Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 18 November 2010

• 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

Misuse of Nazi images in an essay

Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) has just created the essay Misplaced Pages:On being Jewish. He has also linked to it from the main BLP policy page and given it the shortcut name WP:JEWISH.

The topic of how we decide which individuals should be considered Jewish for purposes of writing and categorizing Misplaced Pages articles may be the legitimate subject of an essay. However, Christopher Connor has chosen to illustrate his essay with two images. The first of these is an image of Adolf Hitler leading a Nazi military rally or parade, and has been given the caption "a Nazi informs his personal army of the definition of a Jew." The second image is the file "Kiev Jew Killings in Ivangorod 1942" and has been captioned "categorizing an aryan as a mischling is a BLP violation."

The use of these images, with these (or any) captions, to illustrate a Misplaced Pages space essay on categorization, is offensive and reflects a deplorable indifference to the sensitivity of these images and the events they represent. Moreover, this is not the first time Christopher Connor has conducted himself in this manner. Last month, Christopher Connor used the same image of Hitler addressing a rally to illustrate his essay "Misplaced Pages:BLP Nazi" (subsequently moved in toned-down form to Misplaced Pages:BLP zealot). Discussion on Christopher Connor's talkpage and in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi should certainly have made it clear to this editor, as if it could ever have been in question, that depictions of Nazi and Holocaust related events are not suited for decorating essays on editing policies.

That Christopher Connor has repeated this behavior suggests to me that this editor is deeply insensitive to the feelings of his colleagues here, and I recommend that he be blocked from editing or, at a minimum, that he be appropriately restricted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, yeah, that's pretty disgusting. I'd support any restrictions or sanctions anyone placed on him. We don't need that kind of stuff here at Misplaced Pages. Not at all. Writing an essay about Jewishness and then filling it with images of Nazis, including one of Nazis shooting Jewish people is pretty egregious. --Jayron32 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's been speedy deleted. Basket of Puppies 05:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Trout me if it was the wrong decision. I noticed NYB applied __noindex__ to it, so I restored it, then deleted it again, because I'm fickle like that. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't mind its being deleted. My only concern was that deletion would make it harder for non-admins to follow this ANI discussion regarding the editor who created it, but I put in a brief description of the content above in case of just that eventuality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 1 week, as well. He'd been warned. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Good call. Courcelles 06:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Why exactly is this user not instead indef blocked?— Dædαlus 07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Eh...I thought about it, but his contribs go back a ways and he doesn't have a history. Hopefully he'll get the hint. Otherwise, yes, indef. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indef block until he gets it. There is absolutely no place for that kind of...(I don't even know what he was trying to do there, extraordinarily dark "humor" possibly)...anywhere on this encyclopedia. Indef block and wait for a full apology. This is a second occurrence. N419BH 08:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • An apology? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support one-week block. Not the first time this has happened and given prior warnings it's reasonable. Opposed to indef-blocking a perfectly okay content contributor based on just this, but CC must treat this as his very last warning, or an indef would be very deserved and appropriate. StrPby (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Both the one-week block or an indef block until the user demonstrates that he understands the problem are (or would have been) an appropriate reaction.  Sandstein  11:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• I can't see the deleted page, but based on NYB's description and the earlier "BLP Nazi" page (which I did see), one week seems to be appropriate to drive the message home. Hans Adler 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• A week sounds ok to me. Having peeked at the essay, didn't bother to read it through, given I found it so... ugly, guess it looked to me kind of like where failed sarcasm falls splat across the pale into trolling. en.WP's not censored but nor is it "ED II, the Unleashed." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, without the at best entirely thoughtlessly and provocatively chosen images and captions, there might have been a point to be made here, albeit that it's not, in reality, specific to Jewishness by any stretch of the imagination. For those non-administrators who cannot read the now-deleted revisions: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Ed Miliband, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Allegation of antisemitism, and Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were the primary drivers of this particular case. You don't really need the deleted page to see the issue and the argument, which was re-hashed here from the BLP Noticeboard and article talk page in an almost canonically ill-thought Godwin's Law manner. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Just want to add here that there was some other strangeness recently, when he wrote an article about, and was half pretending to be, this Christopher Connor. Submitted it for DYK, said he was particularly keen to have it used, then refused to answer questions, there and on the COI board, from people wanting to make sure he was a different Christopher Connor. Discussions here and here. It was a minor thing, but it was odd. He declined even to acknowledge that people were asking him a question. SlimVirgin 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought at the time that that might have been being deliberately silent to make the point that according to Project:Outing an editor is not obliged to answer questions as to xyr identity, and that it's a little foolish to assume that there's just one "Christopher Connor" in the world. Or that someone's "conflict of interest" may extend only as far as having an interest in writing the articles about encyclopaedic people that happen to share xyr name. It seems that I was right. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Christopher has now apologised and agreed not to repeat his actions in an unblock request on his talk page. I think with his previously clean record, we should give him this chance. StrPby (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) :I concur. The article text and the images are at odds with each other as the text was not racist nor baiting but seemed to be an attempt tp clarify and help some BLP issues. The images were clearly beyond the line and the block seems to have gotten his attention. JodyB _talk 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Unblocking. After the reading the diffs below I must conclude that this is a pattern of insensitivity. Although his block log was previously clean there is ample evidence that he has been and remains clueless. JodyB<subBold text> talk 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree there, the images are what hurled it over the line. If he'd further say he'll be more careful with any images he uses in hoped for irony, I'd see no need to keep the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've come to oppose an unblock, given CC's later answers on his talk page left me neutral but mostly because I wasn't aware of the DYK diffs shown by iridescent. Taken altogether, I've meaningful worries he may not have made these edits for encyclopedic reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think I oppose an unblock. "Categorising an Aryan as a Mischling is a BLP violation" under an image of Jews being executed by the Einsatzgruppen. Hard to know how to describe that if not as baiting. SlimVirgin 12:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall that caption. I took it as sarcasm which was so startlingly botched, it indeed looked like trolling, but likely was not. I think almost all sarcasm is baiting in some way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock without question after seeing Iridescent's diffs, especially SlimVirgin 13:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock—so let's recap: this guy writes an essay at WP:JEWISH, which he illustrates with images of Hitler and the Nazis. He is blocked for a week. He says sorry. We unblock him after seven hours. Seriously... no. I cannot imagine any good faith explanation for his actions, other than possibly the most serious case of gross insensitivity I've come across in a long while.
  In fact, the case, bears a striking similarity to Berlusconi saying that he shouldn't be blamed for telling a Holocaust joke in a speech; rather, "the bad taste was in those who published it."
  This guy seriously needs a block for more than a few hours to demonstrate to him that the project doesn't consider this sort of thing acceptable, thus preventing further future disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  But blocks aren't punitive, and he knows that if he messes up again he'll likely end up indef-blocked. So what's the harm? StrPby (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  The harm comes from us sending out a message that blocks for the most outragoeous behaviour will be overturned within a couple of hours if the perpetrator says, "Oh, I'm tho thorry I made a mithtake." We need to make it plain to this editor that we will not tolerate actions such as the ones they took; if we do not make this plain, it is plausible or even likely that they will repeat them. And by unblocking this soon, it looks suspiciously like toleration to me.
  The let's-unblock-and-then-if-they-do-it-again-reblock argument should really only apply to behaviours which the person involved didn't know were problematic at the time. But this guy must have known that his Nazi snaps were inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. Lord help me, but I'm actually going to agree with TreasuryTag on something; an unblock for something which no reasonable person could have considered legitimate sends out the wrong message about Misplaced Pages's values and aims. This isn't a one off incident (, , , ); this looks to be someone with an agenda. – iridescent 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Frankly, I one of the first to say Misplaced Pages can be over sensitive to Jewish sensibilities and throw round anti-Semitism charges far too quickly, which tends to have a chilling effect. However, this editor is clearly over the line. This is trolling. An apology might be good enough, if it had been a case of "he's learnt his lesson", but he was heavily criticised for his Misplaced Pages:BLP Nazi recently, and had evidently not taken the hind. A week block is very lenient, and should be served. Next time, I'd propose an outright ban.--Scott Mac 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On the boosterism problem: Can either of the two of you remember where the criticism was that Misplaced Pages biographies tended to start in their first sentences with a whole string of religious, ethnic, sexual, and geographic associations, each with reams of citation cross-links, before even getting to the important stuff about a person for which they are actually known? I think that we already have a non-Godwinized essay on the general subject, which is far from specific to Jewishness, but I cannot remember where I saw it. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I fully endorse every word of iridescent's rationale. Hans Adler 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock This Editor is not a a noob, Mr. Connor knows our norms here. Especially on the heels of the BLP nazi incident. Commons sense should have WP:CLUED him in. Its not rocket science to figure out that having an essay filled with images nazi would cause an adverse reaction with out the essay being called Misplaced Pages:On being Jewish. We are extremely lucky one of us found it and not the Media or a one of the many Jewish advocacy groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - User should be on a short leach also when it expires. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. What Iridescent said, and the diffs Iridescent provided. Saebvn (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I agree with Iridescent. There is something not quite right here. In addition to the diffs Irridesent gave, there are many other questionable edits, for example just recently a DYK with unnecessary details of a lynching. In the diff where he created Jewish lawyer stereotype, he claimed to be one. That article has problems going back to its creation: Shylock evidently was not a lawyer in the Merchant of Venice (the "lawyer" in the play was of the fairer sex). Thank goodness he forgot Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth in that first irksome diff. Was it some kind of bad taste joke? Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • When Christopher Connor created that article, it was actually entitled Jewish lawyer. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't help very much, does it? Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • There was relevant discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 65#Jewish lawyer, which was more about the article in general and an edit that Jimbo had made to it, and his belief that it needed to be made clear that the article was about a stereotype, which was part of the impetus for this proposal (by me): Talk:Jewish lawyer stereotype#Name change? (though of course "stereotype" was not in the title at the time.) The whole article was (and remains) at least a little disturbing, but at least the title is better. The discussion also had the collateral benefit of getting Jewish mother renamed to Jewish mother stereotype, though that is a much older article and Christopher Connor does not seem to have been involved in that one. Neutron (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Renamed back to Jewish mother stereotype note. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I edit conflicted with Gwen Gale on declining the request. Editors have expressed concern over his edits in the past, in relation to DYK hooks and elsewhere, and those concerns should have given him pause - but did not. I appreciate that this editor works on articles where few editors are wont to tread, but that doesn't give him license for these edits. It may be helpful if he were able to show that he understands why everyone is so upset over this incident, and the previous ones, before requesting unblock again. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock at the moment. I'm not convinced the content was intended to be as bad as it was, but intent only gets you so far. Also, it's not necessarily racist to point out that "x% of people arrested for jaywalking are Lower Slobovian", if the police have a predilection to bust Lower Slobovians and let Upper Ombrians slide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock It's pretty clear from his talk page that he doesn't get it and is blaming everyone else for the mess he finds himself in. N419BH 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs. There is also something ineluctably weird about the apology itself. Not buying that. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs, and the fact that the essay was entirely inappropriate and a simple apology is not enough. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Up to indef

My reading of the discussion above, especially the comment by Mathsci, is that we cannot trust this editor not to engage in subtle vandalism to insert anti-Jewish rhetoric into Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 14:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• support the diffs by Iridescent show crystal clear agenda that is harmful to wikipedia. The Article created log makes the pattern even more disturbing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What harmful agenda is being revealed by 2004 European Open (snooker), Smolarek, Personality of the year, Protection of Children Act, draw sheet, and Climbié? Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I said the diffs provided by Iridescent, show an agenda. Creating articles like Indigenous Australians and crime, Talk:Black people and crime in the United Kingdom, Lynching of Ell Persons, Jewish lawyer, The Color of Crime, Racial hoax, Criminal black man stereotype combined with Today's Nazi page show a troubling pattern which i think can be reasonably identfied as an agenda. I could also support the Topic Ban as well which would probably solve my concerns as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • You also said that that agenda was part of a pattern shown by the likes of List of Israeli ambassadors to France, 2004 Grand Prix (snooker), Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding, and 2007 A.S. Roma–Manchester United F.C. conflict. These are your examples, that you pointed to, remember. Moreover, what's "troubling" about racial hoax? You seem to be conflating an interest in race relations topics with some sort of unspecified "troubling" racialist agenda. Have you not thought that you're proving Christopher Connor right? Write about race relations topics, and people will not look further than the titles and accuse one of racism. What's "troubling" about education.gov.uk? What's "disturbing" about Stationary office? What harmful pattern is Office of the Children's Commissioner revealing? ‎ Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I am not saying Stationary office is a bad article thats a straw man. Singularly Nothing here is "bad." But combine with the creation of the the articles I specified combined with the diffs Iridescent's. I dont think its unreasonable to have concerns of pattern. I would love to assume no clue but all this together looks suspicious. Take this DYK suggestion I am looking at a dozen less provocative facts that could have been used in the Article same with Black people and crime in the United Kingdom. The conversation that followed indicates he doesnt get it why people might have an adverse reaction. I am NOT saying he is a single purpose account to promote racists views on Misplaced Pages. But I have to question what he is thinking when he does pulls stunts like what I discussed above becuase I have a hard time believing and Editor can be that Clueless. I said I would be willing to accept a topic ban as alternative but some of his editing patters do raise flags in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak opposeHaving read others comments a critique of my arguements and some thought off Wiki. i have stricken by support of topic ban. I still have serrious reservations about this editor but a topic ban seem to more appropriate for now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I support the block for the present essay creation (and the BLP nazi one earlier). However, I'm not seeing a pattern of vandalism. I'm seeing a number of politically incorrect editing interests, and nominations, but nothing more. Has been inserting stuff unsupported by sources? Perhaps he's being deliberately provocative — but I've seen worse. The essays are over the line, and he needs to get it, and not repeat it. But I don't want to ban for being offending liberal sensitivities.--Scott Mac 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, broadly per my comments above. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support His unblock request clearly demonstrates his lack of sincere apology, including a non-apology apology. It is clear he does not appreciate the horror of his actions have caused. No small number of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I strongly support an indefinite block and severe future sanctions. Basket of Puppies 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No block history, quite a few contribs. User had not been sufficiently warned for an indef. Remember that he's blocked for provocation, not for being anti-semitic (or generally white-supremacist), and it's just too easy to conflate things when reading his apologies or unblock requests. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I doubt this will gain consensus, but it appears this user is doing quite a bit of race baiting here. If this isn't enacted, a topic ban is definitely in order. AniMate 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef for now. Block log was clean, I don't think it's fair to indef without warning an editor who in over 3 1/2 years has made over 3000 edits with few if any kerfuffles. At the very least, he has tried to sensationalize some racial articles and two essays and this is worrisome, but edits to racial topics have been a small slice of his editing history. His answers to questions about his edits tend to be a bit coy for me, it may be how he is though, I don't know, but it's why I don't support an unblock. The week long block may be needed, giving him time to think things over. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. Although I agree that some of this user's edits, and his lack of comprehensive explanations for them, are disturbing, the level of disruption is not very high. This is his first block and a repetition of this behaviour would quickly lead to a much longer block. I do not believe this editor engages in, or is likely to engage in, subtle vandalism to push any particular viewpoint; in fact he engages in somewhat odd borderline trolling and introduction of controversial material for unknown reasons. If he were trying to push a viewpoint, he would not be deliberately courting controversy as he appears to have done on occasion --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(clarifying my comment - I should have said "the level of disruption is not very high when compared with the constructive contributions" - I was not suggesting that the offensive behaviour itself was insignificant, even if not intended to be offensive) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose let's not get ahead of ourselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to this thread by Christopher Connor

On his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the whole thread on his talk page: User_talk:Christopher_Connor#Block_note

Regarding "But simply proposing those hooks is, according to ANI, racist. That seems to me to be twisted", you've had it explained to you (repeatedly) what the issue is, but each time go into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode; see the discussion here for instance. You're cherry-picking facts (e.g. "15.7% of those convicted for homicide in Australia are indigenous", "indigenous Australians make up 2% of the population"), disregarding other information (differential conviction rates, relative probabilities of success of police investigations in close-knit communities vs large urban areas) to come up with the synthesis of "Indigenous Australians committed 15.7 percent of homicides in Australia". If this was a one-off incident then yes, these things happen, but as you yourself recognize you have a long history of being warned for inappropriate comments and suggestions (from most people I'd take this as a ham-fisted joke, but in this case I'm not sure), but your response seems always to be that the problem is with everyone else, not yourself. – iridescent 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - topic ban

I suggest letting the week long block stand, and then imposing (preferably with his agreement) a topic restriction on all race-related content, commentary and comment. He also should not initiate any new essays without consulting others as to their appropriateness.--Scott Mac 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Without consulting others" is a woolly and meaningless phrase which is essentially courting disaster. Needs tightening. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; just make it clear that he's prohibited from initiating new essays at all if he cannot be trusted, or throw the last line out altogether. As for essays relating to race, that's covered by the first part of the topic restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Supportin lieu of full of indef block this seems to be a good alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) This seems to be the most reasonable action for now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support the topic ban. The nature of the restriction on creating essays needs to be made clearer, if there is to be a restriction at all.--Korruski 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support the topic ban, can't see the point of the essay thing (assuming the topic ban wld preclude essays dealing with race/ethnicity issues)appears to be more a problem of pushing peoples buttons occassionaly, hopefully the block will get the message thru--Misarxist 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support The block should stand, and if an indef block isn't applied he should at the very least be restricted from all race related topics. AniMate 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, strongly. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support ban on racial topics/edits, broadly construed, throughout the en.WP space, which he can ask to be lifted after 3-6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Good solution. As others have said, it should be broadly interpreted so as to include all the problematic articles mentioned so far. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, but... when I read this whole thread, User:Wassermann, indefblocked since June 2009, kept popping into my head. You remember Wassermann's incessant bad-faith category lawyering? Connor's ban must, apart from articles and essays, include categories, very broadly construed; i.e. he doesn't get to add categories touching on nationality or ethnicity in any way. We need to set something up that doesn't take up too much of the time and energy of other editors to check on and argue about. Do we also need to make a sock check? I'm asking, not accusing; not being much good with socks. Bishonen | talk 04:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Comment A broad topic ban across the en.WP space would mean categories were out of bounds, too. So long as the ban was broadly racial/ethnicity, I think that would cover any contentious nationality cats. A topic ban needs to be simple and straightforward, easy to understand and follow, otherwise breaches and a long block are more or less foregone, I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - The essay alone shows he can't be trusted in this area, let alone the other dubious edits he's made. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support The diffs provided above show the editor is using Misplaced Pages to push an inappropriate agenda: if there is no indef block and no one is volunteering to closely monitor the editor, a strong topic ban is required to avoid further wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - have you looked at the article he created on the Lynching of Ell Persons?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Yes, that was a worthwhile contribution to the project. I could support a time limited topic ban to allow him to edit constructively in areas unrelated to race and to gain some trust and more understanding of policy, perhaps three months? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment The article does not bear close scrutiny. Much of it is written using primary sources (contemporary newspaper reports from 1917) rather than paraphrasing summaries of the material from secondary sources. There is a problem with the whole of the first three paragraphs of the main text: they fail WP:V and WP:RS; they are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR pieced together from local newspaper reports at the time. I tried to check the statements about the theories of Alphonse Bertillon (seeing the image of the murder in the dead girl's pupils): I found nothing in the 2001 Law Review. One published article relates : "The most convincing evidence against Persons was an alleged photograph of Antoinette Rappel’s decapitated head in which Officer Paul Waggner claimed to see Person’s forehead in the victim’s retina." I did find a report that Waggner was trained in "Bertillon technique" in an uncited 1928 Ph.D. (J.R. Steelman), But that is not what can be read in the article. Similar questionable edits on lynchings precipitated the indefinite block of MoritzB (talk · contribs) in 2007, also discussed here on ANI. Elsewhere this editor uses "google translate" to access French documents and has not so far noticed that "Par" is not a first name in French. There is something not quite right in all of this. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream newspaper reports are accepted by Misplaced Pages as reliable sources WP:NEWSORG.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Local newspapers in Memphis in 1917 in the days of segregation? You must be joking. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Toddy1. Just let the block expire as planned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - A single article does not automatically make him a constructive editor. I'm going to need more than that to prove he's able to keep his opinions to himself. Given the essay, I don't think that's going to happen.. not to mention his past behavior. It's a problem that he can't figure out, and thus cannot be trusted with. Support topic ban per Toddy1.— Dædαlus 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose In a nutshell, this situation is too complex at this moment for a simple solution like this. What puzzles me about this issue is that, prima facie, except for the images used I found nothing objectionable to this user's now-deleted essay: it was a a banal restatement of a number of such truisms as a proposed definition for labelling someone a Jew, that being identified as a Jew can be controversial, etc. This does not mean I endorse the essay: I just don't see why anyone would bother to write it, thus leading me to suspect that there is something in it only someone familiar with anti-Semitic hate speech would catch. (And while the apology on his Talk page isn't exactly what I'd label a "non-apology apology", it isn't what I'd expect to see in a sincere apology either.) In other words, this guy seems to be playing games with the rules, & while I can't say what his intent could be I don't entirely trust him. Subjecting him to anything but the simplest & clearest restrictions will only make the rest of us work harder to sanction him if it becomes clear that he is harming Misplaced Pages. I believe letting him come back after a week with no new restrictions -- but keeping an eye on him -- will be the simplest & best solution. If this guy pulls another stunt like that essay, we can then ban him for good without needing to take any further steps; if he is editting in good faith, & this was simply a case where he was putting his foot in his mouth, then all of us can step away from this with no unintended bitterness or dramaz & move on to better things. -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support The hastily-applied air-freshener spray doesn't cover up the stink. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Supportish - Editor should be allowed to submit work via proxy editor if that work is acceptable within an article (I'd volunteer). It walks and quacks like a duck, but is it a duck? If that's the impression that's been created, perhaps some sort of absolvency (<-- new word) should be permitted. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: seems overkill per those opposing above. -Atmoz (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Removal of Sanction

• Thread regarding this.

Back in April, I was put on an effective ban from using "Vandalism" button on TWINKLE. Since then, I haven't, but a couple minor mistakes (four to be exact), have no issued any vandalism warnings (the ones issued by mistake were reverted in seconds) and have only issued warnings for "edit tests" just I have just written out vandalism warnings. I feel the ban has done its job and gotten me to examine what is and isn't vandalism more closely and I wish to have the sanction/ban removed with community approval. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support lifting of restriction. Contributions look good, using rollback properly. So long as Neutralhomer follows the standard vandalism warning progression (huggle does this automatically) I see no need to keep the editing restriction. Do however be sure to respect WP:CIVIL when dealing with the inevitable mistaken revert (as well as the angry vandals). N419BH 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• The terms of the probation that Neutralhomer agreed to said that he would stop using "vandalism" in edit summaries. I see four instances in which he did so in October, and one in November. That's disappointing but, on the plus side, in each of those cases there was actual vandalism. Neutralhomer is clearly acting in good faith and with abundant energy. I support lifting this probation, so long as he is fully aware that he is responsible for every edit, even when he's using a semi-automated tool. If he returns to over-eager use of the "vandalism" button on Twinkle then he has already used up his chances and that tool should be removed. I expect that won't be necessary and wish him well in his clean-up efforts.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - as per Will, user seems to have understood the correct use of the button. The occasional mistake or miss hit shouldn't be a removal issue going forward but if the user returns to a pattern of misuse then removal of the tool may be the only solution. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• comment - have the supporters seen this thread? .. sorry NH it just seems like you are still very eager to accuse people of vandalism.. but i don't know the whole story so i'm not voting just commenting. BEARinAbasket (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Giving the editor another chance. If the pattern returns then the tool should be removed. I don't have a issue with the four miss clicks that have occurred. --Alpha Quadrant 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Since s/he has been manually checking things out,I say give another chance. --CrohnieGal 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban; user seems to have learned from the experience, and has since performed very well with only a couple of minor mistakes. Dreadstar ☥ 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• comment - this is very upsetting .. NeutralHomer has just accused me of being a sock of the user he was trying to get blocked, above. Is this what happens when someone questions his attitude? Also - did anyone who "supported" read through the original thread? NeutralHomer (as much as I like his name) seems to have problems with wikistalking. I see this as evidence of that. I'm not sure what to do about this actually. BEARinAbasket (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: User:BEARinAbasket has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. GiftigerWunsch 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I wish I had been aware that Neutralhomer was under sanction when I encountered him back in June. He was full of false accusations and a level of pure arrogance I have never before encountered in over three years of editing. I'm not going to take the time right now to look into his behaviour over the past five months, but I must say, given what a jerk he was to me, just a couple of weeks after he was given sanctions, does not make me very optimistic that he's turned over a new leaf. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - After last night's revisions of vandalism by a self-glorifying troll on this very page while the wiki slept is proof enough to me that he can be trusted in good faith to do the right thing in the future. Doc talk 04:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Neutralhomer seems to have learned from his mistakes during his ban from Twinkle. He can be trusted again with the tools. As the editors above say, give him another chance. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support While I am concerned with some of the examples given here, it is clear the NH wants the tool back - so maybe giving the tool will make him more careful in his commentary... and if not, what the community alloweth the community can unalloweth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Please be careful what you leave behind in edit summaries, NH. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on user's talk page

Usually I'm of the opinion that a user's talk page is more or less their business, but this is a pretty nasty personal attack , particularly since it's essentially taunting a user under a topic ban. It's also pretty preposterous in that it insinuates the user is somehow associated with Nazi-sympathizers. Will someone at the very least tell Petri to remove that crap? Note that Petri's got a history of such behavior. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bull! Despite our differences in opinion and wikilayering at WP:AE, we are simply having a friendly chat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the article in the New Your Times: John Demjanjuk was acquitted. Based on this, one must conclude that the Latvians – whom Volunteer Marek prefers to call Nazi-sympathizers – did a great favor to justice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk had a small circle of supporters to be sure, but why must you "conclude that the Latvians (all 2.2 million of them) did a great favor to justice"? --Martin (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone else comments, thank you Volunteer Marek, certainly in the era of conflict what you cite would most definitely be baiting. And in fairness and full disclosure, that did immediately cross my mind. (And to Petri, contending semantically that it was Volunteer Marek—not yourself—making Latvians out to be Nazi-sympathizers is disingenuous at best, and you know that, so let's not play that game.) That said, I have made a proposal to Petri at Offliner's enforcement request which I consider to be a touchstone for whether Petri chooses dialog or conflict, that is, whether we were, or were not, simply having a friendly chat over the Demjanuk matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As Petri has contributed further accusations against me at the enforcement request, thus choosing conflict. I must therefore regretfully agree with Volunteer Marek's original assessment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Petri has indicated he does not feel he has escalated anything, including reference to the item reported here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Peace is contagious

Peace is contagious (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat to "sue for libel" here. Despite being asked to retract it by Doc9871 (talk · contribs) here, the user has not. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not (Kyle Baker) the subject in question over the line 'I lie all the time', I was informed that I cannot sue (anyone) for libel. So this issue is moot. And the line seems to now be in context within the article, instead of randomly placed near the end. Yworo seems to be an over-zealous comic book fan. (SIGH) Cheers! Peace is contagious (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace you have been asked to remove it, unless you do that and retract it, you will likely be blocked (again) wikipedia takes legal threats very seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Near of the end of User talk:Peace is contagious, at 16:53, 16 November 2010, 40 minutes after the above, User:Peace is contagious again makes legal accusations against me: "Mr Tenebrae seems to be a bit slack w/ his Wiki edits, if not even libelous. I suggest u take a few law school classes urself, sir."

As someone who has indeed taken classes in journalism and the law, I can tell you the first thing you learn is, "Truth is not libelous."

In any event, Peace is contagious himself expanded on the quote and moved it to a section of the article where it fits perfectly well. He did this at 15:16, 16 November 2010 — so even after doing so, when presumably the quote is no longer an issue with him, he specifically returned an hour and half later to made his accusation against me. That just seems gratuitous and a late shot, for no reason other than to maliciously attack another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd point out the irony of someone with the name "Peace is contagious" threatening anyone with anything, but I think you all get it. HalfShadow 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind the old satirical definition of peace: "Short period of preparation for the next war." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think with the excuse that the editor isn't somebody else doesn't matter. A threat to sue is there and not retracted so I think no legal threats needs to be applied to get the point across much stronger. This is not a game to play which is what it is starting to look like with doing it again an hour and half later. Make sure this time it get through, no legal threats are allowed, period. --CrohnieGal 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats are not to be tolerated, and the editor refuses to retract. So why is the editor not yet blocked? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is indeed a very good question Bugs. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And now answered by an admin. He gawn (until or if he retracts). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Though currently banned, he's still threatening me

In ] again threatens me ("He SHOULD fear being sued").

In addition, he calls me and other editors names, and makes fun of an editor's person's appearance ("C'mon look at the picture of the dude who blocked me").

I have serious qualms about this person. He's been asked by several editors to be civil, he's been linked the policy / guideline, which he dismisses as "not set in stone," and shows contempt for Misplaced Pages and its editor, to wit: "obviously if these people were 'smarter' they wouldn't be wasting time on Misplaced Pages."

He has caused nothing but disruption. His posts have done little but spew venom and weirdly rambling diatribes. I believe reasonable consideration can be given to a long-term ban (his indefinite ban can be lifted if he retracts his legal threats, which leaves his insults free and clear) or a block. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'll remove the comment, simply cuz I want to edit other pages, but I'll put it right back if anyone should choose to be irresponsibly libelous, as it should be" sounds pretty "unpromising". This was in this latest post, and the original threat still remains (despite extensively refactoring the comments of others yet again). Doc talk 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for a year

I'm scared of blocking IPs altogether, it always turns out I've blocked the whole of Saudi Arabia or something. But I've now blocked 75.147.76.9 for a year. This is a vandalism-only account which had just returned from a year's block set by J. delanoy. My notion is that, though I know nothing of ranges, I'm sure JD does, and I'll be safe as long as I imitate him. I still feel a bit nervous, though. Could somebody please tell me this block is OK, or unblock if it isn't? Bishonen | talk 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

• Looking at this or similar web pages showing IP allocations by country may help (which I have to look at from time to time, as one time early in my adminship I inadvertently blocked the entire United Arab Emirates). –MuZemike 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• I actually fixed the ARIN hyperlink that you'll find at the bottom of the account's contributions history, a month or so ago, so that it contined to work. Follow the "America" link, and you'll find that not only are your worries based upon the improbable eventuality that Saudi Arabia has moved to Philadelphia, but that it's fairly clear who and what the person is (combining the geolocation information with the favourite article). Or you could just see the big notice at the top of User talk:75.147.76.9. ☺

  The long-standing problem with this sort of situation is that although we have ways to contact the ISP we don't have (a) ways to contact the parents nor (b) ways to make the reports to the ISP more credible to the ISP than merely people on a WWW site, who don't even run the place, with pseudonyms like "Bishzilla" and "Uncle G". If you'd like to encourage the construction of a mechanism for rectifying the latter, please join me at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Things that you could really help us by doing. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Little uncle reminding me: have encountered these little pests? Perhaps more credible for contacting parents? bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

I think this block is appropriate. I am 90% confident this is a school. The IP is registered to Comcast, the large American ISP. Treceroute data shows it's a business or organizational customer of Comcast's in the Philadelphia area. Comcast's business IPs are pretty static. Also, unlike many other ISPs, American cable TV companies like Comcast and Charter seldom identify their end business customers, so schools using Comcast are usually not identified in Whois or traceroute data. Looking at the edits over time, I see a lot of childish edits. All the edits occur during American school hours and none over the summer or holidays. There are many edits to Archbishop Ryan High School, a Philadelphia school -- I'm guessing this is probably that school's IP.

We have many good school-aged students editing and administering Misplaced Pages; contributors like that can always log-in and use the school's connection the way you've set up the block. In the meantime, bored kids looking to fiddle with our articles will have to do their school work instead. If this was a different sort of IP (hotel, college or something more dynamicly re-assigned), I'd block for a shorter period.

The account was blocked 6 times before with escalating time periods, the last being a year. Personally, I would have chosen 20 or 21 months to get to the end of the next school year, but 12 months is certainly fine. I wouldn't go past 20-21 months.

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Your block does that while allowing access to serious contributors. --A. B. 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's highly, highly likely to be an IP at Archbishop Ryan High School. Fitting block. Nothing to stop a GF editor from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Stinks of a school. I've always said school IPs should be soft-blocked upon discovery, but whaddya gonna do... HalfShadow 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say confirmed, since this IP also edits elsewhere in regards to this school. This should be added to the templated msg on the talk page IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the IP is almost certainly connected with a particular school, maybe one of our admins (preferably one with something resembling a real name) could contact the school about this problem. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A school will likely be a Nazi and say "no Misplaced Pages for anyone". Misplaced Pages is against change but if there were a system where if you have shown you are a good editor and have edited a bit, you can edit from any school, even if the school has troublemakers. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem could easily be addressed by requiring registration. Someday, though probably not soon, the lightbulb will finally come on for the wikipedia community, and they will decide that anyone can still edit, but that they must be registered - as with any other website that allows input from the general public. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested this for the last couple of years, at least for schools, as that's where a good amount of the vandalism comes from, but nobody will go for it. HalfShadow 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

They won't go for it until a critical mass of exasperation accumulates. Apparently we're not there yet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure they'll ever go for it, it's too deeply engrained in the foundational philosophy of the place to leave it as it is. Sure, it causes innumerable headaches, adds to the workload, puts us in the position of the Red Queen, running as hard as we can just to stay in place, but that's as nothing compared to ideological purity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process

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.

Hopefully everyone's learned something here. If not, WP:RFC/U is that way. Rd232 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some really disruptive and confusing behavior going on at this AfD. Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has moved the article being discussed Aircraft design process to Aircraft design. He then removed the redirect at Aircraft design process and started a new article. This seems like a blatant attempt to disrupt the AfD process, and is in line with Colonel Warden's recent actions. He was just here for unilaterally removing tags from articles without addressing the problems raised by the tags. He isn't a new contributor, and surely he knows how AfDs work, even if he thinks that no articles should ever be deleted. I think something needs to be done. AniMate 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• He's skated-by being blocked several times recently, so block for a week for the disruption, and apply some sort of restriction going forward. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Editors can read the discussion for all the details. The short form is that there are ~24000 books about aircraft design, respectable books such as Aircraft Design. Nevertheless, some editors seem to think that we shouldn't have an article on this topic, which seems quite remarkable. Anyway, if the consensus is that we should delete all this well-sourced material then we still can. What's the problem? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The AfD was supposed to be about a specific article-text at the title "Aircraft design process". You have disrupted it all by re-stacking the deck and trying to make this seem to be about the general topic of "aircraft design". WP:DE, WP:GAME, WP:POINT... you're ripe for resolution. Jack Merridew 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Although I haven't seen either article, there is the potential to have both articles. Aircraft design could cover things like biplane and jets. Aircraft design process is a different matter. It could be about the steps or process to design airplanes. Aircraft buffs and engineers can probably say this better than me.
    • As far as the first sentence of this complaint, this is not disruptive IF there is a genuine article to be written. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It is disruptive because it confuses the whole AfD process. Which article is currently being discussed at the AfD? Is it both? It is the original article? Is it the newly created article? It is disruptive. AniMate 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• This was an article with obvious significant underlying content and validity as a notable topic; there's no requirement that we must delete a bad article for an obviously good and notable topic and then recreate it, rather than start fixing it, just because someone asked to delete the bad one.

  Warden has for all intents and purposes deleted the old article and started over again with the content work, which has a ways to go but is headed in the right direction. This is the right outcome. The process used was perhaps slightly hinky, but not a process violation. The request here - to insist that he be punished, that the article be forced to be deleted, then restarted from scratch, rather than let him continue working on improving it now that the objectionable structure and content are all gone, is approaching a shrubbery.

  There's no actionable issue here. Let it go, people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Have you seen the thread at User talk:Black Kite#Colonel Warden is at it again? Jack Merridew 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Two incoherent articles instead of one? How could that be disruptive? Both are forks from Aerospace engineering for the moment, though I could see a split (written by someone whose actual done an overview of the literature) eventually of Aircraft design -- though it would be a lot of minutiae. It's part of the process of fragmenting things into poor bits of information, rather than making it possible to have larger bits of actual knowledge (and adds to the problem of unwatched and unedited articles). So it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the AFD at now? is it closed> ... here is it, lost in limbo Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Aircraft_design - It looks like disruptive activity to me and disruptive of process, creating a new article and redirects during an AFD on an article flagged for rescue. I suggest the new stub and the redirects be deleted and Colonel Warden advised to let process run its course correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Aircraft design is what the article nominated was renamed to, that its original name before being changed. Check the discussion in the AFD. It now links to the proper AFD, that fixed. After sorting through the information, he decided to make an article for the design process, which is a totally different article, nothing to do with the one that was named that before. And this situation was closed. Go to that AFD and joined the discussion if you want. Dream Focus 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Give over, its a fork recreation in the middle of an AFD, totally disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. Maybe a rule should be instituted that articles at AfD can only be moved if a consensus is reached in the AfD to make the move. This would cover most reasonable moves (e.g. person's name is misspelled) and prevent moves that might be contentious. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This is somewhat reminiscent of another editor who repeatedly merged articles during AfD to confuse the process. It is disruptive to derail the discussion in this way and should be discouraged. pablo 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Messing around like that during an AFD messes up the discussion completely, people come along and go, what is actually going on here and they are unable to pass a simple opinion. Its hard to see good faith in such actions, although I am looking for it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well maybe he believes that he's improving an article. It's hard to see good faith reasons if you're already convinced it's bad faith.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, he clearly didn't improve the AFD on that article, you may as well close it now as in truth, its been disrupted. Close -procedural close only - process was disrupted. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • This is an encyclopedia. Improving articles > improving AFD discussions.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes. Col Warden's controversial behavior aside, the article being improved is unambiguously the right outcome here, and process wonkery isn't helping. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, thats basically true but we need the process without it the whole thing falls into diss-aray. Demeaning the AFD process by renaming and forking out and creating redirects in the middle of one to create a three line stub that has not been created for the last six years is not worth the belittling of the AFD process, or are you suggesting that renaming and creating redirects in the middle of an AFD is an acceptable option that we should see happening without issue? Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I certainly am. We spent a lot of time and effort explaining to people that they couldn't do it, back in the years where it broke the notice, and a fair amount of effort getting rid of the technical problem that prevented it. I don't want to go back to the times when I had to explain over and over to people who just wanted to edit like they normally could, addressing points raised in discussion with action, that an AFD nomination imposes restrictions whose technicalities they have to understand. We managed to get the restrictions down to, in effect, don't do anything that would remove/hide the AFD notice or that would make cleaning up copyright licence problems at the close of discussion harder, and that was a good thing. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If your actions show that you believe that the article needs a different title and different contents, aren't you then by all logic supporting the deletion of the original article, instead of supporting keeping it? The logic of !voting to keep an atricle in an AfD, when in reality you aren't keeping anything from it, escapes me. Anyway, clearly disruptive. Fram (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

A time-line to all of this would be useful

• At 20.00 10 November the AFD was created for a page at Aircraft Design Process.
• 22.37 11 November This page was move moved to Aircraft design by Col Walden
• The redirect was then replaced by a stub article. The original article was then left orphaned at Aircraft Design.
• 09.44 16 November Animate left a note on Col Walden's talk page querying what article the AFD should be discussing.
• 19.20 16 November Uncle G had to move the AFD to reflect the location of the original page and amend the header to include both titled.

The effect is that as a result of Col Walden's page move and lack of care the AFD was pointing at the wrong article for almost 5 days. Despite being told at 09.44 16 Nov there was a problem and acknowledging the warning by responding at 12.58, no corrective action was taken and it was left to Uncle G to fix Col Walden's actions. This is highly disruptive and I cannot see how the AFD can possibly stand now as it is utterly tainted by the confusion over the page. This is unacceptable I the fact that Col Walden took no corrective action when warned makes me think that this was intentional to derail the AFD. He is experienced, claims to understand policy but his behaviour is now becoming disruptive. Please can someone deal with this? Spartaz 21:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could everyone please take a deep breath and calm down for a moment? There's a lot of bad faith being thrown around here toward Colonel Warden and almost no one is considering the fact that he, most likely, did this to improve the article. Yes, he should have discussed it first before he did so, but his efforts were clearly to improve the article in question, which he saw to be at an improper title for the information. Overall, he has drastically improved the now two articles and clearly shown their notability. In this instance, it seems that Colonel used our WP:IAR policy to improve the encyclopedia and he has overwhelmingly done so. The AfD has really not been disrupted, unless you believe that articles should not be improved while an AfD is ongoing, which is against the entire purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here. Punishing Colonel for something he did to improve Misplaced Pages is definitely not preventative or even punitive, but vindictive. Silverseren 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I endorse this sentiment. I honestly fear that some here are more interested in "winning the AFD" than coming out with an improved article(s).--Cube lurker (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If a deletionist did this you would both be up in arms. This cannot possibly be excused by IAR and is an appalling waste of other editors' time and efforts. Spartaz 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, we wouldn't. It doesn't matter who did it, since it's quite clear that they improved the article by doing it and made it a very obvious notable topic. That gains my approval any day, as it should for every editor of Misplaced Pages. Yes, he disrupted the AfD, but I still don't understand why you and others believe that Colonel Warden expressly set out to do that. I believe he set out to make a better article and accidentally messed up the AfD in the process. Go ahead and make another AfD if you'd like, but I don't see it ending in Delete for the topic as it is now. Silverseren 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Good faith is not assumed blindly and IAR is not a shield to do whatever you want. IAR means you are still responsible for your actions. You still have to explain why you did them and you're still held accountable. Colonel Warden has been around the block enough to know when he's being disruptive, and this was clearly disruptive. No reasonable person could think otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Good faith is not assumed blindly"? Yes it is. If there's no reason not to assume faith, then that's the (blind) assumption. GiftigerWunsch 00:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Amen to that. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • But we are well past the point of assumption with Colonel Warden, so people should now be behaving according to what they have learned from Colonel Warden's record, not on blind assumptions. I have no doubt that Colonel Warden believes the actions he takes to be for the betterment of Misplaced Pages. I also have no doubt that he is generally wrong about that.—Kww(talk) 00:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • So you're saying that the Aircraft design article has not been improved? That CW made the article worse from what he did? I find that hard to believe. Silverseren 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm saying that the disruption of the AFD process outweighs any gain made by changing one article.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Didn't we have a recent thread about renaming articles during AfD? Was that one Warden-related, too? I personally never do it, even when recommended (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Medical Eponyms Discouraged Because of Nazi Associations) because of the perceived disruption. I agree that renames during AfD should be avoided, although I have no personal familiarity with the topic under discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The last time I see that this was discussed was here. There's no apparent participation by Colonel Warden in the discussion, but the consensus is clear that moves during AfD may be appropriate when the name prejudices the discussion, but must be done in a way that preserves the AfD history. Colonel Warden did not do this in this case. At the same time, it does not appear that he was requested to do so in the notification listed in the timeline, either. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Colonel Warden also renamed Clear Heels after it was put up for discussion. They then proceeded to add sources which did not support the cited material (see comments in edit history for examples) and stacked the AfD by involving the "Article Rescue Squad". That article, incidentally, was created by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Wiki brah, who has a long history of creating articles like this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• - Thanks for the timeline Spartaz, very clearly shows how the edits make the AFD worthless.. Fair enough, he says he did it with good intentions but it messed up a lot of process for no or close to no content improvement and he needs telling not to do it again. And someone might as well close the AFD its valueless now.Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• My thanks, too, for the timeline; I think it's right... To be blunt about this, Colonel Warden is engaging in much the same sort of behaviour as his now-banned friend A Nobody engaged in: confounding AfDs. It's that simple. This particular AfD is a screwed-pooch, so I expect it should be closed, the behaviour be strongly addressed, and the debris deleted. Ya, that's at AfD, too; same damn wiki-problem. Someone do something about the big-picture-problem, ok. Jack Merridew 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We could just ban everybody and shut down the encyclopedia. That would solve everyone's problems. –MuZemike 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Not that I'm in favour of it, but one possible future of the project is largely-locking the content down and a few remaining editors engaging in 'maintenance'. Another is that most serious people simple stop caring and the IPs and littluns edit away without rules. Or we could defend the project. Jack Merridew 23:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Precedents

Here are some examples of previous bold moves during AFD:

1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific)
2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Off-line
3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heterography
4. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blue Pig (2nd nomination)

I am familiar with the latter case as I gave Uncle G a barnstar for his fine work on that occasion. I am just following the good example of editors such as Uncle G, Tikiwont and Tim Vickers. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I've moved things during AfD, but the one I'm recalling involved punctuation. You're actively disruptive, however. Jack Merridew 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The change I made in this case was a minor one too. At the time I made it, the difference between Aircraft design and Aircraft design process seemed a minor one - just neatening up the title and making the article's title the same as its bold lead, which had been Aircraft design all along. This made the article conform with WP:BOLDTITLE, which was not previously the case. To be pilloried over a simple matter of style, seems absurd when you have done this too. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't recall what the article was, but the move was about a dash/emdash of some sort, and I moved the AfD, too. I don't believe anyone even commented or much noticed, or what the result was. It was a few years ago; have fun hunting.

      Your move was not minor and I don't believe you intended it as minor thing. It was about boosting the ghits for your AfD posts, offering a moving target to the AfD participants, and generally confounding AfD as you and a few others have been intent on for several years. Jack Merridew 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

      • It seemed minor at the time - the complaints came later as a surprise. The issue was then fully discussed in the AFD discussion. There was no secret made of the matter and it was open to any editor to revert this action if they had wanted to. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem is that page moves are not (correctly) revertable by non-admins. The only way a non-admin can revert is by doing a copy-and-paste move, which destroys the page history. That's why unilateral page moves with consensus are so disruptive. You've been here long enough to know that, so don't play dumb. You knew exactly what you were doing and what the repercussions would be. SnottyWong  00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, they generally are, so long as all that exists at the old title is the redirect with no history. It's when people get in tug-of-war games that the move becomes irreversible for a typical editor.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Don't forget CW's bold moves at List of renamed Indian cities and states during AfD. He first moved List of renamed Indian cities and states to List of renamed Indian places during the AfD. That move was reverted by an administrator. The next day, he tried to move it to List of renamed places in India, but again his move was reverted by an administrator, who had to move-protect the article to prevent CW from disrupting it any further.See more accurate description of what happened below. There is a clear history of disruption in CW's actions if you look over a long enough period of time. If CW had made all of these moves in the same week, he would have been blocked instantly. But, since he spreads his disruptive actions out in time and fills in the gaps with some relatively useful edits, he continues to get the benefit of the doubt from editors who are too unfamiliar with him, and he only gets scolded and not blocked. I have noticed, however, that CW is very adept at finding the line between disruptive and non-disruptive actions and walking that line. If someone scolds him for doing something disruptive, he'll do a similar thing in a slightly less disruptive way to see what he can get away with. SnottyWong  00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You've got some nerve. In the case of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of renamed Indian public places, it was SnottyWong that moved the article to a new title during the AFD. My role in that case was to move it back to the original title, as its scope seemed better. So now we see that both users SnottyWong and Jack Merridew have moved articles during AFDs too. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • After looking in the history of that article, I am also appalled. Snottywong, you saying this is actually one of the most underhanded things i've ever seen done on Misplaced Pages and a complete fabrication on trying to blame CW for it. Silverseren 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Take it easy, I made a mistake. I apologize for messing up the details of the situation, as it was several months ago. However, please give me a second chance to accurately describe what happened here. If you read the AfD, you'll see that I (the nominator) moved the page only after several editors suggested and agreed upon the name change (i.e. what we like to call "consensus"). I simultaneously moved the page and withdrew the deletion nomination, as the new title clarified the inclusion criteria of the list and satisfied my objections to the article. CW, however, disagreed with me (and the rest of the editors at AfD) and moved the article to a different title (i.e. he didn't revert my move, he made a second move), which prompted me to withdraw my withdrawal. It was this second move that was reverted by an administrator. Then, a day later CW tried to move it yet again (against consensus), and his move was reverted by a different administrator, and the page was move-protected. I think, if you look at the details, you'll see CW's actions were disruptive and against consensus while my actions were supported by consensus. Again, I apologize for initially mis-characterizing what happened, my memory was a bit fuzzy. SnottyWong  01:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • CW's assertion above that his role was "to move it back to the original title" is false. The original title was List of renamed Indian public places, I initially moved it to List of renamed Indian cities and states. Then, CW moved it to List of renamed Indian places. This move was reverted by an admin. Then, CW tried again to move it to List of renamed places in India, and this move was also reverted by a different admin. The move log for the page shows CW's moves and the reverts by admins, but it doesn't show my initial move, which is why I first posted a somewhat inaccurate portrayal of what happened. SnottyWong  01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic-Ban Proposal

Since someone has to formulate something, here's my draft. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Through the various actions listed above and discussed previously on ANI, to include 1) moving articles during AfD without appropriately updating links, 2) making edits using edit summaries that omit key features of those edits, such as undoing redirects, and 3) removing maintenance tags from articles without making appropriate improvements, Colonel Warden has lost the faith of the community that his actions on articles being considered for deletion (ostensibly to improve them) are, in fact, undertaken in good faith. As a consequence, Colonel Warden is topic banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, for three months. For the purposes of this topic ban, Colonel Warden may not 1) edit any article currently subject to a deletion process (AfD, speedy deletion, or PROD), but may contribute to the improvement of such articles by suggesting appropriate improvements on such articles' respective talk page, or 2) edit any Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages Talk space process dealing with Articles for Deletion, to include individual AfDs and DRV conversations.

• Addendum 1: for these purposes, "edit" includes moving articles.

Discussion

• works for me. Jack Merridew 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 'editing' would include 'moving', of course, and that needs to be made explicit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed and so amended. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Terima kasih. Jack Merridew 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as drafter. While I think this represents the fairest interpretation of what Colonel Warden's critics are saying, and I can clearly see where they're coming from and empathize with their frustration, I think this is premature and risks alienating a contributor by forcing him out of his chosen niche. There must be some line, however, beyond which "another chance" or "another issue" strains credulity to a breaking point. At the same time, a temporary block would be punitive and do little to improve Colonel Warden's standing--if the sum total of Colonel Warden's deletion discussion interaction have indeed lost the good faith of the community, a topic ban which gives him time and space to improve articles absent any participation in deletion processes seems the least disruptive, potentially effective measure which can be imposed. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe that this issue or other issues raised above are of a degree that requires this sort of topic ban. All of the things that i've seen brought up about Colonel Warden are good faith attempts of his to improve Misplaced Pages. Especially in terms of the current article and AfD, it is quite clear that he has tremendously done so and I do not believe he should be punished for such improvements. Silverseren 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - woops, missed a bit, still I support it anyway, if he states he will not redirect or rename or move any articles at AFD I could accept that, if not then yes, its needed to stop future disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian solutions have the ability to have "unintended consequences" at the very least, this one even more so. CW is surely aware that the move was, in 20/20 hindsight, unwise. What more ought to be sought? Collect (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you have that he believes this? Has he admitted that the move was unwise in hindsight? SnottyWong  00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support My efforts over time to get him to stop using deceptive edit summaries convince me that Colonel Warden doesn't really care about editing in good faith if his efforts prevent an article from being redirected or deleted. Ends do not justify the means, and that needs to be driven home.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm getting tired of cookies and cuddles for disruptive users here because they happen to know a few people. It would be interesting to see how some people's opinions would change if the actions of an individual could be reported so that they were anonymous until such a time as a consensus was reached on what to do with them. The move was clearly disruptive to the entire process. He broke the AfD for 5 days, and he's been here long enough to know when he's being disruptive. Yes, he should also be blocked in that I've seen no acknowledgment of the disruptive behaviour which means we have no guarantees that he won't repeat it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • above, he continues to call this 'minor'. Jack Merridew 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • English apparently is different where you live. I didn't know "seemed minor at the time" meant that one still believes something to be minor. Silverseren 00:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yup, I'm practically illiterate and have no competence whatsoever to read the totality of what he's posting and must surely have missed many places where he's made it abundantly clear that this sort of thing will not continue. my bad. ;) Jack Merridew 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, although this doesn't go far enough, in my opinion. I think an RFC/U on CW's behavior would be justified (although I'm personally not motivated enough to start one unilaterally). CW is smart enough to spread out his disruptive actions over time so that they are not frequent enough to get him in trouble. If you collect all of the disruptive things that CW has ever done (which would be a monumental task), the full extent of his disruption to this project would become clear. SnottyWong  00:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose CW should avoid such renames in the future without discussion. I believe he did this as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. In fact I think that's pretty obvious. And I think the move would have been acceptable had a new stub not be created in place of the old during the AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do you think that's so obvious? He's apparently done it before, he's been here long enough to know that leaving an AfD unlinked would be disruptive. Where is it so obvious that this was done in good faith?--Crossmr (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wrote a tl;dr reply then deleted it. Net answer: I'm unclear what bad-faith modivation you'd ascribe to him. He's trying to improve the encyclopedia. We certainly block any number of people for being disruptive with a good-faith motivation, but I only see an attempt for a positive contribution. If he does it again is a block in order? Most likely. (By this I mean renaming and removing the redirect during the discussion--renaming during an AfD can be quite reasonable as may have been in this case. It was the overwriting of the redirect that caused the confusion and disruption). Hobit (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: proposal says "Colonel Warden may not 1) edit any article currently subject to a deletion process (AfD, speedy deletion, or PROD), but may contribute to the improvement of such articles by suggesting appropriate improvements on such articles' respective talk page" -- this unworkable in practice. also, we have so few editors active in AfD that regularly work to improve articles once nominated, most editors active outside AfD in substantive article creation don't like to get tangled into such things.--Milowent • 01:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- though I think one month rather than three should be enough. I do not buy the bullshit excuse that Colonel Warden was doing the wrong thing in good faith. He wasn't. He was acting in bad faith. Colonel Warden has been warned several times for deceitful conduct like this but has kept on doing it. He was also good wikifriends with A Nobody, who used to pull dodgy stunts like this all the time and came to a very bad end, so he knows full well how the community feels about shifty page moves done solely to confuse and confound the AfD process. Reyk _YO! 02:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum- on further thought, I also see nothing to be gained in banning CW from the AfD discussions. He should be allowed to speak his mind; it's disruption and damage in the form of these page moves and dishonest edit summaries that I would like to see the end of. And even if he were to talk the most preposterous crap at an AfD discussion there would be no harm done. If CW wants to legitimately rescue articles by providing sources then that's very well and good; he can mention them at the AfD. Reyk _YO! 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the general sentiment is that CW is incapable of regularly contributing to AfD discussions without doing something disruptive. Therefore, outright banning him from AfD's is one potential solution. However, the problem goes a lot deeper than just AfD's, as any search through the ANI archives for "Colonel Warden" will show. SnottyWong  02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support but only because nobody's suggested anything better. Colonel Warden has been quite disruptive lately, in my opinion. I'm not sure a topic ban or a block would actually address the problems. Perhaps a conduct parole or something like that would work. Colonel Warden's passion on Misplaced Pages is AfDs. Right now it's leading him to make questionable decisions. Perhaps a break would do some good, but it also might alienate a good faith contributor. True, I don't think many of his actions as of late have been made in good faith, but I do think he is here to contribute for the right reasons. Make of this rambling vote of support what you will, but I do think something needs to be done here. AniMate 03:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: a brake needs to be applied to CW's 'anything goes' approach to AfDs (and I would agree with Snottywong's comment immediately above -- AfDs are simply the tip of the iceberg). Part of the price of being treated as a regular, not a newbie, is to be held to a higher standard (both because they should know better, and because of their higher potential for disruption over long periods). And I don't think repeated disruption, warning, excuses (that often come across as disingenuous), rinse and repeat comes even close to meeting these standards. CW appears to be largely unrepentant, and I think therefore that some form of sanctions are needed to alter his view. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd also suggest that some form of ban on CW's habit of immediately wiping warning templates and ANI notifications on his talkpage might prove useful. This habit makes it very difficult to keep track of the frequency and severity of the problems people are having with CW -- and would tend to result in them lowballing their response. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not going to happen. Removing warnings is considered an implicit acknowledgment that they've been read. It's allowed and users are given rather wide latitude in deciding what stays and what is removed from their own user space. AniMate 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This "latitude" is however subject to abuse. For example, I did not even know that the thread started here (and relevant to some of my own recent problems with CW) existed, until I started looking into his talkpage history (which tells me, for example, that his behaviour on an AfD was referred to ANI only a month ago, which would have been good to know coming into this ANI thread). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per comments above.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - When kids can't play nice in the sandbox with others, said kids are removed from said sandbox. The same principle works well here. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe that Colonel Warden believes that he was acting in good faith, which is good enough for me. Instead, I recommend seeking another form of dispute resolution. Suggest a mentorship for him, specifically for issues in dealing with deletion discussions (and any other controversial areas). If he doesn't like that option, then go for RFC/U. If that doesn't work, then come back here for the next round. The problem I've seen is that, all too frequently, on both sides of the inclusionist/deletionist divide is that an editor gets so worked up about issues involving their particular view on how things should be, that the editor in question starts to lose perspective and begins behaving badly, perhaps without even really realizing it until it's too late. It's always a good idea to have someone closer to that editor's "side" of the coin approach them and see if they can set things straight to keep that editor productive and on the right side of "good behavior"; when that fails, we start heading into blocks and bans as is being discussed here. Sometimes an attempt like that fails when the editor in question is too far gone, as with User:Gavin.collins recently, but if the editor can maintain enough of a rational perspective to see what the problem is and work on it, then it is not too late. I for one would be willing to assist anyone else who wanted to work with Colonel Warden (but I'm not taking that on by myself). BOZ (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The effect of this motion is to keep him from helping do proper rescues of articles (and commenting at AfD is a necessary part of that), something at which is is currently one of the best people. I try to do it sometimes myself, but he does it more often, and he does it usually better than I would have done. (in practice, I tend to work more at prod and speedy, and he at afd) I would very much regret to think that the intent of the motion was to discourage him from improving articles, though the length of the suggested ban indicates a certain amount of malignity.
  However, there is no concealing that some of what he has done recently is a little careless and perhaps even pointy. (In the present example, he should have left the redirect, not started the stub article, which could have been done later, after the AfD .) I feel free to say so here, because I've said it to him previously directly. My own view is that he has been doing this is reaction to the frustration one always feels in trying to save articles, because so many times one does not succeed--sometimes because the article is in fact unsavable, sometimes because there isn't time to save it--and sometimes because of the persistent and unreasonable opposition from those who would rather see articles deleted and started over than rescued. Personally, I would sometimes like very much to ban a few of the ardent deletionists for a few months, to have some peace to work on articles; I can understand they feel reciprocally--but both are wrong. We have two choices: to manage to find some way to more often compromise, or to fight it out article by article. The traditional Misplaced Pages tactic for removing one's enemies is to egg them on into doing something blockable. It's a very unpleasant way to approach differences of opinion--the opposite of the necessary cooperation. it's right up there with personal attacks, as conduct we tolerate, because too many people do it. The warning templates problem is a different one--he made his point, though he shouldn't have done it that way, and now people are , properly, working on improving the templates. By the rules, an ordinary ban needs unanimous consent among administrators here, and that should apply to something like this also. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose He has not been so disruptive and has been acting in good faith - nothing he has done warrants this kind of ban, and such a ban would greatly hurt wikipedia, as users such as DGG have very nicely stated. Further, a lot of the Supporters seem to be arguing against his alleged "anything goes" attitude towards AfDs - which is essentially saying that absolutely inclusionists should not be allowed to participate in AfDs. This simply does not make any sense. BEARinAbasket (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This is so utterly predictable that I could almost have written the outcome of this before anyone wrote any comments. What I find incredibly disappointing is that so many of Col Warden's friends are continuing to enable his behaviour by defending the indefensible. What he did was disruptive and fits into a recent pattern of disruptive behaviour that has steadily deteriorated. I find it incredible that DGG can blame other editors who do not share the Col's penchant to keeping everything when he is presumably a grown-up capable regulating his own behaviour within acceptable norms. By reinforcing the argument that the Col did nothing wrong you are simply encouraging him to continue. If you really care you would be much better served advising him to tone it down. The rhetoric and battleground mentality by some of the leading inclusionists is actually causing these issues. This thread and all the the the dead worthless words would never have come into being if the Col had simply accepted that they had made a mistake and corrected it when advised. By fighting a pitched battle we simply lay out the trenches for the next battle. What is so hard for people to just agree he screwed up and tell him he went to far. This pattern needs to change or the Col will find himself excluded as his behaviour continues to deteriorate as none of his friends seem capable of stoping the enabling. Spartaz 08:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Concur with Spartaz - blocks or topic-bans are not necessary here, nor would they accomplish anything other than adding a counterproductive whiff of burning martyr. Colonel Warden now better understands the drama that he/she created. and any other issues with their editing need to be addressed as, when and where needed.
  Thanks to Uncle G for the memories of VfD/AfD past, good times. pablo 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Spartaz, why not simply call a poll on actions on the talk page of any given article (e.g. vote on templates/page moves etc)? There'll be enough eyes on the page for any given action. Yes it is predictable how folks have lined up. I must say my initial feelings align with DGG's (i.e. leaning oppose) although I have not participated in many AfDs recently at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Causing some confusion for a few AfD participanats is regrettable but that's far outweighed by saving an article on a massively notable subject. Deleteionists seem to have a new argument that even if a subjects clearly notable it can be better to delete to provide an opportunity for someone to start again with a clean slate. This is misguided as once an article has been deleted, recreations can then be unilaterally speedy deleted. Also regular editors are denied the option to learn and get ideas from the articles history. The Colonel is to be commended for his valiant rescue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Fucking Oppose If the Colonel's right to free speech in order to improve Misplaced Pages is blocked or impeded in any way I will personally seek a Federal Court injunction in the Middle District of Florida (where Misplaced Pages's servers are physically located) to enjoin any any all users, administrators, employees, or agents of the Wikimedia Foundation from blocking, banning, sanctioning, or otherwise impeding Colonel Warden's editing of Misplaced Pages in any way. Consider the stakes raised, gentlemen. Consider this a cease-and-desist notice. And oh yes, someone requested me to enter this discussion. SwinginFromaStar (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop and think

Around 2006, a means was found to avoid this problem. I was there at Template talk:Afd/Archive 4#Let's get rid of subst as one of several encouraging its adoption into the mainstream notices, and it was adopted to make the mechanism that you see now. The prohibition on renaming articles whilst they were being discussed at AFD went away. It was no longer necessary to rename the AFD discussions to follow them.

In most cases people don't do this at all nowadays, and the art of keeping the discussion page and the article synchronized is being lost to an extent. However, it's a fairly simple thing to do, and anyone can do it. It's a straightforward wikignoming task that anyone with the page move tool and the edit tool can do. In fact, one of the reasons that I was pleased to see the restriction go away was that I was one of the wikignomes who regularly tidied up after people renaming articles at AFD whilst they were being discussed. This case was for me a simple exercise of some now-underutilized wikignoming habits.

What is being nominated for deletion is always a whole edit history, because that's what the deletion tool deletes, after all. If someone renames a page whilst it is being discussed, then it is the edit history that was nominated for deletion that is still being considered for deletion. Indeed, all of the people who were so far-too-easily confused about this only had to look at this edit to see that the AFD notice is still on the same edit history that was originally nominated for deletion. In fact the notice has remained there all of the time and is still there on the article right now. There's really zero scope for being confused by which article is being nominated for deletion and discussed. It's the one that has the nominator's edit in its edit history. Colonel Warden did not do the thing which one is not supposed to do, which is take the AFD notice off the article. That is what the prohibition on redirecting and blanking is all about. It removes the AFD notice. Colonel Warden did not remove the notice, and it is still there right now.

If, in the future, you see an article that has been renamed whilst at AFD, and the AFD discussion heading has not been updated to match, consider it an opportunity to hone your wikignoming skills. After all, you know how to edit a page to simply change a section heading — ne?

I have disagreements with Colonel Warden about things. We disagreed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London, to the point of an elephant as you can see. You know what? I'm not going about everywhere calling for Colonel Warden to be banned just because xe had the encyclopaedia approach a subject in a way that I thought to be quite wrong. Stop and think.

Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• +1, with the comment that disruption of AfD for the purposes of undermining AfD itself happens and should be discouraged. I take a Potter Stewart kind of approach to such disruption. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • However, he did create a stub in place of the redirect. It may not have been for the purpose of undermining the AfD itself, but it certainly had that effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I think the point is that in virtually all cases, if you move an article during AfD, it leaves a redirect behind. That way, if someone clicks the link at the AfD, they are automatically taken to the correct (renamed) article. In this case, however, CW moved the page and then started a new article where the redirect was supposed to be. This was very confusing, because there was no way for anyone to know they were looking at the wrong article, and most people were probably voting on CW's new article rather than the original article that was nominated. SnottyWong  01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of ways for anyone to know this, not least the edit history of the article pointed to by the section heading (There's even a little convenience "history" link below the section heading.) where the page move is the very first edit.

      If an editor isn't looking at the history of an article nominated at AFD where there is confusion on the face of things, then xe isn't performing the full due diligence. (It has many times been the case over the years of articles being nominated for deletion because they were once good but have been mangled into utter confusion. One has to ensure that that is not the case.) The deletion tool deletes an entire edit history. It is only proper for someone opining at AFD to at least look at the edit history being considered for deletion — especially if xe sees an article without the AFD notice on it and thinks to xyrself "Wait a minute! What's going on here?". Indeed, looking at the edit history, to see whether and how the AFD notice was removed, is the first thing that should come to mind in such a situation. And one doesn't have to be Hercule Poirot to figure out from these four edits what happened and where the edit history nominated for deletion is now to be found.

      Once one has worked out what happened, one can help one's fellow editors with a small and straightforward piece of wikignoming. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Uncle G, your description of what someone would have to do to fix the problem only makes it more clear why this was disruption. If this was so trivial a task to spot and fix, then shouldn't Colonel Warden (an editor who's been around for years and has made tens of thousands of edits) have known better than to create this situation which needed to be fixed in the first place? These are the types of errors that people make in their first 500 edits. You have to admit that it's hard to AGF for an editor with 20k edits doing something like this accidentally. SnottyWong  02:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Snottywong here that CW's actions were disruptive and have to say that while it would be ideal if everyone could have noticed and fixed the problem, there was a problem introduced by CW. That said, the AGF leap isn't hard at all for me here. Did he do it on accident? That seems darn unlikely. Did he mean to fix a problem? That seems quite likely. Hopefully he now understands that this wasn't the right way to go about it and we can all move on... Hobit (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • And since he's done it before and done it again, he needs to be blocked until we're reasonably sure he's not going to do it again.--Crossmr (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • No, he doesn't, for a variety of reasons. Signaling displeasure with an act doesn't require blocking. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Acting disruptively does. Having a history of it strengthens the need. This isn't a first time offense and given his behaviour with other things, it's reasonable to expect he'll end up doing it again. Until there is acknowledgment of the problem and he can assure us he's not going to just go and do this again, he should be blocked to prevent further disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks to Uncle G for shedding some light on the technical history of this issue. He mentions the Grove Avenue AFD, which was another interesting case. In the course of my digging for that, I turned up numerous alternate names for that place such as Cuckoo Hill and Bloody Croft. I considered moving the article to one of those names but decided that that would be too big a step and so just mentioned the possibility in the discussion. In this new case of Aircraft design, I did not hold back because the alternate name seemed so similar that I did not expect there to be any objections. These examples show that I already exercise restraint and so further measures seem inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Colonel Warden, straightforward question. Do you now understand that you made it hard for people to follow the AfD by moving an article and then overwriting the redirect and can you agree to not do so in the future (Baring first getting consensus in the AfD or some such)? Hobit (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, the technical issue is now clear to me. Per Uncle G's explanation, my understanding is now that reasonable moves during AFD are ok because the AFD template will cope with them. Other article templates may have trouble but I was already aware of that and know how to fix them. The complication in this case was that this process depends upon the redirect being maintained. This was not clear to me at the outset but I now understand the technical details better and would ensure good consensus and execution for a split if such an occasion should arise again. I had not seen or experienced this complication before, despite being an AFD regular for many years, and so don't expect this to be happening again any time soon. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IP obsessed by birds...?

I've been doing some vandalism patrolling and come across an IP editor making edits to a large number of Birds in (A Country) articles. No edit summary, and I have no idea if this is vandalism or not, but thought I should raise it. See Special:Contributions/96.4.125.2. I asked on the talk page but no response although edits have continued. The IP is from a US school and came off a year block about 3 days ago. Please could someone have a look? Mechanical digger (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears they do not understand the term extirpation and are removing it and replacing it with extinct. Should probably use twinkle rollback AGF and leave a note explaining the terminology. N419BH 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

98.65.217.30 (talk · contribs) was making similar edits a couple of days ago too. The edits are similar to what the IP was blocked for last year too. I'll start rollbacking as the edits are clearly incorrect but any help would be nice. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All rolled back 68 pages in total. I can't explain biodiversity well some one wanna leave the note? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. I left another note, perhaps lacking in zoological technicalities but sufficient if they ever read the talk page and decide to engage with others. Mechanical digger (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He just did the same thing to two more today... Can We get a Block laid down before he starts another spree?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

...and a few more. They've been AGF reverted. N419BH 23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Catherine Smith (novelist)

A determined anon has twice converted this little watched article into a page ridiculing a woman he dislikes. The initial vandalism lasted three yeas without notice, and was replaced shortly after I removed it. That the guy was still checking that his vandalism was intact after three years is disturbing as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think revdel is needed there. If it was you should email one of CAT:RFRD rather than advertising it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing RevDel worthy in the edits to that article. The "drama queen" part is just common vandalism. Stickee (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there's a need to RevDel on behalf of someone who's been dead for over a century. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; those dead types can get pretty surly... HalfShadow 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just don't turn your back on them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking approval for a bot that will activate one day after my death and tell everyone on Misplaced Pages what I really think. I'm considering NoTravellerReturnsBot for the name, keep an eye on your watchlist (but hopefully you won't see it for a long time). Franamax (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has a banner saying it's an orphan. What would be an appropriate article to link it from? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• While the subject of the legitimate article is indeed long-dead, the target of the vandalism is living, and potentially recognizable from the information added to the vandalized version. Since the living person is apparently private, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove what appears to be ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see what you're getting at. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected, but because the name of the target of the vandalism (clearly not the article subject but a namesake) is fairly common and the nature of the claim pretty mild, I don't think RevDel is warranted. Rd232 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just for kicks, I spent a brief while searching for a good biographical source to cite for that article. I couldn't find one. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User Dead-or-Red edit warring and sockpuppetry

Dead-or-Red (talk · contribs) is engaging in a silly edit war at Taunton and now he isn't getting his own way is resorting to using a sock IP account (that has been used once before for edit warring) 94.173.226.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Several editors have been trying to engage in a civilised conversation about the inclusion of certain content within the article at Talk:Taunton#Notable_people_2. This editor persists in pushing his point of view by simply reverting other users, and in two cases completely blanking the article. The first time this was done I decided to AGF, especially as the user cited finger trouble on a smartphone, but then it happened again. Now the user has reverted to his sock account to once again revert the content instead of engaging in the discussion and reaching consensus. If you look at this editor's history you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not looking for a ban, just for someone to step in and stop the madness until a full and frank discussion can be had at the article's talk page.to reach consensus. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• The debate there is not quite as lame as the swimming pool debate from a few days ago, but it's definitely in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Neighborhood swimming pool? –MuZemike 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. At the shallow end. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Is this one of those swimming pools with the special chemical that turns blue when something unpleasant is released in it? --Jayron32 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Royal blue, perhaps. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic comments by a non admin on an admin page are not especially helpful. Lame or not, we are attempting to discuss content and reach consensus in the proper way, but are being hampered by this user. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You could probably learn something about WP:LAME. It's a valid description of the overall argument going on over there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • So, you approve of sarcastic comments by an admin? Well, that is an example of equality in action in the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Does wikipedia have any standards as regards who qualifies as a "notable resident" of a given city? Obviously, the citizen has to already be notable, so the core issue is defining what a "resident" is. What is the minimum number of days/weeks/months/years that are needed in order to qualify? Or is it on a city-by-city basis? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Even though we have some notable people already, if Stephen Spielberg moved to Ottawa, he would become a notable resident of the city on the very day the moving van unloaded his first Oscar onto his new mantle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that we have, and it looks like people are trying to apply them. Someone who has never verifiably been a resident of the place at all is not a notable resident, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Correct, although the guidelines are not as comprehensive as they could be Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people - which is one of the reasons we are trying to reach consensus on the article's talk page and the WikiProject's talk page. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another sock perhaps? 62.239.159.5 (talk · contribs) Same "vandalism by simple bob" comment - (diff) --Simple Bob (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP at Leonora Piper

Over several months, a single purpose account using a dynamic IP to avoid 3RR has been tendentiously inserting POV content into Leonora Piper consisting of personal attacks against Martin Gardner or fringe material from unreliable sources and links to blog polemics that refute Gardner's criticism of Ms. Pipers alleged psychic powers. The IP has occasionally engaged in limited Talk page discussion, however appears to be unwilling or unable to understand NPOV and WP:FRINGE in particular, so the problem persists.

189.122.96.111 (talk · contribs) 189.122.96.172 (talk · contribs) 189.122.97.205 (talk · contribs) 189.122.117.38 (talk · contribs) 187.67.99.6 (talk · contribs) 189.122.115.134 (talk · contribs) 187.67.101.131 (talk · contribs) 187.67.98.124 (talk · contribs) 187.67.100.98 (talk · contribs) 187.67.108.247 (talk · contribs) 187.67.109.102 (talk · contribs) 187.67.97.96 (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, and I apologize in advance for any mistakes in procedure. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a period of 3 months by Courcelles (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim and repeated copyright violations

Warned But today did it all over again. I am not going to bother adding the diffs since his recent contribs show it plain as day. Repeated copyright violators are supposed to be blocked. I am sick of cleaning up his mess and he has already been to ANI once for it.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this. AndresHerutJaim is a long-term abuser of non-free images, over and over he adds them to the same articles and ignores all requests to stop. O Fenian (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And he has done it again. That is not a sufficent FUR for multiple articles. And just to be open, a couple good edits got caught up in my cleaning house. Apologies.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But wow, nothing? Still? Resolve templates below and plenty of time. I might as well upload kiddie porn sine admins still don't care about images for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#User:AndresHerutJaim and images, User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Images and User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons. This editor is little more than a single purpose account abusing fair use images, and still did so after being notified of this thread and did not even reply here. How much longer is this going to be allowed to go on for? O Fenian (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pergamon

Acroterion _(talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Two of us are having persistent problems with an editor on Pergamon. He appears to be using IP sockpuppets which we are at loss to counter or report. See his actual name, possible sockpuppet, another possible sockpuppet

The problem, however, is editing waring. We agree on a untouched photo representing the monument. See our agreed photo. The other editor wishes to place a doctored photo which can be seen in the refs above. I have checked, and doctored photos (very artistic BTW) are contrary to policy.

We would agree to a total lock, but there is no point in locking in his changes which usually happens in these cases!  :) He will just move on and not return until the article becomes unlocked. It is his only interest. Student7 (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Doctored" is an understatement. "Posterized to death" would be more like it. I have no problem with protecting the page with the encyclopedic image agreed upon by consensus and dealing with the edit-warring editor - this is close to image vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've semi-protected the article for two weeks to keep the IPs under control and warned Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs); if he resumes, a block for edit-warring and disruption would be appropriate. He seems to be trying the same sort of thing in other articles, replacing encyclopedic images with his favored images, then reverting challenges to these changes. Acroterion _(talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that it's more subtle than that. According to the information for commons:File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg the original uploader was tr:Kullanıcı:Mulazimoglu. The modified image commons:File:Pergamon, Turkey.jpg was uploaded by commons:User:Ozgurmulazimoglu who claims to be mulazimoglu on Flickr and who has been identified here as a sockpuppet of User:Omulazimoglu. This seems to be one person expressing ownership as to which of two images that xe uploaded is the proper one. And my goodness it should have been taken to talk pages a fortnight ago!

      commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alanyaancientshipyard.jpg makes for interesting reading, too, as it seems to demonstrate the conflict of value systems at work here. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • I've been looking at this over at Commons too. I get the general impression that Omulazimoglu/Mulazimoglu is campaigning for FP status for many of these images and is placing them in articles here since actual use in an article is a criterion for FP. I don't see that for the modified Pergamon image - from his participation at Commons he really ought to know better. Acroterion _(talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Hello Guys. Do you really think that i am a bad guy on the criters of wikipedia family. If i am really doing more harm than good on wikipedia pls use other alternative. But i am feeling like i am being biten. I am contributing to wikipedia with lots of images and etc. Is that a bad thing? I have rights to make edits on the articles as every other user. Why i am the only one to be warned after an edit war? Is this fair? Or pls check out if you guys are fair? Thank you MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, that's right: he's being biten by criters. Only on Misplaced Pages, folks. HalfShadow 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • May you pls tell what you mean by this words? My english is pretty weak. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I was tempted to state that the correct phrase, as everyone knows, is "nibbled to death by cats", but I thought that that would only increase the confusion.

      I don't know why the Turkish Misplaced Pages banned you, but Commons is telling you that it wants free content images, and that its featured images actually have to be more than just easy on the eye, and the English Misplaced Pages is telling you that an encyclopaedia wants images that actually depict the things being discussed in the article, in their true colours. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added comments at Omulazimoglu's talkpage; as noted farther up by Uncle G, I don't think Omulazimoglu understands that this is an encyclopedia, not a gallery for interesting images. Acroterion _(talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia? Just noticed. Thanks Acroterion. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Smooth0707

This user nominated an article for speedy deletion. When I contested it, he deleted the "hang on" notice. I'd like someone to tell him that this, and his general tone, are not appropriate.

He objected to a page move I made (I redirected 'bounty killer' to 'bounty hunter' and moved the original page to 'bounty killer (musician)). After several unapologetically blustering messages on the talk page and on my user talk, he nominated the new redirect for speedy deletion. BillMasen (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• You both have something to learn: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization) and the general basic English conventions that cover the capitalization of proper nouns. Smooth0707 thinks that the common noun bounty killer should not redirect to bounty hunter, having nominated it for deletion, and that's wrong. You think that the proper noun Bounty Killer should not be the person whose (stage) name that is, and that's wrong. Go and read our article title guidelines, both of you. They even say what to do in almost this specific sitation. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Done. BillMasen (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I had already left a note about removing the hangon tag but I suppose a extra note from an admin won't do any harm (JamesBWatson has left one). As for Uncle G's comment I don't think they quite describe the situation properly. After quite a long discussion (RfC) a year or two ago the wording of that convention was specifically decided on so as it allowed, but not require, disambiguation in this way. At the end of the day it's what causes less surprise to the reader that's important and one can easily imagine that one topic (say Topic Alpha) will be so much more searched for than the other (say Topic alpha) that a reader using Topic alpha is still more likely to want Topic Alpha than Topic alpha and hence Topic alpha should be a "redirect" to Topic Alpha. Hence the reason that this guideline says the disambiguation by capitalisation should not always happen. In this case I think the right decision has probably been reached. Dpmuk (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince William's wedding

Anybody want to be bold and deletehistmerge one of the duplicate articles on the subject while the AfD decides the existence of the other? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, no. Redirect, yes. History merge, not yet. Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is the copy. Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton is the original from which content was copied. It seems sensible to stick with the original during the AFD discussion, which can be history merged to the other article if there is a consensus for keeping, and if it actually needs to be moved to that title. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is not actually a copy, it was an independently created article. A merge needs to be done at some point, but the deletion discussion should be closed first. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Merger from the copy to the original has already been done.

      The the only other substantive edits made to the copy were already in the original. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Please don't call it a copy when it wasn't copied. It is obvious that two articles on the same subject will contain some identical information. WP:PLAGIARISM is no excuse for your display of bad faith. Physchim62 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever happens people DO NOT move the article without talk page discussion. The article has already been moved six times in the first 24 hours and it was becoming somewhat disruptive. Indeed, I'd welcome move protection to force talk page discussion. (See the discussion already there).--Scott Mac 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Already protected, I note.--Scott Mac 15:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We've a problem folks. The duplicate article's AfD has a majority of 'keep', my assumption is that alot of editors there, aren't aware of the original article. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• There's only the one AFD discussion page. There weren't two. Both articles pointed to the same page. MickMacNee knew what xe was doing. And it's fairly easy to work out from, say, this what editors' intentions are in the event of there being just one article. ☺ Feel free to use the user talk pages of any editors, requesting them to revisit the discussion, whose opinions in the eventuality of there being just the one page to discuss aren't blazingly obvious. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Very tempted to propose an uninvolved admin pick one, move all content there, and salt the other. But that would be ignoring community based processes. But it would sure work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be cleaning things up so that the community-based processes could actually work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPs that seem to be mostly vandalism

While looking through the contributions of a vandal I was reverting recently, I found vandalism to Ileana D'Cruz (a BLP; I reverted it and thought nothing more of it. However, I tend to look through changes to articles I've edited, to see how they've changed since, and found something worrying; not only was it frequently being vandalised, but in most cases, the version that was being vandalised was subtle vandalism itself. (For instance, upon seeing this suspicious-looking edit, my first thought was to revert; but I checked the references linked from the article and found that the actual date was something quite different (and additionally, one of the references given there didn't contain the date at all, and thus didn't reference the text). I'm still not entirely certain that my edit was correct, though; what if the source in question was lying?

More generally, the issue is that I'm no longer confident anything in the article is correct; the whole thing seems to be made out of layers on layers of vandalism, and references are only going so far in helping with this (I already had to blank a section as unsourced because I had no way to tell what the correct version was). By taking it here to AN/I presumably I have a chance of bringing more attention to the article (I suspect it's only me watching it, out of active/semi-active people, and I have no idea what to do with it...; if I had to handle it by myself, I'd reduce it to an over-sourced stub in the hope that at least then it would probably be accurate), but more worryingly, I think it's entirely possible there are other BLPs like this which nobody's looking at at all. (Note that, at first sight, the article appears entirely sensible; it's apparently sourced, etc.)

Does anyone here have suggestions for a) the article in question, b) the issue as a whole? --ais523 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• The same suggestion for both: There are people who hang out at the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard who focus upon this very thing. See a problem with a BLP that's hard to pick apart, with potentially subtle and deep problems, that you want other people to look at; take it to the BLP Noticeboard. That's for both the specific and the general case. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll take this there. --ais523 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz and Destinero

I ask to check behaviour of Ckatz_spy who repeatedly disrupts Misplaced Pages article American College of Pediatricians by removing facts documented by highly reliable expert source simply since he don't like those facts and threats me on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Destinero#November_2010 --Destinero (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never had problems with Ckatz before that I recall, but this does seem odd and inappropriate on Ckatz' part. I don't understand the reasoning behind this removal at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

At first sight, Destinero and Ckatz appear to be edit warring at American College of Pediatricians. Ckatz may consider that his actions are justified by his admin role, since he is taking out a passage that deplores the ACP in Misplaced Pages's voice, and which uses a reference linked to a primary source, a brief that was filed in a court case, though some of the participating organizations might have published their views elsewhere. Some of the language Ckatz was removing was "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions.." This is being stated in Misplaced Pages's voice as a matter of fact about the American College of Pediatricians. At a minimum, the language needs fixing for neutrality, and a legal brief should probably not be cited. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE policy specifically requires: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public."

WP:GEVAL policy specifically requires: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."

Please, explain and clarify what exactly should be fixed for neutrality in current version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397345997&oldid=397268492 I consider it fully in compliance with Misplaced Pages standards. --Destinero (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Destinero needs to stop the edit warring and justify the changes they want to make. They appear to be inserting analysis not supported by the supplied source. Franamax (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Amici curiae (National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers - West Virginia Chapter, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence) are national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children. "Amici sumbit this brief to (a) inform the Court of the extensive body of social science research demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples develop just as well, and are as healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual couples; (b) show the Court that this research has been embranced by every authoritative professional organization devoted to the health and welfare of children." (page 1) "Every authoritative child welfare and child health organization of which amici are aware recognizes, and an overhelming body of scholarly research demonstrates, that children fare just as well in families with same-sex parents as in families with heterosexual parents." (page 10) "Every leading professinal child health and child welfare organization recognizes that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted childre. The policy statements issued by these organizations reflect their professional experiences and their expert reviews of the research related to the effects of parenting by gay men and lesbians on childhood development. The statements are striking in their unanimous rejection of the assumption that optimal development requires heterosexual parents. Indeed, amici are unaware of any authoritative child welfare or medical organization that gas taken a contrary view of the research and policy implications." (page 12) "A group of approximately 60 of AAP´s more than 60,00 members opposed APP´s adoption of this policy and in dissent, formed the "American College of Pediatricians" ("ACP") in 2002. This small and marginal group has filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents in keeping with the ACP´s position that "it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation." Dr. Joseph Zanga, one of ACP´s charter members, has described the ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group´s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of childre." "This small faction´s views are out of step with the research-based positions of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities." (page 15) http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/march09/34618SocialWorkers.pdf

Thus, to put it simply, there can not be absolutely any doubts I contributed solely the facts supported by the most credible expert sources in the field describe the views of ACP "in their proper context with respect to established scholarship" as fundamental Misplaced Pages policies reqires. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither one has posted anything to the talk page. Destinero, there's no question in my mind that the lead should include something along the lines of what you are adding -- but you're going to have to work it out on the talk page, and what you have been adding can't be framed in the voice of Misplaced Pages itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment While it is certainly premature to do so, I'm not surprised to see that Destinero has brought this matter here. Frankly, I think it is probably best that there is a chance for more eyes to look at the situation. I'll state categorically that this is not a "POV" or disruptive move on my part; a simple check of the article's edit history will show that I've no real interest in the topic. My concerns here - and with several other articles that touch on the same subject matter - lies in Destinero's approach to editing on Misplaced Pages. I have had to intercede on numerous occasions with regard to his habits, which often as not involve adding POV, non-neutral material to articles that reflect his personal pers\pective on the matter. The worst instances of this have involved incidents where he has dropped boiler-plate text into a series of articles, and where he has misused sources as references for a message he wants to get across. Please note this excerpt from the text , which demonstrates the nature of the problem:

"This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children."

Destinero likes to insert loaded terminology into articles; in this case, "out of step" and "small faction" are used to dismiss the organization in question. My apologies if my edit summaries were lacking in this case, but after a long period of dealing with the same problems one can sometimes get frustrated. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have; again, I would really appreciate it if more people could review Destinero's edit history with regard to these types of edits. --Ckatz_spy 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop acusing me of liking loaded terminology when I showed here that I contributed solely the facts presented by the national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children including the largest social work association in the world to the Court, all of which can be everytime checked by everybody. I am expecting your apology since you not able to support by reliable sources how views of ACP are not out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children (see LGBT parenting article for details on decades of conclusive and widely-accepted research on the issue) and you are not able to explain how ACP founded in 2002 by 60 charter members are not small faction in comparison with American Academy of Pediatrics with 60,000 members and all other mainstream expert bodies in the field including National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members), American Psychological Association (150,000 members), American Psychiatric Association (40,000 members) etc. --Destinero (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, since this entire discussion ought to be taking place at the article talk page and you still haven't started any discussion there, I doubt you'll get the apology you are seeking. Again, you can probably add something along the lines of what you are after, but go away and do it the right way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this discussed here and not on the article talk page? There's zero discussion about this issue there. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Probably because this is indeed a user conduct issue: In my experience, (a) edit-warring to insert a patently inappropriate POV (sourced to a brief in a lawsuit!) into an article, and (b) wall-of-text-ranting about it on noticeboards are the classical symptoms of a soon-to-be-indef-blocked user. Destinero, if you keep this up, that will be you.  Sandstein  21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've had my own disagreements with Destinero over cherry-picking (other) affidavits for strong language (which wasn't put in quotes). I find this troublesome, for both NPOV and COPYVIO reasons. Some parts of LGBT parenting, contributed by Destinero, were deleted by an uninvolved admin on copyvio grounds. I don't know if in the dispute at hand here Destinero picked the strong language from the source, or if it was his own. A clarification would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• In the current dispute, Destinero cited an amicus brief by the National Association of Social Workers to state the postion of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The 50-page linked pdf is non-searchable, so a page number would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I improved that by referencing the actual AAP position statement. Destinero and I had a discussion about this before: I think that citing one page position statements is preferable to dozen-of-pages briefs/affidavits. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• The language was from the brief, bottom of p. 15. Something like that usually needs to be attributed. Again we had the issue of copy-pasted statements without quotes... Tijfo098 (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Sandstein's analysis here. Destinero's behavior does not look like civil discourse aimed at arriving at a consensus version of an article. It looks like trying, by any means necessary, to force through a particular viewpoint into an article, including stretching the use of sources of marginal appropriateness, coming to ANI rather than the article talk page to contest the edits of others, and most importantly, insisting that others (and not himself) have the burden to justify the removal of his additions. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that the conservative approach must be taken with contentious material. Challenged material is to be left out, and it is the burden of the person wishing to add it to prove, via reliable sources and reasoned discussion with others, that it belongs it. When someone behaves in the opposite manner, it is a red flag that they aren't interested in playing by the rules. The issue of copyright violations and plagiarism is also MUCHO serious, and needs to be addressed as well. --Jayron32 04:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that there is an examination of Destinero's recent edits, which - despite concerns raised here and on his talk page - are a direct continuation of his regular behaviour. Not only has he apparently ignored concerns raised over the American College article, he has also made significant undiscussed changes to LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage that have raised concerns over copyright violations and the use of weasel words. --Ckatz_spy 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comment on new developments in the ACP article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed that from the ACP article, clearly very pointed. I think Destinero has a particular and deep POV on these topics; there is no reason to stop them from editing, but they need to understand why their edits are problematic and often pointed. I think we made movement on this on ther LGBT parenting article. I also have concerns with the consistent use of "not needed" as an edit summary for quite substantive edits. This should be discouraged and instead Destinero should try to use much more explanatory edit summaries to clear up their reasoning --Errant 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Suppression of request for comment at WP:MOSNUM

User:Greg L has twice removed a request for comment tag at WP:MOSNUM#Example of non-standard abbreviation for SI unit before a reasonable time for a significant number of editors to even become aware of the issue, much less for consensus to be established that the discussion is over. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is just an edit dispute. Jc3s5h’s conduct is bordering on tendentious disruption. He didn’t agree with a statement about “cc”s being used in “automotive” articles so the wording in the proposal was changed to one of “Honda motorcycle engines.” As shown here on WT:MOSNUM, he isn’t being told he can’t have an RfC; he’s being told the wording and basis for the old RfC is moot and if he disputes the facts behind the new wording, he simply needs to start a new RfC that speaks to the current wording. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey,

    Took a quick look at this. It strikes me that removing the RfC tag was not appropriate, and probably violates Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. If you had a problem with it Greg L you could have explained it in response to the RfC. If the RfC was truly disruptive, take to ANI or the Etiquette pages. Bottom line is that you should be extremely cautious when changing anything another editor has put on a talk page. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Yeah, content dispute. Though I would suggest that any editor suggesting that "cc" isn't the standard unit when discussing automotive engine capacity needs to have a good long look at their editing. This is an encyclopedia, not ascientific paper. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not about the unit, I observe, which is the cubic centimetre on either side of the dispute. It's about the abbreviation for the unit. But this dispute has sunk pretty low anyway, with one editor stating (in the section above on that very same discussion page) of England that xe "couldn't care less what moronic practice goes on over there; it doesn't have to blight Misplaced Pages". There's borderline conduct all around, it seems. Didn't Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L get the point home about that sort of rhetoric in style manual discussions? Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Taken alone, I'm not sure the "moronic practice" comment to so egregious, but I'd generally agree with Uncle G's comments. I think Greg may need to take it down a notch, though I'm not super familiar with this editor, so I'll reserve judgement. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for 2010 Shanghai Fire as it was on the Main page

Can this be speed-kept please? There is a large consensus in favour and it was on the main page when the AfD request was made, which seems rather inappropriate. I've discussed it with HJ Mitchell on his talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see why it should be closed early. There are a couple of valid deletes there, and having been on the main page isn't one of the criteria under speedy keep as far as I can see. AniMate 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems like it is at or is heading towards a SNOW keep though. NW (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wait, one delete (not counting the nominator, obviously) counts as a couple of valid deletes now? I sure wish I had gotten that memo. ----Divebomb is not British 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If the nominator gives a valid reason for deletion then yes, the nom plus another valid delete does = a couple of valid deletes. This is moot, though, as it's clearly going to be kept and should probably be closed (I've already commented, so can't). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Animate, there is only one other delete vote besides the nomination and it just cites WP:NOTNEWS. The only strong vote is the nomination one and no one seems to agree with that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • If it is closed can it be put back on ITN please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Revdel question

Дунгане/Arilang1234

Hi folks:

Дунгане (talk · contribs) has raised, on my talk page, what I believe to be serious questions of whether Arilang1234 (talk · contribs) was improperly using derogatory racial epithets against Manchus — which, if true, I think, would violate the pillars on civility and neutral point of view, to say the least. Right now, I am in no shape either personally (my father just recently passed away) or professionally (my schedule had been left a complete mess due to this) to sort this situation out. Since I do think this is a serious issue, I would appreciate that someone else look into the issue and either clear Arilang1234 or warn him if warning is necessary; further, if no action is warranted against Arilang1234, then I think Дунгане should be firmly told the reason why. Right now, as I said, I am simply in no shape personally to step between them. Action on this would be appreciated. (I will notify them per {{ANI-notice}} that this thread is open..) --Nlu (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 is seriously suggesting that Manchus are barbarians, and that these words should be used to describe Manchu people. As far as I'm aware of wikipedia policy, this kind of consistent behavior, especially after User:Arilang1234 was severely berated and warned about his racial slurs against manchus, and personal attacks at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, warrants an immediate admin action to be taken. He just made his comment about manchus yesterday, the "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians" is over a year old, it seems he hasn't learned his lesson. He was warned about his racist edits another warning about Arilang's racism and personal attacksДунгане (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

the following edits are blatant racism- Arilang1234 accusing manchus of being barbarian and savage, encouraging the inserting of the material into wikipedia article. (note: these are old edits, which i post here to show that Arilang1234 has not changed his behavior)Дунгане (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arilang1234 also is pulling original research out of thin air, arbitrarily claiming that Manchus are not chinese, and conducting a personal attack on me by saying that since i inserted the word "chinese" into the article to describe the army of Imperial Qing dynasty China, that i was "chatting on internet forum"

another personal attack on me, accusing me of speaking "pidgin english", yet i see nothing that indicates that i am am editing wiki articles with "pidgin english"

i present Arilang1234's earliest edits on the article again, to contrast on how he has not changed his racist POV against manchus, from 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaricДунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of comments by arilang1234 containing racism and personal insults, but i will not bog this thread down with a list.Дунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

the main issue here, was made in the topmost comment by me, that arilang1234 is currently suggesting that manchus are barbarians, apparently warning him hasn't worked in the past, given his previous racist edits, it comes as a shock his account was not blocked for his earlier comments, he received only one block for violating edits on a BLP article. Since he hadn't received any blocks for his racism, he hadn't learnt his lesson. He claimed to have "apologized" in 2009 regarding his language and racism, personal attacks, and calling manchus barbarians, yet he does not seem to have been sincere, and continues with his racism and personal attacks regarding my english speaking ability.Дунгане (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 has never been blocked for his earlier racist edits, he only received on block for a BLP violation.Дунгане (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• If John King Fairbank can call Manchus "Barbarians", why is it that Wikipedians cannot? Is user Дунгане trying to impose Self-censorship allegations on English Misplaced Pages ? Is user Дунгане suggesting Misplaced Pages should block John King Fairbank too?

• "China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923"

http://books.google.com/books?id=0maVJuCh78oC&pg=PA268&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs)

As I said, I have insufficient ability to look into this right now, but I will observe this: Fairbank's book was written in 1954, back when a lot of speech that is now considered completely unacceptable was considered completely acceptable. (The N word comes to mind.) Further, Fairbank was not required by anyone to comply with Misplaced Pages's five pillars. We are. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The above quote is from Tongmenghui, the predecessor of Kuomintang. The then revolutionary slogan is well known among nearly all the Han Chinese:"To expel Tatar barbarians and to revive Zhonghua, to establish a republic, and to distribute land equally among the people." (Chinese: 驅除韃虜，恢復中華，創立民國，平均地權). User Nlu, are you saying it is OK for 1900 Han Chinese to call the Manchus "Barbarians", and it is not OK for 2010 Wikipedians to use "Barbarians" as an adjective for 1900 Manchus of the 1900 Boxer Rebellion times? If you read carefully User:Дунгане's comments, he is saying that: Quote:"User:Arilang1234 is seriously suggesting that Manchus are barbarians, and that these words should be used to describe Manchu people." Unquoted. Well, I have never ever made such a statement. This accusation is both false and malicious. All the time, when I use the "Barbarians" to describe the Manchus, is within the context of Boxer Rebellion, Tongmenghui, and Anti-Qing sentiment, and of course, Hua-Yi distinction. All these articles are about Chinese History, and none of them are so called "attack or hate articles". I have never been involved in any racial attacks when editing Misplaced Pages, and I personally do not hate Manchus. All my wiki edits are Chinese politic and Chinese History oriented, anyone can see it from my Wiki homepage. During my 26 months of Wiki editing, many editors with good faith help me along the way, and I admit I still need more help from more editors, so that I can become a better editor. I try to extend the same good faith to User:Дунгане to help him to improve his English(and myself is not a native English speaker), but unfortunately, User:Дунгане began to accuse me of being a "Racist" against all the Manchus people. He need to present some solid evidence for this false accusation to stick. Arilang 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

quote from arilangNo, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) User:Arilang1234| Arilang 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

::@Benjwong, I may have overtagged, when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234 User talk:Arilang1234|talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 also created an article which was deleted, "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom", He move the article to "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbarian Manchu rulers "

I'd advise you people to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" editsДунгане (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An additional point I will observe: again, WP:NPOV is paramount, and it dictates this: I may be able to write an advocacy paper or even a book arguing that ECFA is good for Taiwan and that the Democratic Progressive Party is pushing Taiwan toward financial suicide by opposing it. But in Misplaced Pages, if I were editing the ECFA article, I cannot write it as an advocacy paper or book; it has to be written in an NPOV manner and cannot be advocacy-based. --Nlu (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(this comment addressed to User:Arilang1234) it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. POV against ethnic groups is not allowed by wikipedia policy. and in addition, wikipedia doesn't work like "if they do it, why cant we?". Misplaced Pages follows its own set of policies designed to enforce neutral POV.Дунгане (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote user Дунгане:"it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. " WOW, user Дунгане has became a sort of Psychic who is into "intention" and "implication". Well, would user Дунгане be able to guess what I might be doing next, is it (1) Go to have my lunch (2) Go to have a pee? Arilang 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

False and illogical comments of

Talk:Boxer Rebellion#Response to User:Arilang1234's slurs against Manchus

Obviously, Дунгане's illogical and cheap accusations need to be stopped by someone :"so according to Arilang1234 we have to add this racial slur to every article on jews, since Arilang1234 thinks that the opinions of ancient writers should be inserted into the article, he also probably thinks that Nazi theories on race should also be inserted into articles on other races." Дунгане, spreading Innuendo remarks by implying that I am sympathetic towards Nazi does not work, you need to do better than that. Arilang 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Direct evidence of Arilang1234's edits spewing racist hatred toward manchu

quote from arilangNo, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) User:Arilang1234| Arilang 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC) ::@Benjwong, I may have overtagged, when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234 User talk:Arilang1234|talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 also created an article which was deleted, "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom", He move the article to "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbarian Manchu rulers "

I'd advise you people to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" editsДунгане (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2nd appeal

We've been here before. Both of you please stop throwing "barbarian," "savage," "Nazi," "racist", or anything else from similar vocabulary-lists around. Don't post another wall of text here. Don't defend yourself. Don't accuse the other. Just stop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason this came up again, was noted in the first comment by me, was that User:Arilang1234 again accused Manchus of being barbarians, he still insists on pushing that term into article mainspace. He was warned over one year ago as i noted in my above comments for inserting "Barbarian", and insulting other ethnic groups, yet he still continues to do so. Action against him is required for this to stop. He wasn't blocked for his original slurs in his first edits, this may have been a factor in him thinking that he is above wikipedia policy.Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, he refused to acknowledge he is doing wrong, and defends his edits where he calls them barbarian. Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dungane, are you going to stop? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

86.144.119.244 talk page abuse

Page ban request

I would like to request a page ban for Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) due to long term edit-warring against literally everybody else at the articles of Prahlad Jani and Inedia. Nazar despite long conversations about OR and SYNTH just seems to not get the point thus wasting a lot of other editors' time which could be spent much better elsewhere. This massive effort has included multiple reports at RSN, ORN multiple RFCs and ANI reports including a recent WQA alert against me. At that WQA alert I was advised to bring the matter forward to this board. After some initial hesitation I did finally decide to bring it here. Thank you for your consideration.

Here is a sample of Nazar's long-term edit-warring at Prahlad Jani.

1. 17:52, 14 June 2010 Escape Orbit (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: Removed paragraph of original research that analyses the cite provided rather than conveying what it says)
2. 05:15, 15 June 2010Nazar (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: - restore strict info about video materials, remove POV, no personal analysis)
3. Revision as of 14:12, 15 June 2010 (edit)Escape Orbit (talk | contribs) (→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: This analysis is not IN the cite provided, but instead is OF the cite provided. That makes it original research which is not permitted in Misplaced Pages)
4. 15:21, 15 June 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,818 bytes) (restore as per WP:FILMPLOT, please discuss on talk page before blanking...) (undo) Here s/he accuses user Escape Orbit of blanking.
5. 00:41, 16 June 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (15,744 bytes) (→Reactions: I agree with Esxape Orbit that this is WP:OR. Also FILMPLOT applies to movies. This is not a movie, at least not yet) (undo)
6. 09:54, 4 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (13,907 bytes) (→Reactions: - restore the info per consensus) (undo) The claimed "consensus" was by a single IP which was probably trolling, while all other editors disapproved of this edit. The relvent diff is: Revision as of 09:29, 4 August 2010 (edit) (undo)Nazar (talk | contribs) (→Request for comment: - agree, restoring...). It is also worth noting that Nazar waited three weeks for this reversion.
7. McGeddon (talk | contribs) (12,052 bytes) Revision as of 10:15, 4 August 2010 (Reverted 1 edit by Nazar; Rv unambiguous WP:OR - no consensus for including an editor's personal "closer examination of the video montage". (TW)) (undo)
8. 12:58, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,365 bytes) (→Reactions: - reconstruct, no OR now, I hope.)
9. 13:11, 5 August 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (14,264 bytes) (Removed synthetic observation.) (undo)
10. 16:45, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,960 bytes) (Undid revision 377330681 by Dr.K. (talk) + improve)
11. (Reverted good faith edits by Nazar; We have an RFC going and a report on WP:ORN Surely edit-warring to add this synthesis can wait? . (TW)) (undo)
12. Revision as of 12:33, 25 August 2010 (edit) (undo) Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (Too much synthesis. Restoring version by MiRroar (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 25 August 2010)
13. 12:52, 25 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,081 bytes) (Undid revision 380941035 by Dr.K. (talk) - please stop vandalizing the article.) Here s/he accuses me of vandalism.
14. 21:53, 1 October 2010 Johnuniq (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv edits by Jumbo108: no useful information available yet; see Talk:Prahlad Jani#Austrian documentary) (undo) This edit is provided as reference. Article stands at 10,431 bytes due to a massive cleanup effort by user:MiRroar. In the next edit Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup.
15. 08:00, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,214 bytes) (→Investigations: - update refs to exclude non reliable sources. restore official press release info.) (undo) Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup. Article now almost doubled in size (19,214 bytes) due to reintroduction of edited-out material.
16. 09:22, 13 October 2010 Nuujinn (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (Reverted to revision 388203785 by Johnuniq; restored cleaner version, we need to talk about these edits. (TW)) (undo)
17. 09:28, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390493189 by Nuujinn (talk) - remove questionable youtube ref, restore rest, as based on acceptable refs) (undo)
18. 10:46, 13 October 2010 McGeddon (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv per talk - Nazar's edits appear to be the blanket reintroduction of inadequately-sourced material that was cleaned out last month) (undo)
19. 12:05, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390506280 by McGeddon (talk) - please don't remove official referenced information. see talk. thanks.) (undo)
20. 11:51, 15 November 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (12,747 bytes) (→Investigations: - clarified who made the announcement) (undo) In this one s/he uses a misleading edit summary and removes maintence tags for OR and SYNTH. Dr.K.  04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Some background (I am involved in this dispute): The issue concerns Prahlad Jani, who has lived without food and water since 1940. Jani's powers have been investigated by an institute, and there is an enthusiastic supporting doctor (see this page on the doctor's website for text like "Can you imagine a human being staying alive & doing all routine activities even at age of 70, just by Sungazing – i.e – Surviving on cosmic – Solar energy"). Media reports repeat the findings, and Nazar can use all this to add tidbits to the article to suggest there is some scientific basis for Jani's claims. I have tried to argue that WP:PARITY means that sources like this should be permitted to refute obvious nonsense, but WP:IRS rules that out (see this RSN discussion). The most recent incident was when Nazar claimed a wikiquette breach (see WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dr.K.), where two uninvolved editors suggested a topic/page ban would be appropriate. I'm hoping for suggestions on how to maintain balance at Prahlad Jani and Inedia because policies that I've seen are currently allowing nonsense in these articles, nonsense that has to be cleaned out every couple of weeks with no long term resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• The current version of the page looks pretty neutral to me. It speaks of facts, findings, and criticisms of said findings. Furthermore, it is decently sourced. I'm gonna say you need to hash out on the talk page what should go in the article and what shouldn't. Work on a mutually agreeable solution. Include some of the claims and some of the criticisms of said claims. Be sure to provide reliable sources for this in accordance with WP:SOURCE. Edit warring, however, will lead to blocks for all parties involved. Alternatively, the article could be fully-protected in order to force everyone to the talk page, but I don't think any of you want that. N419BH 07:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A closer look at the history indicates to me that Dr. K. may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. N419BH 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I really don't think that have to read BOOMERANG before I report this months-long, SYNTH-fuelled, long-term edit-warring by one person against six other editors, except if BOOMERANG applies to a centipede. Because in addition to my two feet we have another 10 for the other five editors who tried to stem this OR avalanche. Dr.K.  12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard of this article or this editor before seeing the Wikiquette alert in question. Then I read the article talkpage, and found I can muster no understanding of N419BH's strange hints. Everybody is already on the talkpage; that talkpage is a monster, a monument to the way one editor can waste everybody's time. Please see Nazar's Wikiquette alert against Dr.K. where he claims everybody ought to apologise to him, including the neutral editors (me and the polite Looie496) who respond to the alert. The whole thread at WQA is telling. But it's on the long side, so I offer here a potted version of my own comment there:

I can fully understand the irritation sometimes expressed by the other editors towards Nazar, who indefatigably argues his points, big and little, word by word, against consensus, with great stubbornness and much repetition. Such editing wastes other people's time woefully and stops the creation of an encyclopedia in its tracks; you never get anywhere. I believe a page ban of Nazar on this article and similar subjects, broadly construed and including talk pages, is becoming necessary. Either that or a block for long edit-warring. I've considered an RFC/U, but those are only useful with editors who are somewhat prepared to take community criticism on board. Nazars resentment and conviction that he's right and everybody else out to get him seems to militate against the hopes for a helpful RFC/U — and everybody is already tired. It's time the other editors at Prahlad Jani got a chance to work on something more constructive than fighting a rearguard action against the story of the man who has eaten nothing for seventy years. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The timewasting aspect of all this struck me forcibly when I saw Nazar declare on the talkpage that he saw editing Prahlad Jani as a bit of a joke:

I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Misplaced Pages, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).<br

That post (from a month ago) is discouraging to see. For is Nazar's game fun for anybody else? I doubt that. Is it helpful for Misplaced Pages? Oh, dear, no. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

(Nazar, could you please not post in the middle of my post (again)? It really is confusing for other people. I'm moving it down again. It's right below. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC).)

• I think it's more confusing if you move my posts without proper indentation (like you did in WQA) from the place, where I put them to be relevant to my cited words. But whatever, please have it the way you like. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  It's not 'have it the way you like', it is an accepted norm of this site not to post in the middle of someone else's post. As you have been informed. pablo 13:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Ok. Thanks. But I was posting relevant to my own post, which was cited, therefore I posted below my own words (which were cited). Sorry if this was wrong, but this was my logic. -- Nazar (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my reply from WQA to the above passage, thanks. -- "I'd like to comment on that, to avoid misunderstanding. It's just my personal attitude, which, I suppose, is useful in cases when lots of my work invested into an article is removed because of some reasons (valid, or invalid). I believe it's more constructive to see it as a game, rather than make a tragedy out of the difficulties experienced. This 'playing' attitude also proves more productive in many cases, like children find it easier to learn new things and overcome emotional stress when they 'play' with the subject, rather than take it deadly seriously. This attitude is not intended to be a sign of disrespect towards other editors, or their work. Thanks." -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• A page ban seems like a good start. Obvious troll is ... what's the word again? pablo 10:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this ANI. I think it'll be a good test and an opportunity to review their past actions for all of the involved parties. I don't claim that all of my previous edits were perfect, but I did my best to bring in new referenced information and ensure the neutrality of its rendering in the article. I respect the efforts of the opposing party to cut off the pieces which are not in accordance with the current Wiki Policies, as well as to represent a skeptic and critical view of the case, which is necessary too, of course.

I'd like to mention that I have no major problems with the current version of the article, and don't really see what more could be added based on the currently available references. However, it may be seen from the editing pattern of my opponents, that none of them originally cared to introduce new references or expose the case in a more accurate and versatile way. It was mostly me who provided the references and attempted to build the article, as well as it was me who started it and filled it with information. My opponents usually were the ones to cut off and remove, as well as critically edit the pieces they found not appropriate, for which I am thankful to them in many cases (although, I also think they might have overdone it in some instances). Since the case is an ongoing study, I'm concerned that if the page ban they request succeeds, then only one of the parties, namely the skeptic one, remains entitled to edit the article, or rather not to edit it and not to add the new information, which may become available as the research progresses.

Regarding the possible offenses other editor might have taken during our disputes, I'd like to apologize for these, as we've had many emotional points, and I'm sorry to say I wasn't always able to maintain a perfectly neutral and balanced attitude. Thanks everyone. -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have not been involved here beyond a couple edits to Inedia two years ago, but I should be considered WP:INVOLVED. Dr. K (talk · contribs) provides a fair summary of the relevant edit and talk histories. I believe that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions would be applicable here. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also sorry my current time limits (it's currently office hours in my time zone) do not allow me to examine in detail the diffs provided by Dr.K., and since they are mostly pretty outdated and represent issues which had already been solved and discussed in much detail before, I don't see much sense in going into these old arguments again. But, as far as I remember the case, the edits of my opponents have not always been accurate and based on neutral rendering of available referenced information. Also, my opponents were reluctant to revert their own edits themselves and usually used the tactics of ignoring the points I raised, even if proved wrong in discussion. But again, I don't see any points which need more attention and further arguments at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to briefly review the first 10 diffs provided by Dr.K.. They are all related to the subject of inclusion of a neutral description of Sanal Edamaruku's criticism of the case, including my attempts to provide information about the video plot and subtitles, which were used as an argument in that criticism. That issue has been discussed in much detail on RSN, NOR and article discussion page. It's been closed since over 3 months now and all my subsequent edits were fully in compliance with achieved consensus on that issue. I don't think my opponents would be able to provide any diff to prove the opposite. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I've reviewed all the 20 diffs provided by Dr.K.. I don't see anything bannable in them. 11 or 12 of them are about the video issue I mentioned above, which had been closed very long ago. There's one major update I made after MiRroar's edits. I'm sorry if this update was too massive, but MiRroar's changes were very inaccurate and did not correspond to the referenced sources. I think we've sorted out the issues raised in that update long ago too. At least over a month ago, I guess. I have no problems with the points raised there at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I'm not very happy about Dr.K.'s attitude towards me and my edits. I wouldn't like to repeat offenses I suffered from him and enumerate again the points where he was inappropriately aggressive towards me. I don't have a problem with that at this moment either and would not like to request any sanctions against Dr.K., though I would be pleased if he reconsidered his attitude and his position towards me. I only think it's relevant to say in the context of this dispute that the edit-warring which I'm being accused of can be attributed to Dr.K.'s actions in the same, if not greater degree. No offense though. I believe it's a part of the game ("game" here not meant as 'just for fun', but the serious editing process) we play here, and we have to be ready to spend our time for sorting out such issues. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If this ANI is Dr.K.'s revenge for my WQA request regarding his use of the word "hectoring" No.2 to describe my polite notifications, then I'd like to remind that I addressed WQA for mild non imperative mediation and as a first test of how that noticeboard works. I explicitly stated there that no administrative actions against Dr.K. are requested. I'm sorry if that was taken as an offense, but the repetitive use of "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages does not make me very happy. -- Nazar (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You raised the same points at WQA and you were thoroughly rebuffed. Now you repeat them here as if they have a better chance to stick. They do not. Until you own up to your actions noone is responsible for your edit-warring except you and you are liable to repeat the same pattern of behaviour that brought you here. The list of reversions I added above shows you edit war against multiple editors and not only me. Stop blaming the victim. You are talking about revenge for me bringing you here. I don't think that you read my initial post carefully where I mentioned I was reluctant to do it. But three respected admins Jehochman, Elen of the Roads and Bishonen gave me a strong hint to do it. I agreed. Please WP:AGF at last. Dr.K.  13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but regardless of my own faults I don't think that "hectoring" is an appropriate word in civilized discourse. While I do admit my actions were not always perfect, I consider Dr.K.'s accusations excessive and overly aggressive, trying to negatively interpret my attempts to improve the article in question over a very long periof of time. They are also outdated, as the issues to which the diffs were related had been solved long ago, and I've taken into account the remarks about my own failures at that time. Bringing them up again now after I just briefly mentioned that I'm not happy about the use of the word "hectoring" seems more like an attempted revenge, than a constructive work on the article content. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I repeat my reply to you from WQA:

In the link you provided you mentioned: == Skeptic SYNTH == Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Your tone in telling me to avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH is reprehensible. Using the verb "push" against other editors is demeaning and incivil. I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me. It was a clear case of SYNTH on your part, yet you chose to come to my talkpage and accuse me of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", but you did not come to the article talk page to reply to my arguments and McGeddon's. I call this harassment. What is "Skeptic SYNTH" anyway? The only SYNTH added in the article is by you and it keeps getting removed by many other editors. If I need any mediation is by someone to save me from your personal attacks and innuendo.Dr.K.  13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may follow the hint of the mentioned users, if more baseless edit warring is experienced in future, but it's probably not very wise to follow it, when all the issues have been settled and there was no edit warring for extended period of time. I'm also not seeing the diffs in your request which were not within the limits of acceptable dispute, although a bit lengthy and stubborn at times. -- Nazar (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your logic that my message to your page was related to the points you discussed on the article talk page saying : I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me, I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. Your message on the talk page came almost 2 hours later after my notification to your talk page, and it was related to totally different edits. -- Nazar (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My message on your talk page was related to this edit you made. Thanks. Please also see the timing of the messages. -- Nazar (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. shows your clearly bad faith. Your message on my talk did not specify which edit you were referring to. As far as I remember that was the only edit I reverted. I don't have time now. I have to go offline. But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other. But I will come back to your accusation later. Dr.K.  13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other." -- can you please provide the diffs showing this "massive SYNTH"? I'm sorry, I did not mean to be of bad faith, therefore I used the word "likely". If it was not your attempt to mislead the readers, then please accept my apologies. My message on your talk page page came very clearly after your removals of reliably referenced information, which removals were promoting a one-sided exposure of the case. Later on other editors agreed to include the information I referred to to uphold the neutrality of the rendering. Nevertheless, you keep messing up the issue now in this massive attempt to accuse me of the things I did not do, confusing the readers with misleading cross-linking to passages which were related to completely different points and were handled differently. That is one of the things in Dr.K.'s behavior which causes a lot of stress for me, and which is also a clear cause of massive edit-war required to clarify the issues he occasionally messes up. I'm very sorry to say this, but this behaviour, whether made in good faith or in bad faith, is seen as rather aggressive from my point of view, and I'd be happy to receive at least a mild apology for that. I have to spend a lot of time and go through A LOT of stress and humiliation to prove simple, clear, and valid points, and then at the end all I get is "who really cares" from my opponent. This is not Civil, at least in my understanding. -- Nazar (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably noteworthy to say that also the previous time Dr.K. used the word "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages, he tried to mislead the administrator who was involved into the dispute by manipulating the timings of the messages and trying to show the sequence of events in a twisted way, thus distorting the facts and demanding an administrative action towards me for things I did not do. Maybe this had been done in good faith too, but here it happens for the 2nd time in the circumstances very similar to attempted revenge on a particular user. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just presenting the facts... And I'm just wondering, because I had to spend a few hours of my office time to untangle this confusion at least a bit, who's wasting who's time here? And what would have happened if I just wasn't there to dig up those discrepancies in timings and show how Dr.K. manipulates the situation? Would it just go unnoticed, or maybe I'd get a straight ban for his baseless (but skillfully mustered and presented) accusations? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean, again, facing no unsolved article related issues at the present moment (and it cost me really lots of time and nerve to deal with confusion and incompetence of skeptics in that article, but that is OK), do I really have to spend hours of my office time for rebuttal of these highly aggressive, revengeful twisted accusations by Dr.K. presented in this ANI? Don't you think that a page ban for him would be more appropriate (though I'm really not requesting it)? -- Nazar (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Request that both Nazar and Dr.K. leave this alone for a while until some admins have a chance to evaluate and comment. pablo 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • <Sigh of relief>. Happy to oblige Pablo. Let the facts speak for themselves. Take care and thank you. Dr.K.  15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Musicintime

Musicintime (talk · contribs) Single-purpose-account for promoting Matthias Manasi, who repeatedly uploaded copyvios to commons. He then includes this picture in the article of his protégé. He already received a warning in Commons but seems to be ignorant. Thus he was blocked. I consider this account to be expendable. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 09:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: The account seems to be a re-incarnation of the blocked user Operamadrid (talk · contribs). See also global contributions. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Musicintime indefblocked for the repeated copyvios. Operamadrid was soft-blocked for having a promotional username; I guess it could be argued that rather than requesting the change they just made a new account, but their lack of communication makes that difficult to ascertain. I've tagged both accounts with sock templates anyway, but if anyone feels this is OTT please go ahead and remove them :) EyeSerene 14:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• This user also removes maintenance tags relating to notability and sourcing problems, e.g. and any attempt to clean up promotional language both in Matthias Manasi and International Punta Classic Opera Festival (singularly non notable Festival which has produced exactly one opera) of which Manasi is the Music Director. I'm not sure whether this account is expendable, but he/she certainly needs a stiff warning or two.

  I suspect another incarnation is Espagna2020 (talk · contribs) who similarly removes tags, e.g. . Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am admin on de.wp and we decided to indefblock the German SUL-account. However, he can still edit his disk. So if he is still interested in contributing to WP according to our rules, he may contact us and we might consider unblocking him. But my educated guess is, he will just get a new account and continue on his course. -- 15:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wo st 01 (talk • contribs)

Thanks Voceditenore. I've sent Espagna2020 the same way as Musicintime, though that looks like it was a throwaway account. It may be that because the original Operamadrid account block was soft (ie username only, no IP autoblock) it facilitated the creation of these alt accounts. Hopefully that's now been remedied with the hardblocks on the others... but I guess we'll see. If article protection would help, feel free to drop me a note (I notice that the articles are largely unsourced). Thanks also Wo st 01 for your report and your diligence in chasing this guy around :) EyeSerene 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Posting of a 419 scam

Is it standard procedure to contact someone to report abuse for an IP that posts a 419 scam? It's an Ivorian IP, and inexplicably the user decided to post at RD/C (diff for admins). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. You're unlikely to get a meaningful response. Where on earth did a six month hardblock come from though? -- zzuuzz 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

These always make me laugh, except that some idiot ends up falling for them. I don't know that revdel was necessary, though I won't formally object. No problem with the hardblock, either. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Misleading claim of 'vandalism' by IANVS at 'White Argentine' article

USER:IANVS has reverted a large number of edits to the White Argentine article (diff here), describing them as 'multiple issues of vandalism'. The are clearly nothing of the kind. There is a long-running content dispute over this article, and the edits are evidently part of this.

Given that (amongst other issues), much of the text restored by IANVS is in clear breach of WP:BLP as it includes an unsourced categorisation of living individuals to a supposed 'ethnic group' that the article itself provides no valid evidence for the existence of (the term 'White Argentine', or a close equivalent in Spanish is not a term widely used in Argentina, as one of the leading contributors to the article (User:Pablozeta here) himself acknowledges), I ask that IANVS be required to work within Misplaced Pages policy, and deal with issues on a case by case basis, rather than engaging in mass reverts with misleading edit summaries, and furthermore, to ensure that any text restored confirms to WP:BLP.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "mass reversal" I did was because the IP user effectively did not made a case by case edit of the article, making it impossible to separate the viable edits from the vandalic ones. In fact, after the mass reversal I began to re-introduce valuable edits by the IP user. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Any edit to improve the Wiki - even if it is incorrect or misguided - is not vandalism and should never be called such. --Errant 15:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I've should said "rv mass edits including some vandalism in it". Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I said "estore last good version -. multiple issues of vandalism." Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please make clear what it is you consider 'vandalism': I can see no evidence of any. And can you furthermore assure us that any restoration you make conforms with WP:BLP, and does not make assertions about the supposed ethnicity of living persons? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IP editor deleted links to other WP article, deleted references and sourced content, and segments or entire sections without a rational explanation ("c'mon be serious" kind of explanations). Much of these was vandalic behavior, that I could not undo without this mass reversal. I restored his valuable edits however, and I recently hid the extensive lists of names possibly subject to BLP policy, while tagging the most problematic section (Influence in culture) with a BLP concern tag. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is very clearly a proper reversion by IANVS, as a significant amount of things by those two IPs were vandalism. There were one or two good edits in there that might want to be reinstated, but it was for the large part just section blanking, reference removal, and the addition of non-neutral sentences. IANVS was right in reverting it to what it was before. What BLP problems are you speaking of, Andy? Silverseren 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks based on nationality

Hi,

I was trying to avoid this but now this has gone off limits. So here is the deal:

There is some discussion about which pictures should be included in the History section of the article Arc de Triomphe. This started on September 26th when DIREKTOR added the image File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg to this section. This image depicts German troops marching on the Champs-Élysées with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Some heated discussions and reverts happened next, actions that I did not take part in.

The result of these discussions were that 3 images stayed in the history section, leaving this section over-imaged. Also these images were all depicting events from the 20th Century remotely connected with the Arc de Triomphe itself. (see the article at this state).

I then decided to be bold and try a new set of images for this section, depicting events more closely related to the Arc, namely a drawing of the project by the architect of the Arc himself (File:Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile - Projet Chalgrin - 02.jpg), and a drawing of the return of the ashes of Napoleon (File:Retour des Cendres - 1.jpg), Napoleon being the one that ordered the construction of the Arc.

I knew these changes would be controversial but did justify them in the discussion page of the article () and did personally notify the 2 contributors involved in this edit war ( and ). I was also prepared to have these changes modified but was not prepared for what happened next.

DIREKTOR started to be arrogant and insulting me. This is how he commented my contribution : "Rv (badly disguised ;)) image censorship." () and this is how he commented is addition to the talk page : "Nice try" ().

He has falsely accused me of removing discussions from Frania Wisniewska talk page. (). He also accused me of considering other contributors as "stupid". ()

All this attacks against me made me decided me to set up a request for comments on that issue so that it could be finally settled with more than 2 contributors. I made sure to present the issue in the most objective way I could. ()

DIREKTOR once again misunderstood my request for comments by claiming that I have an "agenda" . () For this he cites a discussion between me and Frania_Wisniewska which happened prior to the RfC. I did not discuss this RfC with anyone so I am wondering what agenda DIREKTOR is mentioning. He also mentions my presumed "patriotic sentiment". () He goes on with calling me a patriot Frenchman as part of the "patriot Frenchmen" he mentions. He uses an arrogant tone by using the expression "you and your buddies". ()

In conclusion, in this issue I wanted to improve the article by correcting the layout and the chronology of the pictures. I knew there would be discussion over this change but justified my changes and notified people. When the discussion stopped because of attacks over my nationality, I opened a RfC only to have DIREKTOR come back to his rant against the French people. Badzil (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• LOL, you made my day. Thanks for the chuckles... buy don't we have a policy on edit warring. Although he is now into personal attacks. Well see what the admins do about it. --Hinata talk 01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not complain on edit warring, I complain solely on the issue of personal attacks. The edit war should hopefully be settled by the RfC. Badzil (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Is 'patriotic Frenchman' really an insult? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course not, this is a content dispute ad hominem report. I did not insult anyone nor will I. The user needs to read WP:NPA more carefully before trying to get rid of me. --DIREKTOR 02:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• For background, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Content removal. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I certainly do believe it is obvious a group of French users is ganging-up to remove a (very famous) photograph image of German troops marching in Paris - from several articles. And I do believe this is the (dare I say it? :) agenda of those users. The image had already been removed from the lead of the Battle of France article contrary to previously established consensus, and now the same is being attempted at the Arc de Triomphe article. Likely there are more examples.

The user is trying to get me blocked for opposing his edits based on my statements of the above. Instead, I would like to invite you guys to have at this strange mess . --DIREKTOR 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• One of the user(s) there claims there is a conspiracy against the French military. They have also complained in the past that that iconic image of the Nazi troops marching near the Arch of Triumph is somehow connected with support of the Nazis. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Talk of various conspiracy theories doesn't seem very helpful here, nor grouping users together according to their presumed nationality. There are compelling reasons for the prominent use of this picture in articles like the Battle of France. There is an obvious irony, however, in using it with WP:UNDUE prominence in an article about a French triumphal arch, since it shows a moment in history which was decidely not about a French triumph. In an article about an architectural feature, is this not just trying to make a WP:POINT? For comparison I looked at Eiffel tower where there is a very balanced set of pictures and detailed content about the German occupation. As far as "iconic images" go, the victory parade of De Gaulle qualifies just as much. The images have been moved around a lot lately: my proposal would be to gather relevant images, including this one, in a gallery, with detailed captions. Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • One can take it personally or one can accept that that is certainly one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch - and also the only one which shows it being used in its actual function. --DIREKTOR 12:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please prove that I am part of an agenda to remove that image. I stated on DIREKTOR's talk page that this is indeed not my goal. And how does the creation of a request for comments show my non-acceptance of the fact that the picture is "one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch"? How about letting users comment in terms of relevancy without again starting a nationality-based rant? Finally apologize for your false accusation of me deleting discussions and remove it from the talk page. Badzil (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of interesting images could be put in a gallery without endlessly discussing their relative merits and demerits—that's always subjective. As far as French sensibilities are concerned, perhaps the issues with this image might be similar to those with equally "iconic" images of the collapse of the twin towers in Manhattan (see below and the image actually used in the article). Mathsci (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As one of the contributors being talked about & wrongly accused of conspiracy by DIREKTOR, I think that the best way for me to describe the situation in which I am involved is to "copy & paste" the last comment I left earlier in the day at the Arc de Triomphe discussion page:

"RE the conversation between two fellow wikipedians, there for all the world to read even if written in French since most participants to France-related articles do speak & read French, it is a shame that the meaning of that conversation has to be twisted out of recognition.

1. 11NOV10, 0359hrs: Article Battle of France: I reverted Baseball Bugs who, the previous day, had put the marching naz photograph as leading picture, and had left the comment: It's already been discussed at length, and this was the consensus., leaving as my own reason for reversal: There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place /). Thus, I cannot be accused of removing the picture of the marching naz.
2. 11NOV10, 0420hrs: Article Arc de Triomphe contrary to what is being said by DireKtor, I did not remove any, but switched two photographs, putting the one with the French flag floating within the frame of the AdT closer to the top & the one of the marching naz at the bottom where the French flag had been - with the comment: On 11 November, the Arc de Triomphe with French flag is more appropriate than marching naz of June 1940.)
3. 11NOV10, 1345hrs, Badzil, with whom I am being accused of conspiring, reverted my edit - with comment: Please, an encyclopedia should not be modified for a particular day.
4. 11NOV10, 1442hrs: I reverted "my fellow conspirator" Badzil - with comment: Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.
5. 11NOV10, 1452hrs: my talk page, Badzil left a msg in French explaining his reversal, saying that although he did not like the marching naz anymore than I did, no change could be done without a debate, i.e. wiki rules had to be followed. He also wrote somewhere in his comment that he did not "support" my action although he understood it. I would hardly call this a conspiracy.
6. Then, before DireKtor entered the scene, I wrote (summarizing) that I know what historical documents are, and that I have nothing against their use, but that, not being an imbecile, I also can identify dirty tricks from the start, suspecting that D. did not add the photograph by respect for History, but out of spite toward the French, in other words, with harassment in mind - comparing the inclusion of the picture of the marching naz to France-related articles to the sending of a rope to the family of someone who had hung himself, or been hanged.
7. Finally, as my archiving bot archived the section because it laid dormant for over 48 hours, I not having answered his piece, DireKtor accused Badzil of removing the whole thing. I then reinstated the discussion yesterday, and the archiving bot archived it again today.

The above is the summary of the whole "conspiracy" between Badzil and myself.

Now I have other & better things to do than rehash over & over facts for the enjoyment of a young lad who wants to give himself importance with his one-sided knowledge of the History of France, the Battle of France, World War I & World War II, but cannot give a straight & true account of recent facts plain for everyone to read & see."

signed: --Frania W. (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

--Frania W. (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards