Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 26 January 2017

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages

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

The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language . He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said . In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa . — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom ) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand[REDACTED] policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:

• Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
• @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism , advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
• Arguing in circles while ignoring[REDACTED] content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
• Insists that they understand policies and know how[REDACTED] works, nevertheless: 6
• Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"

Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Misplaced Pages in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Misplaced Pages because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know[REDACTED] readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on[REDACTED] rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then[REDACTED] is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied[REDACTED] (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?

2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Misplaced Pages articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same . With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries" clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to[REDACTED] articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to[REDACTED] edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this[REDACTED] version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure[REDACTED] articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents ). Misplaced Pages needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" contrary to what the scholar said , and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Robert McClenon I do not believe this issue with User:EthiopianHabesha is being treated fairly. The lack of sufficient English skills should not come into play when the issue hasn't really got much to do with the edits themselves. We are dealing with Duqsene, which I still believe is Otakrem. A user that has so far made around 5 sock accounts. The last time I brought a case up about his supposed sock, it was successful. Either lock some of these pages in the HOA section or deal with the users correctly, because this user will keep on coming back with new accounts, so it isn't EthiopianHabesha that is really the issue here. Resourcer1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by your comments here, you also blank citations Red herrings and false accusations are not helpful. Duqsene (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Resourcer1: SPI allegations need to be handled in the appropriate forum, and if there is evidence you allege there is, let us establish it and have no qualms at Duqsene being blocked by SPI admins. AGF until then, and avoid casting aspersions. It is not just English-skills of EthiopianHabesha, it is their consequent editing and walls of text on the talk page that is the problem. Just look at the edit history of Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Also see notes of admin Doug Weller there and above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resourcer1 who looks to be an associate of EthiopianHabesha, is blanking citations multiple times on the Amhara peoples page. Duqsene (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Misplaced Pages promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Kavdiamanju and unconfessed paid advertising

• Kavdiamanju (talk · contribs)

It came to my attention we've had another case of FoCuSandLeArN and his paid advertising, as this current user listed above has unconfessingly started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources; take this and this, of which I've PRODed several. Recently, they also exhibited similar advertising behavior by citing similar MO about PR at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Factom, despite the current votes now show Delete. Earlier today, they then immediately removed the PROD with the stated "Advertisement article" at the specific article for Tripfez. Like with FaL, they had been involved with this for several months until boldly "retiring"; in this case, Kavdiamanju has largely changed their activities in the last months, and as the first link I showed above, it shows they have been focusing with starting cookie-cutter company articles for the past few months now. Similar, take a look at this Factom article which is one of their last contributions today, with the summary of "removing puffery and adding sources" but, like FaL, that in fact only emphasized the article's PR format, complete with PR sources, and in the case of Factom, Kavdiamanju even cared to expand the section of its employees, executives and their services. With all of this, it shows a clear COI which is still unconfessed despite the deletion actions against their articles. Because this user has become a longtime contributor and user, this is the only place we, as with FaL, can take action. FWIW, I would've given them a serious warning about WP:PAID at their talk page, but given the massive campaign here and the fact they've still continued it until today, it's unlikely to work.

Also, like FaL involving himself with images, Kavdiamanju has affiliated articles where immediate SPAs added company images, see this (and this case, different IPs). I have examined their newest company articles so far, but another similarity to FaL, here is the fact they've affiliated themselves with other non-company articles too. Kavdiamanju has never been a largely active user, but the fact they've largely involved themselves with such similarities in such a close timeline to FaL, is probable cause enough. Now, as for articles like Werner G. Scharff, I can't quite confirm the obvious chances of paid contributions, like the others, but in such a closeness and PR-vulnerable subjects, I wouldn't say no to the likeliness. Even if there's no obvious paid contributions by the company, it's clear there's unconfessed COI here. Also, to note, all involved articles so far: BookRenter ("After working for a few startups, Barceloux saw potential in the idea and teamed up with engineers"), Earny Inc ("It introduced an idea to request a refund on the user’s behalf from e-commerce companies to make sure that the users get the best dea"), GeoOrbital ("The successful kickstarter campaign in May and June 2016 generated $1,261,222 in pledges pre purchasing around 1600 wheels"), Tiptalk ("Every celebrity sets their price for a private response as a text, photo or video for question asked on the application", If the celebrity fails to answer within two days, the money is refunded back to the user"), and Tripfez ("Tripfez makes money by collecting commission for the online customers they provide the hotels") all focus with known PR-hubs for advertisers, such as the fact both BookRenter and Earny list similar TechCrunch PR-style articles, and then Tiptalk has it again. Notify Smartse who opened the last ANI for FaL. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree I don't follow all of SwisterTwister's points e.g. the image addition to GeoOrbital was 3 months after creation, but this version of Jeremy SH Griffith created a week ago shows several hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. I'd prefer not to point out what they are, but I think it should be obvious. I see the same problems at here at Michael Mangini (record producer) as well. Combined with the typical obscure company articles, I think it is almost certain they are paid to write. SmartSE (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• SmartSE, I am surprised to see paid advertising remarks for me. I have edited Factom page when I thought it was pulled down to be written as a software page and not as a company page, there were several reliable sources that indicated that the company is clearly notable. As an editor, I believe that page must not be pulled down, due to the creator's mistakes or what he doesn't have an idea how it should be. The most pages created by me that are PRODED have been reviewed by a Page reviewer and not by Autopatrolled rights, which I have received almost a month back. I am noticing that even reliable sources are now considered as PR, whether they are from Forbes or Techcrunch, which are the most active news channels for the technology companies. SwisterTwister, I saw that you have PRODed 4 pages that I have created which I believe is notable because of the significant news coverage they have received from the different reliable sources. I have only UNPRODED tag for Tripfex, as it was notable not only because of the sources but the first company dedicated for the Muslim travelers and halal-tourism, as stated in Forbes and several other sources. I will certainly agree that the pages I have created were seen on Techcrunch, which is truly a notable and reliable reference. I didn't UNPRODED Bookrenter, when it was clearly mentioned by you, that there were issues in the past. I disclose that I am NOT paid by anyone for creating any page, I have added a few lines that seemed promotional to SwisterTwister, while mentioning their Business model or how the company was founded usually referred from news sources, not at all intended to promote a company.

1. GeoOrbital, was notable due to the sources and I am not linked to the editors who have later edited it. I haven't UNPRODED it
2. BookRenter, was notable due to the sources and again, not linked to the company and neither paid. I haven't UNPRODED it and will be surprised if it's pulled down, however it deserves a place like Chegg, from where I got to know about this company. Review my advert comment on the Chegg's page.
3. Tiptalk, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
4. Earny Inc, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
5. I have created only pages for those music producers, who were highly notable and didn't had a page. I have not intended to promote these technology companies by any means and I am surprised that an editor has made an edit after me. If you review the article, I don't think it was promotional by any-means. Michael Mangini (record producer), a a two time Grammy Award–winner, deserves a place. Adding a Discography section on Jeremy SH Griffith doesn't make it promotional rather my intent was to display why he was notable. If you see a pattern, I have created pages for Sports, technology companies and then music producers, which is not possible in case of paid editing. If I was a paid editor, I would always got a different industry rather than focusing on a particular industry at a time. I have created pages only after reading news or looking at the Misplaced Pages pages.

I am highly surprised to see allegations of paid edits, which is not at all even .001% true. If someone edit a page that you have created, it doesn't mean that you are paid for it, rather it is a coincidence that has happened with me only twice, for GeoOrbital after 2 months and Michael Mangini, surprisingly after a day. Either someone has been searching for him and edited the page, it really doesn't make me a paid editor. The pages I have created were only meant to describe what the company is notable for or what they have been doing. Looking forward to your comments. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I was looking at the comment of SwisterTwister for me "started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources", I realized that I have created 8 company pages, Growing Underground, Earny Inc, Brigade (app), GeoOrbital, TipTalk, Luxe (company) (survived AFD), BookRenter and Tripfez. I have never participated for AFD of the pages created by me as I was sure they will survive AFD if they deserve a place, review here. The only vote that was Delete was of SwisterTwister, where he has raised the same concerns of including clear interviews and PR attempts, however all others agreed that it deserves a place. Keep votes were from Northamerica1000, TheMagnificentist and Maharayamui, who all are senior editors here. Can you (SwisterTwister) please define me what are not clear interviews and PR attempts in case of technology companies that have significant news from sources including Forbes, Techcrunch, Observer and Washington Post news sources, not written by a freelance journalist. I have always attempted to give a clear scenario, what the company is about, how it was founded and why it is notable. If you feel that a certain line is promotional, instead of alleging me for paid edits here, shouldn't there have been an attempt to talk me with on my talk page or tagged with advert or edited the page. It is certainly frustrating for any editor, when he is questioned for a mass amount of company articles completed, when he has only made 8 pages over a period 8 months, when they all were covered by reliable news sources. SmartSE, your thoughts? Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We really need to be on the same platform for the news sources when it comes to the technology companies, when one senior editor is sure that the page doesn't deserve a place and others believe it does, is it primarily due to the difference of opinion or there is really a problem? Can we sort it out? I am here only for a reason that makes me happy that I am contributing to the World's largest encyclopedia that people are going to read in the future, how the world was before them. I am not one of those people, who needs to lie to make a few dollars for his livelihood. I am clear with my goals and want to continue my contributions to make this place clean and help the community to grow up its knowledge base. I am surprised when users like Brianhe, were denied admin rights for no justified reason. Also, I am following SwisterTwister from a long time, during 2014-2015, I have always felt he is an awesome editor, we had a common view for AFD at CodeFuel, SwordPen Publishers, Sergei N. Bauer, Tasha Wahl and others. We have a difference of opinion at IndiaMART, when it seems that the decision was taken much before counting all the details in. From 2016-now, he appears to be with more of a NO point of view, I really want you to correct me, if I am really wrong. I am following Northamerica1000 and others from a long time, trying to learn how the upper level community is working and will be dedicating more time here, once I am free from my commitments. Really don't prefer to comment where I am not 100% sure including here, but to be honest, I couldn't resist against wrong allegation of paid editor here. Kavdiamanju (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kavdiamanju: just one question: are you fluent in all the languages used for sourcing on Imonomy which you created here? Or perhaps did someone help by passing you the German, Italian and Hebrew sources and the English text for the article? Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianhe:, Here is the process I have followed till now. Reading technology news sources, searching for them and their competitors on Misplaced Pages, searching Google News to look at the sources for the pages I have created and translated using Google and Bing, wherever I feel that they were required. Most of my created pages were referred from the Misplaced Pages's existing pages, including sports person, tech company or any news. Never intended to promote to a company, even though it appeared to others or it really did. I preferred to be more like a delete editor earlier, but after a certain period, I felt that I should be more of contributor that's gonna help the community and its readers. Kavdiamanju (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I find this frankly non-credible. How is it possible to do a web search for a valid source in a foreign language that you don't even read? I'm afraid the more likely explanation is some kind of off-wiki collaboration that you haven't described. With all the other evidence presented here and the overall appearance of the articles that have been created, the likelihood is PR editing under direction. Which has now become not just Undisclosed, but actively telling untruths about it. - Brianhe (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kavdiamanju: Your first article back in 2013 was a pretty classic case of undisclosed paid editing - non-notable, promotional and essentially unsourced. Given your rebuttal, I will explain why I am confident that Jeremy SH Griffith and Michael Mangini (record producer) were paid for. It's because they contain unsourced dates of birth that are not in any of the sources cited and which I'm unable to find anywhere else. How can you explain that unless you got them from the subject? Looking more closely at the EXIF data of File:Michael_Mangini_producer.jpg I also see that it was taken with an iphone only hours before you uploaded it from Flickr (taken 09:56, 13 December 2016, uploaded 18:53, 13 December 2016). Then, as you pointed out, an editor who appears to be the subjects child edited the article within 24 hours of creation. Are we supposed to believe that these events are coincidental, or go with the much simpler explanation that you were paid to create it? SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And there's something similar with File:Geraldine_Laufer_Dec_2015.jpg where the uploaded to Flickr the same day as it was uploaded to commons. (For those checking, you need to visit flickr, and then hover your mouse over the "Taken on December 4, 2015"). Same with File:Namrata_Brar_during_a_debate.jpg etc. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse:, Bill Moore was one of the earlier page that I have created and wasn't sure which pages qualify and which doesn't. This is the point where I have started learning. As far the birth dates, I have found them on the references and you can also refer to 1, 2.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Mangini's DOB? And all of the image uploads? SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse:, I have referred images from Flickr and here is the process I have followed to add images. Search flickr by name and the appropriate licenses.

1. File:Geraldine Laufer Dec 2015.jpg- (taken on 4 dec) Added by me on 18 Dec. There were 3 other images (Taken on April 4, 1995), I have chosen the most recent photograph.
2. File:Namrata Brar during a debate.jpg- (taken on 20 July 2016) added by me on 13 December 2016. I still couldn't believe how I have been linked to these profiles.

@Kavdiamanju: Read what I wrote again. It shows on Flickr that these images were uploaded there the very same day you uploaded them to commons. That doesn't happen by coincidence. You must have been in contact with the subjects and told them to upload them there. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember having this user on my radar for a while a couple of years ago - after some digging I found , and where Kavdiamanju added spam references in the exact same manner as a certain sock farm (the same spammy domains, too). See also this SPI where the CU did not prove anything and the behavioural evidence was seen as weak - still, there's a lot of different pieces of evidence coming together here. I have not been looking at Kavdiamanju's edits more recently, but I wanted to note that this is not a new concern. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea:, as I have said earlier when you are new here, no one knows what are reliable links. Did I had ever added any link to any page after that? Earlier being a newbie, I wasn't sure of the reliable references, I had never ever made any non-constructive edit after that and this is how you start on Misplaced Pages. When you keep editing and know the community policies better, you learn and don't make mistakes. No child, can speak as fluent as an adult. Correct me If I am wrong. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose ban

Per the evidence I've just listed above about the image uploads and their refusal to disclose, I would like to propose a ban. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support given there's enough showing this has been an unconfessed concern, and one I along with others noticed earlier, and the newest paid articles emphasize its recurrence. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the concerns raised appears to when I was a newbie and not sure of the community guidelines. NO link was added after Bonadea's remarks or the first page removed. I will be surprised, if I am banned from the community for the mistakes that I have never made. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's complete crap because the problems I've highlighted happened in the last month. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: The issues you have highlighted are Birth dates of Jeremy SH Griffith was here, Michael Mangini was from here. All images were taken from Flickr, by first downloading to my laptop and uploaded to commons referencing Flickr. You are looking at a different side of the coin, however, there isn't any perfect theory behind it. I will resolve each and every question raised here. Let me know your next set of questions. I wasn't ready earlier to accept the paid allegations remarks, but atleast ask someone to pay me first, thereafter I am ready to accept paid allegations.Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: Also, I have no right to question on this, but how did you got the birth date for Ella Woodward from here, also found several images for her on Flickr here. HCL Infosystems, clearly seems to be paid edit, without any major news reference, this line clearly seems to be promotional (The company started as manufacturing complete range of leading Mini Computers). Birth date for Michael Janisch (musician)?, he was only nominated for (He was nominated for a MOBO Award in 2016 in the category for Best Jazz Act). Point lies here, I have no intention of alleging anyone for paid edit but, this is the same cup of tea, I have received without any valid and justified reason. If I will start looking at any page from a problematic point of view, I will always start finding the problems, whether they exist or not. Ready to answer your next set of questions.@SwisterTwister: Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. No one really gives a damn how you transferred the images from Flickr to Commons. What we do care about is how you explain the extraordinary coincidence that the images you uploaded to commons for articles on relatively obscure people you just recently created, were themselves just uploaded to Flickr not long before you wanted them. BTW it looks a lot like the Wordpress page was only created in 2017. Can you explain how you added a birthdate in late 2016 from a page created in 2017? Even if I'm mistaken, the page doesn't seem to be indexed by either Google or Bing. Can you describe how you actually found it? Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. @Kavdiamanju: if you'd actually looked carefully, you'd see that none of that information was added by me. This discussion is about you and we are still waiting for an explanation about these image uploads. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And based off the urls for files on that wordpress site e.g. I agree that it looks like it was created in 2017. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, @Smartse: Did you made an attempt to search for Mangini's website like this, I can find that in one go. I have earlier clarified that I always search images on Flickr, that anyone can access. Only one photograph I have added was of December (that was a pure co-incidence) and other were atleast 3-4 months old.03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I searched for the URL. If the webpage is indexed, this should find it. It found and still finds nothing. Your search does not find it. If you continue to claim it can be found, give a screenshot sample showing this (but use an external hosting service for the screenshot due to copyvio concerns). And you're mistaken. Both images say they were uploaded to Flickr the same day they were then uploaded to commons. Note that as clearly explained above, we're talking about when the images were uploaded to Flickr not when they were created and neither of them was created in December 2016 anyway (one in December 2015). If you're not sure how to see the upload date, you're welcome to say that, but talking other stuff when it's already been clearly explained that we're talking about the upload date doesn't help your case. And yes, we all read you talking about searching, none of that explains the extraordinary coincidence, and your continually ignoring it and downplaying and instead talking nonsense even after multiple attempts to get the point across to you strongly suggests you're aware that there is a very good reason this extraordinary coincidence happened but you can't admit it rather than a genuine language barrier or confusion or coincidence. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Misplaced Pages depends on collaboration, and collaboration depends on trust. This editor has betrayed my trust and demonstrated flagrant abuse of our community's goodwill. Enough. - Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianhe:, none of my contributions have abused of the community's goodwill, I spent countless hours to keep the community clean. You are taking decision on one major co-incidence and no evident proof for any edit. If I am banned from the community, I won't be at the loss rather the community will be at the loss by losing an editor who has helped several new editors, deleted thousands of spam pages and helped the new editors. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse???' The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support also, as we have done with other recent UPE cases, their contributions and created articles should be reviewed. Any articles they created in violation of Misplaced Pages's rules against paid editing and not substantially improved by someone else should be deleted. Editors banned/indefed for UPE should have their contributions treated retroactively as we treat contributions by editors who edit in violation of a block or ban since they have been editing in violation of the Terms of Use. Jbh 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Please reveiw my created pages, you will find that all of the pages deserves a place. They have been evidentally reviewed from a single point of view and I have never ever abused my autopatrolled rights. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse??? The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I tend to give a lot of weight to the concerns of @Smartse and Brianhe: they both have a lot of experience in identifying UPE. When I looked at your most edited articles I see edits like which looks like PR 'buffing' along with several other edits at Wayne Elsey which talk more about his charity than the person which is often indicative of PR management of a biography. I do not doubt that you make good faith contributions as well but there are also many edits which are typical of what we see with paid promotion. Articles like BookRenter tend to reinforce the impression. Jbh 15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Smartse:, @Jbhunley:, @Brianhe:, Can you please review my created pages? I have created only 9 company pages since the last 3 years (8 pages in the last 9 months). Did I have ever participated in AFD's of my pages, NO I didn't. What is the point, I have added images that are questioned were searched on flickr. Putting a ban, when there is no solid proof or anything evident that can make sure that I have been paid is really disgraceful and is insulting for me. I have no words to describe how exactly I am feeling now, even when you are not wrong and cannot prove your innocence. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Whilst you may only have created 9 pages, there has been significant addition of content across a wide range of subjects- e.g. at Varsity Spirit where the page history shows heavy paid editing from SPAs, which you seem to have been a part of. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support I don't think this is related to Focusandlearn, but I might have misread SwisterTwister's initial post, however it is clear that there is some paid editing here; all the hallmarks have been demonstrated from the evidence presented above by SmartSE, especially with the same day Flickr -> commons -> Misplaced Pages path we saw with Focusandlearn being repeated here. Whilst it is true that there is not a single piece of totally inrefutable evidence that shows you've been paid to edit some of your articles, the individual pieces of evidence (such as the unsourced dates of birth, readding references that were added by a sockfarm before being removed, being able to use sources in multiple languages that were probably provided by the subject) all add together to create, IMO, a fairly solid case for paid editing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Those spam diffs are damning. Nobody editing in the best interest of the encyclopedia would insert a "reference" to a site like that. MER-C 02:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The extraordinary coincidences of images being uploaded to Flickr, the day they wanted them is concerning. Of course if it really was just an extraordinary coindence they would have no explaination except their attempt to downplay what happened and talk other nonsense suggests an editor who's aware what actually happened but knows they can't admit it more than something else like a genuine language barrier or misunderstanding. Then when asked about a birthdate they offer a blog, a blog where core images appear to have been added on 17 January and which doesn't seem to be indexed in Google or even Bing. (I'm aware Google can give different results to different people so I can't completely rule out it appearing for them, but I find it unlikely that it'll not show up at all for me, but will show up for them.) This with the other concerns by Brianhe, SmartSE and bonade are enough for a support. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I do not know for sure if it is paid editing, but it is indistinguishable from paid editing. We should proceed as we do with suspected puppetry--if it is indistinguishable from puppetry, we treat it as such. We can not prove editors have received money in the absence of outside evidence. We can however prove that they edited as if they had done so. Even if conceivably it should be purely voluntary promotionalism , it remains promotionalism , which is incompatible with the purpose of WP. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• I would support this as well, as a non-admin. I've had some more time to look at the user's contributions, and while some are constructive, the pattern shown above is pretty conclusive. DGG makes an excellent point, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 20:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: His comment "I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years." in reply to Jbhunley above? Someone give this guy a shovel so he doesn't have to use his hands with that grave digging he's doing, huh? MM ('"HURRRR?) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Lift Wtshymanski's restriction

I'm broadly familiar with the underlying issue and the origin of the restrictions. However, as this thread proves, it seems to be unworkable and only exposes Wtshymanski to harassment. Editing restrictions are meant to reduce the amount of disruption, not to be a Damocles' sword over long-term editors' necks, and can only work if reporting is done in good faith and with concern to benefit of the encyclopedia. Both reverts provided here as evidence fall in the category of "revertable on the merits", and Wtshymanski provided a reasonable edit summary; had they been made by a registered user, they certainly wouldn't fall into the category of "blind reverting". Therefore, I propose that the Wtshymanski's editing restriction of reverting IPs be formally rescinded, and replaced with a formal warning that Wtshymansky may only revert IPs on the merits, and provide an edit summary, and that his return to the old ways will result in blocks or other sanctions. No such user (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, obviously. No such user (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support agree that if the restiction is hurting the encyclopaedia rather than helping it, is intended, then the restriction is not fit for purpose. O Fortuna! 16:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support (but would be open to maintaining some lighter form of restriction, such as one against using rollback or reverts without informative edit summaries). The restriction was apparently passed because Wtshymanski once had a habit of being too quick in reverting IP editors irrespective of the merits of their edits. If the intention was to stop this behaviour, it has stopped, judging by the review of his recent editing. Going beyond this and trying to stop him from doing perfectly normal, reasonably-argued, occasional reverts in the context of legitimate editorial disagreements, which would be perfectly okay if he was facing fellow registered editors also, simply makes no sense, and I can't blame him for having occasionally disregarded a restriction that is so plainly nonsensical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support: Nothing in Wtshymanski's history even hints at him returning to the behavior that resulted in the restriction. I have my disagreements with Wtshymanski, but I have always found him to be honest, to keep any promises he makes, and to consistently and in good faith do what he thinks best for the encyclopedia. He also has also always responded very well to even the shortest block, so why impose a long-term restriction when a 24-hour block would have had the exact same result? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but with a requirement to use informative edit summaries, and a warning about not returning to his old behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this isn't working. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - especially after seeing the last few times IP's tried to play "Gotcha!" with them. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support & Comment If this is any indication of what they are dealing with, it makes sense to rescind the restriction with stipulations so to speak. I'd like to point out an IP tried to play with him here and even changed this thread Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 02:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. I can certainly see why this particular sanction would be problematic. That said, no editor's contributions should ever be reverted on anything but the merits, IP contributions most assuredly included. The fact that the community found the need to forestall this kind of behaviour suggests that it must have been pretty explicitly obvious that Wtshymanski was targeting edits because of who made them, rather than whether they were beneficial, and its hard to imagine a worse kind of editor mentality. But all of that said, editors have indicated here that Wtshymanski's attitude has reformed on the matter, and the sanction as it stands is certainly highly amenable to gaming by anyone in conflict with Wtshymanski who might wish to troll him. On the balance, I support the repeal of the restriction, but hope Wtshymanski will henceforth show as much respect to those of our editorial community who do not (and sometimes cannot) register as autoconfirmed users. I would certainly hasten to support an even broader restriction if they fall back into old habits. Snow 06:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have yet to see any example of Wtshymanski "falling back into old habits". Wtshymanski is smart. He constantly and deliberately tries new and innovative ways of doing what he wants to do against the desires of the Misplaced Pages community, and as soon as any particular method results in even a short block he abandons the method that isn't working and moves on to another. Compounding the problem is the fact that Wtshymanski has picked up many, many enemies (this tends to happen when most of your comments drip with disdain and sarcasm) who behave far worse than he does and will use any restriction as a "gotcha". That being said, when he isn't acting up his edits tend to be really, really good. I can come up with dozens of examples where he improved the encyclopedia in ways that most editors lack the technical expertise to do. And a few where he got it wrong and dug in his heels as dozens of experienced engineers refuted him with multiple reliable sources. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How many socks does a dozen experience engineers wear? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Call for close

Anyone want to call a WP:SNOW day on this one? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested block of User:Hijiri88

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

Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue

At Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists, an editor notified cherrypicked editors without any objective criteria as directed at WP:CAN, such as "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." After being asked twice for what criteria was used, this editor responded here that no explanation is required nor will any be given. The notice itself was neutral, but since this editor cherrypicked the editors to notify, it clearly seems like vote-stacking. If someone might take the time to see the canvassing concerns near the end of the discussion, beginning at 02:43, 16 January 2017, it would be much appreciated. The editor was made aware I was seeking an admin opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't provide you an admin's opinion, but I do tend to agree that this is very problematic behaviour, both as regards the potential canvassing and the refusal to give a straight answer as to the criteria by which they selected these particular editors. That is to say, the editor either A) does not understand what constitutes canvassing on this project, B) knows and went ahead with it anyway, and is now using rhetorical tricks to avoid the issue, or C) did have a principled, policy-consistent strategy for picking those editors, but is now refusing to decode the situation just to spite Tenebrae. Realistically speaking, it is almost certainly A or B, but even if it were C, that behaviour would be highly problematic in its own right, even if no canvassing took place; a contributor on this project cannot just refuse to be transparent about their actions with regard to a potential abuse of process just because they resent their opposition in a content discussion. That would be just plain disruptive, since the other editor at that point has no other choice but to solicit further community involvement where none is needed, if there is indeed a perfectly good reason for the behaviour.

That said, maybe it will help if an uninvolved editor inquires. Pyxis Solitary, WP:CANVAS is a very important policy which safeguards our consensus-generating process from abuse by assuring that an individual editor cannot tip the balance of apparent community consensus by selecting for participation in discussion those editors which might bend the discussion in their favour. On it's face, it looks like you chose the editors you pinged by some idiosyncratic standard. Under those circumstances, the onus absolutely is upon you to provide at least a short, simple explanation as to how you selected those editors in a manner which is consistent with the few exceptions made in the canvassing policy. You've said to Tenebrae "If you weren't so wrapped-up in your combative antagonism, you could figure it out for yourself.", but that's not a valid response (if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?) and, in any event, I looked at the discussion myself as an uninvolved party, and the basis for your selections was not apparent to me either. Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please? Snow 19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?" ... I'll respond to any editor's question that is not laced with the acrimony of User:Tenebrae. If you read his comments directed at me in this discussion, you would see that his behavior has been combative, accusatory and dismissive: "Here's something I thought was so obvious it didn't need to be explained, but I guess that's not so"; "And as this editor appears unwilling to accept"; "you mischaracterize some editors' ambivalent stances or comments designed to add perspective as supporting your position."; "that's a completely different discussion tha one that's centered solely on one editor's favorite film that one wants to promote."

"Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please?" ... I looked at the revision history of the Carol article as far back as 3 June 2013‎ -- and invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion. Most have not edited the article in a long time, but that did not negate their having been registered editors involved in its development. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see--thank you for the clarification, Pyxis. Tenebrae, does that satisfy your concerns? I haven't done a full audit of every user Pyxis messaged, but those I did check seem consistent with her info here that she was summoning only those who contributed to the Carol article where the dispute began, aside from the fact that some were also explicitly tapped because they contribute to MOS:Film. Both categories of contributor seem to fall within the exceptions provided for in WP:CANVAS and the the large(ish) number of editors messaged suggests that it is unlikely that editors were cherry-picked from within these two groups. Are your concerns sufficiently put to rest that we might consider this part of the dispute resolved? Snow 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I honesty can't say I'm convinced, for two reasons. First, Pyxis Solitary says "invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion." Why were some editors not invited? And second, Pyxis Solitary invited three additional editors on Jan. 22. How and why were these three additional editors picked? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: One of those editors had some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, you are required to notify the editor whom you are reporting at ANI on their talkpage, and you did not do that. Also, just for the record, on 18/19 January you posted these notices on 66 users' talkpages. You are a highly experienced editor with over 125,000 edits, and Pyxis Solitary is an inexperienced user with less that 5,000 edits. I'm not sure why you are using antagonistic and hostile language towards her, but I would encourage a much more collaborative and helpful tone and approach, especially with inexperienced good-faith editors who are clearly attempting good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you and other editors taking time to come here and analyze the issue; I know it's never pleasant.

I actually did notify Pyxis Solitary about the ANI right before I did it, here. She even responded, here, saying, "Go right ahead and indulge your paranoia." I later gave additional notice to everyone at the WP:FILM discussion.

I would also have to say that Pyxis Solitary's examples of my supposed acrimony fall far short of her calling me paranoid, as noted immediately above, and also far short of the stream of personal insults that this editor has directed at me. I began our exchanges with a very straightforward post here:

I removed the list of accolades on this talk page, since Misplaced Pages guidelines, policies, etc. apply to talk pages as well as to article pages, and that list violated Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page because they aren't permitted in the article itself is a serious breach of Misplaced Pages policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is that editor's attack in response. I've boldfaced the first instance of name-calling:

Stop inventing guidelines and policies. There is NOTHING in Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades that deals with the Talk page. There is nothing in WP:TALK#FACTS that supports your assertion that a list in the TALK PAGE violates any WP policy. The rules that govern editing articles are not the same rules that govern Talk pages. All you are is a bully who wants to rule over the contributions of other Misplaced Pages editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

When I politely pointed out the relevant guidelines, Pyxis Solitary called me a liar here. Eventually, another editor with whom I have no connection took Pyxis Solitary's behavior task in point-by-point detail here.

If that's not enough indication of Pyxis Solitary's verbal abusiveness, name-calling continued for a month after our initial exchange. After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite", another editor who had been the target of her vitriol wrote that, "I must confess I've found a lot of Pyxis Solitary's discourse on this article pretty hostile". Whereupon Pyxis Solitary retorted, "You two can have tea together, if you want". Pyxis Solitary also made a serious, unfounded accusation here calling me a stalker when Carol (film) and the related accolades article were the only articles on which we've encountered each other.

When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you.

I could go on, but I think the pattern of behavior is clear. If you'll look over the Carol and Accolades talk pages, I think anyone would find that I and other editors for the longest time were as civil as could be, and Pyxis Solitary responded with a pattern of hostility.

I'm not sure why we're discussing all this when the issue is vote-stacking. But now that this is out of the way, let me work through the rest of the posts above.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, that's disappointing. I thought maybe we had a simple communication breakdown here that could be solved quickly, but those civility and non-AGF issues seem pretty pronounced. As to the WP:TPG/policy issue, I've not seen the full explanation voiced on any of those forums, so here's my understanding for the record: material which is not suitable for inclusion in mainspace may sometimes be included on the talk page during discussion of whether it is suitable for mainspace, but only for a reasonable amount of time. Even then, there are circumstances where it may not be permitted at all (i.e. major BLP violations that touch upon WP:ATTACKPAGE territory). But certainly under no circumstances should disallowed material be preserved indefinitely on the talk page, just "for the record".

As to the behavioural issues, I'm still unconvinced of the votestacking. It's not outside the realm of possibility that these editors were selectively chosen, but until someone presents us with an analysis showing that Pyxis was not using some allowed metric (i.e., last twenty editors who edited that page), it's hard to support administrative action on that issue.

The breaches with civility are another matter. Pyxis seems to have gone from zero to fury with some of those responses, and she seems to have repeatedly assumed bad, rather than good, faith when evaluating the policy arguments supplied by some other editors, even though she herself seems to have limited experience with some of those policies. However, most worrying is her profound misunderstanding of how the Misplaced Pages consensus process works; as noted in these posts (, ) she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority to dictate content via fiat, and she needs to be disabused of this notion in a hurry if she is to contribute productively here. Pyxis Solitary, we do not establish consensus on this project by comparing credentials; most users never even disclose them and they are never a part of our content analysis. You must make your argument on proposed content based solely upon the sources and the policies we have formulated via community consensus (with a little bit of pragmatism to lubricate the process). Coming at someone with an "I know better because X, Y, Z" argument will only decrease the likelihood that experienced editors will endorse your view.

Further, WP:C is not just a luxury on this project, only to be embraced when your expertise/status are being respected with regard to the work you have done here, as several of your comments seem to imply. It is in fact a cornerstone of productive involvement and editors, even if they do not hold the idea in high esteem, are expected to comport with it to an at least baseline level which, in my opinion, you are nowhere near right now. I strongly advise you to review that policy and WP:NPA before contributing further, because you are, in my opinion, courting a block with your current approach--and in any event, it is sinking your efforts to get the content outcome you desire. I honestly think you have a bit to learn about our editorial processes here and how we generate consensus, so i would study up before making any gung-ho assertions about other editors making up policies. It might also help you to seek out a

Oh, but just to add, Tenebrae, Softlavender is absolutely correct in saying that you should have followed the standard policy for informing Pyxis of this discussion (i.e., a notice delivered to her user talk). Snow 04:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since "guilty until proven innocent" has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in "Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.

Have I lost my temper in my dealings with User:Tenebrae? Yes. Could I have handled it better? Yes. However, I don't take being accused of knowingly violating a WP policy lightly: " "I noticed only after the fact that you had placed the entire list, violations and all … Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page is a serious breach of Misplaced Pages policy." The accusation was false and his behavior was bullying. I said as much and told him to stay away from my Talk page.

• re "After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite" -- he conveniently left out the rest: "Read your own choice of words about another editor in your summary of: Revision as of 16:46, 9 January 2017." This is what he wrote in the summary: "Again, that fannish editor is violating WP:FILM guidelines by deliberating ignoring them."

User:Tenebrae made an edit that I considered careless, reckless, and detrimental to the article. Not only did he delete summary content about critical response from the *Critical reception* section, he also deliberately changed a numerical figure I had that same day updated, back to the previous total. When I called him on it, he attributed this change to a revert: "In a revert I made, a number changed from 250 to 247. I immediately corrected it to 250, within seconds. That is not a "pattern" of reckless editing". His explanation was untrue. If you view the History you will see that the first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017. I provided the links to the revision history before/after User:Tenebrae edited the main article: "Start with Revision as of 09:29, January 11, 2017 and scroll through history of revisions until Revision as of 22:17, January 11, 2017. You could see by looking at the edit that it was not a revert -- it was a manual change and deletion. And I called his excuse for what it was: false -- and hypocritical because he continually accuses me of wrongdoing, when he, himself, does it.

• re stalking: In Gushy tone and other vios User:Tenebrae posted: "I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming, as your edit here suggests you may be doing. This would also be part of any dispute resolution or admin intervention." (a) He accuses me of canvassing and (b) exactly how did User:Tenebrae learn that I had sent a private message to another editor unless he was following me to see what I was doing on Misplaced Pages. This shadowing is obsessive behavior associated with stalking.

– Also in this topic he wrote: "you deliberately misread WP:FILM guidelines to suit your agenda. You're a huge fan of the film. We understand. But that doesn't mean you can flout guidelines."

– And in the Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) discussion he wrote about me: "This is nothing more than a largely SPA-editor fan trying to puff up one of her favorite films."

– And there's "SPA Pyxis Solitary feels FILMMOS doesn't apply when it comes to one of her personal favorite films."

• re "When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you." User:Tenebrae wrote in this topic: "A later discussion at FILM MOS agreed to allow prose mention of the AFI top-ten list (not the nominees, and only in prose). I have reinserted that sentence." To which I replied (after looking at the MOS:FILM Talk page): "There is NO discussion in Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film (Talk page for MOS:FILM) regarding AFI top-ten list. In the History of the Talk page -- going as far back as "16 February 2010‎‎" -- there is NO summary that even mentions AFI. If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched." From what I saw, he was being untruthful and deceptive. This forced him to provide links to archived discussions -- which after reviewing only dealt with the *Accolades* section of a film article, not the *Critical response* section.

I allowed the hostility that developed between me and User:Tenebrae to spill over in my dealings with two other editors. That was wrong. Since then, my interactions with those same editors has been civil and cooperative.

The editor who "had some words to say today" took offense at my responding to his comment and sectioning the discussion, and lectured me based on his presumption that I had knowingly defied WP do's and don'ts (and I add, he twisted my keeping track of who had responded to the discussion and the gist of their comments into my creating a "voting list" -- which parrots User:Tenebrae's allegation: "I'd like to remind Pyxis Solitary that these discussion are not vote-based.").

I saw topics in this page that had been collapsed as "Extended content" and assumed you can do that in a discussion when the content starts to take up a lot of page space. I did a Google search for "Extended content" in WP and found the Template:Collapse/doc which states: "template is used for placing collapse boxes around short discussions and bits of discussions." The text I collapsed strictly deals with the accusations of "canvassing" and "voter stacking", which veered the discussion about "'List' vs. prose about lists" off-track. Since I saw that the collapse does not remove the collapsed content from the discussion, and since the text involved was not comments debating "'List' vs. prose about lists" guidelines, I used the template to keep one subject (discussion about list vs. prose) separate from the other (accusation of canvassing).

I'm getting tired of being accused of wrongdoing by User:Tenebrae (violating WP policies, cherry-picking, canvassing, vote stacking). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't talk about an editor without notifying him, especially at ANI - it could be viewed as if you were talking about somebody behind their back. Especially don't do this if you decide to accuse him of "twisting" and "parroting" things. Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter, Pyxis? CapnZapp (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter," – Woa! I didn't drag you into this ANI. Use:Tenebrae did: Addendum: One of those editors had some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. He's the one who used you to bolster his "righteous indignation". Re-direct your outrage in his direction. And in your 1-2-3-4-5 comment in that discussion you took a simple record-keeping I created to keep track of editors involved in the discussion, and the kernel of their opinions, into my presenting "voting lists" (your words). If you had bothered to read the entirety of the comments in that discussion you would have seen that one editor wrote: "Please add me to the list of those who consider summary sentences about critical reception acceptable." Laying blame on me is calumnious. And lecturing me (or anyone) is inappropriate. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's it, my patience with you is up. You appear completely blinded by your attempts to "win" this discussion. Did I accuse you of dragging me into this ANI? No. Read what I said. Next item: Stop telling me where to "direct my outrage"! I don't know if you even realize it, but you don't get to characterize my posts as "outrage". The bit where you characterize me as lecturing you, however, seems rather on the spot, as you will see. And I don't care one bit about your excuses for that list - if you had more experience you would have understood how that is the way it would look, and that's all that counts.

Now, let's forget your attempts to put accusations in my mouth, and instead move over to the things I really told you: Don't talk about an editor without notifying him. Don't put words in his or her mouth. Did you or did you not accuse me of "twisting" your list? Did you or did you not then characterize that view (that you yourself made up) using the word "parroting"? And, did you or did you not do so after being specifically asked to leave me out of it?

You don't get to shift that blame onto others. In fact, as long as you keep barreling down that road, you will continue to have miserable experiences on Misplaced Pages - until you can accept that you are just as much to blame for this clusterfest as your counterpart. But what you don't seem to realize is that I don't care about the actual subject here. I'm definitely not on Tenebrae's side, but forget about him - I'm responding to your behavior. I'm asking you to cool your jets - whatever you're doing, you're doing it wrong. It isn't working. You're not getting any constructive results.

Instead, just suck it up. Accept blame for what you have done wrong, without waiting for Tenebrae to do it first. Step away from this conflict. That's the way to win here on Misplaced Pages. You can always return later, when everybody has forgotten about any personal slights, so the focus can return to the actual topics at hand. But, that I can't ask of you. What I can ask of you, however, is this: For the final time: don't involve me, please. As if it wasn't already clear, that includes not talking *about* the user (me), and it especially includes not characterizing that user's edits in any way that can be construed as controversial, and it *really* includes not doing so without pinging or even naming that user. Thank you and have a good day. CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise – Re: "she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority". I asked the editor involved "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"?" And got the following response: For the record, in my career as a project manager, I have professional experience at a streaming media company with major film industry partners, directly involving decisions about what information from film critics should be displayed in a streaming media application to be integrated in a next-generation smart TV for a major TV manufacturer, so yes I believe I know something about the subject. What are your credentials?. To which I provided a response. And of course, User:Tenebrae couldn't resist getting involved so he could say: "I could throw credentials as a journalist and author that would be more impressive, unless you've published several books." Nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize you are not the only one who engaged in that activity in that discussion, however you absolutely are the one who opened to door on those arguments by saying "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"? Who else is responding to the third opinion request? Because someone who has zero or minimal familiarity with the film industry should stay out of this convo.". Please understand that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And we don't do degree audits or resume checks at the door. Editors frequently contribute to content areas outside of their professional wheelhouses, and, in fact, the project depends upon this. You can't dismiss another editor's contributions because you have decided they lack your elevated understanding of the topic area. That's just not how discussion works here. In fact, sometimes the areas which represent subjects near and dear to an editors heart, or which represent overlap with their professional interests, are the areas where they need to exercise greatest caution in editing, because it can be hard to divorce oneself from their deeply-held convictions or personal knowledge when our policies require a more nuanced approach to the "truth". Regardless, you don't get to decide whose perspectives are sufficiently validated by their professional background to allow them to contribute to a given discussion and berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process is never ok, and hardly likely to turn minds to your way of thinking. Snow 07:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process". You are right and I was wrong to go that far. I realized that I was allowing my experience with User:Tenebrae to infect my interaction with two other editors, and shifted gears. This resulted in one of them thanking me after an edit, and my next contact with the other you can see for yourself here and here. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I had a feeling you'd own up to that straight on. I honestly don't know why you and Tenebrae are having such a hard time getting on: you both seem like reasonable people to me. Is there any chance you two might try to reboot this working relationship, start from square one? I admit, I haven't read every line of that content discussion, but it seems to me there is room for a compromise approach. Snow 10:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think once Pyxis Solitary doubled-down on calling me a stalker because I looked at an editor's Contributions page that this precludes any claim of reasonableness on Pyxis Solitary's part. I think the highly defensive wall-of-text responses augurs that as well.

And does this strike anyone as reasonable:

I suspect that User:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since 'guilty until proven innocent' has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in "Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.

It's an old and not very good debate trick to deflect by not answering my two specific questions at 00:49, 24 January 2017 rather than risk having to concede vote-stacking. Saying, "I'm not going to answer" and attacking the questioner is not reasonable behavior. As for the stalling claim: No. A typical RfC lasts a minimum of 30 days, so the shorter amount of time that this FILMMOS discussion has been going on is absolutely typical unless one is impatient and wants to rush things for some reason.

And lastly: How much more combative language and how many more false accusations from Pyxis Solitary should one be expected to take? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with some of those comments, but if you want an honest and pragmatic appraisal, I don't think I see a sanction materializing at this time. It's impossible to be 100% on the matter, of course, but as to the issue that brought you here, the canvassing, I can't see a pattern at present which suggests selection for bias. If you think you find one, you can let us know, but that looks like a dead issue on the present evidence. As to the civility issues, they aren't nothing, but I'd be surprised if an admin blocked. I think you want to hold out for a formal administrative warning, but I'm not sure that's the way forward or that you'd certainly get it. She hopefully appreciates that the combative style is completely counter-intuitive to her goals. I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC. You've already expressed that you view that as important and I agree--under any circumstances and particularly these. I also recommend you post notices at a few central discussion hubs that are neutral and appropriate to the discussion. That's what should have been done here from the start, after-all; better by far than spamming user talks. Then you wait for (hopefully) enough people to form a larger consensus that will even out any effect Pyxis' notices had (if any). Wait the full 30 days and maybe a little longer if discussion is still heavy and likely to yield a consensus. There's no rush here. Just...if you two can't AGF, try to minimize direct conflict on the issues by commenting to others, or at least stick to purely neutral language about the policies alone, without any commentary upon expertise or character of other party. Alternatively you can always make a proposal regarding her here, but my recommendation is the above. Snow 06:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC." He called it an RfC. But there is no RfC. Right now it is only a discussion in the MOS:FILM Talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, right after he posted the 16:51 comment he went to the MOS:FILM discussion and did this: revision as of 16:56, January 24, 2017 "Not a good-faith edit to collapse and hide a discussion that the editor does not want others to easily see". You read what I wrote about collapsing the block of content. He continues to allege misconduct -- and now trickery. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there is no RfC, there should be one--hosted on the talk page for the article in question. Though a notice on MOS:Film or any other neutrally-chosen forum likely to draw in editors with useful insight is permissible. My suggestion above is just one reasonable solution (probably also the most policy consistent game plan / typical approach to this problem as well), but the main point I am trying to stress is that you two need to de-personalize this, and getting more editors involved will help not only that objective, but also make the consensus healthier and more clear. Snow 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Never done an RfC before. And the bureaucratic hoops it requires you to jump through do not encourage lay persons to roll the dice on getting it right the first time. Just the simple act of inviting editors that had edited the Carol article to a discussion due to edits to said article turned into a hassle and haggle. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the benefits of the RfC is that it allows you to avoid accusations of bias. You do need to be careful about framing the question neutrally and in a way that accurately portrays the positions of both sides. WP:RfC has all of the relevant info and resources (though I do admit is is not terribly user friendly to first timers). Alternatively Tenebrae could do it. Or, if you guys want me to, I can start it as a neutral third party with no particularly strong feelings on the matter. You will have to be patient with me though, as I will be busy today and tomorrow--and it would help if you each submit a (very brief) summary of your positions. Snow 07:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the spirit or letter of WP:CANVASS which allows for a discussion to be held hostage because one editor disagrees with another editor's notifications. Which was more destructive to the consensus-building process: Pyxis Solitary inviting some other users to comment, or the sideshow resulting from Tenebrae's unfounded accusation? Knock it off. Stick to discussing the issue at hand, and if you can't do that without attacking other editors, don't hit the save button. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Before anyone hurls a claim like "unfounded accusation", it needs to be said that I asked that editor twice for what, if any, criteria was used. The editor twice refused to answer, and then responded with hostility.

When an editor can't give objective criteria, it's absolutely reasonable to suspect vote-stacking — and it's the responsible thing to come here and ask for an opinion other than my own. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't put as much criticism on your initial inquiry as Ivan does, Tenebrae, but at this point it must be said that no one has been able to establish a pattern which strongly suggests vote-stacking, so I recommend moving on. The best suggestion I can offer is to RfC the matter at the article talk page, and publicize the discussion with notices on a handful of relevant boards, projects or other community spaces that are appropriate to the content. Hopefully this will generate enough new contributors to void the potential canvassing issue (if it were indeed a real problem, and I'm not sure it is). At the very least, it will give you both other people to discuss the matter with than each-other--said opportunity I encourage you to embrace, given your inability to AGF with one-another. Snow 07:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Question: All known recent IPs used by the TFD vandal have been in the 49.197.*.* range. Is there any indication that a rangeblock would cause collateral damage? Thank you. --Finngall 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are the range calculations. I haven't done any digging, just inputted the information into the range calculator. A few check users or administrators that are familiar with range blocks might want to take a look. I'll do a bit of analysis myself when I get the chance. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see it would require a /16, which would do a little bit of collateral damage. It might be block able for a short period (if absolutely necessary) but I would advocate against a long term block of the range. Ping KrakatoaKatie, Bbb23 or any other CU for a second opinion. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, if it's really a very disruptive LTA editor, we could see if the WMF would be willing to contact their ISP about abuse coming from their network. ~ Rob₁₃ 04:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping @Kbrown (WMF): & @Jalexander-WMF: would this be doable? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 05:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The most recent TFD IP is 49.181, not 49.197, so I'd say the question of rangeblocking is moot for now, but I'd still like to see an answer on whether we can contact the ISP. --Finngall 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly dynamic Serbian IPs removing reference from multiple articles

Two Belgrade-based Serbian IPs, 178.221.137.49 and 178.223.93.49 (both of which are effectively WP:SPAs) have been targeting articles that use a book by Philip J. Cohen, ‘’ Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History’’, deleting it as a reference and citations to it and disparaging it and the author in edit summaries. As can be seen from Talk:Philip J. Cohen, this book is critical of collaborationist Serbs during World War II, and has been attacked by some Serbian sources ever since it was published. However, I believe it contains material that is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, and this material shouldn't be deleted by editors because they don’t agree with it. This all began after I AfD’d an article on a vocal blogger critic of Cohen, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carl Kosta Savich and also posted a RfC at Talk:Banjica concentration camp to establish the reliability of Cohen for use on that article after another Serbia-based IP had dismissed it on talk. Banjica concentration camp was at least partially run by Serbian collaborators. First 178.221.137.49 deleted Cohen from Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here, which I reverted on the basis that while it was BOLD, there was a RfC about Cohen ongoing (which they had already contributed to) and they should wait for the RfC to close before taking such action. I tried to engage them on their talk page, here. However, they deleted it again. I then issued an ARBMAC warning. The deletion was subsequently reverted by another user.

Next, 178.223.93.49 deleted Cohen from the articles on Nikolaj Velimirović, Lazo M. Kostić, and Kosta Kumanudi, all figures associated with Serbian collaboration during World War II. I reverted these removals, but 178.223.93.49 reverted them. 178.223.93.49 also deleted Cohen from List of Serb countries and regions. Obviously I have left them as is for now, but the pattern that is appearing concerns me.

These deletions, almost certainly by the same person, occurring while an RfC about the reliability of Cohen is ongoing, is clearly disruptive and disrespectful towards our community dispute resolution processes. Obviously I am involved, and any further warnings from me appear unlikely to be heeded, so I am asking if an uninvolved admin will warn the users to stop this deletion of Cohen from articles and tell them to wait for the outcome of the RfC on the reliability of Cohen. There are other IP and registered SPAs (likely meatpuppets) appearing on the RfC and elsewhere around this subject, but these two are the obviously related ones causing the most disruption. I've notified both IPs. Thanks for your time looking at this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs), who exhibited similar relentless behavior of removing all content referenced to sources he doesn't like , see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Špiro Kulišić, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić mainly in the field of mathematics but also in articles about Serbian and Croatian history. The article B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) provides the obvious link, both 178.223.93.49 and Vujkovica brdo editing the article about an obscure Australian anthropologist. While this does not fall under sockpuppeting category (Vujkovica brdo retired in November), it does show a long-standing pattern of disruption. While he often does have a point on the matters of content (he does have a point about Cohen, IMO), he goes about it in so belligerent manner that it inevitably ends up in conflict and disruption. No such user (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to have your say about Cohen at the RfC. Thanks for the heads-up about Vujkovica brdo. If it is Vujkovica brdo (and the similar editing on B. Wongar – which has only nine pagewatchers – seals the deal for me), he had been warned three times for edit warring and WP:OWN in the week prior to his "retirement" in mid-November here, here, and here, so edit warring now using IPs is a clear attempt to evade scrutiny of past behaviours, which is prohibited by WP:Clean start. The editors that warned him were @Joel B. Lewis, David Eppstein, and Arthur Rubin:, so they might have a view on this. Would a narrow rangeblock pick up both IPs without too much collateral damage? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My interest in Vb's edits is connected only to his work on mathematics, not on Serbian history, so I have no informed opinion on the current dispute. But I do have the general impression that Vb knows how to evade rangeblocks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The two IPs have stopped since being notified of this thread, but a new account KanteP has just appeared to start edit warring deleting Cohen from articles here, here and here on the Judenfrei article, and making wholesale deletions of work I've recently put into Banjica concentration camp here, claiming I'm putting "too much" background into the article. When I've pointed them to another article with a similar amount of background, Kragujevac massacre (which I've also worked on recently and which is currently undergoing GAN review), they then tagged it as too long as well and made comments on the review page about Cohen here. I have tried to reason with this "new" editor, but this is obvious trolling by someone with less than 100 edits on all wikis, who has obviously been here before, and is very disruptive when all I am trying to do is improve articles in a difficult area using reliable sources, some of which I need to translate with great pain to my brain. It has been several years since there has been this level of trolling in the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area, and I would appreciate a hand here. I've notified the new account. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a few points related to this Peacemaker67's work.

• Banjica concentration camp. Two sections Background and Establishment are 2.5 (out of 6) pages long i.e. comprise more than 40% of the whole article. All my warning about this meaningless disproprtionality were in vain. It was told him (her?) that "The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia already covers most of this section and there is no need to repeat the same things here". The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia link is visible in the article, If we browse Begovic's two volume book, available online, we'll see that Begovic for the same events (in Background and Establishment) dedicated just 17 out of 750 pages which is less than 2.2% of the whole book
• His reading of Begovic's book is incomplete which results into dubious and unclear conclusions inserted in the article. I've expressed and elaborated my concerns on the article talkpage.
• Cohen's book. The book is rejected by seven notable scholars as something that might be not even written by him. I removed Cohen's book only from the articles where he is obviously inaccurate and incomplete. This user always reverted my fixes not giving a serious reason for it nor responding to my edit summaries. Needles to say that this Cohen's pamphlet accusing the Serbs is advertised excessively across all Wikipedias.--bez potpisa (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a content dispute (they can be resolved on talk pages and through DR like RfCs), this is about behaviour. I was in the process of expanding Banjica concentration camp, and of course, I started with the background... This editor is aware of (and has participated in, at least once) the ongoing RfC about the reliability of Cohen at Talk:Banjica concentration camp, but continues to ignore that community process (which is still running) and continues to delete Cohen from articles, as if he alone is the arbiter of what a reliable source is on WP. He does not compare and contrast sources when they differ, as we do on WP, he deletes sources he doesn't personally agree with. These articles now include The Holocaust in Serbia here, and Edmond Paris here, and now he is also removing respected Holocaust historian Christopher Browning from The Holocaust in Serbia here because he disagrees with what Browning said at a conference (and then misrepresents what Browning said on the talk page in defence of his deletion). The edits on Judenfrei and The Holocaust in Serbia, along with the removal of Cohen (who has a lot to say about Serbian collaborators and their involvement in the Holocaust in Serbia), might give an uninvolved observer reason to be concerned about his motives. There is a current in Serbian historiography about the Holocaust, saying that local collaborators were only doing what they were told, so have no responsibility for what happened etc. This pattern is very concerning, apart from the edit warring, deleting references, trolling me at Kragujevac massacre etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, this is only a content dispute. Browning was blatantly wrong, read in details Sajmiste concentration camp. Jews from Nis were deported to Sajmiste and died in Belgrade were deported and not killed on spot! This is my last response to your incivilties.--bez potpisa (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• More edit warring, now over the Browning quote on The Holocaust in Serbia, per above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• There are more IPs here 178.221.134.32 is also probably Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs), as is 178.223.78.167 given the common editing of B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić. It looks like this editor has been editing while logged out using dynamic Serbia IPs and and editing while logged in, using two separate accounts, one of which they claim they've "retired" from now. This is a breach of WP:Clean start and not in good faith, hiding their history of edit warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• A look at Catholic Church sexual abuse cases indicates more IP hopping disruption by the same range, including 178.221.148.19 and 178.222.141.169, again on Edmond Paris, and removing reliable sources using 178.221.134.32 on Milorad Ekmečić here. It is pretty clear to me that KanteP is a new account for Vujkovica brdo, but that they are also editing a fairly narrow range of articles using IPs regardless of whether they have a registered account. At the RfC mentioned above, it appears that the same editor has !voted three times, twice as different IPs and once as KanteP. This is pretty obviously being done to edit war and disrupt community processes and not get held accountable for their actions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Despite a notice about not editing while logged out, the same editor again deleted Cohen from Edmond Paris here], this time using 91.150.92.1, which has also been used to delete Cohen (and other sources) from Judenfrei here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• And so it goes, still edit warring while logged out at Judenfrei here, and Emanuel Schäfer (the Gestapo officer that had the Jewish women and children of Serbia killed using a gas van), again removing Holocaust historian Christopher Browning and replacing him with the decidely fringey Barry Lituchy, here. This editor just edit wars to remove reliable sources he doesn't like, and edits while logged out in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Violations of several guidelines exhibited by a user

User:Johanprof has edited the Vladimir Putin article several times, and an outstanding edit of his, due to its summary line, is this one:

He claims that "the entry has been written by an anti-Putinist which is disgusting". Now since every anti-Putinist should be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, so long as their edit respects the respective guidelines and is constructive, this, in my view, violates Misplaced Pages:Civility and the third of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, the edits of said user have been described as "tendentious" by other users; see User_talk:Johanprof. This would mean that said user disregarded Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Additionally, said user was engaged in edit warring; see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vladimir_Putin&action=history. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the edit summary, but BLP violations which the user was determined to add to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Massively disruptive and insupportable edits by that user on that article. Might need a page ban from the article. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: This needs some admin attention and input. Softlavender (talk) Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, this seems like a premature filing. The user stopped editing altogether after discretionary sanctions notices were given (and two days prior to this thread being opened). If disruption starts up again then we can look at blocks/page bans. --NeilN 14:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing Opinion

An editor selectively notified editors of an AfD discussion (that was later removed by a different editor as it was incomplete) that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide. Although the notice was neutral enough, all members the editor solicited, since they were cherry-picked by the editor, ended up supporting their view. This seems like WP:VOTESTACK to me but I would like the opinion of an admin (or other experienced editors). The soliciting posts for editor no.1 . There were in total 3 votes supporting them, the aforementioned two solicited votes, and a third editor who, though not directly solicited as far as I can see, has self-identified as an acquaintance of the initiator of the request, you can word search this sentence in the talk page linked above: "whilst Acidsnow in particular is nothing more than an acquaintance to me." Needless to say all three editors have interacted and discussed many topics in the past and it seems to me that they would have a reasonable expectation of stances on different topics thus it appears WP:CANVAS. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC) The user has been informed of this discussion. Kzl55 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there's a clear distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. As Awale-Abdi points out, me and Soupforone have had numerous disagreements in the past (see this articles talk page as an example: here). In fact, Soupforone and I have disagreed on the vast majority of our discussions, so theirs no indication that we would agree on this matter either. In addition, I've never spoke to AlaskaLava prior to this discussion. Awale-Abdi found the article on his own and we've disagreed in the past too (see here:), so stating that he is an acquaintance doesn't prove much. All three users are all well established editors and have all shown considerable knowledge one the Somali people and the wider region. One the other hand, Kzl55 sought the thoughts of individuals whom had all joined recently (most likely a coincidence), made very few edits, and had all desired to prop up the regions independence movement on Misplaced Pages, see: here, here, and here. This further supports why I and other users cite WP:PROPAGANDA for the Isaaq Genocide article and the rest of Kzl55 edits. I suggest that they familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG.

This report is nothing more than part of a series of personal attacks that this user has made against me. These include: accusations of vandalism (see here: , , and ), raising the possibility of metapuppetry (see here: ), soliciting views (see here: ), and so forth. He has also made comments such as:

"much of the content the editor initiating this request works on, or is involved in edit wars over, is slanted against certain Somali groups namely the Isaaq" ~Kzl55, 20:57, 15 January 2017

"It seems to me, and this is unfortunate, that the initiator of the deletion request harbors negative sentiment against Isaaqs" ~Kzl55, 16:57, 16 January 2017

"Some groups from the Somali peninsula benefit from the dilution of an event of this magnitude, estimates ranging between 50,000-200,000 civilian deaths, and causing some 800,000 people to flee their homes. The sheer scale of this calamity is unprecedented in East Africa. This might explain why some editors are persistent in WP:VAND of the page by blanking and using redirects, and now trying to nominate it for deletion" ~Kzl55, Revision as of 16:57, 16 January 2017

"You are trying to pass off your opinion as a fact" ~Kzl55, 04:51, 17 January 2017

"your negative edits of Somaliland pages here, it is very clear and I stand by it" ~Kzl55, 16:19, 17 January 2017

I and several other users have already stated that it would be in their best interest for them to stop (see here: , , and ). But as we can see from here, nothing has changed. If there's an anything an admin can do about this, then let it be so. If a separate discussion is required, then I am also willing to make one AcidSnow (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) AfD discussions don't take place on article talk pages.(See below.)Notifying users you suspect will !vote a certain way is canvassing, but notifying a small number of experienced and ethical users who are familar with the topic and have not demonstrated a strong bias is normally acceptable. I do not know if this is what happened there, but the number of users notified was definitely small. Additionally, if someone actually does open a properly formatted AFD and you do what you apparently did there, posting massive walls of text with the effect, if not necessarily the intent, of filibustering the discussion, you will be more likely to face sanctions than the "canvassing" party. Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor and if the "AfD discussion" has already ended nothing will come of it, and your own wall of text was arguably much worse than notifying two users. (Although, again, I don't know why those users were selected. You say that the notifier had previous interactions with them, but again the only way to know if someone is experienced, ethical and familiar with the topic is to have had previous interactions with them.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55 has been making numerous attacks against me as pointed out by myself and other users. I am interested in seeing if anything can be done about it. AcidSnow (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hijiri88, just to note that the discussion was located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Isaaq Genocide while the alleged canvassing took place. AcidSnow hadn't used the AfD page template or listed it in the AfD log. I spotted this and the page was moved to the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Noted. But a significant portion of the "discussion" apparently took place after your move of the discussion to the talk page, so my point about the absurdity of it still stands (especially given the OP's an AfD discussion that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide), as does everything else about walls of text and what is considered disruptive canvassing. This assumes that, since the OP didn't present any evidence of collusion or tendentious editing, the small number of canvassed editors were selected for a valid reason. My assumption could well be wrong, but the burden is still on the OP to prove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I go about fixing this? AcidSnow (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: Follow the step-by-step instructions at WP:AFD. If I recall correctly, they are not that difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. You need to start a new AfD from scratch, AcidSnow, and hopefully this one, as well as following process, will attract concise comments rather than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that walls of text, if posted with an apparent attempt to filibuster civil discussion and preserve the status quo by default, are severe violations. It is not clear that Kzl55 intended to filibuster that "discussion", but now that they have been warned about it here, if they do it again on a new, properly formatted AFD, you should come back here and report them. AGF is not a suicide pact: if someone persists in "good faith" disruptive behaviour after being told it is disruptive, you can report them for their disruptive behaviour. But you need to be brief as well. Very long comments tend to discourage outside input and preserve the status quo by default, so if you are seeking sanctions against someone you need to keep it as short as possible. I noticed you post some walls of text on the talk page yourself. You should know that if you want the page to be deleted, this shooting yourself in the foot, as walls of text almost always have the effect of preserving the status quo, and you were trying to argue against the status quo. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I presume that these comments are addressed to AcidSnow, not to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 Thank you for your reply, the point is that not only did AcidSnow committed multiple cases of vandalism (blanking via redirection) here and here, but they disruptively started an AfD despite the page being very will sourced, notable and neutral. They then solicited the opinion of other editors that they had a reasonable assumption (based on previous interactions) that they would support them, and they did end up supporting them. Having solicited only a small number, in this case two editors, is still significant as the number of editors interested in Somali topics is extremely small, so two editors constitute a large portion of regular editors interested in Somali subjects.

I am glad you agree this was a case of canvassing (albeit with your 'minor' qualifier). With regards to administrative actions I am seeking, I am not entirely sure of what actions I can seek, could you elaborate on what the procedure is with cases of vandalism and canvassing? Or point me to where I can read on it? I just want them to cease their activities, this is a very important subject as such their behaviour should not be tolerated.

About the walls of text, I was unaware this was frowned upon, I apologies. In my defence, the main claim against the article, and I quote editor AcidSnow, was that " very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide" and that the Somali State may have also victimised other groups thus Isaaq genocide was not a subject worthy of an article. Me citing the very respected and established sources, like the UN, Human Rights Watch, World Bank and various scholars on the subject of genocide like Israel Charny in addition to international media was to answer those claims. I honestly would not know how else to answer them, would responding with links to pages of the books that discuss the issue made a better response (but then whoever is reading will end reading even more texts from the links)? How would you have countered those claims without resorting to quoting from neutral sources? I am new here so very open to learning how these mattered are resolved. Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

One last thing to point out, and a very important point to highlight. This may explain the energy and 'walls of text' involved in this discussion. I do not know the background of the aforementioned editor, or indeed if they are Somali or not, their particular interest however suggests they may be. The civil war has done a lot of damage to Somali social fabric along clan lines, there are deep-seated issues and distrust based on clan. Depending on your background you could be either from a group that fell victim to acts of genocide or someone whose clan perpetrated said acts using state assets. In doing so the issue, despite the clarity with which an outsider can deal with it, and abundance of resources documenting it, becomes very polarising for Somalis. This situation becomes like asking someone from a Hutu background to accept the Tutsi claim of genocide that their people may have committed, something they were unaware of due to upbringing, environment and such. I say this because the possibility that the editor's opposition to a well sourced article that does not deviate from scholarly consensus may stem from belonging to different groups than the Isaaq in question, which if accepted, may indirectly cast their own clan as part of the 'other group', i.e. the victimiser. This is one of the reasons why despite the wealth of scholarly consensus on the specific targeting of Isaaq and the well documented cases of mass murder with intention of extermination, all of the evidence from UN reports to world media coverage, many Somalis belonging to other clans still choose to refuse to accept that Isaaq genocide happened. I hope that makes sense. Kzl55 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: You have to understand that when I say I am not going to read AcidSnow's wall-of-text above, that's not a statement of partiality towards you. I will also not read walls of text posted by you. While other editors likely scrolled through this thread, rolled their eyes at the above, and simply moved on, I'm in too deep not to clarify this for you directly, especially given that you pinged me (most of the pinging I've been receiving recently was abusive, and logging in and seeing those notifications is not as pleasant as it perhaps should be, so I would appreciate it if you don't do so any more). You and AcidSnow have a content dispute. Both of you have apparently stepped somewhat over the line of civility. AcidSnow did something that you and perhaps others consider to be canvassing, but you did something that would have made notifying a small number of knowledgeable users justified (as it was literally the only way to get outside input after you made the discussion unreadable). Nothing is going to come of this thread until a new, properly formatted, AFD is opened. This thread should be closed pending that action. If you post WP:TLDR commentary in the next AFD, it could be seen as deliberate filibustering, and you may be reported here for disruptive behaviour, so I urge you to be careful going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I did not say that your statement of not reading AcidSnow's wall of text implied partiality to me, I was referring to your answering of the main point I was raising here on the act of canvassing, to which you said: "Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor ...". That is all I was referring to. Sorry about the pinging too, I am new here so thought this is how you properly include someone's name in the conversation when addressing them. I contest your line with regards to stepping over the line of civility on my part. Unless you mean the long replies, which I totally see your point, but I am having difficulty thinking of a better way to respond. Out of interest, how would you go about responding if the main point of contention that AcidSnow raised was "very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide, let alone the Isaaq clan solely"? My train of thought was that the most appropriate way to answer these claims, given that they put the volume of scholarly discussion in doubt, was to bring multiple reputable sources. Would summarising all the points into much shorter quotes work better? (like this?), genuine question. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I was attempting to respond to all of Kzl55's statements, but I understand know. Though, Kzl55 is still making PERSONALATTACKS once again, see: and even in his latest replies! The former occurred on a different discussion that they made. So I would like to ask again, if there's anything an administrator can do, then let it be so.

In addition, please refrain from misrepresenting my statements Kzl55. We can continue this discussion in the coming days. Nor did Hijiri88 agree that I was canvassing, even in a small case (see here: . AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: He may well have posted personal attacks against you in the above massive wall of text, but I have no intention of reading it. I recommend you just forget about it for now, open the new AFD, and if there is any further disruption then you can come back here and open a new thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think it was a personal attack? I was discussing why I think the issue is very polarising for Somalis, and why people of a certain Somali background may be inclined to ignore or outright dismiss a very well documented subject. You are being very unreasonable. Please cease the disruptions.Kzl55 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that specifically, but to claim that ones edits may be motivated by their origins is nothing more than another attack. It wasn't solely a general statement and it cast doubts on the rest of their edits. So I ask again, please stop. AcidSnow (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (talk) it was you who has suggested to open a WP:AN/I canvassing against the user AcidSnow talk) after i showed you what he did so why bash the user Kzl55 talk about using walls of text when you have said that before on the talk page and knowing that he was against three other persons at the same time and one was called by the AcidSnow talk like i have showed you ,and to the Hijiri 88聖やや i say to you just read my wall and you will find that i was blocked then unblocked because of him because he accused me twice not once on the same matter and he is good at playing the victim by saying words like (series of personal attacks) so i say to him please cut it out. and i don't see the need of opening anew AfD discussion about this matter because if their argument is the use of WP:PROPAGANDA and other similar Misplaced Pages symbols without backing it with sources and links then rather using words like i think and i imagine and i.... and i.... and repeat the same answers given by the user Kzl55 talk it will be a waste of time this is my opinion. Bysomalilander (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically, I was just saying that this was the correct place for accusations of canvassing, not suggesting that you do so. I do agree that AcidSnow should be careful, though. While they may have disagreed with Soupforone in the past, this seems to me something that they would clearly agree on. Anyway, I was offering friendly advice to Kzl55, Bysomalilander. Concise comments are much more likely to get read than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

May I ask why you think that this is something that we would agree CordlessLarry? Anyways, I never accused Bysomalilander of being a sock or a puppet master (what he was incorrectly blocked for:), rather that they were restoring the same things as one, see here: . They also made unnecessary statements against me in response: . In addition, if you look up above you would clearly see that I provided diffs for my statements rather than my Imagination. AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Just my intuition from my knowledge of your and Sourforone's contributions, AcidSnow. I also wonder what made you choose the three particular editors, out of all those who edit articles about this region of the world? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense to me, but it is your intuition CordlessLarry. Please read the first paragraph of my initial reply. In addition, it is two individuals, not three. AcidSnow (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, AcidSnow - it was indeed two. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

All is forgiven. AcidSnow (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I note that Soupforone had already told you that they though the article was "propaganda". That might actually mean that it wasn't canvassing for you to inform Soupforone about the deletion discussion, since they were already involved. Others might be able to offer a more informed view on that, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If you read my first paragraph of my initial reply, then you should also understand the situation with AlaskaLava. AcidSnow (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, though that does make me wonder why you would single AlaskaLava out for their view! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Read it again, especially my comment on all three users (including Awale-Abdi) and the distinction between those of Kzl55. AcidSnow (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, well I think my point stands that there are other editors who are also knowledgeable about the region and who might well have offered a different opinion, but I think the lesson here is that it might just be better in future (i.e if you restart the AfD) to post a central notification at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Somalia instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (talk) sorry but what kind of a answer is that? you see that it was done to with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and still you let him lose why?Bysomalilander (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I notified those who were also active since many are not. Your comment is helpful nonetheless. But note the distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. I suggest that they once again familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA. AcidSnow (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If an administrator sees fit to take action, Bysomalilander, I'm sure they will. I was just offering my opinion as someone who spotted the malformed AfD and the accusations of canvassing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks Cordless Larry (talk) it's really frustrating and hope too that an administrator sees fit to take action so lets hope . Bysomalilander (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I note that AcidSnow was the one to inform Soupforone of the discussion to begin with, it could have well been a stealth canvassing tactic. Inform those who would support you of the discussion to get them involved and then there would be no need to inform them of the AfD as they are already part of the discussion. We will never know. One fact remains, AcidSnow informed two editors that ended up supporting them. That can not be ignored. There were three votes in total (I wonder how many active editors have shown interest in Somali subjects?), your hunch is absolutely right, if you have a Somali background or a history of editing Somali pages, it is not hard at all to know from previous interactions what someone's stance on a particular subject might be. It is a clear case of canvassing for votes. Two votes that were solicited directly and one that self identified as an acquaintance of AcidSnow. I am quite disturbed by this behaviour as this article is about a very important subject, yet AcidSnow is continually opposing it through vandalism by twice blanking the page (via redirections), then starting an AfD, and then canvassing support for its deletion. They seem to be taking this quite personally. Kzl55 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Based off your own reasoning KZl55 you were will aware of the possible statements of the users that you had informed (see my initial reply in which I discuses this in greater detail: ). In addition, you informed three compared to my two. Please see the two Wiki policies that I have already highlighted for you and cease your attacks. AcidSnow (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong again. I saw the canvassing that you did, and then sent my messages thinking it is normal practice on Misplaced Pages seeing as you (an editor since 2013 if you have not had previous membership) did so. Upon reading the rules on the subject, in under an hour, I had removed my posts and left a message on the editors talk page that "Sorry I did not know you one could not solicit view here. Apologies." As such, no users I have messaged joined the discussion or had any effect on it, whereas your solicitation provided your position support. Do not confuse the issue, you knew exactly what you were doing.Kzl55 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose one-month editing restriction on both parties

• Could some uninvolved user close thread? I've posted too many times (even editing the article once) to be considered uninvolved. At present, it doesn't seem likely that this will be viewed as anything other than a content dispute. A new AFD should be opened, and if there is any more disruption then it can be discussed here. I suspect that at least one of the parties has been behaving disruptively on the article talk page with the goal of filibustering the discussion, and has been trying to spin this as the other party behaving disruptively, but this can't be confirmed unless this thread is closed and a new AFD is opened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

On second thought: proposing one-month two-way canvassingnotification ban on both AcidSnow and Kzl55. "Canvassing""Notification" here describes any message, neutral or not, individually addressed to any single Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians. Assuming the revised AFD is opened within a month, this would prevent any possible question that canvassing has taken place. I do not think there has been bad faith canvassing on the part of either party (although I do think Kzl55 has been behaving disruptively), but this temporary, limited sanction would help to make that clearer. I also suggest that any further talk comment by either party of 500 words or more be collapse using this template, and any attempt to revert this collapsing be reported to admin to block the reverter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn Okay. It hadn't occurred to me (mostly because I was adhering to the pact myself) that this proposal would immediately be overrun by users on both sides supporting the restriction on the user on the other side but defending "their man". I'm done here, as no one seems to be willing to compromise. @AcidSnow: You can take my advice on the AFD, but if you don't do it properly this time this will just wind up back here again and you're all gonna waste even more time and effort. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for including a precise definition of what you mean by "canvassing"; I started to speedy-close it with a rationale of of "canvassing is already prohibited of everyone", but then I re-read and realised my mistake. I would, however, suggest that you replace "canvassing" with a different term that you define in the same way, lest others make the same mistake as I did. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for pointing that out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Decline (for AcidSnow) I have clearly shown that this report is nothing more than another attack against me. Both of my actions and statements in regard to the two users were appropriate as per here: Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support (for Kzl55) The user has been continuously been making attacks against me despite being told to stop by multiple users (see here: , , and ). Its is most likely going to continue if admin action is not taken. AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: You see, the problem is that you haven't "clearly" shown anything. If in the next month you really need to notify someone of something, you can ask me to do it and I'll use my judgement as to whether it would be appropriate. I have no intention of contributing the AFD myself anyway, so that would be okay. This is not a punitive sanction for you. This is a chance for you to demonstrate your good faith. Apart from Cordless (who had already made a procedural edit) I'm the only outside party who's had the balls to comment in this thread, and I've already told you that I'm not willin to read the above wall of text. That indicates that you are not going to be able to get the sanctions you want at this time. You and Kzl can take this temporary measure, and then, if what you are saying is true, Kzl will almost certainly slip up and cause disruption again soon. Then you can propose sanctions, but you need to do so in a manner that the community will accept, not in the form of a wall of text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: If I condense my first paragraph in which I had proved my innocent, then will it be more approachable and will you read it? AcidSnow (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No.

I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to block anyone (and even admins, despite what some admins seem to think, don't have the authority to unilaterally impose restrictions except under very specific circumstances), and if you are not going to cooperate with my sincere efforts to resolve this problem, I don't know why you would think that I would do the heavy lifting for you and request sanctions on someone you don't like.

No one else is going to read this, and it will get archived without any result. That much I can guarantee.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that you're not an admin @Hijiri88:, you even said that at the beginning of the discussion. I have taken you statements into consideration and reduced the size of my replies (almost all under a 1,000 characters). In addition, I never asked for you to help me block Kzl55, rather for you to consider reading my innocence after I reduce my initial statements. I hope you understand now. AcidSnow (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

But you're not getting it. Because I'm not an admin, the only thing I could do with a clear and succinct summary of what is going on is propose sanctions, and that's not my job. If you still want to propose sanctions, you can do that, but no one else is reading this thread, so the only people who will !vote are the users who were already active on the talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'am aware of the powers of a non administrator and that you are not obligated to comment after reading my statements. I was only attempting to clear my name so that you too would be willing to read and understand it. Nonetheless, I thank you for your guidance and your time. AcidSnow (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to clear your name. Just like no one else is reading this, no one else was reading what the others wrote about you. Trust me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support (for AcidSnow) As Kzl55 (talk) has mentioned in numerous occasions, AcidSnow has solicited members to take part in the now deleted AfD discussion to remove the Isaaq Genocide page as shown here, and here. In the AfD, the walls of text that Kzl55 (talk) had posted do not suggest that they were attempting to filibuster any civil discussion, but rather suggests the rich source of credible sources that support the merit of the Isaaq Genocide page. I believe Kzl55's actions do not warrant a ban, but AcidSnow's violation of WP:CANVASS should come with consequences. Koodbuur (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Buzz off. If you are not going to read the proposal and its rationale, there's no justification for pretending you did and casting a !vote on something that wasn't proposed just because you have a content dispute with one of the users involved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

back to the Canvassing

This WP:AN/I was opened by the user Kzl55 against the user AcidSnow after the user Cordless Larry pointed out thankfully that this its place not the talk page and was based on my findings that the AcidSnow called for the help of two other editors like seen here and here which resoled in this one editor only agreeing with him while two other editors stood beside him on the same point which was to cancel the page just look at the date from 15 January 2017‎ to 18 January 2017‎ find it here and all of that was done in the the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way() and that was it to be blocked and canceled like shown here : because the editor didn't like the page and was ignoring the numerous sources brought by Kzl55 so i hope i Misplaced Pages:Administrators will take a look at this .Bysomalilander (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• note to all the other editors who have commented on this WP:AN/I they have been read so stop repeating yourselfs and no need to change this WP:AN/Iit from what it was first proposed to answer and i say to them to stop twisting it to something else .Bysomalilander (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume that by "all the other editors" you mean me, as I am the only other editor who has commented. You do realize that no one is watching this thread, right? And that until the AFD is opened no action will come? And that continuing to post here is pointless? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: See what I mean? No one's posted here for more than 24 hours, despite the "new proposal" made above.. You should just forget about this thread and open the AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

FkpCascais again pushing POV

Again. I don't want to waste time so I'll just leave links so people who are familiar with this guy can react, or not.

Here's one report where he was warned against such behavior. Other reports are also documented, but I didn't link them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.195.245 (talk • contribs)

Again. I don't want to waste time...

You've done exactly the opposite: you're wasting the time of everyone who has to figure out what you're talking about. So either do so, or I'm going to hat this until you do. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That's why I said that I'm leaving this to those who are already familiar with this group editors who push POV. I really didn't read this discussion, but I'm sure that it's pretty similar to other ones that this group has started. Everyone is a sock, a lot of personal attacks and so on... There's a history to this group and i've put this here so those familiar with them can react. 141.136.212.112 (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a little intro to you. This group of editors go around and they are putting Serbian nationality to a lot of people, and when someone questions that, they use personal attacks to get rid of him. They did it to me on Nikola Tesla page. They tried to do it on Novak Djokovic page, but I managed to put out the sources and win that one...and so on. I see that they are trying to do it on this page. Tell me, what's wrong with presenting all sources here  ? It seems that presenting all sources on the matter is cherry picking to one of them, and they managed to block that discussion. Now they are trying to do the same on this article. On Novak Djokovic's page they did this .

I see that other editors are dealing with them on this article, so I won't join for now. But if it comes to edit warring I'm joining in because they work in group and 1 editor can't "win" against several of them in edit warring.141.136.212.112 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear IP: You named one editor. If you have a reasonable case against someone, you need to back it up with a sufficient background and a sufficent number of WP:DIFFs that show a longterm problematical pattern of behavior (or link to previous noticeboard reports). You also need to link the name of the user you are reporting, and preferably also link the articles that are involved. And you also need to inform that editor of this thread, by notifying them on their user talkpage. If you don't have sufficient information or evidence to provide, this thread will simply be ignored and will be archived by a bot. Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all of this. I was speaking to those familiar with this group of editors. It's difficult to prove POV pushing. However here are some of personal attacks. See comments on this reverts , . Also see this . This is their usual mo, I know because I was the victim of the same attacks on Nikola Tesla and Serbs of Croatia pages. Other editors are also familiar with their history. . Maybe you should read what FkpCascais did on Serbs of Croatia page... I linked the report by Lyl. It's hard to talk to you guys since you are not familiar with their continuous behavior. 141.136.212.112 (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Here, read what he did on Novak Djokovic's page :. 141.136.212.112 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is probably a much more relevant link: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis/Archive. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone starts explaining themselves in terms the community as a whole can understand, naming and linking usernames, and notifying the editor accused in the OP, this ANI thread is still going nowhere. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I gave links to personal accusations against 2 users. Don't know what else to give. I think those people are obsessed with Asdisis, since every time I come across them, they are accusing other editors of being socks. 89.164.75.58 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a thing around here we call "the Duck Test": if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck. And I look at your contribution history and and IP number, and then I look at the LONG list of sockpuppets in this archive from the same range, and I think: quack quack quack quack. Especially when you essentially confirm that you're a block-dodging sockpuppet with "I know because I was the victim of the same attacks on Nikola Tesla and Serbs of Croatia pages". Shouldn't an admin block this guy and put us out of our misery?

Don't know what else to give I don't know, maybe something more than links and content-free shouts of "LOOK LOOK LOOK"? Maybe an ACTUAL EXPLANATION? Using WORDS? --Calton | Talk 07:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with their history, it's too much for me to explain here. I can summarize, but I don't think you can grasp the situation with me explaining. It's hard to grasp it even when you read aside. Only when you deal with them you can see how pointless is to discuss with them. When you ask a simple question and they ignore it and keep pushing their view, and so on. Personal attacks go with every discussion. Every ip or a new editor is a sock...and so on. All I can do now is to point to personal attacks they made in this topic. I did that. I also liked the opinion of another editor who has said "I am surprised you're still not banned though...". You know. They made so much personal attacks against this ip range that anyone can be banned as a sock of Asdisis. I'm unable to post simple sources to Nikola Tesla page without it being protected. Tell me, what's the difference between this topic I started and the one the user I reported has started? Apart from him reporting and banning me from posting sources while he does the same thing on this page. Take a look at other editors who are present in both those discussions. I opened a discussion which would be a collection of ALL sources on Tesla's ethnicity and Zoupan has accused me of cherrypicking and called an admin to protect the page. I see him present here, as well as 23 editor and so on...If you are willing to objectively discuss I'm here, otherwise I'm happy that other experienced editors have stopped their rampage on this article. I can tell you how hard that is when you edit as an IP. All those IP's in Asdisis sock archive come from Serbs of Croatia discussion where FkpCascais has attacked me so much that it was generally accepted that I'm Asdisis. Luckily , I managed to call in other editors and "win" the RfC. But that was very hard because he made personal attacks against everyone, not just me. Againt LjL, the editor that closed the discussion and so on. It's all there to read. A bit much , but all there. Ok, as I said, it's hard to notice POV pushing, but tell me one thing. If I want to collect all sources and someone accuses me of this. Who's POV pushing there? FkpCascais also manipulates with sources. On Novak Djokovic's page he directly lied about the contents of a source. He and 23 editor also tried to push POV on that topic. They have also accused 2 editors of being socks and managed to ban one of them. The other one wasn't prepared to deal with them and if I didn't step in they would manage to push their POV. I can't always watch over them and spend months on discussions like on Serbs of Croatia. That lasted for months. FkpCascais was warned against such behavior and he still does it. For how long? 141.136.215.208 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

So, basically, a long and gaseous way of saying, "I got nothin'." --Calton | Talk 06:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Bdw, I just noticed that they have also accused Everett57 of being "Asdisis's sock". . Everywhere I go I see them accusing people of being "Asdisis's sock". You know, not a lot of those people get reported so you can't see that in the archive you looked. I've also seen some people getting banned as "Asdisis's socks" without any report . Ok, not to get into which one's are truly Asdisis's socks or whether am I the sock. As far I've seen in this discussion they have accused Everett57, Desciplation, Crito10 to be socks of Asdisis. Do you really think that those 3 users and I are the same person? 141.136.215.208 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. After writing so much, I can say that I'm satisfied that the discussion has settled down, so if you agree we can close this thread. Knowing them, I'm still afraid that this is not over, but for now they didn't manage to push their POV. This time not thanks to me (like on Serbs of Croatia, Novak Djokovic and Yugoslavia articles). I'm glad that other editors are keeping an opened eye. Last time Shokatz has left me to fight alone on Serbs of Croatia. :). That was truly a hard one. I just went there and if you don't believe me, look at how long i was dealing with FkpCascais; from 23 August 2015 to about 11 January 2016. ;) 141.136.215.208 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Niteshift36

Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor on the Betsy DeVos talk page, can't seems to resist directing malicious lewd/homophobic personal attacks at me. Despite being warned twice to knock it off, the attacks have continued and the editor in question has dug in their heels and persists in defending such attacks, despite their being prohibited by policy.

The first attack was as follows:

“It's obvious you like Dick and spend a lot of time thinking about Dick, explain why your interest in Dick belongs in the article.”

I cautioned the editor to stop making these types of comments.

Instead of heeding the warning and backing off, the editor in question doubled down on the attack with the following reply:

“It's not my fault and if it hurts your feelings that I pointed out how much time you spend thinking about Dick or how much Dick you should see, there's nothing I can do about that.”

Just yesterday, the same editor decided to re-launch the same attack:

“Apparently, you've given up your obsession with Dick”

I responded by pointing out that comments of this nature constitute a personal attack. I asked the editor again to stop making such attacks and advised him/her to strike the comment from the Talk page. As per policy, I also provided a WP:NPA warning template on the editors’s talk page.

Instead of striking the comment and/or apologizing, or even acknowledging that such comments are problematic, the editor smugly defended the attack and is showing no sign of modifying their behavior or recognizing that it constitutes a user conduct issue.

This has gone beyond merely being disruptive. It has created a hostile editing environment and necessitates admin intervention to put a stop to it, as I fear this out of control behavior will only get worse. A block would be warranted at this point to send out a clear signal to the editor that such behavior is not tolerated at WP.

Incidentally, concurrent with the issue I am having with this editor, another editor on the same talk page is also now complaining that they are being personally attacked by Niteshift36. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That conduct is unnecessarily hostile. The article is subject to WP:ARBAPDS discretionary sanctions and Niteshift36 has been previously alerted. I recommend taking this to WP:AE.- MrX 17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into this and suggesting WP:AE as a remedy. That will be next step. The editor's reply below to this notice shows that there is no remorse or even the slightest bit of awareness as to why this kind of behavior is problematic and wholly unacceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• As for Red's allegation, the comments may be sarcastic, but they're not a personal attack. Rhode Island Red has done more than his share of commenting on the contributor instead of content, so for him to suddenly play the victim is really dishonest. Much of this isn't Red and his allegedly hurt feelings, it's about the fact that I opposed editing by him and his ilk and then, as others came in for RfC's etc, his positions were shown to be against consensus. Truthfully, I see this as more an attempt to "eliminate the resistance" than to improve the encyclopedia. As for the comment that I did strike through, it was, in face, a completely false statement being made, but I softened my words. If one lies, one should not be surprised when the lies are called false. Again, I don't believe this complaint is because Red actually felt attacked or is worried about the good of the project, but that's just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether a personal attack or not, they are clearly juvenile and inappropriate. Please grow up and try to act like an adult. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw the notice about this posting on Niteshift36's talk page, which happened to be on my watchlist because I'd complained to him about his personal comments and attacks on a different page. He dismissed the complaint and deleted the post. His comments on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 have tended towards personal remarks and stonewalling in place of providing sources or stating policies. All of that makes engaging in discussion both uncomfortable and fruitless. So I endorse Rhode Island Red's concerns about this editor's behaviour. Felsic2 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Of course you do Felsic. Just like Red, you obstruct, obstruct and obstruct. You've resorted to making claims that are easily proven to be false, refused to heed consensus.... and now you try this. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a chronic behavior problem and a hostile war-like approach to editing. Thanks for weighing in. Looks like WP:AE is warranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• You do realize that if Arbcom starts looking at the DS for that article, it will also look at your violations of it as well, don't you? The boomerang is always around. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to intimidate me and throwing gas on the fire. You could have saved yourself by recognizing that your indefensible behavior is wildly inappropriate; apologizing; and promising to stop. I have no qualms whatsoever about taking this to WP:AE as it seems to be the only way to curtail further attacks. You have sealed your own fate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• See, this is part of the problem. You see things that aren't there. I didn't try to intimidate you. I can't threaten you. I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I can do to you. What I did actually do was point out that sometimes these things boomerang. Many times, I've seen people come here, thinking that if they're first to complain, their own conduct will be ignored and seen it boomerang. Since you've violated the DS and engaged in some less than civil conduct of your own, I merely pointed out that you aren't excused merely because you were first to complain. Any threat or intimidation is solely of your own making. I clearly stated that my remarks were "sarcastic" and "snarky". Having been around Misplaced Pages for many years, I've seen "wildly inappropriate behavior" and a pun based on the name of a person in the discussion isn't even close to that. You've proven yourself to be unwilling to listen to the points of others. Case in point: The RfC about the Academi/Blackwater description. You were all "overwhelming keep", having rejected my position as uninformed. In the end, somewhere around 9 more editors (most uninvolved) opined it was you that was in the wrong. Still, you treated me like I had no idea what I was doing. Ditto with adding the net worth of the subjects father in law. You told me countless times how wrong I was and how I didn't get the applicable policies. How many others came in and told you that you were wrong? You want an admission? Fine, I admit that your obstructionism may have led me to be sarcastic and less civil than I should have been. Perhaps if you became more open to discussion instead of attempting to demagogue, you'd find people being more pleasant. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit is troubling. The edit summary implies that Niteshift36 thinks that it is OK to be rude if he believes that someone is telling a lie. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• You're partially correct Guy, I did link my "rudeness" to the poster's lie. I do wonder though if you took the time to see what the alleged "rudeness" was. In one case, it was saying "don't do that again" when he refactored my talk page entry. In the other case, I struck through calling his falsification "b.s." and instead called it a fabrication. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't seen Niteshift36's edits, and am not commenting on them, but I suggest everyone here take a close look at Felsic2's editing behaviour, a totally unacceptable very tendentious and disruptive behaviour that can make anyone who disagrees with them very frustrated. Such as on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 where Felsic2 totally refuses to accept that other editors don't agree with them, and starts section after section to discuss the same thing, his repeated attempts to get material about a shooting into the article, in order to wear their opponents out, and drive them away from the article. Even lying about having support from other editors, when no such support exists on the page, in a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors. I also suggest you read previous discussions about Felsic2 here on WP:ANI: #1 and #2. Discussions about the same kind of behaviour they're now showing on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. - Tom | Thomas.W 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Other editors, including yourself, have made misstatements on that page. The issue is whether a single misstatement is justification for Niteshift36 to repeatedly call me a sorry liar. Based on this posting it appears to be a common practice of his. These personal attacks did nothing to help us arrive at a consensus and merely made the talk page a more hostile place. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• You were asked repeatedly by both of us to back up your claim. You have had every opportunity to admit it was incorrect. You never have. You've tried diverting, making counter claims and even tried some sarcasm of your own, but never just said "I was in error". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What misstatements have I made? Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour, but it was a deliberate lie, since there's no way you could have so totally misread the consensus on the page, where not a single other editor posted in support of your edit (an edit you tried to sneak in anyway, hoping noone would notice, just like you have done on other articles before...). - Tom | Thomas.W 20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this thread is about Niteshift36 lets keep the focus there. I'll reply to your question on your talk page. Felsic2 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Anyone who posts a complaint here is as much fair game as the editor they're complaining about, so there's no reason not to discuss your behaviour too. Especially since it's your tendentious and disruptive behaviour that caused the frustration Niteshift36 vented in their comments... - Tom | Thomas.W 20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Above, you wrote, "Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour." Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Anyway, if you want to make a case against me go ahead, but just casting aspersions and making threats is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

There you go again. What threats have I made? Felsic2 has started a parallell discussion on my talk page too, if anyone is interested. - Tom | Thomas.W 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Seems like this just died, without anyone looking at the core problem: Felsic2's tendentious and disruptive editing... - Tom | Thomas.W 12:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh? This entire thread is a report about Niteshifts behaviour, and most of the above discussion about Felsic is an off-topic derail: Felsic isn't even the one who made the report. If you have problems with their editing, feel free to report that issue in a new thread. With diffs. Can we get back to the actual topic of this thread now? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to comment on this thread can be scrutinized for their editing. If Felsic's history is a more pressing matter, I would rather deal with it now than worry about a few sarcastic comments by Niteshift.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we can examine anyone's conduct - but we need diffs to do that. I see some accusations and griping about Felsic above, but only 2 diffs (neither of which appears to show anything remotely untoward). Meanwhile, there are a number of diffs that seem to show troubling comments/behavior by Niteshift linked upthread. So no, I really don't think that Felsic's behavior is "core problem" here - those of you who think it is should post evidence of that if you don't want to be called out for derailing the discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ret.Prof and WP:NOTBLOG

We have here an editor who, as per his edit history, has not made an edit outside of user space, with the exception of commenting at a few RfAs, since May 2016, over a thousand edits ago. All other edits have been in his personal user space. This may well be related to his having been previously topic banned from his sole topic of interest, early Christian history, from which he had earlier been banned for three months after fraudulently misrepresenting a source. I question whether at this point he is in fact here to develop an encyclopedia, or simply to use as a web host for his ideas. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• In that case WP:MFD - not sanctions. Plenty of people not here to build an encyclopedia - and many who are are not capable. Leaky Caldron 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Has there been any attempt to simply talk it over with them and advise them their editing may not be productive. I don't immediately see any, and wonder if going right to ANI might not be premature. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason to attempt to reason with someone who has already more or less been told that the material he seeks to add to articles is not suited there, and who then adds it in userspace apparently in what could be seen as an attempt to WP:GAME the system so that his personal theories are available on the net here? John Carter (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• MFD it. Either people will agree and it will be deleted or they wont and it wont. Either way its hardly a big issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• MfDing their talk paqe may take care of that specific page, but it doesn't answer the question of whether RetProf is here to contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia or not. We're not a webhost, nor a place to feature your ideas, our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and if RetProf has declined to participate in doing that because he's been banned from his preferred subject, then he's clearly NOTHERE to do that. I would say that a warning from an admin that if he doesn't start to participate in the building of the encyclopedia in some fashion (could be content work, could be categorization, could be many different things that aren't talk pages) in a certain amount of time, then he's facing an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, MfD would be the appropriate avenue. I have considered this from time to time, but never done anything about it. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • MfD, I'll have a word but it would be good if someone who doesn't know him did also. We aren't a webhost and he needs to understand that he can't stay here only to use us as one. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• RE EDITS IN MY SANDBOX: Sorry guys! I was simply trying to get some feedback on my proposed edits before resuming normal editing. I will stop immediately! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Fascinating. Please tell us exactly where you had indicated that you wanted feedback. I don't remember having ever seen it anywhere. Also, I suppose, the roughly 3500 edits you have made to your userspace over at wikisource, which, as per wikisource:Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#Question regarding possible use of wikisource for nonproductive purposes, seem to have been at the time of my original posting there your only edits to that site to date, might raise additional concerns. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • All proposed edits in my sandbox are gone. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor, refusal to accept RfC outcome, unjustified meatpuppet accusations.

Hi, Sorry to be here but this has to stop. See this discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_close_review_at_Talk:Silicon_Alley.23RfC:_Should_this_article_discuss_the_biotech_industry. The editor involved Castncoot will not accept the result of the RfC, nor the result of an independent review of the closure. They have participated in edit warring following the result of the RfC as they didn't want material removed (going against the RfC consensus). They are now taking to personal attacks and are accusing me and another editor of off-wiki collusion. Which is entirely baseless. Can you get this user to stop. They've been asked many many times to drop the stick but they are continuing their disruption. Hopefully everything you need to know you can read on the AN thread I linked above or on Talk:Silicon Alley but if you need any other info let me know. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Going from one Administrators' noticeboard to another? That is really strange. A diversionary tactic from your own action. Castncoot (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I've followed the correct procedure. However you need to stop. Polyamorph (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Polyamorph is correct to do this. AN is the correct place for a request to review the RfC, ANI is the correct place to report disruptive behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bringing it here seems to have stopped them for now. Hopefully it stays that way. Polyamorph (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RFC close was endorsed by three uninvolved editors (two admins). Castncoot has had their say and has gotten no support to overturn/re-open the RFC so I expect that discussion to wind down. Further insinuations of meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing without solid evidence will result in a block as will any other personal attacks. The RFC was closed with "There is consensus that biotechnology should be excised completely from the article." Adding such mentions to the article without consensus and edit warring to keep them there will also result in a block. --NeilN 21:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

One such example of insinuation of baseless off-wiki "collusion" here. The first baseless accusation of meatpuppetry here. If it continues then I request a warning at the very least. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Another example of the meatpuppetry accusations: here.Polyamorph (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, NeilN, that's not correct. The RfC closure was amended again after the three uninvolved editors you are referring to made statements. I wish somebody would understand and acknowledge that point. Wouldn't you agree that this process has been highly irregular? Wouldn't you also agree that it's bad faith for someone to agree to a compromise, close the RfC, and then pull the tablecloth from under the table and say, "Just kidding!"? I also believe that editors should not discuss anything pertaining to an active RfC off-wiki. The reason is that it invariably takes away from the pristine nature of the RfC by adding some level of personal and confidential familiarity, even if inadvertently. Do you really believe this is appropriate while an RfC is still active? ? Castncoot (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, what I initially stated is completely correct. The last RFC close, done here was reviewed and endorsed. WP:STEALTH says, "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged..." There was no notification done here. A RFC is just another discussion (nothing "pristine" about it) where a formal close is expected. There is usually nothing wrong sending emails to other involved editors which pertain to their behavior (e.g., quietly asking them to tone it down, take a break, etc.) --NeilN 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to keep bringing this up over and over again, NeilN, please bear with me here - but what you have quoted was not the last close but rather the intermediate close that the three uninvolved editors saw. This was the final (and original) close. In other words, Tazerdadog had amended his closure but apparently did not re-sign his closures to update the date and time; if you notice, the language approved by the three uninvolved editors reads, "and should be excised completely from the body and the lede of the article" rather than "excised completely from the article", as the final (third) closure reads, same as the original. This may seem like a small detail, but it is actually significant. The reason it came about was that I clarified with Tazerdadog whether his closure applied to the See also section, and he clarified that it did not () and left it to editorial discretion (and amended his closure for the first time). I therefore then added the link Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area to the see also section of Silicon Alley, and people jumped on me and accused me of violating the RfC closure because they didn't realize that the closure had been amended to allow this onto the see also section. This became a back and forth and so I needed to start an RfC just for the See also section matter, believe it or not. Meanwhile, the three uninvolved editors approved this intermediate closure exempting the See also section on the Admin noticeboard page for RfC issues. Subsequent to this, Tazerdadog had another change of heart and reverted his closure back to the original format not exempting the See also section. These three uninvolved editors never commented on this and were like not aware that this second amendment had taken place. I believe that such an extreme degree of irregularity warrants close examination of the situation. I hope I was able to convey this convoluted series of events clearly.

Meanwhile, when you say above that there was no notification that an off-wiki correspondence was being filed, isn't that the whole point here? I had forgotten to add the formal RfC tag, and the off-wiki correspondence was done in a stealth fashion which probably exuded undertones, whether or not consciously, not to bring up the fact that formalization of the RfC asking whether biotech should be removed from the See also section had not been done; in other words, to let "sleeping dogs lie" and let the RfC stay informally filed. (Talk:Silicon Alley#RfC: Should Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area be removed from the see also section?: , , )

Finally, doesn't it constitute a brazen breach of good faith that an intermediate compromise had been reached including biotech in the article, with the RfC closed as such, and then breached soon afterward against the agreement? None of the three uninvolved editors commented on this, and I suspect they may not be aware that this occurred, as I suspect Tazerdadog may also not have been aware, as he never mentioned it in his closure commentary. I do believe this is highly significant because it demonstrates that at least a quorum of the most involved editors had indeed come to an agreement allowing biotech in the article, before the agreement was breached shortly thereafter without warning. I know you're a senior admin, and I find it a privilege to be able to work through all of this one on one with you. You may be able to understand why I'm having such a difficult time accepting the torrid way this whole process has unfolded. Castncoot (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If an RfC doesn't go your way, it is disruptive to begin a new one. Another user sent me a message to say I shouldn't have pointed out to you that you hadn't added the RfC tag. An email I didn't initially read, hence my message on their talk page which is actually none of your business (users are free to communicate with one another in a friendly manner). It's got nothing to do with WP:STEALTH, you don't seem to understand that's totally irrelevant. But they were right. I shouldn't have pointed out your mistake as there was no consensus for a second RfC. Hence why your addition of a new RfC tag was reverted. Polyamorph (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, your attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill are the root of the problem here. You quite vocally brought up the tweaking of the close statement on AN and no admin saw fit to comment. Contrary to what you may think, admins do check for followups to their posts. You have also repeatedly referred to the compromise close without mentioning the fact that this close lasted all of two minutes with Jytdog self-reverting his close without any posts being made in the interim. Editors may very well substantially edit/remove their posts within a short period of time if there has been no response to them. Statements characterizing this as "a brazen breach of good faith" as well as other statements like "a significant number of editors are going to be disappointed and lose faith in the promise of Misplaced Pages to maintain due diligence and journalistic integrity" show you have lost perspective on the matter. You also misunderstood my point about WP:STEALTH. Off-wiki communication was not done to notify editors about this discussion. My advice to you is wait a few months, find other sources that show a link between the two topics, and calmly open a new discussion, refraining from hyperbole. --NeilN 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Castncoot was brought to ANI before (archived section) for mixing accusations of "corruption" with a content dispute, and they did the same with regard to me in this one. They hinted here that I might have a COI and when I filed at ORN they wrote this: He hasn't denied a conflict of interest with regards to a company he suggested listing in the Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area and then edited that entry extensively on that article page. I had indeed mentioned Flatiron Health at that Talk page here and here, and here is the putative "extensive edit" to the list article. The accusation had no merit and i never replied but i have no COI with Flatiron. This is a continuation of the behavior they were warned about in the earlier case.
  

But their other behaviors have been more disruptive. More generally this content dispute with Castncoot has been a strange journey and a great exercise for me in ~trying~ to stay calm and work the DR process in the face of a really obstinate, bludgeoning, and incompetent editing and behavior by Castncoot on an article with few other watchers. I laid out the the relevant parts of the history of the content dispute in the RfC statement here, but it actually started a bit earlier, at Regeneron when Castncoot tried to add a "See also" link to Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area to that article. So efforts to resolve the dispute started at Talk:Regeneron, then went to Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, then went to Silicon Alley, where they came to a head.

In any case, if you have a look at the Talk page statistics for Talk:Silicon Alley you will see that Castncoot made 233 edits and contributed 92883 bytes; I am second with 135 edits and 48926 bytes. So the BLUDGEONing is clear. And you can pick any of their contribs to the talk page at random and you will see the bad sources they brought and the strange arguments they made, over and over.

This content dispute has been both unpleasant and protracted, and I don't have any sense that Castncoot is going to drop the stick on this article, nor that they will stop conflating the the tech industry and the biotech industry in other articles. This has the potential to disrupt other articles -- see for instance their strange argument here, repeated here and many other times, which was their key argument here.

So behaviorally the key issues here are BLUDGEON, STICK, and repeated violations of WP:OR in the face of what reliable sources say, repeated misunderstanding of BURDEN (see here and later here and here - the correct application of BURDEN was explained by Boghog here. Boghog noted Castncoot's consistent misrepresentation of policies and guidelines here.

Castncoot also consistently misrepresented other editors over the course of the dispute. Me, consistently, but also Ɱ eg. see this diff protesting that and also Polyamorph protested being misrepresented here.

Not sure what kind of community action could address all that. The continued pattern of accusations of corruption are problematic, but the other issues have been more disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

For a start I would like them to withdraw (and apologise?) for their baseless accusations. And be warned by an admin that any further contravention of WP:STICK and further personal attacks / accusations will result in a block. Especially since the a stern warning was recommended at their previous AN/I here, even though it wasn't given. Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a warning by an admin, I believe I did that with my first post in this thread. --NeilN 13:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That is True. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing regarding African american terminology

72.186.9.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been replacing the word "African american" with "black" on many different pages, which make up all of the user's contribs. I believe this is disruptive, as the term "black" is not very neutral. I don't know how I should proceed with this. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Left a personalized level-2 warning, but this does not constitute vandalism; please don't use the {{Vandal}} tag yet. We'll see. Miniapolis 23:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever non-neutral about the term "black". If that somehow offends you, please do not look at any US school article, because that is the term the education statistics compilers use. And we use what the source uses. Now arbitrarily changing African - American to black is quite possibly disruptive, but no more so than arbitrarily changing black to African - American. We don't use the PC term de jour here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not certain why you consider the term "black" as non-neutral. Blacks/Afro-Americans use both terms, and I think those predisposed to negative concepts likely consider them both pejorative. Now, if you can give examples where it's disruptive, or unless there is a policy I missed, that's another matter. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

One problem is that subject of the complaint is replacing the linked "African-American" with the un-linked "black". I don't see how that improves those articles. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, my bad for not investigating. Advice to OP, include this kind of info in your ANI entries. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is problematic is not so much the term in itself but the systematic change of one term for another one in a manner that seems to be designed to make a point of some kind: , , , (where I also think the sentence loses some of its grammaticality), (ditto - or at least it's unidiomatic), , etc. There's many more. The IP has also been asked not to make these changes, but has ignored that and restored their changes with some slow edit warring on Clarence Thomas and Hidden Figures, where their change was reverted with a reasonable explanation in the edit summary which went unheeded and they changed it back again . It's also worth pointing out that this same IP has been doing the same thing for a while - this is a diff from September last year. They do not appear to have engaged in discussion about their preferred wording, ever. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to run afoul of WP:POINT. As to whether "Black" is non-neutral, I can argue it square or round. Indeed, one can argue that it's positive OR negative. Please see Black is beautiful. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood a bit, the point was that I didn't find replacing the term "African American" with "black" contributed anything to the article. I understand that they can be used interchangeably, but it this case replacing the word indiscriminately just doesn't seem very constructive. I was not offended by this, just confused by this user's actions. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 20:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Check out Black people and see if that would be a suitable replacement for African-American. I wouldn't be so sure about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar

A group of users did a copy/paste move from Sikri to Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar. I reversed it for now to restore the attribution history - but cannot investigate further at the moment (working from my phone right now). Can someone else investigate to see if a history move is appropriate here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone also notify the editor(s) of this ANI for me? I can't seem to get templates to post, the autocorrect on my phone keeps mucking it up for me. Thanks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

AzimK95 earlier created Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar which I redirected to Sikri but after several failed attempts to keep the title he want he moved Sikri to Sikri, St. Kabir Nagar and now he's removing contents, references and maintenance template from the article. I don't know what he's up to. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fulvestrant

• Fulvestrant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm having an issue at an edit in the Fulvestrant page. Some editors are making summary deletion of my revisions with poor arguments. It is my impression that the Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline, but even if some edit does not fulfill the currently accepted aesthetic, it would be wiser to encourage a better review instead of deleting the page. I've stopped contributing to Misplaced Pages because of this very irritating behavior. There is just no censorship to what some veteran editors do. Kindly find one newbie that knows how to defend itself against this senseless deleting! Not to mention that it is an enormous to figure out how this thing works. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biasuz (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it's your first time here, but when you raise an issue here at WP:ANI you should notify the other editors involved. I've done so. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not "should" but "must". It's a giant red note in the instructions for using this page. I'll not comment further here because I had commented at the article talkpage on the underlying content issue. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with the Manual of Style. You'd be well advised to take heed of what other editors have told you on the article's talk page. --NeilN 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that making reference to other editor's "nazi keyboards" is not something you want to do shortly before seeking admin attention here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by that edit. There was no reason to delete the whole thing. I did not introduce any inaccuracies to the article. Had he made a note to refine my sources or helped me to improve what I wrote, I would not have been so irritated. Biasuz (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of this wrong with this new users edits. 1) They are using med doses which we do not per WP:MEDMOS they are using primary source which we also do not. If they cannot adjust to how Misplaced Pages works regarding civility they many not be suitable to continue editing here.

Again with the "we do not utlize primary sources." I've read the article, primary sources are not forbidden WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.

Lots of new editors can figure out what a review article is and how to properly summarize them in their own words. And many will ask if they do not understand how something works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

As several people have said, MEDRS has nothing to do with the MOS. It has nothing to do with aesthetics either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The OP's edits ran counter to both WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS as I noted here and elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that but the OP implied that the issues raised about their edits were only MOS related, and that they only related to aesthetics. Neither of these were the case as MEDRS issues were raised. This doesn't mean the MOS issues didn't matter, but rather when your basic complaint is so serious flawed because you're claiming something which even a quick look at the edit history shows is incorrect, it's hard for people to take it seriously. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Biasuz there is indeed a lot to learn in order edit Misplaced Pages, and especially with regard to content about health. Rather than demanding that your edits stick, and getting angry when they are reverted, you would do better to slow down and try to learn how to edit and behave in accordance with the policies and guidelines, in spirit and letter. What you are doing demonstrates no openness to learning. Folks who behave that way leave here angry or get blocked - outcomes that are entirely driven by their own approach to Misplaced Pages and the editing community. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering they have responded with yet another profanity laced demanding WP:BATTLEGROUND post at the article's talk page since the last posting here, I'd say a block would be in order to allow the OP's temper to settle. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me try a different approach then. Is my edit factualy wrong? I've read all said guidelines. None of say you absolutely cannot utilize a primary source. The reason is quite obvious... There are a lot of publications in science and the level of evidence varies. A phase II should not carry an interpretation of efficacy because they are quite often incorrect or unpowered to do so, but this is not the case. We are talking about a phase 3 trial with quite a respectable N. At the end of the day this is a robust finding on a peer reviewed journal. Biasuz (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Biasuz, MEDRS states in bold, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content..." This means you need to present a very, very good case on the article's talk page to use one and see what other editors say. And telling editors to "piss off and undo your revert" while presenting highly dubious secondary sources isn't going to help your case. I see that Jytdog has actually done the work and says that he's found a Cochrane review as a secondary source. Hopefully this will resolve this particular issue but you need to realize that using primary sources will always be heavily discouraged here. --NeilN 21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Rajmaan - problematic sourcing

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

Can I get a second pair of eyes on this. Rajmaan has done a lot of edits on Islamic terrorism today, he seems quite prolific. I've reverted a few as they were based on blogs e.g. , and seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks. Then there is a strange series of quotes from islamic terrorists posted seemingly at random in the Spain section of Irredentism, which I suppose could be tangentially related. I'm concerned this is WP:FRINGE material, not properly sourced and there may be a great deal more that needs to be reverted. WCM_email 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you filed this in the wrong place. I discussed this already at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197#Longwarjournal Talk:Xinjiang_conflict#Reddit.2C_twitter.2C_personal_blogs_are_NOT_reliable_sources and Talk:Xinjiang_conflict#The_Deleted_material_.28liveleak_and_all_unnecessary_links_removed.29 and it was resoled. I'm allowed to use Long War journal and "blogs" run by official organizations.

Blogs run by official organizations can be used as sources. Its personal blogs which are not allowed. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and Misplaced Pages:Blogs as sources. some organizations like Freedom House or a news website like CNN or The New York Times may have what they call a "blog" on their websitewhich is a WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Those sources aren't random blogs. The azelin.wordpress.com is from the Jihadology.net website, which is run by a fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank named Aaron Y. Zelin. Zelin is a counter terrorist analyst and he analyzes terrorist material on Jihadology.net. That source in the Tiananmen Square article is from the Turkistan Islamic Party's official magazine, which was downloaded and hosted by Mr. Zelin on his website. Ṣawt al-Islām presents Issue #14 of Ḥizb al-Islāmī al-Turkistānī’s Link to the PDF.

memri.org MEMRI analyzes Middle Eastern and terrorist related media. Not a blog.

http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com is the official Turkish language news arm of the turkistan Islamic Party and it posts their own material directly. Its both a news site and a primary source for the Turkistan Islamic Party.

Twitter accounts I used are- run by experts and specialists- counter-terrorist analysts, organizations that monitor terrorism, specialists in the Middle East, fellows at think tanks. Some are verified by Twitter (blue check mark) and others are verifiable by other means (such as the affiliation between the jihadology twitter account and Aaron Zelin). And Twitter can be treated as a primary source if the organization or person running the twitter account is commenting on something related to them, see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves.

The quotes are not at random. Al-Andalus (Andalusia) refers to Islamic rule over Spain. The topic is about irridentism, and the Islamists are calling for an irridentist reconquest of Spain.

None of the sources I used are fringe. They are run by counter terrorist analysts or organizations or are primary sources.Rajmaan (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I share the concern voiced by Wee Curry Monster about Rajmaan's behaviour. The main problem with Rajmaan's edits is not the sources, but that he routinely inserts huge amounts of (mostly referenced but poorly formatted) text into articles with little regard to article structure, relevance of the information, or WP:WEIGHT. Numerous editors have warned him before, including Hzh , Lemongirl942 , Bgwhite , CWH , and myself , with little effect to his behaviour. I've had to repeatedly remove huge blocks of his texts on quite a few articles such as Terrorism in China, Yuan dynasty, Battle of Talas, etc. I believe Rajmaan can make a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, but he has got to start heeding the friendly advice from other editors. -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

These edits on terrorism related articles have nothing to do with relevance or weight. They are relevant to all the recent articles I created or edited. Nothing that I posted on 2013 Tiananmen Square attack for example, is off topic or irrelevant, or broke the structure. I posted on Freedom Houses's reaction to the attack, and the Turkistan Islamic Party's claim of responsibility in its own magazine. And also on 2016 Southern Aleppo campaign I added relevant information related to the topic and did not break the format. I created new articles like Tariq Abdul Haleem, Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi, Abdullah al-Muhaysini and Abu Dhar Azzam and all the information I posted on there is related to the topic, and also added to Hani al-Sibai. This is not mass off topic posting or coatracking. The warning from Lemongirl1942 was over lack of sourcing. Bgwhite's warning was over reference formatting and POV. I formatted all my references, used no more than three or four at most, and changed the dates after I was asked to.Rajmaan (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Attacking the use of freedomhouse.org/blog/ has nothing to do with inserting huge amounts of text, weight or relevance. He also seems to think the Azelin website is a random wordpress blog. I did not insert massive amounts of texts there or coatrack the article, which is what Zanhe seems to think I did here.

The complaints about "blogs" has been beaten to death at Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and Misplaced Pages:Blogs as sources. A "blog" is a style of formatting for a website, and when a "blog" is hosted by a news organizations or organization like Freedom House, its an RS. Its not something like a random person owning blogspot.com and then putting out their own opinions. I'm not citing random Joe Smith on blogspot, I'm citing Freedom Houses's own website where they have a "blog" format and commented on the attack, and counter terrorist Analyst and WINEP fellow Aaron Zelin's hosted material where he published the TIP's magazine which commented on the attack. He just happens to rent his website on wordpress. Wee Curry Monster seems to think I'm citing random fringe people like a conspiracy theorist who owns a blog, like Alex Jones or something. He said and seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks and said I am using FRINGE sources. His complaint has nothing to do with what you are dragging up.Rajmaan (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Status as RS depends on the person or what organization runs the website and not whether it says "blog" in the url. Alex Jones has his Infowars website. It doesn't say "blog" in the url. Meanwhile, a news organization like CNN or a think tank like WINEP may run a website, and if might says for example news.blogs.cnn.com or something like that in the url. So if I cite Infowars and CNN next to each other, but CNN just has "blog" in the url, I might get a knee jerk revert from Wee Curry Monster on the CNN citation but not on Infowars. A blog is a style of formatting. Or if I cite a tweet by a verified counter terrorist analyst and think tank institution fellow like Charles Lister, while citing Infowars at the same time, I also might get a knee jerk revert by Wee Curry Monster on the tweet, but not on Infowars. Misplaced Pages needs emphasize this and stop having editors jumping to revert when they see "blog" in the url. This is what he reverted http://www.freedomhouse.org/blog/be-skeptical-official-story-tiananmen-car-crash https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/e1b8a5izb-al-islc481mc4ab-al-turkistc481nc4ab_s-turkistan-islamic-party-e2809cturkistc481n-al-islc481mc4abyyah-14e280b3.pdf I've been attacked before over using Long War Journal which was attacked as a "blog" just because of its formatting, when its run by a think tank with counter terrorist analysts.Rajmaan (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Couldn't agree more that Rajmaan contribution is seriously problematic with his conflict of interest that always sided with Muslim extremist, scholars and militants biography and some things pros/cons related to China. Aside from this topics, most of the related users I ever encounter that seems related to Rajmaan (or it is actually he himself!!) seems to have an interest on races related topics, wars and conflicts and prostitution articles. Instead I have filed a case before to see whether Rajmaan is related to another user named Gass gess which I found has a very identical edit pattern with him, but the discussion goes to no where. In late December 2016, I have encounter another user named Polyenetian and most of this user contribution also seems to have some close edit pattern behaviour with Rajmaan. Rumilo Santiago (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Danrolo - Strange case of sock puppetry

User:Danrolo came to my attention for a contentious moved of Syrian Republic (1930–58) without discussion. His user page, was moved once for maintenance reasons to @Danrolo~enwiki:. Now @Danrolo~enwiki:, was indeffed by @Bbb23: in 2013 for persistent sock puppetry/disruptive editing. Looking at the contrib history of both users, they seem to edit in the same area (i.e. mostly political parties), and in the same manner (i.e. contentious edits, no discussion). I want to raise an WP:SPI but I am not sure I understand what's going on. Did the user recreate the old user name? is it a glitch? Yazan (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did I receive a ping here?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad transclusions, which are now fixed. -- zzuuzz 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that would probably be my fault. Forgot to add "ping" before user names -> transcoded all user pages. Apologies. Yazan (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh, that was peculiar. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I got one too. The whole user page! He suffers from transclusions of grandeur. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Infuture it might be a good idea to add "{{u|" before the name - That way you don't mass-ping everyone one, Easy mistake to make mind. –Davey2010 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies again. In my defence, you can also blame it on how many barnstars @Bbb23: has (they were all transcluded here). Yazan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the same user already held the global account, before WP:SUL renaming of the not-properly-linked enwiki account. Bbb23 should be able to clarify the status of the block. -- zzuuzz 12:31 am, Today (UTC+1)

• To answer your question, yes they are the same. These accounts were created before SUL was really a thing, and as such were not connected to each other globally. During SUL finalization, the enwiki account was renamed. The home account for the original is eswiki, so while he was logged in over there he visited this wiki and the account was automatically recreated.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've pinged Bbb23 to clarify the state of the block. Yazan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not much to clarify. The block log gives my reasons for the block. It doesn't appear to have been triggered by an SPI, and I was not a CheckUser at the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23:. But if it's the same user (with the same behaviour pattern), then shouldn't he be blocked again? is there a reason why he is able to edit at the moment, other than the technical glitch? Yazan (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You're correct that if it were not for the automatic renaming, they couldn't edit without requesting an unblock and having it accepted. At the same time, I feel uncomfortable automatically blocking them so long after the initial block. If you think they deserve to be blocked, I suggest you take it to SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I too wouldn't feel comfortable blocking unless there's more disruption. I have not yet checked the recent contributions.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that. Taking this to SPI would be just vindictive (as the editor arguably might not even know he's socking). But the fact that he has never communicated with anyone (never replied to an objection, or discussed things on talk page, or here, or even added the odd edit summary), is very very frustrating. Yazan (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag abuse

Volunteer Marek, with Jr8825 and Irina Harpy, have been repeatedly tagging Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) with a npov tag without creating the required talk page discussion section and without giving the required reasoning for the tag being there. The incident concerns only Volunteer Marek and Irina Harpy since they were both advised (here and here ) that the tag needed a talk page section and reasoning - but both of them went on to reinsert the bare tag.

• 23 December - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag . He does not give an edit summary, he did not create a npov section on the talk page as required in the tag's guidance notes here and he did not explain which part of the article he thinks does not have a NPOV and why. He did not even make a mention on the talk page about the tag being inserted.
• 23rd December - Jr8825 tags the article with a npov tag
• 3rd Jan - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag
• 20th January - Iryna Harpy tags the article with a npov tag
• 22nd January - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag

To make a pov tag justifiable, the tag inserter always needs to indicate clearly to other editors what specific content within the article they are alleging is problematic. Unless this is done, other editors cannot assess what is needed to fix the article and get the pov tag removed. In this case, I have no idea what content the tag's inserters consider problematic, and there is no talk page indication of anything big enough to justify the tagging. The only big recent issue was a RfC about whether uninvestigated unverified claims by unstated persons should be placed in the lede. The overwhelming consensus was that they should not. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is discussion about the tag on the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: You do realize you just flat out admitted to edit warring on an article subject to general sanctions right? Edit warring isn't just with in a 24 hour period, and edit warring over a WP:NPOV tag is seriously a candidate for lamest edit war ever. I'd suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG as I think one may be headed your way. On a side note there is a discussion you just don't seem to hear it --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, Cameron11598 - that discussion about the tag is about the lack of a reason for the tag being there! It is not a npov discussion. In what possible way does that discussion fill the pov tag usage requirement of "Place POV at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page. To specify the section of the talk page, use POV|talk=talk page section name."? Moreover, that discussion started on 14th January, the tag was first inserted on 23rd December, then re-inserted two further times before that date. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, would some bigwig administrator make a policy statement that there is not a usage requirement when tagging an article with a npov tag to, at the same time, open a dedicated discussion in the article's talk page and, in it, define what reasons justify the tags insertion and suggest what needs to be done to get the tag removed. If that can be done, I will obviously withdraw this report since I assumed there was such a requirement and so would be here out of an erroneous assumption. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I also recommend you read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The small fact they aren't using the proper template on the talk page, doesn't mean there isn't a discussion. And yes the discussion was started later, so what? Its there now, but consensus of those involved seems to be that the tag remains. You don't agree and you come here to WP:WIKILAWYER a case. (thats how it looks it may not be your intention). --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 03:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Also the word used on the tag documentation is should which is permissive, not must/shall which is mandatory.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 03:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Cameron, you are the one very aggressively filling your replies with wp links (eight of them so far) - that for me is a sign of Wikilawyering. It is common sense that anyone inserting a npov tag should give a reason for doing it, and to do it at the time of insertion. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Even if not a mandatory requirement, a "should do" surely becomes a "must do" if that pov tag subsequently becomes repeatedly removed because of the lack of a justification section, and when two editors have asked that such a justification section be created? The how to section of the tag documentation says do this, then do this - place the tag, then explain your reasons. That is common sense, because to do otherwise risks the permanent tagging of an article - how can a npov tag be removed if it is unclear what the reasons for it being there are? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

They are discussing it now, so what is the issue? And what is specifically is the "abuse". They were in line with policy. Speaking as someone who read the article I can see the NPOV issues. This seems to be a content dispute more so than a behavioral one. Which is outside of the scope of ANI. As a uninvolved editor I'd suggest you take this to WP:DRN your claim is there is no NPOV issue, they claim there is. Discussion is occurring on the talk page now. Why bring it here now while the discussion is on going? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 04:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess my standards about what constitutes a "discussion" are far higher than yours. There is still no proper justification for the tag, there is only obscuration, unspecific referring to previous talk discussions, and VM's wonderfully open "Probably a few other things" assertion. Will those unmentioned "other things" be gradually brought up over the coming months when they become needed to drag out the pov tag's retention. Really, your bad faith comments know no end. WHERE have I said there are no npov issue? All I have asked for is that the npov issues that justify a pov tag should be detailed so that they can be addressed and the tag removed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

50% of the supposedly serious pov-tag-justifying allegations (excluding the unspecified "other things") mentioned by VM easily resolved by just a single edit:. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

So... WP:BOOMERANG? This isn't the first time that Tiptoe has been disruptive on that page and a topic ban from that specific article would help to calm things down a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to give Tiptoe another chance to back away from this first, but I'm joining my voice to the apparent consensus here that he has lost the plot a little. Tiptoe, I was initially about to support your position based on your presentation of the facts, but on closer review, I have to agree that your approach here is needlessly pedantic and non-pragmatic. If there were a steadfast refusal on that page to anywhere address the reason for the tag, then there would be something to your argument, but that's not the case. There is in fact a thread, so what is the resolution which you are hoping for from this filing? Iryna and Marek are not very likely to be sanctioned over the introduction of a tag that is at least arguably appropriate. Although, Iryna Harpy, I will say that some of your comments there ("Would you like a hole in the head to go with that?", "you alpha males") are straying a little too close WP:PA territory, and your response to R2D21015's initial post is also pretty curt, considering it was a friendly, good-faith inquiry. But as to the edit war, Tiptoe, I'd say you're as close as anyone (if not the closest) to receiving a block, considering the discretionary sanctions context and the fact that there does seem to be some consensus on that page as to the presence of POV issues. I really would let this one lay, given the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG. Snow 06:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, I certainly apologise to R2D2015 for being short, and I admit that my responses were sharpish. As regards the two talk quotes you've pulled, however, Tiptoe (and the other editors currently still lurking there) know that they are specifically in reference to an AE opened by an editor over this article on 28 December 2016. The comment was directed at Tiptoe due to the shmozzle it was (in a long series of AE and other disputes between the self same editors working on various controversial articles using the same disruptive techniques over and over... including him and other editors biding their time in the wings waiting for the latest round of cautions and serious reprimands to hopefully disappear into the ether). I called it equivalent of chest thumping at that AE because these same editors know perfectly well that they monopolise articles by frightening the heck out of any editors outside of the travelling circus that moves from politically charged article to politically charged article. For the record, because I have had a reasonably good editing relationship with Tiptoe, it was a gruff, but AGF, plea with him when he'd removed the tag without proper discussion yet again. The full context of the comment was, "You're edit warring a POV tag on a 1RR article and serving up your personal interpretation of what constitutes a 'dedicated section' here? Would you like a hole in the head to go with that?" (i.e., is it really worth your risking overstepping 1RR over an POV tag placed when the edit warring was at its peak, and everyone commenting at the AE came out looking bad). I was kinda hopin' Tiptoe would drop it instead of going battleground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Certainly if you two have a good working relationship, and he takes the comments in stride, what appears to snappishness may be fairplay. But with regard to the gender stereotypes I think we need to be more careful, because the person who is the target of those comments is generally not the only one to whom offense is likely to be given. I think you or I might (reasonably) have responded in strong terms if, in the exact same circumstances, Tiptoe had made a comment about "thin-skinned, nagging women". I think avoiding the association of a supposed fault with a particular gender should be avoided altogether here. Snow 03:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. Getting snarky about gender isn't in the best of taste, and editing abilities don't have anything to do with gender. Worse yet, editors new to such articles might not realise how thin-skinned and demure I actually am. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It is becoming clear here that my concept of the purpose of the pov template tag and my understanding of its proper application differs from all the editors replying here. I find this disheartening. I am also disgusted at the descent into bad faith assumptions by Cameron11598 who falsely claimed that I am saying that there are no pov issues in the article and that I want the tag removed for that reason. Based on the various guidance notes and advice pages, and on best usage practices I have seen on other articles, I believe that an article should not be top-of-the-article pov tagged because of minor pov issues - its usage should mean it is alleged that a serious bias exists throughout the article. And that serious bias allegation needs to be specified and justified on the talk page at the time the tag is inserted so that the issues can be fixed and the tag removed. I will not be changing that opinion, regardless of any threats of sanctions. The guidance notes for the tag back up my opinion on the intended purpose and application of the tag. The hair splitting by Cameron11598 that the guidance notes' "should" does not mean "must" indicates to me that this aspect of the guidance notes need to be looked at with a view to their rewriting. That, for me, is the result of this ANI. The proper place to pursue this further now appears to be the template's talk page , unless another better location is suggested. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield I apologize if you think I'm assuming bad faith, as I stated thats how it looks but may not have necessarily been the case. Perhaps my phrasing was a bit blunt and for that I'll apologize. However you did edit war, I think the most this case needs is a trouting of everyone involved (myself included anyone feel free to trout me seriously). This again reminds me why I stay away from topics under sanction, things get heated quickly. Again my apologies if I came off as a grumpy old man, I do that from time to time. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 04:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, disruptive editing while logged out

Was originally going to report this to WP:AN3, but the page has been protected, and there's something deeper here that needs to be discussed. I noticed a frantic IP on Jennifer Hale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After I reverted it, Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) restores its edits. Up until Leprof (as Leprof 7272, the account) made that fourth revert, it really looked like they were attempting to bypass WP:3RR by using both an IP and registered account on the same article, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Leprof is purposefully editing while logged out, on the same pages. The user takes ownership of the IP's edits here. From what I can tell, on every article the user edits as a user, they also edit as an IP as well. Why is this allowed? When confronted, they will admit to being the owner of the IP. So that somehow makes it okay? Does this not fail WP:SOCK#LEGIT? It would be one thing if Leprof would edit the same page using legitimate alternate account User:Leprof 7272 (alt), for example, as well as the main account. But instead, Leprof edits as the same page as Leprof 7272 and as an IP who I can't tell is also them at a quick glance. This is inappropriate, because it splits Leprof's editing history, making it harder to detect patterns in the user's contributions. It's unclear why Leprof does this, but it's very disruptive behavior. They have been warned about their editing while logged out no less than three times, yet they refuse to change habits. Sro23 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

While it's true that Leprof 7272 often edits while logged out, most of these logged out edits are also tagged (example). I've run into Leprof quite a few times over the years, and I honestly believe this is someone who edits in good faith – though not always as transparently as a strict reading of policy would demand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

On a somewhat cynical note, it's hard not to equate the IP to Leprof, given the similarity in tag-bombing and shouting in edit summaries. However, I completely agree (having been one of original the warning-leavers) that editing while logged out makes it very hard to track the edits where they don't end up logging in later on. They may be somewhat of a net positive to the project, but it literally takes ten seconds to log in; plus, none of the excuses they've given have been adequate, especially given that they know they should be logging in. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing?

• Tim Wallace-Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jordan.williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jordan.williams has uploaded images to Commons (e.g., this), piping his username to read "DMA Europa". DMA Europa is a common or garden PR company. A cursory search reveals a possible connection. This appears to be a violation of the foundation's TOU. I tentatively propose an indefinite block, and speedy deletion of the article as G11, unambiguous advertising.

Question for Jordan.williams: if, as you say here in answer to a question from Theroadislong, you are "not being commissioned for the work" on Wallace-Murphy, why do you use the name of a PR agency when you upload a photo of him? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to post it here, but I googled his name and the name of the company and found evidence that he works for them. He's claimed that he's not being commissioned to make the article but it's clear that he does work for a PR company and has used their resources to upload images, meaning that the PR company is involved to one extent or another. Even if this is legit something he's doing on his own, he's still using their marketing kit to create the article - meaning that at some point in time Wallace-Murphy or one of his representatives paid the company to promote him. That's a pretty close relationship there, enough to where it's a bit squiffy. It's possible that he just didn't think about it, so if there are any ties he needs to state what they are, even if this was something he did entirely on his own time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
• Support block for undisclosed paid editing, very clear from the contrib history alone, but Tokyogirl's evidence just solidifies my support further. What makes it worse is the denial of paid editing when it's quite clear that there's a connection here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support block per Jcc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Page moved without consensus

Note: this was originally posted on WP:AN. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please see: Talk:Rugby League NRL State of Origin series#Requested move 24 January 2017

An editor whom I and another editor (User:Mattlore) suspect of having a WP:COI has moved a page with no consensus at all to a frankly silly title and I think it needs reverting back ASAP. Also, the user in question User:Stateoforigin is possibly in violation of the Misplaced Pages username policy.

Thank you Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As Mattlore is mentioned I changed the name of the title on the page State of Origin series to read, Rugby League NRL State of Origin series, the page is all about the NRL Rugby League series so why doesn't the heading reflect that. I would like to ask other people there thoughts and changing the heading to represent the story and contents. COI, we have not conflict of interest excpe the fact that the story heading must be accurate. Mr Mattlore suggest that we may have a relation ship with the Story, its not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stateoforigin (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My thought is that the only reason you are here is to try drum up page views to flog your merchandise.

I think this thread should probably be at WP:ANI actually, my bad. Since the user in question has replied here, I doubt I can copy & paste it over. So I'll just have to ask you admins to forgive my newbieism. I hope this issue can still be looked at though. Many thanks again Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stateoforigin: you do not have consensus to perform the move. Regardless of what you think is the right title, you should have proposed the move and gained consensus with sources and evidence. This diff suggests some sort of commercial COI. I'll be dropping a post on WP:UAA in a moment. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that 331dot has already reported the name. Blackmane (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Did some poking around. The website they posted on their talk page is a business that sells State of Origin merchandise. While their editing is not yet in violation of the TOU, their username definitely is as it represents a business. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blackmane, regardless of what you think the heading still needs to change to read accurate, the Story is all all about the Rugby League State of Origin series, don't you agree? We have posted it for discussion to get a consensus, as this is what was suggested by 331dot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.56.138 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. you did not have consensus to make the page move. This is not about a "story", this is about what is reported in reliable sources. If anything, the article should be moved back to its original title and a consensus sought. If you do not have consensus to make a move then per Misplaced Pages policy you may not make the move. Also, please sign into your account to post a response and also sign your posts using four tildes, ~~~~ Blackmane (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I skimmed the talk page. This seems to be the only prior discussion on renaming the page. I may have missed where its been discussed and there was an issue raised and please point out if I have. There's nothing specifically that leads me to see this as a controversial move. Seems like nothing more than a bold move which is allowed with out a prior consensus. They seem to have reasonably followed WP:MOVE.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The only two situations in which moving a page without consensus is unacceptable are where (1) a previous RM established the current title by a clear community consensus (not a "no one !voted so move by default" situation) and (2) there is an ongoing RM and the move was made to circumvent it. Otherwise, the standard operating procedure is outlined in WP:BRD. There is no user conduct issue here, as far as I can tell, except possibly Bwfcwarrior being trigger-happy and forum-shopping a content dispute to AN for no reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have read all the comments here, at the article talk page and that users talk page, looked at his/her/their contributions and then mine, and come to the conclusion that I AM the problem editor here, then wow! Just wow! Thank goodness you're not an administrator here. (BTW, before you play the uncivil card, take another good look at my talk page contributions since I decided to take the plunge and sign up here! Civil, yes. Civil doesn't mean being taken for a mug though!) Good day Bwfcwarrior (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have to read a bunch of comments you didn't mention in your OP comment here; your OP comment itself clearly sets the thread up as not being something that needed to be taken to ANI. If you think moving an article without prior consensus is by itself worth reporting on ANI, then yes, you are behaving problematically. And you really need to drop the confrontational tone. I suggest this thread be closed and a trout offered to the OP. He/she would be wise to take it with the good humour with which it is meant, rather than the above overly defensive SHOUTING and exclamation marks. WOW! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You're the only person here to put "wow" in bold letters with an exclamation mark, I certainly didn't... Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Way to totally miss the point. If you continue shouting with block capitals and bolding, and exclaming sarcastically "wow! Just wow!", even if you don't technically bold the word "wow", you will likely be blocked soon, and not just for a username violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: It appears User:Stateoforigin has been blocked. Since I'm NOT "forum shopping" mr. assume bad faith Hijiri 88, I'm happy for the issues regarding the page move to revert back to the article talk page since I was obviously mistaken about it being a candidate for a quick (WP:BOLD) move back to it's original title. (So basically, if anyone wants to close this thread, feel free as I have no objections) Thanks again Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, engage in civil discussion and stop shouting or leave. It is not a good idea to ping someone who is currently unable to respond, and implying that someone got blocked for disruptive behaviour (It appears User:Stateoforigin has been blocked ... So basically, if anyone wants to close this thread, feel free as I have no objections) when it was a username block is extremely disturbing. I've seen quite enough of that kind of comment in the past few days, and it's incredibly ironic coming from someone who would dub me "mr. assume bad faith". You forum-shopped a content dispute to ANI, which you shouldn't have done, and then you were extremely aggressive in defending that decision. This needs to change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just looked at your talk page Hijiri, clearly you're an uncivil editor here and frankly you show some worrying troll traits. I also noticed you're no stranger to Misplaced Pages's block policy either. Attempting to talk down to me is just laughable frankly. I appreciate it when good, experienced editors offer me help and advice. You though, well if you didn't talk to me again on here unless it's absolutely necessary to the betterment of the project, it would be a good idea. Finally, I do believe stateoforigin to be a disruptive user, but I didn't imply that is why he/she/they are now blocked. In fact, all I did and will ever do is state the facts, see here for example. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't need this drama at the moment, which is the only thing stopping me from proposing a BOOMERANG at this point. You really, really need to change your tone if you are going to work in a collaborative environment like Misplaced Pages. Checking the block logs and reading user talk page archives from years ago in order to "zing" people who give you this kind of advice is ... really inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Final comment on matter: Just a quick final FYI to everyone here. Since there is nothing more constructive to come from commenting to Hijiri, I will be ignoring them here from now on (unless as above, I need to talk to them for the betterment of this project). I stand by my earlier comment that the issue from an ANI point of view regarding user:stateoforigin is effectively over and move discussions can be better continued on the article talk page. I would close this, but not sure how or if that's proper as the starter. I'll leave that up to someone else. Thank you again Bwfcwarrior (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor at Wind Turbine Syndrome

Mwest55 (talk · contribs) has, since creating his account last summer, done nothing but advocate for a rewriting of Wind turbine syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from it's current WP:MEDRS compliant form, to one based on anecdotes and news reports. In that time, Mwest55 has engaged in both article edits and talk page edits, always pushing the exact same thing. He has put his personal opinions right into the article , suggested compelling anecdotes as a reason to change the article , and accused his opponents of being shills for Big Wind . It died down for some months after an initial spurt of edits, but on his return the edits are exactly the same. Mwest55 appears to be utterly impervious to reason, and incapable of comprehending Misplaced Pages policy. I propose that he be banned (either a community ban or just unilaterally banned by any uninvolved administrator) as clearly being not here to help build an encyclopedia, but rather to right great wrongs and be disruptive. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ha! That's nothing! Wait until he gets wind of the combined wind turbine and cell tower! EEng 04:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted this user's last edit here to the article for obvious NPOV issues, and left a warning for edit warring on the user's talk page. If this user continues editing the article without engaging in discussion or proper dispute resolution, he will be blocked for edit warring. I'll also note that this issue is not related to the report here, and/or any action that other administrators or the community decides as a result of this ANI. ~Oshwah~ 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User is blocked for 72 hours for continued edit warring on Wind turbine syndrome. ~Oshwah~ 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support community ban per OP. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: a single admin can't ban a user off their own bat unless the pages in question are under discretionary sanctions; it would have to be by community consensus. Since the user is so unresponsive (not sure they know they have a user talkpage), I've blocked for 72 hours to stem the disruption. That might have the added benefit of helping them locate their own talkpage. I see no reason to close this discussion, though — I suggest it be kept open to discuss a possible community topic ban or NOTHERE indef block.Bishonen | talk 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

Repinging @Someguy1221:. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

• WP:FRINGE covers this. TBAN please. Can't do it myself as I am involved. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support community ban - this is pretty clear WP:RGW editing incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Part of being so thoroughly indoctrinated in alt-fact conspiracy theories of this sort is believing that nobody could possibly disagree without being an agent of the bad actors on the other side (in this case, people being paid off with gag orders from the Wind Company) and trying to explain our guidelines to such a user just reinforces their belief in the depth of the conspiracy. We can't possibly rehabilitate such an editor; WP:CIR covers this nicely. (my wrist is sore from endorsing all these Big Cheques from Big Wind) Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just noting I was aware the user was blocked when I made this comment. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support community TBAN. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
• Support topic ban per arguments above, as the first effective method of dealing with the alt-fact universe. Miniapolis 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban from all subjects related to renewable energy and/or medical conditions Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Chuka Umunna

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

Please could someone lose this edit and block the account.--♦IanMacM♦ 10:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed because WP:NOTHERE Kim Dent-Brown 11:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata discussions and fallout

On a number of Wikidata discussions and related articles, things get somewhat heated ("disruptive" is the word used by some). This includes discussions like Misplaced Pages:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (already protected once as a result) and its talkpage, and Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Template:Infobox person/Wikidata (with an edit war about which comments to include in a hatting) and Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Template:Wikidata image; and articles like Tom Fenchel, Sabina Abdullayeva and Alain Supiot.

More, uninvolved eyes on these pages would be welcome, also to get more input on the actual discussions.

No admin action in the sense of blocks or the like is requested, just some pre-emptive cooler heads who can lead discussions into calmer waters. I have not informed others of this discussion, if you start discussing individual editors here then please inform them where needed. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You can add John S. Duncan to the list of problem articles as well. Fram (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, too late, User:RexxS is going off the rails at the moment. You can see the events at User talk:Fram, User talk:RexxS, John S. Duncan and Talk:John S. Duncan. Basically, he has reverted the article four times now in a few days time (if I count correctly), meanwhile repeatedly removing information from the infobox (superficially because it is unsourced, but in reality only things I added, and not the unsourced stuff added by others), causing the appearance of a duplicate website in the infobox for a while, all without adding any actual information to the article. Meanwhile, I have corrected information, added sources (despite his claim that the information was unverifiable), generally improved enwiki. It is quite annoying to get these efforts reverted time and again by someone whose only two interests at the moment are "keep the Wikidata infobox in the article at all costs" and "revert Fram at all costs". Fram (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram is edit-warring on John S. Duncan to restore his personal preference of an infobox that does not draw data from Wikidata:

• edit summary: Expanded infobox - 09:12, 25 January 2017‎
• edit summary: Undid revision 761950843 by RexxS (talk). Your edit removed the alma mater and duplicated the website. That's not an expansion, that's vandalism. Please stop - 13:15, 26 January 2017
• edit summary: Improving enwiki by removing easily sourced information, and misusing an article here to promote your precious Wikidata? Your goal clearly is to get us to work together to improve enwiki. Definitely. - 13:24, 26 January 2017‎
• edit summary: Stop making totally unnecessary edits which add nothing at all to the article or the infobox. If you don't do any active work to improve the article, don't try to impose your infobox version which already caused problems yesterday - 13:56, 26 January 2017

That's four reverts of {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to {{Infobox person}} in two days, three of them in the last four hours. Is that a crossing of the "bright line" at WP:3RR? There's also the personal attack of calling my edit 'vandalism'. From WP:Vandal: "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism ... Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful"

Actually, I don't want to see him sanctioned, I just want him to stop destroying the development work that Mike Peel has been doing. The Wikidata-aware infobox was added by Mike Peel, who is working to improve the functionality of infoboxes throughout Misplaced Pages. That is specifically permitted by a decisive RfC that Fram disagrees with, and he's been spending much of his time in attempting to prevent any implementation of that RfC.

Fram complains of issues with the use of Wikidata-aware infoboxes, and it's true that there will be teething problems when something new is introduced, but he does not accept that any issues that have arisen have been fixed promptly. He seems fixated on rolling back any progress in data-aware infoboxes. I'm more than happy to work with anyone to constructively improve the functionality of infoboxes, but Fram's attitude of "no change, no matter what" is becoming disruptive to good faith efforts of editors like Mike Peel to improve Misplaced Pages by making use of the resource at Wikidata. I would like to see Fram warned to calm down and discuss the problems he sees – I have proven time and again that I'm willing to address issues that are brought to my attention constructively. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your first link is not a revert, it's an edit. I added the alma mater and his age. The version before your edits was quite different. So that makes three reverts in two days, not four.

• On the other hand, you reverted first user:Nikkimaria,
• then you reverted me with the false edit summary "expanded infobox even further" when the only result was the removal of the alma mater field, and a duplication of the website due to an earlier error in the infobox Wikidata, which you would have seen had you checked your edit.
• After I undid this edit of yours which clearly made the infobox a lot worse, you did a third revert, claiming "My edit did not duplicate the website and "Alma mater" is unsourced. Please stop adding unsourced content to this article". Too bad that 14 minutes earlier you had already made an edit which said "sorry Mike that duplicates the website when a local value is present - see Talk:John S. Duncan". So you were very well aware that your edit duplicated the website, but decided to lie about it.
• I then readded the alma mater to the infobox, while also adding sources for it in the article. Yet, you once again reverted the infobox to remove the alma mater field.

Basically, over this edit war, I have constantly improved the article, while all RexxS has done is reverting back to older, less complete versions only because they had his precious Wikidata infobox, and because apparently anything unsourced I had touched needed removal (but anything unsourced added by anyone else could remain). meanwhile making it worse by spreading alternative facts in edit summaries and on the talk page ("That's a lie. The reason that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} removed alma mater was that it was unsourced. It was not a decision on my part.", even though he removed the field from the infobox three times).

Can someone please explain to RexxS that we are here to make our articles better, not worse? Fram (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Peel changed the infobox from {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} on 22:16, 20 January 2017 - your first edit to the article reverted the wikidata version back to the original version. So yes, it was a revert. The fact that you also added an unsourced piece of information (alma mater was not sourced until today) to the infobox at the same time does not excuse you from edit-warring. You still seem to be intent on defending your behaviour by wiki-lawyering. You reverted to the previous version of that infobox four times in two days and three times in four hours. If that's not edit-warring, I'd like to know what is. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was edit-warring to keep an improved version of the article. You were edit warring to... to do what exactly? To remove all progress if it was made by me on flimsy grounds? If you were worried about unsourced info in the infobox, you would have simply removed the infobox, since nothing in it was sourced. But that was never your intention or interest, obviously. I have repeatedly improved the article and the infobox; you have not made a single improvement to the article. Fram (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been significantly put off editing as a result of this campaign by Fram against the work I was doing with this infobox. It seems that every time I log in, I find that my edits have been reverted, and my attempts to improve things and listen to feedback are sidelined by further criticism from Fram with a very anti-Wikidata agenda. Unfortunately I also have other issues at the moment in real life that need more urgent attention, so I haven't been able to keep up with Fram's verbosity.

I should add that I haven't added {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to *any* articles that weren't already using it while this has been going on, I've just been working to improve the infobox so that it supports more options and data. A lot of my edits (such as the one RexxS links to above) were just due to me changing the infobox template from opt-out to opt-in, and updating the calls to it in articles so that they kept their opt-in status, nothing more. Most of the calls to this template were added by other users already working on the articles. Some of the articles that Fram has been edit-warring over have now had *more* edits about the infobox than about the article content! Mike Peel (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fram, could you stop forum-shopping your anti-Wikidata crusade? Don't you think Misplaced Pages:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs and the TfDs you started are already generating enough heat? Only you can prevent meatball:ForestFires :) —Kusma (t·c) 15:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

32.218.37.8

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

IP 32.2218.37.8 will not identify himself and is making edits to local US political wikis. This IP number is using a Proxy server in United Kingdom and does not have a wiki signin. Please delete all contributions and ban this user. User deletes references and eyewitness accounts. Smacks of bias. They have been notified of this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors are under no obligation to provide their real identities. This looks like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(notified)

Hey Joplinplayer. It looks like that IP has only made two edits. This was the removal of unsourced contentious information in a BLP, and this looks like fairly run of the mill copyediting and {{cn}} tagging, which, while not as good as adding an actual source, isn't itself openly disruptive.

So I'm afraid if there is some major disruption on a string of IPs which are likely from the same individual, you're going to have to provide some diffs of where exactly it's going on. TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Both the complainant here and some IP's are using the term "unauthorized edits", whatever that's supposed to mean. And the complainant had several years of no editing at all. Which raises the suspicion that there's POV-pushing and article ownership going on, on both sides. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

May be likely. AGF, and trust but verify. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The OP needs to explain what "unauthorized edit" means. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And speaking of AGF, the OP called the IP a "Sabatuer" (sic) which is a gross lack of AGF. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely some...misunderstanding...about how things are supposed to work around these parts. TimothyJosephWood 16:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The OP keeps talking about "eyewitness accounts" as if he himself witnessed something. That would be a blatant example of "original research". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. And per this discussion, that seems to be precisely what has happened. Seems the editor wasn't being intentionally disruptive, but didn't really understand that unpublished eye witness accounts are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Joplinplayer, what were you doing restoring unsourced contentious content to a BLP? I've restored the IP's reversion and thanked them for their efforts. --NeilN 15:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The matter of the addition of potentially libelous material to the Josh Zepnick article is being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard. 32.218.152.233 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I discussed correct use of eyewitness accounts with Neil, and related that the referenced material WAS deleted which is why I made the complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joplinplayer (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Where have you explained what you meant by "unauthorized"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness, 96.11.3.60 was the editor who originated the use of that term in this article. Since the 96.x address resolves to the Milwaukee area, that IP may be an associate of the subject of the article, and the term may have been used to state that the subject did not authorize the use of that information. Joplinplayer may have simply been copying the use of the term. 32.218.152.233 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Joplinplayer, your edit to Josh Zepnick has been reverted three times (, , ) by three different editors, all of whom noted that the assertion in question required a reliable source. Only one of the reverts removed a source, that by 96.11.3.60. Don't you think you owe 32.x an apology for your false accusation and your label of "Sabatuer" (sic)? Editing Misplaced Pages requires that we assume good faith of other editors and act civilly. It also requires that we collaborate with other editors. Your repeated insertion of material to an article constitutes edit warring. Rather than simply bursting on the scene and pushing your agenda, it would behoove you to learn something about the policies and practices of Misplaced Pages to help you improve what is an encyclopedia. 32.218.152.233 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that a lone person is behind both 32.218.37.8 (talk · contribs) and 32.218.152.233 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a dynamic IP. I make no attempt to obfuscate that. 32.218.152.233 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Also possibly 32.218.152.198 (talk · contribs), who shows similar interest in Wisconsin matters. The OP claims the IP is from a proxy server in the UK. I don't see how he would be in position to know something like that. All 3 IP's I've listed geolocate to Connecticut. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have worked with an editor using an IP beginning 32.218 on Wisconsin settlement and school articles numerous times over the past several years. From the writing style, this appears to be him and I have always found him to be a quite excellent editor. This is a crock and should be promptly closed. John from Idegon (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Background- who is what according to source and relevant custom and law

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

I am claiming that sourced content, backed by proven custom should not be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take a hypothetical example: According to the Jus soli legal principle, applied in Argentine nationality law, any person born in Argentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the category Category:Argentine people to John Doe's Misplaced Pages article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would the difference if I added the category Category:British Jews to the real and relevant Milo Yiannopoulos Misplaced Pages article, if: According to the general principle in Judaism and Jewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. Furthermore from the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos' has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal, ( Matrilineality in Judaism). Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism and cannot be directly compared to other monotheistic religions ex. Christianity, which emphasises primarily faith and conversion. Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you can't. That falls afoul of original research and synthesis. You need an RS that explicitly states what you want to add to an article. Capeo (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I should also note this board is not for content disputes or general questions about content. Capeo (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This is going to boomerang quite rapidly. You were foolish to bring this here. --Tarage (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking into more, I agree. RudiLefkowitz has spammed this post over multiple boards while also edit warring against consensus it seems. Capeo (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove editing restriction on Kmweber

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

• Text of restriction as logged at WP:RESTRICT:

  Kmweber is not allowed to edit the Misplaced Pages namespace or Misplaced Pages talk space. Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indefinite block, with the following exception: if an article which Kmweber has created, or to which he has substantially contributed, is nominated by another editor at AfD, Kmweber is permitted to edit the AfD page for that article to express his views in non-disruptive fashion, and is not subject to block for doing so. Kurt is encouraged to edit the article space, and help contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. He is also reminded that the only way to lift this ban is to formally request it be reviewed, or go to ArbCom.

• Original discussion that imposed the restriction:

• Rationale for removal Kurt was restricted in 2009 basically for being a pain in the ass in project space. He has editied sporadically in the intervening years and has stayed out of trouble since 2010. A quick look at his userpage shows he is aware he acted badly in the past and regrets it. There therefore does not seem to be any benefit to the project in continuing this restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as Kurt hasn't edited anywhere on this project for over a year, is this really necessary? We tend to jump all over well-meaning new editors for appealing blocks or bans for others without their knowledge... ansh666 21:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This is different than a block or ban though. It's permanently displayed on the wall of shame at WP:RESTRICT and can only be undone by consensus. Kurt has indicated he may want to return to editing at some point, why not make him feel welcome to do so? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that is true. (Though really why do we even have that? Didn't they get rid of the list of banned users?) In that case, conditional support per Eggishorn below, who has made the point better than I ever could. ansh666 00:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional support for the removal of restrictions. The current user page indicates remorse and acceptance of responsibility of wrongdoing. The restrictions themselves are quite old, and there is a likelihood that maturity in the intervening time has increased. It is appropriate to remove these restrictions but it was specifically stated at the time that Kmweber himself had to ask for the restriction to be removed. I'm not entirely sure if that is something he can or would want to do but assuming he does, then the request should be allowed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal Kurt was one of my only two opposes in my RfA (ten years ago now - blimey) purely because I'd self-nominated. I'm pretty sure that sort of silliness has gone away now, and if it hasn't, we can always reinstate the restriction. I don't see any downside to this. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• AGF - Support removal Can always be reimposed if he abuses again. As for "he has to ask for removal", the community giveth restriction, it can taketh it away on its own initiative as well. We can't bindingly order our future selves not to do something (policy changes could restrict us, but this was just a normal community restriction). I would prefer to have him here to briefly discuss it but I can assume good faith enough to go with another chance anyways. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal - There's no real downside to giving this user another chance here, as others have noted. If the previous issues return, the restriction can be reimposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'm willing to give just about anyone another chance on nearly anything after seven years. Jbh 13:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The worst case is if he started up again, the restrictions could be brought down quickly. I too would like to see if KMWeber wants to have these lifted as well, it's possible he may say no. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

For some reason, the previous discussion on this topic was just archived before any resolution was managed - despite a seeming consensus among the respondents.

I would urge anyone new to the topic to read the the archived discussion but, to recap, this issue resolves around Lx's conduct on the article's talk page, throwing around unsubstantiated accusations about systematic distortion in the article. When invited to provide sources to support his/her view, Lx has been repeatedly abusive towards me, comparing me to a Holocaust denier and colonial apologist.

In my reading of the original discussion, there seems to have been general agreement that some form of measure needs to be taken. Since the discussion was archived, Lx has been active again on the same article page and has gloated that the discussion here has "staled-out" and has mocked WP:AGF by stating: "how exactly do you "neutrally" describe a problem with a user who creates nnpov content, & then absolutely refuses to allow any further changes to redress this?" I fear that this is yet another example of Lx's refuses to modify his/her attitude (or even style of communication) in response to disciplinary sanctions.

I believe the following users supported some form some form of sanction against Lx up to and including a ban: @Hijiri88:; @The Blade of the Northern Lights:; @Black Kite:; @Indy beetle:; @Midnightblueowl:. Whatever the outcome, I think it's clear we need some kind of formal resolution here or the dispute will only escalate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

it's

good

to

see

he

hasn't

succumbed

to

community

pressure

to

change

his

inscrutable

style

of

talk

page

comment

paragraph

divisions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, User:Brigade Piron, I didn't get your ping. I only saw this because I'm watching ANI very closely (in fact having to devote virtually all of my on-wiki time to it) these days while waiting for someone to close the second most obvious SNOW case in recent memory. Did you insert the ping after signing your initial post? Because that doesn't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's possible, thank you for alerting me to it. I'll try again: @Hijiri88:; @The Blade of the Northern Lights:; @Black Kite:; @Indy beetle:; @Midnightblueowl:.—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been receiving the pings. At any rate, I'm kind of confused as to the "legality" of this use of this discussion board (I've heard conflicting reports on if it's proper policy procedure to bring the complaint against Lx 121 here), but I affirm Brigade Piron's statement that I was one who "supported some form some form of sanction against Lx up to and including a ban". I'm not really interested in seeing any editor lampooned, but Lx 121's behavior has not been collaborative or cooperative and been most uncivil towards Piron. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I come here in response to a request from User:Brigade Piron, after I had let Piron down on my earlier promise to review the talk page. (Sorry, Piron).

It seems to me that there are two issues here: the substance of the complaints by Lx 121, and the conduct of Lx 121.

On the substance, it seems to me that Lx 121's complaint is well-founded. The article relies overwhelmingly on European and North American sources, with scanty use of Congolese (or other African) sources. Without casting any aspersions on the skill or integrity of the many scholarly authors cited, this is a fundamental imbalance on a highly sensitive topic. From a Congolese perspective, it must feel rather like how an American would feel if an article on the Pearl Harbour attacks drew overwhelmingly on Japanese scholarly sources.

I say that without any criticism of Piron and the other editors who appear to have worked in good faith to produce an article which reflects the sources available to them. I have myself written articles with a limited set of sources which I know give an imbalanced picture, and the resulting article has reflected that imbalance. I do not know what African scholarly works have been published on this subject, but I do know that the nature of academic publishing is such they are unlikely to be readily accessible to European and North American writers other than though academic institutions. This is a systemic bias issue which we should at least seek to overcome.

Nonetheless, I think that it was foolish of Piron to proceed to a GA review without including more African and Congolose perspectives, and I think that the reviewer Midnightblueowl was mistaken to overlook those deficiencies when passing it for promotion to GA status.

So Lx 121 has a clear prima facie case for criticising this article, and it disappointing to see that Lx 121's concerns were dismissed very harshly by Piron in the first section of the discussion at Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State#about_the_history_of_the_historians.

However, Piron is right about one crucial point: that if an editor is dissatisfied with the sources used, it is up to them to offer other sources. And AFAICS, Lx 121 has failed to offer any new sources.

I note too that LX 121 alleges that Piron did not make good use of the available sources, and that Midnightblueowl has wisely urged a deeper review of the souces used, as well as supporting the use of more African sources..

But ... Lx121'a participation in the discussions has been very poorly conducted. Some of it does appear to be an angry response to Piron's dismissal of concerns for the imbalance of source; but whatever the perceived provocation, Lx121's tone has been uncollegially hostile and accusatory. Even worse, Lx121's screeds of ill-formatted semi-coherent posting have made the talk page almost unreadable.

The section RFC about NPOV and Undue of article, opened by Lx121, has none of the characteristics of a proper RFC. It is badly formatted, lacks a coherent argument, and tries to compensate for that with expressions of anger and frustration.

I endorse Dwarf Kirlston's observation that Lx 121 is not totally in the wrong here. The re-opened RFC at Talk:Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#RfC_main_discussion:_Article_as_a_whole_NPOV.3F:RfC main discussion: Article as a whole NPOV? looks more promising than the first attempt.

So I see no need at this point for admin intervention.

However, I would admonish both main protagonists:

• LX121 to ensure that their contributions are concise, properly formatted, and free from personal abuse or expressions of anger; nad to prose changes based on sources rather than on rhetoric.
• Brigade Piron to take greater care to avoid impressions of WP:OWNERSHIP, and not dismiss LX121's concerns so detreminedly; and to heed the advice of other editors on how to use sources.

As others have noted, this is a content dispute. It would be wrong for ANI to give one side the upper hand in that dispute unless conduct issues become severe and one-sided. That is not yet the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In a semi-related matter, I'd like to provide two examples of extreme WP: BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE behavior by LX121.here and here. 70.209.130.166 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Since this seems to be going nowhere fast, I'd like to put forward a motion that'll hopefully be the end of this: mentoring for LX121.

Honestly, I personally don't believe that a productive editor can be made out of someone as combative as him, but it's happened before and it's better than a block.74.70.146.1 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Support as proposer. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Max.vado56789

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

This user has received many warnings and is still making disruptive edits. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by NinjaRobotPirate - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:IreneTandry, ownership and competence concerns

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

User:IreneTandry came by my talk on 24 January to express disagreement about a page move, which may have be controversial, but done under WP:BB. She is rather incomprehensible, this has been noted before even by ESL Wikipedians. However, this doesn't seem to affect her generally useful edits to film and film accolades articles.

The problem is that she seems to have extreme difficulty with adapting to Misplaced Pages's culture. She attempted to unilaterally ban me from the article because she wanted to remove a technical defaultsort item, citing a nonsense concern that that is for the main articles for the films, apparently without realizing the accolades lists are separate pages in their own cat. She then went on a spree of edits with semi-uncivil edit summaries calling me "selfish" for editing "her" article, more amusing than anything else, and repeated her unilateral TBAN , also making inexplicable, out-of-left-field comments

Although one can't see this on her user talk, where she always removes warnings and criticism, this actually represents a pattern of abuse for her. Her last, similar conflict was with User:URunICon, who she also called "selfish" for editing List of accolades received by La La Land (film), and gave "the middle finger"

She's been blocked twice before, one week and two weeks, for gems like this , and concerningly, despite the block lengths, this has not got her attention.

I don't know what to suggest here. She's useful and productive enough in her areas that a WP:SITEBAN or WP:TBAN would not seem beneficial. Perhaps a WP:1RR or a personal attack parole. If we could impose restrictions on her from removing messages from her user talk, that could be something. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Anybody who uses vulgar language should be banned. There is simply no excuse for it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a goddam load of crap! EEng 03:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Right on cue. Just so you know, this is exactly the reaction anyone gets when suggesting that profanity in and of itself is block or ban worthy, so unless you want to hear a lot worse I wouldn't suggest pursuing that argument.

Getting back to the matter at hand, it has long been held that any user may remove almost anything they want from their own talk page, so that's pretty much a non-starter as well and doesn't address the real problem anyway. The real problem being petty, even infantile personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad I could help. EEng 06:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I see this user's name popping up on my watchlist all the time, adding good sourced content to film articles regarding awards, etc. I'm not defending anyone's action who doesn't want to talk (or per diff 249, above), but hopefully they'll speak up on their talkpage and learn from this. I know this has been closed (America having fun again while the UK sleeps!), but just wanted to put this on the record. Lugnuts 09:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Yimingbao

User:Yimingbao is continually reverting edits on tennis tournament draw pages, removing the appropriate closing tags, from something like this:

{{flagicon|RUS}} ] ''(Semifinals)''

To something like this:

{{flagicon|RUS}} ] ''(Semifinals)

More details on this can be found in this discussion on WP:Tennis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Text_formatting_on_tournament_and_draw_pages

Some diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles&type=revision&diff=762017125&oldid=762016952
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles&type=revision&diff=761275232&oldid=761275126
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles&diff=prev&oldid=761851826
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Doubles&diff=prev&oldid=761664249

Attempts to contact to user to stop this have failed to yield any results.

Rubyaxles (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yimingbao: I'm struggling to understand why you are removing the italic close tags - please could you explain why you are making edits like this? -- Samtar 09:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, some undocumented quirk of MediaWiki causes all tags to be automatically closed in a table row. I agree with the consensus linked above that this is bad practice and should be discouraged. If this undocumented behavior were ever changed, we'd end up with broken code all over the place. It also makes the content much harder to copy-paste somewhere else, as the code will have to be modified if it ever gets pasted outside of a table row. It further gives newer editors the idea that it's OK to leave tags unclosed, which is something I'd rather we didn't do. I have no idea what Visual Editor would do if it saw this... it might choke. This just seems like a really bad idea to me, and I think it's disruptive to strip out the proper formatting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Bullying by User JamesBWatson

User JamesBWatson displays an abrupt manner and bullying behaviours.

The user's lack of manners, and habit for deleting and blocking genuine content provided by genuine users - without reasonable consultation, disrupts genuine content creation and creates an inhospitable atmosphere. The behaviour of the user appears to cause further "trolling" by others, who over time have apparently become offended and probably frustrated by User JamesBWatson's lack of consideration. Overall, the behaviour and apparent agenda of JamesBWatson deviates from the original intent of Misplaced Pages and gives Misplaced Pages a poor reputation. Is he here to work with others, or here to undermine the community and turn genuine content contributors away?

Please do something to restore Misplaced Pages integrity by stopping such subtle, and less than subtle, forms of bullying as practised by JamesBWatson.

Please note it is impossible to talk with JamesBWatson about these issues, because he has (at time of posting) prevented anybody from contributing to his talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JamesBWatson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs? At the moment the only thing I can see is the warning and subsequent comment surrounding your 2 week block by Favonian for "making unsubstantiated allegations against people". 80.229.60.197 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OP blocked for a month, as whoever this is has gone back to exactly the same wild conspiracy mongering as before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

RIGILKENTARUS disruptive edit

RIGILKENTARUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Although there is no hard MoS on all football article. The European clubs usually used two column in their squad list. The involved user (possible socks, master unknown) keep removing {{fs mid}} from the articles, which last final warning was on 15 January but he still removing the {{fs mid}} on 26 January. Matthew_hk tc 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor has made a total of five such edits after the lastfirst time the issue was raised on their talk page, and the last of those was over a week ago. I don't see any evidence they have edit-warred over their removal of this formatting template. I'm not sure what urgent, ongoing problem is being raised. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Sorry, fixed mis-statement of timing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed 'merger' of two Misplaced Pages pages into one without consensus

During the week-end I started reading a book on ethics and decided to look up some key terms on Misplaced Pages for comparison's sake when I discovered that there is no Misplaced Pages page for "Evil" nor is there one for "Good" as key terms in ethics and philosophy. When I looked closer, I found that another editor last June here , had apparently decided to delete both of those pages in his or her preference for a single merged page called "Good and evil". The "merger" was apparently done after a tiny Talk page announcement which no-one seems to have taken seriously, but that editor decided that a no-response to his Talk page proposal could be interpreted by him or her as non-opposition and therefor endorsement to do the merger, which was done last June with no-one noticing it. This merger makes no sense from the standpoint of the study of ethics and philosophy. Philosophy pages should not be merged together because they represent polar opposites of meaning. The two pages should be returned to their original state from last June and the current "Good and evil" page can just be left there as its own limited discussion of this polarity in philosophy. The single topic pages deserve to remain as single topic pages for "Good" and "Evil" separately and without merger. I do not think that the editor that did this had any ill intentions, only that the background of that editor appears to be in economics and mathematics and not in philosophy or ethics. I have notified their page anyway for fair notice practices at Misplaced Pages. Can somewhat restore the single purpose pages to their state last June before they were apparently inappropriately merged. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, please see WP:BOLD. The merge was not inappropriate. Lbertolotti asked for feedback and when they got none, went ahead with their proposed action. If you disagree, post your reasoning on the merged article's talk page. --NeilN 15:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards