Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:08, 26 September 2015

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 37 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 103 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 83 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 73 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has slowed on the RFC. TarnishedPath 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 116 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 82 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 22 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 9 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Possibly dangerous external link

Not sure if this is an appropriate place for such notice. If not, please move it to a better place.

Page Music education for young children, reference 5. from www.brighthubeducation.com – when I shift+click it to open in a new window, my MSIE 11 hangs up for a moment and then it says it closed the page to protect my computer... Can anyone check, please, if the page is actually dangerous? If so, probably the link should be removed? --CiaPan (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was feeling adventurous so I loaded it in Chrome and Firefox, no warnings. I will say the page looks completely different in the browsers, even the colors are radically different, plus Firefox showed two huge ads (I have adblock plus installed in Chrome). Whatever malware testing service MS is using, they are either extra smart and catching something Chrome and Firefox can't, or more likely it is a configuration or other error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's likely misbehavior by one of the third-party ad/tracking networks they use. Ghostery blocks a bunch of them and I had no issues loading the page. However the source does not back up the content cited and I don't see why Germany is specifically mentioned in the article. --NeilN 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Other odd things:

• If you send it a GET / HTTP/1.0 it returns HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden but if you sent it a GET / HTTP/1.1 it returns HTTP/1.1 200 OK.
• If you disable javascript it sends you to http://www.brighthubeducation.com/distil_r_blocked.html
• It sends you different content depending on what browser you claim to be in the user agent string.

I don't think they are serving any malware, but I do think they are trying to be overly clever with browser sniffing, and that Misplaced Pages should not link to this URL for the simple reason that we don't know what the person clicking on the link will get. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a report should be filed at WP:SBL then. Erpert 00:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you do that, please? I don't feel fluent enough in English, in Misplaced Pages policies and in technical details of browser-HTTP-server communication to prepare a good report. --CiaPan (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can make a report, and am pretty much an expert on technical details HTTP requests/responses, but first, do we have a consensus that an otherwise benign website that (in my opinion) is overly clever with browser sniffing should be blocked? Misplaced Pages does browser sniffing. When I fake my user agent to say I am an iPhone I get the mobile version without asking for it (with a link to the desktop version in case Misplaced Pages gets it wrong, which in my opinion makes the browser sniffing OK). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

26 pages link to the website, only six are contained in articles. I have no opinion really, just some data. Keegan (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like someone removed the link from the article. That's just as well. That's basically a content farm site stuffed with ads, anyway. See Demand Media for a bigger player in that industry. Misplaced Pages shouldn't send people to sites like that. Not WP:RS. The site itself didn't show any technical problems, but then I'm looking at it from Firefox on Linux with heavy ad blocking, and probably never got the bad stuff, if any. John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban from reference desks

It is with sad heart that I propose to topic ban User:Sagittarian Milky Way from the reference desks. At the worst, he's trolling. At the best, he's phenomenally unhelpful, and totally uninterested in helping with the primary function of the Ref Desks, which is to provide users who have questions with either Misplaced Pages articles and/or external references to help them find the answers to questions they may have. Sagittarian Milky Way seems to be primarily interested in using it as a chat room, and more troublingly, with putting forth an offensive personal agenda. Recent diffs from recent days include BLP-level violations pondering the sexual attractiveness of female U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Religious bigotry, a long Personal political rant, etc. That's just from the past 24-48 hours. It has to stop. The ref desks are not supposed to be the "comment section" from HuffPost. It's supposed to be a place where users can get links to further reading on topics that they don't understand, full stop. I hate to have to do something like this, but I am having a hard time finding much redeeming contributions from Sagittarian Milky Way on the ref desks, the above links are not comprehensive, but rather merely a sampling of his recent contributions. For that reason I formally propose a full ban from the Ref Desks for Sagittarian Milky Way. --Jayron32 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Jayron32 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support This user is always on the edge, usually asking the sort of science questions you'd get from a smart pre-teen. The inappropriateness shown at Humanities as mentioned by Jayron is all-too often over the edge. But even good questions usually devolve into nonsense and show a lack of true interest in the topic. I decided deliberately after this post which I put over an hour into answering that I would not answer him again on any question. Since then I have noticed several of his posts and not been surprised by their disruptive nature. I have changed my vote back from "final warning" I see he's been talked to about this behavior and the response below evinces no conscientiousness of the issue. At the least a block is a good idea, and a topic ban is fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I guess I don't have much to defend besides that I wasn't trolling. Trolling is intentional. You people really don't believe that one could live to teenagerhood in New York City before seeing an animal mate in real life outside a zoo? I hadn't okay. I'm not judging it unreasonable if some people wanted to do that, not that was I sure they existed or not and don't mind either way. I didn't make anything up, especially not to troll. People on the Ref Desk and other parts of non-article space not hidden their political views all the time, some left of most of the US, some right of US center. Have they gotten banned for it? I do appear to have violated WP:BLP. Removed. I haven't erased anything on my talk page, Medeis. Oh, and the Magic School Bus was where I learned many years ago the very simple thing of which color is absorbed by what if you're still wondering why I said that. That cultural reference might not be understood by other generations. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • That ANI question was only hypothetical, honest. I worry about low probability terrible things that could happen to me often. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • And then you were all acting like that really happened. Sheesh, that never happened (but I guess that was an unanswerable question for the desk in any form anyway). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Pedantically, I wasn't actually pondering Justices' sexual attractiveness either, as I was thinking about whether I liked or might like their younger faces before and after I saw them and I already knew their recent sexual attractiveness levels. Also I didn't look up their 20th century pictures just now to have (offensive) examples, that pondering happened 6 years ago and I was just recounting it. Clearly I need to be more conscientious before saving. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

SMW, I'd recommmed you read WP:Competence is required. I have changed my vote back to ban in the face of your response. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Contributions highly suggest trolling. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, although I don't think he's a troll exactly. Sometimes people just don't know how to act appropriately on the Internet, whether because of age or brain chemistry or both. I remember being dumb and annoying on the Internet once too. For starters, it would help a lot if he asked himself "does anyone really want to hear about my masturbation habits?" Because the answer is always "no, just no." Adam Bishop (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Taking up far too much space with inappropriate content, demonstrating persistent poor judgment = abuse of the RD. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if may opinion may count since im not a regular, but has Jayron already warned SGM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.79.50 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my evaluation of the situation, "Sagittarian Milky Way" fails to appreciate the potential for intellectual accomplishment in the Reference desks and tries too hard to bring his own version of intellectual accomplishment to the desks. This results in longwinded (for the Reference desks) creative writing such as this. I didn't even read that. I may be missing the next great writer. But it would be somewhat off-target to call this trolling, in my estimation, because the intention is to contribute to/participate in the dialogue taking place. While the Reference desks are not a chat room there are ample examples of asides that we all participate in. I would give "Sagittarian Milky Way" another chance to try to stay more on topic. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am somewhat sympathetic with that, and was thinking a medium-length block might be better. But then SMW could not be guided towards actual contributions to the project, since he couldn't contribute at all. So I think a topic ban, which he could appeal after, say, six months, by pointing to his contributions to the project makes a lot more sense. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Trolling, bad judgement, whatever, since it doesn't matter. The end result is that the individual doesn't need to be working the reference desk if that is the kind of participation we can expect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Even though the instruction near the top of each ref desk stating "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" is ignored at times there is a difference between "participating" in a thread and "initiating" it. There are plenty of other places on the interwebs where SMW can turn to for this sort of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Multiple Socks? This user has long seemed to resemble other trollesque users quite closely. Currently we have a questioon by Justin545 here. This user has been trolling the refdesks and the site for more than half a dozen years, with the same typical subjects. See this 157K edit on "Gravitational Field vs. Electric Force Field. Why?" I suggest an SPI be performed as well, since the topical overlap is quite obvious. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Obviously unsuitable for the refdesks, and SMW's comments above make it appear they are unsuitable for Misplaced Pages—we don't care if a pattern of behavior is intentional trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - SMW is at times off-point, and needs to better learn our community standards. But I do believe his intent is not to disrupt. And if we're going to topic ban ref desk users who don't intend to disrupt but still do disrupt on occasion, then there's several users I'd ban before SMW. A WP:TROUT and a firm suggestion to think twice about posting should suffice. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support; whether this is intentional trolling or genuine stupidity doesn't matter—his continued presence at the reference desks is serving no useful purpose and wasting other people's time. 9% edits to mainspace pretty much says it all. @SemanticMantis, "there are other trolls at the reference desks" is certainly true, but the cleanup has to start somewhere. ‑ iridescent 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My recollection was that SMW has provided good refs and info in the past. But I could be mistaken. Maybe @Sagittarian Milky Way: could provide a list of diffs that show their good, helpful replies. Failing that kind of evidence, the !votes seem to be showing support for topic banning. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Search for my name ] which is an oldid with a lot of my posts. I had things to do today which explains why it took so long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per SemanticMantis. Although I agree that SMW's posts are more entertaining than informative and are in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, SMW is by no means the only regular contributor to the reference desks who uses them to express political opinions and personal beliefs, rather than providing sourced answers to questions. If SMW is banned, I think we need to clearly establish which element of his behaviour distinguishes him from the many other contributors who have not been banned for similar reasons. If it's lack of constructive contributions, that's probably OK. If it's his sexual (or, worse, political) opinions that make the difference, that isn't. I wouldn't have any major objections if some other offenders against WP:NOTFORUM were banned from the reference desks, but I don't see why SMW, in particular, is being singled out for sanctions while others are left free to amuse themselves on the desks. Tevildo (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Or we could warn then topic ban the other regular contributors to the reference desks who use them to express political opinions and personal beliefs rather than providing sourced answers to questions. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would support that - if SWM is to be sanctioned, then others who do the same thing should be sanctioned. The issue will be setting the limits of "the same thing". Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I do "the other thing". Interjecting my opinions and beliefs with the sourced answers, not rather than. That's not to say I can source those opinions and beliefs, so I'm still filling heads with unsourced and unprofessional information, but that's just the gravy, not the meat. We can not give up on the gravy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Tevildo. I was on the fence at first before his/her argument. Erpert 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support completely uninvolved; I hardly ever even look at the ref desks, but that first diff (and really that whole thread) has me sold here. The ref desks are in effect public-facing positions; not only BLP violations but the level of juvenile sexism in general is not appropriate. The other links and comments suggest that we're getting a mostly-unfiltered view of an immature internal monologue. There's plenty of other places on the internet to do that if you really must. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, not so much because there are other editors who also disrupt the Reference Desk equally, which there are, so much as because I see that no one has admonished or cautioned User:Sagittarian Milky Way on his own talk page that his posts to the Reference Desk have been inappropriate. He hasn't been warned at all. I recommend that this thread be closed as No Consensus in favor of a topic-ban, but with a link on his talk page as a formal warning. The idea that vandals have to be given four escalating warnings before they are blocked is a myth, but the idea of giving a clueless good-faith editor one warning should not just be a myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I can find no warning and no diffs of warnings have been provided. Although many of the contributions to the Reference Desk have been problematic, I see no evidence that User:Sagittarian Milky Way is not willing to listen. I agree with Robert McClenon's analysis. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  Really, guys? Read the whole thread in that first diff. We can't ask someone to stay out of a public-facing position because no one warned him that it was an inappropriate place to discuss what makes him horny? Facepalm Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the diffs really show anything rising to the level of a ban, yeah, some of the comments were juvenile, but that's about it, and Opabinia_regalis Like I said, his comment was juvenile, but the reality of wikipedia is: WP:NOTCENSORED KoshVorlon 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I think everyone's heard enough of that anyway, I'm going to keep it to myself. The point was you're going to affect many males too much if everyone goes topless, because humans have hidden estrus. Who knows, maybe me and my father's sex drive is not actually near average (at least for the desk) which makes it sound too exaggerated to not be trolling? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought saying this was futile but it's clearly not now.

Okay, I get it, 1. This is too far with explicitness even if there's a point (satire, showing that an opinion's not from repression or prudishness, etc). 2. Self-coitus mentions aren't just somewhat disturbing. 3. If I'm too lazy to show sources, find more than an iota to add, edit (or even read) long posts till they stop flowing terribly, or analyse until deciding the least miscontruable way to say something, then wait till I'm interested enough in a topic to do those things. 4. If I'm too lazy to analyse exactly where to cut an interesting line that's going too off-topic then default to cut.

If I was warned I would've stopped. The only other time I was brought to AN didn't exactly inspire confidence in the idea that significant numbers of people are objecting (to say the least), that's why I kept on. It's unfortunate that these posts all bunched up around the same time (and that a racist troll was right before the mine), but less bunched up posts like this would not be an ANI and the bunching up is unavoidable per the law of truly large numbers unless I changed and didn't decide to push my luck here. I think if I hadn't pressed the button at the top and even saw the racist question before it was deleted I wouldn't have asked the fundamentalist Q just because of the appearance of bad faith. Otherwise, if I knew someone would get offended (especially unconvincably), I would've thought until I asked "Does anyone have evidence of someone saying people shouldn't go to zoos before a certain age?" Full stop. At least it would just sound like a non-sequitur at worst.

And what's with the sockpuppet oversuspiciousness? Like a guy who's user page is pages of nearly 100% programming is so obviously me (who hasn't made a single question that shows knowledge of any programming language). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per I am One of Many. Ssscienccce (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Trying to imagine how Reference Desk is perceived by women and religious minorities, in particular, when such disruptive, non-productive and highly offensive editing is allowed to continue. Let an example be made and enforce same standard of civil Misplaced Pages behavior on others if problems persist. This disturbing pattern of tolerated behavior is affecting my motivation and ability to contribute to Reference Desk in good conscience. I will not be tarred by association with such. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a religious minority and I can easily tolerate this. For what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

• Based on recent actions, and the general trends here, I'm inclined to let this matter drop, and withdraw my support for a ban. SMW has changed significantly since the discussion started, and has both apologized, changed their behavior considerably, and tried to make amends. I'm inclined to let this go as a "lesson learned the hard way" matter, and per WP:ROPE, let SMW know he's on a short leash from now on... --Jayron32 18:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support but amend proposal to suspended topic ban There's a sufficient consensus that a topic ban could be levied. Instead, as a show of good faith, the current consensus is suspended for 1 month with a view that further disruption within that period will lead to an automatic enforcement of the topic ban. Should further disruption occur after the 1 month moratorium, a new consensus for a topic ban should be sought so that this consensus won't be viewed as a Sword of Damocles. Blackmane (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Robert McClenon above, who has pointed out that the editor has received no warning, no counsel, and little by way of a complaint. Let us not just jump straight to the gallows, but follow the usual process and give him a chance to make amends and show a willingness to change. -- Jack of Oz 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• "No counsel"? Are you under the misapprehension that Misplaced Pages is a judicial system? BMK (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Jack meant counsel in the sense of counseling rather than legal counsel. Blackmane (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose largely along the lines of SemanticMantis and Robert McClenon. Most standards on the refdesk are not effectively upheld, and while many of SMW's contributions are silly and/or inappropriate, it would be very easy for a new user to get the impression from regulars that the refdesk is a place for joking around and musing guesswork. Without a warning to the contrary while regulars receive endless warnings with no action, a topic ban seems inappropriate. In the only recent case I can think of of someone being effectively topic banned from the refdesks, the person had to go so far as to repeatedly declare an explicit intent to continue disregarding rules/standards (and contempt for Misplaced Pages in general). SMW, to the contrary, seems to be expressing that he's taking something away from this thread. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for a block

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

Since the issue about Hijiri 88 has been ongoing since … ages? I am now officially asking to be blocked from editing en.wikipedia. I am sure as there is a procedure for almost anything here there must be one for that one too. Me not to request this step would actually support Hijirii88’s ongoing tactics which to my mind are sick. I am sick of quoting diffs but the named user’s activity within the category of Nichiren Buddhism will factually disable me to further contribute to the project without violating the current IBAN – Nichiren Buddhism is my expertise and so far I was able to discuss issues on a sane level – even outside Misplaced Pages. I acquired this expertise by practising Nichiren Buddhism, being part of a NRM and afterwards seeking NEUTRAL information. My request for a topic ban for Hijirii88 on Nichiren Buddhism was factually declined. Since de.wikipedia works on a slightly different mode I will be able to contribute still with less conflict and focused on the project’s purpose. On a very private note, and why not stating this here, I am professionally unable to deal with, what to my mind are, clear mental issues. Who would have thought that highlighting the little Kenji man’s (Kenji Miyazawa) bibliographical skeletons in the closet would lead to all this. Dealing with Hijrii88 is nerve racking as long one does not agree. Personally I find the complete deletion of sources and refs manipulative as this medium does allow for means to keep them visible to the reader even though one might fail to disagree on the article’s wording … so much for no censoring on Misplaced Pages. This all turns to a kindergarten level and I do have a job, family etc. and let there be no doubt about it, my participation here was also part of a healing process coming out of a cult. Dealing with the SGi article under current guidelines is futile though. Cheers for nothing and sorry for having waffled on. So please just block me :-) As you guys do not seem to care what information is made public so why should I --Catflap08 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I am not in a position to stop an administrator from blocking the above individual if they so see fit. However, I do think that, if he honestly believes his comments above, which I have no doubt he does, perhaps the better alternative for the project as a whole would be to request that ArbCom review the situation and decide whether there is sufficient support for his allegations and, if they find that there is, they might be able to take some sort of action which would reduce the likelihood of further troubles for all those involved in the future, through whatever form of sanctions ArbCom might choose to impose. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08, aside from John Carter's suggestion, my answer is Not at the moment for two reasons. (1) What kind of block? Indefinite or for a specified period of time? Do you want to be able to create another account, or not? Do you want to be autoblocked or not? Do you want to retain talk page access? I'm open to granting a self-block request, but only if I know exactly what you want. (2) Are you sure this is the best choice? Remember that you have the right to vanish: if you wish, you can simply stop editing here, with no block required. This is a good deal simpler, if for no other reason than that if you change your mind, you can pick right up again on editing, with no need to request unblock and no risk of someone contesting your request (believe me, this happens!), let alone no one misreading your block log to say "Catflap's been blocked twice!" So, (3) Tell us that yes, you understand RTV but you still want to be blocked, and specify the block settings, and I'll block you if nobody else responds first, but just remember that it's not a good idea in many situations. Odd to see that I was the one who levied your original block; I don't remember the incident. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08, I encourage you to take a wikibreak (a week? a month? longer?) and return to editing when you feel like you can make a positive contribution. It sounds like you are burned out on conflict in your subject area. I know I was absent a few months and came back with a much healthier attitude. But if you insist that you want to be blocked, you can approach admins, like Bishonen who I know are willing to impose a self-requested block if you meet her criteria. But I encourage a bit of time away first, in can help you get a perspective on where editing Misplaced Pages fits into your life. Liz 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And just to note, we wouldn't be here if an uninvolved admin had closed the last fracas between these two instead of leaving it for an ineffective do-nothing NAC close. BMK (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Liz; WP:RTV might be the healthiest option here. Erpert 01:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't going to comment here because this is not a discussion of our IBAN but rather a discussion of Catflap08's supposed decision not to edit Misplaced Pages anymore, so my posting here might be an IBAN violation. Also, there has been no incident between me and Catflap08 for weeks, so I don't know what brought this on. But since Catflap08 invited me I guess I will. Catflap08 should have been blocked his lack of ability to edit Misplaced Pages constructively (without engaging in original research and misrepresentation of sources), his complete lack of talk page etiquette (he seems incapable of disputing something without resorting to sarcasm and personal attacks) and his general tendency to take anything personally. I have no idea why he wasn't blocked years ago. I'm frankly sick of the Misplaced Pages community's inability to deal with the Catflap08 problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for once again displaying your rather pathetic grasp of policies and guidelines. I know few editors of any experience who would mistake a notification for an invitation. I think this may well qualify as another violation of the i-ban on this individual's part, and would welcome the input of @Dennis Brown: or @Drmies: on that. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Hijiri? You are not helping. Erpert 02:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for ban violation; this was not a case of "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum", to quote WP:BANEX. I welcome input from Dennis Brown or Drmies (or anyone else, for that matter) regarding (1) whether the block were appropriate in the first place, and if so, (2) whether the length were appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As Hijiri had said moments before being blocked, these two hadn't interacted in weeks, and suddenly Catflap feels overwehlmed by Hijiri's presence on Misplaced Pages? And requests to be blocked as oposed to walking away from the project or vanishing? I would like Catflap to at least explain his thought process in that respect. I also agree with BMK; if admins had been willing to deal with the problem instead of a you'll-get-in-trouble-next-time slap on the wrist this would have been resolved years ago.

Nyttend just wondering, how was Catflap's post here not an IBAN violation? I thought simply mentioning the other editor's username was sanctionable? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There is some scope for seeking a review of an IBAN on the admin noticeboards without drawing a block. One could view this as an unusual review of the IBAN. Also, endorse Nyttend's block. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: I don't see how you interpreted this as a review of the IBAN. He wasn't requesting for the IBAN to be removed or modified in any way. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said it's an, read "my", unusual interpretation, but let's not quibble over the semantics here as that is entirely another discussion and not really relevant or germane to the point being discussed here. Blackmane (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I endorse John Carter's ArbCom suggestion, basically as per BMK. This has been going on for months, and it's seems too "hot" for any Admin to tackle, so it's probably time this was passed on to ArbCom to see if they can finally take a crack at resolving this once and for all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Block of Hijiri

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

• Oh FFS, you block Hijiri for responding to an AN where another editor who is in a mutual interaction ban with him posts a self-serving 'Look at me, I am so sad and want to be blocked from wikipedia because of this bad person' post that is *entirely* about Hijiri and blames all of Catflaps woes on Hijiri? Terrible bad block. If anything its deliberate baiting to get someone to violate their IB and should have been responded to with a block as soon as it went up. Disgusting. Did you actually READ what Catflap posted? "Me not to request this step would actually support Hijirii88’s ongoing tactics which to my mind are sick." There is almost no situation where this comment would be allowed to pass as its a)a personal attack, b)a violation of the interaction ban between them. This block needs to be either overturned or applied to both parties in fairness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cf. "mental issues": Why You May Be Passive-Aggressive, and Not Even Realize It zzz (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I second Only in death. Not only should Catflap's original post have been an IBAN violation in and of itself, this isn't even the first time he's claimed to be "retiring" because of Hijiri (this is the fourth in fact). There is an obvious double standard here. If Hijiri isn't going to be unblocked then Catflap should also be blocked (that's what he wants anyway right?). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Block of Catflap08

I've blocked Catflap08 for a week as well. If Hijiri replying to this section after being pinged and being directly discussed (with things like "Hijirii88’s ongoing tactics which to my mind are sick.") is sufficient to get a one-week block for an IBAN violation, then it is not really defensible that the original post would not get the same response. Fram (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's interesting, since he literally asked for it. Nyttend asked for my thoughts, and I am seriously not sure. I can see how, in this thread, what goes for Hijiri should go mutatis mutandis for Catflap. But what I agree with most in this discussion is Beyond My Ken's comment that an earlier ANI thread should have been acted on, one way or another, by an admin. Too many of us seem to be unwilling to wade into the muddy areas, with the result that they get muddier until someone takes it to ArbCom. In my view, sending cases like this one to ArbCom loudly proclaims our inability to handle things the way this community ought to handle it. Perhaps it's symptomatic of something larger--US politics seems to work the same way, with a legislation that can't handle anything properly and lets the Supreme Court decide. In this case I'd have preferred the blocks to be for NPA or something like that, but maybe that's just semantics, and at any rate we don't always seem to be able to decide what does and does not fall under an iBan. No, as BMK suggested, it would have been much better if topic bans had been issued for the two (that was one proposal) or for the one (that was another proposal). It's no use crying over spilt milk, but we will do it again in a few weeks' time. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Based on John Carter's words above, I've made a case request with Arbcom. Fram, if Catflap wants an unblock to participate in the case, would you mind unblocking? I've already promised Hijiri that I'll unblock if he asks to be unblocked to participate in the case. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see. BTW, after looking over your comments on Hijiri's talk page, I think you make a pretty cogent argument for the Hijiri block--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• @Nyttend:. I'm not as often around Misplaced Pages as I used to be. In general (and in this specific case), I have no problem with anyone unblocking or changing a block without discussion (although in such a case it is nice to be notified, like you did here). I do what I believe to be the best (within policies), I don't believe that I necessarily know better though. Fram (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Dalal Mughrabi

• Dear administrators, I wish to bring the page Dalal Mughrabi to your notice. There have been numerous attempts in the past 7-8 years to amend this page and use the word "terrorist" to describe Dalal. Please refer discussion here and here. I requested for semi-protection for this page (which was done till 28 Sep 15). May I request if the admins can consider placing WP:PCPP on this page for indefinite term? Kindly consider. Many thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you create a thread on the article talk page suggesting this and consensus agrees with you then I will be happy to do so. Another admin is welcome to have their own criteria though. HighInBC 16:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Hello HighInBC, reason I placed this request was that this page is subjected to constant POV disputes and it has been going on for 8 years now. I leave in your good hands. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Again, if you want my good hands to do this then I will want to see a consensus for it on the talk page. If it is a serious problem then you should have no problem finding agreement. Other good hands may feel differently. HighInBC 23:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Hello HighInBC, no need to mock what I said. I placed this request only in the interest of helping Misplaced Pages. Besides, I read WP:PC and it does not talk about consensus to be build for applying PC. It funny that requesting for PC meets "bureaucracy", whereas vandalizing a page for almost 10 years is a free ride for all? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was not mocking you, I was just engaging in a bit of humour. I am sorry if my personal standards for using my admin tools are considered bureaucracy by you, perhaps another admin will be willing to provide a simpler path. HighInBC 04:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for your time on this matter. Being from different parts of the world, lets say our sense of humor is different :-). I will leave the page in discussion to it's fate. Have a good day. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Topic Ban User:Swamiblue from editing Swaminarayan Related Pages due to long-term disruption

(Moved from AN/I. BMK (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC))

Basic Information

Based around Wayne State University, User:Swamiblue began disrupting Misplaced Pages beginning sometime around April 2013. The user earlier carried a host of controversial sock puppet account names and multiple IP addresses: Swamifraud, 6Duarf.imaws (which is a reversal of Swamifraud upon being warned to switch name), Duarfimaws, etc (a full list of user accounts can be accessed here see link and most recently carries the username User:Swamiblue.

List of Blocked accounts: (Note: non-exhaustive list - additional sock accounts exist)

• 6Duarf.imaws (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Swamifraud (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Priyadswami (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sageorsun (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Breadinglover (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Duarfimaws (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 141.217.233.132 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 141.217.233.69 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Earlier blocks were due to persistent sockpuppetry as seen through their initial block history. User declares on their talk page: "My expertise and general interest is with controversial topics within Hinduism". However, more than 99% of their disruptive edits are targeted towards Swaminarayan Hinduism showing account created for specific agenda.

Later blocks were for edit warring, persistent personal attacks and BLP violations (mainly targeting Swaminarayan’s current spiritual lineage guru: Pramukh Swami Maharaj). User even makes it evidently clear of their agenda with one of their sock account: “I am traveling to Rajkot, India and Siem Reap Province in Cambodia next month and have a scheduled appointment with the Mahant of that temple to go over the original Swamini Vato. BAPS has changed words in that book and I have enough evidence to make the claim that baps fundamentally has to change scriptures to make them fit their ideology. I have posted sent the link for the Aarti changes, Swamini Vato preliminary copies to researchers currently studying swaminaryan cults.” diff here. User has issues with punctuation and competency problems in comprehension of sources thus often ends up making copyright violations. None of this stops user from continuing their tendentious editing.

Earlier Blocks

Prior to listing Swamiblue’s current diffs evidencing user’s continuous disruption since the user was last unblocked in May 2015, I have also briefly listed user’s previous block logs to show that not much of user’s behavior has changed:

• Block Log 1
• Block Log 2 BLP Violation
  • See for a detailed BLP block
• Block Log 3 which also shows user is currently “Blocked for Personal attacks or harassment” for 48 hours:

Topic Ban Appeal

The reason for assembling all these diffs is to convey the fact that the user’s disruptive behavior hasn’t changed despite user’s repeated assurances that such behavior would stop. Based on this diff compilation, I would immediately appeal admin/community to (a) “topic ban” WP:TBAN the user from editing topics related to Swaminarayan (See this link for a full list of topics) due to user’s disruptive edits on this topic and/or (b) Preferably “page ban” and not “article ban” WP:PBAN the user from editing the following pages: Swaminarayan, BAPS, Pramukh Swami Maharaj, APJ Abdul Kalam, Shastriji Maharaj, and related pages since user has been posting content on talk page that violates BLP policies despite repeatedly blocked for such violation in addition to using the talk page as a forum and/or (c) Indefinitely block user from editing related pages to enforce the ban due to their continued disruption.

Such behavior disrupts the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference as it discourages editors from continuing to work on a project where they constantly have to deal with a user who behaves immaturely, ignores and constantly violates Misplaced Pages policies despite being regularly warned about doing so, engages in edit-warring, constantly makes unfounded COI accusations when user’s edits are not adopted, and continues to make willful BLP violations despite being warned several times. To attract sympathy when on the verge of being blocked, the user makes short-lived promises that user will correct such behavior - only to see all of this disruptive editing repeated once user is unblocked clearly indicating that user has little regard for the consequences of their persistent disruptive actions. Thus, I see an urgent need by admins to protect the encyclopedia due to Swamiblue's uncontrolled disruptive behavior, as demonstrated in the diffs discussed below. Such behavior needs to be immediately controlled or restricted by banning the user because in my opinion it has become way beyond excessive.

Diff Compilation after being Unblocked on May 2015

BLP Violation diffs

The article notes that, “In his final book, APJ Abul Kalam, explains that he considers Pramukh Swami as his guru”. User Swamiblue wrote on the talk page: “do not believe it is appropriate as pramukh swami was accused of rape and sexual assualt last year and it might bring negative attention to Dr. Kalam.” (diff here) The user had been warned earlier that such insertions on a talk page constitute BLP Violations and user had even been blocked for a similar issue in another article: (diff here) and here is the block log for the violation link here. When I or another editor had removed the offending material on Dr. Kalam’s page with an explanation that this is a BLP violation, Swamiblue is persistent to add it back stating “Not BLP violation. Discussing valid point”, despite having been blocked for a BLP violation previously: diff here

And more recently User, seemingly emboldened by any lack of consequence for his persistent violation, added the following edit on Pramukh Swami’s talk page: “Has anyone gotten news regarding this mans passing? I know any day now but some people have been posting on messenger services that this guy has croaked this weekend and someone else has taken over but so far that is not true unfortunately.” (diff here) Wishing for the death of one of the leaders of the Swaminarayan group shows not just a simple bias but a form of hatred. Not only is this a BLP violation, but the comment that “he is unfortunately not dead” should get user banned from editing any Swaminarayan related articles because of a conflict of interest that emerges even more clearly when we see that user appears to have a single purpose account (WP:SPA) with more than 95% of his 600+ edits related to the promotion of a particular point of view on articles related to Swaminarayan. That is, all of user’s disruptive edits are targeted towards Swaminarayan Hinduism, suggesting a conflict of interest. Based on his previous disruptive activity on Swaminarayan-related pages, such uncivil comments as wishing for someone’s death, the fact that user’s edits betray a single purpose account, user cannot be trusted to be neutral on topics related to Swaminarayan. Thus, I feel there is grounds that User:Swamiblue be banned from editing such topics due to their long-term abuse on such topics.

Personal Attack Diffs

(a) Diffs where user accuses other users of vandalism when his edit is reverted:

• “Reverted Vandalism Vandal erased everything including information that was agreed to be kept” - diff here
  • When he tried to contact other admins to complain, he was told, : “You contacted me, but this is a garden variety content dispute, something you calmly discuss on the talk page and hope to reach some sort of consensus. There is no vandalism, so drop that line of attack completely; content disagreements are explicitly not considered vandalism. The world is not going to come to an end in the time it takes to continue the conversation you're having here.”
• User responded back, either calling other editor’s edits vandalism or COI: “I should have not used the term vandalism but rather conflict of interest. I hope there are more people that are not directly involved with the group can be a part of this discussion.” diff here

Despite making an assertion "I should have not", User repeated accusations of vandalism and as a result is currently serving a block for personal attack.

(b) Diffs where user makes persistent and malicious accusations of COI without any evidence whenever their edits are contested:

If the User finds himself in the minority view in a talk page discussion, instead of factually responding to arguments, he constantly accuses other admins/editors of Conflict of Interest without any evidence.

• For example, instead of sticking to facts, user accused some editors saying, “you do not want this particular thing being shown about your temple” : (diff here)
• “there is a persistent conflict of interest from the users above but from their follow-ups, there intentions will be clear” (diff here)
• “Please wait for other administrators and users not affiliated with sect to give input: (diff here)
• “There is no consensus because several people in your claimed consensus have a conflict of interest in the group BAPS” (diff here)
  • Changes to “There is no consensus because several people in your alliance claimed consensus have a conflict of interest in the group BAPS.”
• User again accusses when edit reverted: “Also would you disclose if you are a member of this group as it would create a conflict of interest as per ” (diff here)
• “...because there are those users that have conflict of interest and even though it is due, they do not want this information on 'their' templed” (diff here)
• “Go ahead and call your friends to support you even though you have a strong conflict of interest as you a member of this group” (diff here)

(c) Diffs where user makes false accusations without any evidence:

• User sent a message to User:Abecedare “I was getting bullied there because they want to portray their building in a way that ignore all factual issues that came with it.“ diff here
• Notice board for India Related Topics - “There seems to be a group of swaminarayan followers who refuse to allow cited information in the article.” (diff here)

There is no evidence of any of user’s accusations, yet user continues to make persistent accusations that editors are vandals, have conflict of interest, and are bullying the user. User shows clear failure to engage with editors in a mature collegial manner.

Edit Warring diffs

Akshardham article:

• Reverts 1st time: “Reverted Vandalism Vandal erased everything including information that was agreed to be kept” - diff here
  • Accuses edits made in good-faith as vandalism for which admin warns him on talk page: “Please take the time to consider that Misplaced Pages policy does not consider content disputes, such as at Akshardham (Delhi)‎, to be WP:VANDALISM; and that unwarranted accusations of vandalism in edit summaries constitute personal attacks, and must be avoided. You've been doing this often, for quite a while, and it really must stop; the next time you refer to a good faith editor as a vandal, you'll likely find yourself blocked.” (diff here)
• User ignores this warning and reverts a 2nd time and also calls it Vandalism “Reverted Vandalism”: diff here
  • Admin warns user of edit-warring: “you are starting to tread the line of WP:EDITWAR and the spirit of WP:3R with your reverts. I prefer to see users productively editing and discussing problems properly and thoughtfully” - (diff here)
• User eventually is reported and gets blocked by admin for 48 hours block log when another editor reverts and accuses him/her of vandalism: “Reverted Vandalism or just misguided user” diff here
  • When admin warns user after getting them blocked, user continues to accuse: “There has been several new users that have been reverting that particular topic and it has been vandalism so I don't think that it was necessary to block me.”

BAPS article:

Also edit warring on BAPS page until admin User:Bbb23 blocked the page until Sept 19th:

• Reverts 1st time: diff here
  • Reverting disruptive content reinstated without requested talk page discussion: diff here
• Reverts 2nd time: diff here
  • (I reverted)
• Reverts 3rd time: diff here
  • Admin forced to protect page for edit warring: diff here

As soon as user was prevented from editing the BAPS due to page protection, user threatened to revert the BAPS page at an opportune time. “I am glad that I have gotten your attention because once I get a chance, I am updating that and expect to be reverted right away.” diff here

Soon after the protection was taken off, user began engaging in edit warring despite requests for talk page discussion from other editors. To the point of which another editor had to warn him: “Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts” diff here

Shastriji Maharaj article - mis-stating facts and reverting:

• Reverts the edit even after the incorrectness of the edit was demonstrated: diff here
  • Doesn’t respond to the arguments in the talk page and reverts: diff here

Reporting User:Swamiblue for BLP Violation, Personal Attacks, Edit warring, 3RR, POV-pushing, Tendentious and disruptive editing on Swaminarayan related pages (long-term abuse)

Summary

To summarize, the user has violated all of the following Misplaced Pages polices: WP:BLP, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:Outing (attempted outing), tendentious editing WP:TE, WP:CONSPIRACY, WP:CIVIL and WP:EDITWAR.

Clearly, Swamiblue's continuous disruption is self-evident based on the above diff compilation since the user was last unblocked in May 2015. The user’s disruptive behavior hasn’t changed the slightest. I urge admin to (a) “topic ban” WP:TBAN - the user from editing topics related to Swaminarayan due to user’s disruptive edits on this topic and/or (b) Preferably “page ban” and not “article ban” WP:PBAN the user from editing Swaminarayan related pages since user has been posting content on talk page that violates BLP policies despite repeatedly blocked for such violation in addition to using the talk page as a forum and/or (c) Indefinitely block user from editing Swaminarayan related pages to enforce the ban due to their continued disruption on such articles and personal attacks.

Hollow Apologies

Admins/community should not fall for user's apologetic appeals as evidenced by this diff when they were last blocked: “You're not an ordinary editor. You're a user who was indefinitely blocked for socking on a relatively large scale, and that included using IPs to edit. You were given a second chance, but there's only so much WP:ROPE given to an editor with your history. With respect to the edit warring, you knew very well that editing the article while the current dispute was still ongoing was not permissible, but you did it anyway, and to wikilawyer your way out of it by saying it wasn't exactly the same as the other material, etc., doesn't justify it. Finally, as for the personal attacks, this is not a new issue. Your accusing others of bias because they don't agree with you has been commented on before, by me and by other users. Persisting in that conduct constitutes personal attacks, even if it's followed by an apology because the apology rings hollow when it's repetitive conduct.” link here There is also ample evidence on the same link that shows user has been warned several times for making personal attacks, disruptive editing etc.

Action Requested: Topic Ban

Such behavior disrupts the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference as it discourages editors from continuing to work on a project where they constantly have to deal with a user who behaves immaturely, ignores and constantly violates Misplaced Pages policies despite being warned about doing so, engages in edit-warring, constantly makes personal attacks, makes BLP violations despite being warned several times. Thus, I see an urgent need by admins and the community to protect Swaminarayan-related pages due to Swamiblue's uncontrolled disruptive behavior, as demonstrated in the diffs above. Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, Kapil.xerox. I agree with you that there has been some disruption. Pages related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and also pages related to biographies of living people, are troubled areas, and are therefore subject to Arbitration committee discretionary sanctions. This means that it's easier for single uninvolved admins to sanction users who edit disruptively in these areas. For instance, topic bans can be imposed by a single admin, instead of trying to get consensus for them here on AN, something that's rather difficult if not enough people are interested enough to read a proposal. (Your proposal is overly long, you know. Readers get discouraged.) However, discretionary sanctions only come into effect once the user has been alerted to the existence of these sanctions. I have now posted alerts on the user's talkpage. Let's hope that the alerts themselves lead to more collaborative editing; if not, they can be sanctioned down the road. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC).

Appeal to reduce scope of ban

Hello, my behaviour has been interpreted as disruptive due to use of resources which I was not able to understand reliable or not. Many editors have left messages and warnings on my talk pages which I have tried to adhere to. The broad conflict which I was able to understand was related to historical Indian Kings and Dynasties. None of my other edits were opposed. But the ban imposed on me is very broad in nature I.E. all the articles on Indian Religions. I invite administrators to check my contributions on Jainism related pages on which I am requesting here to lift the ban. Hence, I request very limited lifting of ban for pages of Jainism (not related to historical Kings) only since there has been no conflict whatsoever on these pages in my past contributions. Few of the examples are Jainism, Tarunsagar, Digambara, Sallekhana, Rishabha, Tirthankara, Mahavira etc. I have contributed positively on these pages and received a barnstar and many thanks for the same. Please reconsider and reduce the scope of my ban, thanks. If any of my edits on these (jainism not royalty of history) pages was disruptive please help me identify. I also want to state that I havent engaged in editwarring ever. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the ban discussion please?

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog