock if they feel sufficiently assured by what the editor is saying. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A thought... This user has a curious history of deleted edits, which only admins can now see. If they can identify something from that list from memory, that could be enough evidence of identity - all the deleted edits are from the past 10 days, so they should be able to remember at least one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Knanaya

This ANI is about the article Knanaya, multiple times this has been removed citing defunct accounts and linking them with anything asking a change from the article current libelous point of view. I thought of leaving it, but as a community member I find it hard.

From careful review Editor Cuchullain, has been long disrupting this article with a distorted version he have provided and continuously try to prove his point, WP:POVPUSH as the truth since 2012 to see evidnece: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Cuchullain&page=Knanaya&server=enwiki&max=

In case of any alternative evidence or reference provided he re-butts it with wrong interpretation of policies or blocks. If the talk page history checked long list of community members disagreeing with his "swiderski" source as credible is an evidence if we can accept everyone included. A recent edit made to solve this issue by me was thwarted with 1 year block and revert, this seems unethical and inability to accept incremental changes. The editor continuously plays WP:NOTGETTINGIT, applies for block, then reverts to his edits and later acts all clean, this is part of his MO. This user also canvass' selected admins or tag-teams with selected editors for his means.

To see newer revision of the article with identifiable sources(all can be cross checked using google books): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191

The users common target is editors who hold grudges and uses their user-rights as WP:GOLDENTICKET(editors who gets their way within the community project) like using edit filters to block any communication, reverting talk page conversation, looking for cornering and visibly rendering other editors voiceless in a manner that fits Misplaced Pages:Competence is required. I doubt their actions are always valid and acceptable, at-least it isn't with the Knanaya article. SpacemanSpiff is such an editor who have performed and further roped in Drimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=724726554 using some previous grudges with some editors. The article first was blocked by the editor, then when any communications made they were childishly removed without proper explanation and blocked reporting to ANI or talk page conversations using user-rights to discuss in between them to state their actions as correct. A crude method used is citing block evasion as a means for circumvention. SpacemanSpiffs actions were lowly to be considered as an admin, lacked basic etiquette, lacked judgement to review the edit of actions of editor Cuchullain to see she or he was promoting his private interest over the project rather than its expansion. SpacemanSpiff exercised his or hers user-rights to further Cuchullain's private interest. I strongly feel these actions of the admin should be answered.

I also suspect that these defunct or banned editors they talk about are made by themselves to use at situations like this, if so this should be checked by competitive users. Otherwise, there is nothing that explains with this warring reverts and wrongful blocks if it was anything concerning the article.

• If swiderski's material reviewed it can be identified that he himself is unsure of most of what he postulates here and there for taking a safe ground. There are newly published material that openly discredits swiderski's multiple origin story and this is equivalent to calling a child, a bastard, this seems to be a fact the editor secretly enjoys. The southerner reference is also widely misused. Accepting other sources of information and Removing swiderski's material entirely to not invite any future disputes is the only solution. But the active editor Cuchullain in the article continuously holds onto these Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories.

I strongly ope Cuchullain's massive WP:NOTGETTINGIT of Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories from 2012 will be popped by removing the article block and reverting the edit to : https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191 if asked he might even come up with dodging answers, his experience might help him to do this or to twist the policies. But this wouldn't fare well for the article or Misplaced Pages's thesis statement collaborative edit by the people who use it.

Note1: This ANI mentions editors with long-term experience and it is only natural to show herd mentality, but let them be all civil and well explained within wiki rules and regulations.

Note2:I may or may not be able to further provide responses, but I urge to check the issue and get answers and make changes to the article in question. Even stripping the article from swiderski to a basic article with minimum info is an option rather than filled with nonsense.117.248.60.163 (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive edits by dynamic ip

On the advice of User:Yaris678 I come here to have your advice about a months-lasting problem on articles dealing with 16-17th centuries Ottoman harem articles, i.e. sultans' children and concubines. These are repeatedly edited by an user using dynamic ip, who insists on the addition of unsourced content and often simply replaces sourced content with his own while keeping the source or adds a new unsourced content just before the footnote, thus making his unsourced statements appear sourced. Some pages have been protected some months ago, but the disruptive editing resumed as soon as the protection was lifted. The user doesn't answer when contacted, doesn't want or isn't able to go to talkpage. This article's history is symptomatic of the problem that goes on and on on several articles (, , etc etc) What do you suggest?--Phso2 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Irene.emerita

User:Irene.emerita has been clearly violating WP:NOTWEBHOST, as all of her contributions have been to her user page. She is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This confirms it. She only wanted to use Wiki as a web host. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User page has been been speedy deleted, and I don't see any other admin action needed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT continues to disrupt Economic stagnation

EllenCT is once again performing disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. She is POV pushing by trying to insert something marginally related into a prominent position following the lede. All of this has been discussed on Talk Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular theory position in article Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular stagnation term used for recent economy "non neutrality" tag and Talk:Economic stagnation#Internationally. EllenCT never gained a consensus for her edits. She has a history of misrepresenting facts and arguing relentlessly on Talk and administrators noticeboards. She was reported here recently for edits to this article. She has a long history as a problem editor: ].Phmoreno (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno is unwilling to discuss his specific objections on the article talk page, was unable to support his complaints here recently at and , and has proven time and again that he is unwilling or unable to support his accusations with specific diffs, reliable sources, and cogent prose. I deny the allegations and repeat my request that WP:BOOMERANG again be applied to restrict Phmoreno from editing on the topic of economics for at least six months and until he can agree to follow the reliable source criteria on WP:PSTS. EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not believe this BS from her. This has been discussed extensively on talk and on this notice board. She makes misleading claims about sources and post marginally relevant information pushing her income inequality POV. She is unable to formulate a logical and truthful argument to justify her edits. This whole discussion took place here a couple of weeks ago but she waited until the discussion was archived. ] She is the one who needs to be permanently banned from economics topics for her misrepresenting sources and POV pushing or she'll just be on this notice board again in a few weeks.Phmoreno (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is VictorD7's comment from EllnCT's above diff:

EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Misplaced Pages. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior.

I am in total agreement with VictorD7. applying the Pareto principle: 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the editors, but this is an understatement. I waste more time with EllenCT's disruptive and untruthful edits than problems with all other editors combined.Phmoreno (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Phmoreno says that EllenCT "has a long history as a problem editor" and gives a link (here) to a previous ANI report ... which was also started by him, and which ended up with a general agreement that he and VictorD7 were at least equally, if not more, problematic editors. Any admin reading this probably needs to look at this exchange between VictorD7 and Phmoreno in which the latter states " I will do whatever I need to to get rid of her distorted edits even if I cannot have her blocked". Looks like he's trying again, doesn't it? Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards