Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 4 January 2016 (→There is likely to be trouble ahead: close). 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 talk page harassment and general incivility

I'm involved in a few content disputes with Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) on motorcycle articles. We both have similar interests and seem to bump into each other on these articles. I accept that we have differences of opinions on these articles, and as long as content disputes follow[REDACTED] guidelines regarding 3RR, civility, NPOV, etc, I see no major issues. However, I am starting to feel that the above user is taking things rather personally and his edits (in particular on my talk page) are harassment.

Firstly, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed, which was followed by him undoing my removal of that comment.

initial warning

removal by me

restored comment

request from me, for him not to restore comments on my talk page and for him to leave me alone.

So, I posted a request on his talk page, asking him not to restore removed comments, and not to post anything on my talk page. I made it clear that if he wanted to discuss an article with me, he could do so on my talk page, if he was concerned about my conduct as an editor, he could file a report, and that if he did file a report, I would allow him to post the report notice on my talk page (as I think posting that notice is required). He simply replied "no" to those requests. So, I posted again and said that if he undid my talk page revisions or posted on my page again, I would report him for harassment.

He then reported me for being a sockpuppet/master? I'm not sure which as he claimed I was the sockmaster, but one of the other accounts he reported is a really long established account. The conclusion from the admins involved was there the accounts mentioned were not connected. That's fair enough, I will have good faith in his sockpuppet report, and assume that it was not harassment.

Today, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed. I've already stated that I don't require his comments, so that alone was not something that I wished to see. He restored the warning, so I removed it again.etc,etc,etc. In the end, he restored the warning three times on my talk page, in the space of five minutes.

initial warning from the above editor.

restored comment 1st time

2nd time

3rd time

He has been editing[REDACTED] for about 10 years, so I would imagine he is really really familiar with talk page and harassment rules. He has also made numerous ANI reports on other editors, so he is also very aware of the consequences.

This is not the first situation in which the user has used templates/warnings to harass another user. For example:

also of blatant incivility

I feel bad about this, because I know this user is trying hard to improve wikipedia. He isn't a troll, he has the best intentions when he edits articles. However, when something doesn't go his way, he has a total disregard of[REDACTED] rules and a total lack of respect for other editors. I now have really mixed feelings about editing any motorcycle related article, as he is quite likely to harass me on those articles too. Can someone please take some action, he needs to understand that a mere content dispute is not grounds for harassment. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar behaviour from the same editor. Fake warnings, ignored requests to stay off my talk page, continued restoration of harassing comments when I deleted them. I compiled a timeline of events here, including some very uncivil language on his part. It is odd that after ten years of editing he is apparently unfamiliar with some basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where this "stay off my talk page" rule comes from. It's how we send editors messages. If two editors disagree about a talk page warning, then of course one of those editors can call the warning "fake", but that's only begging the question. I think putting a {{Globalize}} tag on KTM 390 series takes the cake for "fake" templating.

Spacecowboy420 is a troll and serial sockpuppeteer who is only here to disrupt Misplaced Pages. He searches for the most controversial possible changes he can make in order to kick off an edit war and bring down anyone he can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) recognized him immediately, as yet another in a long line of socks from somebody who intends to go on making new troll accounts forever. Zachlita (talk · contribs) is, by an obvious WP:DUCK test, another sockpuppet, though checkuser says they're unrelated. I have no problem saying either Zachlita is a meatpuppet, or an account created while the sockmaster was traveling among different locations. The tag-team editing pattern is blatantly obvious.

Here is a perfect example of Spacecowboy420 deliberate battleground behavior. Or this. Kicking off an effort to expunge all of the expert debunking of the supernatural claim that the Dodge Tomahawk could go 420mph is more of the same deliberate disruption, as is the idea what we cannot talk about the KTM 390 series as Indian motorcycles, and must delete all mention of India and Bajaj. None of it makes sense unless you realize that this person has been doing this for years, picking insane fights and whipping up maximum drama.

Skyring (talk · contribs) is just piling on because he's got an old grudge. It's as unseemly as when he threatened to use his admin powers to block others in a content dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am only here to comment about the edit warring on the user's talk page. I just recently went through that on my own. Dennis, please know that WP:DRC applies here. Whilst it may be an essay, you should not edit war on a user's talk page after they've removed notices/warnings. Reverting the user on their talk page is not an exemption from 3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding on that point. This series of edits occurred because I was trying to correct an error, where my attempt to copy-paste a line of text from an msn.com article was resulting in the URL being pasted in; apparently that's their copy protection scheme. All I wanted was to to get one complete and correct version of my post saved before it was deleted. I wasn't edit warring to try to get the same thing to stick, just to get the message right.

The real issue here is this: Spacecowboy420 wouldn't be having this kind of conflict if he weren't making blatantly absurd, trollish edits, such as insisting that the source cited mentioned only KTM, and not KTM and Bajaj working together. This content issue matters here: pretty much every article about KTM's Indian-made bikes says that they are Indian bikes, and that Indian company Bajaj builds them in a close partnership with KTM. Spacecowboy420 is here to delete any mention of India and Bajaj for no reason except it's his "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" troll assertion that he knows will incite a the battle he seeks.

I might be a 10-year editor with 40,000+ edits, but there's no doubt in my mind that the sockmaster behind Spacecowboy420 has edited more and for longer than me. This guy is good at what he does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is obviously confused above – I'm not an admin. I don't hold grudges; there's no point in this community, nor in life itself. Less stress to just live in the present and not the past. Having said that, SpaceCowboy's description of poor behaviour on user talk pages above struck a chord, because it is very close to how DB behaved a few months ago. Edit-warring, name-calling, gross incivility. Now that I see this is not an isolated incident, I might look to see if I can find other examples. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I mixed you up with User:John from the same old grudge. Regardless, I don't think it's a appropriate to stalk your enemies and jump in whenever somebody else has a beef with them. The whole issue that's being dredged up here, over Volkswagen emissions violations, was resolved as a content dispute. Having you lurking and waiting to come back at me with that is not appropriate. If you had a problem, you should have brought it up back then and not used this new issue as an excuse to get your digs in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over Dennis's contributions, I'm seeing a history of harassment of other editors on their talk pages, particularly new or IP editors. Edit wars and calls to 3RRN are common, and accusations of sockpuppetry seem to be par for the course. A quick look, but I see other editors complaining of harassment in a pattern of behaviour stretching back years. This is one example, but there are others. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

People like User:Tiptoethrutheminefield certainly do find themselves butting heads often with people like me. You're right that I have a long history of conflict with editors with multiple blocks to their name. It's funny that you link to that incident, where Tiptoethrutheminefield "adopted", in Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s words, one of en. and de. Misplaced Pages's most persistent and disruptive sockpuppeteers, Europefan/GLGerman. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pull me into this, and certainly not in your defence. I still remember the way you hounded Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) User talk:Bridge Boy#Changing Article Name Without Discussion.2C Again! (Yamaha Rz350), another GF motorbike editor, off the project (albeit with some help).

Throwing around blame against others is no excuse for how another editor behaves. So I'm not seeing anything of either of these two editors as being relevant as to how well or poorly the other has acted. But neither is impressing me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending me. I accurately characterized your words about a specific incident. I am not the one who blocked Bridge Boy (talk · contribs); he was blocked for disruptive editing, socking, and personal attacks. There were several other editors besides me who found him impossible to deal with. All the mean things I said about Bridge Boy were true, and then some, and multiple admins had no qualms about showing him the door permanently. If you want him back then I guess you should be asking an admin to unblock him. I'm glad you brought him up, though, because like Spacecowboy420, or Tiptoethrutheminefield, you've identified the pattern here: editors who are not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia have successfully goaded me into returning their offensive behavior with "incivility", and then someone tries to boomerang it back on me.

Brianhe's comment in the same thread as above is quite relevant: these habitually disruptive, serial socking editors know that they are going to draw a series of warning templates from regular editors, so their defensive ploy is to delete the templates and then play the "get off my talk page" card. The templating is a necessary step to getting action taken to stop the disruption, so they pretend they're being "harassed" on their talk page to bully and intimidate anyone who tries to stop them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editors should of course be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered and whatever. However we clearly disagree as to just who falls under this. I too found Bridge Boy hard work to deal with, but I'm happy to accept them as a GF editor who had something to contribute. You seemed more interested in finding reasons to decide why another editor was an outlaw, and for why you were just the sheriff to organise the lynching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree that some of his contributions were invaluable. Much of Spacecowboy420's contributions are wonderful. But the reality is that with editors like that the cost of keeping them is too high, and there's no point in delaying the inevitable. And even then, you can read on his talk page that I spent something like three months trying to politely cajole Bridge Boy into behaving himself. And wasn't it actually SamBlob (talk · contribs) who, technically, initiated the actions that got Bridge Boy blocked? I was there, and I helped, but it's unfair to make it seem like I'm the only one behind getting anybody blocked. And you might have noticed that the admins don't exactly like me. They don't block anybody just because Dennis Bratland asks them to. If anything, they cut them more slack if I'm involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dennis Bratland. I remember reading this and being highly unimpressed. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. You took one side in a content dispute and abused your Admin power by threatening blocks against anyone who crossed you. Funny how that spiked the subsequent discussion, isn't it? I still think that threat successfully discouraged any moderate editors who were thinking of participating from sticking their necks out. I stood up to your bullying, and now we're not friends are we? Yet you got away with it, scot free. Lucky you.

  Looks like somebody is working hard to canvass anybody with an axe to grind to come back here and show their willingness to use Misplaced Pages noticeboards to settle old scores. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I stand absolutely by what I said in September. I am not sure what part of that you find objectionable. I am only contributing here because you pinged me earlier. You seem easily confused, repeatedly mixing me up with Pete, and then mixing up my clear statement which referenced WP:INVOLVED with someone threatening to breach WP:INVOLVED. If not for that I would ask you to clear that up by properly reading the comments. In your case, I fear we would be here a lot longer than any of us have patience for. Can I ask that you at least consider that when everybody says you are out of line, that you may in fact be out of line, rather than everybody else being part of a conspiracy against you? Or would that be asking too much... --John (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have perfectly amicable disagreements with lots of other editors all the time. The simple fact is that you are hopelessly compromised when it comes to me. As long as you remain an admin, you should recuse yourself and stop trying to play a role in any noticeboard discussion involving me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see. So, given this "simple fact", why did you ping me at this discussion of your behaviour? --John (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real here. Dennis is a long-time productive contributor to WikiProject Motorcycling and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group with two GAs under his belt and countless other good deeds. The editor(s) you held up as a "good faith contributor" "hounded off the project" by him are blocked for their inability to abide by community standards. Give him a slap on the wrist for incivility if you must but this ad hominem endoscopic examination is exactly why people leave Misplaced Pages, and should stop immediately. – Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If one is a productive editor, one may harass less productive editors. I get what you're saying.

I found DB to be short on some of the basics of editing, such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. He seemed to think that if he thought something sounded reasonable, Misplaced Pages could say it, even if we had no external source making that statement. He also seemed to have a very poor grasp on what constituted edit-warring, which is odd considering the number of times he's appeared on WP:3RRN.

Be that as it may, what we're looking at here is editor conduct, not content. Dennis Bratland has a history of abusing other editors on their talk pages, including edit-warring to keep his abuse visible when it is deleted by the editor. Whether that other editor is a newbie, an experienced Wikipedian, or just someone Dennis Bratland has a difference of editing opinion with is immaterial. We are civil to each other, and we don't call each other motherfuckers when our views differ..

I think it is high time Dennis accepted that, even if he has a difference of opinion, it is wikipolicy – and more productive to the project – to be polite instead of abusive. He has been around Misplaced Pages long enough – and yes, produced enough excellent work – to know this. --Pete (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated that one of my interests is controversial articles. I enjoy the debate, and getting some form of resolution and consensus on a controversial article is very satisfying. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet/master and that it being confirmed that there was no connection. I should remind you Dennis, that you thought Flyer was a sock of mine as well, so perhaps your judgement of who and who isn't a sock, isn't quite perfect. But this isn't about me. It's about you and your conduct. You refuse to accept the findings of various 3rd party opinions and dispute resolutions, so you revert me on every article you can find, continually slap templates on my user page (despite being asked not to post there) and restore comments/edit war on my talk page. And it's not as if I am the first editor you have done this to, judging from the comments above, your editing style seems to attract this sort of drama. I don't. I have content disputes on various articles that are far more controversial than some silly motorbike article - they stay on the talk page and don't require ANI reports. They get discussed and resolved. The only difference between those articles and this one, is the fact that you aren't content with leaving it on the talk page. You need to take it to other articles and revert me, you need to take it to my talk page, when asked not to. You need to make sock reports with zero evidence pointing towards me being a sock. The difference is you and your way of dealing with other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't about sock accounts, so I will try to keep this brief. Brian, you accused me of being the sock of Flyer22 reborn. That accusation was so unrealistic, that an admin removed that name from the sock report. You also accused me of being connected to Zacklita, and the admin looked into it, using their techy tools and found my account and Zacklita's had no connection. You're clutching at straws in order to try to justify your harassment of me. All of this comes from you giving more attention to the editors than to their edits. Don't assume that every editor who has a different point to yours is a troll. We aren't, we just disagree with you. Don't assume that when two editors are both in disagreement with you, that they are socks. They aren't, they just both disagree with you. All of this chaos and annoyance started because you couldn't accept the removal of one single word from some article you feel that you own. Be a little more flexible and respectful towards other editors and we won't have weeks of dispute resolution, sock puppet reports and ANI reports. Jeeeeeeeez! the removal of the word extraordinary from an article has resulted in this FUBAR situation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey sometimes sockpuppet investigations turn out not to have actionable results and I'm okay with that. I take your word for it AGF that you're not socking now that I know you better. So take this as an apology for the misfire. At the same time may I make one small retort and note that Draft:Dodge Tomahawk does not contain the word "extraordinary". I really think starting with it is the best path forward but we don't need to keep discussing it here; maybe on the draft talkpage instead. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"All blocked editors are evil, otherwise they wouldn't have been blocked" is an obvious fallacy. However the usual wikiexplanation of this is based on the many editors who are blocked, then react badly to it (and may even sock) and that later bad reaction is then seen as an excuse for their blocking, rather than a reaction to it. This supports the clique of "good people" and excludes the newcomers. As such we have to be very careful against it.

I think at least one of these editors was wrongly blocked. I think Dennis' responses to many editors, particularly newer editors breaking the minor rules, isn't as generous as we might like (although few editors, and not myself, manage much better). We're supposed to welcoming of new editors, we certainly need them, and that means putting up with early and minor infractions. Then it means putting up with the same, all over again, if needs be. The alternative is merely reinforcing what's already seen as a clique. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you changed my words "inability to abide by community standards" to "evil" which is a straw man, also an obvious fallacy. I carefully chose those words to describe Bridge Boy's situation precisely. And laying what you consider to be a wrongly enacted block solely at Dennis's feet is also an error; he is not an administrator and only gets to present his evidence and arguments like anyone else. I hear what you're saying about not forming a clique and actively try to welcome, recruit and enable new editors to all parts of WP, especially the motorcycling article base. Dennis does too, and in fact he created the invite template {{Motorcycling invite}}, among the other "good deeds" I alluded to above, so please give him some credit. I think a GF understanding of the situation here is that there's an established editor (not a cabal) trying to extend the best of the community standards, including high standards of authorship and research, to new editors. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

They're not your words, they're all mine. There's a problem here, it's pervasive, it's a bad one, and several editors are involved it. This is just one example of it (Dennis' involvement summarises here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Bridge Boy will not drop the stick), but nor is it the only one. There is a tendency on WP to turn on new editors and block them permanently (when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of "indef", then this becomes unwarrantedly permanent by default). We need to be careful to avoid doing that, and part of this includes dealing with the same nonsense over and over again if needs be, with a vast amount of patience. There are plenty of outright trolls around, there's no need for us to find ways to lump others in with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bridge Boy was not a "new" editor. He was just a recent incarnation of a long-term abuser, whose earliest account (that I know of) User:LevenBoy began editing all the way back in 2008 up through 2011. His User:Triton Rocker sock was active in 2010. His most recent sock was User:Salty Batter. Before we saw his dark side, Bridge Boy was treated with a warm welcome and kid gloves, all through January, February, March, April, and May of 2012. It wasn't until June, his fifth month of editing with his latest sock account, that I and several others began to lose patience with him. Your accusations that I bite newbies are demonstrably false; anyone can read the record of the gentle help I offered him for during his early months editing on many article talk pages. I created a new barnstar, just for him, to thank him for his edits. You're inventing a narrative about me, a caricature, that doesn't fit the facts.

I guess the only sense I can say I agree with you is that it does seem very much like Spacecowboy420 is Bridge Boy all over again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Spacecowboy420 and Pete here. In my limited experience of Dennis Bratland, he is liable to adopt eccentric interpretations of sources and then get very personal very quickly when others don't agree with him. It's hard for any of us, let's face it, when we find we are in a minority but Dennis regularly doesn't seem to get the thing about how consensus works. There's a bit of work to be done here; whether it is necessary to enact any formal sanctions at this stage I am not sure. Spacecowboy420, what admin intervention were you looking for here? --John (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

For my part, it's clear that Dennis Bratland has a history of personal attacks against other editors, including gross incivility and abuse of any number of behaviour conventions. Don't bite newbies, have a regard for the talk pages of other's etc. etc.

Intimidating and attacking other editors is not how we improve the Misplaced Pages. DB does not admit any misbehaviour in his comments above. In fact he defends his actions.

I think he should be given a chance to admit that his behaviour is improper, and if no acceptable admission is forthcoming, he should be blocked for 24 hours, and warned that similar activities in future will result in longer blocks. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

i agree with pete. there should be a short block, as dennis doesnt understand or accept his actions were wrong and have been for some time. once he gets a block he will understand that he wont get away with it in the future and i hope he will change his style. Zachlita (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Outside (but not uninvolved) Comments

These two, User:Dennis Bratland and User:Spacecowboy420, are at it again. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 129. My recent experience is that, while Dennis Bratland is a good-faith editor and is probably a productive editor, he is also a stubborn editor who does not seem to understand the concept of collaboration. As to whether he has a history of personal attacks, his comments here consist largely of personal attacks. The two editors in question came to the dispute resolution noticeboard recently with regard to Dodge Tomahawk and to the exact language to be used about its manufacturer's claim that it had a top speed of 420 mph. Although Dennis Bratland kept suggesting that WikiProject Physics be asked whether this claim was physically possible, the question had never been whether anyone was supporting that claim, only exactly how to characterize it in the voice of Misplaced Pages. Dennis Bratland says that Spacecowboy420 is a troll and a serial sockpuppeteer. Has a sockpuppet report been filed? (If not, this is just a case, all too common, of yelling “Sockpuppetry” in order to “win” a conduct dispute.) I won’t say that Spacecowboy420 isn’t a troll, but I will say that I haven’t seen them being a troll, and I have seen a number of trolls in action at DRN. I concur with other editors that Dennis Bratland’s behavior in this section (aside from elsewhere) rises to the level of blockable personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The end result being that a few highly-skilled Wikipedians show up out of the blue with "newbie" accounts, and produce, via wholesale deletions, an article about a product which contains only information which originated with the product's marketing team and press releases. Rejecting entirely even one word of criticism from a comprehensive version (written by 3 experienced editors, not just me) of the article that gives space to a dozen other high-quality sources which are actually independent of the subject. Nope, no trolling here. Anybody who would object to deleting every word of criticism and dissent must not "understand the concept of collaboration". Better block a guy like that, because we want the kind of guys who write this and reject this; they're definitely here to build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, I do see that a sockpuppet investigation was filed. It didn't attempt to link User:Spacecowboy420 with User:Bridge Boy, but with two other editors. (In other words, in claiming that Spacebowboy420 is Bridge Boy, Dennis is yelling "Sockpuppet" to "win" the conduct dispute.) I see that the sockpuppet report was closed as unrelated. I will also note that the issue at DRN never had to do with whether the Dodge Tomahawk was capable of 420 mph, but with what to say in the voice of Misplaced Pages about that claim. Maybe Dennis Bratland is right and there is a vast murky motorcycle cabal, or maybe Dennis Bratland needs to reread no personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not claim Spacecowboy420 was Bridge Boy. Andy Dingley brought Bridge Boy into this, accusing me of hounding an 'innocent noob', and I merely pointed out that yes, this is often how it goes when I'm confronted with a disruptive, socking troll. Referring to the actual SPI case, Zacklita has not edited from the same IP as Spacecowboy420, we've proven that, but the close connection between them is glaringly obvious. Both Flyer22 Reborn and User:STSC could smell "sock" all over Spacecowboy420 too. Read his deleted talk page history. It's not just me.

I think the net effect of what choices we make here matters, not merely whether we check off compliance with a list of rigid rules. One course of action leads to a certain kind of encyclopedia, promotional and devoid of independent criticism, and another path leads to what I think Misplaced Pages is actually supposed to be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting it, Dennis. Blaming your poor behaviour on the (possible) shortcomings of another editor just inspires poor behaviour all round. No personal attacks is a core policy, and you are doing it over and over again, whether the other guy is a sock, a newbie, or another editor with years of experience. The only common thread is that they disagree with you. You've been given a chance to accept this and declare an intention to act better in future, but all I see here is more of "I have the right to attack the other guy". Well, no you don't. --Pete (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Restatement

I think that Dennis does “get it” in his own way. First, it appears that he is saying that Misplaced Pages has constructive editors and non-constructive editors, and that the development of the encyclopedia requires that the constructive editors be allowed to create and improve content and that non-constructive editors are a problem. So far, so good. I think that we all agree. The differences of opinion have to do with who is and is not a constructive editor and with what privileges the constructive editors earn as a result of their contributions. I think that we all agree. Dennis appears to be saying (by his conduct) that he has the privilege of identifying non-constructive editors and engaging in personal attacks on them. That is where some of us disagree. Dennis also appears to think that constructive editors do not need to compromise on matters of wording in Misplaced Pages. (After all, the Dodge Tomahawk issue was never whether it could go 420 mph. We all agreed that that claim was balderdash. The question was whether it was encyclopedic to say that was balderdash.) That is my observation of what Dennis is saying. Maybe he can restate it. Maybe he didn’t mean his attitude to be as high-handed as it came across. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunate Conclusion

Dennis is an editor who contributes substantially to article content, but is uncivil in the process and is stubborn. Such editors polarize and divide the community. Unfortunately, “the community” at WP:ANI cannot deal with such editors, because they polarize and divide the community. Such editors can be blocked by one admin, but are likely to be unblocked by another admin. The ArbCom can deal with such editors, but Dennis’s conduct does not rise to the level of warranting an ArbCom case. Therefore, in my opinion, there is very little that can be done here other than empty discussion. I would support a block, but I don’t expect consensus for one. This thread will sputter along until the community gets tired of it or some administrator is bold and closes it as no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I avoid the internet as much as possible during holidays. Regarding what I think would be a suitable result for this report, I think that a short editing block would be deserved, constructive and fair. From the large number of comments regarding this editor's behavior, it is clear that there have been numerous incidents related to civility, involving many editors. A simple "please don't do it again" while suitable for a new editor who needs to work out how[REDACTED] works, is not suitable for an editor with ten years experience, who has made many ANI reports against other editors himself. A short block (and the understanding that short blocks lead to longer blocks) would be highly effective in persuading this editor to think twice before acting in the ways that have been listed in this report. The idea that an editor should be cut some slack because they have been here a long time is wrong. It should be the opposite, once you've been here long enough to know how things work, your behavior should be close to perfect. Yes, he has made a lot of great edits - but while making those edits, how many new (and potentially great) editors has he pushed away from[REDACTED] with his edit warring and incivility? Also, the fact that his responses here mainly consist of him trying to transfer the blame to other users and justify his incivility, show that he doesn't understand how he should be behaving, a short block would be a great way to help him understand these things are not acceptable. Block the guy, let him come back after his block and see if he is capable of improving his attitude. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been following this since the onset (I was not canvassed) and it's not just because Dennis Bratland challenged me to take him to (one of) 'several notice boards' probably nine months back. I had drafted a lengthy message waiting to come in, but probably just the suggestion of dissatisfaction is enough here. I will leave it optional as to whether 'someone else' chooses to explain the circumstances for the above commentors and any other editors ('someone else' = two connected individuals).

The other reason is that I am collating evidence against another long-term editor with mulitple problem areas starting with my involvement in May 2014. As I am inexperienced with notice boards, this is a good way to learn with-a-focus and I can identify perfectly, having surveilled Dennis Bratland since early 2013, instead of learning simply abstract concepts. This other editor was blocked for six-months, quickly unblocked (against my lengthy argument, two admins), has been largely dormant, was exposed to yet-another (senior) admin, and has now resumed the old traits.

It is therefore disheartening to know that a ten-year veteran knows how to tough-it-out for long enough, potentially until the thread goes stale with no consequence. This does not bode well for Misplaced Pages. As one of the above editors opined elsewhere - Misplaced Pages is a toxic environment.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive behavior and edit-warring by User:Legacypac

For the last few months there has been a concerted attempt to clean up Longevity related articles. Various relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Oldest people, Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. User:Legacypac is a more recent contributor to this topic but has repeatedly carried out multiple edits (such as consolidating multiple articles) either without discussion or while discussion is ongoing. Despite requests from both sides of the discussion this user has continued to edit in such a fashion. These edits (omitting a few) are a prime example of disruptive bahavior: , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696466509], https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696634187], , , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696717136] and resulted in this this rather petty edit summary. A more recent sequence , , resulted in Legacypac initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the reverting user (the result of the investigation was that it was completely unfounded).

Another user has recently joined in the discussion and their edits reflect the issues with User:Legacypac. See ], ], ], ] and, unfortunately, ].

It appears to me that this users contributions on this topic are not only unnecessary but their behavior and attitude is in fact disruptive and is impacting on the resolution of the current discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific diffs provided concerning Legacypac, I will note for the consideration of other editors who may wish to comment here that the "oldest living people" area of Misplaced Pages has long been a WP:walled garden in which the regular participants vigorously resist any changes made by editors from the outside and have promulgated their own unique standards for what is and is not acceptable in the way of sourcing. The entire subject area is in dire need of a shake up and a good cleaning out, and possibly a block or two or three as well. Some thought should also be given to shutting down the WikiProject, as being detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The wall of that garden has been reduced to a picket fence with several gaps, through which Legacypac is attempting to drive a bulldozer. And FYI, I have suggested shutting down the project on more than one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty new participant in this topic. The overlapping super old people lists (5 layers deep in some cases) and serious inconsistencies between lists took a lot to understand, but we are making progress condensing things down to something that can be maintained going forward. If anyone is really interested I can provide diffs of SPAs and vandals who don't like any efforts to consolidate and rationalize. It's pretty brutal. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree on one thing: that these merges and moves are contentious and should require requested mergers and requested moves discussions, not unilateral actions. Nevertheless, I think the prudent place for these discussions is WP:AE if people want to request sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• We need more comments on Super Old People topics from experienced uninvolved editors, not campaigning like , and
• Before commenting on this ANi interested editor should read the vicious attacks from people opposed to the cleanup all edits by this vandal created just to attack me and this vandal also created just to attack me with such gems as (User:Legacypac is the most evil person in the world, not is the most evil wikipedian in the world). A threat refusal to accept strong evidence of socks or topic banned editors and disruption on AfD just a a few recent examples.
• The editor that started this thread has reinserted duplicated info 3x into the article that they complain I edit warred on when I moved out all the info 1x (to a very closely related article) and redirected again after it was restored.
• Even after starting this tread Derby is busy reverting changes by other editors without discussion. even with threats of ANi .
• Far from avoiding discussion or acting without following process, my delete/redirect success rate at AfD on Longevity articles appears to be driving some editors into very uncivil behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Legacypac has a history of concerted backstabbing, ad homien attacks, harassment, and divisive behaviour that demonstrates a clear pattern that is by no means limited to his tendentious behaviour regarding the entire suite of longevity articles. This user is fast becoming a net negative to Misplaced Pages and if spared the block hammer right now, is advised to significantly moderate his presence on Misplaced Pages or expect to be blocked without warning or another long drawn out discussion at ANI. I will be returning to normal duty on or just after 4 January at which time I will be happy to provide numerous diffs that will turn the air blue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your drive by slander away please. There is the matter of your uncivil behavior when questioned nicely on why you acted as an Admin to close a edit warring report that you did not read and tell an editor they were not aware of the 1RR template they were edit warring over. . Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kudpung you are required to provide diffs at the point you make accusations or your above statement is entirely an unsubstantiated personal attack which needs to be backed up or struck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, adding threats with the purpose of creating a chilling effect is a reason for a block, Kudpung. Be careful when you want to follow the chilling road. The Banner talk 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Back to the actual point here, I agree that Oldest people merger discussion isn't going smoothly. I believe the pages are protected to stop the forced mergers but there's now both a straw poll and a separate RFC created on the subject so I'd ask an outside admin to merge them just for simplicity. Otherwise, while the AFDs and prods are a bit much, I don't find them particularly disruptive outside of the chaos regarding the Oldest people article at the moment. Given that Alansohn has edited here for a decade, the SPI report looks like witch hunting (which has been a recent problem in this area) so I would ask for some outside view on it too. DerbyCountyinNZ if the Oldest people page is under control, is there anything else that's a problem at the moment? The AFD discussions are all heated no doubt though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Alansohn issue was already actioned by an Admin. While not found to be a Sockmaster, there IS socking going on all over the topic, and he did improperly remove my comments about an obvious sock. I'm not planning to pursue that uncivil behavior at this time, but if he takes action against me as he keeps threatening to, it will be dealt with then.

That leaves User:Kudpung's inappropriate conduct here. So which admin will step up and block him? If Admins are allowed to just say any slanderous threatening uncivil thing they want with no evidence then regular editors should also be allowed to say anything they want without fear of sanctions. Admins should not be above the rules. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think all around the sockpuppetry allegations are fruitless and not productive. I doubt there is actually sockpuppetry here, more like WP:MEAT-puppetry which is a different issue. I really doubt that it's only one or two editors involved here with multiple accounts, more likely a group of people told to come here and voting the same way, at which point they vanish for months at a time. The single working one was a topic-banned editor socking to return and we don't have a lot of those cases anyways. As to Kudpong, I'm too involved in this area so I'll leave it someone else but frankly, attacks with a "I'll be back on Monday with evidence" won't cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't block an admin for something that a "regular editor" wouldn't be blocked for. Is there a pattern of behavior here? Why is a warning insufficient? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a clear consensus developing by editors not to merge, and Legacypac doing all she/he can to make the merges happen. On that note, can we get Oldest people reverted back to this version? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Bushranger I've had minimal interaction with Kudpung so I believe this attack is the result of being one of three editors User:Johnuniq, myself and User:Viriditas that called him out on an obviously incorrect 3RR close and preceded by . He also made unsubstantiated allegations about User:Viriditas in that event which appeared quite baseless when I looked into them. (I recall it was User:WWGB who was using inappropriate language but I'd need to do more digging to show those "f-ing" diffs and we are not talking about WWGB's conduct here anyway). I took the issue as far or farther then I felt I could, knowing that holding an Admin to account for acting badly is pretty much impossible. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to the ping above. I'm trying to focus on minimizing drama and conflict in 2016 and I would encourage everyone to join me by closing this thread. Haters gonna hate and all that. HNY! Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK's analysis is spot-on. I'm with Viriditas, please shut this thread down with no action and here's to less dramah in 2016. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be entirely fair to Kudpung, who has indicated he is on a wikibreak, but might like to return to expand on his remarks in a day or two. Perhaps we should wait until then? Begoon  16:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not doing anything is going to result in this issue festering, unless you see a clear consensus to merge the articles then this needs to be dealt with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The merger of the two overlapping articles has become very convoluted with many editors trying on both sides to effect one alway or another. If Kupung is allowed to just post unsubstantiated harassment against editors that take them to task for a bad Admin action, then we all can post this kind of garbage with impunity. He was on a wikibreak before he posted here, so that is no excuse. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Trolling again from Hengistmate

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

Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as ] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC

• Re-opening this. Thanks to Ed Johnston for closing this (below), but the issue has kicked off again.

result=No action needed. Please continue to discuss at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse. Hengistmate has not edited the article since 31 December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) }}

This issue was raised on 30 December and was ignored for some time. An independent editor, 86.145.215.191, restore the fuze spelling, which was again reverted by Hengistmate. They took no part in the discussion at Talk:Plasticine, nor responded to the ANI issue here. They were active, they continued to edit other articles.

Minutes after Ed closed this, Hengistmate again reverted and even inserted an inappropriate wl to the DAB page at fuse.

This is an editor who knows the technical background to this issue, that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for the major articles, and who has a track record of blocked repeated socking simply to troll me. For them to ignore an issue for the duration of their exposure at an ANI posting, but then dive straight back in within minutes of that going away - especially with an edit so simply unconstructive as to replace a correct link with a DAB link (whatever the spelling issue) - this strikes me as sheer BF editing.

Those interested are invited to read the discussion at Talk:Plasticine - but this is still here as a behavioural issue about one editor, not a content matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Shhhhwwww!! editing based on personal preference, not established guidelines

There is person who goes by the username "Shhhhwwww!!", which ironically, doesn't exist, at least the text is red when you click on his username. He's been making random edits on the Filipinos article, and reverting my edits based on "personal preference" of images, not historical significance. He has a history of making random edits, that are inaccurate.

First quote on his revert, "please do not edit the pix without commenting first, they are organized by gender, historical era and aesthetics, don't add statues or full body pics because they do not appear to be recognizable", next quote on revert", on the talk page for the Filipinos article, there was no established rule, ruling out "images of statues" for famous people. Secondly, I did put an edit note. Next quote from his edit, "avoid statues since they are interpretations of appearance not the actual one. photos that obscure the face should also be avoided".

Overall, his username just sounds suspicious. I'm reporting this here, before an edit war ensues, because if I revert his edits, even with explanation, it's going to result in an edit war.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

his edits look like good faith edits. but they are generally wrong. ive reverted a few Zachlita (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@PacificWarrior101: Please provide links to the revisions in question.

Note to outside observers that this conflict relates to an article's ethnic group image array. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious: Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Filipinos&action=history. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

• There us now a Request for Comment filed at the talk page for the Filipinos article. This may be a more productive way of solving the issue. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised and perturbed that normal and reasonable edits need to be discussed here BEFORE they have been raised on the article's own discussion page. Surely the more collegiate way to proceed would be to discuss what rules of thumb the for gallery (if any) should be adopted there first? In the abstract and although it hints at possible "ownership" issues, the edit comment of "please do not edit the pix without commenting first, they are organized by gender, historical era..." seems sensible, but the devil will be in the detail, as usual. And I really think that, without pertinent and powerful evidence to the contrary we should assume good faith where usernames are concerned. When I last looked, there was no actual requirement to divulge identities, bona fides or construct user pages on this English language project... BushelCandle (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this statement seem sensible, "don't add statues or full body pics because they do not appear to be recognizable". Nowhere, in either Misplaced Pages or the "talk page" of the Filipinos article does it ever "prohibit" the use of statues and images, further proving my point that the other user reverted my changes out of "personal preference"....because he doesn't like statues or certain images. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note 1: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering , and . Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC
• NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments and rearranging them again and again according to his wishes. An admin who reads this should stop this behavior please because it is getting damn irritating.

1. I asked my unblocking admin that if he required , I can ask editor to agree with my exact edit on Talk Pages, however he did not ask me to do so and unblocked me.
2. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
3. There is no official sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I told the blocking admin that I will try to adhere to 1PR on pages where edit warring may erupt and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
4. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected(Even though the protected version is not mine). I was the one who started TP discussion about the template, I am not sure what more I can do.
5. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad, commenting on sources and content is allowed ojn wikipedia. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire[REDACTED] will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me , and .
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire[REDACTED] will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note 2 (by Mhhossein) FreeatlastChitchat is trying to misleadingly paste a new comment above my comments. Considering the date of the comments recorded in history, I made my last comment on "11:48, 31 December 2015". To my surprise, 5 hours later he pasted a new comment (Defense Statement from FLCC) above all comments on "16:42, 31 December 2015"!!! Although I tried to reorder the comments based on the sequences two times, he reverted me each time and sent me a warning for vandalism. Clearly, users have the right to read the comments based on their chronological order to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Moreover the "NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments ... " is another new comment which found its way up above all comments! It's really weird. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has been boldly editing a number of articles related to Islam (or at least has been trying to). I do not think these articles could be called controversial articles in the eyes of a normal editor and I do not think the majority of FreeatlastChitchat's edits could be considered controversial. However, for some religious fanatics everything is controversial and FreeatlastChitchat has suffered from considerable harassment (one need only look at his talk page to see that). I'd also like to say that Misplaced Pages should be an encyclopedia, not a medresse for the training of fundamentalists. There is too much presentation of the obscure minutia of religious dogma presented as if there was verifiable truth to any of it. Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be thankful If you could speak in regard to this very discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, it's probably a good idea to stop making minor edits to this section just to prevent archiving. If an admin sees something worthy of action, they will act - otherwise it will be archived. While I'm here, I looked at the details briefly, and I see poor behaviour on both sides. You seem unable to drop a stick, FLCC seems unable to relate to other editors collaboratively. Both of those things could very easily come back to bite either of you, and likely will, so I recommend you both let it go.
FLCC, please stop being rude, to this user and others. You are often somewhat objectionable and insulting, and far too quick to anger. You should stop that, particularly now that people are watching.
Mhhossein, please learn to let arguments expire and move on. Begoon  14:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: If you assume my good faith I should tell you that the minor edits were never aimed to prevent archiving, rather it was done to facilitate following the thread. While I'm nice to hear that you "looked at the details briefly," I have some questions:

1. How did you find me "unable to drop a stick"? I welcome the criticisms which lead to being a better editor.
2. Just tell me why should he be allowed to mass delete lots of reliable sources and materials without trying to collaboratively participate TP discussions? (I've listed many of them and am ready to present an updated list of those mass deleted reliable sources by requests.)
3. Does he need the 10th caution of being civil to stop his behavior? (he was warned to be civil by an Admin in the last ANI report.)

Anyway, thanks for your attention. Mhhossein (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested range blocks (again) for serial vandals

Copy/paste of previous request that was archived before anyone addressed it; issue still continues

Once again IP-users are subtly vandalizing tropical cyclone articles and abusing numerous addresses. The first user utilizes a base IP of 50.153.x.x and an IPv6 address of 2601:3c6:8000:e7c0:x:x:x:x. Given that the vandalizing is nearly identical and the addresses trace back to either Tennessee or Massachusetts, I'm assuming them to be from the same person. The second user is a returning person from the summer whom was subjected to a week-long range block. The second person's IP base of traces back to Mexico, and given the similar nature of their edits I'm assuming them to be the same person as in the linked incident. It's been spread out over several months, with the IPs mainly adding fake tropical cyclone names or altering intensities to incorrect values. Since I don't know how to do so myself, I'm requesting range blocks be implemented as these people likely won't stop for quite some time.

I'm honestly getting quite tired of having to make sure I double check my watchlist (>5,000 articles) every day for these serial vandals. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Range 50.153.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): This is a very busy range, with over 2600 edits from the start of October, of which only 332 were to articles with "Hurricane" or "Typhoon" in the title. So there's too much collateral damage to consider a range block.
• Range 187.151.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since November 8.
• Range 187.198.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since October 25.
• How to do it: For regular IPs, I start with the template {{blockcalc}}. Go to a sandbox, and place the list of IPs inside the template, and it will calculate the range for you (see an example of output here). Then, go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php? (alternate: https://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/) and plug in your range to look for collateral damage. For super busy ranges, change the start date for the output so it doesn't take so long for the results to come up. I don't know how to calculate ranges for IPv6, I always ask the worthy admin @NeilN: for help -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Shame...guess I'll have to keep plugging along with this guy then. Hopefully the IPv6 one will have less collateral as it seems to be the one they're using more frequently these days. Many thanks for the response and insight on how to do this myself! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And thanks Diannaa for linking that, I'd misplaced the rangecalc tool. Cyclonebiskit - if it keeps up page protection might at least help stem the bleeding? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Page protection won't help much, sadly. One person targets articles at random and the other seems fixated on Pacific typhoons (with a strange focus on ones named Carmen...). But given the relative infrequency of the latter vandal, protection really isn't warranted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I tend to use the {{blockcalc}} template, but I also found this tool, https://tools.wmflabs.org/blockcalc/, and this one, http://www.nativeforeigner.com/calc/, which can be used to calculate ranges for both IPv4 and IPv6. No idea how to check for collateral damage on IPv6. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
      • @Diannaa and Cyclonebiskit: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (yes, really!) possibilities in the best IPv6 range (2601:3c6:8000:e7c0::/64), I can't say how many are used or assigned from the tools I have available to me. Mdann52 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, I guess that settles it. We'll just have to shut down the internet, it was fun while it lasted . The user showed up again this morning and shows no signs of stopping, but hopefully they'll just get bored of this childish game eventually. There's a dedicated site for making up fake hurricanes and what not, so not sure why they're intent on putting that info here but oh well. I'll just have to adopt prowling my watchlist into my daily routine since a range block is clearly not feasible. Thanks again to all for replying! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
        • It is common for a /64 IPv6 range to be allocated to a single user by an ISP. It would be best to check with someone who works with blocking IPv6 ranges, but there should be no impediment to blocking a /64. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor

Disruptive editing, User:Noel darlow has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references and inserting unsourced and unverifiable material in its place which contradicts the sources within the Crown Estate article. This has been occurring over the past year and a half (here, here, and here) where an editor adds an inline citation and Noel darlow simply removes it. Has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with editors in removing over 20 inline citations without prior consultations on the Talk page, despite at least five different editors attempts and proposals to improve the page. Additionally, the editor has not once made any mention of what they are specifically against, nor has the user ever attempted to work collaboratively by building on other's edits, but instead seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as responding to other user's attempts at adding verifiable information to the article with only "I'll edit the article as appropriate". The user has removed verifiable information and their supporting citations by inserting non-verifiable and contradictory information on six different occasions to date.

This continuously and "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is in contradiction with WP:DDE. The user has also reverted and reinserted unverifiable and counterfactual information three four times over the past two days in contravention with WP:TRR (its spirit if not its letter).

User trackratte edited the page inserting roughly 13 inline citations based on the best possible reliable sources (in this case House of Commons Committees, the Crown Estate's own publications, Parliamentary Reports, Legal explanatory notes accompanying legislation, British Government publications, and sources from Buckingham Palace, amongst others) in an attempt to improve the article as the lead was completely unverifiable in that it lacked any citations or sourcing. This is user trackratte's first involvement with this article, and has no prior formed opinions regarding the article subject prior to conducting cursory fact checking as the article lead was lacking any references. In finding that the sources directly contradicted the opening sentence, and that the opening sentence had no supporting citation, user trackratte began further research, editing, and adding verifiable sources.

User Noel darlow removed all of the material along with all of the inline citations, putting in its place unsourced material which directly contradicts with the sources.

User trackratte then initiated a conversation on the Talk page, outlining a variety of the sources concerning the critical issue of ownership.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crown_Estate&type=revision&diff=697368041&oldid=697302863 User trackratte then restored the verifiable material inline with step one of WP:DDE ("Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material.") in order to continue improving the article and adding verifiable sources, making a further 9 edits and adding roughly 8 more inline citations.

User trackratte added further information to the Talk Page, describing the root cause of the issue, and explaining Misplaced Pages policy and how it is disruptive to actively remove verifiable information (WP:DE: "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources"), and how inputting unsourced information which is blatantly contradicted by verifiable and official sources is not inline with WP:NPOV.

User Noel darlow again removed all verifiable information and supporting inline citation once again replacing it with unsourced, non-verifiable POV information without further engaging in the Talk.

User trackratte restored the last verifiable version in order to continue improving the article] inline with WP:DDE step 2 ("If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage."), making a further 12 edits and adding a variety of inline sources, bluelinking to wiki articles containing critical conceptual information, and various copy edits for clarity and readability inline with supporting citations.

User Ninetyone joined the conversation on the Talk page stating that "it looks like Trackratte is doing a good job in sourcing the claims and they've obviously got the facts right so far", and adding a proposed copy edit to Trackratte's latest edit to improve the article's clarity and readability.

User Noel darlow for a third time reverted all changes without engaging in the Talk page with either users trackratte or Ninetyone, for a third time removing all verifiable material and supporting references, and re-inserting non-verifiable POV material in contradiction to Misplaced Pages policies (WP:TRR "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." and WP:DE "editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable source"). User Noel Darlow removed roughly 18 inline citations, a substantial amount of verifiable fact, and reinserted their own personal views without any sourcing, substantiation, or coherent argument on the Talk Page beyond their not liking it.

Looking at the user's previous contributions within this article, this is not the first time this editor has shut down other user's similar attempts to improve the article by reverting and removing verifiable citations which conflict with their own POV, and seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as telling other user's attempts at clarifying the article with "I'll edit the article as appropriate".

According to WP:DDE step three, if "the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Subsequently, I have followed policy and have requested an administrator, and will have reverted the editor's reinsertion of unsourced information as another editor has also begun collaboratively working on the last sourced version which User Noel Darlow has removed. I want to make it clear that my last reversion is being done inline with the explicit direction of the steps outlined to take in WP:DDE and as such I have followed steps 1 through 3 in order and subsequently understand my last restoration of sourced material as not falling under the rubrique of WP:TRR. However, in line with TRR and DDE, this will be my final revert to allow User Ninetynine and any other editors to continue to collaboratively improve the article, and I will reduce my involvement with the article in awaiting admin response.

User Noel darlow has for a fourth time removed over 20 inline citations and inserted unsourced information, some of which is runs completely counter to the sources. This also cuts off another editor's proposal, which was building off the sourced version.

As I clearly explained the relevant policies pertaining to the wholesale removal of sources to User Noel darlow in the talk page and the how "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is against WP, I do not believe that ignorance of policy can be an excuse in this case. I therefore propose that the user receive a topic ban from the article for a suitable period of time as deemed appropriate by an administrator. trackratte (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact Trackratte has refused repeated requests not to proceed with his own POV without attempting to resolve our differences first. Once he/she did engage in Talk he/she failed to consider points raised and simply attempted to push his/her own opinion as fact without any real discussion. This disagreement is about presenting a clear explanation of Crown Estates ownership and thus mostly concerns the opening paragraph(s) and nothing else, despite what has been claimed in the complaint. I'd like the article to be locked while differences are resolved in Talk. Basic issue is that the reality of ownership is (counter-intuitively) NOT well-explained by literal, legal technicalities and the general fog of tradition and ceremony which inevitably surrounds a monarchy. Trackratte has not grasped this yet but I'm sure he/she will - if he/she is instructed to engage properly with other editors rather than reaching for the shotgun at the first sign of disagreement. Noel darlow (talk) 01:39, 1 January 20 moi16 (UTC)

PS: The technicalities deserve to be mentioned too, of course, although not at the expense of a clear statement of the practical reality. Crown Estate ownership causes massive confusion Noel darlow (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Noel, you refused to respond to to my request that "If there is a specific point which you find lacking, or a specific source you find lacking, bring it up here", but instead you simply continue to remove all sources and insert unverifiable and counterfactual information in its place, and this is not the first time you've done so. As as far as I can see going back, this is your sixth time removing sources and placing unverified information in its place, despite five different editor's attempts over the past year or so. For example, here, here, and here. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do not have a POV for this article, I added content inline with verifiable sources, ever sentence I added had one or more verifiable inline citations. Your removing over 20 inline citations and replace the material with non-verifiable and unsubstantiated information in contradiction to the sources you continue to remove is what is at issue here. This compounded by your unwillingness to build on the material collaboratively with other editors. To note, over my twelve and a half years as editor here, this is the first time I've had to resort to ANI. trackratte (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There is every opportunity that our disagreement can be channelled productively to improve the quality of the article but first you'll have to engage properly with other points of view. I think it's reasonable to expect to thrash this out in Talk first and only then start editing the article.

The POV (IMO) is an over-emphasis on technicalities, symbolism and tradition. A monarch without real power inevitably becomes surrounded by a fog of irrationality and this seems to be the fundamental problem. Of course the details and traditions are relevant but I think they have to be handled carefully because they can easily obfuscate and obscure the practical reality of state-ownership. It is possible to be technically correct and yet wholly wrong.

I intend to reconsider my own opinion on how best to draw a line between reality and tradition - and in fact I'll be discussing this tomorrow with an individual who has advised governments and committees at Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont on issues relating to the Crown Estate as well as other matters. I'd respectfully ask you to do the same.Noel darlow (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, and your attempts at portraying it as so is a red herring, since on six different occasions and with four or five different editors you have always simply reverted their constructive edits and attempts at adding references, instead of collaboratively and constructively building on their edits to improve the article. In its place, you have simply continued to tell other users off, revert, reinsert unverifiable information, and remove all added reliable sources. Your behaviour is the only issue at play here, not the article's content. trackratte (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor: User:Calicutspecialist

User:Calicutspecialist has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references to the article, Parvathy Nair. The editor has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with other editors and has continued to make disruptive edits to the page for close to a year now. The editor's main aim is to keep the page as they wish - with no regard to any of Misplaced Pages's precedence on actors, while they also continue to ignore rules suggested on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

• The editor's edits only comprise of articles close to the actress (her article, her films, her awards etc)
• Under the ridiculous excuse of "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph", the editor has used his own self-believed precedence to remove several films from her filmography - reverting (or re-editing) the page to reflect his wishes over 50 times.
• The editor refuses to co-operate with editors who seek to talk about the issue, as seen here and delivers threats when he feels they can't revert any longer. They also remove warning template and fail to make necessary changes .

This persistent reverting has gone on for too long. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no discussion opened on the talk page, it's generally a lot easier to discuss content disputes on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries or here at ANI.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question blindly reverts either way. Regardless of any previous discussions. His excuse for removing sourced films is merely "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph". It's been like talking to a wall for months. Editor 2050 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, yet another blind revert. even after several warnings. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Help!

Help Required with User:heyilickbigtits. Rquesting a Nuke and Talk Page Access Revoked. Thanks, TF 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:HighInBC. TF 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done HighInBC 19:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC. Just after the talk page access was revoked for "h" this previously blocked editor Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) returned making the same kind of attacks on Titusfox. IMO talk page access for "S" should be revoked whether they are socks or not. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry SwisterTwister. I had to reopen this to report the new attack. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

More edits by Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) show that they are WP:NOTHERE if nothing else. HighInBC seems to be offline so of any other admin could remove talkpage access it would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. CIreland (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you CIreland MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As he said, this may be a long night. Wait until tomorrow to close this thread. TF 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Here Little Irish Fellow (talk · contribs) is the latest one. Courcelles has blocked them but the talk page access needs revoking and the attacks deleted. MarnetteD|Talk 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also done. CIreland (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like they're all User:Evlekis Socks. Open another SPI? TF 10:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:Boxing

Persistent vandalism by IPs:

• , Random Vandalism
• , As Above
• , As above
• , Accuses other editors of Vandalising
• , Personal Attack on User:Antandrus
• , Another Personal Attack

Could these IPs be blocked possibly? TF 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw this at RFPP earlier. The PAs on Antandrus have been oversighted. I hate to protect talk pages but nothing constructive has ever been added to this one. Katie 19:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's long term abuse. I periodically block his T-Mobile ranges when he rants a lot. Ten years of this now. If you're curious you can learn about his history here (page deleted by Jimbo in a failed attempt to get him to leave us alone). His off-wiki harassment has been severe enough to land him in jail twice this year. I stay on top of it. Antandrus (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

186.137.35.183

• 186.137.35.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Since early December, this anon IP has been continually violating WP:FILM consensus and Misplaced Pages MOS on a small number of animated-movie articles, by repeatedly reinserting the puffery of non-notable awards, which by consensus developed over months means awards from non-notable groups without Misplaced Pages pages, suchas the Phoenix Film Critics here and here and most recently, yesterday, here. He also overlinks the names of nominees in awards lists (for example here)after being warned that this violates MOS.

He was given two warnings on his talk page, not to mention in edit summaries, and refuses to discuss his issues despite my suggesting on Dec. 20, "Please take your concerns to the article's talk page.

Between myself and other editors, the bulk of his non-constructive edits has been reverted, taking up multiple editors' time. It might be simplest to have only registered editors on this page, but it might be more important for anon IP's recalcitrance and his refusal to engage in dialog addressed. Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

HoorayForAmerica

The block under WP:SOCK and subsequent unblock requests being declined under WP:NOTHERE stand. I recommend the standard offer be made in 6 months if this editor wishes to come back to editing. See expanded statement below for more detail. Mkdw 22:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

HoorayForAmerica (talk · contribs) (a username possibly in violation of policy?) has been blocked for a second time as an obvious sock of a yet to be identified editor. HoorayForAmerica repeatedly asks multiple editors for a thread to be opened here so that "uninvolved administrators" can weigh in. Well, here's the thread. Doc talk 00:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'd support a block per WP:NOTHERE. Seems like they are a troll and probably a sockpuppet of someone. And canvas people to get themselves unblocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: the previous block was removed presumably due to lack of evidence, or possible evidence to the contrary regarding sock puppetry. May I ask what evidence you are basing your block on? I admit given the overlap in names and content area that there is a strong quacking sound, I am wondering if there is anything more? HighInBC 01:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We can get blocks made for socking without identifying the sock master? What is the correct way to request that cause I'd like to put a couple annoying ones in the drawer. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We can block using the essay WP:NOTHERE. It's the new wildly popular trend. Blocking a blatantly obvious sock without a named master shouldn't be a stretch. Doc talk 01:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To expand a bit - the NOTHERE essay includes sockpuppetry as a reason to block. No SPI is therefore needed to block a suspected sock account. The user is "not here to build an encyclopedia", and that's all the reason needed. We went over this at a recent RfC, and the essay was deemed to be more than good enough on its own. Admins need only to use that essay as a block rationale. End of story. Doc talk 03:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is clearly not a new user. New users don't find their way to DRV a few hours after creating an account. We're not here to play games. We're here to write an encyclopedia. No regrets about my action. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I will add to what RoySmith says by quoting the sock puppetry policy which states Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, which would include WP:DRV. This means that if this is an alternate account(and I have not researched the situation enough to say that it is), then it is not a legitimate alternate account. I would like to see the user make a disclosure about which accounts or IPs they have used in the past before they are unblocked. While it is hard to track down one's old IP, surely they could dig up some old diffs by looking at the articles they edited. HighInBC 03:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• This user is now requesting a temporary unblock to participate in this discussion. I see this as trying to game the system, as they demanded this thread was opened, and are now trying to exploit it to get an unblock. They're clever, but definitely not new. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not particularly clever. And discussions by proxy are a waste of everyone's time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC).
  

  I see little harm in letting them participate in this discussion. I don't see what they gain in this request other than being allowed to have their say here, if they edit anywhere else a reblock would be swift. HighInBC 03:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support block; oppose unblock to discuss - All one has to do is page through this editor's contributions to see quite clearly they they are obviously a sock: by the third or fourth edit, they're referring to G5 deletions, something no newbie would know about -- and their fairy story about editing as an IP is just that: the IP they provided had 3 edits in 2007; there's no possible way that that IP could pick up all the Wikijargon and Wikipolicy knowledge this editor throws around in that short a time, and if they edited as another IP -- well, then they're just lying to us, again. The multiple unblock requests show definitively that the editor has nothing pertinent to say in their defense, so the community can decide this without their "help". As someone said above, we're not playing games here, we're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia, not wasting our time on useless socks. The door has been closed, that was the correct thing to do (thanks, @Roy Smith:), let's keep the door closed, and lock it while we're at it. BMK (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'm neutral on this. I originally blocked as a sock, unless based on the CU report and was rewarded by a second DRV against my closing. It's a NOTHERE block here not a sockpuppetry dispute. If the editor can explain something that they are interested in doing here than isn't restoring the You-Know-Who mess, then perhaps an unblock could be ok. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor mentioned an interest in OSU as well. I'm support an unblock at this point. Would there be an objection to an unblock with You-Know-Who topic ban for say a month? It'd fall under American politics 2. I'm for a lot of chances here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how the blocked editor, wanting to be unblocked, mentioning a possible subject to edit when pressed to do so, makes a whit of difference at all. We are being played here. BMK (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud, read the editor's goldarned talk page "Oh, I just looked up this policy, and I don't think I have to do X." The ease of navigation around the site, the understanding of policy, the smooth oiliness of every response - Gadzooks, a sock, a veritiable troll! BMK (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If this account accepted a topic ban on You-Know-Who it would demonstrate a willingness to participate as a non-SPA. Knowing, of course, that their edits would be monitored as easily as any of ours can be. I would be interested to see a positive response from HFA on this one. Doc talk 07:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support block, oppose 'discussion unblock'. User is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Allowing them to game the system for an unblock won't change that fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the good explanation. Can unidentified Sockmaster socks apply to IPs as well? Cause it's amazing the IPs that show up with no edit history in weird places like AfD, Deletion Review, edit warring over templates, spouting policy and engaging in revert wars. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Listen up, everybody. Any admin can block any account (whether IP or named) by just simply listing NOTHERE as the rationale. There is really no further obligation to explain exactly which part of NOTHERE applies. Are we all clear on this? This was decided by the community, and is therefore non-negotiable. Doc talk 07:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc any block for any reason is negotiable. The only thing that consensus added to policy is that it is a common reason for blocking. HighInBC 16:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Correct. If the editor is WP:NOTHERE, it doesn't matter if its a sock or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: I am new to this and of course not an admin (could be one day in maybe 20 years or so) but have questions/concerns. Doc advocates in comments that anyone can be blocked at anytime (are we all clear on this) for no reasoning other that "nothere). His comment about NOTHERE (an essay and apparently "...the new wildly popular trend.") indicates without the necessity of discussion. Invoking "nothere" would seem to include discussion and consideration of the 10 indicators as reasoning, and the 9 indicators in considering Misplaced Pages:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not, not just simple invocation (no obligation of explanation as stated: "There is really no further obligation to explain exactly which part of NOTHERE applies."), would mean we can edit out all the silly 19 examples shown to reach a conclusion, and just "get rid of them".

If that "slope" were to be one we are traveling, like another editor above, and can pass admins consensus, I will be back shortly with a list. I get tired of editors ignoring all policies and guidelines invoking "ignore all rules" without reasoning rather than as an exception (except "I can't hear you") in a deliberate attempt to push "nothere" to the limit. If we can use it to win a witch hunt, then I might be interested, except I could see future fallout.

In this case: The defendant was accused of being a sock I imagine with good reasoning, then apparently was checked by CU, and now AN/I.

So what am I missing? Is he a sock: Of Kingshowman or Destroyer of Sophistry and Falsehood or another (?) (as apposed to highly suspected and not confirmed); a sleeper or a duck? Did he accidentally fall into a hole with the He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named issue and so "must be hanged"? Is he gaming? Is he an "old hand" that got permanently blocked or someone that did edit a few times then quit? It might be possible (lacking clear evidence of nefarious intent) that he can be provided a short noose (oops rope) knowing if he is one of the above someone will catch him, if someone has not yet slapped the horse awaiting him to fall and stop wiggling. I would Support letting him hang himself as opposed to a lynching party that could kill off a valid new(er) editor by suspicion alone. Otr500 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to address a few things in this discussion before closing. HoorayForAmerica was not unblocked because a checkuser was inconclusive. They were unblocked because the admin who initially blocked them cited Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman but no behavioural evidence or notes were discussed at this SPI regarding HoorayForAmerica. When a CU determines there is no technical connection two or more accounts, that does not rule out sock puppetry. Many people are able to access dynamic IPs through VPN, mobile devices, hotspots, public WiFi networks, routing their IP, and so forth. The initial blocking admin openly stated they did not properly evaluate the behavioural evidence and it seems like it was a decision made on the spot. They correctly responded to the unblock request from another reviewing admin, me, and unblocked the editor accordingly. RoySmith blocked HoorayForAmerica a second time under WP:DUCK as a sock which is an valid criteria when evaluating behavioural evidence. As someone familiar with the SPI process, I'm including to agree that the behavioural evidence is very strong against HoorayForAmerica. They demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the bureaucratic process of Misplaced Pages including {{help me}}, {{admin help}}, {{ping}}, {{unblock}} citing very specific points of policy not typical of normal unblock requests, WP:AFD (mentioned in their first edit summary), how to use edit summaries, WP:DRV, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, article standards including WP:RS and WP:V, article and user talk pages, using wikilinks and changing the visible overlay wording, how to remove speedy deletion notices (their first edit), citing WP:AGF, as well as how to correctly sign their messages. I've spent a lot of time dealing with newcomers to the site at WP:AFC, the IRC help channel, and answering help me requests. Even if they had lightly edited Misplaced Pages in 2007 using an IP, their clear knowledge of a wide array of processes at Misplaced Pages is not indicative of a newcomer. If indeed their attention was drawn to this article from Google News, as they have stated, considering the lifetime of the article before it was deleted, they would not have had the time or opportunity to become familiar with all the policies and processes mentioned above. This evidence rules out WP:NEWCOMER and WP:BITE.

They also edited the article Donald Trump and Fascism, an article that had been the subject of sock puppetry. In an SPI investigation, this would be enough under WP:DUCK to result in a block, especially the repeated removal of the speedy deletion templates from an article in contention, their only two edits in the main space. The rest of the time has been spent at several user talk pages or DRV and AN, wikilawyering to a very advanced degree of understanding. While some of us may chalk it up to frustration, they've failed to adhere to advice to let processes run their course as was evident by multiple help me and successive unblock requests, pointing towards their battleground mentality which is covered under WP:NOTHERE. It's important to note that WP:SOCK and WP:GAMING also fall under NOTHERE. I've reviewed the discussion above and it would seem that the editor is being doubly charged here and not one or the other. I'm closing this discussion as I've only acted administratively in this case and previously in favour of this editor. Mkdw 22:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

The implicit assumption here is that no new editor is capable of following obvious wikilinks, RTFM and comprehending guidance wiki editors have spent a lot of time trying to make understandable -- in other words, we only want new editors of average to below average comprehension and attention to detail. NE Ent 02:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. To me, it's not like we can't reblock later. The antics aren't exactly sneaky. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're making the implicit assumption that this editor was blocked on only their quickness to proficiency when in fact the entirety of their situation was evaluated. So in other words, nothing remotely close to that conclusion was alluded to nor would the same conclusion be drawn with another editor who showed immediate proficiency. Further, Ricky81682 as an administrator, you're able to unblock the editor. I am not here, at ANI, to review an unblock request. Rather, merely to review the discussion and close it where I determined a large enough consensus for the block to remain intact. Mkdw 04:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again NE Ent chimes in saying we're not seeing the forest for the trees. We've done some grave disservice to "dumb down" our potential new editor pool. Absolutely untrue nonsense. No focus on the facts of this particular case. The discussion was closed. Are you going to reopen it, NE Ent? Or just move on? Doc talk 05:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mdkw states "I've spent a lot of time dealing with newcomers to the site at WP:AFC, the IRC help channel, and answering help me requests." Data indicates there were five and half thousand new editors in November. Many did not require assistance at any of those venues; the point being meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn from a skewed sample. The fact remains Misplaced Pages has an extensive help system, prominently wikilinked. Most of the "disruption" has come about because of the block. The forest is human knowledge is increasing exponentially and the number of wiki editors is flat. If we block every overly clueless new editor per WP:CIR, and every overly clue full new editor as "obvious sock," then we'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of Misplaced Pages's life. NE Ent 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it's probably a good job we don't block every overly clueless new editor per WP:CIR, and every overly clue full new editor as "obvious sock", eh? Unless you're basing that on a skewed sample? You spend a lot of time in meta areas, for instance, as do I. Perhaps, just perhaps, what we see here is very far from what happens to the average new editor. I suspect it is, you know, while not denying that what you say deserves some thought.
For instance, we seldom see here the good new editors scared away by the bad "patrollers", or the good new editors encouraged to stay by a kind word. Or those who stay and just edit because nobody bothers them. Etc - rinse and repeat. Discussion for another place, though...Begoon  13:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet HoorayForAmerica used 4 {{admin help}}, an {{edit request}} and a {{help me}} request. Seems to me if you're talking about sample groups, HoorayForAmerica would fall exactly into the category I'm referring. Maybe you haven't spent a lot of time assisting newcomers but help me requests are not necessarily a sign of cluelessness. I find it ironic that you're criticizing me for making broad assumptions (about one editor) yet you're making even larger generalizations about all newcomers. In fact, I still use {{admin help}} for example. Again, I point your attention that no conclusion was drawn merely because of their proficiency but the entirety of the case. Using individual cases to make political statements about the direction of Misplaced Pages is neither the place nor fair to the individual. Editors blocked for sock puppetry and WP:NOTHERE are not suddenly unburdened by these policies because an editor wants to simply welcome newcomers. Of course the community wants newcomers, but not at the cost of ridding the project of key protective policies. This discussion has moved further and further away from the actual case points and more about a being a soapbox for NE Ent's personal views. Unless the case is to be re-opened, then there are other avenues to discuss attracting and retaining newcomcers. Mkdw 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Rasoul Montajabnia

Two articles Rasoul Montajebnia (the original) and Rasoul Montajabnia (forked with corrected spelling: je vs ja) probably need admin intervention. —teb728 t c 01:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume both names refer to the same person, and are simply alternate transliterations from the original Arabic. I see both versions in widespread use by various sources. I think I'd go with the ja version, because that's what the Tehran Times uses. Assuming nobody objects in the next day or so, I'm going to restore Rasoul Montajabnia and make Rasoul Montajebnia redirect there. Then, somebody who knows the subject matter better than I do can merge whatever content makes sense. I also note that our own article(s) are the top two hits for either spelling. That's usually a red flag that this person really isn't notable at all, by our standards. If somebody want to pursue that line of reasoning, AfD would be the right forum -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd just move Rasoul Montajebnia to Rasoul Montajabnia. The new article is a mess, while the original is less so. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Also did a history restore of the target, to preserve the attribution history of both forks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Chrisbospher

This user has edited my comments twice despite being warned. The first time they edited my comments are here I warned them here at 23:25 and yet you did it again at 23:52

They are a brand new account trying to get a bunch of medical videos deleted on commons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The user is clearly someone with an axe to grind against the makers of the videos. Chrisbospher's approach is interesting in that it is ultra civil and respectful, but the user is only here for one purpose—to have the extremely useful medical videos deleted. Consider the edit summary in Chrisbospher's first edit: "Osmosis has existed since 2013, and there is no affiliation with Khan academy. A few months ago, when Dr. Desai joined them as CMO, who was previous at Khan Academy. Framing this as an education initiative when it's for-profit is wrong." That shows an impressive degree of background knowledge. However, the user has only made three edits at enwiki, and they were all within one forty-minute period, so there is not much to do other than monitor the account. If anyone here understands rationales used at Commons for deleting media, particularly with regard to a concern that the first two seconds of a video shows the URL of the creator, please have a look at the deletion request. The claims of "free advertising/marketing tool" are obviously over-the-top, but is there a policy with regard to a brief credit in a video? Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is really a Commons issue. But a nice solution would be to bring the files into a video editor, clip the logo from the beginning and the "Like us on Facebook" stuff at the end, and re-upload. The file licensing permits this, of course, or it couldn't be on Misplaced Pages or Commons. (I tried doing this with OpenShot on Ubuntu, but there's a codec incompatibility and it's not working.) John Nagle (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

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

Erm, could we revdel this? It's over two years old and Google translate says it translates to "(Redacted)!!!" in Korean. I've reverted it but would still like it revdel'd. TF 12:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done, also removed the translated version above. -- GB fan 13:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Long term IP vandalism

174.112.116.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is going around on football articles only to make small incorrect edits (probably hoping to be undetected). This has been going on for a long time, but without much warnings, because reverting editors simply have not warned but it is causing frustration amongst editors so this ha to stop.

Examples include changing result of football matches (, , ), lineup changes which has lead to frustration (, ) amongst other issues. All of their edits so far has been reverted, and since the IP dont edit every day I suggest a longer block so that they actually are blocked when trying to edit. If they are blocked only 24hours, they wont notice block when coming back next week or whenever the editor will be back again. Qed237 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and have applied a 2 month block. -- zzuuzz 17:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tags

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has been edit warrning on several pages such as here, here, and here in addition to other tagged Green Party articles. Request assistance. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That isn't edit warning. It isn't edit warring either. could you describe your problem better? -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I nominated a few articles for speedy deletion, and this non-admin is removing the tags, as well as other maintenance tags to encourage the improvement of Green Party articles. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the edsums?:Roxy the dog™ woof 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tags can be removed by non-admins; the only person who cannot is the article creator (who has to use the "contest this" button). Hullabaloo is not the creator of these articles, so his removal is perfectly valid. And these are not valid tags in the first place; an article requiring cleanup is not in any way a valid reason for speedy deletion. Clear case of boomerang coupled with a lack of competence. oknazevad (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Will somebody please give this troll the long block they so clearly have earned? They have edit warred to replace speedy deletion tags that other editors (not just me) have properly declined (aside from the Green Party articles, see Universal Life Church Monastery); placed phony warnings on my talk page, filed related, groundless AFDs that are in the process of being rapidly and unanimously rejected, and, for an editor who's been here for more than 10 years, is showing a sudden and unlikely attack of cluelessness that's hard to take at face value or see as good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And, as well, not the section immediately above, where they've made sockpuppet allegations without a shred of evidence or reasoning. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Note: the section to which I referred has been removed The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please give us a clearer pointer to the location of the sockpuppet allegations to which you refer? I can't see them. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in here but "Me-123567" deserves blocking just for Misusing Twinkle, (Giving someone 8 incorrect templated warnings within 5 minutes is not only Bad Faith but it's disruptive too!), I would strongly suggest "Me" packs it in and withdraws this pointless thread before they find themselves blocked!. –Davey2010 21:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad I did not know non-admins could remove spedy tags. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) It has since been resolved to afd. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• • You've been editing here for more than ten years. Your edit history shows extensive use of the speedy deletion process, including multiple removal of your tags by non-admins. Your "I did not know" claim deserves zero credibility. This was deliberate disruption and harassment of editors who don't share your views. The evidence-free sockpuppet allegation above is more evidence of a lack of good faith. Asd was your posting a dishonest warning on my talk page saying I'd removed a speedy tag from an article I'd created, even though you knew I hadn't. Putting A1 tags on articles which had significant substantive content wasn't a misunderstanding. Putting A7 tags on articles which accurately reported that third parties which had qualified for statewide ballots and had elected candidates to office wasn't a misunderstanding. Placing G11 tags on articles which reported election vote totals wasn't a misunderstanding. You're on a weird little political jihad, and have been harassing editors who disagree with you. "My bad" just doesn't cut it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I left User:Me-123567-Me a note on their talk page, and they responded here. The speedy deletes seem a bit hasty. I have already improved two of the articles: Green Party of Mississippi and Green Party of Delaware. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And once its removed it can't be put back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it can't be put back, but a user had better have a solid reason to restore a speedy tag after it's been validly removed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This edit] by OP of that section and this changed the word "Trump" in other editor's posts. Glrx (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Refractoring other's talk is certainly bad-faith. Too many edits since then for an easy undo. This person needs a break/vacation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Has to be a damn good reason for reinstating WP:Speedy after an objection. I was confused: WP:PROD says: "If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag—see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I initially reverted Hulla, but I realized also that a non-admin could remove them so I apologize for that. I was unaware of that. However, the tags should remain as the issues still stand. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from User:Oncenawhile on Southern Levant categories

Several months ago, I reported an incident of User:Oncenawhile making sweeping category removals from WP:ARBPIA articles. The result was a message from User:Georgewilliamherbert that "This topic area is very sensitive for obvious reasons and widespread use of HotCat like this is at least subject to enhanced scrutiny. I left the current ArbPIA alert for the record, but this can be closed if the two of you can discuss constructively in talk." Despite this notice, Oncenawhile is once again arbitrarily making sweeping HotCat removals of categories from WP:ARBPIA articles. Specifically, removing the category Category:Southern_Levant from a wide range of articles several days ago and then arbitrarily removing articles from Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant today (while proposing to have it deleted - which is in and of itself ok, but forms part of a larger picture). All of these edits are contradicting previous discussions. It is worth mentioning that Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse.

The recent edits are as follows: 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.

The previous report can be found here which describes Oncenawhile making strange edits such as replacing "Southern Levant" with "the region" and mass-removing Southern Levant categories via HotCat.

Additionally, he's been directing personal attacks at me, here where he passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while also insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where he accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". It is abundantly clear that this editor isn't interested in editing constructively with regard to the Southern Levant. He mass deletes categories, is told not to, and then does it again months (sometimes years, he has been at this for about 5 years now) later. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that he was prevented from removing categories etc. In general, it is clear that you to aren't going to agree, perhaps it's time for DR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he immediately pulled the islamaphobia card on an article that's critical of the muslim world really speaks volumes.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He was advised that sweeping HotCat category removals in ARBPIA articles are subject to enhanced scrutiny, he then waited 3 months and did it again, contradicting previous agreements. In the discussion, it was agreed that Archaeological and Geographical articles should stay in the category, yet he's again mass removed geographical articles from the category. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if all the edits are like this, but the first 4 diffs seem to be exactly as advised at WP:SUBCAT, namely removing a parent category when a child category is appropriate. Zero 02:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the kind of pernicious editing regarding the subject is how he originally claimed that History of the Southern Levant and History of Palestine were separate subjects here and therefore suggested that an article for the region under the name History of Palestine should be made in addition to the History of the Southern Levant article. Then, two years later, he claimed that Southern Levant and Palestine were in fact the same region, and that Southern Levant was a redundant content fork and should be deleted, directly contradicting what he originally claimed here. This deletion request went through with only three editors commenting on it. After the deletion, an admin, Sandstein had the History of the Southern Levant page redirected to Southern Levant. Yet a year later, Oncenawhile changed the admin's redirect from Southern Levant to History of Palestine here claiming it to be a "better redirect." This editor has an absolute vendetta against the academic term Southern Levant and has been attempting to have it marginalized and minimized on[REDACTED] while using stealthy means whenever possible. Drsmoo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse". A Google search for the term "Southern Levant" finds just over 100,000 examples, nearly all of them relating to prehistoric periods. A Google Scholar search produces just 10,000 results, all related to prehistoric periods. Why do you believe that this is relevant to articles relating to contemporary history and politics?RolandR (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. Archaeological research is conducted in all of the countries removed from the category within the field of Levantine Archaeology. Ie https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-of-the-levant-9780199212972?cc=us&lang=en&. The issues at hand are repeated mass changes to ARBPIA articles and duplicitous and hostile editing. Drsmoo (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is likely to be trouble ahead

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

An editor exposed as a sock puppet starts an RFC to remove image galleries on any article related to an ethnic group. Unbelievably a number of editors jump on this, on the basis that these "are more trouble than they're worth" the RFC is closed by Sandstein that there is a consensus to do this. Now its passed as a consensus, so a group of editors have decided to embark on a campaign of removing them from articles. On the vast majority of articles theses have been entirely uncontroversial, running around slapping the tag WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, they're energetically removing all the galleries. A lot of editors are going to disagree and having never even been aware of this RFC are going to kick back causing revert wars all over the place. This was a bad close in my view, the policy on consensus is really clear, Misplaced Pages:Consensus "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Please can saner heads put a brake on this before it causes a whole boatload of unnecessary drama. WCM_email 02:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I join the above initiation (but I took part in the voting process). The RfC was aimed at avoiding OR and edit warring. However, now it is quite clear that the "consensus" did not help. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have not seen many RfCs with so many participants; I think it will be hard to argue that this was a select group. (Granted, u/Universe may attract an even bigger crowd next time.) I congratulate Sandstein on their close; at the same time, I don't think it's a good idea for folks to go around changing as much as possible as if there will be less disruption if we wake up in a composite-ethnic-image-infobox-free-world. Pinging Iryna Harpy, just cuz I can. Goodnight everyone. Drmies (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: As RfC closer, my job is only to determine the consensus, if any, that results from a discussion. Because Wee Curry Monster doesn't argue that the consensus I found wasn't in fact the outcome of the discussion, I'm not sure how they come to the conclusion that this was a "bad close", or what it is that they are here to complain about. As to how the RfC was set up or is being implemented now, I'm not involved with that and can't comment on it. But speaking generally, the RfC was properly advertised with a RfC tag, ran for 30+ days and saw a great number of editors participating, so I'd say that it represents the global consensus that local consensus by the editors of individual pages can't override, rather than the other way around.  Sandstein  06:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Drmies and Sandstein. I started reading through this RfC with a view to close it but it ended up being far longer than I had time to read; it had, in my view, more than enough participants to disqualify it from being "among a limited group of editors". Close seems sensible and reflective of the discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Didn't know about the RfC but there has been a similar local consensus relating to caste etc articles for years, seemingly based on the same arguments summarised in the close here - see User:Sitush/Common#Montages. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Wee Curry Monster, I think that if you read some of the discussion in more detail, you'll discover that the rationales for removal that were expressed were more advanced than "more trouble than they're worth". While the editor who started the RfC was indeed later found to be a sock, the decision to start an RfC was a collective one as a result of this discussion. It was clear even before the start of the RfC that opposition to these montages extended far beyond Hahun/Iaaasi. I also personally completely reworded the question and am happy to take responsibility for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein Your summary of the discussion is accurate, however, your suggestion that its a global consensus is flawed. It was a group on a wikiproject and many editors were completely unaware of it, hence it could never represent a community consensus. I fully agree with Drmies that we shouldn't run around changing things on the basis of the RFC, since it creates conflict where previously there were none. One of the first results was to remove the gallery from Japanese people, , identified in the RFC as a good example of how to use image galleries. The article is poorer for its removal. WCM_email 12:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• WCM, sorry, but that's not really what I said. I think mass removals will cause unrest, and causing unrest is rarely a good thing--but I didn't say that the RfC needn't be acted on or something like that. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As it turns out, the RfC was (and still is) advertised at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion, in addition to the global RfC tag. One can't get much more public than that. I'm quite satisfied that the outcome reflects Misplaced Pages-wide community consensus and is actionable as such. Whether you (or I for that matter) agree with the outcome is, I'm sorry to say, not relevant.  Sandstein  12:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually think there's a good case for trying to implement the consensus as quickly as possible. If infobox galleries are removed slowly, then there will still be a large number that editors can point to and say "that article has one, so why can't this one too?", and this will result in more edit warring. A swift removal helps to avoid that. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point, Larry. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Any significant change in practice causes dissent among those who were not participants in the change discussion. This should NEVER be a reason to not implement the change. The RfC was properly listed, advertised, allowed to run 30 days, and closed by an uninvolved administrator. WCM, you've inverted that status vis-a-vis this RfC and Misplaced Pages:Consensus. This RfC IS community consensus on a wider scale. If this were a handful of editors from a particular project, you might have a case. It isn't. There is wide consensus to remove these galleries. People fought (and HARD) over placeholder image removal. People fought over the spoiler warnings being removed. It is likely people will fight over these galleries being removed. C'est la vie. Once the new consensus is put in place, and enforced, things will quiet down and the new normal will take hold. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka above states that the RfC was aimed at reducing edit warring but concludes that it has not helped. Apparently to prove that he has engaged in edit warring at Hungarians intended to retain the array there. Giving up on adding it to the infobox, he has now simply plopped the array into a gallery in the middle of an article already bloated with images (74 on a page of 50k). This gallery suffers from the same POV and lack of standards discussed in the RfC and appears to be a work-around to avoid consensus. Thus we have an editor who warns that the consensus will not stop the disputes and making sure of it by continuing the dispute himself. This goes directly against the spirit of the RfC consensus. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is a facepalmingly bad move on the part of @Borsoka:. While the RfC relates to infoboxes, simply transporting the problem into a gallery in the article ignores the spirit of the RfC. Serious, seriously bad move. This is no better than someone removing a gallery of non-free images from an infobox, and someone else putting the gallery of non-free images back into the article further down in its own section. This has to stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Laszlo Panaflex and Hammersoft, would you please read the discussion about the implementation of the well established consensual policy here before making uncivil remarks? Borsoka (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific as to where in that extensive discussion that consensus approves of simply moving the array into the body of the article? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I refer to my previous message here: . Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Borsoka: My comment about your actions was not in the slightest bit uncivil. I'm sorry you have perceived as such, as nothing of the kind was intended. I don't know you. To my recollection, I've never interacted with you before. I've no reason to have any opinion about you. I didn't comment on *you*, I commented on your actions which violated the spirit of the RfC. It's quite clear they did, and I stand by my comments. It was a bad decision to take that action, and I sincerely hope you see the error of it and correct your mistake. The issue of the galleries is not a game of Whac-A-Mole, where we fix it one place and it pops up in another. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by blocked Rulerottar

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

Blocked Rulerottar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing his talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, let's hope that's the only thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Trolling

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

OmegaBuddy13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . jonkerz ♠talk 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

Folkprofessor

User:Folkprofessor has been warned not to add copyrighted images to Owsley Stanley, but has done it now eight times, he needs to be blocked. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Folkprofessor. He is an SPA only adding copyrighted images to the article. The ones he loaded to Wikimedia Commons have all been deleted, now he is adding symbols. There already is a properly licensed image used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Three editors are adding OR and patent nonsense to several articles about the former Hesse Grand Ducal family

The following users are adding wp:OR and WP:patent nonsense to several articles on the subject of the former Hesse Grand Ducal family:

User:2600:380:522F:214E:191D:10A:CE79:BF4

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

• here

• here and subsequent edits

User:William.Burgess1001

• here

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

User: 96.27.192.192

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Problematic User

Requesting a nuke on User:sadda14. Lots of edits that all contain personal attacks on multiple editors including myself. TF 16:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

sadda14 is a sock of Voda9, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Voda9 Bazj (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Malicious edits

• AnOnionForWilly (talk · contribs)

All edit summaries will need to be scrubbed. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards