Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 12 February 2013

• 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

Long term POV problem and user in breach of topic ban agreement

User:HighKing was the subject of a topic ban concerning the removal of the term British Isles. Here are the details: . He was un-banned after agreeing to certain conditions but is now apparently in breach of them again. This problem seems to go back five years, during which time the user has made repeated attempts to remove the term from articles right across the piece. Here is the latest batch, all from this year: , , , , , . The clear intention of each of these edits is to remove the term, but this is not stated in the edit summary. This one from this year: is a repeat attmept from way back in 2008, shown here . This is obviously a very long term problem where a user simply won't be told. There is much other material in connection with these removals. I just present a sample here, and urge action to be taken to deal with this matter once and for all. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocking, anyone? Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold the fort just a second. Is he in breach of his current restrictions? RashersTierney (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

BlackPrinceDave, what were you doing between these 2 diffs in your contribution history, did you use a different account ?

• 2013-01-08T23:43:29 Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles ‎ (→‎Suggestion v5)
• 2012-07-13T11:48:44 Orange Order ‎ (Rv. Discuss this major change first)

How did you come across the Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles page ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. Just lost interest. What's your point, and what's the relevance of your questions? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevance is that when an editor with few edits, gaps in the editing history, an apparent knowledge of the history of a topic area under sanctions and the existence of relatively obscure pages, files a compliant like this that relates to issues covered by sanctions, there is a high probability that the visible editing history is not the entire editing history. This can occur because they edited logged out, used a different account or are a sockpuppet of a topic banned user for example. That is why I asked. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

When an editor resumes edits that resulted in a topic ban, that editor is subject to sanctions ranging from topic ban to site ban regardless of whether or not the topic ban is still in place. Since this case is unambiguous (removing the term "British Isles" from articles), I'm not in the least bit hesitant to ban the user and be done with it. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of lifting the ban is that he was no longer restricted from removing the term "British Isles" from the articles, as long as he did so within reason and policy, as he promised. Frankly, the diffs listed above don't show that he's disrupting Misplaced Pages, they just show that he's removing "British Isles" from articles, which is not enough for a site ban and certainly not enough for "Indef blocking, anyone?". The only diff that I would view as nonconstructive is this one, since Great Britain refers to only one island, not including the many others. Pretty much all the other articles were improved by his edits, and if you have a problem with that then AN/I can't help you. —Rutebega (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rklawton - I'm not sure how your logic works. What is the point of lifting a ban if they are still banned from doing it? Does it mean we remove their name from WP:CBAN but they can still be blocked? I don't understand how that makes sense.--v/r - TP 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the section above has been closed up, because it gives and excellent summary of the problem at hand. I find it very odd that, a) this user has been allowed to get away with the disruption for so long, and b) no one here seems interested enough to do anything about it. I've spent a bit of time today looking further into this matter and it's fair to say the disruption could be described as "low level", but it is persistent. I can find examples of it going back to April 2008, and during the five years since then there have been many attempts to deal with it, only one of which has been partially successful (see above). Over the five year period there have been hundreds, maybe over a thousand, removals of British Isles, much wasted time and a lot of aggravation. I take the point about the user impoving articles; he generally does, but with every improvement comes a removal of British Isles, and that removal is not the improvement. It's as though the user is going to great lengths to hide what's going on here. Primarily he is at Misplaced Pages to remove British Isles, and if, along the way he can improve an article then so much the better. Where to go? Given the low level nature of the disruption we could forget about it. I would prefer something be done about it, because it diminishes the status of Misplaced Pages to have this sort of thing going on. Any other thoughts? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a breach of the sanctions. I have reviewed all of the edits listed above, and there is only one that I would want to correct: this one to Peerage of Ireland. In that case, neither the previous version nor High King's edits are strictly accurate, because there has never been a "peerage of the British Isles"; the peerages concerned related to the Kingdoms of England, Ireland, Scotland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. High King's reference to the United Kingdom is more accurate in scope, but it is anachronistic: when the United Kingdom was created, Peerages of Ireland ceased to be created (with a few rare exceptions). A better wording would be "refer to places in Great Britain".

None of this merits rebuke, let alone sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Current sanctions, applicable to everyone, state that British Isles can't be removed (or added) without justification and proper referencing. He's in breach of this. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else in the last 12 months who has added (or removed) 'British Isles' that you would like to report? RashersTierney (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else is doing it, so no. However, if you know of anyone else whose primary objective is to push the anti-British Isles pov in the way that HighKing is doing, then I suggest you name them here. Looking yet further into this, it is quite staggering the impact this guy has had of the last five years. I described it above as "low level" disruption, but when you can see the bigger picture it's actually massive disruption; fights and squabbles breaking out all over the place, simply because one person seeks to impose his world view on Misplaced Pages. Amazing that no-one can stop him. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your own first edit as a registered user was to criticise a different editor for 'having an agenda' wrt 'British Isles'. Your edits as an IP are, of coarse, unknown. The term 'pot and kettle' springs to mind. RashersTierney (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, another editor who was topic banned for removing British Isles, but he spat out his dummy and left (maybe). I do like this place, it really makes me laugh! Whenever anyone reports a problem, as here with HighKing, people like you don't address it at all, but try and rubbish the person making the report. I hope you never have to serve on a jury! BlackPrinceDave (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that BPD is yet another sock of HackneyHound who has an impressive array of socks blocked in the past for the same behaviour. Not even counting his usage of Vodafone mobile accounts which appear to be impossible to block. I'll be including the Quacking account above. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you don't. On the other hand, perhaps we should set up a page called "Suspected sockpuppets of HighKing". After all, in your case there's substantial evidence, so I note , that you've previously engaged in this activity. This is not so with me, but if you think otherwise then go and make your accusations in the correct forum. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneyhound. The next time a 'new' editor at this page calls for a posse and a rope, bear it in mind. RashersTierney (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu

Hey, I'm a single purpose account for just this post, sorry, but I would like to point this out without getting my primary real life-traceable account involved:

Ping Fu has been attacked this week for her recent book Bend, Not Break which details her exile from China for her study of infantacide during the Cultural Revolution, here, on Amazon (forum), Twitter, and elsewhere. I suggest that this might need a few more eyes than a typical RPP, but her article would certainly qualify for semi-protection now as it stands. Among other things, the fact that she hired Mark Andressen at the lab where he developed Mosaic has been scrubbed. Thanks; over and out. ExtraInCase (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Some additional BLP-savvy watchers would be good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears like the same folks who swarmed Amazon with one star reviews for her book have also done the same with the Misplaced Pages page ratings at the bottom of our article. First Light (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is why "page ratings" are a bad idea...the only people who pay any attention to them are the vandals. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we should just go ahead and call them "votes." First Light (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll put this article in my watch list and keep an eye on it, this seems like a massive vandalism magnet. I fear a full-protect may be needed before too long... Lukeno94 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And you'd think most Chinese people would be peacefully spending time with their family due to the Lunar New Year... - Penwhale | 06:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you'd never been on ANI on Christmas Day, I suppose you would think that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A Canadian governmental agency is editing its own article

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

Employees of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada have, over a period of years, done almost all the editing to its article, as recounted in Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The material included is agency promotional boilerplate and uncited, and is generally suspected of being copyrighted though we cannot always show this. I could find little in the way of secondary sources and stubbed it down in this edit. Now, once again, we have an editor restoring the same content, who has admitted on my talk page that he is an employee of the agency. I can keep stubbing the article, and my guess is that they will continue to keep restoring it. I don't know how others feel about letting part of the Canadian government write its own material here, but my gut reaction is that it sets a bad precedent. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The article looks pretty neutral and informative to me. What's the problem, exactly? I see a mention of copyright concerns here and on the editor's talk page, have you detailed those concerns somewhere? Since the information the agency is adding is highly likely to be accurate, may I suggest simply adding {{cn}} at the end of each unsourced paragraph? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

My gut reaction is so what? I completely agree with Anthonyhcole and his suggested approach, and I think it's about time that Wikiedia opened its doors to allowing those who know most about a subject to write about it, instead of chasing them away with spurious accusations of COI. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

COI editing isn't against policy, although it should be approached very cautiously. A cursory look at the article doesn't show any major problems except needing more cites which can be solved with tags. As to copyright, I assume you meant infringing, since all the content here is copyrighted. If you can find the source, remove that portion then report at CCI if it is a major problem. In short, Anthonycole is correct. I don't see any need for admin intervention at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the uncited material because it has been that way since forever, and because I could not cite it myself. And they just turned around and put it all back, perhaps slightly reworded. BUt whatever: if nobody else has a problem, I'll let it go. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is content, then WP:BRD, then WP:DRN is your path. But there is no reason for an admin to get involved, that is a content dispute. Content disputes are settled by fellow editors, no admin bit is needed at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(ce) I'd say go with what Anthonyhcole says. If you see unsourced statements, add {{cn}} tags and ask the contributors to fill in the gaps. As long as their contributions can be regarded as WP:NPOV and if they can source what they are editing, I believe WP:COI doesn't quite apply. WP:CORP is a whole different issue but again, reliable sources are the key word. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody please close this. The discussion is redundant to the one on the COI noticeboard and, as Dennis says, there is no need for admin intervention. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

MervinVillarreal

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

User:MervinVillarreal has returned and with it his disruptive behaviour. In particular over on Talk:World War Z (film). After an attempt to change the nationality on this and other articles, he was eventually blocked for Edit Warring, then again for Disruption, uncivil behavior and more edit warring, he was then again for longer for Sockpuppeting. At the end of his block he has returned on World War Z and first off going off topic trying to defend himself against his Sockpuppeting with little regard to the topic at hand. After going back and forth with him and other editors, I proceeded to close the discussion with the relevant template in line with a "no consensus to change" after all the discussion had been opened for nearly 2 months and had little comment by editors for the change suggested and the majority saying to keep the nationalities as they were. Any way, the editor then proceeded to reopen the discussion by removing the template several times

• here I closed/archived the discussion
• here he reopened the discussion
• I then closed the conversation again.
• Again, he reopened it.
• User:Grapple Xthen closed the conversation again.
• And again he reopened the discussion.
• User:Darkwarriorblake then closed the conversation again.

Not necessarily after a block again on this editor, but if an admin could swing by his talk page and give him a word or two so we can move on from this tedious back and forth that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, because i think you can not close a consensus just because have two months of being open, if the discussion continues, just continus, why not closed for 15 days ago when I was blocked? MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mervin, if discussion is clearly going nowhere because it's simply one editor railing against facts and better arguments, it's both constructive and encouraged to shut it down and move on. We have no need or desire to remain bogged down in a circular argument with one person blindly repeating nonsense until everyone else gives up. Your lone views have been roundly rejected, your claims refuted with simple facts, and you still continue to act the victim. Please do us all the favour and stop. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's also worth pointing out that I know for a fact you're aware of the three revert rule, as someone (me) already warned you about it here; the fact that you've once again broken it shows you have a problem abiding by our guidelines. GRAPPLE X 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For the love of god Mervin, use the : to indent your responses. It wasn't closed because people weren't paying attention to it because it was over and we all have better things to do. Then you come back after a block for aggressively pushing a jingoistic agenda against all consensus, reasoning and evidence and start doing the same so we pushed forward to bring the conversation to a permanent conclusion as you had been indulged enough, were being disruptive, wasting volunteer's time and you would simply use a lack of further response as justification for you to do what you set out to do by opening the discussion. That is why it was closed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User has again reverted the discussion. Which was again Reverted by Grapple X. Citing WP:REFACTOR which it would seem the user is determined to ignore. MisterShiney ✉ 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

oh right, because everyone thinks that I not have reason, "all British" that chance ...then it should be closed because I have no reason, wikipedia is so fair. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I for one have NO idea what you are trying to say here... MisterShiney ✉ 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

He's being sarcastic. The discussion should be shut down because he's being unreasonable (this is from his perspective) and Misplaced Pages is "so fair" (sarcasm - Misplaced Pages is not fair).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, I thought no one would know. MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, Mervin, I'm not saying I agree with you; I don't. Your persistence on the talk page is clearly disruptive. In addition, in a related vein, User:SarekOfVulcan left a canvassing warning on your talk page, which you removed (you remove a lot of warnings from your talk page, which is permissible but in your case tends to support an unwillingness to collaborate). Frankly, I'd like to hear some acknowledgment from you that your approach to editing here is inappropriate and that you will change it. Otherwise, the only issue here is whether your behavior merits a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

my god. MervinVillarreal (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we take that as your not acknowledging that your approach to editing here is inappropriate and won't be changed, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough; having looked over the evidence and Mervin's comments and actions, I'm calling this one a no-brainer: a clearer case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT would be hard to envisage. Either he's determined to be deliberately disruptive, or he just doesn't get it (and isn't likely to in the foreseeable future): whichever is the case, Misplaced Pages is better served by Mervin not editing. I'm therefore going to block him indefinitely; any admin who strongly disagree's is welcome to lift the block, but I'd expect to see a phenomenally competent unblock request before I personally would even consider it. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Drg55

Summery and links of events:

First legal threat (prior to notification of policy): "This article is supposed to neutral and not libelous."

Second legal threat (prior to notification of policy): "wikipedia could be sued"

Notification of policy:

Third legal threat with Drg55's response: " In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed."

Second notification and clarification:

Warning of two other threats:1, 2

Final response from Drg55:

Statement by User:Coffeepusher

User:Drg55 has engaged in what I believe are three seperate legal threats, and refuses to acknowledge wikipedia's policy regarding legal threats. Instead they have used my attempt to discuss this with them as an opportunity to dispute an unrelated edit, and to use wikipedia's policy as a point of negotiation.

Drg55 deleted some material from the Volunteer Ministers page with an edit summary that contained the phrase "wikipedia could be sued". This showed up on my watchlist, and seeing as Drg55 was a new user with less than 200 edits I decided that they were probably not aware of the policy and not to report it to the ANI, but rather just give them a warning to inform them of the policy. I also placed a comment on the talk page for volunteer ministers letting that community know what I had done, how I intended to handle the situation, as well as stating that I agreed with Drg55's deletion and believed that in spite of the legal threat the material should not be inside the article.

Drg55 responded that they didn't believe that their statement was a legal threat and then argued that they were simply stating factual history with that comment, backing it up with the statement " In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed." They then brought up several content disputes that they were engaged in, and challenged an edit I made on a separate scientology page.

I then tried to clarify exactly what my intentions were, and restated what the policy was, why I believed it was violated, what the consequences were for violating these policies, and stated that I wasn't trying to get them banned but that I was assuming good faith and needed them to state that they understood and would abide by the policies. I then let them know that I believed their statement about scientology litigation was another legal threat, and I needed them to state that they would abide by the policy. Later I ran into a third moment where, on a discussion page, Drg55 stated "This article is supposed to neutral and not libelous." This happened prior to the first warning so I let Drg55 know that this too constituted a legal threat, and that they needed to change the way they edited.

Drg55 responded that they felt I had thin skin, and used the discussion as an opportunity to again bring up a separate content dispute. They then stated that "I will play ball with you if you will play ball with me" in reference to the content dispute on the separate pageCoffeepusher (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

notification to Drg55 of this conversationCoffeepusher (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, the content dispute that Drg55 is referencing is this edit, which occurred 40 min. after I placed the warning on their page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe Drg55's comments are a threat to take legal action, especially after his clarification. He is simply commenting that Misplaced Pages could have a legal problem with the content, but he is not threatening to do anything. This falls more under WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats, and Drg55 should be reminded of the following from that policy: "While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked.". Beyond that reminder, I personally am of the view that no further action is required here. Singularity42 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have left a comment on Drg55's talk page which I believe explains the relevant policy and asks that such words be avoided in the future. Singularity42 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I regard them as a threat, with an attempt at wording it so the threat does not appear overt. A threat at WP is anything which would have the effect of inhibiting editing. A threat mentioning legal process as a justification for an edit is a very tricky thing to do--if the matter is actually a legal hazard to WP or its participants, it should by handled thru OTRS, or the Foundation. Worded the way this was worded, it has this effect of trying to prevent criticism of Scientology and is I think intended to have that effect. We do not quibble over evasive wording. Considering the material on the talk page as a whole, I think any repetition of this will be clear indication that AGF with respect to this user no longer applies, and an indefinite block is needed. I would apply it immediately, but it is possible that Singularity's optimistic assessment will be correct, and I do not want to interfere with even the possibility of that welcome resolution. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. I'd like someone from WMF to review this Scientology-oriented matter. Jusdafax 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say I was going to launch legal action and I am not in a position to do so. Thank you to Singularity42 and Anthonyhcole (on my talk page) for your support. If neutral point of view policies were followed I think that would go a long way. However I have experienced frustration with editors who are deleting material that I put in to balance things, to me seem to be protecting a single point of view and won't countenance another take on a subject. A position I describe as neo-fascism, which is my criticism of Anonymous, and I also suspect that members of Anon (and also anti religionists like Skeptics) are editing Misplaced Pages to run their campaign against Scientology, if for no other reason than these articles run the same lines. I note that part of the arbitration on Scientology was to block the other side which was using Misplaced Pages as part of its attacks on the Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-01/Scientology_arbitration.

I support Misplaced Pages and although not a frequent editor believe I have contributed here and there, something to the world of knowledge. I also have a slightly more liberal view than perhaps Church of Scientology management to whom I sometimes give my advice (mostly ignored) in that I believe they should use more facts and a conservative approach in their PR so as to let people form their own opinions, which is most effective. And rather than seeking to delete what might be offensive to us I am pragmatic enough to let it be, provided I can put in some qualifying facts. I was active many years ago in some of the Church's victories unfortunately I don't have most of my old files and this was pre-internet so I do the best I can. I also acknowledge that in some struggles, such as I had in Ten Commandments where contrary to NPOV: "Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources" I was on the other side trying to put in some Archaeological facts (from Israeli Archaeologists) and having it constantly deleted. The process still can lead to a better place in terms of making you lift your game and refine your position. (I was not trying to invalidate the TC as mythology, but as fact its as accurate as Camelot). All religions should be respected, not because they are true but because people hold these views and things that are dear and important to people should be sensitively handled. Religions are not immune from criticism, but it should be done without jackboots and gratuitous insult.

And finally, I do believe that Misplaced Pages should follow the law, of course it varies in countries, but if one has sufficient ethics one doesn't come near violating laws because the fundamental principle is respect for others. I think that was the point I was trying to make in my mentions of the law which Coffeepusher has identified for you. I have learned a bit more about Misplaced Pages policy, and I guess when you aren't familiar with it you try other things, I'm not saying I'm always right. I'd like to work constructively with Coffeepusher and have made another edit, notifying him, taking on board some of what he has said.

Laws increasingly are being aimed at the Internet, I understand the ideals of the internet but the reality is theft of copyright on massive scale (which could be dealt with in more creative ways by copyright owners than just prosecution); gross immorality - Anonymous hacked the Australian Government in a denial of service because they thought they would lose access to child pornography http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/335760/hackers_launch_dos_attack_government_websites/ Then there is bullying which the over confident young hackers demonstrate in their lack of respect to other points of view http://www.lawstuff.org.au/sa_law/topics/bullying/cyber-bullying This could affect Misplaced Pages if a group of editors were to gang up on others to run their lines. And not to mention cybersecurity: http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/security-it/australia-must-become-a-regional-cybersecurity-leader-20130201-2doo4.html http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-stratfor-hammond-judge-440/

The law isn't always just and can be oppressive, but like other idealist societies such as communes and even anarchism and communism, unless the internet has some form of internal ethics these abuses which are rampant will inevitably lead to increasing Government control. Freedom depends on responsibility. I can see Misplaced Pages has some good processes in this respect.

A condition of anxiety sometimes exists in relation to legal proceedings, which is recognised in Misplaced Pages policy. This can be relieved through an understanding of material covered in Scientology: A History of Man which some kind person has written an article about in Misplaced Pages.Drg55 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. You start out sensible and end up rambling (WP:CHUNK?).--Auric talk 13:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have put some paragraphs in and a little extra. Its about the same length as the complaint.Drg55 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The point remains that you must not use legal threats on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to know your on-wiki options in a given situation, all you have to do is go to your Talk page and add the test {{help me<}} above your question. Another recurring problem that I see in your recent posts is a lack of reliable sources. It is true that there have recently been more reliable sources critical of SCientology than in favor of it, but it does not change the rule that all claims must be sourced. Many of your sources use synthesis, which is not considered reliable. Andrew 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For example, providing data on an unrelated issue with the text "it may or may not be relevant" is not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. Andrew 01:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Moar blacklist

While reviewing pending changes I caught this attempt to bypass the spam blacklist; \bsilkroad.*\.onion\b was added to the blacklist after numerous instances of phishing attempts resulting in claims of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin losses. Anyways, if there's any way to amend the blacklist entry to catch variations like this, that would be nice. Alternatively, while the trifecta of the hidden-text note, the PC-protection, and the blacklist does the job pretty well, an edit filter wouldn't hurt... logged-in users are still seeing the false links when they get added, and according to the last discussion of this, historically some users have even managed to game autoconfirmed. — PinkAmpers& 20:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ping to keep alive. Someone feel free to move this to another forum if they think it's more appropriate. — PinkAmpers& 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You want MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Legoktm (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Southern railway line, New South Wales and Template:Main Southern railway line, New South Wales

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

User:Bidgee has repeatedly removed material referenced by reliable sources from these the article and template, claiming it is in dispute but without saying what is actually in dispute or why, just reverting it. Bad faith removal of warnings not to remove content and made personal attacks against me. Dbromage  06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• People are allowed to remove warnings from their own talkpages - they shouldn't be doing so with edit summaries like the second one, but nor should you be edit-warring to re-add the warnings after they've removed them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, and I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. You're making large edits and he has suggested they are controversial or against WP:CONSENSUS. You guys are both way past WP:3RR, at least in spirit (it's been over a couple of distinct 24 hr periods). WP:BOLD strongly suggests not getting upset at deletions of boldly added content and also suggests not letting such a deletion drive you to an edit war (which I would suggest is exactly what has happened since). I can see you've tried a couple of times to ask what it is he disputes, but I would suggest the next step is probably WP:DRN or an WP:RFC, not WP:ANI. And if you're going to bring it here, you need to notify the other user that you have. Stalwart111 07:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Having a further look, while Bidgee is allowed to remove content from his own talk page, the edit summary for this edit is a bit problematic. Given it hasn't happened yet, I'll notify him of this thread so he has a chance to respond if he so wishes. Stalwart111 07:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Those attacks were inappropriate; however, Bidgee is allowed to remove notices per WP:BLANKING. Also, the Bold, revert, discuss cycle should have been enacted on the article - that means properly discussing with those who dispute the content you want added in, as the onus is really on you, Dbromage. A word to the wise: you and Bidgee abstain from further edit warring, and that you both attempt to get to the bottom of the issue, civilly, on the article's talk page. —MelbourneStar☆ 07:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• I am uninvolved in this but I have some knowledge and interest in the subject matter so I hope I can provide an objective view. The changes seem to be very informative, accurate, well sourced, add missing information, correct errors and put a badly formatted template into the correct format. I cannot see why this would be disputed. Bidgee has, despite numerous requests, failed to state exactly what content is in dispute and what the objection is beyond "it wasn't discussed". While the edit war should not have happened, Bidgee has not been very helpful and this edit is cause for concern. Remember BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. ShipFan (Talk) 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's a difference between "I don't like it" and "get consensus" (as Bidgee requested). I don't dispute Dbromage's content change, but I believe that there is a way of making those changes to the article - today's example was clearly not one of them. —MelbourneStar☆ 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• True, but reverting and saying "you didn't discuss it" without saying exactly what is in dispute isn't helpful. In fact it's quite counter productive. The only thing Bidgee says that even comes close to substantive is "it hasn't been formatted that way in the past" but the formatting is quite clearing wrong. It should not necessary to get consensus before making every change, even bold ones and especially when they make changes that conform to manuals of style. Otherwise nothing would ever get changed. While the onus is on the editor to discuss the dispute, complainants shouldn't be unnecessarily obstructive. ShipFan (Talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• That certainly defeats the purpose of BRD does it not? Major changes are supposed to be discussed, at one's discretion. I'm not disagreeing on the "unhelpful" claims, but, Bidgee clearly wanted a discussion on these major changes (and not in the edit summary). Instead, an edit war ensued, and Bidgee's edits were mislabeled as "vandalism" (There goes Dbromage's boomerang). Further, I'll give credit to Dbromage for initiating a clearly set-out discussion on the article in question's talk; hopefully things remain positive from then on, by both editors. —MelbourneStar☆ 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Bold says just do the edit. Frequently no one will object and the editing is done. If it's reverted, then BRD comes into play. The wise Misplaced Pages, rather than thinking edit summaries are good enough and it's the other guy who needs to start a discussion, races to the talk page and puts their stake in first. That way, if the editor ends up in an ANI pissing contest discussion the editor looks like the more reasonable one. 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

• But in this case, Bidgee did ask for consensus, in regards to this Bold edit. The wise Wikipedian would have avoided this situation as a whole -- but the fact of the matter, is the onus is on the editor who adds in the content to explain themselves and start a discussion, rather than the one disputing it. Major edits are supposed to be discussed, to avoid issues like this one. —MelbourneStar☆ 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

*Both full-protected: Article by me, Template by DeltaQuad. - Penwhale | 08:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And an appropriate discussion has now been started at Talk:Main Southern railway line, New South Wales, which is good to see. Stalwart111 12:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Article protection by me lifted due to the SPI result... - Penwhale | 02:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not proud of my actions yesterday, I allowed myself to get carried away and become rather uncivil. I took a few hours time out, I am surprised that Dbromage and ShipFan were the same editor but not surprised that Railzone Cleanup was the same editor (Dbromage). One big issue with the template in the format that Dbromage wanted, was the fact it was quite large, to the point that some browsers can't handle it and it has other problems with it which I'll raise on the talk page of the article and/or template and not here. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee and sockpuppet

Sum one needs to do checkuser on em by filing at the investigatoirs page! Bidgee sock is User:Railzone Cleanup, clearly Bidgee, block em now as we wot miss em. 149.135.146.3 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=537662186 c link clear Bidgee sock! 149.135.146.3 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe it's you.--v/r - TP 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevant. Next time, check to be sure the account you're picking for malicious accusations of socking hasn't already been CheckUsered to someone else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hang about, Dbromage , ShipFan and Railzone Cleanup are all the same person? And he accused someone else of using his own sock for sock-puppetry? That was always going to end well. *Facepalm* Stalwart111 22:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

a request

In December 2011 a well meaning contributor thought that the content at Bounty_II should be at Bounty_(1960_ship). So far so good. But they cut and pasted the content -- losing the revision history.

Could someone graft the history of Bounty II to the current article?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All done. I think there is a place for history merges but I forget where it is.--v/r - TP 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Man, I was all excited to do my first real histmerge, but TParis beat me to the punch! DAMN YOU TPARIS Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My bad, you're welcome to undo it ;) --v/r - TP 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, Writ: Misplaced Pages:WPHM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The official place for history merge requests is the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Graham87 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Persistent abuse of WP:OWN and WP:TRUTH.

After several users, including myself, have tried to reason with Tritomex with no success, I take the matter here. The background is quite simple, and concerns the Khazars, a Turkic people that converted to Judaism in the 9th century. In the academic world, there is a minority view that the Khazars are the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews, either fully or partly. While this is a minority view, it is none the less a theory with support from academics in genetics, in history and in linguistics, who have all published several studies on the topic.
Most of the recent activity of Tritomex consists of trying to censor this view and edit it out of Misplaced Pages, either by taking it out altogether or trying to discredit it with material that most other users find unsuitable under WP:RS. This is a sample .
In the discussions, there is a broad consensus for including both views (both the view that Ashkenazi Jews have Khazar ancestors and the view that they don't) as there are good scholarly sources for both views. This is the broad consensus, supported by most users involved in the relevant articles. While a dispute about what to include or what to exclude would normally be a content dispute, the problem is that Tritomex repeatedly appoints himself the judge over what can be said and not said, and interprets "consensus" as meaning that he gets to veto anything he dislikes. , , . As far as I know, no user can veto edits, and consensus does not necessarily mean complete unanimity. What is more, it is perfectly in line with WP:NPOV, in my understanding, to mention conflicting theories, when both theories have academic support by leading experts in their fields. Nobody is trying to push the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars (and I for one does not believe in it), but Tritomex's continuous campaign to censor it and to block the efforts of four other editors to work on an article starts to be tedious.Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning that similar disagreements began, and I do not think have ended, on Genetic studies on Jews.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• The way I see it, the current version of the lead has been hammered out on the talk page and should probably be labelled as the consensus version. Tritomex shouldn't be messing with that without discussing it, but you've just stock-reverted him, erasing all the other changes he's made to the article in the same edit. This includes re-introducing unsourced claims and claims sourced to a self-published book. Please take more care. Basalisk ⁄_berate 20:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have misread what he did, extensive damage to a good editing environment at last, by overruling consensus on two distinct passages, making a WP:OR emendation to the consensual lead, and removing both a piece of text, and one impeccable academic source (Raphael Patai) from which it was quarried, attributing the fact as a claim, and the source as 'self-published'. Worst of all, he writes garbled English. He has left a wake of paralysis and distortion through several articles on related themes, flies in the face of consensus, refuses to understand policy. In short, he needs a topic-break.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Basalisk, it's quite right that the current version of the lead has been hammered out by several of us on the talk page and represents a consensus, and I'm glad you agree with that. I am surprised to read your final part, that I "re-introduced unsourced claims and claims sourced to a self-published book." We are currently working on the whole article and how to restructure it, and we hope to have it done by the end of this week. Your help is appreciated, so can I please ask you what self-published book I re-inserted? If you find it, I'll gladly take it out. If not, I hope for a retraction. Unfortunately, the fact that Tritomex claims that a book is unreliable or self-published only means that it says something he does not like.Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the allegations against myself, user Jeppiz who recently became involved in this article ignored that beside me other editors objected editions made by him and talk see . Related to his edits on the same page, in violation of WP:CIVIL he labeled other editors who did not support his edits (related to same subject) as "disruptive editors engaged in edit warring" . The same pattern s/he used against myself on February 8th, accusing me of edit warring despite the fact that my only edition on this subject happened on February 4th, before he came to this article. In line with his/her edits on same subject but on different page, namely on Genetic studies on Jews s/he threatened any editor who revert his edits with WP:ANI, . All of this edits have happened after 5 sock puppets have been caught on this two pages, who were involved in attempt to present Khazar Theory, namely the theory which claims that Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of Khazars, not just as valid theory, but to artificially create an impression that this theory is supported by broad academic society, which is not the case both regarding historians like Douglas Morton Dunlop, Bernard Lewis who described this theory as "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics" or Moshe Gil who described this theory as follows "we arrive at the conclusion that all historical discussions, or assumptions on conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, inclusive of Jewish medieval texts, are totally baseless. It never happened." (and many others) and geneticists or academic books from population genetics or 23 another genetic study listed in details on Genetic Studies on Jews . Despite this, after enormous changes made in last few days on long standing bases of Khazar's article the Khazar Theory, which was described by some of the greatest scholars like Bernard Lewis like "racist and Antisemitic" was introduced in the lead

presented as historic probability, without any criticism and without any clear suggestion that this view in academic world is held by extremely tiny minority which is in my opinion WP:UNDUE violation. All of this happened after as I said five sock puppets were caught placing the Khazar Theory in following pages: Ashkenazi Jews, Genetic Studies on Jews, The invention of Jewish People and Khazars. In all of this pages I objected that identical users came after this sockpuppets were disabled and practically reinstated their editions with different wording.

Concerning the Khazar page, the Turkic name of this Turkic people, was replaced with the translation of their name to Hebrew in lead, alluding that Khazars are Jews. Kevin Alan Brook, novel (Kevin Alan Brook is Business Administrator) novel was presented as WP:RS regarding the history, origin and genetics of Khazars. Even racial profiling of Khazrs from this sources is cited aluding that Khazars did not have Turkic lookings. My personal edits on this page was driven by my believe that as per WP:UNDUE the Khazar Theory can not be presented in lead without clear references that this theory is not supported by almost entire academic society beyond 3 scholars whom I know (Shlomo Sand, P Wexler and recently by Eran Elhaik) Their views are considered marginal by geneticists: Atzmon, Behar, Sorecki, Shen, Moorijani, Campbel, Hammer, Nebla, Thomas, Goldberg, numerous historians and linguists.--Tritomex (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly labelled a user "disruptive", as Tritomex points out. I did so after the same user reverted for the third time without taking part in any discussion. I find such edit-warring disruptive, and saying so is not in breach of WP:CIVIL. Concerning the rest of Tritomex's long post, it does not address the issue here, but is yet again a long attempt to justify why he wants to censor a theory he does not like. I don't like it either, for what it's worth, but as I already stated, I believe that when there are conflicting theories and both theories have the support of recent research by leading experts, then we should also present both. Tritomex tries to suppress one theory in spite of a consensus to include it as as minority view, and that is the topic here. Any discussion concerning the two theories is better taken at the talk pages of the two articles, the discussion here is about Tritomex persistent refusal to accept a consensus he doesn't like and his attempts to censor out theories he dislikes.Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex is an extremely problematic editor. Witness his endless attempt at Genetic studies on Jews to exclude a peer-reviewed scientific paper, entirely on the basis that he doesn't agree with it (see the thousands of vacuous words he wrote on the talk page). Zero 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I read the talk page and a bunch of the diffs in the article earlier today, and subsequent commentary (at length, to put it mildly) by Tritomex does not alleviate my concern: I do believe that Tritomex's behavior in the article and the talk page is disruptive. If they can't abide by consensus, and there seems to be consensus on the talk page for the lead and other matters, they need to butt out of the article. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The same 3 editors including Zero0000 and Nishidani edited the same subject, namely the Khazar Theory in to following articles and their talk pages: Ashkenazi Jews-exuding 2 editors, Genetic Studies on Jews-all editors, The invention of Jewish People-exuding one editor and Khazars-all editors. In all of this articles, beside Ashkenazi Jews, their joint edition (regarding Khazar theory) stands, despite my objections on talk pages (backed by numerous sources) regarding the way how this edits were done and the wording of this subject. As in this case, all the objections I presented on talk page were left unexplained and without answer. The assumption that there are equality between Khazar theory and the views held by almost entire academic society is in my view per WP:UNDUE problematic. --Tritomex (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • That your objections weren't answered is (at least in the case of Khazars) simply not true. Such a claim is the hallmark of a TRUTHy editor. Moreover, at some point you have to accept that the consensus is not with you and find a different battle the fight (I'm using this metaphor on purposes given the crusading tendencies I find in these and other comments). Drmies (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • As Zero, Nishidani and Drmies all point out in their posts above, Tritomex tends to be disruptive. This, in combination with his refusal to accept a consensus and his insistence on always knowing the truth, makes it much more of a challenge to work on articles that he targets. As can be seen from comments on those pages, good users have simply given up out of sheer frustration. I would go so far as suggesting that it would be beneficial for Misplaced Pages if Tritomex did not edit articles related to "Jewish genetics", including Khazars and Ashkenazi Jews. I think a review of Genetic studies on Jews and Khazars shows that Tritomex's overall contribution is not positive. An editor who always knows the truth and will fight any consensus to challenge the truth is not helpful. The problem is that most moderate and neutral users are less passionate (but probably better placed) to edit than those with a strong personal interest. In the end, moderate users simply grow tired and so the disruptive editors 'win' simply by being disruptive long enough.Jeppiz (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate to have to break in here, but the issue is a bit more complex than that presented. Regardless of his manner, Tritomex has raised valid concerns around WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG issues, though he may not have stated them as succinctly as that. While the rest of the lede seems fine, I've moved the contentious bit back to the article's talk page, so that discussion can develop more fully, and less heated (and hopefully more policy-focused) views can be aired. In my experience, too much fighting over a lede is often an indication that the article itself needs significant development. The ideal lede simply summarizes an article. Jayjg 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg , nobody is challenging Tritomex's right to voice valid concerns. For the claim about WP:UNDUE, please see the talk page of the article as that is not the issue here. I would never take a user to WP:ANI for raising concerns over WP:UNDUE even if I disagree (and in this case I certainly do). The issue is Tritomex's behavior, which several editors find disruptive; not his views, to which he is perfectly entitled.Jeppiz (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not truth Jeppiz as until today I did not made any edition to this article from February 4th. You made two reverts of my edition and although you stated that you don't have source for Khazar Theory (or that you need a source for Khazar Theory of Ashkenazi Jews) you edited it, right in to lead without any source. All my observations until today were directed to talk page-From the fact that this fringe theory labeled Antisemitic and racist by some of the most respected historians does not go in to lead, especially not without clear explanation that it is not supported by almost all historians (beside maybe one) by all human population geneticist (beside one) I posted dozens of sources for this claim, not just here but on Genetic studies on Jews article and other articles talk pages were you, Nshadani and Zeero00 jointly edited subjects related to this theory one by one. In the case of Khazars it was WP:UNDUE violation. Without any reasonable explanation you removed the Turkic name of this Turkic people and replaced it with the Hebrew translation of their name, although Khazars and Hebrew language have nothing in common. You used a novel written by Business administrator as WP:RS for Khazar history and origin and finally you edited the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi Jews in lead without any source to support your claims.--Tritomex (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

None of that is true. As you know full well, several of us are currently reworking the whole article (and you have offered no help, only hindrance) and I explicitly stated on the talk page that we should of course add sources to the introduction, particularly for the section in question. So when you try to claim that we tried to "push" it into the lead without sources, you are not being honest. The facts of the matter is that there was a broad consensus, and everybody agreed sources would need to be added. Several editors have taken part in constructive discussions, while your input has consisted of vowing to stop any change you don't like (WP:OWN) and even quite sharp personal attacks by indicating, as you do above again, that it is anti-Semitic to include a theory with support in history, in linguistics and in genetics. I have stated clearly, and several times on the talk page, that I don't believe in this theory myself, but that it exists and we need to recognise it. Here, I am repeating the same things for what must be the tenth time in just a few days, and all because of your behavior. So yes, just like Zero, Nishidani and Drmies I find you disruptive, borderline dishonest, and I think the article would be better off without your participation. To put it bluntly, you are not a net contributor to Misplaced Pages, quite the opposite. Worse, your behavior causes good and serious contributors to leave.Jeppiz (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you blindly reverted and restored unsourced material?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The restoration of the unsourced sentence was a mistake on my part. Then again, we are currently rewriting the whole article (as discussed in long detail on the talk page) so that sentence would have gone in either case. But yes, it was a mistake on my part as I did not see it when I reverted. That's quite beside the point, though. There's a huge gap between making an honest mistake when reverting and being constantly disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The team that edited Khazar Theory in numerous articles overtaking and ignoring the opinions of others, like user Shrike, Galassi and myself on this article certainly will not leave, but you want me out as you have openly stated above. That is why you threatened any editor who revert your editions regarding the Khazar Theory with WP:ANI . So no one did reverted you. Second I can not make WP:OWN without actual edits and by pointing on talk page to the mistakes, unsourced claims and Misplaced Pages policy violations. (and prior to yesterday edition I made only one edit on February 4th, before you even involved yourself ) Despite this, you labeled me and Galassi as disruptive editors immediately as you came) Concerning this question I pointed out that a marginal theory refuted by almost entire academic scientific world has to presented as such per(WP:UNDUE) Concerning the Khazar Theory, it was not me but Bernard Lewis, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, (Black Sun: Aryan cults, esoteric nazism, and the politics of identity, NYU Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8147-3155-4, p. 237.), Paul F. Boller, Memoirs of an Obscure Professor and Other Essays, TCU Press, 1992, pp. 5-6. Michael Barkun and others who described this theory as racist and/or Antisemitic.--Tritomex (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So let me see if I've got this right. You are citing a couple of references in a manner that takes them somewhat out of context and using them to support assertions that the work of even the noted Jewish scholars among Raphael Patai, Shlomo Sand, P Wexler and Eran Elhaik is anti-Semitic against editors seeking to cite such works? One wouldn't be hard pressed to view such assertions by Tritomex to represent behavior combining POV pushing and anti-Semite baiting(?) in relation to the discussion of the Khazarian hypothesis, which I only participated in on the RSN noticeboard in relation to Elhaik's recent publication. --Ubikwit (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost all above is a gross distortion, characteristic of Tritomex and the reason I brought the matter to ANI.

• I know of no "team" that edits any article. I've never met any of the users involved on any other page or article.
• Which are these "numerous articles" that this supposed "team" is editing?
• Despite all your claims, (often coupled with personal attacks) that somebody wants to focus on the Khazar theory, the opposite is true. All of us agree that it is a minority view, all of us want to present it only as a minority view. You want to censor it out completely. I find that hard to do, given that it has support by academics in different fields such as genetics, history and linguistics. We are not talking about one single person suggesting the theory, but different experts in different fields. They are of course still a small minority, but notable enough not to be censored by someone shouting WP:UNDUE.
• Yes, there was a period during which you made no edits - because the article was locked. Your edit history is quite revealing.
• Yes, I labeled you and Galassi "disruptive editors". Galassi immedediately, as he was actively engaged in an edit war, constantly reverting others without even bothering about discussing. That is disruptive. What is the problem in saying so? Jeppiz (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I listed above the articles to whom the Khazar Theory was edited by identical users despite objections regarding the wording and WP policy. Contrary to you I did not call anyone a "disruptive editor" nor I have used any bad word for anyone. All my criticism on talk pages was policy based and backed by arguments and sources.--Tritomex (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion Tritomex is stopping other editors from improving article and balancing the areas that he/she is concerned about. Both in edits and on the talk page there is an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As a result both of the involved articles I am watching are maintained in a state of distorted disaster. In the genetics article, I am too often finding sentences and even numbers being inserted which are not even in the sources cited, while other edits chop up and remove well sourced materials. I do not blame Tritomex for physically doing all those edits, but there is certainly a POV movement of editors with various positions about this subject who are quite happy to keep the articles crappy while good editors are being blocked from working. The best defense against that type of editing would be to try to get some stability to the articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Block this clown, please?

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

• Ekazp (talk · contribs)

Run-of-the-mill birtherism last week] at Barack Obama escalates to racist vandalism this week. And no, I will most decidedly not notify this user, as it would be a waste of time. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary

From this edit summary, "Stop slander, lies and defamation, Mr. Schönherr. I will inform Mr. Hesemann on your campaign so he can sue you for compensation."

The article in question, Michael Hesemann, could use a few more sets of eyes on it, even without the threat, frankly - there's a serious edit-war going on there at the moment. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that this person didn't know our policy on legal threats. I slapped warning template on their userpage and linked them here, I'd say it's best to wait until they respond after they know the policy. Otherwise, clear legal threat. gwickwire_edits 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• The claim in the lead that HSchnyder removed, calling it "slander, lies and defamation", comes from the lead to the German Michael Hesemann article. I've reinserted it with the addition of the reference from the German article. I'll take a look tomorrow at the other statements that HSchnyder has reverted, unless somebody else has taken care of it by then. It doesn't look like references would be hard to find for any of it. I note that HSchnyder has been warned of 3RR; if he should happen to revert me too, I hope somebody blocks him. As for the legal threat, I find it a little hard to take seriously (but then I often do). The only thing that makes it a little unpleasant is that the other editor, Maximilian Schönherr, uses his real name (or so I presume), and that HSchnyder actually mentions it in his edit summary threat: "Stop slander, lies and defamation, Mr. Schönherr. I will inform Mr. Hesemann on your campaign so he can sue you for compensation!" Still, the third-person nature of the whole spiel—'I will inform him so that he can sue you' (for apparently true and not in any obvious sense offensive statements, too)— makes it pretty un-alarming to my sense. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC).
• Yeah, it's all a bit...well, pathetic. I actually edit-conflicted with you Bish; I was going to do the same thing. It's an interesting affair, by the way, and I hope that Herr Schnyder finds other things to do here besides edit-warring. The BLP exemption does not apply, in case that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• One more thing: it's pretty clear to me why we see efforts to erase the UFO past--it's an attempt at becoming a more serious persona. "One of the most important religious historians in the world": I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see that claim made on the pages of a supposed reliable source. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Bish et al, this is getting funner and funner. Have a look at Talk:Michael Hesemann, for that preposterous claim about a multitude of Hesemaenner. I think that maybe some administrative tools, or a consensus about a topic ban of some sort, could come in handy. I wish Dougweller, DGG, or Randykitty would drop by to have a look at the article and its editor(s); I have seen no evidence, for instance, that the subject is actually an academic (with a degree and all that). Yes, we are dealing with a long-term cleanup effort, a whitewashing operation. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The latest edits came from an IP in Düsseldorf, the subject's place of birth and 'place of activity' .

Also compare:

• "Obviously there are two writers with the same name. There is also a third Michael Hesemann who is involved in microbiology and fossiles. Probably they were mixed up by this "ufoevidence" web site!" HSchnyder on English Misplaced Pages, 2 January 2011
• "1990, Hesemann was 26. So still a student. 'Well known' he became not through his folkloristic material collections on the UFO myth, for if he were well known, then at least a single big publisher would have asked him to write a book on the topic. Instead he self-published (!) everything, machine typed and hectographied, as was common at the time for minimal runs. Then in 1994 a mini-publisher called "Silberschnur" published one of his books on the topic, 1997 he wrote for Falken the hobby guidebook "UFOs over Germany" with practical hints how to examine UFOs and identify them as weather balloons, stars and advertising zeppelines. In the same year his bestseller "Secret Matter Fatima appeared, which saw 8 reprints since then. Another year later in another mass publisher, Herder, "The Jesus Plate". That is, Hesemann 'became well known', big publishers published him and he wrote bestsellers, when he concentrated on church historical topics." - My translation from Hschnyder on German Misplaced Pages, 3 February 2013
• "The additions are a mix up with another author with the same name and part of an anti-Catholic slander campaign, startet on German wikipedia." Edit summary HSchnyder on English Misplaced Pages, 11 February 2013
• Unified account: Special:CentralAuth/HSchnyder
• Hschnyder account on German Misplaced Pages (blocked as non-constructive SPA since 4 February)

Clearly the story has changed from 'never happened' to youthful folly over the years. HSchnyder/Hschnyder is evidently aware that it's a good strategy to be consistent over time. He does not seem aware that one should also be consistent over space.

Also, if we assume that the youthful folly variant of the story is closest to the truth, then the subject has merely moved from UFO fringe to Catholic miracle fringe. Oh, and Falken-Verlag (where one of his UFO books appeared) was one of the 15 biggest German publishers in Germany in 1991. Practically all bookshops stock many of their guidebooks. Hans Adler 08:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked HSchnyder, semiprotected article. WP:BLP goes both ways: deliberately lying about the subject of a BLP is unacceptable, no matter if it's done to defame them or to defend them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

hi, i'm the author who was threatened by Hschnyder. in the german wiki we've had this issue (threats, edit wars) for years, and it's always been Hschnyder or anonymous IPs who removed the UFO history from the article and kept inserting ad-like praises for hesemann's theological works. i've returned to the german article after a long time when i read in a renowned german newspaper that a court in hamburg ruled against hesemann in mid january. i contacted the court and got this case confirmed. so, a new struggle began, mainly by other users, who fought for the pargraph about the court case - while Hschnyder was reverting and calling the autors dumb, anti-catholic and biased. Hschnyder finally got blocked infinitely.

then i walked to the english article about hesemann and found that it was even more an ad and praise. not a word about the UFO past. i did nothing more than inserting quite briefly the UFO-background plus hesemann's involvement in extremely conservative catholic circles (with source, of course) and cutting down several, but certainly not all non-encyclopedic sentences such as "the pope thanked hesemann...", "and he thanked hesemann again...".

being a journalist i met hesemann personally at the UFO world conference 1995 in düssedorf. i have nothing personal against him, as Hschnyder suggests. and, yes, i'm here under my real name. best, Maximilian (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well done everybody. Nice catch, Dawn, and special thanks to Hans and Maximilian. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

Eyes needed at TfD

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

Strange things are going on at Template:Infobox invisible and the TfD for that template. At the moment I don't even trust that my last comment at the TfD will survive with the old version link intact. Going to bed anyway, and would appreciate a pair of eyes or two. Hans Adler 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well you got a pair of eyes, and what I saw was an extremely WP:POINTy template that never should have been created and is more than ripe for deletion. I don't know what makes you think you can screw around like that and then come crawling here with complaints about being mistreated. I also don't know what your purpose is here, but the majority of us are trying to build an encyclopedia and aren't indulging in sophomoric b.s. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While you are here, maybe an admin would like to examine your POINT violation? Problem 1: CSD nomination during ongoing TfD. Problem 2: Borderline fraudulent reason, as the template only became orphaned through this and I mentioned the fact at the TfD. You knew about both problems, as you !voted at the TfD. Hans Adler 07:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against a CSD nomination with an ongoing xFD if an editor believes the page qualifies for deletion under speedy criteria. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Which it does. Given that template has no purpose other than to propagate HA's pointy views, it's utterly crap and some admin ought to step up and delete it, and give HA a kick in the tush for creating it. I don't know why he's here, but building an encyclopedia seems to be really far down on his list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

BMK, Two things: firstly, please could you stop attacking Adler simply because you disagree with him. You have no idea what his motives are here and trying to smear him with your above post is unnecessary. Secondly, you are involved in pushing your POV a little too far. You have your say in the TfD, which is OK, but your deletion of a fair amount of matierial on the template looks a little too POINTy: please wait for the TfD to run its course, or at least try and discuss the material on the template's talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My IP Stalker and Vandal is back

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

My IP User:117.193.52.10 stalker is back. Please protect my pages.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User Ash Loomis

Seriously inappropriate approach to other editors and a confrontational approach expressed on his talk page: I'll eat your cunt bitch, literally! Fuck you! Go ahead and block me or whatever! I don't give a rat's ass you fucking piece of bitch trash shit! is just one example. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this person just wants attension, I say ban the fucker! Ash Loomis (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your wish, etc. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ash has been reported to WP:AIV (not sure if that's the right venue). Even so, it doesn't end there - take a look at Talk:Punisher; Ash has continued her string of insults against Chaheel Riens there; and added some odd comments on Chaheel's talk page. hmssolent\Let's convene 08:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do find myself wondering if this account may have been compromised - the recent series of edits seems pretty extreme and trollish, but Ash has been here for many years as a (comparatively) trouble-free editor. Any thoughts? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Before you blocked the account, I was about to write that it seemed compromised. The comments are quite out of character compared with previous talk page edits. At the moment it's all a bit odd. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; having undertaken a more thorough review of Ash's interaction history, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm pretty certain the account is compromised; the behavioural differences (plus the request for a ban, above) are too extreme to suggest otherwise. I've amended the block accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be his younger brother. Happened before. And the offending edit, or one of them, was Seems like something someone's unsupervised immature punk little brother might do. Dream Focus 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If he requests unblock, tell him to keep his brother off his account, and give him some ROPE. —Rutebega (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal threats?

This diff looks like a personal threat (and a strange "outing")to me:

This is your last warning, your lies and dubious assertions are seriously damaging the way I make my living and I reserve the right to hold all such editors personally libel. My request is that you hide your prejudices better or just don’t have an article at all. Furthermore, if I get one of your sanctified scholars to admit that “scholarly analogies have been drawn between the two traditions” I am warning the editor again, I, of 68.32.41.19 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC), will locate such individuals and attempt to ask them about such gross omissions in person. If camping is permitted outside of your dwelling, I, and every vagrant I can find to join my cause, will plan to set up camp!

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats (specifically for the deliberately chilling effect of the above message, though the mention of intent to hold individual editors personally responsible for libel was the kicker). Retraction of the statement should lead to a lifting of the block. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They probably meant "hold all such editors personally liable". Liable for libel, you see. The private army of vagrants camping out is "liable" to cause quite a stink! Hey Bugs: you out there? Or has he been totally chased off of this page by the humorless? A shame... Doc talk 08:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't considered that. I never make such speling mistakes myself, you see.

I'm going to leave the block as is, but I've no objection if someone else wants to remove it; just go right ahead. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of a lack of a legal threat the post is indeed still an attempt at intimidation, so the block is good. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those rules of legal threats: Editors only use the word libel when they mean liable; when they mean to say libel, they say slander. — PinkAmpers& 11:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So I did some digging. If I understand this right, the author self-published a book on Jan 3, 2013 that contradicts our Misplaced Pages articles on the subject. Articles that pre-date his book by 7+/5+ years each. And he is accusing us of libel for it? Good luck, good block.--v/r - TP 14:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we really have two different articles on the non-intermingling of two different religions? Please don't tell me this is another international relations quagmire. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please erase this edit

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

In this edit someone's name, address and telephone number was repeatedly published. I undid the edit, but could someone make it invisible? We don't know if it is the ip-editor's own information or someone else. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 09:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Revdel'd and oversight requested. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Lova Falk talk 09:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sanillin1

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

Could I have an admin please look at User:Sanillin1's edit history? He has previously demanded that the content of Billava be replaced with content from another wiki (because ours is just all wrong, despite being verified by reliable sources), and now that he's autoconfirmed, is just removing info he doesn't like from the article. The article, like all South Asian caste/tribe articles is on discretionary sanctions, and the user has been warned of this (see User Talk:Sanillin1#Caste warning. I am likely WP:INVOLVED on the article, so I can't act as an admin there. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

College name in Royal College, Colombo

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

The many variations of the school's name used in local news papers have become a source of requests to list all names in the article. To sort this problem a section called College name was created. It has turned into a two line section and suggestions to move the contents to the lead have not met with consensus. Furthermore the inclusion of the term "Colombo Royalists" based on two news articles that both are unclear and ambiguous. Assistance is kindly requested to help sort out this impasse and fix the lead. Cossde (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The administrators' noticeboard is not a generic dispute escalation channel, especially when you haven't commented on the article's talk in nearly three months. Try WP:3O. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Or WP:DRN if need be. Blackmane (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Need the eyes of an uninvolved admin

I need someone to look over my shoulder and help smooth some hard feelings, perhaps offer feedback. Recently another editor (Tedickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has reverted (ex:,,) edits by ip 76.184.46.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because in that editor's opinion, the ip user's repeated insertion on ACW battle pages of links from a single website (thomaslegion.net) constituted spamlike activity (ex:,,). The ip user proceeded to delete other links from such pages, using edit summaries which claimed that Tedickey's standard was being applied (ex:,,). I mentioned this to Ted, and he and I pondered what to do. I placed a message on the ip's talk page admonishing the editor for such point-like deletions. I'll concede my language wasn't overpolite; I'll concede that not all of the ip's deletions were poorly founded. After leaving some messges on Ted's and the ip's own talk pages, the editor requested (in edit summary) a "senior party" to look over the situation. I'd rather not ask an admin I know, for obvious reasons. BusterD (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a plethora of "perhaps it would have been better to ..." but that's by the by. At this point, rather than argue about it, a trip off to the the appropriate noticeboard is probably the best thing to do. There's plenty more experienced eyes there. Yes, their actions were pointed even though there were justified deletions but nothing that would rise to anything blockable. Feathers have been ruffled, it could have been dealt with better but lets try at least to make sure that the follow-up actions are done in a gentlemanly (or ladylike) manner. Blackmane (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok

Two weeks ago, I fully protected the article on Jung Myung Seok in order to stop an edit war. I've told people to hash out their concerns on the talk page and take intractable disagreements over WP:NPOV or WP:RS to the approprate noticeboards, but the opposing sides appear to be not much closer to a consensus now than they were before I intervened, and I fear the edit war will simply pick up where it left off when the article becomes unprotected in a little under 24 hours from now. I've tried to guide the parties toward middle ground, but if blocks or other measures become necessary, I feel I'm too WP:INVOLVED now to be seen by everyone as neutral. I'd be grateful here if some uninvolved admins could keep an eye on this article and be ready to act as appropriate if things get out of hand. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--v/r - TP 18:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Lectonar (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or we head it off at the pass. Block/ban McAuthor and MrTownCar as SPAs who have no other business here but to whitewash this article. They've managed to edit-war and wikilawyer to the point of protection, where they have had their favorite version (which screams out for attention, and I'm about to heed the call) up for two weeks now. I'm stepping in and will use my magic admin powers to make this a less promotional piece, one that shows more respect for what we consider to be reliable sources, which discusses the trial in neutral terms, which doesn't pretend that opinions given are to be considered factual statements--and one which doesn't blatantly blame the victims. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I gotta say, that's about the worst I've seen, BLP-wise. Rich, it would not have been an abuse of your magic admin powers to have restored UKexpat's version (supported by a number of other editors) by citing our BLP policy. I hope some other admins will scrutinize the competing versions and the apparent interests of the two main editors responsible for that atrocious piece of promotional apologetics. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Careful, based on past experience, MrTownCar will accuse you and me of being sockpuppets.--ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • MrTownCar will find himself in a heap of trouble regardless if he continues to edit in the same vein. Let's see what happens tomorrow. If this ANI thread doesn't prompt action if action is necessary, BLPN is next, with or without ANEW, and then ANI and AN again if needs be. Possibly SPI since I have suspicions of my own. And now I'm all out of acronyms. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Guerrilla of the Renmin removing links to China in many articles

User:Guerrilla of the Renmin has unlinked China in many, many articles, citing WP:OVERLINK as the reason. See his/her user contributions: . There seems to be no overlinking in these articles, and it is only ever China that is unlinked, so for example we may get lists of countries with just one link missing, e.g. . GotR has been warned that this is not how to do things by both me and User:Djsasso. However he/she seems to be adamant that his/her actions were correct. See User talk:Guerrilla of the Renmin#Overlinking to China. He/she seems to have stopped editing for the time being, but I suspect he/she will continue later. Please can an admin intervene? Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And in a blatant breach of etiquette, GoR just removed this thread: . Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please erase this edit

One more edit today that included an address. Could someone see to it so it is no longer visible? Lova Falk talk 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards