Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drmies (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 12 November 2015 (→User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Objective3000: Time for an IBAN?). 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

User:Technical 13 drafts in other editor's names

User:Technical 13 seems to have been blocked back in June following Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 but I found a number of draft articles that User:Technical 13 created but stored under the user User:TheShadowCrow from 2013 . I have no idea of the background of this case nor how these two users knew each other but I'm trying to figure out if pages like User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Alain Boghossian (Special:PrefixIndex/User:TheShadowCrow/ shows about 28 in total]]) should be reviewed/examined/taken to MFD or just G13 nuked. It looks like the articles were created at User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox in one giant pile together and then copy-and-paste moved out like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no immediate evidence that T13 created (as in wrote) those articles -- TheShadowCrow did, and T13 merely put them into article space or divided them up into smaller individual sandboxes (see ). There's no way of immediately telling if the two users are the same; one of the things T13 was banned for is socking, but that doesn't mean this was a sock account. Bbb23 and/or DeltaQuad should have an opinion on this and/or know what to do. In terms of any usable content, the consensus on two separate MfDs was to retain the content . Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 wasn't banned for socking, they retired rather than go through the case. Therefore the provisions of Misplaced Pages:Drafts#Deleting_a_draft apply; I don't think the prior Mfd has much applicability because TheShadowCrow seems to have ceased editing. Per not buro a mass Mfd could be proposed, but even easier would be ignoring them useless there's some issue (e.g. blp/ copyvios...) NE Ent 10:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, his requested block from Floq was changed to an ArbCom site-ban by Euryalus. And one of (as I stated) the issues was the evidence of sockpuppetry that came to light during the investigation. The site-ban and the abuse of multiple accounts is noted on his userpage. In my opinion it's worth retaining the material and publishing the drafts live assuming they meet notability. I think it's also worth CUing whether TheShadowCrow was another one of T13's socks or not, since there's already an SPI on him. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sure if the 28 or so articles (Special:PrefixIndex/User:TheShadowCrow) were taken to MfD now, they would all be deleted, so to IAR I would just speedy delete everything as a Stale Draft. Pinging @GiantSnowman: for his opinion too. JMHamo (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow's last edits seem to have been in May 2014 Special:Contributions/TheShadowCrow, so it seems unlikely there'll be anything for a CU to look at. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 was attempting to help TheShadowCrow who was under a topic ban and as part of that, created the pages in question. I don't see any particular reason to suspect sockpuppetry. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages are:

many of them have a main-space equivalent already. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Yerevantsi might know what to do with these. Note that any text reused should be attributed to TheShadowCrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

There is no hurry to delete these. Perhaps from one form the stale draft project can check to see if they are wroth saving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But by god those have a mangled history. Technical 13's edit summary creating the page gave literally no idea where it came from. It almost would be better if there's anything worth saving to go create a new draft version with an actual link to the original gigantic sandbox rather than keep that edit summary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest making a null edit with an edit summary pointing to the original page for attribution. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Complicating matters is that in some cases it seems the sandbox was a copy of the mainspace article that the editor was working on sourcing/improving. User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Karen Ashotovich Grigorian is an example of this I looked at. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Still, we're talking an editor who created drafts while topic banned from the area into a giant sandbox and then it was copied and pasted over to another sandbox by a different user. I'll take those to MFD that already exist but I'm generally against allowing for any user's content unless it's really good given that they were under a topic ban. It's the same general arguments we have over G13 and content from banned users I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical13 was a problematical user. From the start of his account he made pointy edits, resulting in blocks. Then he calmed down enough to get Template Editor rights. Then he reverted to form, several times, and got those rights removed, then blocked. In the midst of this, he decided that being a "mentor" to the ShadowCrow might help him on his path to awesomeness. So he moved some sandboxes. Then the Crow didn't like that, and they had a little fight. Executive summary: If any of this is worth keeping, own it. Otherwise, nuke it. Begoon  12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown gave TheShadowCrow the go-ahead to create drafts in a sandbox in hopes that the editor would be productive, but unfortunately the editor was a bit too anxious to resume editing in the banned area, and it didn't work out. isaacl (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 , came through yesterday and de-prodded several articles and templated the nominators, which speaks to experience with the system. No improvement had bee made to any of the articles and no reasons given for the de-prod. Reasons are not required but just the shear number of de-prods they did plus this post here lead me to believe this user may actually be evading a block and just trying to be disruptive. Hopefully someone can look into this to see if it is a case of block evasion.McMatter /_(contrib) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Identical behaviour to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#De-prodder... JMHamo (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a blocked editor: and therefore a block evasion. I think an insta-block is due the IP if all it is doing is de-prodding articles seemingly at random. Or at least a warning and a promise not to do that anymore. Also, if it's a block evasion, needs to definitely be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all of the past and current IPs are geolocated in the same area. Undoubtedly the same editor. Liz 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about the block-evasion factor?  ? Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Per WP:BE: "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast with "Proposed uncontraversial deletion". Evaluate each page and consider if it's worth the mental investment to shepherd it through a AFD nomination. I do not see a ban proposal with respect to the IP range so it's my understanding that we have to treat these as AGF and can't apply the RBI stick to it. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have to treat this as AGF there is evidence of a block evasion. The block evasion is what this is looking at now, if it does turn out to be block evasion then the de-prodding can be considered disruptive and reverted. This will also allow us to nip this in the bud if it happens again in the future. McMatter /_(contrib) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It/they are obviously WP:NOTHERE, are obviously block evading, and are playing a game of silly buggers with us, as Floquenbeam would say. Time to stop the nonsense and disruption per WP:BE and WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE, not to mention multiple accounts. Softlavender (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: @Mcmatter: It would be great, but the problem is that because this is an IP address and therefore isn't officially agreed to ToS, we have to follow the rules with respect to prods If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. There is a reasonable belief that there's an objection to deletion (even if it's they don't want anything deleted) therefore we are bound to follow policy. Don't like it? Round up a consensus to change the policy. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: by that logic all IPs should be unblocked now and given free run of the place because they have not accepted the ToS, but this is not the case, if you look at the text just above the save button it states By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. which means they have agreed to the terms of use and cannot claim freeman rights as you claim. Once again you are missing the major issue of the of block evasion, I have no issues with the PROD issue if the user is not evading a block.McMatter /_(contrib) 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You have to prove that the editor is block evading. Without proof, there is nothing here that is actionable. —Farix (t | c) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: this is why I have brought it here as stated in my initial post. This post was never about discussing the PROD policy or system but the actions of a user which seems to be counter intuitive to the project community. McMatter /_(contrib) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are asking others to go on a fishing expedition based on unsubstantiated claims of block evasion? —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this user also has a penchant for changing "Delta Airlines" links to "Delta Air Lines" (, , as this user; , , as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E). Not a big deal (Delta Air Lines is the actual name) but a good behavior indicator. clpo13_(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion#Massively removing PRODs for no reason has petered out, that would be the place to discuss making a change to the prod policy. Vrac (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: It's not the prod policy we're talking about, it's disruptive editing. The IPs are a block evader who is simply rampaging through the list of prods and mass deleting all the tags. This is WP:DE and WP:BE no matter how you look at it. IPs that are block evaders must be blocked per WP:BE. IPs that are intentionally mass disruptive must be blocked per WP:DE. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Where is the blocked account? Before you can claim that someone is block evading, you have to identify the blocked account. 2) Removing proddes, even en-mass, is not disruptive editing. These articles can easily be sent to AfD using the exact same rational as the prod. It is also far less disruptive to Misplaced Pages to start an AfD than to argue over the "legitimacy" of a deprod. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Relatedly, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 is also de-PRODing multiple articles.- MrX 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  I had been trying to fight what was obvious vandalism (to me) by this behavior, but if no Admin sees it that way, and it's not considered disruptive, what's a regular editor to do? We have policies and guidelines, and this has been debated multiple times. The PROD process is clearly broken. It IS disruptive, if you force the "obvious" deletions to go through AfD - it takes additional editor time to wade through an AfD. Go ahead, let IP's and sockpuppets steal what actual editing time committed editors have to contribute by forcing it through the AfD process. This is a loophole that any actually allows wholesale vandalism to the project just because we can't add a few words to the PROD process. Say, MUST give a valid reason, or only registered editors can PROD. We limit deletion powers to Admins; why not limit PROD removals to registered editors? Or even Admins? Or Autoreviewers? Or Pending Changes Reviewers? We have some processes that require demonstration of commitment to this project to perform an action. Put deleting PRODs on that list. For that matter, put deleting maintenance tags on that list. Scr★pIron 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  Starting an AfD is not going to "waste" other editors times. Constantly arguing over the legitimacy of prod removals "wastes" far more time than starting an AfD and is much more disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  Fourteen dePRODs by this IP hopping "editor" in less than 15 minutes today (four in the span of on minute! Clearly, in depth analysis is going on) each will involve at least 5 editors, often more, to evaluate and contribute. That is a very fine act of vandalism if I do say so. Where one Admin could evaluate the PROD, now we multiply that by the participants in AfD and add the Admin back in again to close it. Starting "an" AfD is not the issue - forcing a dozen or more without any evaluation IS the issue. Multiply the editing hours for all of them vs. a single ANI/AIV report - the math is clear. This is actually quite clever trolling, with a flawed policy behind it to support it, so nothing can or will be done. And for those who would choose policy over common sense, then I suggest a change to policy or an implementation of the WP:IAR policy to prevent continued damage to the project. Or have we abandondoned WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? Scr★pIron 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  Drop the stick already because nothing is going to happen. Removing prods is specifically not vandalism and is allowed under the deletion policy. If you truly believe that an article should still be deleted, send it to AfD as the next step. —Farix (t | c) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardblocking 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. This is disruptive editing and some editor is avoiding scrutiny to do it...I don't need to know which one to see illegitimate behavior. If you see him anymore then you can revert him because he will be evading a block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block, thank you. Vrac (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an extremely bad block. The editor was acting well within the deletion policy and could dispute whatever and as many prods as he/she chooses. If you want to limit the number of proddes an editor can dispute, either change the policy or take it to WP:ArbCom. —Farix (t | c) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is your right doesn't make it right. De-Prodding just because you can when it is clearly disruptive and generating excessive arguments on multiple admin noticeboards makes the de facto argument that it is disruptive editing...but I don't mind my block being reviewed here. We are not an endless pit of labor to be wasted just because someone has an argument. I believe that this editor is avoiding scrutiny. I believe that Misplaced Pages and its editors fare better with this editor blocked so that they quit being a time sink for those involved. That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy. That editor didn't improve a single article did they? I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block- Mass dePRODS are always just pointy attempts to wreck a useful maintenance mechanism for everyone. Staying technically within the wording of policy while deliberately subverting its intent is called gaming the system and should be prevented. It's also likely that this is some returning banned user or other. Reyk _YO! 10:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block "That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy." Precisely. I'm unsure how anyone sees it otherwise. Policy "allows" us to do many things which we should not do. "I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others." I'm glad you don't, and I'm glad you acted. Thank you. Begoon  12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - disruptive behavior, clearly. GiantSnowman 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - The deprodding was obviously a form of disruption. I agree with the points made by ScrapIronIV and Berean Hunter.- MrX 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - Seems pretty obvious their intention was trolling and disruption. JMHamo (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - Thank you for taking this seriously. Scr★pIron 14:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - The edits were disruptive and were specifically made in order to undermine the deletion process, creating unnecessary work for reviewers and admins.--Jezebel's Ponyo 20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - yes, enough with this dePRODing drama with people who are too into WP:BURO to see that disruption is disruption just because the policy doesn't specifically state that mass-deprodding is not one of the "exceptions". LjL (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. Simply because a single action is allowed does not mean that a repeated pattern of such actions can't be disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - First, I agree it was a good block, but I have a question. I came across this editor's actions through an article I had prodded, which they contested. Another editor AfD'd it. I then came across another article where they had contested another editor's prod (I think it was one of Wolfowitz'). After researching, I sent that article to AfD, since it clearly did not meet notability guidelines. After that, I discovered the ip editor had been blocked, and took a look at their edit history. I began to look at each of the article's they had de-prodded. If research showed they did not meet notability criteria, I submitted it to AfD. Sometimes this had already been done by another editor, and if I had an opinion based on guidelines, I !voted at the AfD. However, sometimes the removal of the prod was, in fact, useful. Perfect example was Landau Forte Academy Tamworth Sixth Form. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is a secondary school, so all that is needed is proof of existence (while I may not agree with the guideline, if it is consensus I've agreed to follow it). That particular article had had the prod tag re-inserted. I removed it, as per the WP:PROD policy stated above where if a prod tag is removed, even in bad faith, it cannot be re-added. Then I went to check Casper Radza, where again, the prod had been re-asserted. However, this time the editor had referenced this discussion (hence my presence here). Sorry about my bloviating, but I felt it necessary to show the trail of thought which led there. So, is there an exception to the Prod rule? If so, I should go self-revert a couple of the other prod re-assertions I did. Thanks for any light you can throw my way. Onel5969 15:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:onel5969, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states " This section is not a notability guideline. WP:GNG and WP:ORG are." It's a section of WP:OUTCOMES which is an essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block and I also second Doug Weller's comment. Schools are not inherently notable simply for existing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Doug Weller - and I know that, I used the wrong term (mainly I was trying to wrap up my overlong comment). My point is, that if you AfD an article like that you have 100% chance that it will fail, where there are several editors who quote that essay as being consensus on the topic. No point in wasting editors' time in nominating an article for AfD if it has zero chance of being deleted. And as I said, I disagree with the essence of the essay, was simply attempting to explain why I didn't AfD the article. However, I'm simply trying to learn that if there is ever an exception to the prod rule about not re-applying it? Right now, the guideline seems pretty clear that there isn't. Onel5969 16:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it makes sense to not restore the prod on a particular article based on the merits of that article, then by all means don't restore it. The modification to the WP:PROD rule is just to prevent a loophole that allows indiscriminate mass de-prods. If a user de-prods 100 hundred articles they are likely to be correct on a couple of them, but correct by luck not design. Vrac (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• GOOD BLOCK - he's busted He was most certainly deprodding at random or based on his dislike of who placed the block. He deprodded an article on a Russian company (Krasnoleninsky Refinery) that DOES NOT EXIST because it is a scam. Not only are there no references to the company in Russian (the name as it's spelled on its logo "красноленинский+очистительный" brings up a whopping ZERO hits), searching for the name in English -wiki brings up only info about it being a scam! He couldn't have even accused the prodder of COI - the article had only about a dozen edits from the creator (SPA with no other article creations) and a few bots/non-content fixes, and had been largely untouched since it was created in January. It was not possible in any way for there to be any valid reason for deprod. —Мандичка 😜 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• GOOD BLOCK. What would the process be to change the prod rules so that a deprod by a blocked user can be reversed/ Op47 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, personal attacks, and use of multiple accounts

6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also uses the account 6-A04-W96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been editing tendentiously on File talk:Qing Dynasty 1820.png. He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy" (see contribs), even though four different users have disagreed with him, see thread1 and thread2. When Rajmaan disagreed with him, he attacked Rajmaan as a troll. I then cautioned him against using personal attacks, but he responded by calling me a troll as well.

The person has been using at least two accounts on both en-wiki and the Commons (although to be fair, he does not attempt to conceal the fact). One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism . -Zanhe (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English[REDACTED] simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there with one of his accounts for disruption and runs the risk of of getting blocked again if he disrupts with his other account. This is cross-wiki disruption.Rajmaan (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

For information, that's the same user than Pseudois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (that worked on en: and fr:, with a lot of unfair edits and removing of sourced informations and their references. He said in late 2014, it will work no more on[REDACTED] before creating the 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account in february 2015 and working the same way.Popolon (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all above users. What he did was considered disruptive and it is now clear it was exactly him who makes POV push and tendentious edits in various pages in both Misplaced Pages and Commons. --Cartakes (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

1. About my[REDACTED] accounts. I have contributed for over five years, with no history of sanction whatsoever, in different Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia projects, with the following two successive accounts: Pseudois from July 2010 to November 2014 and 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 from February 2015 to early November 2015. As I decided to stop contributing, I asked both accounts to be blocked (on 1st November and 2nd November) in order to prevent any kind of vandalism or disruptive editions on my personal pages. A couple of hours after I asked my account to be closed, I noticed that user:zanhe removed the "disputed factual accuracy" template I had inserted. The template was removed despite several points raised by different contributors since years were not addressed. As 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 was blocked (upon my own request), I therefore created the account 6-A04-W96 for the sole purpose of reinserting the template and providing replies to the new comments on the talk page. The choice of the account name made it clear I was the same contributor.
2. "When Rajmaan disagreed with him, he attacked Rajmaan as a troll (…) he responded by calling me a troll as well." Rajmaan was continuously attempting to derail and personalise the discussion with his countless digressions. While I consistently attempted to put back the discussion on the right track, he wrote "Thats not what you tried to say (…)you clearly didn't read (…) Are you going to claim that (…) You made your purpose here clear (…) you are clearly interested in deleting Tibet from the map and not actually interested in anything else". I did not call him a troll, but considered this attempt at derailing the discussion a "trolling attempt". I never called Zanhe a troll, but maintained in my talk page that Rajmaan comment was indeed a trolling attempt.
3. "One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism". See above about my contribution history. I believe this block is a clear misunderstanding and have asked (per e-mail) the common admin responsible for the block to reconsider it.
4. "It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English[REDACTED] simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there" This is pure nonsense and is another illustration of the countless insinuations I had to face from these contributors: All the edits in en.wikipedia were made before the account was blocked in common.
5. "Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. (…) This is cross-wiki disruption". The discussion was initiated in 2009 on the English Misplaced Pages page. When I came across this discussion 6 years later, I consistently continued the discussion where it started. As this page is not visible for non en.wp contributors, I inserted a link in the common page so that the discussion remains centralised.
6. "He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy", even though four different users have disagreed with him". First of all the words "modern fantasy" and "digital manipulation" have been used by several other contributors over the past 5 years. I believe the inclusion of the "Disputed factual accuracy template" in the file description was more than justified. A look at the talk page shows that at least 7 different contributors have raised/acknowledged issues with this map, many of those have only be partly addressed or not addressed at all:

• 13 July 2010: "The map is a modern fantasy, and have no historical basis"
• 14 July 2010: "Actually there are multiple reasons (…). That region was never solely owned by Qing Empire (…) Territories to the east of Khabarovsk were not populated not by russians not by Chineese and should be shown as neutral (…) In fact Chinese borders never not then not later crossed Amur river (…) Daur rulers decided to pay the tribute to the Qing, but that was never accepted by the Russian empire (…) Sakhalin was not known to the both empires (…) etc."
• 10 September 2011: "(…) is right on this one. Heilongjiang, Jilin, "Uliassutai", Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet are all shown as provinces on this map even though, in 1820, all of these areas were outside of the China proper and were not administered as provinces and in many cases had only a weak tributary relationship with the Qing. In the case of some Turkic areas and most Tibetan areas (current Tibet, Qinghai, and western Sichuan), there was not even effective Qing control (…)I invite the author of the map or other users to address these issues so that the map or something similar can continue to be used in articles"
• 22 September 2011: "Interesting logic regarding Sakhalin. How someone can own something, if they don't even know how it looks like?"
• 23 September 2011: "I have stated my view above. I think it should be shown as unexplored and not claimed by anybody, i.e. gray"
• 21 April 2012: "this map is modern fantasy, and have no historical basis for another reason: during the Qing dynasty there was no dotted-line as shown in the small box at the bottom left corner, The 11-dotted-line was not included in China map until 1946 or 1947"
• 29 October 2012: "Good points. There continue to be issues with this map that have not been addressed. Qinghai was not a province in 1820 (and as the map notes, Xining, its capital, was part of Gansu until 1928), Manchuria is not shown on the map. The whole Inner Mongolia/"Uliassutai"/Huijiang division is questionable. (…) instead of starting with present-day boundaries and working backward, it would be better generated by working with contemporary sources as well as present-day sources that display a bit more heft than a Baidu Baike map
• 13 May 2014: "The Chinese nine-dash map didn't appear until the Republican era in 1947. Based on which historical basis does it appear in this map of 1820 China?"
• 14 May 2014: "I can not see nine-dash map in these maps. Why does this map have? Any evidence?"
• 1 June 2014: "Why is this map used at all? Is it based on a real map? Why not use that map instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms?"
• 29 October 2015: "Agree. This map, as well as other similar fantasy maps produced by wikipedians should be removed and replaced by real maps."
• 1 November 2015: "There might be relative minor issues need to be corrected (we can do it of course), such as in the case of Aksai Chin. Since the maps are generally identical, your claim that "they are not based on reliable secondary sources" is an exaggeration. Any other issues can you find besides Ladakh?"
• 2 November 2015: "1) Sakhalin is not include in the Oxford map. 2) List of tributary/vassal states is completely different. 3) Internal subdivisions are not mentioned on the Oxford map, see for example the 5-6 subdivisions for Tibet."

To mention just one example, the way Sakhalin is represented has been disputed for over five years! "Tendentious editing", I believe, is not made by the contributor adding a " Disputed accuracy template", but clearly by those who have removed it, such as here and here.

I perceive this ANI as an attempt to tarnish my past contributions, and object to the three points raised above:

• "Multiple accounts". The use of successive accounts did not breach any Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia policy.
• "Personal attacks". I never called "troll" any of the two contributors mentioned above, but have considered the continuous attempts to personalise and derail the discussion by Rajmaan a trolling attempt.
• "Tendentious editing". Considering the many concerns raised by the majority of contributors about the accuracy of the map, the removal of the " Disputed accuracy template" should be considered tendentious editing, but certainly not its inclusion.--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Multiple accounts: I see your accounts have been blocked on French wiki upon your own request (after you ran into disputes with other editors), but aren't you required to request unblocking before editing again, rather than creating multiple new accounts? Besides, your account 6-A04-W96 has been blocked on the Commons for vandalism , not as a result of your own request. And none of your accounts have (yet) been blocked on English wiki, yet you keep creating new ones (Comptetemporaire2015 is the fourth that I'm aware of).
• Tendentious editing: You keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, even though they've already been refuted by multiple users. Old issues such as the 9-dash-line and Sakhalin have long been addressed, both on the local talk page and on the Commons talk page, yet you keep repeating them. WP:REHASH is a typical behaviour of tendentious editors.
• Personal attacks: Accusing of other people of "trolling" is personal attack . I cautioned you against it, which you summarily reverted while repeating the trolling accusation . -Zanhe (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Multiple accounts: Ironically, I am one of the few here who has never contributed simultaneously under different identifications, as it is the case of Cartakes aka Evecurid or Popolon aka 82.225.234.108 aka multiple complex IDs such as this one (I am not insinuating though that the simultaneous use of multiple identification by these contributors is breaching policies). It was quite obvious that the account 6-A04-W96 was blocked and tagged as a "vandalism-only account" by error. After I made the corresponding request, the block was immediately reverted by the same admin (see here and here).
• Personal attacks. I don't see any new element in the comment above, it is just repeating over and over the same point (WP:REHASH).
• Tendentious editing: The four contributors above have continuously claimed that issues raised by other contributors had long been solved and that I was the only one disputing the factual accuracy of the current map (e.g. "People raised issues years ago with old versions of the map, which appear to have mostly been fixed. You're the only one in the current discussion who thinks the map is inaccurate" "Don't bother him (…) All his work is mostly a POV-push", "Now it should be clear that it was him who makes POV push, and what he did is tendentious and should be reverted", "DHN raised an issue with the Nine Dash Line, which has since been removed. What other anachronisms are there?", "DHN's problem was only with the Spratly and Paracel islands and he had no issue with the other parts of the map", "You're the one who's being tendentious here, and nobody else agrees with your view", "You keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, even though they've already been refuted by multiple users")

1. A quick look at the file history shows that it was last modified on 17 May 2014 and that the section "Digital manipulation: Why is this map used at all? (…) instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms?" was created by User:DHN on 1st June 2014. No change was made to the map between 1st June 2014 until I added the "Disputed factual accuracy" tag.
2. Representation of Sakhalin (as an example): even though Zanhe keeps affirming that "Old issues such Sakhalin have long been addressed", this is clearly not true. It is now 4 years since a contributor indicated that Sakhaline should be shown in gray, without any correction made afterwards. To the opposite, Zanhe claims that the outline of the map is similar to the one used in Oxford's Atlas of World History, while Sakhalin is clearly excluded from the Qing territory in this map. I tried to explain him that Sakhalin is not include in the Oxford map. In new attempt to justify the inclusion of Sakhaline, zanhe then cherry-picked four other historic map (all of them posterior to 1820, which is the year the "digital manipulation" is supposed to represent). Ironically, in 3 out of the 4 cherry-picked maps, the southern part of Sakhalin island is shown as belonging to… Japan!
3. As DHN mentioned in his last intervention, "countless anachronisms" do still persist on this map. As there were no further correction to the map afterwards, tagging its factual accuracy as disputed cannot be qualified as POV pushing. But removing this tag (1 and 2) is a clear attempt at denying the multiple anachronisms still affecting the map.--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

19th-century boundaries, unlike modern ones, were often vague and fluid, especially in remote wildernesses. As anyone can see in the dozens of 19th-century Qing maps presented in the Commons discussion by Popolon and myself, no two maps were identical, and people can always find fault with whichever map we use. Sakhalin is included in Qing in many maps, excluded in some, and half-included in yet others. Our map does include it, but clearly explains that it was claimed but unexplored (same situation as much of Siberia in 19th-century Russia). In any case, ANI is not the place for content disputes (which belong to the file talk page), but is for discussion of user behaviour, such as personal attacks, use of multiple accounts, and tendentious editing. -Zanhe (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Comptetemporaire2015: - why did you abandon the Pseudois account, and why have you now used 4 separate accounts? I'd be inclined to suggest you pick one and stick with it (I've blocked 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 and 6-A04-W96 by the way). GiantSnowman 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

He also uploaded pictures with wrong description, see here, , this picture was mainly used in french wikipedia, as a road signs in Xinjiang (Xinjiang road signs have arabian writing on them), this is motorway entrance in Xi'an, from center-city to a eastern suburb. If it is really the author of all its uploaded pictures (EXIF time removed), I don't understand, as is also uploaded Xinjiang pictures, like here File:Ghulja-Yining_city_center.png, how this confusion can be done, there is more than 1000 km between Xinjiang border and Xi'an. All of this contributions seems to be oriented against People Republic of China, and han chinese, and for Tenzin Gyatso (13th Dalaï-lama) PoV. Details about himself, including historians, and even pro-dalaï-lama sources), was removed in french wikipedia, or the sourced fact that Mongolian practices also other religions than tibetan bouddhism (practiced about 50% of the population) detail about relation between Tibet and of China (1912-1949, now Taïwan) or Chinese Empire (the maps problem) too. He tried to remove information about Tibet I added, that was not in this interest, like ask for deleting of a page about (Tibetan) highland barlay, milk tea (delete instead of move on the good section)), description about multilingual including tibetan signs in tibetan inhabited area of Yunnan (see), etc... This main behavior is to remove content due to minor error instead, of correct it or move it the good section. (his french page, until he removed it, september 24 goes clearly in this direction (chinese panel with english grammar errors, Which one is a false lama? with the picture of the lastest panchen-lama, that has no meaning looking at history of lama leader choices)). He added source needed on ~ 150 pages in a row, on any page I modified, even for only grammar purpose or ponctuation sign, including some already sourced articles that should not be bad outside the current context. breackage of an article about tibetan muslims two parts tibetans muslims and islam on tibet with reference removal, some missing references half broken and without any new information, and finally adding source needed on the first one (looks like disorganization purpose on anything about Tibet that isn't bouddhist without any advantage) Popolon (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a direct request from an admin to comment a specific point, I will abstain to comment this rather incoherent rant. Popolon, for your information, the "false lama" I was referring to is obviously the Vicuña, which, although being a camelidae, is not a lama. Get your biology right and do question your own bias in the way you perceive my contributions before continuing to insinuate everywhere that my contributions are biased. Thanks,--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks

User:Mrandrewnohome was blocked indefinitely in August for posting controversial anti-semetic material at the reference desks in the guise of asking questions.diff

He created an admitted sockpuppet User:Hadlad90 to protest being blocked, then erased that socked comment form his talk page.diff. (See also the suspiciously overlapping Special:Contributions/69.121.131.137)

He was advised "The reference desk doesn't exist to engage in arguments. Your actual editing work is fine, that's not problematic but stop it with the controversial questions here."diff

Mrandrewnohome then promised "It won't happen again" and was unblocked.

He has not edited the project since then (under this user name), except to resume posting concern troll questions about anti-semitic material at the ref desks which he promised not to do ever again:

• Nazi propaganda
• Hi, does anybody know if it's possible to acquire a translated version of the May 1934 issue of Der Sturmer, with the headline 'Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity'

We have articles on Der Stuermer and Der Giftpilz indicating their anti-semitic nature. This site, http://www.gailallen.com/rv/rv-vol-01-iss-07.html referencing the first item is typical in asking whether or not Jews are actually by necessity racist liars and murderers.

Hence after two months we have the same user returning not to edit the project, but again to seek commentary on what he says is a "university project".

This is a longterm pattern:

• Holocaust revisionism (a rambling essay)
• This is not intended as a racist post, and racist opinions are not welcome on it
• a prior argument at ANI that the preoccupation with anti-Semitism was based on a university thesis

Given the user has shown an ability to edit the project, but not to keep his promise to stay away from posting controversial questions on "Jewry" at the ref desks, I propose a narrow topic ban preventing posting any questions or comments at the ref desks regarding Jews and Nazism or related topics. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Look, I don't know. I warned him about asking those types of questions and while yeah asking for Nazi propaganda is out there, there aren't questions being asked or anything argumentative or even a posting of something inflammatory. It is two requests for things that while untasteful, still do exist. I don't see any commentary here at all, just a description of where a source for those items could be found. I'm not comfortable that asking to find Nazi propaganda should itself be considered grounds for presuming that someone actually agrees with the propaganda especially when there hasn't been a response and there hasn't been any editing in support of those sources. As I note here, there is examples to be found in the works of a professor at Calvin College so it's possible to find good faith in the university study argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no request that questions about antisemitism be blocked.

There's a request that a user who seems obsessed with the topic and unable to keep his promises of "never again" to be held to the words under which he was restored: a request that an admitted sockpuppeteer whose first edits under his own name after being restored violated that promise be held to his word

And a request that someone who posts images and texts libeling Jews for being Jews and naming non-Jews as Jews be narrowly blocked from bringing up the topic of Judaism and Nazism at the ref desks.

See, for example, the user's post of this BLP violating image (The un referenced image names 3/4 of the media and government as at least crypto-jews, if not "worse") when he last promised not to post controversial "questions" about Jews under the guise of University projects.

It should be quite obvious that no real university student would be referencing such blatantly racist WP:BLP violations without motivation. And the user has not gone back to editing WP as promised;

He has gone back to bringing up libels of Jews.

μηδείς (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem before was WP:NOTFORUM issue and baiting questions at the Humanities desk. There isn't anything of that matter at the moment to me. Someone who wanted to seriously work on the blood libel page would want to look for Nazi examples of the material for a reference. As to whether or not any real university student would refer to that material, it is the actual study by a real academic so it is material that can be studied. My undergrad had numerous people who picked extraordinarily controversial topics like that and I'd rather deal with people interested in that by pointing them to academics who can objectively call it garbage rather than just topic banning and immediately going after any discussion on the topic. But that's clearly a minority viewpoint here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from anything remotely connected with the "question" asked here. WP:AGF is wonderful but, particularly given the background, asking how to get a translation of the "Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity" is trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with that this seems like trolling more than posing legitimate questions. BMK (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban in the name of not feeding the trolls. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, this is getting ridiculous. Weegeerunner 16:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Would support indefinite ban if asked. Racism has no place here. Op47 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mrandrewnohome was notified of this discussion, but responded to me on my talk page rather than here. I advised him that he should respond at the ANI, and repeated my encouragement to him to edit productively, which he is eminently capable of and has done in the past. Perhaps Andrew would consider voluntarily promising to a topic ban? In any case, here is his comment on my talk page, and my response: "I know you think I'm a racist, but". μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place for someone who is indistinguishable from a troll to repeatedly ask questions about Jewish plans to destroy gentiles. The user can use the topic ban as evidence for their third year dissertation to note that some online communities do not encourage such nonsenses. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Request Admin Comment do we need an RfC or some other sort of discussion to institute this proposal? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd say any uninvolved admin can impose a WP:NOTHERE block. As to a topic ban, any uninvolved admin can impose an Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions such as that via a consensus of the noticeboard discussion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the usual Assume Bad Faith mentality from certain RD editors. Asking for the translation of an historic article is "obvious trolling". Spamming an antisemitic website on the other hand seems acceptable. Medeis placed that same link also on the talk page of the "accused". Does she think it is a WP:RS? Ssscienccce (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, @Ssscienccce:, but I don't really understand your comment. My concern is that the ref desks not be spammed with repeated antisemitic posts. The uninvolved editors above seem to agree with this concern, while the OP has chosen not to defend himself. I have explained that I don't want Mrandrewnohome blocked, but I do want him to stop posting antisemitic provocations at the ref desk. This is rather simnple. You come here and apparently cast aspersions at me, but you don't give diffs or links, so I am not really even sure what you are referring to. So not only can I not explain myself (assuming you think I should), but I can't even understand the general point you are trying to make. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother. I've had enough of wikipedia. Won't be coming back Ssscienccce (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wars with Flyer22 Reborn

Flyer22 Reborn has unjustifiably deleted my edits on the basis that edits should only reflect community consensus instead of actual peer reviewed publications made by scientists/researchers. In other words, he/she wants to control information on Misplaced Pages and will not allow others to contribute actual scientific data. Help resolve this issue so I can edit instead of getting reverted by this troll.

These are the pages I have edit wars with: , ,

Need your administrator assistance ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doe1994 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a routine content dispute, Doe1994, complicated by the other editor's accusations that you are a sockpuppet. Instead of denying that, you resorted to personal atttacks, calling the other editor a "bitch" and a "fucking troll". Your behavior has been far from exemplary. Please mend your ways. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment: the editor filing the complaint failed to follow the guideline above and notify user:Flyer22 Reborn, on her talk page, that this issue is being raised, instead pasting a broken link to the user page. I cannot speak for Flyer, but I seldom look at my user page unless editing it, so this user-page notice is insufficient to notify her that this issue has been raised here. (Another user has placed a courtesy note on Flyer's talk page, so presumably she will make an appearance here to discuss the reverts in question.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 User:Etamni Yeah, my bad I'm sorry I lost my temper and I'm sorry towards user:Flyer22 Reborn for calling her a "bitch". I am also a noob here so I don't have perfect knowledge how to notify people properly. However this issue is very critical because it shows there are some people like user:Flyer22 Reborn who is suppressing and restricting others from posting newer or relevant peer reviewed sources. As someone who is a regular follower of Peer reviewed journals, I find it unacademic that[REDACTED] allows individuals to restrict others from posting new official data. Flyer22's defence is that posts have to comply with community consensus which I find is irrational since that's not what the[REDACTED] rules says.The guidelines says you can post as long as the sources are valid. Community consensus should be frowned upon if peer reviewed sources outmatch any of their opinions. Doe1994 ]

Doe1994, the editor you are in a dispute with is not a troll by any definition of the term, and personal attacks will get you nowhere, except possibly blocked. Misplaced Pages operates on consensus, and railing against consensus is also unproductive. Not every peer-reviewed journal article is a good source, especially for any medical related article. We have a strong preference for review articles which analyze a large number of primary research articles. Please read and understand WP:MEDRS. In every Misplaced Pages article, editors working together are responsible for summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, not battling to get their favorite peer-reviewed article included as a reference. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there was a bit of aggression on both sides. I don't like editors who just revert edits "because a sock made them" without giving some other auxillary reason to back it up (eg: POV pushing, unsourced, BLP violations etc - I'm not saying you did this, these are just examples off the top of my head), and equally I don't like people who respond in kind. Reliable sources for medicine is not my thing, but from a quick look at the content, I would say that Cullen328 is correct in terms of content, and the sources you use don't look like highly respected medical journals. Start a discussion on Talk:Sex differences in psychology and stake your claim as to why the sources you use are suitable. Flyer22 is not out to get you, and when in a dispute, it is always best to put personal differences aside and focus only on content - it can be annoying at the best of times but it really is the only sane way to resolve things. tl;dr - Flyer22, don't revert for no reason (where have I heard that before?) based on content, Doe1994, don't dish out insults when you're angry. Are we done? Ritchie333 10:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to point out that Flyer22 has an excellent record in regard to recognizing sockpuppets. In my experience, she is right far more often then she is wrong. (In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any cases in which it was proven that she was wrong, just cases which have not yet come to fruition). BMK (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. If a sock made edits, and unless they're fixing vandalism or a BLP violation, I'm not expecting an auxiliary reason for a revert. Editors in good standing have enough to deal with without having to check the sock's edits for accuracy, NPOV, WP:V, etc. --NeilN 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I see to be in the minority of admins who can hand on heart say that I don't give a flying toss who made an edit as long as it improves the encyclopedia, and we have the whole cause / effect thing back to front. Socks don't really get their edits reverted because they're socks, they get undone because the behaviour that caused the original block has not been fixed in the sock and they revert to type. If this is a genuine long-term problem, somebody will be able to direct me at an earlier ANI thread and say "aw jeez, not this again". Ritchie333 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Some editors tend to see someone agreeing with someone they either know or consider a sockpuppet and draw the conclusion "Yep, that's another one." Not saying Flyer22 did that, necessarily, nor am I taking the OP's word against her. It's just something I've noticed in 12 years here, not a second of which was spent/wasted on sockpuppetry. Other editors tend to be pretty sharp with new editors or even older editors who slip up. It happens, and it's difficult to not react in kind, especially if the experienced editor in question has an itchy template finger - but I learned the hard way to not take an unjustified accusation, say, of editwarring personally. I wound up apologizing for (unjustifably) jumping into ANI to complain about being template-bombed on my user talk page with accusations of editwarring which were technically true.

I agree with Ritchie that the quality of the edit matters more than intuition or detective work pointing to an editor being a sockpuppet. I was falsely accused of it once, confronted my accuser and demanded he retract the accusation or bring it to an admin. That editor couldn't be bothered to either apologize or take it to the next level with an admin (I'd have welcomed either). The excellent point Ritchie made was to make good edits, regardless of what people think you might be. To which I add, if you're not a sockpuppet, unfortunately, no one's going to apologize for making a mistake in your case. Just consider what's in it for you here, and study the same stuff I haven't studied closely enough in 12 years of cleaning up content here. I'm going to relearn what I ought to have down cold by now. That's what you have to do. loupgarous (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that this user did not make helpful edits, he inserted poor quality material that was not suitable. It is also very inappropriate to say to another user "You're not a rad feminist or some troll are you?" as Doe1994 did at his talk page. A very brief review of the evidence shows we have a problem user trying to bully another and I heartily recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Granted, and please read my closing statements, in which I acknowledged my inadequate wiki skill set, encouraged the OP to do as I am doing and revisit the instructionals and guidelines here in WP. Misplaced Pages's not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND and I have no interest in taking a side in this particular battle. Nothing's solved by meting out "justice" to those who don't get the guidelines yet.

The OP apologized for his behavior toward Flyer22, by the way. I'd say that showed an intention to mend his ways. I agree with your points, but WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL come into it, too.

Quoting from WP:AGF: "Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (such as personal attacks) and content-based (such as adding original research). Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders. However, there will be disagreements on Misplaced Pages for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer. When disagreements happen, ill intent may not be involved. Keep a cool head, and consider dispute resolution if disagreements seem intractable; many of them are not." Just throwing that out there. loupgarous (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of almost everyone of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that everywhere to everyone and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey ho, Cebr1979. Let's tell the truth here, please, about her "accusing almost everyone of being a sock". I have interacted with her for several years, and she has never once accused me of being a sock. She has never accused any productive editor of being a sock. So, it seems that your definition of "almost everyone" is "all the disruptive, unproductive editors". That's because her attention is directed toward disruptive, unproductive editors. Show me a counterexample. You can't. So stop being disruptive, and all will be well. Repent, and improve the encyclopedia. Thank you in advance for your compliance. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Put the poms poms down, Cullen. Fine, let's change my "almost everyone" to "an awful lot of people" and... VOILA! The message is still true: In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of an awful lot of people of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that to an awful lot of people and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).Cebr1979 (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have interacted with Flyer22 occassionally on talk pages in the past (before she was reborn) without any problems, but Talk:Rick Grimes#Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources was a bit perplexing to me at the time, especially since the "makes me think that you are Marchjuly" part seemed to be really a bit of a reach. In hindsight, however, I realize her concerns were genuine and she was just basing them on her experiences in other similar situations. Moreover, she did apologize which is to her credit. Everyone has a bad hair day every now and then, and occassionally one's spider-sense goes on the fritz. I don't think commenting on another editor's behaviour (i.e., pointing out what you percieve to be a possible problem) is a bad thing as long as the discussion remains civil. So, if you're claiming there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior on her part, then I think you're going to have to be willing to provide more specifics (i.e., diffs) for others to see and assess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Go to her talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to need to be more specific than that. Nothing stands out at a glance. clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles

I'm not sure if here or WP:AN is the best place for this, but since I want as many editors (not just administrators) to weigh in on it, I've brought it here. User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.) has left three messages on my talk page, which concern his using Misplaced Pages to publicize his material, socking, how he can't be deterred, and his war against the anti-child sexual abuse crowd. See User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary for more detail. So I of course was disappointed and frustrated to see that Sadads restored two of his articles -- List of tools used in sex offender forensic psychological evaluations‎ and Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk, stating in the logs, "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." and "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." See this discussion for further detail. I told Sadads, in part, "I recognize in other ways that a WP:Notable topic should perhaps not be deleted. But as Alison, JamesBWatson, NeilN and others can tell you, we are dealing with a very serious sock/banned editor in this case, one who loves to publicize his work on Misplaced Pages, usually for shameful ulterior motives, and has openly declared a war against Misplaced Pages editors. And I don't see why it should at all be encouraged. I don't see that these articles or any other articles this editor creates are quality content; this editor's articles are usually based on one or two sources, are often non-notable, WP:POV forks, and/or don't comply with WP:MEDRS. If a topic is WP:Notable, we should leave it up to good editors to create, not editors like this one. I stated on my talk page, in part. "His latest post on my talk page was titled 'I can't be deterred; I can only be temporarily incapacitated'; if that were the case, he would not feel the need to rant on my talk page after I obliterate his socks and work. Deleting his work does deter him. And temporarily incapacitating him is also good. Just imagine the frustration and/or anger that exploded in him when seeing that I'd gotten all of his articles (which were a lot, and are now memorized by me...title-wise) deleted, except the remaining three that I will be sure to continue pursuing deletion for as well." The third article is Kurt Bumby. I think all the other articles were deleted; I'll check again at some point.

So my questions are this: Should we, under any circumstance, accept an article by this editor, especially given the aforementioned statements he posted on my talk page? For example, when the article is deleted under WP:G5, should it be restored because it's WP:Notable or perceived as WP:Notable by the administrator? Below are options and a discussion section for this matter, to help gauge different views. I'll alert Misplaced Pages talk:Sock puppetry and Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to this discussion.

Delete any new article by this editor, WP:G5-type or otherwise

• Support, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Partial support I guess but I object to the whole idea of any further arguments about this at ANI. This is not something that requires admin conduct other than in the pure technical issue of restoration. It's something that should be based on a consensus and not a consensus based on people who visit the drama board so to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Anyone restoring needs (a) to take full responsibility for the article and (b) to explain why proxying for a banned editor is a good idea. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per JohnCD. Banned users are not welcome to contribute to this project in any capacity, no matter what quality. If admins don't intend to enforce this ban, then stop pretending that it means anything and lift it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support There's no point having a policy if it's going to be ignored. Op47 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete only under certain circumstances

• Comment: The article would have to be pretty spectacular, and/or significantly expanded by a different editor for me to be okay with keeping it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The prior discussion involved a GA that people thought could become a FA, as an example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete non-WP:G5-compliant articles by this editor

Take the discussion elsewhere

• Delete them and take them to WP:DRV for separate discussions there. See below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with this but the question remains about what to do in the situation where an admin undeletes a G5 article unilaterally. My feeling is that the admin now takes responsibility for the content and any deficiencies. --NeilN 09:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Same situation, different CSD criteria, what's done? If an admin uniltarally undeletes a page speedied deleted under other criteria, say A7, I think that's a fair IAR and wheel warring dispute to bring back to ANI but wouldn't the article be re-deleted and then taken to DRV? I think we need to look at this on an article by article basis rather than a remedy on the editor basis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

When the last G5 issue came up, I stated that I did not believe that ANI is the proper location for these G5 arguments (whether or not it was an appropriate IAR to restore G5 articles). Same here again. G5 falls under the other CSD criteria and we have a system for discussing restoration following a CSD-based deletion, namely WP:Deletion review. This is the wrong venue and we need to come up with a more systematic way of handling these than just ANI arguments. It's too complicated for here. There is no reason why people should be using ANI discussions to formulate a consensus around G5 discussions when we have a much better place that already deals with restorations following A7, A1, and many other CSD deletions (including I believe wholesale deletions for copyright violations). It would also be a better place for someone to bring a new draft if they want to argue for restoration based on not using the G5 problem editor's work, much better than arguing it here at ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thank you. I understand what you mean, even though I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Would Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion be a good start? There is already Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Why_use_G5_for_useful_pictures.3F about images with G5. The issue is whether we want to change the wording for G5 (then WPT:CSD works) or just IAR to get around the literal meaning of G5 (at which point there's no real discussion place other than ANI for whether the IAR is appropriate). Let's see if anyone else cares about my point as no one seemed to last time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I was waiting to see what others had to state about all of this. Not much, it seems. So far anyway. Given that I alerted that talk page and the WP:Sockpuppet talk page to this discussion, and there has yet to be substantial commentary from those two pages on this issue, and since WP:ANI has many more eyes than those talk pages, I don't see how taking the discussion directly to the criteria for speedy deletion talk page would help. Also, for this discussion, my main focus is on this editor; there is not quite another like him. While there are editors who do not mind if content comes from a WP:Sock, especially if the content improves Misplaced Pages, I think they should mind when the content comes from an editor like this one. His WP:ArbCom ban is serious, and I can't go into all the details here, but I will state that I can't support a person like this (unless he reverted vandalism, or removed some other very problematic edit). He is not so much concerned with Misplaced Pages, as he is concerned with his own ego and promoting himself and his views. And, as far as I'm concerned, his poor articles are not an improvement, especially when they are WP:POV forks. That stated, I very much understand what you mean about issues like this needing a broader focus, especially so that we can perhaps get some changes made to our guidelines and/or policies on these matters.

Davidwr, regarding this, I appreciated the comment. Do you mind explaining why you removed it? I take it that you are reevaluating this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Davidwr responded to me via email, and I asked him before noting this here (if he was okay with me doing so). Also note that Tisane has replied again on my talk page. I've added it to User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary. It's the fourth reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have written an essay elsewhere about the counterproductive effects of deleting some good content by some banned users, where the work is unrelated to the reasons for the ban, and I can see both sides of that argument in some situations. But this individual is globally banned by the WMF Office, and from what I have seen, that is for very serious reasons. His current posts need to be brought to the attention of the Legal Department, which I will do, and people need to stop re-posting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I know that I thanked you via WP:Echo days ago for your post, but thanks again. The more editors who care about this matter instead of ignoring it (I don't understand how they can validly ignore it, other than being uncomfortable with matters relating to the topic of child sexual abuse), the more I appreciate Misplaced Pages. And, believe me, that appreciation is seriously low these days. One of the editors very familiar with this sockmaster reminded me via email that he is WP:WMF-banned in addition to being WP:ArbCom-banned. I was going to note that here before I saw your post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, I don't mean Davidwr by "One of the editors very familiar with this sockmaster"; I'm speaking of someone who doesn't edit Misplaced Pages anymore (not usually anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, I agree with the premise of your essay but as long as we continue with the "the only rationale to undelete is IAR", we'll never formulate a proper policy and actually change G5 to reflect what should be done. IAR just gives us an out so we have a strict G5 in writing but not in reality. Here, we are now debating this but what will the result be? Will an admin who closes this restore the content? If it's not restored, is that proper? Can another admin restore it if they want? Again, it shouldn't be IAR and a wholesale individual admin by admin approach but a policy that the content is deleted per G5 unilaterally and a mechanism for individual pages to be restored. The problem is the repeated conflating of the editor versus the pages and the content which is how this should be evaluated. Basically I'd treat it like an old copyright violation: if it can be recreated and restored, let's do so but if the content can't or it isn't valuable enough to bother, let's not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: et al.: Users who are banned by WMF office action are a special situation in which any flexibility that the community might otherwise decide to show in these situations is much less applicable. Thus, I don't think this is a good situation from which to try to extrapolate a general policy. Beyond that, there are a lot of other factors also requiring balancing, so I don't know that a broad general policy is really achievable in any event, although I agree we could discuss that somewhere else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov's POV-pushing and battleground behavior

The account Alexis Ivanov appears to be an single purpose account with the sole objective of pushing a Muslim point of view. Across numerous articles, the account engages in apparent vandalism by removing sourced content with no explanation, for example removing a sourced sentence about a massacre , or repeatedly deleting references to Muhammad accepting slavery , , edit warring to claim a region was ] , , , , edit warring to keep in positive opinions about Ali despite these being tagged for 1½ year , , . In addition to all of this POV-pushing across the board, efforts to discuss with the user on article talk pages just result in personal attacks ("You need to stop lying through your teeth and "You need to stop lying" ) in return.
In short As the user is not here to contribute, just to push their POV, I propose either an indef block or a topic ban for articles related to Islam and Muslim history. Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The first three edits/diffs are against policy. But: The edit on Cossack Hetmanate is backed up by two cites including a JSTOR article which can be checked. On Non-Muslim view of Ali, you are the one at fault, for gutting and article rather than doing what the tag said: "Please help improve the article by editing it to take facts from excessively quoted material and rewrite them as sourced original prose." Unless you're going to do that, leave the quotes as they are rather than gutting the article. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I respect your opinion (and you're welcome to talk part in the discussion I started at talk:Non-Muslim view of Ali but it's not about the content issue. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you must notify a user when you file an ANI case about them, and you haven't done this. You must do so, and you can use the template at the top of this page. You haven't provided any evidence that the editor is a SPA or is only here to push a Muslim POV. You have provided evidence that he has added sourced material and has replaced sourced material. You have also provided (only) three instances where he deleted valid sourced material, but you have also provided three instances of where you deleted valid sourced material. So I'd say it's a draw, and there is no case here. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC); edited 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I notified the user one minute after posting this discussion , so your accusation against me is entirely false. The diffs I posted clearly show the use deleting, not replacing as you claim , , . Yes, I removed material that had been tagged, I explained why in the edit summary and in the discussion. As for providing evidence that a user is a SPA, I showed that virtually all edits are in one single area. How else do you show a user is a SPA? Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I missed seeing your notification; I've striken that. The rest of my point stands, and there is no case here. You provided seven diffs of the user adding or replacing sourced material. The material you mass deleted (83% of the article) three times was not "tagged". There was a tag at the top of the article that suggested converting the material into prose, which you did not do. As far as showing the user is an SPA, he has made 550+ edits to 150+ articles. You have shown exactly three problem edits by him and three problem edits by you. There's no case here. Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Three times"? I removed it two times from the article (and explained why), after which I've tried to engage both Alexis Ivanov and you in a discussion. Alexis's answer was "You need to stop lying through your teeth (something you apparently didn't have a problem with), your answer was to give me your permission to edit Misplaced Pages . Neither of you have bothered to even discuss the undue issue. So that's falsely accusing me of not notifying Alexis, falsely accusing me of deleting material three times from the article I did remove similar material once from another article and refusing to discuss. Not a great display of admin intervention. Jeppiz (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- You gutted the article twice, and someone else did it in between. I'm not an admin. The three restorations were correct per WP:BRD. I have already discussed your claims of UNDUE on that talk page. If your only valid claims against the user are three deletions, and two talk-page posts which contain the word "lying", I'm afraid there's still nothing really actionable here; all of the article issues have been cleared up and if you want any changes to the Non-Muslim views of Ali article you are free to add to it or change the quotations to prose but not to gut the article without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: If someone appears uncivil or uses words like "lying", it's best to ignore that and focus only on content and policy. Often editors who are upset use less than civil language; confronting them about it generally only increases their upsetness. So it's best to work collaboratively with all editors, even those with whom you disagree, and focus solely on article content and Misplaced Pages policy, avoiding using the word "you" or specifically referring to the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• After the exchange above, I realize I may have expressed it badly. The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies, gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave some examples; I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges. The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect. While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about it. I don't really think it's the same as repeatedly removing material from several articles, deleting tags, and only discuss in terms of personal attacks. Jeppiz (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again this guy is lying again and again to push his won views and REMOVE a huge portions of the article, I never pushed any POV content, why you lying again through your dirty teeths, stop putting out again and again, the Cossack article was provided with SOURCES, the Muhamamd Slavery edit was taken after a user complained in the talk page and was backed sources from the same place the sources were taken and the issue was resolved at a user's talk page with no edit war. Your filthy attitude in Misplaced Pages is not welcomed and your failed attempt at bureacrcy and your petty blocking warning, not only are you willing to remove huge portions of the Ali's page you are willing to sneak up at me and stab with a knife at my back and undo all my edits in various articles, which as you know I will undo them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Alexis Ivanov sums up the problem. Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today , as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once) , and promising to continue in the same way. Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia? Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And on it goes . The fourth time the user refuses to discuss, just lashes out at me (and others) for disagreeing. We've really tried to discuss, but all we get are vile personal attacks in return, over and over again. Jeppiz (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies
The problem in my opinion is a user like you deleting huge portions of articles, because it doesn't meet his 50% positive and 50% negative quote and accused of undue weight and cherry picking without bring any evidence, it seems you are talking out of your ass and then you claim you are doing this and following policy?
>gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave some examples
>I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges.
But you are involving yourself right now and not only that you are willing to lie about me and accuse Muslim POV, those non-Muslim scholars that I backed up in the Cossack article that you lied through your teeth must be pushing Muslim POV, what an embarrassment
>The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect.
Those articles have reached a resolution, what warnings you are talking about, please go be a creep and dig deep as much as you want
>While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about
Only after you removed a huge portions of it and now you acting like a good boy, pathetic lies, why not start discussion FIRST, especially when you try and remove a whole page and now you are aiming to delete a page that discusses what is suppose to discuss.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So that's four accounts of calling me a lier, one of being a creep, one of being pathetic, one of talking out of of my ass. In just one comment. And that's the response I've got on every talk page when I've tried to address the articles with this user. Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today
Yes because you are lying when I see liers like you I point them out.
>as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once)
Again you are lying, I removed and EDITED and ADDED content, can you please stop lying to push your own POV content
>Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia?
Yes let's ask someone like you who is ready to delete articles and remove huge portions ? My record is out there in how I built Misplaced Pages and add content, you can always cherry pick what you want and accuse people of cherry picking Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Calling editors "scum" and accusing them of lying is unacceptable. Please stop that. Dr. K. 01:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will refrain from using that word Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Alexis. I appreciate your efforts. Best regards. Dr. K. 01:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov's promise to Dr.K. of refraining from such persona attacks did not hold even two hours, I'm afraid. Jeppiz (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Where was the personal attack, when I see lies I say the way it is. or do you want me to back of and say you are telling the truth. I refrained from personall attacks like SCUM, Son of a B and many more, Dr.K recommended me to refrain from such things and I'm doing it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks and vulgar insults. You certainly should refrain from that sort of name-calling. It's not just a matter of using specific words, though: "attacking" doesn't just mean "insulting", and accusing an editor of lying deliberately (nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies) could certainly be seen as an attack. I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here. Make of that what you will. LjL (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks and vulgar insults.
And that is why I refraining from them.
>(nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies)
That is exactly why I refrained them. I don't want to hurt his feeling.
>I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here.
How can I earn my good boy points back? I don't want you to get angry at me.
>Make of that what you will
YES SIR!! Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz, I and several other editors had a similar dispute with Alexis Ivanov last month, here, which illustrates that this is a pattern of behavior. The user similarly engaged in personal attacks against every other editor who contributed to the discussion. He, in fact, displays utter contempt for all others, with an aggressively WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section. Alexis Ivanov wanted the image to be removed, noting that it overlapped into the following section, and due to its content. Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment. Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling. This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP. Laszlo Panaflex (talk)

>While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz
Well it's not the same dispute so you don't have to lie about it.
> Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section.
What can I say I'm passionate about the Ottoman Empire.
>Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment
It was fixed because we reached a resolution.
>Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling
Did you expect me to give a kiss?
>This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP.
Well you can stop beating the dead horse anytime you want. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Along with this contemptuous response, Alexis Ivanov has also placed a message on my talk page, as well as reverting a edit I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article. As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>Along with this contemptuous response
How is it contemptuous?
>Alexis Ivanov has also placed a message on my talk page
I want to know if there is a problem you have with me that is personal, can't a man ask a question
as well as reverting a edit I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article
You didn't bring your case to the talk page to remove a source content, you simply cut it out. Now you are crying foul??
As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.
I'm here to build wikipedia, and my record speaks clearly. I have contributed to my fair share and won't have the likes of you, discarding it, your only excuse is the Ottoman article and now you are here to throw your low jabs, looking for your opportunity Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed. As I explained in edit summaries (1, 2), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced. Alexis Ivanov re-added the passage without explanation, then reverted and demanded I discuss on the talk page, when my reasons for removal were clearly stated. He offers no defense of the passage, simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here. This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed.
It's not an edit war, why you are going to assume bad faith, I'm trying to collaborate and discuss your problem with the name, or am I know allowed to edit your pages? let's discuss this as Misplaced Pages editors in the talk page, we can fix this article me and you.
As I explained in edit summaries (1, 2), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced.
Can you explain more in the talk page?
and demanded I discuss on the talk page
It's not a demand, it's being collaborative enviroment where we can discuss in the talk page why you want to remove the material and searching for better quality statements if you want to re-modify the statement.
when my reasons for removal were clearly stated.
You need to explain your reasons in depth in the talk page and I have started a new section in the talk page to talk with you.
He offers no defense of the passage
I did all you have to is clean the tears from your eye and stop crying and whining in here and go to the talk page, as I have explained Procopius of Caesareamentions the word Moors in his books. That goes back to the 6th century C.E.
simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here.
There is no retaliation, please assume good faith.
This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.
There is no battleground attitude, it's a dispute resolution attitude and reaching a consensus and understanding. All you are doing is assuming bad faith Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The reported user has aggressive behavior and battleground mentality. He abuses edit summaries and talk pages , , , , , , .--61.197.140.93 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As the user continues to edit war, and violating 3RR, just as they continue with their repeated personal attacks at several others users (I count at least 20 recent WP:NPA violations, I've reported the edit warring . Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The user was blocked by Bishonen for 31 hours, the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo, again violating WP:NPA immediately after the block. Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo
The first, second, third and fourth and many more numbers (until FIFTEEN) edits I did was my page, you are having this vendetta against me, and you are too eager to spread misinformation about me and push your own views while coming from the back and saying all these false things about me, while never putting yourself to follow the rules you seem to uphold
the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo, again violating WP:NPA immediately after the block.
I didn't violate any WP:NPA, you can go and read it yourself once you try your best to be non-biased and see there was no single instance of personal attack on the page? I had to start my own investigation to understand if he had a personal problem with me in his own talk page and I committed any wrongdoings while I was discussing with him, you are too quick to reach hasty conclusion about me, I would refrain from such tactics. That puts you on the negative spotlight. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I can read it for myself, yes: you accuse him of lying. You were previously told not to do that. Then you were blocked. Smart people learn from the outcomes of their past behavioral patterns. LjL (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>you accuse him of lying.
Are you saying I should LIE and tell him he was being honest? These are not mere accusation these were statements on how I felt before and I quote "It's also equally difficult when people lie to me and accuse me of wrongdoings"
>Smart people learn from the outcomes of their past behavioral patterns
And I did what evidence do you have I didn't, I followed all the rules laid out in the Misplaced Pages guidelines once my blocking was expired? COME ONAlexis Ivanov (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the attack directed at Laszlo Panaflex , Alexis Ivanov also accused another user of lying . So that's two cases of accusations of lying/dishonesty from a user barely back a few hours from a block that was partly the result of frequent accusations of "lying" directed at several users. As LjL says, the user does not seem to learn regardless of warnings and blocks. Jeppiz (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>In addition to the attack directed at Laszlo Panaflex
There was no attack directed at Laszlo SO PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION
>also accused another user of lying .
That was no an accusation that was a fact, when Iryna accuses me of provided Ottoman spin on Historical articles, you make sure your don't talk, but when I reply providing my evidence you scream and attack me? Yes I assume I should let people lie about me and my character and my contribution to Misplaced Pages in the historical articles.
>the user does not seem to learn regardless of warnings and blocks.
Getting blocked doesn't mean that you should stop and spread your butt cheeks so others can violate you! It means you should follow the Misplaced Pages guidelines as per stated in the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines pages and I did to the 100% fullest of my effort, I just got couple guys like you on my back all the time, quick to be pedantic and equate showing the way people lie about you as personal attack. So what other political correct word should I use instead of the word Lie which is being pushed by the sensitivities of Jeppiz? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should not comment on others at all. If you don't know the difference between discussing and insulting, better play it safe and avoid it. Any time you want to comment on another user, ask yourself if it's necessary. Jeppiz (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>Perhaps you should not comment on others at all
Perhaps you shouldn't spread misinformation about me, You and others. I hope those words are politically correct I;m using, I want to be as sensitive to you as possible 100% and respect your mental health and well-being as a human being who founds every word I say a personal attack.
>If you don't know the difference between discussing and insulting
I know the difference it's not my fault that you have vendetta against me and write biased statements and spread misinformation about me. Surely a high level and well-respected person like you would understand, from my point of view. Or not.
>better play it safe and avoid it.
I don't play at all.
>Any time you want to comment on another user, ask yourself if it's necessary.
And I did, again your view of the world is not the center of the universe, you have a personal problem with me and eager to expand on it to block me or ban me. All this because you disagree how to handle with the Ali page and you dare accuse me and then stalk around me. I know your personal policy is if someone is spreading misinformation just let them do it Unless your name is Jeppiz then you are allowed to break all rules Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave this discussion for now, I think the issue is quite clear. Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's extremely clear, all you have to do was follow the Misplaced Pages Civility guidelines and we would have a better Ali article, instead of a firestorm. and again I hope my words are not a personal attack, and that I'm sensitive towards your well being. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to Laszlo Panaflex and Jeppiz for taking so long to join in on the discussion regarding this user's relentless and aggressive, WP:BATTLE behaviour. I'm feeling a little tired out by combative, POV new editors of late and thought it merely a matter of time before WP:ROPE kicked in. This new editor is WP:NOTHERE, simply cherry picking his/her way through articles having found some sort of evidence that everything in history revolves around being attached to the Ottoman Empire. S/He has even only just left a pre-emptive strike on my own talk page (here) after I'd tried to ignore a barrage of attacks including ethnic slurs and, well, pretty much everything you can hurl at another editor starting from here to here, here, here, and .

I'd responded to the very first missive asking that it be taken to the talk page of the article in question (my response). Alexis Ivanov has no interest in engaging with issues surrounding what is DUE or UNDUE in an infobox (please see the Cossack Hetmanate article's talk page here and here). It is simply impossible to engage with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN when one tries to explain policies and guidelines. Resultantly, I'm trying to get on with other work on Misplaced Pages and leaving the article covering the 'Rus State 1649–1764' - with huge, undue allusions to Protectorate Status under the Ottoman Empire sitting directly under the name of the state. It's going to have to wait because I truly don't want to have to deal with another editor of this character again for a few days at least. Anyone who knows the first thing about the Zaporizhian Host would laugh at the irony, but I'm not going to go into details as to how ridiculously misleading this is as it's not a content dispute. Plainly put, I don't think this user has the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here full stop. Someone who can't get past "I would like to move forward and improve this article and continue reading about the Cossack and Ottomans. Unless you want to threaten me again" and "I don't have the rest since my focus is only between Ottoman Empire and the Cossack Hetmante, I have no interest in other countries, I was reading about their relationship specifically which intrigued me." is not interested in 'getting' how Misplaced Pages works. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>I'm feeling a little tired out by combative, POV new editors of late and thought it merely a matter of time before WP:ROPE kicked in.
I know y'all like hating on new people, but I ain't new, been here since June , but as usual discirmination against new comers is allowed, while patting on the the back for the veterans is encouraged.
>This new editor is WP:NOTHERE, simply cherry picking his/her way through articles having found some sort of evidence that everything in history revolves around being attached to the Ottoman Empire.
Again with the misinformation , didn't we talk about and settled it. Please stop from spreading MISINFORMATION about me, you never took the time, to see all the edits I have done since coming here and quick to give a pro-Ukranian twist. Where was the cherry picking??? Giving specific dates of the vassalage? after relentless source checking and finding?? Not only that I got you 3 different sources????? and you still angry that Bogdan asked to be the slave of the Ottoman Sultan???? The only thing you want here is for Bogdan to come out from his grave and confirm his historical actions this is simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
>S/He has even only just left a pre-emptive strike on my own talk page (here)
I'm pretty sure I'm a male, but you can accuse me of being a female all you like. Secondly there was no pre-emptive strike, I asked you to stop spreading MISINFORMATION about me, and accusing me of giving "a slanted Ottoman Empire spin" which is a HUGE MISINFORMATION, with your logic if I read about the Mongol Empire and edit the Kiev page on the date of the battles they lost, I must be giving "a slanted Mongol Empire spin", anyone who isn't pro-Ukranian must be against you, I don't abide by these false dichotomy claims you write about me.
>pretty much everything you can hurl at another editor starting from here to here, here, here, and .
Please for the love of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, stop playing the victim, PLEEEEEEEEEASE. This victim mentality that you are playing is not working.
>I'd responded to the very first missive asking that it be taken to the talk page of the article in question (my response).
And what did I do, I packed my good boy bag and went to work, followed the guidelines, assumed good faith edit from you and fixed the refrences, since you were right my refrecnes was bad I refrences the whole JOURNAL, I picked the article, the pages, the author, and the whole date, issue and volume, so PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION about me
>Alexis Ivanov has no interest in engaging with issues surrounding what is DUE or UNDUE in an infobox (please see the Cossack Hetmanate article's talk page here and here).
Why are you spreading misinformation again?????
>It is simply impossible to engage with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN when one tries to explain policies and guidelines.
FROM DAY ONE I showed respect to you, and you showed me no respect and disrespected, even after following the rules you laid out you still disresepct? and now you are playing the victim, Have you ever asked yourself why User:Faustian, never disrespected me and why I never disrespect me, because I followed the GOLDEN RULE. Me and him/her had a discussion and it went well, but you are too eager to show disrespect upon other users at the same TIME, SPREADING MISINFORMATION that will fuel further problems, instead of bringing people together , you can learn a lot more from User:Faustian, one of the best Misplaced Pages editors out there.
>Resultantly, I'm trying to get on with other work on Misplaced Pages and leaving the article covering the 'Rus State 1649–1764' - with huge, undue allusions to Protectorate Status under the Ottoman Empire sitting directly under the name of the state
There is nothing UNDUE, except the fact that you don't like the article, and you are willing to censor history and accuse others being pro-Ottoman, just because you read doesn't make you pro or anti of any .
>It's going to have to wait because I truly don't want to have to deal with another editor of this character again for a few days at least.
Or you know we can have a civilized discussion and show me some respect and I will show you some respect. Again please stop spreading misinformation and playing the victim here
>Anyone who knows the first thing about the Zaporizhian Host would laugh at the irony
You mean anyone who knows how to be a pro-Ukranian biased Zaporizhian Host would understand and laugh?? Of course they would, you know all these qualified historian who I backed up are pro-Ottoman BAD PEOPLE who know nothing.
>but I'm not going to go into details as to how ridiculously misleading this is as it's not a content dispute.
Well we can fix the article in it's own talk page and talk about it.
>Plainly put, I don't think this user has the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here full stop.
That is actually a good tactic, disagree me with on the Cossack page and suddenly I;m the devil, by removing you can remove the edits and so on, GENIUS and push your own biased opinion, you know what I think this is a good tactic, when the article had the Russian vassal;age there was no single peep from you at all, make sure your slavic neighbor get's a free point not only that it was no citation, WOW, and when I came here after reading a book, to add the references, you rain down on me and showed the most disrespect a person can show to others, well I became patient the same way Bogdan did and followed WP rule to fix the article and still you are here showing no single aspect of respect and willing to disrupt wikipedia
>Someone who can't get past "I would like to move forward and improve this article and continue reading about the Cossack and Ottomans. Unless you want to threaten me again"
what is wrong with those words, as I said I wanted to move forwards and I gave you my hand, a hand of friendship and after you slapped my hand you are quick to become the victim??
>"I don't have the rest since my focus is only between Ottoman Empire and the Cossack Hetmante, I have no interest in other countries, I was reading about their relationship specifically which intrigued me." is not interested in 'getting' how Misplaced Pages works.
You are misrepresenting my words. Just because you don't know about the Han Dynasty doesn't mean you can't edit the pages. if you see a mistake, this was the example I was using, I have gained some knwoeldge of the Cossacks and Ottomans dealing, the focus is between the two and their relationship, and I came here to modify the article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Block Already the users first edits show a detailed knowledge of user talk and sandbox pages, indicating a returned editor, and his first mainspace edit diff is the vandalism of a real reference. Any admin that spends 30 seconds looking at this should block this sock indefinitely. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The first edit in that sequence is very revealing. Remarkably proficient for a virtual newbie. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>Ah, yes.
Ah, NOPE
>The first edit in that sequence is very revealing.
It reveals how bad I was, I actually botched the references, since I was getting used to the visual editor. I also forgot to mention I used to edit for a Naruto wiki PAGE before venturing in this Misplaced Pages I just remembered now and I can provide evidence by commenting on my naturo user name from the Naruto Wiki, I have some basic Misplaced Pages skills.
>Remarkably proficient for a virtual newbie.
Those non english Wiki edits are actually new and was part of my outreach to understand what was the difference and how they view things, I think Russian Misplaced Pages is the most interesting, I also am not a virtual newbie since I was part of the Naruto Wiki page. from December 2014 till January 2015 and here is my user name and contribution, hopefully you see this. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Don't Block >the users first edits show a detailed knowledge of user talk and sandbox pages
  WRONG, I played around the talk page and sandbox area and I still have some sandboxed, my Misplaced Pages knowledge was very low, I played that Misplaced Pages adventure game only 2 missions I believe and then started playing around, before going to edit articles, I still use the sandboxes because it gives me idea how Misplaced Pages operates like in the references and templates, I also followed the Misplaced Pages cheatsheet. So please stop spreading misinformation about me.
  >indicating a returned editor, and his first mainspace edit diff is the vandalism of a real reference.
  You are accusing me of things I have never done, I don't have or done any socket puppet thingy ever, and my first edit came after reading about about an article about Hongwu Emperor and I was checking about his birth and I fixed the[REDACTED] article, you can thank me later and updated the references by providing it from the Cambridge history China.
  >Any admin that spends 30 seconds looking at this should block this sock indefinitely
  Anyone with a piece of brain that goes back to my user page and talk page and the sandboxes will see how innocent I am in the regard of my first edit, you are accusing me of things I HAVE NEVER DONE and implying I have socket or a returned user???? I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Also here is the third page I ever created after my first and second pages which were the user and talk, editing a sandbox wasn't that hard, I learned after finding about sandboxes by some users (User:Example/Sandbox) BEFORE creating that page and the only thing I did was type the Hongwu Emperor next to my name, it wasn't rocket science. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not rocket science... Perhaps you can explain why it is so difficult for you to read and understand policies, guidelines and questions posted regarding your edits on article talk pages... Or why, after being asked to be civil my numerous editors, you persist in harassing editors claiming that you are the one being bullied. If you have the intelligence to work out how to do thing that you want to do (from creating templates to anything else that appeals to your interests) why do you appear to have such difficulty in learning the basic principles of editing Misplaced Pages? It seems that you're WP:NOTHERE for anything other than what you want to push, nor do you feel any sense of embarrassment or remorse for being appallingly abusive to anyone who dares to question the quality of your input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>Not rocket science
As in not rocket science in editing[REDACTED] as I have been editing the prior year in NarutoPedia.
>Perhaps you can explain why it is so difficult for you to read and understand policies, guidelines and questions posted regarding your edits on article talk pages
I try to educate myself at the best of my ability and I showed you when I changed the reference in the Cossack page. But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?
>Or why, after being asked to be civil my numerous editors, you persist in harassing editors claiming that you are the one being bullied.
And afterwards I was blocked and learned from my mistakes. Where was the harassment? When someone is out there tarnishing your image you have the right to comment about it.
>If you have the intelligence to work out how to do thing that you want to do (from creating templates to anything else that appeals to your interests) why do you appear to have such difficulty in learning the basic principles of editing Misplaced Pages?
I never implied or said I have the intelligence. I am ware of my past mistakes, I just not fond of how you treat your fellow Editors and you are the one who started all this mess and even when the mess was resolved you want to bring it up here and cause more turmoil, I know your end game which isn't about civility compared to User:Faustian who showed me the utmost respect a one can be granted in the same talk page, so what is wrong with you? The qurstion should be directed at you, it is not as you have a history of INNOCENCE, a one look at your record show me how you have dealt with people.
>It seems that you're WP:NOTHERE for anything other than what you want to push
WRONG YET AGAIN, I'm here to improve Misplaced Pages and I'm indefinitely here to help, I'm here to push non-biased facts about history but you are characterizing me as pro-Ottoman? simply because of the Cossack page? With the same logic you espouse, creating the Polish-Ottoman war campaign-box, BY YOURS TRULY (me!), THAT WOULD BE some weird pro-Polish or Pro-Ottoman depending on your mood today?, I'm here to build an encyclopedia
>nor do you feel any sense of embarrassment or remorse for being appallingly abusive to anyone who dares to question the quality of your input.
What sense of embarrassment??? I'm pretty sure those are private thoughts, it's not my problem your view of the world and your inability to read my mind is not up to par and vastly different and on top of the influences by your hatred, anger and disrespect towards me. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of my innocence, User talk:Medeis you need to man up and apologize Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Man up and apologize"? Methinks the lady doth "But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?" protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>"Man up and apologize"?
Or don't, nobody is forcing you, it is very good we have people like you spreading misinformation about other users, your quality is what makes Misplaced Pages great, please sir continue in your personal crusade you have against me without backing any evidence.
>Methinks the lady doth "But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?" protest too much.
Methinks that wasn't a protest, that was a statement directed at people like you, no matter how many evidence I bring forth to protect myself from MISINFORMATION there will always be some disrespect from you and others, I mean I have already put down the rumor you have created about me in mere seconds, yet you are still here, if I have done that to you I would be banned, the soul standard is very clear. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, Alexis Ivanov, I don't care whether you're a newbie or a returned editor evading a block. Please stop leaving more and more messages on my talk page in order to 'prove' that you're innocent of something. What this ANI is about is your ongoing, relentlessly abusive, aggressive and disruptive behaviour, and the fact that you refuse to pay attention to any attempts to discuss the pertinence of your contributions but, instead, follow on with WP:WALLSOFTEXT constantly casting WP:ASPERSIONS, ethnic slurs, being abusive... the list of WP:NOTHERE goes on and on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>Frankly, Alexis Ivanov, I don't care whether you're a newbie or a returned editor evading a block.
You cared enough to believe in the rumors, as I said I'm from Narutopedia which I was there for one year and afterwards started to go on Misplaced Pages and established myself hear created a user page, talk page, sand-box to learn how to use the "edit source", so once I proved my innocence now it is "I don't care", thank you Iryna for believing in me and giving me a chance for my freedom and innocence, it is lovely having people like you who don't care and are ready to jump on the wagon.
>Please stop leaving more and more messages on my talk page in order to 'prove' that you're innocent of something.
Well I had to talk to you and prove my innocence, in your own talk page so you can understand the severity of the accusations lead against me. I wanted you to understand.
>What this ANI is about is your ongoing, relentlessly abusive, aggressive and disruptive behaviour, and the fact that you refuse to pay attention to any attempts to discuss the pertinence of your contributions but, instead, follow on with WP:WALLSOFTEXT constantly casting WP:ASPERSIONS, ethnic slurs, being abusive... the list of WP:NOTHERE goes on and on.
Oh my sweet Iryna? Why you have to hurt my feeling like that, this is a personnel crusade started by Jeppiz becuase he didn't like the way Ali article was going on then afterwards came here accusing me of being POV pushing, even though there were people agreeing with me on the Ali page then stated stalking me around and editing behind my back and slowly putting a knife through me, and pretending innocent, and then you got Lazslo who had a personal issue with me on a picture placement of an article who wanted to come here and make his points and then called you so you can come here and fuel the fire while he left so you can continue doing his job and throw more misinformation towards me, I'm here to build an encyclopedia and make Misplaced Pages a better place. Also what ethnic slur did I use? I'm pretty sure you are Australian, I have nothing against Australian people, especially Australian of Ukrainian descent. I mean your community is well-established Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Also my dear Iryna you are accusing me of "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children" in your WP:ASPERSIONS also your wall of text accusation is again wrong, how many I suppose to prove my innocence towards you. Someone in your age should understand this Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How long will this go on? After being blocked by Bishonen and returning less than 24h ago, Alexis Ivanov has already violated WP:NPA umpteen times, including here on ANI, against (at least) Laszlo Panaflex, Iryna Harpy, Medeis and myself. The above accusation of me being on a pesonal crusade is yet another example. I think the WP:ROPE given to Alexis Ivanov is long enough already, the user clearly cannot cooperate with anyone. Jeppiz (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Also my dear Iryna... Someone in your age should understand this?" Enough is enough. GAB 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That was proper English etiquette , in what way was the bad? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur, enough walls of text from this disruptive/combative user. I've seen their sort "everyone is out to get me" ("and I will edit war and insult to show it") attitude too often. LjL (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ljl please, is there an arbitrary limit for the words I can express myself and defend my innocence? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, every post by Alexis seems intended to insult. After the block, the new strategy seems to be sarcasm ("Oh my sweet Iryna? Why you have to hurt my feeling like that"), martyrdom ("talking me around and editing behind my back and slowly putting a knife through me") and patronizing ("Someone in your age should understand this?") And all of that can be found on ANI(!) in just the last hour. Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Every post I made post-Block was as civil as possible, I can't help it that you have biased opinion on me and working on misinformation. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A conservative tally by me yields a whopping 16 examples of personal attacks and incivility, at minimum. All on this thread. GAB 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Are those post block???? Please count again and you will find ZERO Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>How long will this go on? After being blocked by Bishonen and returning less than 24h ago
The block didn't say you are not allowed to defend yourself against accusation by other editors, or are you against freedom of speech and willing to censor me after blocking me? One editor went as far as accuse me of being a sock puppet, surely you will not sit idly and what I did was prove my innocence against you and others.
>Alexis Ivanov has already violated WP:NPA umpteen times, including here on ANI, against (at least) Laszlo Panaflex, Iryna Harpy, Medeis and myself.
I didn't violate any WP:NPA, and continued to be a civil editor, doing what I do best which is making Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia.
>The above accusation of me being on a pesonal crusade is yet another example.
Are you implying you have no problem with me, when in fact you stalked me on many Misplaced Pages pages after you got angry at me on the Ali and the Ali Quote pages which resulted on me being blocked. I'm here to prove my innocence and restore my freedom.
>I think the WP:ROPE given to Alexis Ivanov is long enough already, the user clearly cannot cooperate with anyone.
There is no rope, I have cooperated with many editors, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I didn't. Hopefully you can open your eyes and see for yourself Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Oh dear, here we go again with a prime example of going beyond WP:NOTGETTINGIT to simply not even paying attention to any form of explanation. We've already been through the WP:ASPERSIONS bit. "ASPERSIONS" was alluded to by me here. Alexis Ivanov looked at the wrong paragraph and responded here, thinking that I was pointing to "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children". I clarified "ASPERSIONS" here. Alexis Ivanov responded with this... and is still not actually paying attention to what "ASPERSIONS" means. As I've already observed, how does one even communicate with someone like this.

As regards asking me my age on my talk page, I'm not even going to go there because I don't think this person comprehends anything beyond their own myopic universe, therefore I hold no hopes of their being interested in why such things are a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies. (But, just in case, I'll point to WP:PRIVACY for his edification.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>Oh dear, here we go again with a prime example of going beyond WP:NOTGETTINGIT to simply not even paying attention to any form of explanation.
I paid attnetion to every accusation and misinformation you laid against me, someone of your age and tenure should understand how the world operates and simple misinformation could be met with defense of innocence by other users, I get everything you say, so now please don't censor me when I try to prove my innocence.
>We've already been through the WP:ASPERSIONS bit. "ASPERSIONS" was alluded to by me here. Alexis Ivanov looked at the wrong paragraph and responded here, thinking that I was pointing to "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children". I clarified "ASPERSIONS" here. Alexis Ivanov responded with this... and is still not actually paying attention to what "ASPERSIONS" means. As I've already observed, how does one even communicate with someone like this.
When I clicked on the link it gives me "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children", I was also being civil and trying to congratulate on your birthday and may you live a long life, excuse me of being civil. I wasn't trying to annoy you at all, notice I didn't ask for your age. I was showing the utmost respect to a senior editor Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing ANI

As if the 16 WP:NPA violation on ANI alone counted by GAB weren't enough, now Alexis has moved to vandalizing ANI as well . There seems to be a complete consensus among all users who have commented that Alexis is WP:NOTHERE, perhaps an admin could step in before this escalates even further? Jeppiz (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, the sure was willing to accuse me of sock puppetry and then twist my words after I posted my evidence of innocence in his talk page so we can put this rumor behind us but he still standing and he will go of course UN-punished since you know it's okay to discriminate against the new guy and bullying is way to welcome new editors who are here to prove themselves innocent. WHICH I DID, in case you are interested, but as usual it will fall on deaf ears and I will be painted the monster I am, GREAT. Also the 16 WP:NPA are simply wrong, it means ZERO, post-block that you have manufactured against me Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep going on like this when everybody can see for themselves exactly what you did? You removed part of the user's comment about you, and you completely rewrote another part. That is vandalism pure and simple. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The other user intentionally misrepresenting my words to make it seem like as a "long unwelcome essay", how would you feel if someone accused you of doing things you have never done and then you posted on their talk page so they can understand how you are an innocent and then instead of that want they want you to be worse of and continue misrepresenting the words you were mentioning. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh stop it. The user had asked you not to post on their talk page. You did it anyway. Therefore, it was unwelcome. They moved it here. You maliciously changed what they had posted. You are not supposed to edit other people's posts like that. Are you trying to collect all possible breaches of policies? LjL (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The where should I post it? That makes no sense, I want to speak with him one -on - one to tell him his accusation against me are wrong and post the proof of my innocence. It is hardly anything over the top.
>You did it anyway.
So where should I post my comment? Is there another talk page dedicated
>Therefore, it was unwelcome. They moved it here.
And misrepresent my words by calling "long unwelcome essay", it's no surprise you are on his side, and willing to paint me as guilty.
>You maliciously changed what they had posted.
maliciously?? It was honestly
> You are not supposed to edit other people's posts like that.
I understand even if people lie at you and misrepresent your words you can't edit their words and User:GiantSnowman told me on my talk page and I never changed his misrepresenting words anymore.
>Are you trying to collect all possible breaches of policies
No do you have a personal vendetta against me???? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is going around in circles, and you keep adding more people to your list of people who in your opinion are "out to get you". The situation is pretty clear, despite your walls of text (but yes, I know, now you're going to add another wall of text saying "yes, it's clear, it's clear that everyone is out to get me blah blah"). Yawn. LjL (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>This is going around in circles, and you keep adding more people to your list of people who in your opinion are "out to get you".
You are right these people are trying to help me by spreading misinformation about me, I should be thankful.
>The situation is pretty clear, despite your walls of text
Is there an arbitrary number of words I should follow that limits my post on Misplaced Pages when responding to people's accusation about me??? I will gladly follow such rules?
>but yes, I know, now you're going to add another wall of text saying "yes, it's clear, it's clear that everyone is out to get me blah blah"). Yawn.
But no I didn't do that, because;e it's "it's clear, it's clear that everyone is out to help me blah blah". YAWN AND THEN burp Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Alexis Ivanov has been building a case against himself more effectively than the OP ever could have dreamt of. He's been given enough rope. Block already. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please hat this thread? I'd do so myself, but would prefer not to as I'm involved. Bishonen blocked the user for one week on November 9th for breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:DE. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC) On second thoughts, I'm striking this request as I'd rather let it stand as is. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Aryanprince

• Aryanprince (talk · contribs)
• 37.122.177.152 (talk · contribs)

The user (one user, does not sign himself) continues, despite warning, to restore an older unstable revision to the article Serbs. Compare revisions. On 20 September the IP restored a section on the ethnonym of Serbs, which includes various theories (see Names of the Serbs and Serbia), a section on DNA results (see Genetic studies on Serbs), a section on "identity" but which does not include such information (I have since created National identity of Serbia), in place of the summarized "ethnology"-section (from March) which includes interlinks to each article for further information, as the unstable revision included claims and data which has no academic concensus, but is still included in the respective articles. In my subsequent reverts, I used the summary and commented "unconstructive", "disruptive".

I reverted when I noticed it on 7 October. The user reverts it on 13 October, I then revert on 19 October, welcome and noticed, without a word from him, he then contacts me today 23.20, reverts 23.22, I message him 23.25, then revert 23.25, awaiting to initiate a discussion, he contacts me in 23.31.

Here comes the incident. In Serbo-Croatian, specifically Montenegrin, he says "I am telling you (more like English "You, listen to me", an order, which marks his language), the Genetics must be at Serbs as it always has. That links exist does not matter, many things have their own pages then they exist in specified size in other articles. That which is linked there nobody reads, only that which stands in the main article. And don't you tell me nothing for the last time because Misplaced Pages was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother (insult) so that you may establish order here. Don't in any event undo me once more that which is nicely referenced because I will make you a "party" here have you understood me? (threat)

He then reverted again in 23.32 (2RR). After this, I started tracing him. Apart from this "conflict", the user (IP) has earlier made uncivil comments, such as:

• "... (English translation: "Shame on you and you should be ashamed of yourself for everything you do, you found yourself here to cover up the name of Novak Djokovic. You are worse than these from the Serbian Misplaced Pages") ... you are lier. The only reason here is Djokovic's homeland. Western facists can not stand the fact that a Serb from "nowhere", as they say, is winning their tournaments ..."
• "-Nationalistic speech- ... I don't want to sign to Misplaced Pages because I don't want to participate to your mass media encyclopedia and propaganda. Your Misplaced Pages is nothing but the written word of the USA and GB imagination of the how the World should look like, and everyone knows that their World is twisted as their minds."
• 95.155.24.199 (talk · contribs): "but don't worry nothing lasts forever nether will you and your propaganda."

So to summarize, as I've understood it, the user has a nationalistic agenda, trying to use the unstable revision (the theories on ethnonym and DNA results) as "proof" that the neighbouring peoples are Serbs, and that the Serbs are an antique people. That is why he insists on the unstable revision. He is simply WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote many times you translated wrong and you didn't translated it correctly only to accuse me for what I didn't wrote. But to make it easier for you I will write it on English here and now. Yes, Misplaced Pages is propaganda when it comes to Serbs. A simple example is the two you mentioned. Novak Djokovic is the sole article which name is not written on native language (special characters). A sole tennis player, sole human being whose name you didn't wrote with the special characters. And guess what, he is a Serb. Another thing is Serbian genetics. 95% nations on Misplaced Pages, in their articles they have Genetics sub theme where their Genetics is written. Serbs had them too until few months ago. Then someone came and in two clicks removed Serbian genetics in their main article. I have to tell you that this genetics research was done by European Union, it is on their Official Website. Everything was referenced, written correctly (not by me, by someone other, long time ago). Then one day I saw someone removed it, and I undone the removal. Since then this started. And I will tell you why that happened. The research proves that the Serbs have the most Haplogroupe I2 (Illyrian genetics) in Europe. Variating from minimum 30% to maximum of 60% in Herzegovina. Someone does not like this fact. That is why they delete it. Things like this are standalone proofs that Misplaced Pages is Serbian antipropaganda. In addition I have to tel you that I don't expect nothing from this what I wrote. The decision has already been premade. My account is going to be banned because I am Serbian. But I couldn't care less, only thing that matters to me is my pride and arrogance. You see, I am arrogant even in this situation. This is what you will never feel. My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles. --Aryanprince (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Aryanprince, do I understand you correctly? If you are banned you will return using other accounts or editing from an IP address? Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like a declaration of intent to me. The comments about Novak Đoković appear spurious, as there's no attempt to whitewash either Djokovic's Serbian nationality or the native spelling of his name; Novak Djokovic is the common English-language spelling of his name, and he uses that spelling of his name in his professional life, see -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Common English spelling is also Bjorn Borg but on Misplaced Pages you still use special characters as Björn Borg, for him and another 100 000 articles. --Aryanprince (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

He continues at Serbs.--Zoupan 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And again.--Zoupan 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

First I thought that this was a simple Serbian nationalist. Now I see that it is an illusionist. Here are some edits from 95.155.27.190 (talk · contribs) with strikingly similar patterns (nationalism, unsigned), though with an opposite stance and sloppy with punctuations, in 2012: Here he changes Nemanjić dynasty from "Serbs" to "Montenegrins". Here he comments to an user: "Knowingly or not,you are supporting Serbian nationalistic rhetoric on Duklja article.But ok,some day eventually the truth and common sense will prevail". Here he comments about Duklja: " Somehow Serbs(It is obvious that Serb wrote this article,like so many other articles about history of Montenegro)conclude that this means that Duklja was Serbian land???Needless to say that majority of the Duklja population were Roman Catholics unlike Eastern Ortodox Serbs.Why are you doing this?". With Aryanprince (talk · contribs), the person acts like a Serbian ultra-nationalist (strangely, with a Nazi username), trying indeed, to play on the West vs. Serbia card. The person, with other IPs, identifies as "Montenegrin", and not "Serb". This is a SPA.--Zoupan 07:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User Zoupan (talk · contribs) is mentioning me as some IP adress but i dont know why. I never talked about Duklja on this wikipedia, and never changed anything on Nemanjic Dinasty. The IP adress he is writing here is not mine, and I also have to tell you that in Serbia and Montenegro we still have dynamic IP adresses, so what is my IP adress today is someone's else IP adress tomorow within our Internet provider. So only what I write as Aryanprince or Alliance is mine edits, nothing else. I use Aryanprince nick because when[REDACTED] merged they changed my old Alliance nick and told me I need to use new nick because someone from english[REDACTED] has the Alliance nick. I see he also charged me for Nazi nick but my real name is Arijan, when I write it on english j=>y and I write Aryan. I don't know how he connected me with Nazi Germany. I want him to apologise to me now cos insults, because combined first and second word war Nazi Germany with its satelites killed billions of my people. I really cant stand this insults anymore.--Aryanprince (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of intent to provoke, exaggerate, and quote out of context here. As "insults" go, the supposed insults as translated are mild indeed. When does saying "you do not own Misplaced Pages" (as in "Misplaced Pages was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother") become an insult worthy of ANI? Aryanprince has also stated that he is not 95.155.27.190 and the content of the edits made by that IP address backs that up. The outrage that Aryanprince has expressed against Zoupan's "Nazi username" claim is completely justified. Anyone who knows the history of the region concerned will know how truly offensive such an accusation would be. Aryanprince is obviously not a native English speaker, so some leeway in his use of English should be allowed, and the attempt by Doug Weller, backed by The Anome, to trick or manipulate Aryanprince into saying he would ignore any block leaves a bad taste. What I think we actually have here is mostly just a content issue and an inexperienced editor who has difficulty expressing his reasoning. Aryanprince needs to be advised that the proper place for content discussion after a bold edit is reverted is not more reverts with edit summaries or angry postings on other editors pages, but careful reasoning presented on the article talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

NB, Zoupan's National identity of Serbia seems like a pov fork to me. It contains minimal content, content that could easily be incorporated into the parent article. We have no "National identity of Germany" or "National identity of France" articles, countries with far more complex and long-lasting issues of identity and formation and purpose that that of Serbia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

One does not mention others grandmothers in the Balkans. Calling it "mild" is still acknowledging that it is insulting, although if you think I have exaggerated, I ask you to copy the original text (which is hidden with the translation) and ask a Serbo-Croatian speaker to translate it and tell you how it sounds. The tone is obvious in that language. The ANI is not based on a sentence alone, but on the behaviour of the user (duh). The old account that Aryanprince claims to have used, Alliance~enwiki (talk · contribs), has no contributions. I think that his name is as clear as it gets, and his try to "write it in English" is just funny — remember that he got crazy about the name of Novak Djokovic (see quotes), and note that Arijan is pronounced A-ree-yan, which would become "Ariyanprince" or "Areyan", and not Aer-yan (as in Aryanprince). It is obvious that he is (or plays) a nationalist. The "attempt to trick" was in fact a good faith second chance; Aryanprince already said "My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles". National identity of Serbia is not a POV-fork.--Zoupan 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Zoupan created article, Genetic studies on Serbs is not a pov fork and seems to have legitimate reasons to exist. However, it seems to have been created to remove content from the Serbs article. Zoupan has been using its existence to claim that it is appropriate to remove ALL the generic studies content that Aryanprince wants to add into the Serbs article. This is not a reasonable position to take. The amount of content that Aryanprince wants to add is excessive given the existence of the more specialized article, but there has to be a middle ground compromise. There is also History of the Serbs - it seems like a duplicate article, given that almost exactly the same ground is covered by Serbs - one of them has to go, I think. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this clear as water: "When someone says 50% black OR very brown hair, the truth can also be 49% brown and 1% black, but the way it is written it forces the state "50% black", it is game of words. Does this source have detailed information about this? Also, does this source mention the skin color?" The user's name fits, doesn't it?--Zoupan 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean here? Both you and Aryanprince see to be happy having that "50% black OR very brown hair" wording (it's in both versions). This is clearly personal abuse . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He is not quoting the source... The source says: "45 per cent with pure brown eyes and only 20 per cent with light; 10 per cent have light hair while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair." Now, Aryanprince claims with that source that: "the most of Serbs generally have brown eyes and hair but significant part of them has light eyes and hair. There is also a smaller part which has red or even green hair. The skin is white, brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total.". How long is this going to take..?--Zoupan 22:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He is doing that now, but he wasn't doing it when I made my post above - the diff I cited contained exactly the same text regarding hair colour. The content you are both arguing about seems to have no significance to me - and no significance is stated or explained in the article. So what if 45% have "pure brown eyes". Why is it significant enough to be mentionable? Why is it significant enough to be argued over? 15% might wear socks with sandals, but so what? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is getting silly.--Zoupan 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted what Zoupan (talk · contribs) wrote in article because this reason. He referenced the statement with the source (Joel Martin Halpern) who wrote: "...while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair...". But Halpern is actually citing the Carleton S. Coon and his book The races of Europe, page 590 where Coon wrote: "...Over 50 per cent have black or dark brown hair...". The difference is this word "very", which was added ether by Zoupan or by Halpern. If it was Halpern this is the sign of making harm to Serbian people, why would he change the citation? And if it was Zoupan then I don't know what to say... Next thing is skin color. Carleton S. Coon wrote about it, and not me. This is the citation, from the same book: "...The skin is brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total...". So, to summerize. When Zoupan's source (Halpern) wrongly cites "The races of europe" than nothing happens, but when I correctly cite it then I am racist? This is shame...--Aryanprince (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Plausible. Not by me. Here you go. I linked this 22.56, prior to Aryan's above comment, he then answered in 23.09, then still calls me a liar here 23.18? WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If the earlier source does not use the word "very", but the later source does and cites that earlier source as its only source for that particular data, then the earlier source is the one whose wording should be used to decide on article content. Halpern is citing only Coon for that data, Coon does not say "very", Halpern has added the word "very" for unknown reasons. What Aryanprince has been saying above regarding that content and its sources is correct, but he has only been saying it very recently on the article talk page, earlier arguments were about other content. At its heart this is just a content issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So if that was not you then Halpern added it when he wrongly cited original book. He made harm to Serbs, his citation is not correct. That makes him unreliable source so I would ask you nicely to remove that from article or I would have to remove it, again.--Aryanprince (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user & personal attacks

All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User disruptive on article Cate Blanchett, repeatedly restoring maiden name of non-notable mother of subject, which has been removed per editor commentary (e.g., Dwpaul's) on talk page, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:ONUS. Also restored implication that mother is deceased when she is living per sources in article talk page.

User has engaged in personal attacks in article edit summary, article talk page and on my talk page. I ignored the first on my talk, since he reverted himself 5 hours later and on article talk, but he has continued: -- Lapadite (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• article edit summary: 07:44, November 7, 2015
• article talk page: 07:52, November 7, 2015,
• my talk page: 00:47, November 7, 2015; 07:46, November 7, 2015; 07:48, November 7, 2015.
• also, his talk page: 09:02, November 7, 2015. -- Lapadite (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Enough. Enough. This guy Lapadite77 watched Inside the Actors Studio (someone should revoke his TV privileges). The following exchange occurred:

Cate Blanchett: "My father was American..."

James Lipton: "What was your mother, she was Australian"

Blanchett: "Yeah"

Lipton: "Way back?"

Blanchett: "Way back, of convict descent I think"

Cate Blanchett's mother's name is June Gamble, as established in this reliable source that no one has disputed. However, based on the television exchange I just mentioned, Lapadite77 decided that Cate Blanchett's mother's maiden name is "Wayback" ("Way back") and made that change. Now he wants to remove the name altogether.

Now, we all make mistakes. Even really stupid mistakes. I have no problem with Lapadite77 making a mistake. In fact, when we first discussed this, I was very cordial and polite. However, after that point, any sane human being should have realized their folly, laughed at their own mistake, and moved on. I find this a reasonable and rational reaction.

This guy Lapadite77, though, can't let go. I guess he thinks he never gets anything wrong, ever? And now he's decided that if we can't have "Wayback", we shouldn't list any name at all! He says that per BLP, we shouldn't list her mother's name at all, even though we list the names of parents of almost all reasonably famous people. Well, obviously, he doesn't actually believe that, he just doesn't want a non-"Wayback" name in there. We know this because he added the name himself, so apparently it was OK then.

So how am I expected to react? Why are we having this conversation? Why? Why do you I have to explain all this? It's such a nonsense issue, spurned by a silly mistake. Just because Lapadite77 misunderstood something on TV, we have to waste all this time? Really? If he doesn't expect personal attacks, what does he expect?

Again, We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback". So what do you want from me? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User does not mention that my good faith addition of "Wayback", after watching the cited interview, was made a month before he reverted it and I then started the discussion on the talk page. Editor commentary there agreed it was best to leave maiden name out because of ambiguity, and BLP was also cited (which says in the lead, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy"; moreover the aforementioned policy sections (WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY) strongly recommend not including such insignificant info of non-notable family members. I'm not sure why All Hallow Wraith strongly pushes for its inclusion. More personal attacks from user: "fuck you" in his talk page edit summary. Lapadite (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You made a silly error, you were wrong, it's over, the page is back to normal (back to the reliably sourced version, by the way). The end. Stop talking about this. Why on earth are you still pursuing this? I just don't get it. I repeat, We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to close this as "no shit", but I'm afraid that this may not be enough for Lapadite. I would like for other editors to look at this; as I get older my ability to separate the absurd from the real is seriously declining. I guess this began when I started reading The Onion, and it's not helped by the recent discovery that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've requested full protection here due to the edit warring. Content not withstanding, no matter how frustrated a user becomes with others, there's really no valid justification for making personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. If one must release tension, it would be better to do so offline. The fact that All Hallow's Wraith has shown no remorse for such personal attacks is also worrisome. Suggest blocking user if this incivility keeps up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd laugh at this, if this situation weren't so indicative of Lapadite77's editing behavior and attitude to dealing with other editors. He wants his own way, misuses BRD when he doesn't get it, then resorts to ANI's and RfC's when his filibustering doesn't eventually wear his opponent into submission. While I agree with @SNUGGUMS:'s point above, Lapadite77 has a tendency to bring this out in people: because if an admin doesn't step in, you're liable to get months and months of this and this and this. While this topic may seem completely ridiculous, I'd strongly suggest we all use this chance to determine whether Lapadite77 has the civility and competence to continue editing Misplaced Pages. He has been massively disruptive to several articles in his short time here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, you really bothered to comment here? Drmies was on a past ANI discussion in which you, an involved and biased user with prior conflicts, made personal attacks against me and your own PA thread was deleted. What a joke. Please, stay away from me. Lapadite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums, right, the reason I reported him was because he continued his personal attacks after he reverted himself, both on my talk page and the article's talk page, and he clearly has no problem with it. The content dispute itself (which is just him wanting the inclusion of the maiden name of a non-notable family member, against recommendation from BLP policy) would be settled at the BLP noticeboard. Lapadite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Case in point. Lapadite77 is referring to this ANI, which was not "deleted" — merely archived due to inactivity, presumably because the ANI which he started blew up into a hitstorm. @Drmies: was never involved in any way whatsoever. This is just the latest in a long string of examples of Lapadite77 trying to tarnish the name of any user with which he has ever had a content dispute or some form of disagreement. For the record, I've not had any communication with Lapadite77 for the past year. I hold no ill will against him, but I must admit that I've seen him make edits to articles on my Watchlist which made my head shake. And it always ends up the same — if he doesn't get his way, he resorts to Badfaith accusations, filibustering and unnecessarily protracted ANI's/RfC's. As far as I can tell, he has never once accepted a consensus – he just bitches and moans and badmouths other editors wherever he can until all descent is lost in a mirage of filibustering. This thread here should be the straw that broke the camel's back. It is beyond ridiculous. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You know very well the separate PA thread you opened because your then ally was reported was removed from the active project page by an admin not long after you opened it. Another hypocritical, prejudiced, and fictitious diatribe from you speaks for itself. Another time you involve yourself in a discussion in which I am participant, and has nothing to do you, to laughably trash talk. It's harassment by now. Carry on please, and do support another user making personal attacks, but I've nothing else to say to you. Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lapadite77, please stop contributing to this thread or I will block you for disruption. I've seen enough of your personal attacks here to warrant a block--and that this stems from, ahem, a particular misreading would be funny if you weren't so serious about it. SNUGGUMS, I don't have much of a problem with the occasional "fuck off", especially in a case like this, when someone has basically been baiting another editor. I'd still prefer it if another admin look over this and close it, if it needs to be closed--the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? Personal attack? Where? And what stems from a misreading, the content dispute? It actually doesn't, as it doesn't concern the original discussion of "wayback" on the talk. The report is not about content dispute, that's for the BLP noticeboard, it's about personal attacks, which I assume you don't mind then? "when someone has basically been baiting another editor" - What in the world? Again, where? Drmies, I wonder, why in the world are you telling the editor who reported another on clear personal attacks to stop contributing to the thread (and threatening them with a block if they do so), make unwarranted accusations about them, say you don't mind the personal attacks against them, and you say nothing about the editor who just imposed himself here making personal attacks, which you know, from past discussion here, has done so before? If I remember correctly, if you distanced yourself from that aforementioned ANI report I made because you considered yourself involved (yet closed the thread), why exactly are you personally involved here again (and not in very good-faith manner), especially after this? Intentionally ignoring personal attacks and threatening a block on the user who reported it, I mean, really? Lapadite (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you move on? Is winning so important? Judging by this section and a quick look at some of the diffs it is obvious that All Hallow's Wraith is not in the habit of doing bad things. Why would you think that inserting the mother's name was ok when you did it, but is WP:ALLCAPSVERYBAD when someone else does it correctly? Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq. Lapadite, BOOMERANG. What those old cows you're dredging up from the canal (as the Dutch would say) are doing in here, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw in an uninvolved comment, as I've seen everything that's been going on from a distance, and I understand that it's not my business. In my opinion, this has all been blown out of proportion, and what's been happening is really not as bad as Lapadite is making it out to be. From my point of view, it's obvious that AHW is just expressing his displeasure of being reverted all the time, and I can understand that. Additionally, Lapadite made a mistake, it backfired, and he changed tack (opting not to include the name at all when it is done everywhere else), which caused the conflict with AHW when he was trying to be civil. Lapadite is out to come out on top. I've seen it – beginning with the first proper edit that I made to the page, which was reverted by him. I think you need to let this go, mate. 4TheWynne 07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

4TheWynne, you asked me to clarify revert on my talk (though I'd given an edit summary). And not sure why you even bring up some irrelevant past revert on the page? Is there a grudge held over it or something? I wouldn't have presumed that from the discussion on my talk. Anyway, I don't know why a content dispute is being discussed and whose wrong or right in it, while the reason for the report (personal attacks) is sidestepped, since ANI isn't to settle/argue over content dispute; that can be discussed elsewhere (talk, BLPN, etc). @Johnuniq:, what's this shoddy claim about winning? The report is about the personal attacks from the user reported, evidenced by the diffs provided. If I was "reporting" AHW for some content dispute regarding PAG I would've gone elsewhere. So why are these comments only about the content dispute? Should one ignore repeated personal attacks and never report them? To answer your last question, Johnuniq, if the time of the diffs (given), the article talk discussion (linked), and what I'd stated in the OP is actually noted, one can see I hadn't inserted a maiden name, i'd "corrected" the one in the article after watching an interview with the BLP subject where I understood she gave a different one. Like I already stated above, that edit I made, changing the maiden name, was reverted by AHW a month later and then it was discussed on talk page, where I agreed it was ambiguous and where User:General Ization made a good point, and i'll quote: If there is ambiguity about Blanchett's response in the Inside the Actors Studio interview, as there obviously is, the Biography of living persons policy requires that we err on the side of not including the information in the article on the basis of this source. Find another source that resolves the ambiguity, or leave the content out. Later, I found a couple more sources that don't state "Gamble" (the maiden name originally in the article), which i'd posted on the talk discussion. AHW ignored that and still went on about "wayback" which had already been settled. The irony. The BLP policy, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPNAME, recommends against such inclusion, and WP:ONUS is also relevant, ergo, (as I already stated in the OP) per that and User:General Ization's point, I removed it. I couldn't care less about some maiden name, I do care if there is misleading information on a BLP and do uphold the BLP policy in its entirety. I'm curious why no one questions why AHW is so intent for so long on including such info; he hasn't let it go, even after "wayback" was settled and wasn't brought up again, still talking about it. The irony. On a slightly different note, I'm loving accusations from users who've disagreed with me in the past (and apparently hold some sort of grudge for it), and loving the passive embrace of personal attacks. Lapadite (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You inspired me to find and read Talk:Cate Blanchett#Mother's maiden name where the colossal blunder concerning "way back" is explored. The "given the ambiguity" idea seems to occur in that section, but there is no ambiguity—your interpretation is blatantly wrong, and the fact that it was explained last April and you are still going on about it shows why an editor might snap and use some invective. Coming to ANI to get your opponent sanctioned might have felt like another good idea, but some of us are happy that editors are human with the consequence that they will occasionally say undesirable things—that is far preferable than someone who cooly was wrong last April and who is still causing disruption while remaining civil. If a comment like fuck off warranted, say, a 24-hour block, what sanction would be appropriate for someone who is still wasting time after six months? This is a collaborative project and we have to get on with other people. You are welcome to think that "Wayback" was a plausible name and everyone else is wrong, but you should still recognize that consensus is against you, and drop it completely. FYI, many editors find it a bit offensive to name, with no apparent reason, the father but not the mother (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So you just skipped over the entire part where "wayback" is not at all the issue, (except for AHW who's been red herring about it), not what the recent edit (mine at least) was about, and already settled - since April; clearly I never reinserted wayback after AHW reverted it and the discussion took place. Big face palm. Moreover, I don't really care if editors here decided personal attacks aren't an issue on WP, I just did my duty in reporting gross incivility including multiple personal attacks, like "back when he (crazily, in a nutty-as-hell manner) believed", "Lapadite77 is why this world is, and always will be, a horrible place", "idiotic", "stupid", "fuck you", "what the hell is wrong with you", "you dumb fuck". In my personal opinion, and certainly I'm not alone in the world in thinking this (lol), anyone who reacts and disrespects in such a way over some maiden name edit (and then sees nothing wrong with it after time has passed hopefully to recollect) has some issues; oh shoot, accuse me of personal attack now, please, so the irony comes full circle. But big cheers on embracing that and throwing out accusations at the person who reports them though. Lapadite (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So everything in my comments here is totally wrong, and you dismiss it all? Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS

Troubling development at article Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs). My new reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: "this is not the historical concensus". I have no idea where this user is going with his frenzy of edits painting the SS very grandiose. His reply to my comment at the talk page of Schutzstaffel indicates that he either does not ... or pretends not to understand what the problem is. Those familiar with the subject of Forced labour under German rule during World War II are well aware of the scale of the war crimes committed by the SS. Meanwhile, our article speaks of it this way: "the SS frequently hired civilian contract workers to perform such duties as maids, maintenance workers, and general laborers." Really?! User:Jonas Vinther constantly adds new material with no references. Nobody say anything about that I guess because nobody likes to be bullied into submission. Just look at his sourceless edits, the guy is on a mission: ,,,. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the above example is just another example of this persons actions. They have recently tried to start a edit war on the D. B. Cooper article and on my Talk page, claiming that You Tube/ABC is a reliable source, whilst slating ABC (and the BBC) on there user page. I believe an admin warning is the least that should be applied. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What a complete load of bullocks! Not even going to waste my time replying to this. If I'm such a horrible editor, ban me and Misplaced Pages becomes a better encyclopedia. GO SUCK IT! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas, please do not tell others to "GO SUCK IT". Highly inappropriate remark. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool it Jonas. This is not the board to freak out on. Strike it mate. Quickly. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't want to make this a content issue, I will comment that (probably) most historians would disagree with the added content that Barbarossa was a "preventative surprise attack" on the USSR. This has actually been the source of some controversy -- in other words, if Stalin intended to strike first. In my (worthless) opinion, Jodl is perhaps not the best source to comment on whether this was the case. While I'm certainly no expert on the SS, I will add that the links provided don't necessarily show a positive light towards the organization -- calling them ruthless, fanatical, and so on is hardly positive. Regarding the forced labour edit, I'm not sure what the exact diff is in that case. Jonas, please, don't inadvertently bolster their case. GAB 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This case is not about the use of a single word "preventative" originating from the Chief of the Operations Staff of the Armed Forces High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW) Alfred Jodl, which may or may not be accurate (and can easily be redacted) even though any reference to a singular author David M. Glantz about the quote-unquote "most historians" allegedly disagreeing with it is ridiculous. This case is about bullying, and about removal of major source of judicial data about the SS history as well as not properly acknowledging the fact that Schutzstaffel committed massacres in Soviet occupied Poland... long before they reached Russia in Operation Barbarossa. I spoke about it in talk, but the evasive and incomprehensible reply from Jonas Vinther was for me the first sign of something more troubling going on. Poeticbent talk 21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In using "preventative", Jodl was simply repeating what Hitler told the generals, but there's not a shred of evidence that Stalin planned to attack Germany at that time, which is confirmed by Stalin's refusal to listen to Churchill, Sorel and other sources who told him that Hitler was going to attack, and even gave the date. Stalin's personal response also confirms that he was totally blindsided. Hitler's claim that the attack was "preventative" was designed to provide a rationale for what he had wanted to do from the beginning, back to the time of writing Mein Kampf. No reputable historian believes anything else. Whether Jodl actually believe it was "preventative" or not, I don't know. BMK (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There was an issue two weeks ago regarding this article. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#User:TX6785_appears_obsessed. Related? John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, as this has nothing to do with redirects. GAB 22:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther has retired. GAB 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering the reality of how things work on Misplaced Pages, I suggest that in the future we always use scare quotes when indicating that an editor has announced that they've walked away from editing, i.e. Jonas Vinther has "retired". BMK (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther often retires.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A few comments. First, Jonas is not the sock:User:TX6785. Secondly, he has at times been cavalier in his edits and taken things very personally, that is true. With that said, he has done some good work in reviewing articles for GA, and in bringing articles up to GA. I do think that bringing the latest disagreement here was premature and the matter should have been discussed in greater detail on the talk page and if necessary a RfC could have been done. And it is true that he has "retired before". At any rate, the SS main article has been undergoing a major re-write, ce work and cite work of late. Anyone who wants to join in the effort is welcome. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

When I finish the book I'm currently reading, I plan to read Anatomy of the SS State next, and may well re-read The SS: The Alibi of a Nation after that. If I follow through on this plan, I'll probably be doing some editing of the article, as that's my normal pattern of behavior. BMK (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Apparently Jonas Vinther retires very frequently. A few months ago he "retired" because he found Misplaced Pages to be "anti-fascist and pro-democratic I refuse to further help build up a site that both directly and indirectly glorifies leaders like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt" , but there are several other "retirements" before that. His user page two days ago before "retiring" stated that "99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap" . This in combination with coming here just to shout "GO SUCK IT" leads me to conclude we're dealing with someone who is here to right great wrongs. Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to withdraw my statement of retirement. I can also point out my retirement had nothing to do with this noticeboard. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean a wikidiva surely? Blackmane (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OMG, don't you know how politically incorrect you're being? We don't call Wikidivas "WP:DIVAs" anymore, we ask them as polite as pie on Sunday to try "not to be high maintenance". (Soon, problem editors won't be "blocked", they'll be "temporarily redirected", and sockpuppets will merely be "differently personified editors".) BMK (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive edits by User:Malaylampur

From the day that Malaylampur was created, he/she has done nothing but reverting edits and attacking other editors (ok I admit: minus 2 edits in creating his/her User and User-talk pages). Malaylampur seems to hold a particular grudge against MezzoMezzo: UT MezzoMezzo, UT Malaylampur and the latest 10-ish "contributions". MezzoMezzo has warned Malaylampur about this almost single-purpose behaviour (not in the most gentle manner, but the message seems clear), to which Malaylampur responded unregrettably. And then there is this little "threat" addressed to me.

Additionally, none of the article namespace edits have been constructive, sometimes (bordering?) edit warring: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, and diff5. - HyperGaruda (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Another concern would be that this editor is apparently demanding people only message them on weekdays . There's nothing wrong of course with an editor only responding on weekdays (or whenever) but it's always going to be difficult to collobrate when an editor demands from all editors certain things for communicating with them, or else they'll simply delete your message. This in particular seems to place an unresonable burden on others, requiring them to save their message elsewhere in the meantime and remember to post them. If that's even possible, as it's a condition impossible to fulfill for anyone who's only able to contribute on the weekend. Plus depending on how fussy Malaylampur is, they need to work out what a weekday is for Malaylampur. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The two people are removing sourced material with bogus edit summaries, HyperGaruda leaps over onto my edits and begins to attack my contributions. Hypergaruda conveniently leaves out the fact that I was called a troll. These two associates have an agenda to remove things they dont like by following my edits and using bully tactics. Can someone take a look at Hypers last edit He wants to refer to another talk page discussion to automatically make his edits final across the whole platform. Can someone explain to him and the other guy that what they say is not final? There is something called consensus and my reversions prove there is no consensus to remove what was on that page for months before i arrived. I had a tight schedule it is why I ask that its weekdays only Malaylampur (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

my reversions prove there is no consensus Ahem, *points to WP:DRNC*. Both MezzoMezzo and I have provided arguments for our edits, either on talk pages or in edit summaries. Malaylampur on the other hand has either given none, or only WP:IDL arguments. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments like the one I pointed to above are invalid. you like to edit war and help out your associate. Saying refer to such and such and reverting is not valid at all. Go to the relevant talk page and provide valid reasons why you are reverting SOURCED content that was there before I arrived. Malaylampur (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My "valid reasons" for reverting "sourced" content were given on this talk page, which dealt with exactly the same issue. Linking to that made it possible to keep the edit summary concise. Now, will you please tell us why all my arguments are invalid? - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You cant refer to another page to make your edits final. The edits you removed have nothing to do with the template. Malaylampur (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What sort of WP:BURO-based argument is that someone "can't" give a reason for their edits that's provided on a different talk page? Does the edit summary point to a valid reason? Yes? Then that's good enough. (Of course, the best place to discuss something related to an article is its talk page, but sometimes debates just become cross-article, and arbitrarily restricting where you can give rationales for changes makes no sense.) LjL (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As I already said, there's nothing wrong with you only being able to work on[REDACTED] on weekdays, and so no one is likely to come up with a resonable complaint if you only edit[REDACTED] on weekdays.

What is unresonable is for you to demand people only message you on weekdays and delete and ignore their messages if they are not posted on weekdays for you. You need to learn to deal with messages which aren't left on weekdays or otherwise don't fit in to your schedule. I would suggest ignoring them until you have time to deal with them rather than deleting them because they don't fit your schedule. Now you can delete them if you want (since you nearly always can with stuff on your talk page), but you still have to read them, and respond if necessary, as and when your schedule allows it. And do this without silly complaints about people leaving messages not following your schedule.

This does assume you likewise restrict your editing. It's not resonable for you to ignore all messages if you're going to continue to edit since people may need to message you and you may need to read these messages before you continue editing. In other words, if your schedule doesn't allow communication, given this is a collobrative encyclopaedia it's most likely that your schedule doesn't allow editing.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit at Cosmo Wright

I'm asking for additional review of my edit at Cosmo Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). because I reverted an edit due to the BLP concern, then also protected the page due to the apparent edit warring over the BLP issues.

It appears the subject has legally changed their name. However, several statements are being added which are unsourced or only link to the subject's own website (which require interpretation). From what I can see, the claims being added are likely accurate; but without reliable sources, there are unresolved BLP concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced BLP content like that and then protecting (or vice versa) is standard practice. --NeilN 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse revert and protection. The reverted edit was to the effect that a named person "came out as transgender" with included in the edit, and no source. That's an edit that obviously must be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Mostly agree, but why full protection rather than semi-protection? Looks like the edit warring was coming from IPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Brewcrewer

I was editing History of the Jews in Jordan and suddenly User:Brewcrewer shows up, places 'Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement' template on the article's talk page and then leaves a warning on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR . First of all, the article is irrelevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict, its talking about History of Jews in Jordan. And when I tried to tell him so on his talk page User talk:Brewcrewer#Hi he gave a short irrelevant response and refused any discussion. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You may need to reevaluate your position here. From the user talk page discussion, it appears at least one other editor agrees with him. Just sayin' John from Idegon (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That specific editor stalks my contribution list and keeps working against me. Not to mention his argument is baseless.--Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I have had people stalking my edits for years...just get use to it, if you edit in the I-P area. And generally, recall that the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement is meant the be broadly applied. In my experience; that means that *if* anyone editing an article thinks it is under Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA...then it is. I hardly ever agree with Brewcrewer, but I think he is within his rights here, Huldra (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

COI and NOTHERE

Since July 2015, article subject Rick Alan Ross has been using various editors to mold said article to his liking. I brought my concerns about this happening to WP:COIN back in early October where the report was essentially dismissed . Apparently, this is not the first time he has come to Misplaced Pages to work on the article and skew the content. He was brought to COIN back in 2008 , as well. Starting in June 2015, Ross started trying to control content in and out of the article as an IP by going to the article talk page and various noticeboards as well as editor talk pages: , , , , , , , , , , , . His own talk page his laden with editors spending time and energy discussing the article . His continuous complaints and requests at the article talk page has been quite a time-sink, as well: . On at least one occasion, he was dissatisfied with the consensus reached at the article talk page and the closing of the discussion (while continuing to exhibit WP:IDHT behavior) and then went forum shopping at WP:BLPN . If look through the article talk page, you can see there are several editors in agreement that Ross' involvement is related to self-promotion and his continual requests and direction on how he would like the article to appear have taken up way too much time of editors attempting to answer his questions and assist him. Add to this his refusal to go with consensus and a persistence with WP:IDHT and there has been an enormous amount of time given freely to this one individual. That said, he never seems pleased with how the article portrays his public image and I, personally, don't see an end in sight with his requests and complaints. There is a strong amount of WP:COI going on, but WP:SPA and WP:NOTTHERE as well. He has not edited any other articles or done anything in Misplaced Pages other than what is connected to the article on him. That says to me he's not interested in building the encyclopedia, just building the Rick Alan Ross article as a means of self-promotion. As we all know, Misplaced Pages is not a resume service or promotional website host. My purpose in coming here is not to see him blocked, however, I think at this point, at the very least, a topic ban in regard to editing or requesting edits at the article on him would be appropriate. Something has to get him to stop, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been dealing with Rick Alan Ross for several months. He has spent the entire time trying to mold the article to fit his vision. I have tried to get him to address only maters of factual accuracy and violations of WP:BLP. A review of Talk:Rick Alan Ross will show what a time sink this has become. Rick Alan Ross is here to guard and mold his BLP and for no other reason. He has been brought to COIN several times to address his behavior. He was required to identify his account to ArbCom but continued to edit his article as an IP until the page was semi-protected, forcing him to register and identify an account. His behavior indicates to me an intention to minimally comply with our policies and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants.

He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and, in my opinion, should be topic banned from all maters relating to Rick Alan Ross and cults/Scientology broadly construed or simply blocked since I seriously doubt he would edit anything else if banned from subjects that relate to himself. Pinging other editors involved with the saga @JzG, Jytdog, Govindaharihari, and Francis Schonken: @Collect, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, Elmmapleoakpine, and Cwobeel: Jbh 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To back up what Jbhunley noted above "and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants", I think it's worth noting that wearing down others to get the result he wants is precisely what being a cult deprogrammer (Ross' profession) is about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please lay off the pop psychology. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please lay off the personal attacks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding this sanction note from 2009 (): "...instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses...Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)" Unless I'm reading the preceding wrong, it would seem RAR violated this 2009 sanction when he edited as an IP earlier this year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RAR has had some quite legitimate complaints in the past, and I fear that his attitude reflects that of some prior editors who seemed intent on accenting the negative about the living person. I note that since the BLP is directly connected with the famed Scientology arbitration case (it appears on the best interest of Scientology proponents to diss Mr. Ross by making sure we know he was a used car dealer, and that he lost a huge lawsuit where a lawyer associated possibly with the CoS was involved, etc.). Ignoring the original problems here would certainly let us bar Ross now - but when the Scientology issues are included, I think he is entitled to a little leeway - we can keep some of the SPS sourcing out without too much effort as he now knows better than to edit the BLP (or play at being an anonymous IP), and thus I am disinclined to join this fray now. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Final_decision. Collect (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Related ongoing discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Alan_Ross_.28consultant.29. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Already noted in the long list of links above ^^^. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I find none of the above has the traction purported. I find the subject of the biography being vilified for having the temerity to use the Talk page to steer the article in a direction that represents improvement. At present he wants a book which he has written mentioned in the article in such a way likely to allow a reader to avail themselves of it. The book is not necessarily self-published as it is published in more than one market. The subject has more than one time posed an interesting question. He wants to know why in what seems to be a parallel example—Steven Hassan—we find a similarly authored book highlighted in that article. Predictably enough we find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a counterargument. More substantial policies such as undue weight are being invoked; I don't think they are especially applicable. The subject of the biography obviously has an overriding message which motivates his life's work which one can assume is articulated in his latest book. As long as this book is squarely on the subject for which he is notable I think it is a far stretch to call highlighting his book an example of "undue weight". Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that Ross likely keeps bringing up Hassan's article as a parallel because of the feud between the two of them that's been going on for a few years. The following link is to an archive of the Rick Ross website forum: . Not trying to dig up and post dirt on anyone, but it's somewhat obvious that the animosity between Ross and Hassan is feeding his desire to see equal treatment between the articles. And while we're on the topic of paralleling articles, let's not forget about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How can you "guess" what motivates a person? Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Misplaced Pages editors "guess" continually (especially in the drama boards such as this one) as to what someone's motivation is when their behavior has come under scrutiny at a noticeboard. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: You have the 'book' issue completely wrong. He was complaining about this version, where his book is in its own 'Sources' section so it is still a 'reference' and wanted the text simply moved down two lines so it would be part of the 'Further reading' section. He seems to have wanted his book recommended as further reading in the article rather than 'merely' a source. That is purely using Misplaced Pages for promotion - that was the point I lost all AGF with him. He felt strongly enough to start a BLPN discusion to force the issue when the talk page consensus was against him. I think that is what got all of the people over there a couple days ago doing clean up. I do not know because he did not notify me, the other editors or post a notice on the talk page about the matter He was asked repeatedly to do so when he brings issues up at noticeboards. Jbh 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If the book was used as a source for writing the article, it belongs in a "Source" or "Bibliography" section. "Further reading" should only be for additional resources that haven't as yet been used in writing the article. BMK (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we realize that. It's one of the things the article subject has been unhappy about (and part of what Jbh is referring to above). Ross has refused to accept exactly what you pointed out, BMK. That's part of the reason why - as Jbh states above - it's pretty obvious that Ross is more interested in promoting himself, his services, and his book(s) than building an encyclopedia. Hence, the reason why I have titled this discussion COI and NOTHERE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I made it sound as if my comment was contradicting something Jbhunley said, I was merely confirming what I believe to be the standard practice, which is in agreement with what you and Jbh are saying. BMK (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, you didn't. I just wanted to make sure you got that we already had that covered. Part of the issue here is Ross' tendentious behavior that included going forum shopping at BLP/N after being told what policy was in regard to referencing/further reading. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's really out of line to try to tell the subject of a BLP that he is topic-banned from the talk page of that BLP. RAR is doing exactly what our COI policy says: use the talk page. If editors disagree with what he wants, then fine -- except that it's not at all inappropriate for him to go to BLPN. This is not forum-shopping -- again it's entirely in line with COI. If other editors find it frustrating, perhaps their efforts are best directed elsewhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Going to BLPN is appropriate. This is a job for the BLP noticeboard. It's a common situation - subject of a biographical article doesn't like what's being said about them, tries to change their own article, and runs into Misplaced Pages's rules and bureaucracy. Then they end up at COIN, where anything that looks like self-promotion gets taken out and they get a bare-facts article, or AN/I, where they get blocked. WP:BLPN, though, is more oriented towards dealing with the problems of a bio article subject being unhappy with their bio. John Nagle (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle: This issue was raised at COIN a bit over a month ago. "what seems to be a manner of dictation on how the article about him should be edited." Jbh 00:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm annoyed out of my wits by Rick Alan Ross every now and again. That being said, I think that, for the time being, Mr. Ross is essential for improving the Rick Alan Ross article, which still has many flaws. I know this noticeboard is not always very suitable to try and explain nuances – nonetheless:
  1. @Rick Alan Ross: you definitely should shape up. For instance, when the topic Cults Inside Out has been closed until "third party reliable sources with non-trivial reports about Ross' book can be given as reference" (Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Further Reading) it is not up to you to reopen that topic without providing such references (Talk:Rick Alan Ross#My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines) – Maybe a short block (one or a few days) can get this point accross to Mr. Ross. If you don't understand what "references" means in this context, please see WP:V, WP:RS and/or Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. For an explanation of "non-trivial" in this sentence, see WP:GNG. Maybe a day or two would suffise for you to get a grip on these Misplaced Pages rules, all other methods to draw your attention to this having apparently failed.
  2. To my colleagues Misplaced Pages-editors who try, like me, to get the mainspace article on the subject in shape: I think closing talk page topics like I did at Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Further Reading is maybe the way to go more often. When all has been said about a topic, close it. When the subject reopens (without apparently taking notice of the reasons why it was closed), close it again, like I'll probably do now for Talk:Rick Alan Ross#My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines. That's my method of trying to avoid this becomes a time-sink for me.
  3. On the content of the article: someone suggested Mr. Ross' notability ended after the Scott case. As far as I've been looking at reliable sources, this seems far from the case. The Institute he started after that (first under his own name, later renamed to Cult Education Institute) gets quite some coverage in reliable sources. For that reason I think Mr. Ross' presence essential to keep the article in balance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I might agree with you on some of these points if RAR hadn't been here previously and hadn't been sanctioned previously and hadn't been told very recently that he needs to follow policy, accept consensus, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I might agree with you if he were truly interested in building the encyclopedia rather than building his "online resume" and promoting his book(s) and business. The man is definitely a single purpose account, not here to build and encyclopedia, and frequently behaving in a tendentious manner. That's not "balance" of any kind. That's a general net negative as a waste of the community's time, patience, and energy. We have a plethora of articles that become GA and FA without the "assistance" of the article subject. In fact, I'm certain most of them have no input from the article subject whatsoever. To use that as a selling point in keeping him from being blocked or topic banned is just silly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi—at the BLP/N you say "What you are wanting seems to go into undue weight territory." How would it constitute undue weight to include the book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" in the "Further Reading" section of the Rick Alan Ross biography? Aren't we trying to explicate the work of the subject of this biography? Doesn't he (presumably) explain his stance on the subject for which he is notable in the latest volume which he has authored? There is no undue weight issue involved at all. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Please discuss that either at BLPN or on the article talk page. There is less than no reason to talk about the merits of inclusion in a third forum. Also, the back and forth between editors already familiar with the matter, about side issues, only serves to derail the ANI discussion. This is not a problem unique to this thread but rather a general problem at noticeboards. Thank you for your consideration. Cheers. Jbh 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Jbh, it seems to me that Bus stop has a long history of stirring shit and going on unrelated tangents at articles and talk pages related to Judaism or Jewish-related BLPs. , ,, , , , , . Based on him previously being banned and very narrowly avoiding a formal topic ban/sanction (less than a year ago) as well as his promise at the following AN/I report and the closing editor's comments, Bus stop shouldn't even be here commenting or at the article in question at all: "Bus stop has agreed to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention" . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi—I have already asked you, at the BLP/N, how your charge of "undue weight" applies to the placement of a book in a "Further Reading" section, but you did not respond. Do you understand the meaning of WP:UNDUE? It is a part of our policy on WP:Neutral Point of View. Are you arguing that the placement of a book by the subject of the biography in the "Further Reading" section somehow compromises the neutrality of the article? Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Rick Alan Ross is topic banned from Rick Alan Ross except to bring up violations of WP:BLP policy or to point out specific factual errors. The reason for this is the continued attempts to micro-manage his own biography and persistent WP:IDHT behavior on Talk:Rick Alan Ross.

• Support at proposer. Misplaced Pages has a policy to help subjects of biographies manage violations of WP:BLP it does not and should not encourage the subject of a biography continuously tweak their own biography to their liking - whether by editing the article itself of through persistent talk page threads. It is hard enough to manage an WP:NPOV article but it is nearly impossible when you have the subject constantly advocating their position. Jbh 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, just because it's a BLP shouldn't cause reasonable WP:COI provisions to stop applying. --LjL (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject of the biography in this instance has raised eminently valid concerns. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this is an absurd proposal, the editor has acted entirely in line with WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support Individual has ignored his previous sanction for staying away from his bio and cult related articles, tries to force issues his direction, and has not once demonstrated in several years' time that he's interested in building the encyclopedia, just micro-managing his BLP. So far, his presence has been a net-negative for the 'pedia and a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Let him prove he's here for more than his online image and self promotion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but can you please point to the sanction you say he has violated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as being a solution in search of a problem. Ross should not edit the BLP proper, but I have no problem with his positions on the talk page. Collect (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – as formulated this seems a counterproductive measure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Rick Alan Ross appears to be following COI guidelines. He discusses the edits he thinks should be made to the article. Not once has this account edited the article itself, only the talk page. He also uses BLPN to discuss the article. He does do a lot of talking but there is nothing wrong with that. -- GB fan 21:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose based upon my own personal experience. He is acting in (fairly) good-faith, and surely declared COI and editing talk pages is what we want to encourage, not drive editors underground? Mdann52 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons brought up at the top of this section. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal II

Rick Alan Ross is blocked for three days. Reason: talk page disruption, and for refusal to inform themselves on Misplaced Pages core content policy.

• I've upped my initial proposal of one or two days to three days per this, which was a completely inappropriate talk page post given the circumstances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe it will help but I doubt it. He has too strong of an investment in the page and waiting three days or really any number of days to continue his WP:COI will not change that. He is WP:NOTHERE to build the encylcopedia he is here to promote himself and manage his biography. He will always be willing to put in more effort than anyone else at the page to get the version he wants. Jbh 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose To me it looks like he is reading policy and trying to comply with it. If a block would be appropriate it should not be increased because he commented that people are trying to stop him from even commenting on the article about him, especially when people want to stop him from commenting on the article about him. -- GB fan 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, think it will do nothing to block him for three days. Unless, if the behavior continues, and he will be blocked for a longer period of time? But, really, what is blocking going to do except piss him off? He says he's not here for his BLP, but for Misplaced Pages. I say let him prove that by showing a vested interest in editing articles not related to him or cults. So far, he's been here just for his own interests in regard to his public online image and promoting his business and his books. Unless he's forced to have a reason to be here beyond that, blocking for a few days will accomplish nothing productive. Indeed, I predict it will cause more problems. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ £
• Support Block him. He won't stay away, he won't keep his word to stay away. A block will keep him from disrupting further. I'd also like to point out that he has yet to edit anything in Misplaced Pages that has nothing to do with him, further strengthening the fact that WP:NOTHERE definitely applies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this effort to drive off a BLP subject who is abiding by WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Abiding by the rules should not be so blatantly punished. Collect (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion

Excuse me. Does this mean that I am now censored from commenting at my bio about the editing process? Given the history of my bio here, which has been edited by cult members and cult apologists, it seems that allowing me to comment is reasonable. I apologize for not knowing every detail of Misplaced Pages policy, but I am willing to be reasonable and work with people at Misplaced Pages. I don't think it is somehow self-promotion for me to be concerned about how some people may be improperly editing my bio. I don't think doing volunteer work for Misplaced Pages should be a requirement to comment about the editing at my bio Talk page. I have been working in the field of cultic studies since 1982 and building a database since 1996. My work is notable and has been reported about by the media around the world. I do interviews with one media outlet or another almost every month (e.g. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Associated Press, CBC, Nippon, Asai, etc.). My book is notable and represents about three years work and is a synthesis of history and research with more than 1,200 footnotes, an 18-page bibliography and is 582 pages in length. It is now self-published in English and published in Chinese. I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness and testified in about 20 court proceedings, including 10 states and US Federal Court after a Daubert Hearing. I have been included in 18 documentaries, invited to and lectured at more than 30 colleges and universities and have done 500 cult interventions. Only about a dozen were involuntary interventions with adults. The Jason Scott case effectively marked the end of my involuntary intervention work more than 20 years ago. I have worked with the FBI several times and received an accommodation signed by Director Mueller in 2011. I have also worked with the Israeli Ministry of Social Welfare and attended international conferences in Canada, China and Thailand. I have had papers published in academic peer-reviewed journals and contributed to a number of published books. I say all this because I have worked hard to establish my reputation and of course I am concerned how some people think they can come in an anonymously manipulate the editing process at my Misplaced Pages bio page or the purpose of retaliation over the Cult Education Institute database, to malign me and/or impugn my integrity. There has been good editing done at my bio and bad editing. I would like to be engaged in a reasonable process to sort this out so that facts and reliable sources are used rather than biased claims from narrow questionable sources. Getting it right and accurate is good for Misplaced Pages, it's good policy, good for the public and yes good for me too. I am not used to your incredible labyrinth of rules and culture, but I am willing to learn. It seems though that some editors may at times use Misplaced Pages rules and culture to obscure issues, block meaningful dialog and obstruct needed editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean this. Someone proposed it, and it's obvious that the proposal will not pass. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RAR, I don't know how, for all the years you've been in Misplaced Pages, being told the same things over again, being sanctioned, etc., you can seriously claim ignorance of policy and claim you are being censored. I call B.S. on what you are saying. None of this is new to you - you're just dealing with a largely unfamiliar audience who hasn't truly looked into your editing past. You were told to never again edit with an IP address, but you did it anyway starting at the end of June this year. Can you explain why you started back here trying to disguise who you were? Because for me, doing so after promising you wouldn't, is just the beginning of the dishonesty in what you say vs. what you do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

He has been editing from multiple accounts since 2009: Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) who also edits as Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) and also seemingly from anonymous IPs" . There was, recently, a lot of discussion to get him to identify to ArbCom and stop editing from IPs. Much of the discussion was on his talk page but once he identified the account RickRoss1954</e>, or some such, was renamed to Rick Alan Ross I do not know what happened to the history of the prior Rick Alan Ross. Jbh 22:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't know all the rules of Misplaced Pages. Please understand that you have many rules and customs within your culture online here that I don't know and many people don't know. What happened with my IP address was explained. I lost my password to my old account and my email address changed after rickross.com was sold and culteducation.com became my new email domain address. I posted under my name, so there was no attempt at deception. I now have an account attached to my correct email address. I never disguised who I am, don't do anything anonymous and always use my name when posting on the Web.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop editing for three days, and use the time to familiarize yourself with the rules. If three days aren't sufficient: use five days. If five days aren't sufficient: use ten days – etc. Anyway, don't return before a serious effort on your part to familiarize yourself with the rules. You've been given links to the rules you should concentrate on first, I wonder whether thus far you've clicked such links and looked at what editors were referring to. I proposed you edited in other areas which you are less involved in, to get familiar with the rules by editing, the way most of us got familiar with them – this you declined thus far, which you are allowed to, but then I see no other possibility than you taking a step back and take as much time as needed to get familiar with Misplaced Pages guidance by reading. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will continue reading the rules linked. At times there seems to be conflict between the rules and how the editing is being done at my bio. I will stop and ask questions about this at the Talk page again as I have done in the past to clear the air regarding any inconsistencies or ambiguities. Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross—you have to use double brackets to send a piped-link to Daubert standard. When are you ever going to learn? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You will be held to your "OK", RAR. It should be noted here that you've said "OK" before several times, and then almost immediately reneged on it. Take three days to read the rules and understand them. If that's not enough time, take longer (as Francis suggested). But, if you continue to do the same things you've been doing whilst claiming you don't know "the rules" and "the culture" of Misplaced Pages, it could happen that you do end up being forced to stay away (via a block) until you understand policy and guidelines. After all, WP:COMPETENCE is required. Here's a start for you regarding policies and guidelines: WP:PG. I hope you take these warnings and suggestions seriously because they are given in all seriousness. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

*NOTE: Just as I suspected, because of similar incidents where RAR has not followed through on promises he has made in Misplaced Pages, he added comments at the AfD on the BLP in question here. He did this a half hour after saying he would go away for at least three days to bone up on policy and guidelines. I am just not seeing how he is going to do what he says he will do, nor do I think he takes things here seriously. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards