Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNAAAAKE!! (talk | contribs) at 04:35, 1 August 2012 (→Return of HanzoHattori: speaking of bad English). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

About Niemti

long term pattern of obstructions by In ictu oculi

In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An earlier ANI notice about this editor's behavior in May (see: ), went without any comment from an admin, and disappeared in the archives after @IIO laid low for a few days.

That was surprising, since several editors confirmed the problems, supported with multiple diffs, including:

• repeated personal comments and accusations of other editors, and typecasting them as "tennis-editors"
• repeated failure to AGF, and warned twice for it on his Talk page
• failure to engage in discussion and a general pattern of stonewalling in discussions related to diacritics, warned for stonewalling
• endless rehashing of the same arguments and questions, even after they have been addressed, thus filling up RfC or RM discussion, making them an endless read for the closing admins
• misrepresenting other editor's words, and repeatedly warned for it
• starting new sections in what is an ongoing discussion, and repeatedly warned for it
• moving warning templates given on his UserTalk into the discussion Talk of wp guidelines, thus obstructing the normal flow once again
• ...

Coming back from a wikibreak I can only notice that @IIO's "style" of participation is continuing in the same vein.

• After answering his questions, like I do here , he continues to rehash the same question over and over in his subsequent comments: and and again and again and again and again
• Meanwhile he has also taken the liberty to change one of my comments, in a way that misrepresents my words:
• He repeatedly negates policy based questions asked to him, and if he does address them his comments are usually missing the point, here is and example:
• He often tries to digress away from the questions on the table, usually by starting to talk about WP:TENNISNAMES, an essay he seems to have become obsessed with. E.g.

I don't think this "style" of editing can be seen as congruent with engaging in concensus building. Rather his edits seem to be geared towards wearing down other editors by refusal to get the point, mixed with all kind of other obstructions and distractions. This cannot be accidental mistakes if they continue over such a long time, and always seem to be directed at a "chosen few" of editors. I hope some uninvolved admin can take a better look at this. If this is the wrong forum for this type of complaint, then let me know. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello all.

This relates to English-names-for-foreigners again, specifically WP:TENNISNAMES RfC Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular. Sandstein 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than an uninvolved admin, why not refer the matter to admin Sandstein who closed WP:TENNISNAMES and/or admin Joe Decker who has set up Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies - the new RfC that MakeSense64 is complaining about and knows the context? The new RfC was a response to a particular type of lede edit out of line with en.wp norms for bios on the François Mitterand (English Francois Mitterand) was the 21st President of the French Republic.." model - counter to the François Mitterand lede example in Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. I'm sure Joe would be a more neutral commentator than myself.

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that MakeSense64 accuses somebody else of being hung up on User:MakeSense64/Tennis names. Have a look at the page history. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We are not here to discuss content, but IIO's editing behavior. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Editors should come here with clean hands. AN/I threads naturally explore closely related areas; I've seen a few editors say something like "I started the thread about OtherEditor, so we must discuss OtherEditor, not me" but they still get hit by a boomerang. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? Is it now a crime on wp to write essays? Or is it not allowed to restore the contents of it after an editor named Bobrayner has removed most of them while I was on a wikibreak? Admins are more than welcome to look into my editing. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reopened this after some non-admin tried to close this. Why call it administrator's noticeboard and then let anybody close complaints? I have not seen anything addressed here. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. Besides the fact that you're in WP:RFC/U territory, not ANI - and the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing (which often leads to issues for you instead), you're better to allow this to close before such negatives occur. Non-admins may close these if indeed no action will obviously come from them dangerouspanda 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that changing another editor's words qualifies as an "incident". And WP:DE, which describes IIO's editing style quite well, advises to go to ANI, when other ways have failed. Well, here I am. You talk about "the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing".. On what is that contention based, since no diffs have been given for any example, just insinuations by Bobrayner..

If IIO's editing is deemed OK, then can I also get a license to change other people's comments, repeat questions ad nauseam after they have been addressed, and so on?? That would be interesting to know.

Anyway, to see a well documented complaint being brushed under the carpet so easily for the second time, can only lead editors to the conclusion that wp has become an old boys club. This complaint has only been open for half a day, and already a non-admin is on the ball to close it without any explanation. That looks strange to put it mildly. To ask for admin closure on the admin's noticeboard is only reasonable. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that closure is premature; although you may wish it otherwise as people dig into this and see you're making a fuss over a content dispute. NACs, here and other places, need to be uncontroversial or otherwise reflect some obvious consensus, or be ministerial in nature. That said, I took a look at some of your specific complaints.

1) Changing someone else's talk page comments, even to correct spelling, is almost never acceptable (the only exception may be bad formatting that messes up the page or makes things difficult to read). So adding words to your comment is unacceptable. However nobody's getting blocked for a one-off example of that. And it's not as though he was actively trying to misrepresent your point with that edit either.

2) You're complaining about his style in answering questions... why do you think this is an ANI issue? I didn't dig very deep into your underlying debate, but these responses seem to respond to the conversation, and are aren't offensive in tone.

I have to agree with EatsShootsandLeaves. There's 0 here for ANI to do. Just because you're deadlocked on some content or policy debate is not license to run to ANI to have somebody else win an argument for you. This is the consensus process and it's not always smooth. That's part of how it goes. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to close. In my opinion, this has become an obsessive vendetta by MakeSense64, and according to his talk page, it has been going on for over two months. I believe that the two editors should stay away from each other and refrain from commenting about each other or interacting together. MakeSense64 is pissed off, and his anger is clouding his judgment. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, well at least Shadowjams aknowledges it was premature to close this, so let me clarify a few things.

1)IIO adding words to my comments was not merely adding words, he was adding a vote (in bold) in front of my comment. I would think that posting a vote for somebody else is worse than just changing a few words in his comment. Secondly, he was definitely misrepresenting my point with the vote he added, because I didn't oppose adding examples. If you read the section in question, which is rather short Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Specific_proposal_1.1_1.2_1.3, then you can see that I was not against adding examples, I simply pointed out that adding examples would be premature and would logically depend on the outcome of the RfC. If that's not obvious then what is?

2)This is not a one-off example, and that's why I pointed to the broader context and to an earlier ANI in which we see an ongoing chain of "irregularities", for which IIO seems to take no responsibility. The earlier case was not filed by me, but by an admin and another admin came in to confirm that the case should be looked into. But that didn't happen. If the uninvolved admins at ANI are only able to look into clear-cut cases about a single incident, and not into more complex ones with incidents spread out over a longer period of time, then who is able to look into them and where?

WP:DE describes the problem of ongoing obstructions over a long period of time, but says very little about where to go with such cases. How many diffs of different "irregularities" does it take before admins can see a pattern of obstructions that have nothing to do with content?

When I report a long list of edits (with diffs) that are not about content, a list of irregularities/mistakes that mysteriously always seem to befall sections that I have started or comments that I have given, then it is put away as "part of how it goes". That's convenient. My merely reporting them here is seen as an obsessive vendetta, without any evidence. Has IIO produced even a single diff where I am changing his words, accusing him of edit-warring, cutting up his comments, misrepresenting his words, repeating questions after they have been addressed, and so on...? Before I am accused of doing just the same I would expect to see diffs.

I am not angry or clouded, I have long learned to expect no better on WP. If anything is galling then it is admin's apparent inability or unwillingness to look into this kind of cases, rather than IIO's "annoyances" themselves. It may be more simple to handle clear-cut 3RR cases and so. But it is the longer term and thus more difficult to detect "mild abuses" by "experienced" editors that are more damaging to wp, because that drives good faith editors away.

If IIO's series of edits is deemed OK, then it sends a clear signal to me and other editors that this type of editing is normal "part of how it goes" when you have a content or policy dispute. That will be good to know. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct impression that this dispute is a huge misunderstanding between the two of you. Is it too much to ask you to take a break from dispute mode and let things cool off for a bit? Maybe when you're calm, you can approach In ictu oculi and try to smooth things out. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What is there to "misunderstand" about somebody worming a vote into my comment? What is there to misunderstand about an editor accusing me of edit-warring without bringing any evidence or diff for it? What is there to misunderstand about an editor who frequently resorts to making personal comments on Talk pages? What is there to misunderstand about an editor who continues to rehash questions that have been addressed?... do I need to continue?

Why do you try to brush this under the carpet as a "misunderstanding"? I have been avoiding him for months. I could have gone to vote or comment in all the RM he has started, but I have not bothered to do so. But whenever I made a comment somewhere, he is always right there to bury it under a truckload of (mostly irrelevant or just plain repetitive) text. Can't you see the difference? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, give us a diff to the most recent thing that happened. One thing only. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you ask for the most recent thing, then it is probably this one: MakeSense64 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While he probably shouldn't have done that. If you are considering that something complain worthy then I really think you need to step back away from the issue. That is hardly something to go running to ANI for. If his helpful addition changed the meaning of what you were trying to get across, just revert him and move on. This kind of obsession and battleground has gotten a number of people in trouble in the past. Don't make the boomerang turn around and hit you as well because based on comments I have seen from you in the past, you certainly aren't innocent in this situation. -DJSasso (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

Is stalking my edits and has refused to stop. He has now taken to removing a perfectly reasonable POV tag which I has just added to the article for no reason other than to piss me off. He has never edited this article, nor discussed on the talk page were there is a discussion over the articles neutrality I want an interaction ban with this guy, I have no need of another stalker. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, the discussion should continue on the article talk page, not here. The tag should be placed to start discussion, but adding it during a discussion is pointy at the very least as is no more than rebelling about the current discussion. It is an act of defiance, that others do not agree with your perspective. As for stalking, if an editor is known to have problems in their edits or behavior, it is entirely acceptable for an administrator to monitor their edits for problems, with the goal being to head off problems before they become too large and to provide guidance. I suggest you drop the stick and keep working on the article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given that discretionary sanctions have been applied by ArbCom via this motion, you will find that the editing of all seven named parties will be subject to scrutiny by admins and other editors at all times, given the history involved. Of course, if the previous issues continue to recur, this will mean that topic bans and/or blocks can be applied at any time to prevent disruption. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, the reason he is stalking me is because we had a disagreement on the Massoud article, you know the one were he caused so much trouble over an image. Then after that he began to stalk me. He has called for me to be banned form editing and is hardly a neutral party. I added the tag after the content which I had added after the RFC concluded was removed twice. I will not have this guy stalk me leaving snarky comments all the time. I want it stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The user who filed this report is blanking my additions to Rape in India and edit warring while accusing me of sockery please advice me on what to do and can someone put his paranoia to rest 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, quit reverting here, it is bordering on edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• This IP is Nangparbat. I am fed up of having to revert him. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He is convinced that I am sort of a bloody sock please do something! 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I endorse your sock block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked both Darkness Shines and the IP for a good couple of days because of the edit warring on Rape in India. Feel free to either unblock, or make the blocks longer if one feels that is needed. Edit warring is certainly not going to solve the problem. --Dirk Beetstra 13:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is Quacking with a megaphone that he is the banned User:Nangparbat who has been highy disruptive and has been using multiple IPs and accounts to harass and indulge in Disruptive editing. Admins Elockid and Elen of the roads had been playing whack a mole with his socks since long. Due to the above block on Darkness Shines, it seems that after numerous efforts finally this time Nangparbat has succeeded in getting DS blocked. This is clearly an inappropriate blocks as reverting socks is exempted from WP:3RR . . --DBigXray 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<comment removed>That IP is clearly Nangparbat; DS should be unblocked. (part of my comment removed, as it might ironically be considered a form of stalking Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I will have to admit that DS does know that sock well. Reverting an unproven sock is always with risk, and the blocking admin might take a look at that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Beestra is ok with an unblock, so I have done so. Reverting not just a sock, but the sock of a banned editor, should not be liable to any sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a side note, DS self imposed a 1RR for a month at this discussion to avoid a block which he violated here: (new) (1st rv) (tag) (2nd rv; slightly different tag to game 1RR). His edits were reverted by FP so I don't have much problem, but bringing the EW into notice since I am active on the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

...active on the article and also active in aggressive Block shopping against users whom you share content dispute with. adding the last part for clarity--DBigXray 14:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

TG I have not broken 1RR at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have asked Regents Park who is an entirely neutral admin to monitor my edits, as such FPaS will not longer need to stalk me. Please let him know it is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The diffs above clearly shows Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise having disputes with Darkness Shines. Through his comments at Arbcom notice and other places Fut perf has displayed having strong feelings against DS. As such he is clearly WP:INVOLVED and should refrain form take any action in this area from his admin capacity so as not to appear biased. From Futperf's talk page we know that there will not be any good faith assumption towards DS. So any furthur hounding by an admin having bad faith will only lead to more WP:DRAMA and reports with cherry picked diffs. Regentspark has already accepted that he will be looking into his edits and he is a neutral admin in this as far as I have seen. --DBigXray 09:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to false allegations of admin misconduct. If you want to imply I'm misusing my admin status: put up or shut up. Cite diffs or retract. I have in fact never taken any administrative action against DS and don't plan to do so. (I have, on the other hand, taken administrative actions in his favour, several times.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just let it go. Nobody Ent 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There's been no credible evidence of any misconduct on FPAS's part. Recommend closing this thread. Nobody Ent 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Independent review required potential suspicious editing

Can an administrator who is uninvolved please review the following article and report if they think there is anything suspicious.

• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance#Cla68 (talk) Ownership and unfounded clims
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Revert warring
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Revert-warring note

I am very suspicious that User:Cla68 has been so sweepingly defended by User:Dreadstar. The implication of the interpretation of the defending of Cla68 by Dreadstar is that if one user adds information which is not deemed warranted on multiple occasions in a short period and then takes issue with that information being removed they are justified in reporting this a revert warring even if the information is simply being removed as part of the usual WP:CYCLE. Sport and politics (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, all that happened here is that Dreadstar reviewed an open thread on the WQA board concerning Cla68's editing, disagreed with the complaint, and explained why. Unless I am missing something, I don't see what exactly is "suspicious" about this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The nature of the reasoning given is such that it basically says everything Cla68 would want and the language used is similar to Cla68s and the interpretation of what revet warring is, is identical to that of Cla68. There has also been no reasoning given that Cla68 has complained only over their edits being modified or removed which shows that the Ownership being exhibited by Cla68 has been ignored which is again suspicious as a thorough and well thought through reading of the whole complaint would have addressed those concerns as well.Sport and politics (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The solution to this is that the WQA thread is still open, and other editors can chime in if they agree or disagree with Dreadstar's comments or yours. But your comments above carried the insinuation that there is some sort of sockpuppetry or improper off-wiki coordination or game-playing going on, and I see no evidence for that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Well could a few users please review the open thread and make a comment and can a user review if the close of the Third linked discussion was proper by Dreadstar. Sport and politics (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sport and politics continues to remove well-sourced material from Olympics-related articles since the Wikiquette discussion began. Could an admin please intervene? It's not just my attempts to build the article that are being affected. A number of editors are having their contributions deleted by this editor. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The serious point which is being missed here and what is being insinuated is that it is not right to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the page. What is the point of having a page on a watch-list if only one or two edits to a page can be made in 24 hours. This is getting ridiculous if this is what is actually being pushed here. Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring or the whole foundation of editing Wikipeida to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages goes out the window. Simply modifying and editing content of wkipedia over a short period of time cannot be considered revert warring if the content being removed is being thoroughly discussed as is being done on this topic and the content being removed and modified is done so to maintain the quality of the article.Sport and politics (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring" - Is the content being removed vandalism or a BLP violation? If no, then if you remove something, it's restored, and then you remove it again, yes, you are indeed edit warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a case of Sport and politics removing the same material twice? I have not found it. - Fartherred (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the founding principle of Wikipeidia is to be a well written encyclopaedia. The content is put up it is removed if it s not noteworthy, relevant or poorly written or pushes one POV to an undue extent. It is not all edits this happens to. It only happens to the edits which are either poorly written, give undue weight to a single POV, irrelevant or not noteworthy. The content is then discussed. It is not removed put back removed put back etc. as youseem to be making out. The insinuation that it is wrong to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the article seems very very strange. Sport and politics (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling a serious look at what Misplaced Pages is not is needed as this is getting wholly ignored and is fundamental to what makes Misplaced Pages Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For Cla68 to make the original claims of revert warring they have wholly missed that all editors and editing should be regarded with good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• We don't give deference to the editor who quotes the most policies or insists with the greatest volume that they are correct. Edit warring is edit warring is edit warring. The extremely narrow range of exceptions to the edit warring policy exists to prevent editors from simply screaming and reverting past one another, and encourage them to actually talk about the issues. Behavioral issues aside, you are not going to find a free pass here to keep reverting. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am absolutely flabbergasted by that. The implications of that means that Misplaced Pages articles cannot be edited by the same editor more than three times in 24 hours if that editor is removing content which is irrelevant, POV pushing, lacking in noteworthiness, written incomprehensibly or is even if the removal/modification is done so to maintain the quality of the article. There has to be some level of Common Sense employed here or genuine good faith editing to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages will be stifled as is being clearly demonstrated here. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this very simple one line policy comes in here as this interpretation of the revert rule is damaging to Misplaced Pages for the above mentioned reasons. Sport and politics (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You've been here for like 3 weeks and you declare yourself some kind of expert on all things wikipedia... and you're calling someone else suspicious? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yup. This is ridiculous. Citing WP:IAR to justify edit warring if the person involved claims to be doing so "to maintain the quality of the article"? On that basis, we might as well scrap the rules against edit warring entirely. 'Common sense' says we don't suddenly ditch long-standing policy on the basis of what one new contributor says... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • All I have done is read up on what Misplaced Pages policies are and when something looked suspicious to me I simply said so. I guess I have learnt the the editing of Misplaced Pages is very very unusual. Sport and politics (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• When someone adds cited information to the Olympics controversy article that isn't obvious vandalism or a violation of the BLP policy and you disagree with it, instead of reverting it, start a discussion on the talk page and give the reasons why you don't think it belongs in the article, then allow some time for other editors to respond. If you will do this, then things should work a lot better with building that article. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that all of the edits I have made have been done in good faith to maintain the quality of the article in question. What is being missed is the fact that I have edited in good faith and another user has claimed bad faith. The editing I have made has been accompanied by long and plentiful discussions on the topic. It is amazing to me that such a policy can exist which takes good faith edits and labels them as out of order, when all that is trying to be done is to maintain the quality of the article in question. You are going about Bold Revert Discuss as Bold Discuss Revert which is just silly. Sport and politics (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "he editing of Misplaced Pages is very very unusual" - quite possibly so - but the policies and guidelines we have are part of the reason Misplaced Pages works. It may not seem logical, or even rational sometimes, but we've succeeded in getting this far by discussing policy, trying it out, and amending it as necessary (by consensus) if there are problems, one of the guidelines is WP:AGF - and perhaps you should take from that the idea that having 'suspicions' about editors isn't necessarily helpful - or at least, telling people you do without a darned good reason, isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Written Misplaced Pages policies are incoherent, incomplete, and inconsistently enforced; so yes, you're absolutely correct Misplaced Pages editing is unusual (insane). You're much better off not worrying about all the WP:this and WP:that stuff and learning the pillars really well. Go slow, be nice and use article talk pages to build consensus rather than relying on what the policies say. Nobody Ent 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to recall which indef'd user it was that refused to indent properly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't remember the name either, but there was at least one AN/I thread, so you could always search the archives for "indent." - Jorgath (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, it seems to be picking up that "indent" template, so it would be a needle in a haystack. But if he's not on the up-and-up, we'll find out soon enough. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it was one of these with that MO:
          • Anglo Pyramidologist
          • Danceking5
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think it was either of those that I was thinking of. Happened in the last 3 months, which excludes Pyramidologist, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Danceking either. The one I'm thinking of was blocked for refusing to sign and doing that, IIRC. - Jorgath (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You're probably remembering Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Refusal to indent as intentional disruption. And look! We have asterisk keys on our keyboards. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's the one I was remembering, at least. - Jorgath (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Two things... I've had extensive prior interactions with Anglo Pyramidologist (and his real-life brother) and AP has a pretty narrow field of interest, this doesn't seem like him. Secondly, a failure to indent properly is not at all unusual behavior, see WP:TE for example where it is listed as a common sign of a problematic editor. (Though I've also seen it to be a sign of an inexperienced editor too, I didn't indent well when I first contributed here.) -- Atama頭 23:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Heh, yeah. My reaction was more or less "another one who messes up indenting? *sigh*" And I remember some adventures with indents of my own, although IIRC my main problem was figuring out the difference between *** and *::. - Jorgath (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion to avoid violating the 3 revert limit rule is to save up all those bad edits that need to be removed and reverting them all in one edit 9 hours after your last edit. Who has the right idea about what an article should be and what constitutes a good edit? Discuss it, respectfully. Sometimes one does not get one's own way with an article, but it is best not to take article content disputes to ANI. - Fartherred (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by User:DreamMcQueen after a 96 Hour Block

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

• DreamMcQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Related ANI Thread #1
• Related ANI Thread #2

After coming off a 96 hour block (by User:Toddst1), User:DreamMcQueen has gone back to the same behavior that has gotten him blocked the past two times, "Disruptive editing: specifically edit warring, WP:OWN issues and WP:BATTLE". As evidenced by the user's edits on July 30, edit wars on multiple pages continue after the most recent block. I have notified the blocking editor of this, but he seems to be offline for the evening. The unblock request of the previous block shows the user just doesn't "get it" and this talk page post seems to indicate he is here to force some kind of change (regardless of consensus or whatever).

The behavior of DreamMcQueen is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping after two blocks, now three ANI threads, numerous warnings and several admins saying to stop. As such, I am requesting admin assistance in this matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The user has been notified of this thread, as has the blocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In my defense: I am not vandalizing, I am not practicing incivility, I do not wish to edit-war, I am not seeking to battle anyone, and I am not exercising ownership over any articles. I approached the community of users who edit TV-related articles about making changes in an effort to improve the articles, primarily concerning style and formatting. My wish is to see the articles written in a way that can easily be digested by everyone. ( my thread on WT:TVS) Neutralhomer, acting as if he is the keeper of all TV station articles, rejected my proposals without considering them and has chosen to hide behind "consensus." What consensus? All I have found is a small group of stubborn editors who are afraid of change without considering the benefits of it. They write and chose to endorse writing which satisfies only hard-core enthusiasts and not a broader audience. My conflicts with two other editors, Fairlyoddparents1234 and TVtonightokc, have been based around content and I have told them as much.

Please note that two of these editors who have been uncivil towards me (Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234) are afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome. That should be taken into serious consideration when reviewing this case, which is something the blocking administrator either was not aware of or chose not to do. DreamMcQueen (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This, folks, is exactly what I am talking about. "It is everyone else fault and I have done nothing wrong" is the same thing he has said numerous times, but everyone else hasn't been blocked for OWN, Edit-warring and other problems, DreamMcQueen has.

Also, whether or not Fairlyoddparents1234 or I have Aspergers has nothing to do with DreamMcQueen's behavior in the slightest and bringing it up shows their real intent here and it ain't a good one. The psychological dianogsis of an editor has nothing to do with the blocking abilities of an admin either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I would point out that using "they have Aspergers" as an argument is an ad hominem attack. I would also point out that both Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234 have better histories of working with/accepting community consensus than Dream does. And, well, when one person says you're edit-warring, you might be able to brush it off. When two people do, you should start wondering. When ten people do, you should probably accept that they're right and you're wrong. - Jorgath (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a non-involved editor with Asperger Syndrome, the suggestion that AS somehow impairs editing is absurd - by my own experience, the internet is a much easier place to communicate and work in. That type of sentiment is uncalled for and should be struck out, hopefully by the editor that made the comment. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the fact that DreamMcQueen pointed out that another user has Asbergers demonstrates DreamMcQueen's lack of understanding of what being civil means, and also demonstrates that DreamMcQueen knows nothing about asbergers. I completely agree with NeutralHomer, and I am an outsider who doesn't edit in the same areas as DreamMcQueen (I think I first became part of this discussion when I stumbled into one of DreamMcQueen and FairlyOddParents1234's first edit wars). Immediately after the most recent block was lifted, DreamMcQueen went back to the same articles he was edit-warring on before and made the same edits he was making before. Because of this, I support an indefinite block ASAP. Gold Standard 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support a indef block of DreamMcQueen. His last post to this thread shows he is intent on continue to edit the way he has and his attacks my Aspergers are something he is defending. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment until your Asperger's Syndrome comment. Let me be blunt: you are gravely mistaken here and making a personal attack here. First, even if they are, that is irrelevant as we don't discriminate and judge others only by their actions, not a disability. Second, that isn't something you say without providing a diff where they have admitted as such, not that it actually matters, however. Third, your attitude here is less than reassuring, to say the least. I don't think you will fare well this go around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Dennis: I actually do have Aspergers, this isn't a secret, it is on my user page. Whether User:Fairlyoddparents1234 does or not, I will not speculate. But as it has been pointed out, it doesn't impair editing or understanding any the slightest and as Toa pointed out, the internet makes communicating alot easier for those with Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, please do not twist my words around. You cannot say that I didn't laid out my "real intent" to you before this whole ridiculous spat got out of hand. And, as I noted to you in the very recent past, your record is not exactly clean either. You have no right to act as though you are the high-and-mighty. Unless you are without sin, you are in no place to throw stones at me. As for the other issue, well, it has EVERYTHING to do with YOUR emotions and behavior, which you obviously cannot control. You have proved it to me time and again with your angry and aggressive comments -- such as the one above. Do yourself a favor and calm down. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, where should I start on this one? You obviously haven't the slightest clue about Aspergers, Autism or the Autistic Spectrum or you would quickly realize you are so wrong in your statement it is actually laughable. Your intent here, as you have pointed out, is to force change regardless of consensus or established policy. That goes against the rules or Misplaced Pages. I suggest you do yourself a favor and stop digging, the hole you are in is getting quite deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering how offensive your comments were, I was impressed by the amount of restraint he was showing. You are in essence asking me to discriminate against someone that has Aspergers, and using it as a means to discredit those who have raised an issue. This is so against our policies, and so against any sense of community decency, yet you make these comments with remarkable ease, which makes me question if you are not capable of working in a corroborative environment. And you haven't stuck your personal attacks, which is reason enough for me to block you right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've never been involved with DreamMcQueen, and I'm tempted to propose a community ban. I'm just this side of not doing so, but I'd endorse an indef block in a heartbeat. - Jorgath (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block as the user has not struck out the comment and is defending it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to offend any other editors with my previous comment. The point I tried to make is that not everyone has their emotions in check all of the time. And, from what I learned, those who suffer from Asperger's have hobbies that they are deeply interested in. If someone messes with that, it can set them off into a deep mood swing. Perhaps reacting as forceful as Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents have towards me is normal for them. But that doesn't mean I sit here and take it. Those two individuals should be in better control of their emotions. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to go learn some more. People with Aspergers (only one of whom you can confirm has it) have more of a control of their emotions than you would think. Remember, Aspergers is a "high-functioning form of Autism". Most people consider to people with Aspergers to be "normal" in real life. Unless I tell someone, they can't tell I have Aspergers. So, go read a book, take a NAMI class or just talk to someone with Aspergers before claiming you have learned anything about the syndrome, because what you have said is nowhere near the truth and is still insulting and considered a personal attack according to Misplaced Pages rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week for personal attacks and returning to contentious editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef-Block for DreamMcQueen

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

As we have two different places in the above main thread for this, I will start a formal one here. This is a request, after all the evidence and above posts show, that the behavior of DreamMcQueen is not going to stop and the user has shown they don't "get it", for DreamMcQueen to be indef-blocked.

• Support: As nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As the blocking admin, I can't vote here, but I've already said on his talk page that I have no problem with any admin modifying the block if they feel I've been too generous. Just ping me afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support: User just doesn't get it, has shown no signs of correcting behavior. Note that I am supporting an indefinite block, not an infinite block; if DreamMcQueen starts acknowledging that what they've done is wrong, I'd support unblocking them. - Jorgath (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support User made offensive, incorrect remarks regarding two editors that would be considered personal attacks. Rather than striking out the comment, he has instead defended it and refused to apologize for it. Add that to the edit war history and this is an action that should be taken. Toa Nidhiki05 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as first person to suggest indef block: "Immediately after the most recent block was lifted, DreamMcQueen went back to the same articles he was edit-warring on before and made the same edits he was making before." Gold Standard 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This may make all of this moot, although it wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone quit Misplaced Pages forever, and it doesn't often last. - Jorgath (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Following that last comment of his, and the clear mood of the community here, I've imposed the indef block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Might Not Be Over

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

DreamMcQueen's last edit has a claim that he is indef-blocked sockpuppeteer User:Rollosmokes. I have created an sockpuppet investigation for this, as this claim needs to be looked into immediately. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I was just about to do this. We need to make sure he isn't attempting to fool us by stating that he is leaving Misplaced Pages. Gold Standard 06:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollo has done this before. Created a sockpuppet account and then went on a edit-warring spree and then got blocked. Might need to get some rangeblocks on that guy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

76.173.29.20

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

Has been vandalizing the Chick-fil-A page today , but the main reason for this request were the personal attacks he levied at User:ViriiK both on ViriiK's user page and his own talk page. I realize that it has only happened twice, but the language as well as the racial component of the attacks warrant action, IMO. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As do the religious components of the attacks. Recommend block of IP for a week, or as long as is possible without it going stale, whichever is longer. - Jorgath (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens and personal attacks

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

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly making personal attacks in the form of sockpuppet accusations and claiming that editors that disagree with him have an WP:IDHT issue (even though multiple consensus disagrees with him, and he's yet to point out any consensus that warrants accusing someone of WP:IDHT). At Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons he began accusing me of IDHT and of being a sockpuppet, and that I ...assert that consensus is on (my) side, and (he) would like to be able to agree to that, but there's too much similarity with previous sock attacks on fictional topics to let the apparent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stand unchallenged.

Bascially, he's using baseless sockpuppet accusations as cause to ignore consensus, while simultaneously accusing me of somehow ignoring consensus. I asked him to stop, and the resulting conversation basically resulted in him continuing this IDHT accusation and stating that these accusations weren't personal attacks. WP:NPA#WHATIS specifically says that "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry falls under this, but apparently Jclemens doesn't see baseless accusations of sockpuppetry or WP:IDHT as personal attacks. I've tried resolving this with the editor on his talk page, but as they have "simply nothing further to say on the topic" I'm bringing it to ANI so that this can be resolved. Jclemens has been notified. - SudoGhost 04:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in WP:WIAPA that describes accusations of sock puppetry as a personal attack. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. - SudoGhost 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when when were unsupported allegations of dishonest behaviour not personal attacks? When they come from ArbCom members? Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, he never directly accused anyone of being a sock. He only said previous puppeteers targeted these types of articles. Hot Stop 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens said so in a way that implied that SudoGhost was a sock, in my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a sockpuppet somewhere in that whole mess, because Jclemens is an experienced sock-blocker. But they need to be more careful in how they phrase it unless they file the SPI. - Jorgath (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Actually, there is, you just have to put a few pieces together. As SudoGhost put it, an accusation of sockpuppetry is an accusation about personal behavior. An accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence is a personal attack. Ergo, an accusation of sockpuppetry, if it lacks evidence, is a personal attack. I'm not saying Jclemens is wrong, but to be blunt, they need to either put up or shut up on this one: either file the SPI, or retract the allegation. - Jorgath (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the original comment linked "The level of WP:IDHT involved in the arguments for redirection is... peculiarly high, and reminds me of some banned sockpuppetteers, actually" Jclemens doesn't specify the sockpuppet. If SudoGhost hadn't gone overboard with his warning afterwards, nothing else would've happened. Hot Stop 04:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Per my above, Jclemens seems to me to imply that SudoGhost is the sock they're talking about. They backtrack on that, but they don't retract it. If it was misconstrued, a retraction may still be in order. Apologizing for saying something that was misconstrued is just as important to maintaining a civil, collegial atmosphere as refraining from intentional attacks. - Jorgath (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It looks to me like you're having trouble hearing Jclemens's explanation. this thread seems like a good enough example. It's not a personal attack to say that you appear to be deliberately missing the point. It's certainly not a good habit to make wanton accusations of sockpuppetry but that's not a personal attack either. If I say "Jclemens is an idiot," that's a personal attack. I've cast an aspersion against an individual directly. If I say instead "Jclemens is ignoring consensus" (or some variation), that's not even remotely a personal attack. That this discussion went round and round on the same exact topic 5-6 times before Jclemens asked you to leave is a sign that IDHT wasn't a baseless accusation, IMO. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPA#WHATIS. Accusations such as this are personal attacks. What part of WP:IDHT am I doing? - SudoGhost 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad. What specifically are you requesting as a result of this thread? A block for NPA? Doc talk 04:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not after a block, I don't think that's ever constructive if it can be helped, but what I see is a problem with someone making personal attacks when they don't see that as a problem, because that just suggests that this behavior will continue if he doesn't see it as an issue. I'd like some kind of acknowledgement that this was a personal attack and that it be retracted (and/or an SPI filed if they feel that's necessary). - SudoGhost 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. Doc talk 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Put up or take it back, essentially. I like it. Quite reasonable. - Jorgath (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see an accusation there at all. Jclemens is saying that the arguments/consensus heralded by SudoGhost reminds them of those by socks who have been active in those articles. One can easily call that a hollow argument (just cause a sock said it doesn't mean it's baseless), and I hope that Jclemens would have better ammo, but it is not a personal accusation, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Throwing "reminds" into a sentence is like saying "with all due respect", it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and it isn't an attack on another editor. Why would "when I see your comments, I'm reminded of a dishonest editor" not be a personal attack? That's also ignoring the fact that accusations of WP:IDHT (i.e. sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it) without evidence is also a personal attack. - SudoGhost 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pointing out IDHT is not a "personal attack". People have to communicate around here, often in a less than utopian manner. Personal attacks can always be extrapolated from even borderline remarks concerning another editor's behavior, but it's not always a big deal. Doc talk 05:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:IDHT is ignoring consensus and still commenting as if there is no consensus against the comments. Accusing me (repeatedly) of WP:IDHT is telling me that I am ignoring consensus with my comments. This is an accusation about personal behavior. I've asked for evidence multiple times; none has been provided. This is an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. While the definition of what a personal attack is can be debatable, this in particular is not, it is never acceptable. This is per WP:NPA#WHATIS, this isn't something I came up with on my own. If that isn't a personal attack, then this Misplaced Pages policy needs to be corrected, because that's what it says. Citing WP:IDHT is one thing, but accusing someone of WP:IDHT and therefore accusing them of being disruptive (and therefore open to blocks or bans) because of their comments is a personal attack if they don't provide evidence of such. - SudoGhost 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• You came here 20 minutes after your "final warning" to Jclemens, a respected administrator. Do you feel that this was the best step in resolving your issue with that editor? Doc talk 05:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know where you're getting "20 minutes" and "final warning" from (I never said anything close to that). I came here after he declared that "As far as I'm concerned, there's simply nothing further to say on the topic" and "To be perfectly clear: I decline to apologize for my statement as a personal attack... because it wasn't." The top of this page says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I have done so, and the issue was not resolved. I don't see what the timeliness of the report has to do with it. The fact that he is "a respected administrator" has no bearing on his need to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy, if anything it means he is more compelled to do so. - SudoGhost 06:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• July 31, 2012 "I'll ask again so that I can say I tried." - Edit summary looks like a "last chance" for comment. I said "final warning", but it was a euphemism.
• July 31, 2012 . Thread started. That looks like 20 minutes to me, but I could be off. Doc talk 06:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not following your connection here, and that also wasn't any sort of "final warning"; he had already said he was done with the conversation. I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything? There was no "final warning", and these are personal attacks, I discussed them with the editor and attempted to resolve it. He ended the discussion. I followed the instructions at the top of this page. Are you suggesting that what I've said has no merit based on some perceived procedural error? What are you trying to get at here? - SudoGhost 06:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thread's going nowhere, at least not where you want it to. Call it... clue. Doc talk 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you just tried to say or what "call it... clue" means, but changing to subject to whatever it is you were trying to say about procedural quibbles doesn't mean it's "going nowhere". - SudoGhost 06:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• See what Reyk said below. FYI: "Clue" is sort of like a general sense of how things will probably work out. Call it an educated "hunch". Doc talk 06:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS. What a stupid thread. SudoGhost, you're getting overly worked up over a little thing, just let it go. Jclemens, WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS is not the same thing as WP:IDHT. Reyk _YO! 06:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sudo: well????? This thread is dead. Can I close now? I need to rack up some admin work for my RFA. – Lionel 10:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Because comments like that are exactly what people will point to at an RFA to oppose. If you're not serious, what's the WP:POINT? What am I missing? Sædon 10:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing is sure, Jclemens seems to have resorted several times to careless accusations of sockpuppetry (users involved have never been found as sockpuppets) whenever he finds someone who disagrees with him (at AfD or anywhere else): , and (this last one was even more direct than what he said to SudoGhost: "You behave and argue very much like a couple of banned sockmasters, each of whose newest incarnation also strenuously denies being a sockpuppet". Some of you might argue that what Jclemens said to SudoGhost "is not a big thing", still, that's the 4th time (at least from what I've seen) he does that with 4 different users, and I'm afraid this might become a recurring argument of his if nothing is done, which could dramatically deteriorate the atmosphere of future editorial debates in which he takes part. I certainly don't see how Jclemens could be assuming good faith if, according to him, there is a sockpuppet behind every argument that doesn't fit his views (or indeed if WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS magically becomes WP:IDHT). If he really suspects sockpuppetry to be at work and if he has serious arguments to request checkusers, then he should do it, but this constant use of sockpuppetry suspicion whenever someone dares to disagree with him in a debate, never followed by checkusers, at least shows assumed bad faith, and at worse could be taken as intimidation attempts by new users. Whichever it is, it seems quite clear Jclemens has forgotten to remain civil, this is not an isolated incident and Jclemens had no reason to suspect SudoGhost, Snow, Avanu or me (and if WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS becomes ground for suspicion, there's potential for a lot of abuses). AN/I needs to adress that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the whiplash. It seems WP:BOOMERANG is becoming the norm around here whether it is deserved or not. It's like the first editor who contradicts the OP gets a prize.--v/r - TP 12:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering one of the editors (Avunu) Jclemens accused of being a sock came back from a five year hiatus, I think that one's reasonable. And both Avunu and FdF have lengthy block logs. Hot Stop 13:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are three questions I pose: 1) Is SudoGhost's complaint completely 100% without merit, and 2) If it is without merit, has the response here been appropriate to diffusing the situation and solving the problem amicably? 3) In a way that doesn't leave SudoGhost feeling unsupported, alone, and frustrated?--v/r - TP 13:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem with[REDACTED] is that well-established persons are immune to guidance until it progresses to where they jump the tracks badly. This looks like the borderline nasty behavior that is pervasive in Misplaced Pages. Tell JClemens that and that they should be setting a better example. And leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The larger problem here is that Jclemens, while a decent Arbcom member, gets to be rather insufferable when he dons his WP:ARS Cap. The argument that "30+ years of sourcing in the industry" excuses a need to satisfy WP:N is really what is in "I didn't hear that" territory, as several others point out the notability guides. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with North8000 here. An editor shouldn't use the "sock" word unless they are ready and willing to back it up with an WP:SPI or similar action. While it might not always be a personal attack, it is always incivil when done flippantly. No editor should call another a sock without evidence or action, since "socking" itself is a blockable offense, and it is an aggressive tag to throw at someone. I don't see a need for any action or boomerang, personally, but all editors should refrain from using the term "sock" so casually, including Jclemens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Diefromevileye

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

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

This guy left me a very creative talkpage message after I made a simple revert of a relatively minor edit of his at Holodomor. I'm more amused than anything else, but it's clear that he needs to cool down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It beggars belief that a good faith editor would make a comment like that. In light of the other editing history and talk page messages, I think a block on Diefromevileye (talk · contribs) is in order as a troll account. Monty₈₄₅ 04:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I propose that Diefromevileye should be blocked (admin's discretion), and also awarded 8/10 in the Creativity in Insult category. - Jorgath (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well, it wasn't that creative. Bushranger issued an only warning for it, so let's wait for the next one. I am not yet willing to block indefinitely, and we don't do cool-down blocks, but YMMV. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, he's here to "build an encyclopedia" alright. Give 'em some more warnings, despite the edit history. I can't wait to see their next improvement here. Doc talk 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. Note that this editor was blocked for 3 days on 21 June for disruptive editing, edit-warring and personal attacks and I just warned him for edit-warring at Holodomor. TFD (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Block - Seems like a charming fellow... too bad we have to block them for a while. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. How much longer is this going to continue? Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayemd

I'm wondering if someone else can convince User:Jayemd that Misplaced Pages isn't a game. It started when Jayemd began to award himself barnstars (example diffs: 1234567) followed by inappropriately refactoring a warning into a congratulatory message. He was subsequently warned about self-awarding barnstars and also directed towards WP:NOTFORUM for more information about the project. Jayemd then refactored the signatures on his barnstars (1234) to appear as if they were left by other users—all retired users, it appears—and refactoring the warning about self-awarding barnstars into another congratulatory message. Afterwards, he refactored more warnings (12) and awarded more fake barnstars (123). He was warned about refactoring, again about self-awarded barnstars, and about treating the project like a game, after which Jayemd acknowledged the warnings. Other non-encyclopedia activities including putting a description of a wrestling points system on Talk:Main Page and User talk:Jimbo Wales and a "WikiFame" system again on Jimbo's user talk page. During this time, he began removing appropriate redlinks from numerous articles (1234567 are just a few examples, his list of contributions is filled with removals of redlinks), even though he was told repeatedly to stop (123). The last message was by myself, after which Jayemd just admitted on my talk page that he did it "just to reach 1,000 edits", which says to me that he's still treating Misplaced Pages like a game. Many of his contributions are positive, don't get me wrong, but I still feel that he has a lot to learn. Seeing numerous edits without references (123) led me to link to WP:V and WP:REF when I left him a message earlier, but I see that since then he's created a couple of new articles (Danny Miller (wrestler) and John Riker) without references of any kind. At this point, I feel a temporary block is justified, at least until he gets a handle on our guidelines and a better understanding of our fundamental goal (writing an encyclopedia). I'm assuming that he means well, but as it stands he's just making a lot of work for other editors without much much to show in terms of actually encyclopedic content. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind Jayemd that competence is required. - Jorgath (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Jorgath, you should read the essay competence is required, which suggests that you should not do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Jayemd's userboxes, he's only 14. I was wondering whether, in the light of various issues, we could maybe point him in the direction of helping out with working on The Misplaced Pages Adventure. Strikes me that he could possibly both be helpful to that project, and benefit from the insights he might get from doing so. I'll ping Dcoetzee to look at this idea. Pesky (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I've dropped a link on Jayemd's talk page to the work-in-progress Newcomer's manual, on the off chanced that it might help him get a better handle on things here. Pesky (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an exception in this case because I felt that Jayemd displayed competence, just not consistently, and I believed that reminding them of the competence requirement might encourage them to edit from their competent style more often. I apologize if I offended them, or anyone, by doing so. - Jorgath (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note re The Misplaced Pages Adventure, but I don't think it's quite ready to help out a newbie like this one right now - it needs more lessons on important basics. Dcoetzee 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he now "gets" the redlink policy. You shouldn't have been branding him a vandal - it is not helpful. Youngsters do tend to pratt about with barnstars and so on - it's not harmful, and he will grow out of it. On the other hand this recent string of edits seems excellent (a lot of wrestling articles are in a dire state, so that's good to see). I think he needs a good, friendly mentor more than a block. --Errant 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would offer, but Real Life issues are taking priority and I couldn't give him the time he needs / deserves. I have to say that in some respects I can understand the redlink thing – they drive me absolutely nuts! (OCD thing ... worse than crumbs in the bed. Actually, it's more like eating half a salad while watching a film, then turning over a lettuce leaf and finding half a dozen slugs. And then wondering ...). But maybe if the first thing he did was to hide any templates where they're showing, before he even looks at the rest of the page, then he'll have "Made them go away" for himself, without affecting anyone else. If I see a page with a stack of redlinks I tend to close it, pronto, and go away and find something to obsessive-compulsively blitz-clean. My hands, sometimes, lol! On the subject of mentoring, Worm might be up for it, perhaps? Pesky (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think mentoring could be a net positive here, and I'd be happy to be the mentor, if:

• The community's expectations are made clear. "No more fake barnstars or editcountitis; just concentrate on improving content", for instance.
• The community sets a future date where Jayemd and I come back to AN/I, or to some other forum, and we can discuss whether or not mentoring has worked and whether any next steps are needed. 3 months?
• Jayemd agrees with the mentoring, and is happy to focus their editing on other areas, with some discussion with a grumpy old curmudgeon like me. Results haven't been great so far, but I think that with a little help they have a good chance of becoming a really productive editor and making some really positive changes.

Sound reasonable? bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we need all that? Point 1 covers everything except the talk page inappropriateness: add that and call it a mentorship package (I assume that's this week's euphemism for an editing restriction) and everything should be hunky-dory. With any luck the user will simply grow out of it, though I note that it's certainly not bored teens who are the worst offenders when it comes to barnstaritis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer it to be consensual; some editors might feel that mentoring is patronising, and in that case it's likely to be a waste of time. There's a good reason for a time limit too. Have no interest in gratuitous bureaucracy, though... happy to get on with mentorship if the esteemed ErrantX & Pesky think it's the best tool in the toolbox. If you just want to ban somebody from doing X, Y, and Z, that's not mentoring. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's edits have not been encouraging. Unreferenced BLPs, replies on long-archived talk pages, whatever this is, worrisome ANI responses. That's all from after this thread was started. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is awarding oneself barnstars a transgression now? As long as the barnstars aren't worded in a way to deceive, e.g. claiming to be Jimbo, a bureaucrat, etc... then that part shouldn't be an issue here. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a hanging offence; but combined with the other editing concerns, I think that Jayemd would benefit from some pointers at least. (There's room for disagreement about whether the suggestions should be delivered by polite discussion or by a 2x4). This is supposed to be a project to build an encyclopædia; all of us get distracted occasionally but we have to get back on track... bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've "fixed" three BLP-prods which appeared on his talk, and showed him (on his talk) how. I;ve also dropped some various hints and tips over there. I suspect he may learn quickly, once he gets going. He may not have caught up with his talk page since I edited it. Pesky (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you all for everything done so far. This looks like a good start, so I'm content to step back and hope that mentoring works out. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, can someone better than me step in? He's having new stubs deleted as A7's, but it's possible that these are being created as he's just been bitten for unwikilinking redlinks ... it would be a real bummer for him to be doubly-zapped, once for removing redlinks, and the next time for trying to turn them into bluelinks ... I don't know (or care, lol!) the first thing about footie, but someone must be able to do something with this? This kid's going to be in tears otherwise – he's in a no-win situation. Pesky (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd mostly agree with that. Some of the earlier editing was problematic but if somebody gets criticised for removing "appropriate redlinks" it's not entirely surprising that they then try turning redlinks into bluelinks. Now, I'm not about to say "Don't delete bad content just because an editor is inexperienced" but some of these articles do have genuine potential (I just added a source to Corte McGuffey, and took off the CSD tag; there's a few other sources out there) so let's not shout too loudly at Jayemd... bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiFame

I could not figure out the purpose of this page: Misplaced Pages:WikiFame. Looks like an attack page. --15:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not. It's a new...enthusiastic...editor.--v/r - TP 15:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section above.--v/r - TP 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer, passive legal threat

The James H. Fetzer article has been at a slow simmer for quite some time, with the subject of the article editing under numerous IPs and participating on the talk page and various user talk pages from time to time. This diff does not appear to be the subject of the BLP, but does appear to be closely associated with the subject based on the signature used in some of their edits. That diff includes a somewhat passive legal threat, which combined with the editor's other edits should warrant a block from editing.

The larger issue of the slow simmer on the page could use a few additional eyes, and I am requesting that others take a look at the article in question - specifically the behaviour of the involved editors and anons. My edits to the article, article talk, and some associated editors talk pages are (of course) open to discussion. While it is my belief that I have edited only with an intent to move the project forward, I am open and interested in any guidance anyone has to offer.

Thank you for taking a look. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's obviously a legal threat, are there grounds for WP:DOLT here? What prompted this user to make a threat? - Jorgath (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's sorta wrong, in that most libel causes have the shortest of statute of limitations... for good reason, threats that really matter should be followed up on quickly, and should not hang like a sword above the head of the defendant. Anyway, it's kinda a legal threat but also not so much. I'd personally let it go unless they keep up with it. Is there something of actual substance behind this? If so let's find out, and address it. If not, then let's move on, unless the editor continues to be disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't figured that out yet... There appears to be a connection with the subject, who has at times been dissatisfied with the article, but I haven't seen the personal attacks from the subject in his various IP edits. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter whether he's legally right or wrong. Legal threats are not compatible with editing Misplaced Pages, end of story. Blocking won't help much given the IPs, but I'll warn the editor anyway. (IP has been blocked). ⇒SWATJester 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there really any need for all those name and shame templates on the talkpage - Talk:James_H._Fetzer including one that looks like it might be the subjects email address? - Clearly the guy is upset - he is getting the wikipedia labeling treatment when he is so much more than a conspiracy theorist. - Youreallycan 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting a bit off the subject for this noticeboard (compared to the talk page itself) but you've got a good point. They are helpful in pointing out when the subject of an article is editing, but on a 24 inch monitor they take up half the vertical space on the talk page at 1920x1200. That's a bit excessive I think. I'll look into a collapsable way of showing them akin to what's on WP:RFPP. ⇒SWATJester 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone should try to archive all of the long historic discussion from the talkpage as well - and then you might as well do the guy a favor and block any account claiming to be him and remove what they post to the talkpage as he is never going to get satisfaction there. Youreallycan 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I put a collapsable template in there that starts auto-hidden. If you don't mind, please take a look to make sure nothings broken? ⇒SWATJester 15:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better - thanks SWAT - Youreallycan 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the email address username (which had no edits, even deleted, and thus is in no way a "contributor") as well as all the IP's, which just seemed excessive to me. LadyofShalott 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

IP has rescinded the threat and is now unblocked. ⇒SWATJester 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am said user with the alleged "legal threat". Kindly consult any lawyer about the difference between a cease and desist notice, which typically implies future litigation, and an actual subpoena via complaint. An imminent threat of litigation can only result on the basis that there is a cause of action. Otherwise, it would be deemed frivolous. One can understand the policy here, but a cease and desist notice isn't threatening and, actually, the notice was that Misplaced Pages consult their attorneys regarding the issue to examine if they would like to step in and remedy the situation. Of course - a friendly tip - if you do receive a cease and desist notice in the mail, it generally is a step the adversary would take to AVOID court. You then have the option to remedy the situation. As stated, please consult any licensed attorney to confirm my input here. On the other hand, it should be noted that this person's page is now reflecting subtle, but damaging, inaccuracies that are not, in fact, true. The communication between the editors who inserted these misleading statements makes clear, to any reasonable prudent person, that the portrayal has been manipulated - by convenience of Misplaced Pages policy - to create a false image of James H. Fetzer. Again, this is not a "legal threat". As you do deal with actual legal threats, I just thought I'd offer a friendly briefing. Thank you for choosing to cooperate in order to increase the accuracy of this article. It is noted and recorded. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 108.35.40.94 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your clarification is appreciated, however please keep in mind that we disallow not only legal threats, but perceived legal threats. As our policy states, "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion." Often just bringing up the possibility of a lawsuit is enough to spook an editor and the whole point of our policy is to prevent people from intimidating each other with legal talk (whether intentionally or unintentionally). -- Atama頭 23:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. Swatjester, who blocked you (you=IP editor, not Atama) and is talking above, is an attorney. The legal specifics are not the issue - the issue is that the Misplaced Pages community has developed the rules, and one of the rules is that solving content disputes by using legal tactics - including threats of legal tactics (actual lawyer involved, formal letter, or even an oblique threat as this one was) - are not OK ways of dealing with the community and article content. It's considered abusive towards the community and the encyclopedia.

If you want to edit and fix the article yourself, or work with others to fix it, please do so. That must not involve threats (oblique or more direct) of legal action.

If legal action is required - actual libel or slander, and you can't get people to fix it including noticeboards, asking uninvolved editors, reporting it to the Wikimedia Foundation etc - then you or others obviously have the right to file legal action. But to protect the community your ability to edit during the legal action will be suspended (you will be blocked).

If you are throwing oblique legal threats around to try and encourage or coherce change - don't do that, because we treat it the same way.

This is not a judgement that there aren't any issues with the article. It's purely a response to the legal threat.

The BBC did in fact describe Fetzer as "one of the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists" , so the specific description has a reliable source by our standards, but that does not mean that it necessarily is appropriate in the lede as it is now. That is an a normal BLP article content review question.

It sounds like discussion on the BLP Noticeboard WP:BLPN may be helpful here. I urge you (IP editor) to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Societatea.academica.ro (collective account)

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

User:Societatea.academica.ro has the name of a society and/or website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. No Misplaced Pages usernames should be or intended to be in reference to a society/website. --Jayemd (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits by Plasmic Physics - next chapter

We've been here just before about chembox-edits by Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Chembox_edits_by_User:Plasmic_Physics. It is why I am jumping the gun and not discussing with the editor first, moreover, there are other discussions with this editor going on on WT:CHEM regarding the previous AN/I discussion and other ChemBox issues.

Today, I noticed this revert by Plasmic Physics. In a way, pretty lame edit both ways, it does not change the value, just changing both the number and the unit by a factor of 1000. Now, to my recollection, most places on the internet and in chemical literature record densities in g/mL or kg/L, which gives generally for liquids and solids a number generally between roughly 0.5 and 4 (with some exceptions). Reporting it in mg/mL or g/kg would result in numbers between 500 and 4000 (with exceptions). Anyways, that is not a big deal what the unit exactly is. It should be noted, that all units here are SI, it is a matter of calling it kilo-, milli- or whatever. But:

• as far as I can see, the density was originally in g/mL, and changed, by Plasmic Physics, to mg/mL here
• someone is changing it back to the (IMHO more common) g/mL here. The editor is accidentally adding a sig, which is removed by another editor)
• Plasmic Physics changes it back here
• Someone changes it again here
• Which gets reverted here
• Today, it is again changed back to g/mL here
• which results in the revert mentioned above (this).

Now, reverting this suggests that this is deemed 'vandalism', which is a stretch ..

This does not go alone ..

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

The other side involves all IP or 'new' users. I must say that I could consider also their changes futile, and this may involve one physical editor, but I do not see any attempt from Plasmic Physics to communicate with this user, or any explanation whether the changes are wanted. Admins at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemicals/Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry (including me) are probably all involved (see older WikiProject Chemicals discussions linked from the previous AN/I discussion), but I think that it is time that uninvolved admins take a look at this. --Dirk Beetstra 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example of revert warring, hmm? I'll see what I can do. --Jayemd (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I this particular concern not a bit petty? I was told by the WT:CHEM project to use prefixes appropriate for the individual entry, that I should not seek to standardise the SI prefixes in chemboxes. So I chose an appropriate prefix according to the recomendation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not revert because I believe it to be vandalism, but because it is a pointless edit and opposes the Projects view, if the intension is to standardise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin just please impose the topic ban that was agreed upon before, but not actually imposed? Chris (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per a request, I have alerted DGG about this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Petty to be sure, but no reason to make these edits. This has gone on long enough. As I suggested previously, and as my suggestion was modified by Johnuniq and others, PlasmaPhysic is indefinitely banned from editing chemboxes and drugboxes. I encourage the editor to do work in the field that is more constructive and actually adds information. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  It might be desirable to notify the user at their talk. Also, there should be consideration of whether it would be useful for the user to participate in related discussions, for example in the ongoing matters at WT:WikiProject Chemicals. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What a bore, now I have to go through the whole bureaucratic repeal process. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In case you ask, yes, it will be worth while. There are grounds for repeal. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. As a practicing organic chemist, I sometimes use Misplaced Pages to quickly look up densities for compounds. We report densities for all compounds using g/mL or g/cm3 (check any of the listings at Sigma-Aldrich), so I found it very odd that densities were being reported in the non-standard (although technically correct) mg/mL. This may be a minor issue, but I do believe that having densities reported the way the chemistry community does it adds a lot of value to the Misplaced Pages page. Given the number of edits by 'new'/IP users, I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.3.64 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Current events appears to have been vandalized

I went to Portal:Current events and it didn't display a regular MediaWiki page. Instead, I got an HTML page with a gray background and the following at the top of the page:

Earth Exploding Live sends friendly greetings to readers of the current events page. This message will be taken down within 24 hours if the link specified gets at least 2000 hits. Thank you.

What's going on? PhageRules1 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I should note that the page source does not appear to have been changed. PhageRules1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably a change to something transcluded there; a variation on template vandalism. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just got a very similar message when trying to preview edit a page. Its related to this however Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live.Blethering Scot 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the Ham Cork Fest section below. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ham Cork Fest

someone please block User:Ham Cork Fest immediately for spamming/breaking a series of some of the most transcluded templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours, but (in my opinion) should be increased to indef. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if others agree: my immediate motivation was to stop him. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's blatant vandalism which breaks a large number of pages. I would recommend fully-protecting templates which are so widely transcluded, because creating a new account to circumvent a block is easy. The change to {{Infobox settlement/metric}} broke about 77000 articles, and the other templates have 40k or 50k transclusions; it looks like they worked their way through a list of most-transcluded templates looking for ones which weren't fully protected. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Same editor has operated as 108.25.128.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not sure what to do here - block the IP, or what? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it definitely the same person? (I don't see the connection at first glance; no doubt you have a good reason to suspect it). An IP could probably do less harm, since highly-transcluded templates which aren't fully protected tend to be at least semiprotected. Nonetheless, if there's a good reason to believe that an IP could play similar tricks then a block would prevent damage. bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, crap. You're right - the page was one which transcluded one of the templates vandalised by Ham Cork Fest, so when it popped up on my watchlist and I viewed the diff, all that I saw was the message from the template. Thus, the IP is the innocent party here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to post a copy of any of the edits here (beans), but it looks like they were structured to bypass a control which is looking for injection of unwanted HTML, using a fairly obvious kind of obfuscation. Would it be possible to improve our editfilters so they can see through this kind of obfuscation? Presumably it would apply to edits in template-space. (I'm no editfilter guru but I assume such a filter would be computationally expensive, so it would have a poor cost:benefit ratio in article-space where edit rates are much higher and impact of any single HTML injection is much lower). bobrayner (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

Something interesting, that I've never seen before, has cropped up on my radar. When typing in Prior Park to the search box and following the link, I get a nearly blank screen with pretty small writing at the top, saying "Earth Exploding Live sends friendly greetings to readers of this article. This message will be taken down within 24 hours if the link specified gets at least 2000 hits. Thank you." The link on Earth Exploding Live is to User:Earth Exploding Live, an account that only made one edit, in May 2012, and raised concerns that it was a sockpuppet, and was immediately blocked as such. Looking at 'what links here' to that account name () pulls up a long list of articles, mostly of places and locations, which do not immediately appear to contain a link to that user page. Anyone have any idea what's going on? Benea (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Template vandalism; see the section above. In the case of Prior Park, it transcluded {{Designation/colour}}. bobrayner (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out which template is broken, but the Knights of Columbus page is still showing this issue.Marauder40 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That one transcluded {{url}} which has now been fixed by Frietjes/Fluffernutter. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I guessed template vandalism somewhere, but it's not to do with {{Designation/colour}} or others edited by the user mentioned above. This is another issue. Benea (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that one got it. Benea (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody is using different accounts to vandalize many templates with this. I fixed Prior Park and Knights of Columbus by purging so the affected template must have been fixed. Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Earth Exploding Live restricted to template space may be useful to track down unfixed templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That fixed it, thanks. Never knew about the Purge feature before.Marauder40 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sophisticated_template_vandalism.3B_need_admin_help Secretlondon (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Justicejayant IP socking

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

• Justicejayant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Clarificationgiven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.17.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A122.169.12.62 Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped this could be dealt with elsewhere quietly, but it seems that clue is a scarce resource around here these days, so AN/I it must be.

Justicejayant was caught using IPs to edit-war back in early June, the culmination of a pattern of disruption leading to his indef-block by User:Bwilkins. The IPs are dynamic, on the 122... range, and traceable to the same region in India. This diff, presented at that 3RR report, firmly establishes a connection between the account and the IP range.

Following the indef-block, JJ tried to slip in under the radar with a new account, Clarificationgiven. After continuing in much the same disruptive manner, an SPI was opened. The JJ and CG accounts were near-definitively linked, and the latter was summarily indef-blocked as a sock on 29 July by User:Keilana.

In the spirit of WP:DENY, User:Sopher99 removed a number of comments to Talk:Libyan civil war made by CG. Lo and behold, 122... IPs swoop in to revert the removals 1 and begin editing the article itself 1. I revert on both fronts, and soon find myself gradually sucked into revert-warring with JJ's IPs: 1 2, etc.

In an effort to head off the problem and finally get some sleep, I lodge a request at WP:RPP for at least the article to be semi-protected. JJ's IP (surprise, surprise) follows me there 1. At this point, I'm getting pretty cheesed off at this guy; in my irritable insomniac state, I revert the IP here as well 1, with predictable results 1. This continues as before.

User:Armbrust takes note of the reverts, but apparently doesn't bother to look into them much, slapping myself 1 and the IP 1 with templated edit-warring notices. User:Callanecc restores the IP's comments at RPP that I had removed 1 2. The IP, playing innocent just like JJ, goes off to WP:DRN to file some bogus thread 1; seeing this, User:Deryck Chan declines the protection request 1.

Now, I am very much aware that in my attempt to WP:DENY recognition, I created a gargantuan conflagration. I still stand by WP:3RRNO #3 as my justification for edit-warring; should others deem that insufficient, I will accept the consequences (such is the price for nightowl editing). However, I'm not happy at all that this had to get to this point and have serious reservations about the clue level displayed at WP:RPP. Resolution would be desirable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that another IP posted as ClarificationGiven on my talk page. I don't have time to deal with it right now, but if it's not resolved by the time I get home from work, I'll take a closer look. Keilana| 15:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this user is just over pressured and loosing the temper, as it can be seen in his recent edit history too, this user seems to be concentrating on populating false information and vandalism than contribution, and trying to dictate everyone over here, which is against the rules, i don't think any kind of socking is done by me here. 122.169.0.48 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This 122. Ip keeps harassing these pages. Justicejayant was found to be these 122. Ips, and Clarificationgiven was found to be User:justicejayant. Sopher99 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the post Keilana is referring to and yes, this is him. The archived case may be read here. It is also block evasion as Clarificationgiven has not posted an unblock request but has just simply moved around it to cause disruption. Until he deals with his unblock request, we shouldn't deal with his IP postings. Recommend page protections and blocks for any IP that he is using.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso

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

I'm at my wits end, with this harrassing editor, whom I had disagreements with in the past. PLEASE, is there any administrator or arbitrator, who'll ask Djsasso to LEAVE ME ALONE? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• You will need to explain the situation, notify him, and provide diffs here. We can't read your mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's Djsasso's admittance of his retaliatory motive here. Indeed, he's was a knee-jerk reaction 'report'. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in that link do I say anything of the sort. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in that diff either. Perhaps it needs more context or is just being read wrong? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for Djsasso to LEAVE ME ALONE. Many might accuse me of being a 'sore loser', but right now he's coming across to me, as a 'sore winner'. Please, would someone simply ask him to leave me alone, take me off his watchlist etc? It must be apparent to others, he's causing me Wiki-stress. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a retaliation because I posted an Arb Enforcement request against him. -DJSasso (talk)

Is this connected to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GoodDay? bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see much wrong with Djsasso's postings on GoodDay's page. What I do find objectionable though is the preceding sequence of taunting posts by another editor, HandsomeFella: , , . Those really were decidedly unhelpful, and I'd fully understand if GoodDay had complained about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm barred from making certain edits on Misplaced Pages, edits that were opposed by Djsasso & others. Yet that doesn't seem to be enough for Djsasso. How many more times is he going to twist the knife in me? I suppose he'll continue to torment me, until I'm indef-banned. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and we are all trying to understand the problem, that is all. As to the AE, that is outside anything we can do here, that needs to be addressed there. I don't see anything between you two that needs to be addressed here, however. As for Fut. Perf.'s observations, I would leave that in his capable hands. As for AE, John Carter is there, and from experience, I can say you can trust him to be a very reasonable person. Just work with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a place, where I can make an interaction ban request? GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here, but it can't be considered while the AE is ongoing. Even with a ban, AE would likely be exempt, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso's will likely succeed in his vendetta to get me blocked. When the block expires or is overturned (if it's handed down at all), I'll make my request. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't make all the problems go away, but again, if I were at AE, it would be harder to find someone I trust more to be fair and reasonable than John Carter. I suggest having a cup of tea, let the frustration simmer down a bit, and just discuss the situation over there in a calm fashion. Trying to respond when you are upset will not be doing yourself any favors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's true. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, if you want to be left alone, why don't you just leave the topic alone? The Arbcom asked you to disengage from the whole diacritics mess. Why then did you think it was a good idea to use your user space as a place of running commentary on ongoing diacritics debates? That's really beyond me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on diacritics at my userspace. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the detail will get hashed out at AE, and they are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think Fut.Perf. is saying that it might benefit you to go the extra mile to not only stay away from the topic, but to avoid commentary, endorsement or linking to anything that might be construed as relating to the topic ban for you. I know it is hard, and I don't know enough to have an opinion on the process of you getting the topic ban, but it does exist and we have to accept that. The community spoke, we have to respect that. Accordingly, your best option is to actively avoid it, and find new interests, and some other area of Misplaced Pages that can benefit from your efforts. There is an old expression that I remind myself of quite often: I would rather be happy than be right, and if a little extra effort on your part might remove all the hassles from others, common sense says you have to at least consider it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:AJGUY00

The above named user has been posting links to his YouTube page on both his userpage and user talk page, clearly a violation of WP:MYSPACE. After several reverts by myself and by User:Drmies (AJGUY00 later vandalized Drmies's user page), I bring this to your attention. This user is obviously only here to advertise and not edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User has been notified. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Posting links to one's YouTube or other offsite page per se is not a WP:MYSPACE violation; however, in this specific case, he's posting a long list / table of individual videos' links, along with descriptions, and I believe it meets the excessive self-promotion threshold. He also removed the whole contents of Drmies' user page, not just a little vandalism. On first impression not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and being moderately disruptive too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just followed what Drmies said it was in an edit summary, so if the WP:MYSPACE violation was incorrect, that is my goof for not checking on it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, I think he's violating WP:MYSPACE, but not just by having "links to youtube"; plain links in an otherwise ok userpage would be OK (I see no specific offsite links restrictions that would ban it, if they're not overly social / promotional / etc). The violation appears to be that he's self promoting by building an article (without evident notability) in his userpage, which is another WP:MYSPACE violation. The self promotion is the problem, not the bare presence of links. I agree there's an actionable problem, I just want it clear as to what I see it being. You're fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I gotcha now. :) I would like to note that the user, without comment, has blanked my notification to this ANI thread. While he is, of course, allowed, he has done this with previous warnings as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Return of HanzoHattori

Despite a recent unblock and an unresolved discussion about his unbanning at the administrators noticeboard, the banned user HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now editing under the sockpuppet Niemti (talk · contribs) has continued his disruptive activity by engaging in disruptive activity to prove a point at the WikiProject Square Enix talk page and has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing by redirecting an article while discussion is taking place. Can someone please resolve this situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's any sort of disruptive activity. But I think Sjones23 is clearly biased against me.

SPECIAL was nominated for deletion, two other users (besides the nominator and me) already agreed to redirect it, I just simply did it already. And the article had no references (for years), so anyone could do it any time. (And even Sjones23 himself agreed to redirect.) How was this "disruptive", I don't know. I came upon the article while cleaning up the various Fallout series articles (cleaned up in the same batch: Fallout: Nuka Break and The Vault (wiki), and Exodus (role-playing game) simply tagged for a rewrite). --Niemti (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The following appear to be combative or disruptive or abusive behavior: in the Project Square Enix talk page discussion.

On first impression, you're back a day off a two-year block/ban, and at it immediately again? People are saying your other prior edits (before the socking was noticed) were constructive, but this is exactly how to get an uninvolved admin to indef you again immediately.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Niemti was blocked after a sockpuppet investigation, but resumed the same behavior after he was unblocked two days later at AN. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that other users' input on the situation would be more useful now; you described the situation adequately already. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was actually "combative or disruptive or abusive". I invite you to read the entire thread and see how strange it became (the other user seems to have some comprehension problems, and I myself can't really understand her too, but maybe you could) and why I invited everyone to close it already, especially since there were not really arguemnts against the colon anymore. I wish everyone was as little "combative or disruptive or abusive" when they're so repeatedly misunderstood/ignored like that, and even groundlessly accused of "shouting" (I wasn't no shouting) and "lying" (there were no lies from me whatsoever). That's just some serious double standards at work now.

For some reason, Sjones23 is clearly biased against me, and run here with the first ocasion he had (even reporting as "disruptive" the redirect that he himself agreed with, for having no better evidence of alleged "disruptive activity" despite having about 400 other recent edits to choose from).

Also it was actually (over) four years. Not two. Good night. --Niemti (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your defensive comments have already exhausted my patience. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Guess what, your offensive comments are exhuasting mine. You're very, very clearly biased against me. That's "funny", because I don't even remeber what could I have done to deserve such a treatment from you. --Niemti (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make any assumptions or insult me, as I have lost all patience. I never intend to hurt anyone. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sjones, please don't escalate it here.

Niemti - The problem is not that there was a communications gap - you and the others there spent a little time talking past each other. That happens. The problem is that you did get combative, disruptive, abusive with the way you responded to them. You were banned several years ago because the community felt that you did not understand its standards for rudeness and abusiveness. You're back (have been for some time, but now acknowledged as such) and immediately get into an argument were you get rude and combative with several other users.

The disagreement on content and style was no big deal. One side was confused and disagreed with you. Your response seems, largely one-sidedly, to have become abusive very quickly.

You being unblocked does not mean that the prior indefinite block and ban for problems with abusing other users were not valid. Restarting that behavior will result in a new block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, if I ever did anything wrong, then I am very sorry. Now I am 100% disenganging with Niemti, as I don't want to escalate the situation any further. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was abusive. I didn't make fun of her bad English or anything, I actually said to end it (the disussion), because I was just repeating the same argument - the argument that she even actually agrees with (it's complicated, but as I said, this discussion became just strange). And that's while her telling me to "stop lying" resulted in no reaction from Sjones23 whatsoever. Somehow, it did nothing with his "patience", how curious.

Sjones23 also accused me here of Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing ("editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole") for this redirect that he then fully agreed with himself (and that everyone else there also agreed with). And that's just ridicalous. So I think he's harassing me. No, really, he does. --Niemti (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is WAYYYY more here than light. A telling sign is that Sjones23's initial report involves "links to WP policy and accusations" (which make it look like something bad is going on, rather than showing that something bad actually happened). I can play that game too - here's a typical hypothetical example: "Sjones23 has engaged in ongoing harassment. See here". There's no diffs there showing anything in support of those accusations.

In fact, looking at the talk page, this is the standard, well worn, much abused, often unfortunetly condoned, tactic of "act passive aggressive, try to bait the other person into getting frustrated and loosing their cool, then report them for petty ass weak shit, while playing up their irrelevant past transgressions". It's WP:GAME plain, simple and obnoxious.

Georgewilliamherbert does list some diffs which are supposed to be "disruptive or abusive". But I don't see it either. I guess the "disruptive or abusive" behavior in the first diff is supposed to be the usage of the insanely abusive expression... "Oh-my-god". Hmmm. Really? The second diff says, quote: I'm not shouting. I'm repeating myself, for at least fourth time already. Spoiler: written shouting involves exclamation marks, or at the very least bold text.. How is that "disruptive or abusive"? At this point it starts looking pretty clearly that Niemti is trying to engage a user who is playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and, additionally, is trying to provoke him with passive aggressive nonsense. In the third diff, there is, once again, nothing "disruptive or abusive" - in fact Niemti is agreeing with the previous person, who's having trouble understanding that they're agreeing with Niemti. I'd be frustrated too. Honestly, it looks like folks are getting confused here over the use of double negatives. And the "disruptive and abusive" behavior in the fourth diff? Niemti saying, quote, Let's close this discussion. It's getting really silly.. Sorry, at this point I got to say something disruptive and abusive myself: are you fucking serious? Let's DO close this discussion as it's getting rather silly.

Nothing here, go home people, find something better to do.VolunteerMarek 03:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On what basis to you see Lucia Black baiting or IDIDNTHEARTHAT ? You seem to be assuming bad faith on their part and not just poor communications. Their other contributions in thread seemed (to me) to be attempting to be constructive.

The full first diff, quoting:

Oh-my-god. It's like you never understand what I'm saying, all the time. So, which reliable source does NOT use a colon, huh? That is except of RT (who use a dash). Spoiler: NOBODY, ONLY WIKIPEDIA. --Niemti (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The totality is far worse than the "Oh-my-god". It's not "You're an idiot", but it's rude, and even uses the same ALLCAPS exclamations that in his next diff he admits would be shouting (but denies having done... and then does again in diffs 3 and 4).

This is not immediately actionable / blockable. But there's something wrong here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean that Lucia Blackwas baiting or IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but that Sjones23 was, and Lucia Black just sort of got mixed up inside a confusing conversation. As to the rest, it's not rude, it's curt (and done out of frustration). There's a difference. Particularly in situations such as this.VolunteerMarek 03:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Marek, I was not intending to be disruptive in anyway, but if I was disruptive or incivil in anyway, then I apologize for what I did. I did not intend to break Misplaced Pages protocol in doing so. I was only trying to help reach a consensus on the issue presented at the talk page and I only got involved. I was seriously concerned about Niemti being HanzoHattori, particularly in his behavior as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't know that Sjones23 was baiting or IDIDNTHEARTHAT either, but clearly was more involvedly (and experiencedly) mutually combative in a manner that I'd rather leave alone for now. They've both gotten frustrated and angry with each other and I don't think it's useful to do more than ask them to separate for a while...

Re Niemti/Lucia Black comments, two things. One, my read of the sequence is beyond "curt" into "abusive". Any one post maybe, but the sequence was not good. And two, as far as I can tell, Lucia didn't provoke or engage to draw fire onto herself. She appeared to be asking legit questions. Even if A and B are getting in a mutually combative argument, if a bystander C is there and starts getting yelled at for no good reason, that's not OK. Our tolerance zone for abusive behavior when people go at each other ends at uninvolved parties in the mutual abuse; expanding it out to anyone else around isn't ok.

Again, not immediately actionable or blockable. But there's something wrong here. It's not OK for Niemti (or anyone else) to get into fights that then lead to taking shots at bystanders. Given what got him in trouble in 2008 this is not a good sign. If we wave our "nothing to see here" flag it's not defusing the situation in a manner likely to avoid future conflict, abuse, and admin interventions. I would rather that we send a clear message that this isn't OK - without blockenating him immediately just for this - so that we don't have to act more strongly later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support the use of sending Niemti a stern warning about civility and no personal attacks, as being incivil and attacking someone can lead to accounts being block. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's some really good "100% disenganging" from you. --Niemti (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to explain it: LB wasn't quite a bystander or a new arrival to the thread (which started on a private talk page, and I'm repeating the same set of arguments, that I think are definitive, even since before it was carried over to a public forum by my original debater). She was just being like clueless and strange all the time: debating me, but agreeing me, but not really, then I suddenly "use original research", then I should "stop lying", all in increasingly incomprehensible English. Just read the thread, draw your own conclusions, because I don't know. As I also said there, I didn't even know what was going on anymore and why was it still going on at all, that's why I proposed to end it now. Also I hope this discussion here would also end already, because it has now spilled here (it started on an user talk page, then got moved to a WikiProject, now it's still being discussed here - I don't know where it might end next but I hope it won't cause WWIII). --Niemti (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit: But, if he's really disenganging with me now, than alright. --Niemti (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is really nothing actionable here at all. A discussion got a little bit terse. Is that all? I'm not seeing any personal attacks or anything like that, so there's really no point to this discussion. Go through the proper lower level dispute resolution choices before coming here, if you have to. But, right now, this section isn't doing anything. Can some admin please close this? Silverseren 04:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by a sock

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

Is it indeed normal to hide or strike through any comment (no matter how intelligent, constructive, perceptive, witty or otherwise welcome) made by a block-evading puppet (as claimed by one notorious troublemaker in this MfD), and/or does this constitute censorship, the principled opposition to which justifies more than three reversions? -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-dact "notorious troublemaker". Why did you ask here after you have already stated that it is "normal"? What you should be asking whether or not the input should be censored if it is valid, has a point, and is constructive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying he is not allowed to call himself a notorious troublemaker??? Arcandam (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see a new wall of fame entry being added. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty common to do so, but not necessary. If someone else undoes it, then there's really no point in starting an edit war over it. Instead, just add a note in small text underneath that the user above is a banned sockpuppet. Easy as that. Don't start conflict for conflict's sake. Silverseren 04:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Comment:. I am not going to spend time reading through the policies on it. Let me know when consensus is reached. I the meantime I will not participate in the delete debate if it is reverted again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards