Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 2 August 2012 (→Darkness Shines: response). 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

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

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)

If you can bring no diffs, then there is nothing to answer to for me. As for his edit you don't consider complain worthy, you may have a 2nd look:

1) IIO is an editor with enough experience in RM and RfC, so he knows very well that it is common for people to give comments without adding a formal vote, and he also knows it is not normal to add votes into other editor's comments. This is not a case of a new editor making a mistake.

2) He didn't leave any hint in the edit summary of what he had done, and the edit was done well up on the page with already a lot of ongoing discussion below it, as you can see. That makes it quite a bit more tricky and difficult to detect.

3) He added a vote in my comment, but not in the comments of other editors who had responded to his proposal. Nobody else has voted on the proposal so far.

4) Given his earlier history of making "weird" edits, which always seem to befall my comments or sections I have started, it is hard to make the case that this was accidental again. It can only be deliberate.

I see other cases on this ANI, which involve a single incident and I see them being looked into. Here there is 10x more to look into, and a few people are doing all kind of mental gymnastics to put it away as not complaint worthy. And these just happen to be the same editors who have been fighting tooth and nail against an essay I wrote, Bobrayner and DJsasso. Not what I would call uninvolved voices. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, I've never interacted with you before this thread, and since there is consensus that nothing is actionable, I recommend closing this thread. I asked you on your talk page what kind of outcome you were looking for, but you refused to answer. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that you were involved, but I sure would hope your idea of "concensus" is not based on the opinion of two involved voices, but on our written policies. That you have been eager to close this was clear from the very beginning. You asked me to give the most recent diff, and I did so. No comments again? Is it not your job to determine whether it infringes our behavioral policies or not, and if it does then look into the question whether it was an accident or a deliberate act (based on circumstantial evidence). Nothing suggests to me that you are actually doing so. Then what are we here for? Based on what you posted on my User Talk, it looks like you spent more time reading my User page, than you have spent on reading the diffs brought in this complaint. You asked me whether the community should do a better job of educating editors, but you do not seem to be communicating here. I never got an answer to the question why a non-admin is doing closures on the admin's noticeboard, and now it looks like you want to do the closing again (as if you are the only person around). Since at least one other editor agreed that your closure was premature, and since you seem to have been rather biased from the very beginning, don't you think it would be a better idea to step aside and let somebody else close this? Otherwise it starts looking as if WP is a place guided by favoritism rather than clear policies. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are very good points. I would agree with most of what MakeSense64 is saying here and thought of bringing an ani against In ictu oculi in the past for the same things... I simply felt (and still feel) it wouldn't be worth the time and effort on my part. I also assume that what I say here would be trivial since I usually agree and backed MakeSens64's edits in the recent past and it would appear as biased. Just as Bobrayner and DJsasso posts here would/should appear just as biased in the other direction. Certainly MakeSence64 and In ictu oculi should be posting here and giving their points, and "uninvolved" third parties should investigate and give views and advise. But Bobrayner and DJsasso's views (and myself) would appear too skewed to be helpful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Then file an WP:RFC/U as others have recommended. Since there's nothing for any admin to do here, I recommend closure. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But why is a non-admin deciding that there is nothing to do for an admin here? Why do you go on avoiding that fair question? If you didn't have a different username, I would think you are IIO trying to stonewall by not addressing questions. You have not even aknowledged the diff I repeated on your request. Has this now become the normal modus operandi on WP? If so then we have plenty of guideline pages to rewrite.

How is this something for WP:RFC/U, which is described as an "early" step? Fyunck is completely right that this will mainly bring in "supporters" on both sides of the diacritics debate, so it would be questionable anyway. IIO's editing behavior has been brought to ANI before, so RFC/U would be like going back to square one. I simply go on wondering why you think that admins should not look into a series of incidents, with as its last case a clearly disruptive edit, probably deliberate. And you seem to have no comments or answers whatsoever, just want to close this. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Two admins and two editors have looked at your report and have found nothing actionable or requiring admin attention. You've been pointed to RFC/U. Is there anything else you need help with? Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are the two uninvolved admins who have looked into it? Other than that a few answers to simple questions would have been welcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think maybe the fact that no admins have chosen to step in and do something in the 48+ hours its been on here is maybe a bit of a sign that the admins don't think there is anything worth actioning here at ANI? The solution is really for you both to just drop the stick and walk away from each other. If am I biased because I think you both are making too big a deal of this then so be it. But I really do think that is the best action here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 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)

S&P, regardless of the fact you find WP:BRD "silly," it is how we try to do things around here. It doesn't matter how certain you are that the edits are bad and need removed; you need to discuss why you feel it is bad and see if others agree. If they do not, you may have to re-examine why you think the edit is bad. You may simply be wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayemd

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

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)

• 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)

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)

Mentoring

Jayemd seems happy with the mentoring option. I'm sure Pesky will be around, too. Any other comments/complaints/concerns, or can we close this thread? bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Explain this? Franamax (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cluebat required Blackmane (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• My only concern right now is that, even after repeated lessons on citing sources, all content currently being added is still entirely unreferenced. I know that this is what mentoring is meant to fix, I'm just worried that the warnings and friendly notes haven't gotten through. I hope that mentoring works out, though, and I think that closing this thread is probably the best step at this point. Any mentors or concerned editors can start a new thread if necessary. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  This is a common misperception. Including citations is not required for all content, only for content that is likely to be challenged. Sure more citations are generally better, within reason, but Misplaced Pages is not a learned paper, though some like to believe it is, nor is Misplaced Pages designed (at least it shouldn't be) to impress academia. The purpose being to collectively provide knowledge, it is quite OK for one person to add the knowledge and another, later, to provide citations. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
  

James H. Fetzer, passive legal threat

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

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)

Wow. Can I just say that you just gave the best clear, concise explanation of why NLT works the way it does that I've ever seen? I mean, I knew all of this, but you did very well there. Cookies coming your way. - Jorgath (talk) 15:22, 1 August 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)

It seems that most Project members do not agree with you. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:36, 1 August 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)

• Per this, we may be dealing with a minor, we may need to wear kid gloves (pardon the pun) on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Return of HanzoHattori

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

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)

It shouldn't be. If it's a contribution by a banned editor, or a documented sock (e.g. SPI determined), it should be removed, not struck through or hatted/collapsed. Strike throughs are reversions by the posting editor, and those hats / collapses just draw attention to a section of a page. Nobody Ent 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. My experience at RfA and AFD is that blocked socks are often just struck and indented, and I have often done the same. Of course, if they are particularly disruptive, then I would remove and possibly redact as a last resort. Banned users (or arguably, de facto banned users) are generally wiped clean via the ideas in WP:DENY. Perhaps there might be questions of an admin removing "dissenting opinions", so it is kept in plain site, usually with something along the lines of "Blocked sock. ~~~~" as a rationale, again, to keep it open and remove any conspiracy theories. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP isn't blocked and its talk page has no history. How do we know it is a sock?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the IP's is blocked actually. To determine if its a sock we do the WP:DUCK test. If the ducktest doesn't work we have to ask a CheckUser to take a look. Arcandam (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the so-called duck test results in a false positive we could lose a potential editor. Given the shortage of editors and the number of articles with ugly tags atop them, that's not a good thing. A single editor being judge jury and reverter eliminates the normal checks and balances / consensus model of Misplaced Pages; a fledgeling editor is unlikely to put up much of a fuss and simply decide that Misplaced Pages is run by a bunch of assholes. Nobody Ent 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If we lose this "potential editor" that would be great! Look, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. That person is WP:NOTHERE to help us achieve our goal. That person tried to violate WP:ILLEGIT (or WP:CLEANSTART, if we believe him) and that is simply not allowed. I didn't write these policies. And I am not the judge, jury and reverter, I am not an admin. An admin blocked that IP sock, I did not. An admin blocked that user, I did not. At least four admins have taken a look at that person contribs. Arcandam (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish User talk:Arcandam would just come out and say what his problem is with me. I feel I am being hounded everywhere I make an edit or try to contribute to the project. He keeps putting any discussion onto me, me, me. I have had a few issues where I felt I was right and others didn't. I was only blocked once because of a bad BLP image that the BLP was trying to replace with OTRS. I have been asked by admin to correct my actions a couple of more times and I have. This is yet another thread of many where User talk:Arcandam has done the same. Focused on me as an editor and not the thread itself. I am leaving town for a few days so I won't be near a computer that I know of. If I do go near one I doubt I will bother logging in to this bullshit while I am on vacatiion. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember when we first met? I do! You asked for help on the helpdesk. I helped you. But then you started making WP:POINT edits and editwarring and povpushing and you refused to drop your stick... Now I don't feel like helping you anymore. Arcandam (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You only helped me the once and I feel you have been hindering me ever since. This has nothing to do with this thread as well as all the other ones you use to focus on me instead of telling me wtf your problem is. I doubt you ever will so I may ask for an interaction block when I get back. I wish you would stop playing games and just tell me what your problem is with me? You showed up at that dead dog article, reverted my edit, edit warred over with others, focused on me again, I left, you continued to edit war until now you have full protection on it. How does this help the project?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I explained you before that lying isn't helpful because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made. At one point you sort-of hinted you would move on and focus your attention elsewhere, so I ignored you for a while. Unfortunately you didn't drop your stick. The problem is that you were intentionally annoying (e.g. editing my comments after I told you not to) and you tried to defend a socking troll that has been indeffed and you made WP:POINT edits and you editwarred and you pushed a pov. Stop doing that. It is probably a good idea to drop your stick and avoid me when you get back from your holiday. Arcandam (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That there stick has two ends, and it's really hard for an editor to hold it up by themselves if the other guy drops his end. And you should rarely say lie about another editor, cause lie means a falsehood with intent to deceive, and we only know what an editor contributes, not there state of mind when they made the contribution. Nobody Ent 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The community was on the short end of the stick and he refused to drop it. He should be thanking me and Viriditas, we both saved him from being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your interests would be best served if you dropped the stick yourself. Your comments are incivil, at a minimum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot drop something I don't have. Difflinks pls? Arcandam (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a difflink, but what I meant to say is: please post some difflinks that actually support that claim made by Dennis (the second sentence of his comment dated 21:17, 1 August 2012). I think its rather incivil to make such a claim without difflinks. Arcandam (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You only have to look up, near the word "lying". Your overall battle oriented tone here and at MfD, and the fact that you have already have acquired a block for warring, even though you've only been here a few months, isn't making me hopeful that you actually get it, so I doubt explaining it further will be fruitful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence: "I explained you before that lying isn't helpful because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made"? I did not claim he was lying, I just reminded him of the fact I explained him before that lying doesn't really work well here because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made. I think that claiming that my comments (plural) are incivil without any evidence whatsoever and not giving difflinks when asked for difflinks is much much more incivil than that sentence. I've been here for much much longer than a few months. That block was a mistake by that admin, check the history if you don't believe me. Arcandam (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. Read this blocklog.

Arcandam, it's probably best to drop this and let things work themselves out. There's already other eyes on the problem, and that's the best thing you could hope for. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing I can drop. Look at my contribs. I am currently trying to figure out wtf happened to Timeline of Spanish history. I think the person who made this edit forgot the letters Chr. And for some reason the sentence: "{{Visigothic Kingdom persecuted jews" is included in the article. Canoe1967 continued debating here, and Dennis' and Nobody Ent's comments were rather contraproductive, even though that wasn't their intention. Arcandam (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dropping stuff? 1 & 2 & 3. Arcandam (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose an archivetop tag is not to ensure you get the Lastword in. And please don't comment on my (or any other editor's) intentions. Nobody Ent 01:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Open and shut cases

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

Wow, there are so many closed cases here that the page looks like a sea of lavender. :)

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE Bad close, man! What a travesty! This is what's wrong with Misplaced Pages! etc. Zad68 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• OMGWTF SUPPORT CLOSE i think this CLOSEW AS AW3S0M3!!11!!!ELEVENTYONE!!! U r teh wrogn! - Jorgath (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

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

In just over 10 minutes, in the last half hour, at least 25 new accounts were created. Looks like trouble brewing there, and already one has been blocked. I would keep my eye on them but have to dash out. Here's a rundown, but I probably didn't get them all. Moriori (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• (diff | hist) . . N User talk:Online-education‎; 19:06 . . (+1,159)‎ . . ‎Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block)‎ (Blocked)
• (Block log); 19:06 . . Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block) blocked Online-education (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Spam / advertising-only account)
• (Deletion log); 19:06 . . Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block) deleted page User:Online-education ‎(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• (User creation log); 18:56 . . Adogan1976 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:56 . . JBMMA (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Biswadeep Kundu (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Dakidsavior (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Tarek T. (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Online-education (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:54 . . Zahniyah Latimore (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (diff | hist) . . N! User talk:Jochair‎; 18:54 . . (+122)‎ . . ‎Jochair (talk | contribs | block)‎ (←Created page with 'Scientific American August 2012 says the black hole at the center of the Milky way is modestly large and not supermassive.')
• (User creation log); 18:54 . . Strider gato (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:53 . . Thespymachine (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:53 . . Joshua.aaron.goh (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:53 . . Proctorma (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:52 . . Zackjords (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:52 . . Deepan91 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:52 . . Rajeshecegce (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:50 . . Punboyy (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:50 . . VirgilAnt (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:48 . . Pradipjpatle (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:47 . . Shivamshaiv (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:47 . . Jochair (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:47 . . Mazlina82 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:46 . . Staciechaiken (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:46 . . Challengervikram88 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎

• Not sure what the pressing issue is unless the account are actually doing something. Regards, — Moe ε 06:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a rather unremarkable creation rate? Misplaced Pages is about 6 million minutes old, and it has close to 20 million registered accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The rate looks normal to me and the accounts fit no particular pattern. You should not read my block of Online-education (talk · contribs) being an indicator of trouble brewing. The account was blocked because they were spamming on their deleted user page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerim, again

Having the same issue with User:Bluerim as I previously had as archived here. This time it is at the God of War: Betrayal page. User:Altava left a C-Class assessment post on the articles talk page as seen here. I made edits to the page to try and accommodate the issues that Altava brought up for the Plot section and I stated it in my Edit Summary at 03:53, 1 August 2012. Bluerim edited the page at 04:57, 1 August 2012 stating "That's the format across all GOW articles." I then reverted this edit and told him to look at the Talk page for why I made the changes. Instead of discussing on the Talk page, Bluerim reverted my edit again stating "Then the logical thing to do is FIND more info and pad out the relevant sections." I did not revert this edit because I did not want to engage in another edit war with this user, so I have brought this issue to be addressed here. Here is the articles history. JDC808 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Having worked with JDC808 to radically improve the related article Kratos (God of War) (JDC808 wants it to become FA), I can confirm Bluerim can be disruptive, and in my case it was his repeated reverts of my attempts to add relevant categories for some rather weird reasons (and no, there's no really category "bearded men", of course). It was really strange and I've never seen anyone doing it (removing legit categories that do apply) anywhere else. Now, in the same article, he's been doing some highly controversial (not even gramatically correct) edits while saying things like "What's to discuss?". I could agreed with him on at least one point, though (and actually did, at Talk:Kratos (God of War)#Comments where the things are being discussed now), but that's not an excuse to what he apparently does there and in other related articles continously, that is evidently resisting changes through assumed ownership, sometimes in a very illogical way (like with this categories thing). --Niemti (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, note everything that User:Altava said. There is scope for more material, which can be found and added. We had actually just agreed on a standard format and JDC808 takes the unilateral action of reverting. How about asking rather than just doing? If he can't find acceptable material within a week, then that article (being the mobile phone game), can have a reduced Plot section. As to this user in general, he is in fact the one who has displayed the real ownership, with constant reverts and ES responses such as "No, it's fine" or "No, it isn't". I've incorporated many of his suggestions, although he's got to get his head around the fact that rewording is usually necessary. I see running here and complaining again, however, to be counter-productive. I'll work being more civil but he needs to acknowledge these articles must be formal than fannish. So, I'll leave off Betrayal for a week and see what happens. Bluerim (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would have taken note of Altava's post, you would have saw why I merged the sections (the info was still there just merged into one section). Instead of telling me to "FIND more info", you should have discussed the points addressed by Altava. By the way, I tried and there is not more info beyond maybe one sentence. I'm not "running and complaining", this has been a constant issue with you. JDC808 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kpdi

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

This account has been inactive since Nov 2010, but today, in 15 minutes finishing just over an hour ago, it made 9 edits: starting with an innocuous addition of unnecessary links, but then 8 lots of sly vandalism, changing words and numbers (one example) to semi-plausible alternatives. (I've reverted them.) Doesn't fit the "persistent" criterion for WP:AIV, but could this vandalism-only account be blocked to protect the encyclopedia? I happened to notice the editor because they hit an item on my watchlist, but any future edits might not be noticed: it looks as if they're using "Random article" as I can't see any link between the articles they've edited! PamD 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC):

In an abundance of good faith, I've given him a final warning about inserting deliberate factual errors - if any other admin feels inclined to block immediately - I have no objections. --Versageek 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd already blocked indef. They can always ask for an unblock if there's a sensible reason for doing so, but I think we need to ensure that sneaky vandalism is stopped. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Yankees76

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

The other day Yankees76 falsely accused me of sockpuppeting after i made an edit to Closing Time with out login in he was warned by several people including User:Jim1138 that he would be reported if he continued to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Today he decides to revert one of my edits(which he called vandalism the other day) just to call me out on some of my past edits which I think is Cyber Stalking WP:HOUND. Please can someone stop this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a bad idea to insult that person here. Administrators look at the behaviour of all parties involved. Arcandam (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think i insulted btw he called me a retard the other day because i wrote on his talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs)

Calling someone a "Psycho" is a personal attack. Arcandam (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Both parties have been incivil. Arcandam (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• If I can clear a few things up: Yankees76, don't link to WP:DICK, quit inferring people are socks unless you are willing to stick your neck out and file at WP:SPI, do not call things vandalism unless they fit the exact criteria at WP:VANDAL, and pull back the intensity and incivility a notch. I'm not thrilled with how you treat anyone, frankly. And Golfballz, I did check you for socking, very carefully, and I notice that you do edit while logged out, however I didn't see any pattern of abuse at all. Still, please log in, as you just cost me a lot of time. And you need to drop the stick, quit badgering him, calling his actions "trolling" and take a less controversial attitude with your edits. Both of you need to drop the stick and now would be a very good time to do so. A less tolerant admin might think the 'pedia would benefit from both of you being blocked. I'm thinking you need to avoid each other, hopefully voluntarily, and you both need some civility lessons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Golfballz, you are required to notify a person you are reporting to ANI. I've done that for you, but I strongly suggest you remember that next time. Read at the top of the page, it is a simple template to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK, Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is sockpuppetry. This user did that on Closing Time (Semisonic song) here after I reverted original research that was previously inserted into the article, which not only changed the genre without providing a source, or working to a consensus in the ongoing discussion on that article's talk page; the editor also left the original reference intact, disrupting Misplaced Pages and degrading the quality of the article. After looking at the quality of edits originating from the IP, I tagged it as an IP Sock - which is the correct thing to do as one more revert from either account would bring the 3RR rule into play. What happened afterwards is regrettable, however it's clear from edits following yesterdays "vandalism" report, and the constant badgering on my talk page that this user has very little interest in improving Misplaced Pages, and is now using the fact that he was told by Ohnoitsjamie that Allmusic.com is a reliable source to post incomplete genres and absurd/misleading edit summaries on other articles. What makes this particularly disturbing is that prior to the edit to Closing Time, this user had used Allmusic as a "reliable source" in a content dispute with another user! I sincerely believe that this user would not benefit from a block, but isntead a WP:MENTOR so that they understand why articles require reliable sources. As for me, if you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. I've only been editing for six years and lost count of the number of articles I've created or the amount of vandalism I've reverted. Are a couple of slip ups with an annoying user worth a block? You tell me. --Yankees76 23:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That was interesting because it has the same time stamp as one of his logged in edits, but that is a single edit, and because it could have been an error (wikipedia does that to me sometimes) I can't confirm it is socking. And the point is, I'm trying to not block people (I'm not a block happy admin, ask anyone), and that doesn't change the fact that everyone here needs to tone it back when dealing with others. Consider it a friendly but serious tip. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up

I've blocked Golfballz for 24 hours for continuing to revert Yankees76. If this continues by either editor, then further blocks are in order.

Given the comments "I'll revert his edits on pages on my Watchlist...Are a couple of slip ups with an annoying user worth a block?" I'll encourage fellow admins to deal with any such behavior by Yankees76 by issuing harsher blocks (or community sanctions) as such behavior by Yankees76 would be clearly an instance of the previous issues aggravated by WP:GAME. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Where did Golfballz continue to revert Yankees76 after the above discussion? Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They had been edit warring over whether the song (and several others) were Post-grunge or Alternative rock. Golfballz continued the war and threw in a citation. 76.107.249.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be Golfballz edting under an IP. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You blocked him for adding a citation, which wasn't a revert of any kind? And Yankees76 edited the article after that which actually fixed Golfballz edit by adding the reflist tag! The IP edit was 8 days ago. There isn't any reverting there at all. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any recent contribs. Yankee called the edit a revert, not sure it is. Golf added a cite, then Yankee added the reflist tag so it would show up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Todd might want to verify there, I think the block may have been in error due to Yankee calling the edit "a revert" when it wasn't a direct revert. Maybe it was adding something back from a while back, but not a direct revert. Still wasn't a good idea, but not sure that qualifies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Golfballz (under the IP address which he admitted) changed the genre from Post-grunge to alt-rock on July 23. Yankee76 then changed it back. Golfballz tonight added alt-rock in - with a citation which does indeed state the song is alt-rock and without removing post-grunge. That's normal editing as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I also think that this is normal editing as well without going into an edit war. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I would feel better if they would avoid each other, especially at this moment in time, but that isn't exactly the same as a revert. Again, a good faith block but I tend to think it is an honest error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Golfballz is requesting unblock. I would be tempted to accept it myself but since I'm about to go to bed (it's 2.25am here) I'd rather not unblock and run. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not far behind, but I will look at it closer if Todd went offline and verify all this again. It does look like a mistake, but I want to make sure, and Todd may be verifying it himself right now anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Todd is on it, he is unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Arajdal

Can someone please do something about this guy? He seems to be one of those pro-Berber anti-Arab Algerian who simply removes anything Arab from any Berber-related article. I'm a proud Berber myself but Algeria is an Arab country so it does not make sense to remove Arab names of places. There is no reason why both languages can't be included in articles. I've already reverted him twice on the Zinedine Zidane article and don't want to WP:3RR. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am on the way out so can't really do much, but a look at his edit summaries is not very encouraging in the POV dept. ie: we need to stay true to the Berber people. Once someone starts talking about Truth® in their summaries, then someone familiar with the subject matter needs to independently come in and assess the neutrality of the edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

Not a long while ago, the article India and state terrorism was created. Exactly ten days after the article's creation, Darkness Shines turned up at the article in a blatant act of WP:HOUNDING to start POV-warring and immediately nominated it, inappropriately, for speedy deletion . This user has been warned for not hounding me before. This article was an orphan at the time, meaning that it was not internally linked on any other articles. The fact that he still got to that article while no one else did needs no explanation, and is a blatant violation. After he was reported to an admin Salvio giuliano, he was warned by Salvio in clear terms to keep off/stay away from that article or else he will be blocked off for a week (that discussion is preserved here). Another admin, Magog the Ogre also acknowledged the issue of Darkness Shine's problematic hounding. The message obviously fell on deaf ears, because just now, despite being told to stay off from there, he has gamed that request and showed up on the article yet again . Given that just recently, discretionary sanctions have been imposed on the India-Pakistan topic area and this user was warned not to edit that article, a red line has clearly been crossed here and I would like action to be taken. There is absolutely no excuse or justification for his presence on that article. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll note that you have not attempted to engage Darkness Shines on the talk page of that article. Coming straight to AN/I is not an ideal course of action, even when there is a history of conflict between users. On the flipside, Darkness Shines hasn't exactly been a model citizen on this issue, and that G4 speedy tag on the premise that a dissimilar version was deleted 3 years ago is pretty flaky. So here's my advice - calm down, depersonalize the matter, and start a discussion on the talk page asking Darkness to calmly present his/her objections to the content of the article. We'll be watching what happens from there. As a second piece of advice, we don't tend to pay much attention to histrionics at AN/I. If you've got a problem, present the evidence, not your interpretation of it. Manning (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

He was engaged on the talk page and kindly told to mind his own business. No one is interested in how he miraculously finds his way to get to articles, it's the fact that's its always the same damn articles in a short period of time to engage the same people. This matter cannot be depersonalised, it's a clear-cut violation and it needs to acted upon. Mar4d (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By itself, choosing to edit any article is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. I've looked through the contribution log of Darkness Shines and don't see any evidence of tenditiousness or harrassment. Also no-one can tell anyone NOT to edit an article (admins can certainly suggest it, but only Arbcom or community-imposed sanctions can enforce it). So I'm far from certain what "violations" are taking place. It is quite possible that Darkness is using your contribution log to find new articles to edit, but unless there is evidence of actual harassment as a result, then there is nothing wrong with that - I do it every day. Also the topic at hand is clearly controversial, so a POV dispute between editors is almost guaranteed. At the moment I'm really struggling to see this issue as anything more than "we disagree and I just don't like it". My earlier advice to you to depersonalize and focus solely on the content still stands. If you are truly unable to do so, perhaps you should also consider ceasing to edit such topics. Manning (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Bananas Monkey and Renames

Hello, Would it be possible to put a restriction on this user, to prevent any further page moves? User seems to spend most of their efforts in systematically renaming articles, some with reason, but the great majority seem to be mis-interpretation of policies. There seems to be a language barrier, from having interacted and reviewing discussions. It looks like a few others have requested the user to stop their good faith, yet disruptive moves. Thanks.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards