Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:36, 5 August 2011

• 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

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

How to deal with tendentious editing?

The thread below, up to Fowler&fowler's msg at 18:58 is copied from WP:AN per their advice. MangoWong and Thisthat2011 are two contributors who have been arguing tendentiously across numerous India-related articles, at the India project, at the Article Titles project, here at ANI, at NPOVN ... and probably in other forums also. A third contributor in this loose group is Yogesh Khandke but s/he is currently on a one week block.

How do we deal with a situation as ridiculous as, say, the goings-on at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_45#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna
• Talk:Kurmi#Source_for_Shudra
• Talk:Nair#Lede_section
• Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni#Overlinking (this was Yogesh Khandke alone)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Please_look

In their attempts to either censor Misplaced Pages (by, for example, objecting to inclusion of shudra in the Kurmi article per the above thread), or push an India-centric POV over Misplaced Pages's NPOV ethos (as in threads regarding article renamings for Ganges and Gandhi), they are raising the same issues time and time again but rarely have a policy-based argument to substantiate their positions. Indeed, they appear often to misunderstand policy but are fluent in the systemic bias argument. I acknowledge that there is such bias, by the way, but that is a wider problem & will not be resolved by going round in circles on a few articles here and there.

Edits such as this one demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, seemingly in an attempt to wriggle out of having to acknowledge the list of 15 sources presented to support a statement that MangoWong objected to.

There have also been examples of rather poor advice such as this being given to relatively new contributors, and various instances of undermining the integrity of the project.

This is occurring on a daily basis and it is wearing people out. Well, it is certainly wearing me out. There are surely far better things to do than run round in circles dealing with people who rarely present sources to support their opinions, wikilawyer to an extreme but in a way that totally misrepresents policy, and simply will not drop the bone, How does one deal with this situation? The list of examples of the tendentious repetitive disruption would be truly massive & the idea that I would have to compile the thing is daunting.

I've gotten so confused and hassled dealing with these contributors that I've been making errors of my own, btw. Eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_comments_on_Hindu_Jatis_related_discussion. Keeping track of all the repetition etc is a nightmare, but feel free to boomerang me. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is still being discussed at India Related Topics. I would suggest to excuse the shortcut that Sitush has taken to take the topic on this noticeboard before discussions elsewhere are done with, before issues can have chance as suggested by Sitush to boomrang. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have brought in an ANI on Sitush for wasting phenomenal amount of my time with unnecessary arguments, accusations, proposing things which he is not serious about, edit warring on minor issues, claiming policy says x, when it does not, putting up unnecessary warnings on my talk page, trying to revert my edits by inserting garbage sources, claiming myself agreed to things when I did not, etc. etc. etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that despite having unsuccessfully tried before to get support at ANI and other places for a perception that there is admin "incompetence" etc, Thisthat2011 is still persisting in the trend even after receiving a notice for this discussion - see here. TT is entitled to the opinion but it is counterproductive to keep carping on about something that has already been reviewed by numerous independent observers at ANI. Mind you, since they would mostly also have been admins I guess that this is a part of the Big Conspiracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only Big Conspiracy I see is the Big Bang. The rest are details. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just found an example of Yogesh Khandke's recent disruption on a FAQ page, although I note that he subsequently self-reverted. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC) :Sitush, this discussion should be taking place at WP:ANI, not here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Boing! said Zebedee thought this would be the best venue when I asked a while ago. Can I just copy/paste the entire thread? - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, cut and paste this thread there. I'll add my bit there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about MangoWong, but Thisthat2011, in my view, has become a disruptive presence on Misplaced Pages. Whether his knowledge of written English is truly poor or he feigns ignorance, I do not know, but he has been handled with kid gloves for over two months now. In this time, however, he hasn't learned much. His posts are both repetitive and vague in the extreme, seemingly blithely unaware of the prevailing Misplaced Pages standards of logic, reasoning, citing, precision, prose writing, and even reading comprehension. Talking to him is akin to talking to a child who keeps asking, "Why?" in response to every answer. It is only so long before the parent gets exasperated. I don't know if he needs a topic ban in the manner of Zuggernaut, some kind of supervision by a firm and very patient mentor, or a week-long block in the manner of Yogesh Khandke, but he needs to be given some message from the community. He has wasted an inordinate amount of time of a number of productive Wikipedians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My experience of Thisthat2011 is more or less the same as Fowler&fowler's. Discussion is utterly frustrating. Every answer is responded to with yet another question which just goes on and on and on. His posts demonstrate a complete inability to understand basic arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with Thisthat2011 as have Fowler and Paul Barlow. I have had lengthy (very) discussions with him on two occasions, wherein I have seen the same points being stated and restated, and where he tries to repeatedly insist that there is some consensus. Lynch7 19:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am yet to get any answer on why sources related to legends etc. on Hindu Jati pages are required as per strict standards of Misplaced Pages, when the legends/classifications etc. are religious in nature. As far as "a notice for this discussion - see here", let me know where I have mentioned anything against admins after that as well. I don't know from where Paul B is giving his opinion from suddenly. About ML and Fowler, the feeling is mutual. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the discussion are going on, I would also like to suggest a standard like WP:KnitShA meaning "Knight in the Shining Armor", where secondary sources are not presented till some time when all editors have a go of opinion in the absence of RS, and then a Knight in the Shining Armor will present the source to corner glory while an editor will be remarked upon just to demand RS in the absence of consensus. I can cite an example here, shows kind of arguments that keep going on and on and see where and who has presented sources and who has argued without sources. Calling me tendentious would be incorrect in such a case. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, is it really wise to introduce here proposals here that you have raised seemingly ad infinitum in other forums? It is practically one of the definitions of a tendentious person (see 2.9). I note an interesting thread around this diff where you mention the "knight" theory, one of a series on that article talk page where you and Mango (by self-confession, at that time editing as an IP) tied up a lot of the time of people such as Paul Barlow & Bwilkins. Your current Hindu Jati sourcing hobbyhorse seems to be appearing on all sorts of tangential forums.

You refer to the diff that I had previously mentioned regarding your attitude to admins. If you look at the timing then you will see that your comment occurred after I had notified MangoWong and after you had acknowledged receipt of my mispoted notification to yourself. There have been no such further statements probably because it has been raised here and also MangoWong warned you off doing so. But you (and IIRC MangoWong also) have for some time had a predilection for this type of "biased admin" comment. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, till now hardly anyone has given a clarity on how strictly RS standards are to adhere to on topics related to Hindu Jatis, though perhaps there are some diffs that explicitly are stated by Sitush/others about how Hindu scriptures like Puranas are not to be considered for the page because ... etc. I wonder why such exactness is required on pages related to Hindu Jatis, where many legends/beliefs etc. could be related to ancient texts and where Hindus might well have to go through the maze of issues including english-translation-of-texts, their relevant RS explanations, even proto-religions etc. to clarify details of beliefs and legends. And so this topic comes here too, along with the tendentiousness allegations. If this is not done properly, you will definitely find many people logging on Misplaced Pages just to point out how incorrect it is as per beliefs/legends and will be subsequently be disappointed on finding out that each of them have to prove God along with rest of the issues discussed above to make their point clearer. That is why I had mentioned the topic on India-related discussion board, which was cut off immediately and mentioned in two boards ANI and AN. An example of similar page, according to me, could be Catholic Church, where religious legends are not ignored on/similar pages.

As far as 'biased admin' part is concerned, I would like to clarify that admins should have pointed out how these pages could not have to be so stringent in the first place, a position that otherwise will emerge regardless according to me. This is high time someone makes it clear.

About this diff, the source I do not believe was RS, and the issue was settled long time ago, which you have missed, immediately after mentioning RS for the same content. It is therefore incorrect to say that the discussion was tendentious at all for anyone. Although User:Sitush gets the exact sources needed to make his point, I would like to point out that he leaves it half explained for the other side to do the explanation part very well as per understanding of the rest of people/admins. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About "attitude to admins", you have yourself stated that "There have been no such further statements probably because...", bordering on assumptions that I almost did it after warning which does not mean anything. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any thoughts regarding how to deal with MangoWong's ludicrous wikilawyering etc? An example already referred to being . - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

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

Thisthat2011 is topic banned from India-related articles for three months. Basically, he needs to learn how to collaborate with others by practicing on less emotionally-charged (for him) topics first. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal or already decided? Will I be able to log in and follow topics of interest in my watchlist, without edits/discussions - if this can be clarified as well please. I was going to reply of above post by Sitush, but if I am already topic banned, I am not sure if I could. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a proposal. You are entitled to comment on it. A topic ban would not stop you watching but it might stop you from commenting even on indirectly related/unrelated pages. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than introducing a topic ban on ThisThat2011, my impression is that it may be enough to advise them to study the TPG closely and to not to get involved in too many articles at the same time. The way I see it, I think ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints because of not having read, or not having internalized the TPG. Secondly, I think ThisThat2011 has been trying to do too many things at the same time. Spreading oneself too thin does not seem like a good idea to me. Thirdly, I agree that ThisThat2011 be advised to stay away from contentious issues for some time. The way I see it -- getting involved in too many disputes, without having internalized the TPG, spreading oneself too thin--seems to be the reason that ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints. ThisThat2011 may also have become worried because Sitush seems to have been behaving in a way which would suggest that he could get admin support for whatever he wants. This can have an unsettling effect on some folks. Besides this, I would like to be allowed to give some friendly tips to ThisThat2011 on how to formulate comments on the Talkpage. These are already there in the TPG, but still....Having studied the TPG multiple times myself, I think I might able to go some distance there (although I do not see myself as a "master" of TPG, to be clear). Secondly, I too am having complaints with Sitush's behavior. I would request that they too should also be examined.-MangoWong (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You questioned my behaviour here in the thread you started on 22 July and which rambled on for several days. Questioning it again, so soon after a prior thread, seems likely to be tendentious unless you are going to stick to issues which have arisen since that thread closed. However, I will accept with whatever the wider community thinks of this. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

NB: I did mention WP:Boomerang above. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is perhaps a difference between WP:Boomerang and Boomerang. WP:Boomerang is more social than the other one. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MW, it is rather disingenuous that you, of all people, are offering helpful suggestions on TT2011, given that you are the other problematic party addressed in this thread. I would also be quite leery of any offers of yours to mentor folks, as you have a terrible habit of playing Iago and trying to sweet-talk other editors into edit warring for you (most recent example: where he refuses to take his sweeping allegation to ANI, but in the same breath nudges a rather bewildered but well-meaning new editor to go ANI Sitush). For any outside party curious about MangoWong, note the man's Contribution record: he spends almost all of this time wikilawyering on Talk pages, and even on Talk we have barely seen the man offer so much as a citation, or even specific refutation of any citation he disagrees with. All he does it toss around policy names, even when corrected by uninvoled editors for mis-using those policies to push POV points. He also has this obsession with removing the word "Shudra" (labouring class in Hinduism), but rather than discuss the matter professionally will hurl accusations of oppression, ignore all evidence that the term is used by academics, and even refuse to use the word, typing instead "S*****", which I submit casts some doubts on his ability to approach the topic in an NPOV manner (example: ). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That I have too many talk page contributions is because I am having a dispute with folks who would go through great lengths to revert citation tags, (tags which they could never provide cites for). Moreover, they have a penchant for irrelevancies and even argue about stylistic issues which can be settled by the MoS. And that newbie was quite frustrated at that time. All his proposals were being rejected for quite some time. He was even being given a week's timeframe for replies (and was expected to wait for that time). etc.-MangoWong (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three months might be too long. I would support an initial three-week topic ban on Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs) from India-related topics, with the clear understanding that he would face stiffer penalties if he went back to his old ways upon his return. Hopefully, the topic ban would force him to work in areas where he is not so emotionally invested, and give him some perspective. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I want to make clear that by "India-related topics," I mean topics that have some bearing on the history, geography, culture etc of the Indian subcontinent. In other words, pushing the antiquity of Indian mathematics in the History of Mathematics article, even if the region of antiquity, such as the Indus Valley Civilization or Mehrgarh), is in present-day Pakistan, will be considered a violation of the topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had the same experience with Thisthat as Fowler, Paul, and Lynch, I would support a three week topic ban (agree that three months seems excessive). This thread at Talk:Mathematics says it all. He made some highly POV edits to the article, they were reverted, he edit-warred, then spammed the talkpage with irrelevant crap. A real time-sink. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that a three week topic ban will do it. Thisthat has been warned and advised on numerous occasions since registering and there has been no change at all in their behaviour. This is one of the latest contributions, which I can make no real sense of at all. However, I will go with the flow provided that Fowler's "stiffer penalties" condition is acknowledged by Thisthat as being serious rather than just some throwaway remark. TT appears possibly to have some difficulties with the language, and so I would like it to be crystal clear. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From my limited interaction with Thisthat at Mathematics articles, I would support Fowler's proposal for a three-week topic ban and for the same reasons. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on extensive experience with TT in a very short amount of time, I would definitely support a topic ban of some sort, but agree with Sitush that TT has a long, long history of this exact behaviour throughout his entire time here regardless of topic. Dig his Talk page, and he's been told the same things for the same misbehaviour the entire time. However, a 3wk India ban would buy Sitush and me some breathing space, and after that I would anticipate WP:ROPE coming into effect more than any real change out of TT. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not opposing the proposed topic ban, I would not see much use for such a topic ban unless it would provide ThisThat2011 an impulse to study the WP:TPG. I don't see much value in a topic ban if it is merely meant to be punitive. Unless things are explained, the same thing is sure to get repeated.-MangoWong (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support for 3 week topic ban. I think we all agree that a punitive topic ban is unacceptable. This issue, though, isn't really punitive; it's the fact that ThisThat2011 is, for one reason or another, not understanding how to properly interact with other users on article talk pages. This behavior is disrupting the ability of editors to improve these articles across a wide ranch of topics (though all within the bigger topic of Indian issues). While I've been a bit on the fence, after looking back at some more work today, I'm inclined to offer support for a three week topic ban on articles, talk space, and user talk space discussions related to India, broadly construed. It would be ideal if TT2K would use this chance to edit other topics and get a feel for what its like to edit in a less disruptive manner. Whether or not xe does that is up to xyr. Upon the expiration of the 3 weeks, TT could come back to India articles, and should xe demonstrate no improvement, it would likely be necessary to extend the topic ban, perhaps indefinitely. It's possible that it would help for ThisThat2011 to have a mentor (before and after the topic ban), though I don't know if anyone would be willing to do it. Note that, MangoWong, you would be an exceptionally bad choice as mentor, given how close you also are to the subject matter; I'm afraid your influence would likely lead TT down the wrong path. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

TT has been referred to the various guidelines on more occasions than I care to remember. It has also been suggested on several occasions that xe might benefit from contributing to articles in which xe has less likelihood of a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, neither of these numerous suggestions have had any impact at all. If a topic ban causes TT to (a) explore other areas of Misplaced Pages and (b) actually take on board the various advisory comments about behaviour then all should be well. If it doesn't work then TT has a fair idea of what to expect next. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Referring to guidelines is generally not sufficient unless specific points are shown. One is unlikely to find the specific point in a longish guideline. It is also possible that one may ignore to read through the guideline entirely. I don't say that it is good to ignore reading TPG. But it may have happened. And suggestions that eds with an Indian background should entirely stay away from India articles seem "not serious" to me. Nevertheless, I agree that ThisThat2011 should work through WP:TPG. And I was only offering to provide some "friendly tips". Nothing more.--MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide him friendly tips as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is up to the closing admin but, frankly, is very peculiar statement to make. Of course we are involved, so were you, so is MangoWong, so is or was practically every person who has commented here. That, surely, is the entire point. This is not an issue about one article, it is an issue that has spread over many, many articles, talk pages etc. - 2.125.226.61 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) That was me, got logged out for some reason and now the edit window looks odd also. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. I was not involved in the India caste-related articles. It is my view of course, but judging from the discussion there, I believe you and MatthewVanitas are not entirely guiltless. You are both pushing for a certain point of view there, and apparently in are in a hurry to see it through. MV says as much in his post above: that three weeks will give him breathing room. This, I'm afraid, is not about his comfort. By pushing to absolutely have "Shudra" in the lead you are unnecessarily stoking the flames. Most academics, by the way, don't consider the Kurmi to be Shudras as you seem to have it in the lead. In any case, I'm aware of the problem now. Whether MangoWong or Thisthat2011 are there or not, you'll have me as a stumbling block if you insist on having "Shudra" in the lead with the kind of shabby evidence you have thus far collected. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Who said it was just caste-related articles? You have said here that you have had unfortunate experience(s) with TT: the issue extends beyond caste articles. As for the content stuff, well, you need to read what has gone on at the specific articles in full, as it seems to me that at least in one instance you have not done so. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the "breathing room" comment was not "let me get my way on Kurmi while he's gone", it was "can turn my back on Kurmi for half a moment to work on other articles without TT2011 demanding attention." Let's leave the content issues at Talk:Kurmi, but hope to see you there. Getting back to behaviour, I would dispute "guilt": Sitush and I are trying to show an array of complexities, TT2011 just likes arguing and MangoWong is convinced that a term that appears in academic literature is too obscene for polite company. Though I'm not perfect, I feel in the right here, but am open to critique. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another proposal

I don't support that MatthewVanitas and Sitush be barred from India related topics, specially caste related stuff. They have brought forth a very important part of Indian history. Though S and MV have very little knowledge about India, but they will learn overtime. They seem to be engaged in disputes with everyone on India related topics. I would suggest that they work under the supervision of someone like Fowler&Fowler who has a lot of experience about India. Fowler&Fowler can help them improve the articles. I hope that Fowler&Fowler will agree to such a proposal. MatthewVanitas and Sitush want to improve te articles, but due to their limited or no knowledge of the topics they end up damaging the contents. I hope they don't get punished for:

• taking ownership of articles
• biting the new comers
• POV pushing, etc.
• I hope these guys don't get WP:Boombrang.

I know they may not be involved in such practices, but due to their limited knowledge of the topics they seem so. Nair, Yadav, James Tod, Kurmi seem to be distorted beyond recognition. There may be other India topics, but it takes a lot of time to assess the damage. I know they are trying to improve the articles, but are limited in their knowledge. I hope that having a good mentor will help them come up to speed. Qxyrian is another editor who may benifit from such a mentorship. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I too have the strongest impression that the articles have a weird look. They seem to be in complete contradiction with reality. I too have suspicions that ownership has become an issue. And the James Tod article just wont look like unmalicious.-MangoWong (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What?? Okay, be calm, be calm... Let me just try to say this as simply as possible. I have not personally talked to a single editor on Misplaced Pages who does as much in depth, detailed research as Sitush. Period. I have no idea where either of you got the impression that any sanction against Sitush or MV is in any way recommended by anyone. Saying Sitush (I know less about MV) has "limited or no knowledge" either proves you haven't paid any attention to the article talk pages in question, or are simply being intentionally inappropriate. I've known Sitush to read dozens to hundreds of pages out of books when other editors read only the one paragraph they could see on Google books. A simple glance at Talk:Kurmi demonstrates Sitush showing more intricate knowledge of the sources than everyone else on that talk page combined. While there have been times over the last few weeks where Sitush has come to speak abruptly and strongly, this is only due to the extreme POV warring being carried out, the extremely malicious off-wiki claims, and an amazing amount of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your concerns here, Nameisnotimportant, are extremely misplaced. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify: I'm sure there are other editors who do as much or more research than Sitush. Many of our articles are great and well-researched. I'm simply saying that Sitush is the best I've personally talked to and worked closely with thus far. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Conduct need to be looked into

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing

OK. Please explain this comment by MatthewVanitas - I would caution you against the goading of TT2011 and particularly MangoWong (fresh off a block). MangoWong has shown a clear pattern of trying to get other editors to fight his fights for him; note on Talk:Yadav he makes allegations worthy of an WP:ANI report, but then refuses to make them himself, but encourages you to make one. You'll note MW does very, very little constructive work on articles himself, but hangs about Talk pages adding hostility, and goading others into fights. To make an analogy: he's that guy at the corner pub sidling up to his "friends" and saying "Oi Ted, did you hear what that bloke said about your mother? You're not gonna stand for that, are you???" He's a cheerleader for conflict, and I'm probably remiss in not having an ANI on him already.

Qwyrxian:Please add the appropriate wikipedia policy that has been violated. What do you think of this???? You are an admin.

I am surprised. Admins please take this thing into consideration how MatthewVanitas is going about killing the reputation of two editors. This is gross misconduct. Please look into this serious misbehaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing 

Nameisnotimportant (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer to this specific instance of MW refusing to file an ANI yet encouraging Bill to do so above, and here's the diff again.. If you look at the timestamps, it was this diff which led me to drop in to say hello to Bill and give him overall advice (its in the link you give but not copy-pasted here) including encouraging him not to let MangoWong talk him into filing claims MW had pointedly refused to file himself for whatever reason. I fail to see how this is "killing the reputation" so much as publicly stating concerns about the work of others in the context of telling a new editor that he's walked into the middle of a difficult and heated discussion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush has a long history of saying uncivil things. And you always keep trying to slander others in a direct/indirect way. Lots of users have been driven away by you guys (through incivility, stubbornly refusing to agree to anything, getting block on them etc.) and When I had put up that comment, it was because you had made an apparantly uncivil comment to the new user. I had said what I had said in order to inform the new user that he has protection + to discourage you guys from misbehaving with new users. If I find you saying uncivil things to new users again, I think I will do so again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas - I hope this will help you. I am not sure what all other policies may apply on the sweeping claim made above, but I hope this will not be repeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attack This section seems more relevant :- http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F

This repeated coming to ANI is becoming a serious drain of time. I hope at least something will be done this time.

I will assume WP:AGF and hope that Sitush and MatthewVanitas will learn from this, and possibly won't do this again. MatthewVanitas: I hope you will retract your statement, and if possible apologies to the editors. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admins: I encourage you to look into this repated behaviour. This is becoming a serious headache now. Fowler&fowler never had any interaction with these guys, still he got the picture crystal clear. Please look at Talk:Kurmi. They are into serious issues with him too. Please do something so that we can get rid of such useless time waste. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can agree a little bit that the message from MV is a little strong, but I don't think it crosses over into being a personal attack (other more objective admins may disagree, though). I think there is a very real concern with MangoWong giving advice to new editors, despite not having a clear grasp on our civility, reliable sources, or neutrality policies; thus, I read MatthewVanitas's comment as a sincere attempt to save a new user from getting bad advice. You're right, this repeated coming to ANI is a waste of time; this would be fixed if editors acted more like Sitush and MatthewVanitas, and less like Mango Wong and Thisthat2011--that is, if they looked at reliable sources, listened when others explained policy to them, didn't keep repeating the same thing over and over again, etc. Also, as always, other users are more then welcome to join us at Talk:Kurmi--i think having more univolved, neutral editors will absolutely help the situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: This reminds me of a famous quote:- 

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about."

I hope that this is not the reason that certain sources are termed as unreliable.

 Qwyrxian: What do you think user:Fowler&fowler was doing? He got involved in this mess because of Sitush. Actually, he is the one who had issues with ThisThat2011, but still he can see clearly. You have concerns that this is bit strong?? For how long things will be swept under the carpet. I have my doubts as to why would you think in such a manner. Anyways, it's crystal clear that gross miscounduct is happening, and things are just being brushed aside. 

It would have been OK if this unreliable sources phenomema was happening on Kurmi, but this is a major concern across all the topics these two editors have got involved into. Why so?

Admins: I have nothing more to add, and I would have not bothered to enter into this if not initiated by Sitush into this. I know nothing will happen to Sitush or MatthewVanitas even if every diff, proof, editor, etc. says otherwise. This entire situation around these articles due to the conduct of certain editors is grim and hopeless. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, aside from the unnecessary bolding, it is encouraging to see a newcomer with such an extensive knowledge of policies and guidelines even if they appear to be being somewhat misapplied. It may even be unique in my own experience, although the misapplication is very similar to that of MangoWong/TT2011 & so perhaps there is some scope to review the wording of the policies to which you refer. I am sorry that you feel myself and Matthew Vanitas are somehow above the system but can assure you that we are not - you either believe that or you do not, but either way it is in fact true. I am unsure where I have "initiated" you into anything. I did notify you of this thread when it started, but that was just a common courtesy. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying that I misapply policy. I don't believe that putting up cn tags in the lead or infobox is wrong. I don't believe trying to use the MoS to settle stylistic issues is wrong. Show me the policy which says so, and you will not see me do it again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The list is pretty long and often convoluted due to the tendentiousness etc. A clear-cut example is this. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Or this to a new contributor, which mis-states things entirely. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Or this which was a complete misunderstanding of 3RR. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The first example which you provided does not seem to be a misapplication of policy to me. I was saying some general things without citing any policy except for WP:CIVIL. I had cited WP:CIVIL because you had asked me to go away from WP, at a time when we had hardly had any interaction. Is it wrong to regard that as a violation of WP:CIVIL. The other things which I said were without citing policies and they were general things. Which policy did I misinterpret? I don't see what could be wrong in the second example. I am trying to show some argument to the new user. What is/is not fringe can be a contentious thing. I even warned the new user about it. It is something which can be decided only after a discussion. Even if my view in that matter be incorrect, I don't think that it is wrong to put up an argument of that sort. If the thing be fringe, we would not need to have it in the article. At least that much should be correct? In the third example, you show the 3RR. I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. After that mistake was pointed out to me, I accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. I did not argue that my reading or interpretation of 3RR is different and that it only is correct. Did I? That is not a misinterpretation of policy. I had accepted my mistake immediately.-MangoWong (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In the first instance you were told that you had got the wrong end of the policy stick (on several different counts) by the admin to whom you complained, and you are repeating here an allegation that was and remains untrue: I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else but rather suggested that there are other places where you can contribute if you do not like the way things work here. The second example is quite astounding and various people picked up on it. The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. I could dig out more examples but right now am actually trying to do something useful here. There is nothing wrong with not understanding policy etc but when you start arguing the toss about it and you start passing on your lack of understanding to others then it becomes problematic. The idea is that you learn but, no, you are still now claiming, for example, that a cite request in an infobox is justifiable even though the article contained a cite; and you are still saying that you would prefer it if a historically certain was omitted because "it is a lie". You have been told time and again where you can go if you don't like the system but you more or less consistently refuse to use the options that are suggested to you, be they here on Misplaced Pages (RSN, DR etc) or elsewhere, preferring instead to keep rattling cages. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain this Sitush: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kurmi&diff=prev&oldid=442109883  I hope this comment was in WP:AGF, and not because anyone with a different view is definitely WP:MEATPUPPET.

Admins: If anyone is ever blocked, does the block makes the editor someone lesser than the others? I am not sure why Sitush feels that way - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Yadav&diff=prev&oldid=441934534

                  Bill has a decent brain and doesn't need your wikipolitics corrupting him. You are the only one out of us four who has been blocked from editing and that is hardly a good recommendation for your advice etc, is it?    Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, about the first diff, I have already said that I was only talking about one policy in there (WP:CIVIL). The other policy which came up was WP:CANVASSING. I think there is some misunderstanding there. I was talking about some other instance of canvassing and the admin appeared to be explaining something else. I don’t think there is a misinterpretation of policy on my part there. I wasn’t talking about any other policy there. Here’s the diff of you asking me to go away from WP. (At least I interpret it in that way). And I think it was your first ever comment to me. Whether or not it is a violation of WP:CIVIL is for the community to decide. Salvio seems to more or less accept that it may be a violation, but seems to regard it as not serious enough to require a warning. In that comment, you are assuming that I don’t like WP:V and WP:RS, and asked me to go away because of that reason. Actually, I think the sourcing policy (WP:V) is excellent. Your assumption is baseless. I do not understand how you could assume something like that about me even without having had much interaction with me. I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else… I think you did tell me to go edit somewhere else. What you are saying seems untrue to me. About the second example, you have not yet explained what policy I misinterpret, and how. Various people pick on it does not mean I am misinterpreting any policy. About the third example The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. This is an untruth on YOUR part. If it is not, please show a diff to prove that I argued anything about it after it was pointed out to me that I had misread the timestamps. I had provided four diffs of reverts by you, and after it was pointed out that they were not within 24 hours, I had accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. There was zero argumentation about it. And where did I confuse 3RR with edit warring? About the cite request in the infobox, it was put up because the article DID NOT have any valid cite for the line which I had tagged . You did put in one ref once, , but it was unsupportive of the material (i.e. a misrepresentation) and I reverted it . Plus, you too have now accepted that it is not a good source, . It is obvious that there was no source in the article which could properly support the material which I had tagged. Rubbish refs don’t count. The material has now been deleted. Why do you keep saying again and again that my tagging was wrong? I had said that the material in the infobox was a lie, and I can still say it unless you can show some proper source for that material. I interpret the WP:V and WP:NOR to mean that anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation. I interpret them to cover the lead and the infobox too. If they are kept out of the scope of these policies, these areas would be misused to insert unverifiable and OR material. We don’t want such things on WP, do we? How was my tagging wrong?-MangoWong (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not replying to you here any further regarding these issues. It is descending into another tendentious wikilawyering farce. If you believe that you were/are correct then feel free to carry on doing so. I will never change your opinion because you have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to change. If you are/were correct in your opinion then the community will deal with me as appropriate. Right now, I have better things to do here. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

One more classic by Sitush:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zuggernaut/Archive

• The trenchant views and tendentiousness bear a likeness to those which resulted in Zuggernaut's topic ban. There is definitely something not right regarding the prolonged discussions at Talk:Kurmi and there seems no reason for MangoWong to want to avoid entering that discussion, although s/he clearly does avoid. This may be a meatpuppet rather than a sock but I feel that it deserves some attention. If it is possible to check for sleepers then that, also, might be worthwhile.

As per WP:MEAT - <quote>The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.</quote> Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, Nameisnotimportant. The word was, however, used with care and sockpuppet investigations are overseen by admins etc, so if I was really off-beam then I would have anticipated a sharp rebuke to that effect. That has never happened to me but it seems to make sense to me that if someone is clearly being uncivil etc in an arena that is chock-full of admins then they would rebuke if they felt it to be appropriate. The SPI revealed no connections. It is the only SPI in which I have been involved that has had that result, and it surprised several people rather than just me. The result was good news for the project and I did apologise.

I am not the only person who is of the opinion that there is, for example, off-wiki canvassing going on with regard to articles of this type. It is in fact a well known phenomenon but you may not realise this as you appear to be a relatively new contributor. The pattern of edits pretty much confirms it, as do some other sockpuppet investigations which have resulted in blocks and can be reasonably tied into comments made by contributors. Is it ever definite? Well, perhaps not. But experience counts for a lot when considering this type of thing. I do not have that much experience, but I do have a reasonable amount and, sad to say, in this particular regard it is growing fast.- Sitush (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, you want to discount me as 'newcomer. It doesn't take long to figure out such things. Misplaced Pages is really easy to master, and that's the beauty of it. I won't boast about my IQ level, my scores in standardized tests, or my being an alumnus of one of the top 10 MBA schools, as these are unverifiable claims. Anyways, let's focus into the core policy violations that I have cited. Please feel free to edit my comments if there are issues with bold letters. I hope the issue is not with WP:BOLD. I sincerely wish that we all get back to important stuff rather than wasting time here.

Admins: I hope there is no WP:BOOMARANG for Sitush and MatthewVanitas for endlessly wasting precious time. I hope there is no ban on them for editing India related articles. Mentorship will definitely help them on India related topics. These are reputed editors, just that they seem to have very little grasp on India related articles. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant unnecessary bolding of words/sentences. I won't boast if you won't. <g> - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

There is a disagreement at User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 (permanent link) about whether Timeshift9 (talk · contribs)'s recreation of User:Timeshift9 with blog-like material is in violation of the closes of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. I asked Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), the MfD closer, to review the situation. He wrote:

I'm on my semi-annual one-month admin tools break due to travel. That said, it does look pretty bad to me, and even if he didn't quite cross the line he's definitely deliberately pushing its limit, which isn't good. A "drama board" posting, as Spartaz put it, looks like a good idea before another MfD if needed.

Spartaz (talk · contribs), the DRV closer, wrote:

I think this is probably more Tim's field then mine. I tend not to involve myself too closely in editor behaviour issues because I really suck at that side of the admin role but thanks for the heads up. I'll watch what happens closely. I'd be tempted to blank and protect but that's quite an extreme action for a user talk page so I'm inclined to this going to a drama board for a discussion. Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else.

Would uninvolved admins and users review the user page and determine whether {{db-repost}} is applicable to the page or whether, as suggested by Spartaz, the page should be blanked and protected as an alternative? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The only substantive difference I see in the old and new versions is that the new one is "better written", and a little less polemical. But it's still an extended diatribe on a specific political point of view, which both the MfD and the DRV confirmed are not appropriate for a user page. This doesn't technically fall withing db-repost, as the text is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Nonetheless, Timeshift9 can't just keep recreating this political speech until xe manages to get a version past MfD. In other words, this could be taken to MfD, but it the community shouldn't have to argue the same basic point over and over again. For a userpage, some userboxes with xyr political positions, a few selected quotes...heck, even a paragraph of argumentation, I could handle...but this is far beyond that and clearly within the same general realm which caused and sustained deletion last time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm...wouldn't this fall under WP:NOTBLOG? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the MfD and DRV were both somewhat ambiguous, and that the user has waited some time and made some effort to address concerns, I think it should be sent to MfD. A not very dissimilar case currently at MfD is here. I think this is a matter of uncertain boundaries, for a contributing Wikipedian’s self-introductions tending to bloggy soapboxing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe another MfD is desirable. The community, in both the MfD and DRV, has rejected the content which violates WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Repeated recreations and repeated MfDs to exhaust the community's patience are unacceptable. The admin who initiated the first MfD was unfairly accused of "harassment and wikihounding", as well as "harang" User:Timeshift9. The admin was then threatened with an arbitration case.

User:Surturz/AdminWatch (WebCite) was created for admins involved in the MfD who initiated, participated, and closed the deletion discussion. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) were both asked whether they were open for recall. Support for defending the user page was requested at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian politics.

Owing to the sustained campaign to allow the repeated recreation of this inappropriate content and threats against those who have supported deletion, I ask that the page is dealt with without another contentious MfD. The page undoubtedly meets the spirit, if not the letter, of {{db-repost}}. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cunard, thank you for bringing this here, especially seeing as Gorilla is gone for a few days. First, the userpage is really unacceptable for a Misplaced Pages editor; Timeshift probably needs to move to a de minimus userpage. Second, Gorilla has been accused of "harrassment" and being a sockpuppet (or purposely colluding with sockpuppets) along with a threat of being dragged to Arbcom, all of which are plainly ridiculous. User:Orderinchaos, who is an admin, needs to cool it down. Ed  07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just deleted that AdminWatch page under WP:ATP. It was only there as a threat, or at the least, intimidation. Ed  07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So any attempt to defend Timeshift9's user page is seen as contravening rules? why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position, but if I simply ask for involvement of editors at WT:AUSPOL I get hammered? How is it intimidation to ask whether admins are open to recall? An admin can block me with the click of a button, but for me to get an admin recalled would require WP:CONS and assent by the recalled admin - I think the assertion that I as an editor can in any way intimidate admins grossly misrepresents the power relationship here. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked, and except the wall-of-text feel to it, the actual content was much better than the version that was MfD'd. Granted, I -think- this is better suited for a sub-page that Timeshift can link to (instead of having it on his main user page), but that can be discussed. If you don't like it, Cunard, MfD is the way to go. {{db-repost}} won't work, as the material is vastly different than what was deleted. - Penwhale | 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition... if this gets worse, then the community (or ArbCom) would need to look at related user conduct. - Penwhale | 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk p. if I'd open an MfD as a relatively uninvolved ed., but I think the improvement in this version is a good sign, and we should simply suggest he move it to a subpage , /Politics, and let the matter rest whether he does or does not. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection to User:Timeshift9 is primarily because the page contains the similar blog material and BLP-violating content rejected in the previous MfD. Save for this page being much shorter, I do not see an improvement. Moving the content to a user subpage would not resolve that. I have had no prior involvement with Timeshift9. In response to DGG's comment here, GorillaWarfare, not I, was accused of wikihounding Timeshift9. I became involved to notify Spartaz and Timotheus Canens to enforce the community's decision in the MfD. They have deferred it to the community, where all the uninvolved users save for yourself support initiating an MfD. Because I contacted the MfD and DRV closer, and because of the accusation by Surturz ("why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position"), I considered you to be a better MfD nominator. Instead of irrelevant discussion about editor behaviors, participants could focus on the applicable user page policies. I maintain that this inappropriate content must be dealt with. Would Qwyrxian, N5iln, SmokeyJoe, Penwhale, or The ed17, who support initiating an MfD, start one? You five are relatively uninvolved and a nomination by one of you will ensure that the debate is not tainted by discussion about users' conduct. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see an MfD initiated mostly because this discussion here, and on the user's talk page, would be better focused in an MfD. My general position is that if there is any reasonable dispute of the applicability of a speedy criterion (with exceptions), then the matter should go to XfD. (See the current discussion at WT:CSD). I think cunard is probably, but not certainly, right. The community may decide that the less bloggy userpage is within reasonable leeway. Years ago, it would. Over the years, Misplaced Pages has matured/hardened. Personally, I'd prefer to ignore non-effensive transgressions unless it causes trouble. However, I'd rather participate in a debate about policy and whether the page is OK than debate behaviours such as wikihounding. My ideal outcome? As per Surturz (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) paraphrased, "Shifty should move the commentary to an off-WP blog site" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the people who want to discuss it will decide. I just add this to the list of examples that if you ask my advice or help, you will get what I think appropriate, which may not be just what was expected. And I think thats pretty true generally, at least at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that each user has his or her own perspective about a topic and interpretations of policies. As Spartaz wrote in his reply to me: "Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else." Cunard (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Timeshift is using his userpage as a blog. This is not encyclopedic content, it is only a microscopic fragment of Timeshift's ideological stance and thus give us little insight into any prejudices or biases he may have as an editor; it is a weak substitute for starting a real blog, and is in pretty blatant violation of the community consensus about his prior pseudo-blog. Like the previous version, my concern is not BLP but rather WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you want to opinionate about politics in Oz, do so in a real blog, not on our servers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'm back and happy to see I haven't been desysopped yet! :D Though it seems some may have it on the mind... Anyway, I'm glad Cunard brought this here. I was planning to do so once I returned, and this saves me the trouble. When I first posted about the recreation on Timeshift's user talk, I was hoping to avoid even bringing the issue to MfD, not to mention escalating to ANI, SPI, DRV, or... ArbCom? Anyway, as for where I stand on the userpage issue: though the content on the recreated page is not as grossly inappropriate as the BLP-violation-filled tirade I originally brought to MfD, I still view it as a violation of WP:NOTBLOG. I recognize that it is Timeshift's prerogative to state any beliefs and/or biases that would influence xyr Misplaced Pages editing. I think that declaring bias in that fashion should be encouraged. However, I agree with Orange Mike that the content on Timeshift's userpage is extremely specific, to the point where it could only be used to state bias as it pertains to the subjects of the userpage. I understand that the line between acceptable and unacceptable amounts of opinion and bloggy content is fuzzy, but I think we need to find a way to decide clearly what is acceptable for Timeshift so xe is not forced to keep toeing the line until xe finds a version that the community can accept. Furthermore, repeated MfDs will do nothing but frustrate Timeshift and the community, so I think a preemptive decision should be made so that myself, Timeshift, and the rest of the people involved here can return to productively editing. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who supports initiating an MfD and as someone who has had minimal involvement, would you, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), initiate an MfD nomination for User:Timeshift9 at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)? After several days of discussion, it is unlikely that the problematic user page will be resolved at ANI. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the plan here? To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with GorillaWarfare on this. If we're going to enforce boundaries, we need to start by deciding where they are and writing them down. If an editor has strong opinions about an area in which they edit, I want them to disclose those opinions in their userspace. And there's also a discussion to be had about who will be in the userspace police. Will this be yet another sysop's job?—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the plan should be that either you hash it out with Shifty on his talkpage to get the page acceptable, or you raise an MfD and get consensus to delete. Real consensus, not merely a simple majority like last time. Shifty has shown that he is willing to address concerns that are raised with him. he has been very patient and polite and I suggest you extend the same courtesy, rather than trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. FWIW Shifty and I are polar opposites politically and have had many heated, spiteful content disputes over the years. I think it is the lesser of two evils that he air his political views on his userpage and get it out of his system, than him try and POV push those views into article space, as has happened in the past. --11:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Surturz, I am certainly not trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. If I was, I'd have taken this to MfD already. However, I don't think it's possible at this time for Timeshift and I to "get the page acceptable", because the current guidelines on the issue are extremely vague. What I'm trying to do right now is figure out the simplest and most effective way to establish what is and is not acceptable on the page. An MfD seems like a poor choice, since the process is designed to decide deletion discussions according to existing guidelines and policies, not create new ones. ANI isn't really a good place, either. Perhaps an RfC is needed? Any other ideas? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter's Signature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Signature is not violating policy, so there is nothing here requiring admin attention. Please join the ongoing discussion at WT:Signatures#Linebreaks if a change to the guideline is desired. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has flat-out stated that he's not interested in changing his signature, so I've brought this here. I asked him to refrain from forcing a new line every time with his signature as it unnecessarily added to the length of his comment. Essentially every time he comments in a discussion it is +1 line over what anyone else would generate. He comments 10 times in a discussion that's +10 lines of scroll just for his signature. His justification for this is that if he doesn't do it, his signature will sometimes "break". On the off chance that the comment he's written ends up putting him at the exact right spot at the side of the page, his signature will be split in two, and we couldn't have that.. As pointed out at Misplaced Pages:SIG#Length Signatures have to avoid being long both in appearance and code. His signature gives undo prominence to his comment by making it longer than another editor making the same comment, and disrupts discussions by adding unnecessarily to their scroll. When I informed him of this, his response was to blank the conversation , which tells me he's got no interest in cooperating over this. This is a user who, otherwise, maintains extensive archives.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent consensus seems to be that a single line break in a sig is fine. I don't see a problem with it myself. 28bytes (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Linebreaks and the discussion on the talk page where they were told to take it would suggest otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread shows no consensus to force an editor to abandon the use of a single line break. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And it shows no consensus not to either. And taking each case as it comes, Berean hunter's reasoning for placing the line break is only because he doesn't want to "break" his signature in the off chance that the line length is within a very narrow window. In other words, he's constantly causing unnecessary scroll, placing his signature in a position of prominence on every edit for the tiny chance that his comment might fit a certain width on any given edit.--Crossmr (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not something to be overly concerned about. I agree that it's a little bit annoying and would prefer it if there weren't line breaks in sigs if only for consistency. However, it's only a minor issue and I don't think that you should let it worry you. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen worse. At least (1) it's got a link and (2) it's in English. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) FYI, if he replaces any space(s) in his signature with   it won't break no matter where it ends up on a page (I do that in mine), so he wouldn't need to add a linebreak to avoid that anymore. — Coren  16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• The whole "unnecessary scroll" argument is silly, especially considering improvements to readability and ease of identity. It's just a weak rational to go dragging people into a dispute about, regardless.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Really? If he's heavily involved in a discussion, and commenting frequently he could significantly increase the physical size of the debate. There is nothing more silly then making a long discussion even longer simply because he doesn't want to fix/change his signature. As his defence raised for not changing it is weak at best, and the fact that Coren has now pointed out that he could change it so that it would prevent his signature from breaking, I can't see any reason he shouldn't remove the line break. And as someone pointed out they actually find your signature makes it harder to identify the poster. In a place where the signature pretty much always follows the comment, setting it apart actually breaks that expectation and makes it harder to identify. Yours is the same.--Crossmr (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Crossmr, find some encyclopedic content to work on, would ya? sheesh.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  What's to stop the user from simply hitting enter after making a comment, before their signature? It would have the same visual effect and is considered perfectly acceptable under our policies. The writing style of separating paragraphs with double newlines as opposed to single ones seems to have a much more significant impact on page length than a newlined signature. On readability and expectations, I think I'd be stating the obvious that it's a subjective matter. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Doing so in a threaded discussion like this will end up causing the signature to left-justify totally throwing it out of place, now if he then added the indents to line it up properly it would look the same, the problem is, it would still go against our guide-lines, whether one does it manually or makes it an automatic part of the signature. While double lines over single lines do contribute to the scroll as well, there is no getting around the fact that these two users are increasing the size of discussions with the use of their signatures, and for no reason. Just above we've got ohm's law giving us a whole 2 lines on a very short, and honestly unhelpful, comment. What it really boils down to is that we've got users who are unnecessarily trying to force prominence on their signatures and comments and in doing so inconveniencing other users in a variety of ways, both in increasing the physical size of the discussion and as someone else already pointed out causing confusion in trying to find out who it is that wrote the comment. This kind of signature creation also comes across as a little WP:MYSPACEY especially when combined with the utter refusal to change it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some concerning issues with signatures, this is not one of them. Ohms Law hasn't been disrupting this conversation with the linebreak after his signature, and Berean hasn't either. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that it has disrupted discussion enough for someone to bring it up here is telling. Crossmr raises some valid points. Maybe if Berean would be willing to conform with the way most everyone else signs this issue can be easily settled, but we haven't heard from him yet. -- œ 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So is the perceived disruption only due to the signature on a separate line? There are some editors who post each sentence on a separate line and never indent. Surely that would be more of a disruption than a signature on its own line. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

G-Zay user conduct

I have had various encounters with G-Zay, and have followed the edits long enough to think his contributions won't work out with that attitude: namely tendentious editing, adding original research, giving undue weight and going against community consensus. Just a few examples:

• Original research on Hiroyuki Ito: Following continuous notices (, , , , ) that sources will be needed for the designer's involvement in Rad Racer, Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy II, G-Zay keeps re-adding the unsourced content back to the article (, , , , , ), out of some personal fondness for him. Usually waiting a few weeks to make the edits go unnoticed.

• Edit warring on Final Fantasy XII: G-Zay keeps re-adding review scores despite consensus on the talk pages of the article and the project not to do so: , , , , , (again waiting several weeks to conceal his most recent edit from the opposing editors).

• Adding original research/edit warring on Square Enix. Removed sourced content and added unsourced speculation. Undid multiple edits by users that told him to include sources (, , , , , , , , , , , , ).

• Adding original research or misleading/interpreted sources: G-Zay usually uses sources that do not confirm the statements he adds to articles. For example Final Fantasy X-2 (not in source, unsourced, unsourced, not in source), where he sourced the development team with an Edge article that does not even mention the development team. Also used for Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy XIII. Again done after several notes to provide reliable sources.

• Unverifiable speculation and undue weight: Makes a big effort to put unconfirmed/wrong designers in articles for unreleased games, either unsourced or with misleading sources, such as in Final Fantasy XIII-2:
  • adds Toriyama and Sekito unsourced
  • adds Toriyama with misleading source
  • admits to his speculation
  • adds Toriyama and Sekito unsourced
  • adds Watanabe unsourced
  • adds Toriyama unsourced
  • adds Nojima unsourced
  • removes source and adds Watanabe unsourced
• Same goes for Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy, where he changed around the unconfirmed writers nine times (, , , , , , , , ).

This is, by far, just the tip of the iceberg. After countless reverts by multiple users and many warnings on his talk page and several article discussion pages, I started a subsection about G-Zay's conduct at the administrator's noticeboard, where I suggested another chance to let him reconsider his editing practices. But four months later, he is still on with the tendentious editing and, much worse, adding original research and interpretations of sources to advance POV statements and speculation (if that wasn't bad enough, many of the edits with original research affect featured articles). He has had many chances to learn his lessons, and has shown more than often that he does not care about Misplaced Pages's policy concerning original research and consensus-building. At this point, I am just really sick of cleaning up his mess and talking at a wall, so I'd appreciate it if someone finally got him in line. Prime Blue (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Still going against consensus and adding original research. Prime Blue (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The user has been warned. The "I will never stop reverting." comments are especially troubling. If the behaviour continues, he should be blocked. – Quadell 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he will revert the review table again. My bigger worry is the original research, as he still continues to add statements without sources. And if he actually does give a source, it's usual an interpretation where the information or person in question is not even mentioned – which is particularly problematic in featured and biographical articles. It's hard to trust him if he posts "false" sources that do not address the statements he wants to add, just because his earlier unsourced edits were reverted ( — — — ). That said, I have not yet checked some of the new references he has added yesterday, but I am also afraid I don't have the energy to police his edits in the future. Prime Blue (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm following him now. He makes good contributions, I just wish he wasn't so in love with Ito and so tenacious over the long run. --PresN 21:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of NOTCENSORED

Resolved – Page is at MFD, no admin action needed here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could remember how I found this, but I was probably just idly following links. Nevertheless, User:Jeffwang/censor is a userspace-created fork of WP, called Project Censorship, "the project to censor inappropriate things on the English Misplaced Pages, for people who prefer it." This is a pretty blatant violation of policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and obviously, what is being censored is not objective, but subjective to the user's ideas. Could someone look into this and perhaps direct said editor in a more productive direction? MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While there's a presumption that "what happens in userspace stays in userspace", I'm thinking this runs afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Depending on how large that "side project" has gotten, perhaps it should be pointed out to them. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've sent the pages to MfD and notified the editor. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Jeffwang. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user ID "wang" is a semi-subtle joking reference to what he's trying to censor. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AGF there. Wang is also a (rather common) Chinese family name... According to zhwiki, 7.25% of Mainland China population had last name Wang in 2007 census, and Taiwan's 2005 census has 4.12%. - Penwhale | 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not resolved. User:Jeffwang is now claiming that he is "retired", but will continue to edit. The two claims are mutually exclusive. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He hid my notification that I had reopened this discussion on his Talk page, which is his right, but the edit summary he used indicates that he will no longer interact with others. This is not acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't much to discuss until we see if and how he continues editing. If he edits non-controversialy all is well. If he edits controversialy and then refuses to discuss the matter it can be handled then.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BilCat

Inclusion of material not supported by sources, removal of sourced material, abuse of tags, disrputive editing and personal insults. In fairness, I point out that a few days ago we were involved in a normal dispute on the talk page. Then today he has degenerated before the evidence of the facts. If he had not insulted me personally, probably I would be limited to request a third opinion. Here the history.--Enok (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just now saw that the required notification was not posted to BilCat's Talk page. I have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the insults, as I was quite angry at that moment. Please not that this user has engaged in edit warring thoughtout this dispute, including removing dispute tags that I have added on several occasions, all without any consensus to do so on the talk page. I have tried to stick to no more than 2 reverts thoughtout this dispute, while the user has abused this on several occasions, and has a history of doing this. I'm not excusing my own behavior today - I lost my cool. I won't do it again, nor will I make any more reverts on the page in the next few days expept those to restore deleted content that is still under dipute. I again ask the user to referain from removing material while the matter is still in dispute, and I will report him for edit warring if he does it again. - BilCat (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• My 2 cents here, this is clearly a content dispute, you should head to WP:Dispute resolution (and the related WP:Dispute resolution requests) to ask for help instead of you (being a relatively new editor) pushing your personal view and refusing to get the point as stated by an established contributor such as Bill. As far as I can see, Bill has provided you with all the necessary explanation in the discussion page of Talk:Amphibious assault ship#Italian amphibious assault ship while you are still disputing them. Like I said, WP:Dispute resolution (and the related WP:Dispute resolution requests) should be your next stop. Best and out. --Dave 01:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the dispute, I have requested a third opinion on the special page. This is not the subject of this report. In practice there is no penalty for behavior of this user? On the contrary, who receives a long and interesting telling-off is me (on my talk page). Thanks. I hope you do not have in-depth about the history of that article, otherwise it would be sad. @Alan the Roving Ambassador. I'm sorry, I never used this kind of special pages. If I was calmer, I would have more accurately read the instructions. --Enok (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Dave1185 here. Normal content dispute which has become heated. Time to bring in some other opinions. I will support this process as best I can. --John (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the article's history, I'd say that both editors should be blocked. However, if both parties are going to enter into discussion, maybe we could fully protect the article for a week to give them time to find some common ground. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Full protected one week. I will engage with the editors concerned and try to draw in some other opinions by posting at project space. --John (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Neptunekh2

When I bring a problem to this page, you guys always talk me out of admin action, so I'm hoping someone can come up with another solution here. Neptunekh2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some learning difficulties - see her talkpage. She's been the subject of two previous reports Copyvio_edits_among_other_things_by_Neptunekh2 (Dec 2010) and User:Neptunekh2_-_long_term_competence_issues (May 2011). I tried to help her after the first one, and after the second, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights offered to mentor her. There's also User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2 and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2_back_doing_copyvios_again. I've tried to advise her - anyone who works at one of the Help or Reference desks will be used to seeing her asking the same question in multiple places. She creates loads of categories that have only one entry Category:Fictional Americans of Belgian descent - I kid you not - but she's quite good at putting things into categories. She creates bad stub articles, then posts on the helpdesks asking people to clean them up, but they are about obscure subjects that no-one would think of eg Looty Pijamini.

Anyway, after a round of grief that involving getting about 10 categories deleted, and a copyvio, see User_talk:Neptunekh2/Archive_1 and Special:DeletedContributions/Neptunekh2, she discovered that Velasca from Xena:Warrior Princess was based on a real (legendary) character, an associate of Libussa. She created an article Valasca on 27th (here's what it said).

I'd rather got the ache by this point, particularly as Blade confirmed that he has had no success in getting her to communicate with him. I gave her a final warning on 28th and, among other things, sanctioned her to creating articles only in userspace. She's got something of a bee in her bonnet about Valasca (or Dlasta, which seems to be a variant spelling of her name) though, because she went on to create User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta (deleted in the mistaken belief it was a copyvio). In the meantime, I suggested the topic would have notability issues, and that she should add a line to List of women warriors in folklore. She added this, which was reverted. She then added this to a random spot in the article on Velasca (the Xena character). She then created User talk:Neptunekh2/Dlasta/Temp, and asked at the Helpdesk for someone to expand it . She then created Dlasta, and pointed the edit at Velasca and List of women warriors in folklore to it and .

At this point, I'm fairly pissed off with chasing around over this, but feel I'm too involved to block her - if indeed this warrants a block. After all, I imposed those sanctions unilaterally. I'll notify Blade as well as Neptune of this report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)ETA , posted after being notified of this thread. I'm just finding it very frustrating. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I think some outside eyes are needed. I've been trying to get her to work on existing articles, but I haven't had much success. If there was something else I could do, I'd gladly do it, as I too enjoy seeing some of the obscure topics she frequents; however, I'm not sure what else I can do over the internet (face-to-face, I know exactly what I'd do, but it doesn't work in type). To paraphrase from what I've said earlier, I'd have no problem reviewing her contributions to articles, except I can't seem to get her to contribute much. If anyone has any other ideas, please tell me, but I'm at a loss as to what I can do short of asking for a block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I think what Elen was trying to link to was the creation of the Dlasta article. 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of you have tried and tried and tried, but we are still seeing exactly the same problems on which she's been given repeated advice. Your final warning was perfectly reasonable, but again you didn't get the acknowledgement you requested and she merely blanked your warning. You've both tried, but enough is enough. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads and The Blade of the Northern Lights should be commended for the time and effort they have put in to attempting to rehabilitate Neptunekh2, but enough is enough. Neptune's editing style, personal interaction skills, and poor communication have proven to be completely incompatible with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and it is now apparent that no amount of hand-holding and guidance will change that. It's time to cut the cord and block the account. --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As an initially involved editor, see for example , I have been monitoring this from the sidelines for the last couple of months. Although there appeared to be a slight glimmer of hope initially, Neptune's inability to take on board the slightest piece of advice is utterly disappointing. I agree with the above editors that Elen and Blade deserve kudos for their time and dedication and, unfortunately, Neptune appears to have tried everybody's patience and hasn't really responded to Blade's mentoring. As a huge drain on editors' resources and considering WP:COMPETENCE for example, sadly I believe there is only one solution, as stated above. CaptainScreebo 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of topic, but if that Dlasta article is really copy/pasted from a 1910 source then that's a case of neither copyvio (since presumably it's in PD) nor plagiarism (maybe... at least not any worse then copy/pasting massive amounts from the 1911 EB).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's never been a copyvio, as I've explained to numerous people now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• There appears to be consensus for a block here - is there any uninvolved admin willing to enact it before the thread is archived? Note that Neptune has again started to create new, sparsely populated categories which will all need to be reviewed and cleaned up. Jezebel'sPonyo 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  And that after I explicitly told her to run new category ideas by me... if no one has done it by this evening, I'll go through them and see what is and isn't salvageable. I'm almost tempted to tag them all G5, since she created them after she was told not to, but I think that'd be stretching it a bit as there was never anything formal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That does it, I give up. She has just re-created Category:Fictional American people of Belgian descent , and posted at the Helpdesk to ask if it's OK to put Scott Evil into it. The first time she created the category, Captain Screebo joked that she'd missed putting Scott into it - the only other fictional American of Belgian descent! I'd block her myself, but I think it would be totally out of order - could an uninvolved admin please do it before she starts re-creating categories for random parts of Canada. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rather reluctantly blocked this user. Their edits are disruptive and they are not contributing productively to the project. Panyd 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Much as I hate to say it, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

John254 sockpuppet suspicions

History merge

Hello, I was looking at Royal Canadian Mounted Police Foundation (which I reviewed via AFC), and a notice was posted requesting a history merge with another draft of the same page. I've finished the necessarily work on the page, and need the page history of the draft merged into the article. The draft can then be deleted. Thanks! --Nathan2055 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) already histmerged the article, which is actually in pretty poor shape and (IMO) should not have been accepted via AfC. Then again, I haven't reviewed any AfC submissions for a few months, so I'm probably behind on the guidelines there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is in bad shape, especially in the matter of sources, but the topic seemed like it was covered so I accepted it. It is ranked Start-class and has a several tags on it, so it should be cleaned up eventually. --Nathan2055 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No no no. The reviewer needs to clean it up before accepting the submission. AfC is not about leaving trash out for others to pick up. This is one of the reasons why I stopped bothering with AfC—there was always too much garbage going out that could have been resolved with a ten-second edit (removing the unsourced and poorly-sourced material so long as the remaining content could still support an article). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I found copied content (both copyvios from the external website, which is not compatibly licensed,and copying from other articles which was not attributedSame contributor, so this much is okay), and it's certainly not neutral: "This auction gives buyers the opportunity to purchase horses with wonderful dispositions. Many have been well trained and Hanoverian certified, from the world famous Musical Ride breeding program." Why don't the submitters have to correct these kinds of problems before they're moved into mainspace? </confused> --Moonriddengirl 16:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They're supposed to—the submission should have been "declined" with a note left to the creator explaining the issues. Now I'm tempted to start helping at AfC again. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan

Hello, User:MarshallBagramyan in Mubariz Ibrahimov article, blanked a section about the person's death without constructive reason, while just putting link to Mardakert Skirmishes which does not fully cover Mubariz Ibrahimov's death. Here is the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mubariz_Ibrahimov&diff=442269490&oldid=442124795 Even though, his grammatical fixing of errors are considered fine but he still removed again, without construtive reason and now blames me for fixing his blunders. One more time section blanking noticed here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mubariz_Ibrahimov&diff=442530605&oldid=442527162

I ask admins to take action against him as he did not follow neither talk page rules or my warning and he already as far I know banned few times for his anti-Azerbaijani agenda. --NovaSkola (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already expressed my confusion regarding Novaskola's baffling explanations. I did not blank any section; in fact Novaskola's first edit reverted all my changes without distinction. My edits not only added about 700 kb of information but also adjusted several figures which had been inflated by previous editors. In two of his blind reverts he re-inserted the blatantly inaccurate claim that this soldier was responsible for killing 200 other soldiers in a brief skirmish, when the sources can't even agree if the number was perhaps closer to 5. He merely chose to cherrypick which edits he found fitting and which worthy of exclusion. Also, as stated on the article's talk page, I provided the details revolving around this individual's death, a fact which Novaskola apparently did not find important, but which I suspect has more to do with suppressing the rather controversial nature of his death. I find this report and its author's comments frivolous and find it all the more surprising that he is making unfounded allegations against me when they can better be ascribed to them. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not cherry pick, it is violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. By using section blanking, you wanted just like as some of your previous contributions to erase information about the actions that critical of Armenia. I am not going to waste my time and argue with you, I think it is enough for admins to check this user's background history to see how many anti-Azerbaijani actions has been implemented by this particular user. --NovaSkola (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I can confirm that Marshal Bagramyan did not do what NovaSkola accused him of. The subject of the article died in a skirmish that we have an article on - he added the link to the skirmish, and rewrote some of the text, he didn't blank the section. In fairness, it may have appeared that he did because of the quirks of the Mediawiki interface. NovaSkola seems to be coming at this with some sources which definitely have an agenda - Marshal Bagramyan's sources may be merely cautious, or they may have a pov as well. I don't know enough about the subject to say.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's oversights of swift deletion

Extremely serious and severe edit war commencing at "Sophie Scholl"

This IP address 50.40.243.7 keeps removing content from the page above, so his vandalism got reverted 7 times. Gave him 2 only warnings, answered the AIV report for the IP address, requested page protection, and now i'm left with no choice but to report this to you. What has really gotten to the IP address?? StormContent (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The page protection has now been put in place by Materialscientist. --Dianna (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Either the IP needs to be blocked or Dayan Jayatilleka needs to be semied too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Semied that one too. The vandal was already IP-hopping again, and had been vandalising that article repeatedly over several weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. Multiple edit wars from different IP addresses from 50.40.xxx.xxx range make up one big, serious, and critical edit war. Also, one of the biggest edit wars in Misplaced Pages history. StormContent (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sergeispb-10 and the Norma Stitz article

This inexperienced editor has added a strange little anti-pedophilia paragraph to the article on fetish model Norma Stitz, over and over, despite objections from multiple editors. The disputed text, which doesn't seem to have any genuine relevance to the article subject, was originally added several times by an IP, leading to the article being semi-protected. Tabercil has given the editor a final warning (yesterday), but the edit warring continues. Sergeispb-10 has also issued a rather odd threat, which probably violates WP:NLT although it's impossible to take seriously: I think can to be scandal in the case of address to FBI ; and some of his other comments there accuse editors who disagree with him of "latent pedophilia's lobbying". There seems to be a bit of a language barrier here, but the main problem is that the editor is entirely unwilling to engage rationally.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

He needs to stop acting like a boob. Seriously, there's a large language gapt here, and I'm not sure if he really understands what we are telling him. That being said, the rhetoric coming from him needs to be ratcheted down a few notches. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a language barrier? He's posting incomprehensible gibberish. It's word salad. I don't think a WP:COMPETENCE block would be out of line. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of dressing goes best with word salad? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Raunch. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite a pickle to be in. I don't relish it. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lettuce move on SPhilbrickT 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll note I tagged it already. =P CycloneGU (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Well given the content of his edits to articles other than Norma Stitz, I'm suspecting he's Russian. The warning I gave yesterday was for 3RR and he's continued since then. Yes it is a day later but this editor started this back as an anon IP - see here. As such a 3RR block for that is perfectly justifiable and is exactly what I'm about to met out. The editor does seem able to add valid information (assuming the sourcing on those Ethopian-related article edits holds up), so I'm just going to give him a 3 day vacation. If the gallery thinks that's too long/too short, feel free to correct. Tabercil (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed this, and I believe the 3-day block was appropriate in this case. I added some comments to the user . I think we're done here?  Chzz  ►  16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Extra eyes, please

Running through the recent-changes list this morning revealed what may (or may not) be an incipient problem. A "new" user, Danteas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has marked several other user accounts as sockpuppets using the {{sock}} template. A quick look in the SPI archives shows what looks like a mix of correct and incorrect applications of that template. Could another set of eyes look these over and verify whether someone's actually trying to be helpful, or is on some sort of warped vandalism spree? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I undid some, which didn't look valid. There were 3 'valid' changes, changing the sock-master from Ghost109 (talk · contribs) to Arisedrew, which accords with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Arisedrew/Archive, so I left 2 of those, the 3rd had already been reverted as vandalism by another user which I think isn't correct.

The users only other edit thus far was to an article which I undid for the reason in the edit-summary .

So - not disruptive, per se. Unlikely a new user, but AGF applies, for now - unless others know of anything?  Chzz  ►  16:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've informed the user of this discussion, and explained my edits on their user talk page.  Chzz  ►  16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm As many courtesy notifications as I've done for others, one would think I could remember to notify another user when I start a discussion myself. Thank you for letting them know. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 Blocked He's socking, See SPI. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bokan995

Bokan995 (talk · contribs) is adding disputed sources (eg a travel book by a journalist) to Medes. Two editors including myself have reverted him and there is a discussion, initiated by me but with two other editors now involved, on the article talk page. He's been asked to contribute there but he simply re-inserts his edits, using edit summaries to assert that his sources are reliable. I've asked him a number of times to communicate but he has never responded on either user talk pages (including his own) or article talk pages. Although there is obviously a content dispute, the issue here is failure to communicate and edit warring - my last post to his talk page said "I am asking you again to use Talk:Medes to discuss your edits. Two other posters have responded to me there but you haven't. You really should not reinstate your edits without consensus now" which he ignored, simply reinserting his edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RaúlLoveMiley

This user has been making unconstructive edits to Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus related articles over the past month or so. The user has been previously blocked for uploading copyrighted images to the articles, and has been warned for edit warring with the same subjects.

Now, this user has been reverting edits I had made to the infobox of Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus (where I added more information, and merged the two infoboxes - as it is all one album, and not two). In doing this, the user did not leave an edit summary, and continued to do it again after I reverted, explaining why. I then decided to leave the user a message asking why they were doing when they were doing. The discussion was unsuccessful and then afterwards the user moved the page in anger. Doesn't look like I'll be able to get through to them, which is why I'm bringing this up here. ℥ 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The user is now moving a bunch of pages, messing up links, and the proper naming of articles. (See their contibs). ℥ 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. I went for a block at apparently the exact same moment that Reaper Eternal was leaving a "final warning." Given that they were explicitly asked to be more careful with page moves two days ago and were moving a large volume of pages I thought a block would be the best way to drive home the point since they ignored that warning, but if consensus favors leaving it at a final warning instead I'm ok with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you beat me to the draw. I warned him for moving without consensus, and blocked him for ignoring a previous warning over something else - if he does it again, he deserves another block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw all the moves and this user is becoming quite annoying. He or she is always reverting and adding false information to Miley Cyrus articles. -- ipodnano05 * 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this has been resolved already but I too have had issues with this user for the same reasons. They pretty much to me don't seem to respect or care about what wikipedia guidlines are and if you ask me a temporary block doesn't seem suitable cause once it's over they'll be right back at it. They've already done it twice now. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 09:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If he causes problems again and I see it, the next block will be for a month. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparent personal attacks

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor continues to use abrasive language when addressing other editors and discussing sources. I believe that he should be warned to avoid personal attacks. Below are examples, which are representative of his general communication with other editors.

• To myself:
  • If you are dyslexic or poor vision or have another disability, it may help for you to identify yourself so that people cut you more slack when you (without fault) make mistakes....17:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • ...for persons with similar vision without a large screen, the rate of error must be much higher. I admire the King of Sweden for his public poise and good humor about his dyslexia. I certainly meant you no insult. Is it not possible that I am seriously concerned? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• At User talk:Peter G Werner:
  • ...For everything else, you were plagiarizing the SPUSA pamphlet and duplicitously citing Drucker.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• About Donald Busky, author of Democratic Socialism: A global survey (Praeger Publishing, 2000)
  • It's time for T4D to recognize that the UFO did not arrive as Busky predicted.
  • ...is no need to cite Busky. Busky was a partisan hack and incompetent academic, who had difficulty writing English. Unfortunately, T4D followed Busky and wrote a wildly inaccurate and partisan history of the American left, one wishes naively. WP does not require that bullshit from herbalists or phrenologists be reported in its medical articles, balanced with other views. WP should remove bullshit from its political articles, also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• He was brought to WP:WQA previously but sees the fact that no action was taken against him to be a vindication.

TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD is apparently using AN/I to be disruptive and waste peoples time. It's not the first time. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone close this?

I was wondering if someone could close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lae Garden and Landscapes. Once I told the article starter that offline sources are allowed, he did a good job sourcing the article. I would close it myself, but I forgot how to. I think that the sooner this is closed, the better since the member is new. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing as a speedy keep, withdrawn nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Review and Close Needed

The thread was a few hours from archiving before I posted, and no one else has commented since, so it seems we have as much comment as we'll get. Can an uninvolved administrator please review and close this thread, which originally appeared here at AN/I before discussion moved to the COI noticeboard and since to AN? CycloneGU (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gurt Posh and his mistakes on "copyright violations" in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 16

Gurt Posh (talk · contribs) has removing the episode summaries section in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 16 and he thinks that he added the copyright violation tag and accidentally deleted the section. Actually, the section is from the article itself and copied it to a blog without permission. I guess someone restored the article for good and block him. He's been an editor since May and has over 8,000 edits. ApprenticeFan 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user. Done. CycloneGU (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what he is saying. The blog is datestamped 7 July 2011, but all the material existed in the article well before that (page at the start of April 2011). Therefore the blog has copied Misplaced Pages, not the other way round. However, all content you provide to Misplaced Pages is licensed for reuse without restriction, so there's no problem in someone doing that. I don't see why you thing it was Gurt Posh, but it wouldn't be a blockable action even if it were. I've put the content back, and I'll mention to him that it's not a copyvio - thinking a mirror is a source is an easy mistake to make. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's talk page may be tagged with {{Backwardscopy}} to avoid later confusion. Reuse must conform to the WP:Reusing Misplaced Pages content policy. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This section of the article is actually copied to a blog (link). ApprenticeFan 07:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Contravention of manual of style guidelines and vandalism edits

User:Ruairí Óg's seems intent on pushing a POV on boxing articles, especially where it concerns trying to enforceflags in infoboxes and that boxers from Northern Ireland are of Irish nationality in the infobox - where the nationality field refers to citizenship (which i have informed them of), without any reliable or explicit sources. This is made worse by the fact they are now trying to use press/tabloid sources which are sensationalist and frequently label Northern Irish people as simply Irish without actually referring to their citizenship.

This may stem from Ruairí Óg's possibly ambiguous interpretation of what nationality means, however Misplaced Pages:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph 3.1 states "the country of which the person is a citizen or national". However whilst that applies to ledes which Ruairí Óg's has edited, i take it to cover the "nationality" field of the infobox as well.

They have also vandalised boxing articles by removing wikilinks or references or both to the UK, Northern Ireland etc. i.e. where he removes Northern Ireland leaving just the settlement Charlie Nash is from. Here where he removes the wikilinks to Belfast and Northern Ireland and adds a nationality to the lede without evidence that Gerry Storey had changed his nationality. Here is an example where they replace United Kingdom with Ireland, despite the fact Ireland was not a country then, and was part of the UK.

They have also resorted to using press/tabloids as references (which tend to sensationalise) to insist that someone born in Northern Ireland is of Irish nationality without actual proof that they actually have Irish nationality (even though they are entitled to it) - hence why i blanked out the nationality in the infobox and lede as it is highly debatable whether they identity as a British citizen or have Irish citizenship without concrete sources which none of the sources contained, hence the most neutral route in my opinion is to leave the nationality blank and just state the country they were born in. This is compounded by the fact some boxers represented both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Examples of dodgy press sources include here and here. Other press sources include here and here. None of these back up Ruairí Óg's nationality claims. Only the source provided for Matthew Macklin actually stated he had an Irish passport, however as he was born in the United Kingdom he is legible for British nationality which it doesn't say he never had, though Ruairí Óg's felt obliged to remove "British" even though "Irish" was stated along with it.

In one article they even resorted to adding in ethnicity such as "Irish-Canadian" for a Canadian boxer despite the fact this also contravenes WP:MOSBIO unless it is highly notable which in this case it wasn't as far as i can see.

Wierdly though, they seem intent on adding Republic of Ireland flag icons to Northern Ireland boxer articles, however have edited many Republic of Ireland boxer articles but haven't added the flag to them even after i removed them in the edit before or several edits before theirs, i.e. here, here, here, and here. However the above examples of Northern Ireland born boxers such as here, here and here all have the Republic of Ireland flags added in. This i interpret as a strong attempt at provocation.

This is simply disruptive provocative behaviour that the editor seems intent on persisting with.

Mabuska 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Ruairí Óg's needs it explained to him in words of one syllable that nationality and ethnicity are not necessarily the same thing. If it needs the banhammer to drive those words home, then so be it. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Mabuskas sole purpose in life is to go around removing the word "Irish" from wikipedia and doesnt like it when someone else has an opposing view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs like this are worrying. WP:COMMON is no justification for changing "Belfast, United Kingdom" to "Belfast, Ireland" - especially when sources on that person explicitly and repeatedly refer to the UK. There are a lot more edits like that... bobrayner (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be worried. Maybe just read the MOS and you will be enlightened. Anglocentric wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/MOS:IE#Biographical_articles. Ruairí Óg's

That is a very poor arguement Ruairí Óg's which is easily countered when you look at any article of an Irish boxer (from the Republic of Ireland, or is stated as having an Irish passport such as Matthew Macklin) where i removed the flag per WP:MOSFLAG but left in their nationality as that is their nationality. I have no problems with stating Irish, however without proof that Northern Irish boxers have Irish citizenship to have them stated as Irish and seeing as we can't confirm whether they have a identify with their British nationality, leaving theirs blank avoids the POV and edit-warring problem over it.

A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial is Barry McGuigan, the article states and has a source that states he took out British citizenship making him of dual nationality however Ruairí Óg's edit here and here keeps removing it. In one of those edit summaries he clearly confused nationality with cultural identity and not citzenship despite the fact nationality here is on about citizenship. Mabuska 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a joke that Mabuska refers to my edits as vandalism. I may not be as experienced as Mabuska on wikipedia and know what buttons to push to game the system. But Mabuska wishes only to push his Loyalist POV and claim all people from Northern Ireland as British when they can be Irish or British. In each case I have provided a source to show that the sportsperson is Irish not British. Mabuska has removed these sources to leave information as he would wish and unsourced. Is this not against wikipedia rules to have unsourced information holding power over sourced information?

I understand from the tag Mabuska left for me that you can not have flags in infoboxed. That is OK, I have learned something new. But Mabuska uses this rule to remove both the flag AND the nationality. See an example here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luke_Wilton&diff=prev&oldid=438032691 where he removes the Irish flag and nationality and replaces it with 'British' and the edit summary 'per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality' with no source to back his claims up. This is surely abuse of the system. The removes other editors inserts with references or citing suprious inaccurate policy and replaces it with his unsourced POV.

Again here he removes sourced information to suit his POV http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Duddy&diff=prev&oldid=443157779

I will get new information to build a stronger case but hopefully this is enough proof of his abuse not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks Ruairi Og's, if you noticed anything at all in regards to Northern Irish boxers, i have left "Irish" AND "British" out of (almost all of) them due to the problems over proving their citizenship or whether they changed it. The same for the ledes where it simply states where they were born rather than "British" or "Irish". Yes very loyalist pov and very pushing everyone is "British".

In regards to , they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland, however if it should be omitted from there then so be it. However this edit Ruairi is hardly proof of citizenship and is very poor. In regards to this edit, your source doesn't state its on about his citizenship especially when the press sensationalise people especially Northern Irish people as simply Irish.

If my edit summaries are a little bare-boned i apoligse for that, but i have short time and at times many edits to make and i can't elaborate on every detail.

Anyways if they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland and are born in Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom, then how is explicit proof actually needed to state that they are British nationality when by British nationality law they are British citizens? Would the impetus not be on to prove that they have taken out Irish nationality? Mabuska 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The good friday agreement states that people from northern ireland can be british or irish or both. do you have a source that every british person from northern ireland have rejected their irish nationality. Do you have a source that Ian Paisley has rejected his irish nationality? if not should i list him as irish? that is a stupid argument. you prefer unsourced information to back up your POV as opposed to sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wierd arguement, the GFA says you are entitled to both British or Irish citizenship, however it doesn't automatically mean that you are of Irish citizenship for you to refuse it. Under British nationality law most people born here are a British citizen anyways, however the GFA means that here you can take on Irish citizenship as if you were born there without any problems or complications. Hence you don't need a source of ian Paisley rejecting his Irish citizenship as he never had it in the first place - something that'd make all the headlines if he ever did.

Due to this problem, its why for Northern Irish boxers i've taken the option of omitting the boxers citizenship as its problematic and very hard to find credible sources.

It still doesn't excuse your provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles (whilst not putting them boxers from the RoI) and your imposition that the boxers are all Irish, without any proof that they aren't British citizens as well and the use of highly dubious sources to back it up. Mabuska 11:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And under irish law everyone born on the island of Ireland is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. You cant have things all your own way.

I have not tried to make 'provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles'. I didnt not know that you could not have a flag in infoboxes. I know that now and have not included a flag in the infobox. To prove this you cite MOSFLAG to remove both the flag and the nationality http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=prev&oldid=443104622 This is wrong and corrupt and highlights you bias and POV. You can see that I reverted that but did NOT include the flag. This shows you are a liar. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=next&oldid=443104622 I am multiple other examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence there doesn't contradict anything i said in the comment before it. We both said entitled, which means we can claim it, it doesn't mean that we automatically are citizens. Mabuska 11:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the examples i provided above, you edit articles on RoI boxers where i removed the flag and never readded it, but added the flag to NI boxer articles. Regardless of guidelines or not, that is provocative. Also seeing as ] edit was only made today after you've finally accepted WP:MOSFLAG - it is hardly proof to back yourself up with. Mabuska 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More examples of Mabuskas abuse of wikipedia. removing sourced information for POV 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you don't read all of my responses to you. Explainations are given. Mabuska 11:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanations are unsourced POV. My edits are backed up with references. You might be a lot more experienced gaming the system then me but the facts are the facts. Doesnt wikipedia work on references and not twisted bitter POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you have a source doesn't make it viable for use on Misplaced Pages. It must be verifiable and reliable and not subject to synthesis. Unfortunately your guilty of synthesis with the sources you provide, the reliability and verifiability of which are highly dubious. Mabuska 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So instead of starting an edit war, why not highlight WHICH sources you consider do not pass WP:RS and then we can actually have a rationale look at it and see if there are more or better sources? No, instead you run headlong into a war and screaming about all sorts of suprious policies as a smokescreen. If you saw a fighter from Belfast come into the ring in a pair of tricolour shorts, with a Irish flag behind him and the Irish national anthem blazing around the arena, you would still argue that he was British. Its bloody embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks

Ruairi seems intent on personally attacking me. , , and add in above where he has labelled me as a liar, and tries to label me as having "Loyalist POV" and of lacking neutrality despite the fact i'm treating the matter in a very neutral manner by having both nationalities omitted to avoid a POV problem in the first place. Mabuska 11:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You referred to my edits as vandalism so I call your edits POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another personal attack. Mabuska 11:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you or did you not refer to me as 'anti-British' FIRST? Gamer. Plain and simple, game the system to silence opposing views thats are backed up with FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I said "A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial" - notice how i said what you could call, not that it exactly was. I never called you "anti-British", i basically said your behaviour could be interpreted as that. Very big difference, and to be honest is backed up by some of your edits, whereas your personal attacks on me aren't backed up at all with anything - and anything you have tried to use as evidence i've explained above and you've skimmed past not responding on it. Please stop the personal attacks in your future edits please. Mabuska 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is yet another personal attack where i am labelled as having a "twisted bitter POV". And here is anotehr one. Mabuska 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So you can call me anti-British and a vandal but its not OK not me to point out your twisted POV. Let me ask you a question then if you do not have an agenda or a POV. Why is it that you only alter peoples nationality from Irish to British but NEVER the other way around? Why is it that on every page I see you in conflict on, see CS Lewis etc, that you are in conflict with people arguing the they are British not Irish. I am only the most recent person to encounter your particular brand of nastiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my last comment in regards to "anti-British". So your going to do ad hominem now. The C.S. Lewis article stated "British" and an editor argued to have it removed and "Irish" used, providing original research and synthesis. That is not a foundation for a change on a tricky situation. I was not the only editor to argue against them, and they were told to provide weight of proof and evidence to back up their stance and it wasn't given especially as most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British. Also the lede is meant to state citizenship, not ethnicity unless its important to the article (which the user couldn't prove without a degree of synthesis). There was no Irish citizenship then and most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British not Irish. I and most other editors agreed to a compromise proposal so that Ireland got mentioned. So very poor example of ad hominem. Mabuska 12:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad homie what? What about Darren Gibson or Johnny Evans. You are a troublemaker thats all. Scream and shout until the other person is asked to leave. Every article you go on you cause trouble and you spend most of your time here. Which is why you are so good at twisting everything and playing the victim. The centre of this argument is that you prefer unsourced POV material over sourced information. Plain and bloody simple. Drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Darron Gibson? Another poor example seeing as i agreed with calling him Irish seeing as he plays for the Republic of Ireland! That blows all of your claims against me out of the water. In regards to Jonny Evans, he is a Northern Irish footballer - what problem is there in that seeing as an editor was trying to remove that fact from the article. Please stop trying to find faults by going through my edit history to try to create more ad hominem statements. Mabuska 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that really "blows all of your claims against me out of the water". Do you not think that that is a bit of a dramaqueen thing to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Reynolds (actor)

I need some more eyes on a topic that I don't have the time to spend on, and to be honest I don't know quite what to do about. The article Patrick Reynolds (actor) has recently been edited by User:2Patrick2 to change a lot of details and ad in what amounts to personal blogging and strong anti-smoking advocacy and advertising. 2Patrick2 has been spending a lot of time spamming anti-smoking advocacy sites over Misplaced Pages, even on articles that have nothing to do with smoking or tobacco. Now the thing is, 2Patrick2 is now claiming to be the person in question for the article, Patrick Reynolds. Any chance someone can take a look at that article and the user's edits to see if they're okay. I think they're slightly essay and blog like, with unbalanced views and undue weight. See this edit which contains all of them. I have warned the user about spamming external links on Misplaced Pages, and I have notified them about this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a 48hr block for the spam, as he had been warned already several times over a couple of weeks, and advised him about how to go about getting factual corrections to the article if it is him and the article warrants it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad our BLP subjects don't do a little more research into how to do this type of thing. Do we perhaps need to have something at the top of every BLP advising of this? Typically they don't wish to dig through pages looking for answers and it's only after being warned for something that they get any information to on what to do.

NEway, I'm tagging this resolved. Discussion is welcome on this briefly, though. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor attempted to remove Afd

• The article Aunt_Bam was listed as an Afd. The creator/sole contributer (Lilwoo93) of the article than removed the Afd from the main article. The Afd will expire in two days and no-one has commented on it as of yet. Questions. Where should people alert admins if they notice stuff like this? What should be done about the Afd? What should be done about the editor? Thank you --Djohns21 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The editor probably doesn't know Misplaced Pages policies on this stuff. Just revert him and leave a friendly note on his user talk page welcoming him to Misplaced Pages and letting him know how to comment at the AFD discussion. --Jayron32 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a set of uw-afd warnings, but a personalized message is always good too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock request.

User:201.245.212.89 was blocked earlier for 31 hours. However User:201.244.43.102 couple of hours later starts to vandalize similar pages. By doing a geolocate both IP addresses come from the same source. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious in the edits, so I'm going to leave that for a less tired admin. That said, the range is a /15, which is larger than Mediawiki lets us block, and doing so for two abused IP's would be quite overkill, as it would be blocking 131,072 individual IP's. Courcelles 04:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Windsor University School of Medicine

I am coming to AN/I to request a review of a report made to WP:ARV. Over the past few days, User:SGMD1 has been removing information based on at least 10 reliable sources. It has become quite obvious that this is a single purpose account that has significant conflict of interest issues. It appears as though a member of the school in question is trying to remove any negative information from WP This user has been reverted by 4 other users, each considering his edits vandalism (5 if you include ClueBot).

In the past, this type of removal of WP:RS has been dealt with as vandalism (content blanking). (For example, the exact same situation presented itself on Caribbean Medical University, where admin User:Orlady felt the whitewashing and removing negative information by the school's owner constituted vandalism and blocked them. Therefore, I went to WP:ARV to report. However, User:Qwyrxian felt it was a content dispute, because User:SGMD1 counter-reported myself. In discussions with User:Qwyrxian, he suggested I take it to AN/I for a wider admin viewpoint. Thank you for your assistance. Leuko /_Contribs 05:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I certainly did not. You suggested taking it to ANI, and I told you to go ahead, but that you should beware of WP:BOOMERANG. yes the other editor is wrong to add all of those details about the curriculum added (unnecessary details/promotional, whatever you want to call it, you are correct that it doesn't belong). But the section on "Accreditation and licensing" is pure WP:OR. Unless those sources cited explicitly mention Windsor University, deciding on your own that they are not accredited in those places is original research, and should be immediately removed. Taking a source about a general rule, and then deciding that the specific case fits that rule is original research. I was hoping the 2 of you could start talking about this on the article talk page so that I could advise in a less stressful/combative venue than ANI, but, we're here now.... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the Curriculum section was not originally written by me (almost none of the content was, actually, except for minor edits) and I am not concerned with the level of detail in that section. My primary concern is with respect to the accreditation and student loan scandal sections. SGMD1 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SMGD1 just made another edit to the article after explicitly being warned about 3RR (and user acknowledged it). After giving my opinion above I now feel too involved to make a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't block me; I thought the 3RR rule only applied to reverts. I deleted both mine and Leuko's edits, not just Leuko's; this was just so that we could resolve this dispute first (I indicated this in the edit comments.) I won't make any more edits. SGMD1 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is rather late in the evening in the time zone that the offending editor is in, perhaps he is a little tired and did not understand the rule correctly? Perhaps a 7 hour block may help? Phearson (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If he acknowledged understanding it.... Leuko /_Contribs 05:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. However, since multiple editors feel this is vandalism, I felt a wider review of the situation was warranted, since since it was not handled in the usual fashion. I have been editing these articles for years, and have developed a sense of the usual consensus. For example, most of the Caribbean medical school articles have an accreditation and licensing section similar to the one presented here. There have been multiple discussions (at ArbCom, deletion discussions, etc), but in the end the consensus is that they stay. Unfortunately, the noteworthy/encyclopedic fact is that the school is not listed (i.e. in lack of approvals/accreditation), not that it is explicitly mentioned. Leuko /_Contribs 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You indicate that you "have been editing these articles for years" despite the fact that you attended a different medical school which is a significant conflict of interest. This is evidenced by the fact that your edits to multiple articles for various Caribbean medical schools are defamatory, negative, or lacking the required neutrality. Also, an admin already determined that my edits did not constitute vandalism, so please stop referring to it as vandalism. All my edits abide by the good faith rule. SGMD1 (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I take offense to the claims that I am an SPA, or SOCK. I have been registered for four years and have edited multiple unrelated articles.

Per the edit counter, 35 edits, most of which revolves around this topic. Leuko /_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hardly a valid argument since most of those edits involve reverting your changes. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, Windsor University is accredited. Period. It is an accredited educational institution by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and my version cites this clearly. Leuko’s version states that Windsor University is unaccredited, which is patently false.

The Government of St. Kitts and Nevis does not accredit anything. They recognize, but they do not accredit. In fact, they utilize ACCM (http://www.accredmed.org) to accredit their medical schools (which Windsor is not, hence unaccredited). Leuko /_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This link from the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis website disagrees with you: http://www.mofa.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1 SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thirdly, Leuko’s version deletes the Tuition, Student Life, and part of the Curriculum sections. These sections are present in WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions, are not in any way “advertising” as Leuko claims, and are basic facts that belong in a WP article for an educational institution.

As per the consensus on the talk page - most editors don't feel this is noteworthy information for an encyclopedia. Leuko /_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

False. The consensus is with respect to the length of the Curriculum section, not the inclusion of those sections altogether. Those sections are present on WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the “student loan scandal” subsection, my claim is that the incident has a biased, non-credible source, is two years old, and does not meet the standards for large or long-term impact to/on the university for it to be included in a short encyclopedic WP article. Leuko had an almost identical conversation with admin User:Orlady on his talk page, and this particular administrator came to a similar conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMD1 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, the St. Petersburg Times is "biased" and "non-credible?" Really? I would argue that the administration of the school scamming the US Govt out of $500,000 is relevant. Leuko /_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, as I've previously indicated, the article cites a biased, non-credible, former student for this information. The article states explicitly that students at the Midwest Institute of Massage received $500,000 in loans, not Windsor students. And as the admin User:Orlady indicated to you previously, such an incident (especially when inaccurate) doesn't meet the requirements for scope in an article about an educational institution.

(ec)Local standards can't override core policy. If those sources do not mention Windsor medical school (or any of other schools mentioned), they must be removed. Noteworthy/encyclopedic information by definition means information that is covered in reliable sources. If it is important information that the schools are accredited, I'm sure some newspaper article, medical education journal, or other source must have mentioned the fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Most of these operations are under the radar, and that's how they exist as unaccredited institutions. It is the lack of inclusion in WP:RS (for example California's approved school list - the CA med board goes out and does site visits before approving a medical school for licensure.) Leuko /_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This post of yours exhibits a clear lack of neutrality. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. The St. Kitts and Nevis government website has a list of "accredited educational institutions": http://www.mofa.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1. Doesn't this make the accreditation argument moot? SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation does not recognize St. Kitts and Nevis' accreditation, because they do not feel it is comparable to the standards for US schools. Only schools accredited by the ACCM are felt to be comparable and actually accredited by a recognized agency. Leuko /_Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant; the NCFMEA does not accredit individual foreign medical schools at all. You can't pick an arbitrary accrediting body and say that because that particular body hasn't accredited the school, that it isn't accredited at all. SGMD1 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the debate on what constitutes a valid accrediting agency, if reliable sources haven't mentioned the issue, then I don't see how it can appear in Misplaced Pages. Yes, Leuko, I understand how it seems "important", but Misplaced Pages doesn't make judgments based on what seems important or true--we rely on reliable sources to do that for us. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, in response to Leuko's repeated accusations of vandalism, admin User:Qwyrxian made the determination that both of our edits are not vandalism, and yet Leuko has continued to make that claim. I am concerned as to whether Leuko is abiding by a NPOV; in addition to his having attended a competing medical institution to Windsor, Leuko has a history of editing WP articles for several off-shore medical schools with negative (and by removing information about valid accreditation - inaccurate) information and giving them undue weight. As described in the NPOV wiki, topics are required to be given "due and undue weight" but by blanking basic sections about various aspects of the school, and creating a subsection instead for a single two year old unproven implication with a source of hearsay, I would argue that he is blatantly violating NPOV, and certainly has no grounds to accuse me of such (as he has repeatedly done.) The pattern of giving undue weight to negative information for various schools appears to violate the NPOV rule, and I feel that should be noted. SGMD1 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ST47

Perhaps it is a Huggle bug but I believe that ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be blocked temporarely due that he is reverting everything on the page 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album). Maybe that or I don't know what's happening. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks really odd to me (immediate reverts with no reply at their talk). Anyone knows a technical (HG-related) glitch which can cause this? Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the response on his talk page, and bug report filed, there's no need to block at this point in time, as he has aborted Huggle and stopped the immediate problem. Courcelles 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

For reference: Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Through discussion at WT:DYK#Billy Hathorn and elsewhere (links to current and past discussions follow), it has become clear to me that this user is editing in a disruptive manner in the following ways:

• Mass creation of articles on non-notable topics, mostly biographies.
• Widespread insertion of copyrighted and plagiarised text, both cut-and-paste and close paraphrasing.
• Ongoing uploading of images of copyrighted works of others marked as "own work".
• Tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" - Billy Hathorn has been active on Misplaced Pages for years, and across literally thousands of articles. Despite repeated warnings to his talk page and past discussions, Billy persists in adding copyvio and plagiarism, using unreliable sources, creating masses of articles on non-notable topics (mostly biographies), and uploading images of copyrighted works of others as "own work".

Links to past discussions:

• Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 - July 2011 (ongoing), covering nearly 6,000 articles
• Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Billy Hathorn - July 2011 (ongoing) - discussion at DYK regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Ongoing AFDs and 3RR - April 2011, regarding creation of articles on non-notable topics, citing an article he wrote, and canvassing AfD
• Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 34#User:Billy Hathorn - November 2008 discussion at DYK regarding inadequate sourcing
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn - July 2008, regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and creation of biographies for non-notable individuals
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive114#User:Billy Hathorn - December 2007, regarding creation of biographies for non-notable individuals, copyvio, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and citing his own masters thesis
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti - April 2007, Billy accused two editors of Wiki-stalking him, on the grounds that a whole bunch of his articles were deleted for non-notability

I am not sure what the best solution to this is. Given that Billy Hathorn has been a long-time editor who has persisted in these disruptive behaviors despite years of requests and warnings, I think that at the least, he should be banned from article creation. To the extent that he wishes to create new articles, he should do so in userspace, and have them moved to articlespace by someone else (who should, in each case, evaluate them against all of the above concerns before doing so). If there are additional remedies to be taken, I leave it to others to suggest them. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cmadler, thank you for taking the time to research and bring forward this chronic problem.

@ Daniel Case: I don't see how what "usually gets people discussed here" is the issue; that there is no evidence of him not being uncivil does not make his editing any less disruptive or damaging to the Project. In fact, based on what I've seen, his editing is more damaging than an uncivil personal-attacking editor, as he has created possibly thousands of poor stubs that have flown under the radar and will not likely ever be cleaned up, and those have included BLP vios.

And no, copyright is not the only issue, so waiting for CCI to finish (which may never happen anyway) isn't the solution. There is use of non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, padding of articles with irrelevant information, and more. It's not only a copyright issue, although that is the most serious. There are many other issues of relevance and requiring admin attention, including but not limited to a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT after many, many warnings. Who gets to clean up all the messes if he continues editing? I get the impression that he is not a child, and not obtuse-- that he knows what he's doing wrong, and continues doing it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Misplaced Pages). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
  Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
  Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved, so unarchiving. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Ive had problems with some of Billy's over-detail sometimes, but he's a good local historian, at least by Misplaced Pages standards. . His article on Louisiana and neighboring state politicians have built up a network of relationships, and the people are most of them at least technically notable. There's a question of whether Misplaced Pages is really the place for this level of detail; but one could equally say that the problem is whether the level of detail he's been adding should not be our goal everywhere. I do not think he has gone beyond the academic standards of fair use, though he may have gone beyond the much more restrictive (and, in my opinion, unreasonably restrictive, standards of Misplaced Pages fair use, at least for images. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama sanction vio

User:John2510 has violated his ban from the talk page of the Obama article within the hour of it being issued. The issue he is having is that he wants to change Mr. Obama's Heritage from "African-American" to "Biracial". While this may be TRUTH. Consensus has determined otherwise. John2510 was sanctioned per ArbCom ruling, from the mainspace article, and then complained about censorship, in which his privilege to edit the talk page was then sanctioned. He then posted this .

A block is requested. Phearson (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. This was a very clear-cut violation, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How in the world is Barack Obama a Featured Article when it is that unstable? If we accept this as is, then we seriously need to rescind FACR 1. (e), as well as GACR 5 (both of which have to pertain to stability. –MuZemike 07:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's been put through WP:FAR seven times since it was promoted in 2007. The gist I get from the more recent reviews is that while it is controversial at times, it is still more stable and of a higher quality than most of Misplaced Pages. This is also only my likely-butchered summary based on skimming through them, and as always, if you disagree with its status you can open a FAR yourself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the occasional hyper-partisan who hops in and edit-wars against an issue long, long settled can be said to unstable the article. It has been quite awhile since there was a legitimate row over that article's content. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations in DYK on front page

I can't believe Bitar Mansion is on the front page. A large proportion of the article is about the most recent owners and problems with neighbours etc (see WP:BLPGOSSIP). No way would this be considered appropriate in a biography on someone, yet it seems to be OK because they own an expensive house?! A new editor who removed this info () was summarily reverted. I'm guessing this editor might be the person involved as they also put some BLP violations on the page of Nigel Jaquiss, who wrote a not very complimentary piece about the guy. This is a low profile individual who has been in local news a couple of times, now having their problems broadcast on the front page of one of the most widely read websites in the world. Polequant (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's off DYK now. Polequant (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring w/ Sockpuppets

User2005 has been banned for using two sockpuppets to undo my edits on Shirley Rosario, Steve Badger, Tiffany Michelle and many other poker articles. These accounts have also been used to give the appearance of consensus in a previous ANI about poker articles.

I ask that user2005 either be permanently blocked, permanently blocked from editing poker articles or permanently blocked from reverting my edits. DegenFarang (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for three days, not banned. There is a difference.

For any observers, HelloAnnyong has issued the block in question. This discussion seems to be for the period following this block. It seems kind of harsh to not give the user a chance to comment, however. CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexanderalgrim

• Alexanderalgrim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please see this discussion for background.

This user seems completely ignorant of our notability guidelines, and unwilling to learn about or acknowledge them, and has been constantly and consistently creating articles about non-notable BLPs. About 2 weeks ago, another user advised Alexanderalgrim about what was acceptable and what was not, but he has compltely ignored this (as he has indeed everything for the past few years), and recently created a fresh batch of non-notable BLPs. His edits are becoming increasingly disruptive, creating a lot of work for everyone involved who has to tidy up after him. Can an admin intervene please? And would a ban from creating new articles (or similar) be suitable? GiantSnowman 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked the first six of those. They're garbage. I'll check the user page and enact a warning on it. I'm not an admin. and can't block if it came down to it, so I'll let someone else take over if a block if eventually needed. CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticed a past Level 1 warning. Upgraded to a Level 2 warning. CycloneGU (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe slow down a bit... While there have been problems in the past, and the stubs are very feeble indeed, those players are notable. According to their zerozerofootball pages, all those players have played in this year's Portuguese League Cup, which is open only to clubs from the fully-professional top two divisions. The footballers notability guideline WP:NFOOTY says, which I'd have thought would make them notable, per WP:NFOOTY's "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here) or cup, will generally be regarded as notable." (my bolding) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ismail Javeri

Could an Admin do a speedy delete of this: Ismail Javeri. It seems to be a vanity article. Thanks, --Tovojolo (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards