Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:43, 23 July 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User Fastballjohnd

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

Note- This account also has two socks, Drjohndacquisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus an IP 98.167.164.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation, resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd.

Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player John D'Acquisto. The editor has on more one occasion, here most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete.

In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here, here, and here. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit was the following

He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum , he never stole any money or committed fraud.

That edit was reverted. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits.

From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights.

• Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
• edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
• Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
• Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.
• IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version. Again this was reverted.

It was shortly after that I got involved. Note I did make edits to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here and here.

Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here and here. I made one last edit here.

After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here and asked for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did and he wrote As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable.

So I took it to the COI board and got no response. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation. When I did each of these, I left messages on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded on his talk page, I wrote back one day later.

Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

His sources are always broken links or like here inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I propose that all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as WP:TPO or WP:CIVIL). - Jorgath (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Restored from archive with post-dated datestamp. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at WP:COIN? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was brought to COIN and I mentioned that up above. Nothing happened....William 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the POV-pushing socking puts it a bit beyond the usual COIN case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another of his socks but it is stale. Compare this edit by Jddsc3434 with this edit by 98.167.164.178 which has been Fastballjohnd's persistent IP since last September.

Isn't this thread a bit premature though? He has only made three edits since the SPI case ended...two as his account and one as the IP over several days. Shouldn't he be allowed a bit of rope? A CU advised to refile an SPI if the IP continued to edit. If it were me, I'd overlook the one IP edit and be patient.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastballjohn is in denial. He says that is his only account. That was after the sockpuppet investigation. He has a clear COI and he thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not doing anything now is just postponing the matter IMHO....William 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Berean Hunter here, there have only been a couple of edits and no indication as of yet that he is not complying with WP:SOCK. He is claiming sources, and WP:V clearly says contentious facts must be verifiable not easily verified. Since the edits appear to be in good faith, and COI editing is clearly not prohibited by policy, action here would be premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics

User:Plasmic Physics has been editing {{chembox}}es and {{drugbox}}es for some time, at least some months, replacing and removing valid information, and introducing fact tags to chemical names that could be easily checked via the sources or via various free chemical software. For example, this diff introduced a broken param (ImageFile_Ref), removed part of the IUPAC name (6S,9S,12S,15S,18S,21S) and added a fact tag asking whether this was the preferred name, although he changed the param from "IUPACName" (any IUPAC name) to "PIN" (preferred IUPAC name) himself. He also added a fact tag to the name "Argireline" asking whether this was a non-proprietary name although the chembox documentation says the "OtherNames" param can take any name, and "Argireline" occurs in both sources of the article. He also changed several chemical identifiers (InChI, SMILES); I didn't check in this specific article but at least in some cases his changes introduced wrong information -- see User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it (and also the previous section of his talk page). This is just one edit of dozens, maybe hundreds.

Recent related discussions are at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals#What is going on in the chemboxes? and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs. The issue has been discussed on WikiProject Chem, and with Plasmic Physics, on and off; but nothing ever seems to change. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have been trying to counsel this problem editor for many years. Here is a representative exchange of the recent episode:

user:Beetstra "you have removed a lot of information which should be restored. ... Do you expect other users to do it ] for you?"

user:Plasmic Physics "Well, yes. I made those edits in good faith." Vandalism is one thing, and can often be readily detected and corrected, but technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work. So the effects of Plasmic's work are perverse. And this editor actively defends "this turf," pushing away those that try to edit these tables as illustrated here. In my several years of editing here, I have not witnessed a more damaging editor.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a history over several years of making hundreds of contentious edits without consensus (particularly WRT chemical nomenclature issues), often doing more harm than good. See, for example, User_talk:Plasmic_Physics/Archive_1#Trilithium.281.2B.29_Ion_Azanetriide for an example of exactly the same thing from over four years ago. All attempts to dissuade him / engage him in discussion are fruitless, and he really does more harm than good. Check out his archived talk pages for many many messages from annoyed editors. Chris (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I never misinform, I only over inform, and if that is the case, I'm happy trim the over-informed infobox upon request. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet the presumption among WP:CHEMISTRY regulars appears to be that your edits all need second eyes to screen out lots of mistakes (which are often buried among complex article-diffs due to their also including stylistic and other personal-preference changes). You readily admit to making them and make no effort to avoid making the same type of mistake even after you are alerted to the problem (this pattern applies to many content disputes in which you have been involved). These sorts of disputes have been happening fairly regularly over your entire several-years' work in this content area, and often take many iterations of discussion during which you continue to make the same edits (WP:BRD behavior problem, often compounded by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and maybe WP:OWN), which is why this is disruptive (and now landing here on ANI due to our exasperation) and a high cost and not just a mistake here and there that everyone makes.

My latest example (as Smokefoot says, "technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work") is User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it centering on addition of "SMILES" values that contain lower-case letters (which by definition of SMILES represents an aromatic ring). There you yesterday recognized that your value was not correct ("a simple copy error") and then today performed this edit in which your SMILES string has the same type of mistake. In an edit with a summary "Isolating stereomer data." that does not make any changes or additions of stereoisomeric information (which is all difficult to see by eye because of so many field-reordering and capitalization changes that mostly have zero visible effect). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What same mistake re you talking about? I wish you'd be less vague. As I've said, you don't yet understand how SMILES work, so stop critising how I use it. The mistake I admitted to, was missing the C button when I copied the SMILES using the Crt+C shortcut. This resulted in a previously copied SMILES being pasted. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I articulated this on Plasmic Physics' talkpage as well, but I am going to reiterate it here. Regarding diff:

• Preferred IUPAC names are not yet supported by the IUPAC, they are still debating it, it is still under development (I am following the discussion there). But, the IUPACName is changed to PIN, while removing all the stereo-chemistry information from the compoundname. For as far as I can see, this is a piece of peptide, which hence is the optically pure material (i.e., with specific stereo-chemistry information) that is mentioned there (and that is the one actually shown in the image). Plasmic Physics changes the name, and immediately requests a citation for that name, which is, with PIN by definition, original research based on rules which are incomplete. In the request for the reference, is asked "Is this the prefered IUPAC name? If not, move to OtherNames"
• The caption for the image is changed to include the stereo-chemistry information, which was removed from the preferred naming of the compound.
• As stated, the compound is a specific form of the compound, which is reflected in on of the identifiers for it, the ChemSpiderID. Plasmic Physics there adds a name with stereo information, while that was removed from the IUPAC name, and not included in the preferred IUPAC name. The ChemSpiderID is for the specific compound, but it is now pulled out of line with the names of the compound.
• There is an other-name mentioned "Argireline" - which is also mentioned in the article and at least in two references. Still, not doing the research, a {{citation needed}} is slapped on it: "Is this a genuine, non-proprietary name?"
• 2 other identifiers are added - the pubchem ids. The first one (which is typically used for the compound discussed in the page) corroborates with the new preferred IUPAC name, without stereo information. The other one (which are the additional pubchem ids) corroborates with the stereospecific one. So the main PubChemID corroborates with the Preferred IUPAC name, the main ChemSpiderID corroborates with the image, and the second pubchemID mentioned.
• If I see it correctly (I don't have the software to check), the InChI and SMILES (which are representations of the molecular structure of the compound, and they include the stereo-chemistry information) are both changed - likely to the one that is corroborating with the Preferred IUPAC name, and which does not include the stereo-chemistry information.
• and a lot of other data - which by now is completely unclear whether it is for the compound displayed in the image, or one of the other stereoisomers.

I know that the data in the chemboxes and drugboxes is confusing somewhere, and some people have put a lot of effort in it to get the data together, but this is bringing the confusion back. --Dirk Beetstra 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The IUPAC name was moved to the PIN because it is not the systematic name. Moreover, the stereo segment of the name was removed to generalise the article. Since it is a IUPAC name, but not the systematic name, it could only be the PIN by default. It is common to use an image for a stereoisomer if a racemate image is not available. I have already stopped to add new citation templates, or at least ones that displays.

Stereo data was added to the image name to describe the image.

The chembox fields can be translated into coherent statements. In this case, the OtherNames field can be translated into the statement "Argireline is another name for this compound." I challenged that assertion, and requested a source stating an equivalent statement. The sources in the article is alledged to contain the name, but does not directly say "ABC is another name for DEF." Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have earlier reverted the changes I discussed here, but Plasmic Physics does insist to have the data changed without discussion - he performed another edit moving data around. --Dirk Beetstra 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Regarding diff" Beetstra is discussing here, for bullet-point 2, PP actually moved the stereochemical designations to the image alttext (not caption), removing it from the visible content. Moving these data to be specific to the image alone rather than the chemical entity topic of the article and infobox is in keeping with Beetstra's other comments that PP does not recognize that this entity is intrinsically this single stereoisomer (i.e., did not read the refs and/or doesn't understand really basic biochemistry). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The page was fixed according to Beetstra's demands, specifying the stereomer, and only the stereomer, which is the usual practise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I encountered Plasmic Physics at Barack Obama where the user added the extraordinary text "While it is not confirmed that Obama is indeed a freemason, he has been witnessed to make public use of several documented freemason 'grips' when meeting certain dignitaries." three times with no sources last March: diff, diff, diff. The subsequent pointless and time wasting discussion can be seen here ("I need proof that the fact which I attempted to add is either gossip or original research, or at least the requirement of for it to be not construed as such. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012") and here (permalink). I have re-read those discussions and the only reasonable conclusion is that Plasmic Physics was enjoying a personal joke by provoking volunteers. That situation (aka trolling) should not be permitted to continue, particularly in articles on technical topics where skilled editors are in short supply. The community needs to defend useful editors and save them from days of pointless "discussion". Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the expected outcome here? A block? Topic ban? For Plasmic Physics to apologise? C'mon, people. ANI isn't simply for categorising editors' wrongdoings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor has been repeatedly requested to discuss proposed changes with the WP:CHEM community to gain WP:CONSENSUS for his plans prior to editing sprees, but generally does not do so (and even continues disputed edit-patterns after being advised of the discussions others start). I would like to see uninvolved admins clearly instruct him (with block if not) to work with the WP community and not against it, including discuss-first if controversial, pause-and-discuss/BRD, etc. I would like to see the editor work to undo the mistakes he has made before doing any further additions at all. Given the technical damage, this may well mean simply reverting to "pre-PP-edits" state--the nature of the concerns and amount of cross-checking required of the whole edits (given that there is a trend of problematic edits) strongly weighs against the possible loss of some good bits he may have added as part of these edits. For me and I suspect for several other admins here, we would have blocked long ago for disruption, except we're involved in the content. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which plans, I was not told. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your plans. You must have decided at some point to go through the chemboxes and put a citation needed template next to every uncited name, or to go through and insert your own version of IUPAC names in and all these things you've done in the past. The problem is that you make edits of the same kind to so many articles without seeking consensus from the chemistry community first. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't plan any of those things. You guys said that I can only insert IUPAC names, if I source them, so I did. So I thought that it's only fair that I am also allowed to question names, so I did. Scientific accuracy is important to me. Question, why are the mojority of the identifiers referenced/verified to death, but the names are to be let alone? I don't know what specifically the community wants to discuss? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Chris Cunningham: I was hoping someone independent would contemplate suitable action. It would be good if someone who understands the situation with the articles Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) has been editing recently would comment on whether the positives outway the negatives. If not, perhaps an indefinite block should be recommended (that is, the user be blocked until showing an understanding of the problem and how to avoid it in the future). Certainly the situation I outlined with the Obama article is unacceptable, but I don't know if it is that bad in other areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that incident, I was accused of gossiping and/ or original research. As far as I know, I'm not schizophrenic, I would know my own motive better than anyone else. So, if anyone tells me that my motive not my motive, then would naturally require a source for that bizzare circumstance. Of course, no one can, thus I asked for what is needed so that my edit edit does not appear as gossiping and/or original research - that they would not do either. This resulted in a stale mate, they just kept parroting the same accusation back at me, without giving any advice. I did eventully get an answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with DMacks here. I think that it is time that uninvolved administrators take a look at what is going on and consider options. Most of us are too involved to take action, but I think that a look at WT:CHEM and especially the 2010 and 2011 archives of that talkpage is .. quite telling that something needs to change. Suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra 10:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would propose a ban on editing pages that fall under the auspices of WP:CHEM. Failing that, a ban on editing chemboxes, drugboxes, and anything to do with chemical nomenclature, including inserting or changing any chemical names. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I wasn't allowed to add unsoured IUPAC names, now I'm not allowed to challenge names. The names I added wasn't wrong, just not good enough. Why is such a need to monopolise naming? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You ARE allowed to add unsourced IUPAC names. What is your problem? Boghog (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not, that is how the problem started. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. Even if your statement is true, a wrongful action is not a morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to cancel or correct a previous action with the template. I'm used the template in good faith, for what it was designed for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the discussions of this editor's actions, many of these discussions are long. They illustrate the great amount of time invested in trying to steer this editor.

• Jan. 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Plasmic Physics
• Jan 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Systematic Name
• June 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#user:Plasmic Physics
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics (continued from above)
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Excessive number of chemical identifiers
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Categories: Arsenic
• Nov 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics edits
• Dec 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Chembox
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Block for Plasmic Physics
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Controversial use of the term ‘Oxoazinic acid’ in the chembox of Nitric acid
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#OR introduction of systematic names
• Dec. 2010: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Cleanup of overspecialized silanes categories created by User:Plasmic Physics

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked this over, I think either a topic ban or rapidly escalating blocks is appropriate. Plasmic Physics may be well-meaning, but it seems that they have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. T. Canens (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What type of competence? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone asked for an uninvolved admin who understood the subject at issue. I'm here, and I meet the requirements. I think you know enough chemistry to understand what you're doing--this is not a matter of Competence, but of stubbornness in refusal to follow the consensus. PP, unless you will undertake to immediately change back all chemistry infoboxes and associated material you have worked on to the standard way the project does it, I am going to ban you from the field of chemistry and biochemistry at WP, broadly construed, indefinitely. The only reason I do not do it immediately is to give you a chance to fix the damage first. Additionally, the Obama edits and the almost equally odd defense of them, will lead to a rapid indefinite block altogether if there is further disruption. You cannot add an asserted fact about a living person and challenge its removal on the basis of our having to prove it's false. That it's a contentious and unlikely fact about a famous person in an extremely conspicuous WP article, makes it inexcusable as a violation of basic BLP policy. I await your statement of intentions by this time tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this "standard way" that you are talking about?

I did not challenge the comment's removal on the basis of your having to prove it wrong, I challenged it because of poor reasoning and false accusation. In any case, that is an old, resolved issue. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Standard way" is a bit vague. Once I know what that is in no uncertain terms, I can get under way. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The erasure of names from chemboxes has been ongoing for over a year. See in the 1-propanol article. If he is allowed to fix these edits, someone will need to track what he is doing. He seems to end up with his own interpretations of what he is supposed to accomplish.JSR (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

I am not sophisticated in chemistry, and there is a lot to sort out. There's a problem, and it needs a clear remedy.

The primary complaint above is about chemboxes and drugboxes. The editing is not vandalism, but it is disruptive.

There appears to be a significant desire that chemboxes contain accurate information. Changes are scrutinized, so even accurate information triggers significant community effort. Editors adding or changing information must be careful about the accuracy of their edits and mindful of their value. An editor who even occasionally enters bad information creates a significant burden on the community because more watchers will feel obligated to carefully examine the edits. Even with close scrutiny, there is a risk that some inadvertent bad information will remain.

Apparently some of PP's edits are good, but a significant number are problematic. Some good edits may have little value (e.g., a systematic IUPAC name that is not used). The edits are often technical changes to involved notation that require significant effort to verify (e.g., a SMILES string).

Editing problems with PP have been going on for years. There are questions about PP's technical understanding of the box arguments (e.g., IUPAC v PIN) and even of article subject matter (e.g., DMacks and stereo-isomer issue).

PP edits are in good faith. PP has apparently adopted some restrictions (such as sourcing chem names). He engages in discussion. There is also doubt about what level of sourcing is sufficient for chemical names.

An appropriate solution appears to be topic ban on the boxes. I'm open to a wider ban, but the focus of the complaint appears to be edits to chemboxes involving uncommon systematic names.

Proposal. Plasmic Physics is indefinitely topic banned from editing chemboxes and drugboxes. Plasmic Physics is strongly cautioned to avoid article edits that add any chemical name if that chemical name is not actually widely used in the literature. A systematic name does not imply widely used.

Glrx (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Do we have to !vote now, or what? Chris (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not added an unsourced systematic name or any other name for many months now (around 13 or so). Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that surely you must have a better focus for proposing a ban, than on edits of a type I no longer perform. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Some of PP's chembox edits have generated a lot of work for other editors over a period of years, and the ban addresses the cited problem. The ban is limited; PP may still edit chemical articles. Glrx (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Better to have a formal agreement as the examples above demonstrate that discussions with the user can be pointless. DGG gave a strong statement above and he may feel that a topic ban is not necessary. If DGG is receptive to receiving an alert if further problems that may occur, perhaps that is all that is required? Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think it's an excellent idea to try this, probably better tailored to the case than my own proposal. Johnuniq, I am assuming you take responsibility for letting me know if more is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Three users involved in vicious uncivil and disruptive behaviour

User:Bryonmorrigan, User:W.J.M., and the anonymous user User:66.234.60.131 engaged in repeated uncivil comments, repeated personal attacks, and combative behaviour in complete violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE. These violations of Misplaced Pages policy can be seen throughout the discussion here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism.

Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. in particular were responsible for driving the discussion into a viscious battleground between them where they both engaged in insulting each other. This unconstructive behaviour was disruptive and renewed combative conversation has started between Bryonmorrigan and the anonymous user 66.234.60.131. Bryonmorrigan has been warned many times in the past to stop his repeated instances of battleground behaviour and use of uncivil comments and personal attacks, he has refused to heed those warnings. W.J.M. was equally irresponsible in responding by fighting fire with fire, replying to Bryonmorrigan with uncivil comments and personal attacks. I recommend that strong disciplinary action be taken, preferably equally to each user - to avoid issues of one user being less disciplined than others - preferably an indefinate block for all the users. If different levels of blocks or warnings are deemed necessary by others, I will accept that.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, upon looking at Bryonmorrigan's talk page where I posted the address for him to arrive here, I noticed another uncivil conversation above on his talk page with a user he was arguing with, in which the user implied to Bryonmorrigan a warning he would get in trouble with his behaviour, to which Bryonmorrigan responded in an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - again revealing Bryonmorrigan's regular grossly uncivil behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since R-41 has provided no edit differences to support his case, I recommend that this discussion thread be closed. No one has actually posted to the Talk:Nazism thread for over a week, and nothing there appears to be incivil, battleground, etc. R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions. TFD (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And since it is your opinion that the reports from R-41 were "numerous" and "baseless" and since I find them neither "numerous" nor "baseless", I suggest your personal battleground with R-41 is showing <g>. Bryopn's styles of saying things like Grow up, and deal with it. You're selling, but nobody's buying (from the talk page cited) is less than helpful. uses a similar style of ad hom argumentation. The defense that Bryon is not a "frequent editor" (only 50 edits/month) does not affect whether or not his behaviour in posts poses a problems of any sort. This does not presuppose what any discussion here will end up at, only that the OP here should be granted the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, give him a generous trout-slapping for the use of 'viscious' in a section heading in an encyclopaedia . There is no such word - see and . Or it this a neologism relating to evil, immoral or depraved actions carried out while immersed in treacle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if everyone would just agree to stop using such colorful langauge and focus on the sources, prose of the article. dilligaf about your opinion of an edit? do you really need to classify a good faith edit as childish, absurd, or really anything? simply make your case or why you revert, site a source, or a wp:dontdothat. reading all the extra text is hindering the progress of the article for some editors, or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant "vicious", AndytheGrump. I don't know why I often misspell it. By vicious I mean extremely hostile. Please focus on what is being addressed.--R-41 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A warning may be in order but really I have to agree with Darkstar1st, that the focus needs to be on improving the article (staying on topic) and improving the grammar and citing. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I find TFD's claim and threat grossly insulting, when he/she claims I am making "R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions". My recent address here about User:Yiddi resulted in Yiddi being indefinately blocked by User:WilliamH. Considering that I am in the midst of several discussions in which I am in disagreement with TFD, and that TFD is growing frustrated and angry with me over those disagreements, I don't trust his judgement here. TFD can review the conversation here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism, Bryonmorrigan, W.J.M., and the anon user mentioned above, are being highly uncivil and combative towards each other. Here is what the anon user said to Bryonmorrigan as a jibe , and this is Bryonmorrigan's response , just as uncivil and pointlessly fanning the flames. There is this uncivil exchange between Bryonmorrigan versus W.J.M., both users are condescending to each other. Bryonmorrigan boasts that he is educated and accuses W.J.M. of being uneducated and responds to W.J.M.'s uncivil jibe that Bryonmorrigan is like a creationist, by accusing W.J.M. of being like a creationist, see here . W.J.M. later responds and swears at Bryonmorrigan, see here Plus look at this recent diff from his talk page , Bryonmorrigan responded to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". How is that anything but highly uncivil? Lastly, TFD is incorrect, the discussion is not at Talk:Nazism, but at Talk:Nazi Party, where Bryonmorrigan and an anonymous user have revived their confrontation in the middle of the discussion posts.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan is well known for his repeated uncivil behaviour, he has been warned repeatedly to stop and has refused to heed those warnings. Review the conversation for yourself, here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism. Bryonmorrigan, the anon user mentioned above, and W.J.M. clearly engaged in uncivil combative behaviour and personal attacks, see these diffs for their behaviour: and this by the anon User:66.234.60.131, by Bryonmorrigan, by Bryonmorrigan, and by W.J.M. And here is a recent diff from Bryonmorrigan's talk page , showing Bryonmorrigan responding to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". His behaviour and W.J.M.'s behaviour is grossly uncivil. I want to wait to have an administrator review this before non-administrator users make a decision as to its validity.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Below are 10 of the pointless discussion threads that R-41 brought to WQA and ANI since January. The 8 ANI requests obtained no support for administrative action, or even warnings. R-41 expressed regret at filing one of the WQAs ("I apologize for having brought you into the stupid mess at WQA" 23:30, 31 May 2012).

• "User Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or user Collect" ANI 00:35, 14 July 2012
• "Requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me (R-41) and the reverse from me to him" ANI 04:13, 9 June 2012
• "User:Bryonmorrigan being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect" WQA 14:07, 30 May 2012
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh" ANI 01:23, 25 May 2012
• "User:DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war at WikiProject Yugoslavia" 15:49, 19 May 2012
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is extremely POV and denying that it has participated in violence" ANI 23:51, 14 May 2012
• "Wustenfuchs, disruptive editing at the article "Yugoslavs" ANI 03:09, 1 March 2012
• "Failure to assume good faith by User:AndyTheGrump, repeated uncivil behaviour and personal attacks" ANI 07:37, 5 February 2012
• "Incivility issues with user Trust is All You Need" WQA 17:31, 20 January 2012
• "Etiquette issue with User:AndyTheGrump and acknowledgement by me, User:R-41, that I unacceptably swore back in frustration at him/her" ANI 01:15, 14 January 2012

TFD (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And you TFD, have been in trouble for initiating false accusations against several users. Such as accusing me of choosing sources to push a POV with zero evidence some time ago on an allegation that three sources I presented - that presented completely different arguments, you had no evidence. You then Wikilawyered based on a technicality, saying that because you said that I was putting in sources to advocate a POV on a talk page, that technically you were innocent of falsely accusing me of POV-pushing because it is about articles not talk pages. I regarded your false accusation and Wikilawyering as contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages, and I asked you what was the "POV" that I was pushing. You could not answer that question because the three sources had completely different topics. Several other users said that if you did not have any evidence to show that I selected those sources for POV, that you should apologize to me, you did not listen to those users' request.

You have got into trouble over such false accusations several times, User:Nug who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following:

• You were warned here for making a false accusation
• You nearly faced a proposed 1-3 month ban on political articles on Misplaced Pages, for your false accusation of POV and personal attacks until you apologized for your false accusation, see here:

This: and that you noted, resulted in both users advising me that the issue could better be addressed at another noticeboard that could address the specific issues involved, they did not say that what I mentioned was "pointless", as you claim TFD. This that you noted was a constructive attempt to get Bryonmorrigan to be less uncivil through Wikiquette assistance, until the user WQA volunteer Writegeist arrived and insulted the fellow WQA volunteer User:IRWolfie-, in which IRWolfie- reported Writegeist here and I supported IRWolfie-'s report. You have taken a quote by me out of context, not including what I said immediately after, I mentioned having regret about reporting to the WQA because of the incompetence of the WQA volunteer Writegeist who insulted his fellow WQA volunteer IRWolfie- and spent more time saying cynical remarks than helping with the issue, I felt Writegeist's cynical remarks and his insult to IRWolfie- made the WQA address a waste of time. Writegeist got mad at me for me getting frustrated that he insulted a fellow volunteer that he should have cooperated with, and Writegeist has often talked about me and User:Collect on his talk page to other users after discussions with me and Collect ended, and the other users were not involved. AndytheGrump gets uncivil to users he disagrees with when he gets angry, even Writegeist whom IRWolfie- reported and I supported the report, mentioned to me that AndytheGrump gets highly uncivil at times. And this was never closed or resolved but left open. A number of users whom I have reported in the past for violating Misplaced Pages policy, I have sought to resume normal conversation with, you mention Direktor, I have cooperated with Direktor in the past, and I have cooperated with TIAYN since the report as he/she has not been uncivil since then. TFD, I regard your intentions here towards me as strongly influenced by your frustration and anger at me, stop this, this is a conflict of interest - you are in the midst of a strong dispute with me over material on Talk:Fascism - it is affecting your judgement of me. Just look at what Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. have done, it is completely unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• On the afternoon of the 20th inst. I was proceeding in a southerly direction on this page towards an alterkay kerfuffle involving my acquaintance Mr. Can in what is now Blue Square when I noticed a Mr. R. Fortiwun loudly complaining about the behaviour of several other people, accusing them of "viscious", "uncivil" and "disruptive" behaviour in a discussion about the Nazi Party. (In fact, as we now know, they were just doing The Fish-Slapping Dance that's traditional at all discussions about political parties.) Recognizing Mr. Fortywun as someone who had recently alarmed me by threatening to urinate on my new limited-edition Nike LondonOlympiPimp trainers if ever he saw me, I hid behind a nearby Misplaced Pages pillar (the Neutral Point Of View one, as I recall), and kept watch. As I recall, a Mr. Deuces then intervened, reminding Mr. Fortiwun that he had made numerous previous complaints about other people and suggesting that this latest one would be best ended. Now a Mr. Collect, apparently an acquaintance of Mr. Fortiwun's, roundly rebuked Mr Deuces, stating that the numerous complaints were not numerous. A passer-by carrying a trout, name of Mr. Grumpy I think (the passer-by not the trout), made a humorous remark and went on his way, after which someone who gave their name as a 1974 John Carpenter film made a plea for more moderate language. They was followed by another passer-by, maybe a teecher, who called for better grammer. Mr. Fortiwun, apparently rather agitamated, then made two statements. In one he spoke of a "claim" and a "threat" by Mr Deuces that he said he found "grossly insulting" because, he said, he (Mr. Fortiwun) had succeeded in having a Mr. Yiddi suspended from work or perhaps it was from the ears, I don't remember. I do not know what he said in the next statement because at this point, growing weary of all his repetitions, and having sat down behind the NPOV pillar, I fell asleep. I awoke to Mr. Deuces enumerating the numerous complaints by Mr. Fortiwun which Mr. Collect had said were not numerous. Falling asleep again, I awoke to hear Mr. Fortiwun complaining about all the people he had already complained about and now also complaining about Mr. Deuces, and also, at considerable length, imagine my complete surprise, complaining about me. Knowing a little about Mr. Fortiwun, , , , and afraid that he might target me for a gas attack, which he had done once before, I ran away as fast as I could. I think it would be best if this was closed now and everyone ran away too went on their way. Writegeist (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41, you are bringing up comments I made about the editor "who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following" over a year ago, which he complained about at Arbcom and resulted in no action. He has been sanctioned for "abuse of dispute resolution processes". But the issue here is that you consistently bring requests to this board that have no reasonable prospect of success. TFD (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope your happy TFD, a very reasonable report about three users clearly repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages principles, especially Bryonmorrigan, has turned into a witch hunt against me. I said on your talk page to consider if someone else brought this up - there still would be three users grossly violating Misplaced Pages policies. TFD, I hope you enjoy adding this to your list of what you regard as "pointless" reports, remember that you drove it into this. Now Bryonmorrigan will once again escape for the upteenth time for gross violations of Misplaced Pages policy, along with W.J.M. who swore and repeatedly insulted Bryonmorrigan.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have told Writegeist to leave me alone and stop interjecting in conversations with me, after a confrontation that Writegeist started as a WQA volunteer in insulting a fellow WQA volunteer, User:IRWolfie- and saying nothing other than cynical remarks resulting in that user, not me, reporting Writegeist, I supported IRWolfie-'s report. Writegeist has regularly talked about me and User:Collect behind our backs in condescending ways, I hold Writegeist in complete contempt and despise him, that's why I told him to engage in no further contact with me. But again TFD, I hope your happy you have ruined a reasonable report by turning it into a witch hunt against me, I used to cooperate often with you TFD and held you in high-esteem, but you have become cynical and condescending to me in the past year and a half. I feel like I am not wanted on Misplaced Pages, and as a person who deals with major depression perhaps it would be best if I leave, and I am sure that Writegeist in his vicious hatred of me, desires me to quit Misplaced Pages.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss your state of mind or to make personal attacks that speculate about other users' emotions of desires. Suffice it to say I have absolutely no "vicious hatred" towards anybody whatsoever, and no desire for anyone to "quit Misplaced Pages". This thread should be closed. Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be closed even though I have provided all these diffs , , , , , , and Bryonmorrigan using an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here , where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - that is what he said. Is this supposed to be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 1st point: The wall of text from the involved parties is not helpful. Neither are dozens of dffs. Why dont you discuss your compliants in short and concise sentances with only the most relevant diffs? 2nd point: Some people swear in diffs. That in of itself is not necesarilly a personal attack. "Do I look like I give a fuck" is not even close to an attack here. If it offends you, its best to ignore it or else you will just see more of the same. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What about these 2 diffs: the anon user 66.234.60.131 calling Bryonmorrigan a "liberal/communist" as an insult, followed a few posts later by Bryonmorrigan accusing the anon user of being like a Nazi and the Taliban. --R-41 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

−

More so on the anon, but techincally they were only speculating. What is it that you wish to achieve from ANI? Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate to the users that they need to discuss the topics in discussions; not accusing each other of stupidity, and stop stereotyping each other with political labels. Bryonmorrigan has been repeatedly warned to not engage in uncivil behaviour, he has refused to heed those warnings, something needs to be done - at least for him.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than DIILIGAF or the latest diff, is there anything else? Only show the diffs that best make your point. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This diff by W.J.M. condescendingly responding to Bryonmorrigan by saying "No shit Sherlock" and accusing Bryonmorrigan of being delusional, and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with Bryonmorrigan, the accusations that Bryonmorrigan is having "delusions" and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with him are personal attacks, see here: . And the following diff by Bryonmorrigan to W.J.M. in which he is patronizes and belittles W.J.M. by telling him to "grow up" and referring to him as "sport", see here: . "Sport" as a slang reference to someone, is something that adults in English-speaking countries often say as an affectionate term to refer to a male child, see here for its usage: , but Bryonmorrigan used the word "sport" to patronize and belittle W.J.M. as being immature, W.J.M. does not appear to be a child but at least an older person judging by his more complex language use.--R-41 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All rather small beer. R-41, your best course might be to permit other users at least some of the latitude you permit yourself; a consideration they also grant you, incidentally, by not frogmarching you to the noticeboards for every perceived slight. And anyway, overzealous vigilantism is probably as counterproductive at WP as in RL. Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist, you seem to be the one who is here for vigilante justice. While I am no vigilante, I will admit is that I am too passionate when I see injustice, I considered your nasty-sounding comment to IRWolfie- to be such. Because of my left-wing views, I unfortunately have a natural tendency to be disgusted and aggravated when I view people as behaving as if they are superior to others. If you don't like what I'm doing, then report me. Contrary to what I suspect is your view about me, I am a person who is deeply concerned about the well-being of others, I only wish I could have the tolerance of Gandhi in responding to those I perceive as acting on bad intentions.--R-41 (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging and User:Merbabu

talk and talk have been censoring (in my opinion) just about all of my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966 in the "Foreign involvement and reaction" section as the history shows. All gone. When reasoning is given it is often for more than questionable reasons. They will come up with any excuse no matter how ridiculous or shaky to remove content they dont like. Any information that can be considered embarrassing to the United States government is removed and when they finnally leave my contributions alone they flag it with "undue weight" and "neutrality" tags. I tried to compromise with them after I realized that my reactions to their behavior were out of line. They complained that I was using too many quotes so I paraphrased it but they would not accept anything less than removal of relevant information directly based declassified US government documents. They like to try to find loopholes and exploit the system in order to be able to engage in censorship. In other words, they arbitrarily try to use the rules to intimidate people away from contributing to the page. They look for any opportunity to do so. It is difficult not to question their motives because it's so obvious. They are relentless. Their records speak for themselves. They are clearly on a mission to sanitize pages involving the US government. Furthermore, talk erased ALL my contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration and I worked on it for over a month.

Anyways, I am confidant that their censorship is so obvious that I can spare you the details here. Thank you for your time.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Horhey420, I added your report to a new section and made a direct link to the users in questions talk' pages. You also need to notify the two users of your report. Lovely day now. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they've been notified. Thank you.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Horhey on one thing, the record does speak for itself, but just not quite the Horhey believes. The above complaint is so ludicrous that I choose not to respond further unless another editor has something to say about it. As I said, the record speaks for itself. --Merbabu (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You can follow the discussion Merbabu, I, and SatuSuro had with Horhey here, here, here and here. I believe you will find that we tried very hard to deal with his personal attacks, disruptive editing, and POV. I would also suggest that you look here for an example of Horhey responding in a paranoid and vituperative manner to innocuous requests, and here for general concerns editors have had with him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend a close reading of the article and the diffs SatuSuro 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging Your record is pretty dismal. Id rather be a hot head than a censor. But as you know, my attitude has changed since I read the rules.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey, remember your audience has just got a look bigger now that you've posted here. --Merbabu (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Another user recognized the censorship before I did. That's how it came to my attention.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you just erased much of your talk page Merbabu (talk). Why would you want to hide the content there?--Horhey420 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TPG. Users are free to remove most stuff from their own talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he only removed it shortly after I brought his record (3 years worth) to his attention today.--Horhey420 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is irrelevent. Perhaps they realised their talk page was getting too long forfrom your comments. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it just so happens after 3 years of it being there that he erases it after I tell him about his record today as I file the complaint. Ok..--Horhey420 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to this removal, then please note that it was 6 days ago, about 5 days before you appeared on that talk page page, and it was approximately 18 months worth of content. If you are referring to your two templates of red links to no-where, then yes, that was today. Also note that you didn't inform me of this discussion, others did. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually they did try even if they made a mistake with the template Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The first template went up 40mins before the ANI posting. And perhaps it was 40mins before that that Horhey said I was about to be blocked for censorship. --Merbabu (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'm piling it on now. --Merbabu (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the revert to the failed notification was after albeit coming with unneeded warnings (and without correcting the problems) and evidentally too late although I'd note you hadn't actually replied here yet. Don't get me wrong, I understand how a notification not linking to anywhere is not that useful particularly when it says there is an ongoing discussion but the discussion only comes 40 minutes later, but I think the fact they did try makes it somewhat different from someone who didn't (although both may come from competence issues). Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

...and I have to admit, that a failure to notify would be the least of the problems here. --Merbabu (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No I never said 'it just happens'. I said that if you're commenting on their 3 year record then perhaps they realised it's time to archive or clean up their talk page. Evidentally this wasn't what happened, but the point is still a valid one. Please remember to WP:AGF. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And BTW Horhey420, I take it you read the guideline I linked. If not, do note what I said above. People are entitled to remove most stuff from their talk page. There are a few exceptions but notices of ANI discussions are not one of them. As the guideline says, if it's removed, take it as it being read. Adding stuff back to someone's talk page when they removed it as they are entitled to do is not allowed. People can check the history if there's ever any confusion about whether you informed someone. And once someone is aware of the ANI discussion, there's no point informing them, at most if you failed to inform them when you should have, you may want to apologise. In particular, please don't tell someone not to remove something from their talk page which they are fully entitled to revert. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion actually began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966#Removal_of_referenced_content--Horhey420 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Im not exactly assuming good faith with this complaint since Im accusing them of censorship. There comes a time when the duck test can no longer be put off. There's something that looks like a duck in front of you. It's acting like a duck. It's walking like a duck. It sounds like a duck. It's kinda hard to keep convincing yourself that it probably isnt a duck. It's right there but ya know..--Horhey420 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it. That's probably how they've been able to get away with it for so long. They exploit the system which doesnt allow people to point out the obvious. It's like a journalist for the NYT or WP. If someone says the Earth is round and another says it's flat, they'll have to report it as "some say the Earth is round, others differ."--Horhey420 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well looking in to the discussion I can see some of your behaviour there is problematic. The article is the killings in 1965-1966. Stuff happening in during Clinton's presidency are generally irrelevent, unless they directly related to the killings (e.g. an apology, a denial of involvement, destroying documents), and shouldn't be discussed in the talk page intended to discuss improvements to that article. Discussions can get sidetracked at times but if you are the only one getting sidetracked and people are telling you to stop then you do have to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The East Timor stuff was to point out the fact that US support for Suharto continued untill 1999, when the Soviet Union no longer exists. It was a response to the assertion that US involvement in Indonesia was all about combatting the communist conspiracy. The fact that you are not criticizing them for anything at all such as excessive censorship is telling.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Um that sounds like WP:OR. Also I never said I looked in to details of the case, what I did look in to was the link you provided where one of the big problems appeared to be your offtopics rants. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And so it continues. --Merbabu (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? It doesnt make any sense. There's no other way to put it. It's not rational.--Horhey420 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Brought to my attention by SatuSuro (really not a good day for me to be involved in an ANI thread, been out all day). Based on my perusing of the talk page, it appears that Horhey420 has been promoting an anti-American POV through overquotation, dedicating too much of the article to it, and misrepresenting sources by omitting key details. When this has been brought to their attention, the editor has essentially played IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Right now this seems to be mainly a content dispute, but I do strongly suggest that Horhey pay attention to what Merbabu and TheTimesAreAChanging say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's your solution? Removal of "anti american" US government documents? I only included the key points and you say it's too much. Resisting the duck test now.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what? The only possible solution left is removal. There's barely anything left besides the key points and some newspaper articles so removal is the goal here.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I just cant undertand how any objective observer would want that kind of information removed. It stinks..--Horhey420 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read about Wikiquette and TPO. This editing of another editor's comment is certainly not permitted by the latter, and the personal attacks and claims of sockpuppeting violate AGF and the former. You've been told this by several editors already.

Regarding the content, discuss it. I have not seen any poor conduct by Merbabu or TheTimesAreChanging. You, on the other hand... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I don't think Horhey420 is actually accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. Rather they're saying people are censoring info they don't like and ganging up on the new user and trying to hide their wrong doings. The 'duck' thing is just a confusing way of them saying they don't need to AGF in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hope not. I've already dropped a warning about the first issue. I would pretty much never bold something outside of article space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification, by not needing to AGF in any way, I meant they were trying to say that for certain users they've decided they don't need to AGF any more (which is obviously still bad). Note that Horhey420 has decided they don't have to AGF with anyone (although they do seem to have major issues with AGF anyway) Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be overly hostile towards me. Something about me editing and I have no idea what you're talking about. And you're underlying solution seems to be removal of my content, thus ommiting US support for the events in Indonesia 1965. Or am I wrong? If Im wrong then we can discuss another solution you may have in mind. This term "anti-American". When Russian citizens would challange their government's policies we called them patriots and heros. Not anti-Russian. The term itself is just ludicrous. Noone ever heard of anti-French or anti-British. This terminolgy is only found in totalitarian states.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• (Butting in) To my memory, I have had no interaction with any of the above editors, but these edits today (, ) on Salvadoran Civil War seem to verify a battleground mentality on the part of User:Horhey420. I'm concerned for many of the reasons described above. Long blockquotes, walls of text, failure to use edit summaries, blanking large sections of talk pages and revert warring. I encourage User:Horhey420 to look at their own part in this. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Notice I asked for suggestions to improve it in the talk page? That page does need work. Removing much of that information feels like book burning though.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You agree that you have used " Long blockquotes, walls of text, failure to use edit summaries, blanking large sections of talk pages and revert warring."?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You neglected "battleground mentality." BusterD (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Salvador issue is basically since there arent really any significant government documents released on it like there are with other places like Guatemala, all the critical information is spread out in the public record instead being condensed in documents. Like Chile or Brazil. So I have all this information and just layed it all out for everyone. Most of it is unknown to most people, indeed to most people who even pay attention to these things. Take a look at the page. Who here can be honest and say they already knew all that before? Or would they rather just stick to Washington's version of events- the "official" narrative. But I want get rid most of the long quotes and maybe paraphrase BUT whenever I do that there are people who accuse me of missreprenting it so then I have to lay it all out again in huge quotes and then they shut up. As you can see that happenned there.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• After quickly looking at this, I think that contributions by Horney420, which are mostly about only one subject , are a matter of serious concern. Inflaming passions on this noticeboard is also a matter of serious concern. Something should be done about him. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Ive been putting a lot of work into that page. So what? What is your point? I knew Id be a target by much of the right wing for showing some of this stuff but this is outrageous. Maybe something should be done about you.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at the diff provided by ButlerD, your text reads as a typical WP:SOAP. This is very far from neutrality. That's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it shows what lead up to the war and it's causes. It shows the system that Washington created in the Western Hemisphere which lead to the "inevitable revolution" in El Salvador. Wether you like it or not, that is what happenned. It's not promoting anything but the historical record.. That is the background. Those are the facts.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This really should be uncontroversial. Anyone who looks into Globalization should have some level of understanding of this system.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe something should be done about you. - Mind the Personal attacks, that's a sure course to being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Also your comments above indictate a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I'd strongly suggest that you drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I repeated exactly what that person said to me and you come at me with this.--Horhey420 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ZERO critisisms have been directed at TheTimesAreAChanging for his removal of the ENTIRE section in the http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration which in particular makes it clear that I am dealing with partisan editors who agree with his behavior. I can no longer assume good faith. Zero critisism. None. This session has been discredited. I will see what other options there are. You're not going to "purge" me out as who knows how many others have.--Horhey420 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Be very very cautious if your "other options" mean off-Wiki ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey has now said that he intends to continue to add to this section. The section's long standing excessive/undue length is the crux of the problem, and something that I've been clear about from the start. Horhey's comments suggest he is either completely oblivious about this concern (unlikely given that I've mentioned it 20 times), or more likely he's giving us the metaphorical finger. His comments like "it's is not going to happen" suggest to me it is the latter. --Merbabu (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've refactored the inclusions (certainly worth a mention) and removed more than 6,000 bytes from the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to get a broader group of eyes. As I've said many times, I have no problem with the inclusions of foreign involvement including the US/west. I'm not trying to "censor" anything. Indeed, as the original creator of the article and contributor of most of the content I was the first to document the broader events in the article, but also mention "US involvement" see this early version. And, it should be noted that apart from a little trimming of 1/2 sentences, I have not removed any large sections of text even when I was arguing for it on the talk page.

I could go on, but ANI is the place for content discussion, and I've said it all on the article talk page. thanks again --Merbabu (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to his edit warring, lack of edit summaries, walls of text, and mass deletions, I list several huge problems with Horhey's edits on Salvadoran civil war here. Horhey's behavior is simply unacceptable. While we have reached a shaky compromise on Foreign policy of Ronald Reagan, he still continues to go off topic and make veiled threats.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Horhey is edit warring on the Reagan article again, adding large amounts of previously removed text without discussion or edit summary. I don't know how to deal with him anymore. I don't think he will stop until he is banned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AND he just personally attacked me again saying "You dont care about the rules. That's just a tool you abuse. You try to make this place like the dungeon under the USSR" and shouting "CENSORSHIP! HARRASSMENT!" He keeps digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem of resolution. The issue of the claims by Horhey against TheTimesAreAChanging and Merbabu seems to have created another space for Horhey to flaunt a range of basic wikipedia policies. When challenged on his talk page - it is almost immediately responded to words equivalent of huh? as if he is unaware of basic wikipedia policies - and editors (if they have the inclination) are required to explain simple instructions in relation to policy. To any admin reading all this, I would suggest that TheTimesAreAChanging and Merbabu are not the problem. The title of this section is mis-titled. SatuSuro 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that Horhey420 be blocked per WP:NOTHERE (and likely WP:IDHT and WP:CIR). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think WP: COMPETENCE is an issue with Horhey420 that should be considered as well. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE = WP:CIR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

user:93.96.148.42

This is a long-standing IP account, with a wide-ranging contribution history. For reasons unknown however, the contributor seems in the last few days to have developed what can only be described as an obsession with images of human genitalia, with urination, and with related matters. While the arguments presented regarding individual articles may on the surface seem valid on occasion, it seems apparent from recent contribution history that the account is either being used to make some sort of WP:POINT, or otherwise being abused to cause discord. Already, the IP has taken what can only, when looked at as a pattern, looks like an attempt at systematic disruption on articles such as Human penis, ,Penis, Urolagnia, Urine , Phallus ,Vulva and Urination (possibly others too), Could I ask for admins (and others) to look into this, and decide on an appropriate course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

93.96.148.42 (talk · contribs) Penyulap ☏ 08:07, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about this Andy. I've addressed three or four of his proposed edits now and see merit in some, and reasonable rationales in all (so far). The edit history does look very trollish, but the instances I've investigated all stand up. My initial reaction was to that edit history and the IPness (no pun intended). He does seem to be pressing rather hard in a controversial area, but that's no crime. Can you point me to problematical behaviour? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this continues at List of water sports , Primordial phallus - where the IP is proposing that an article on foetal development should be merged with an article on the symbolic representation of the erect penis in material culture, and Paraphilia where a link to our Vanilla sex article is added to what is clearly a definition of biomedical terminology. This is trolling, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm with you on "vanilla sex". Indistinguishable from trolling. He's got a point on "water sports" and I wouldn't oppose "water sports" redirecting to List of water sports, and a "for other uses" hatnote at the top of that article pointing to a dab page containing

• For the video game, see Water Sports (video game)
• For the sexual activity, see Urolagnia

I'll be very interested in his response to my question at Phallus --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I too have concerns about this IP's edits and fascination with dicks, erections, ejaculation, vulvas, pissing, etc.. (Having such fascinations in one's private life is one thing, but bringing it here becomes disruptive.) They seem to be pressing the limits of NOTCENSORED by seeking the inclusion of sensitive images in unnecessary places. They want explicit images of erect penises, ejaculating penises, peeing men and women, vulvas, etc., in lots of places where such images are unnecessary. In article sections we usually use wikilinks and links to "main" articles. That's where the uncensored images are used, not just everywhere. I tried to explain, but IP93 just doesn't seem to get the hint. Here's something I wrote to illustrate:

• "Images are used where necessary, but images that may be offensive to many are used more sparingly, IOW on the articles where they are most relevant. Instead of plastering/spamming (and that's what you seem to be doing) every tree in the forest with pictures of penises, we just put signs that say "penis", and an arrow. When one arrives at the penis tree, there will be a nice picture of a penis on THAT tree, because THAT is where it's relevant. It's not relevant on every other tree in the forest."

Will someone explain to them that wikilinks are sufficient (and don't have to be accompanied by an image), and that by using appropriate (and often very graphic) images on the final target articles, we are keeping Misplaced Pages uncensored, and that by refusing to plaster/spam such images all over the place, we are not violating NOTCENSORED? They need to stop this behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added replies with my thoughts and some advice here and here.

I'm wondering if a short topic ban would be appropriate, even if only to force the IP to discuss the matter here, instead of everyone having to deal with them all over the place? A basic consensus needs to be arrived at here before they are allowed to continue this activity. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• What bothers me isn't so much the editorial point of view, as the propensity to edit war over it. (Given that this is an IP account, we do not really know whether this is a long-standing user who has suddenly gotten interested in the issue, or someone new who is now editing from that IP address.) If this were a thoughtful effort to provide better content, I'd have no problem with it, per NOTCENSORED. From what I've seen, though, it seems less like someone coming in here to improve content, than someone who is just trying to see what they can get away from. And I really do feel that there has been enough edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with the IP, that this is taking on the appearance of trolling. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've been persuaded by your collective arguments on the issues raised by the IP, but I'm not yet convinced the IP is trolling. It seems like sincere strong feelings about prudery, and an attempt, mostly through civil argument, to move the project toward a more radical position with regard to sexually explicit content. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of this speculation could be moved to a more appropriate place, such as a polite respectful request for clarification on the user's talkpage. Guessing what the editor thinks is not always as productive as asking the authority on the issue. Penyulap ☏ 06:06, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this discussion, and is expected to respond here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User: 86.154.176.178

• 86.154.176.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• This relatively new IP account carried out two removals of maintenance tags using insulting language and without addressing the issues. This prompted me to revert and to post a notification on the IP's talkpage. I did not address the Wikiquette issue, since these were not personal attacks and I did not wish to antagonise the user. The response was this edit on my talkpage, which is a personal attack. Anyone acting on this issue may wish to see view the user's previous good faith, if controversial, edits.--SabreBD (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the ip and tone makes me think not a new user at all, looks like Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I left a note. That is extremely rude but not a personal attack per definition. I have to remember that, as an American, that phrase is more offensive here than to a Brit, for example, but it is still not an acceptable means of communications by any means. If they continue the attitude and methods, a block might be needed for disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us hope for the best.--SabreBD (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

He has been warned, if he does it again, he will be blocked. Feel free to ping me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be 'less unacceptable', but telling someone to "fuck off" isn't really acceptable or inoffensive anywhere in the world. Lankiveil 04:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Indeed; it's never WP:CIVIL at any time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Incivil, yes, personal attack, no. And generally not blockworthy for a single instance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Abuse from Raeky and Mann_jess, regarding the "Evolution As Fact and Theory" page

The two pages I'd like ANI to review are these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Snootcher

I apologize for the long walls of text, but that seems to have been the strategy of two users named Raeky and Mann_jess. It seems that an edit war has taken place, and both of these persons have tried to portray themselves as some sort of moderation force on Misplaced Pages. You can read for yourself the troubles I have had with these two individuals.

To recap this brief history between us, I read the "Evolution As Fact and Theory" page and wanted to make suggestions to improve it. I believed Raeky and Mann_jess when they came off as Misplaced Pages rules enforcers, so I accepted their revisions to my edits. (They closed my subsection titled Phantam Citations, accusing it of a rules violation.) After I learned that these are just two online bullies who are trolling, baiting, engaging in edit drama, and other poor behavior, I decided to post my four suggestions in as concise a manner as I could. (A new subsection titled "Suggestions to Improve This Article.") However, they have stepped up their efforts, and now there seems to be an edit war underway.

I am contacting ANI after I tried to resolve these matters peacefully, which you can see in the Edit History of the Evolution talk page. I also connected to the volunteer help line, and they suggested contacting ANI after seeing what Raeky and Mann_jess were doing in the edit history.

I have never interacted with Misplaced Pages before, so you can imagine my surprise when Raeky and Mann_jess were quick with these bully/troll tactics. Please refer to my User Talk page for the worst of the worst, and to the Evolution talk page for their actions. Please get involved and stop people like these two from doing this to folks. Thanks.

Snootcher (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

suggest WP:BOOMERANG-block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Already done, Seb; I've been watching this for a while and warned the user, but in vain. BTW, Raeky is a bit overzealous and wordy; cooling down is always better than escalating. Someone feel free to close this, unless they think there is something to it. I don't. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry Seb, I'm reopening. Can someone please go by this user's talk page and address their (malformed) unblock request? Seb and I are not professional or fair enough, it seems, and I have no intention of again trying to explain to this editor what's going on. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone who has a lot of patience, and can take things really slow, with lots of comments and constructive (even positive) criticism, is about the only thing that's going to help at this point. If anyone wants to step up to that task, it would be extremely helpful. Short of that, this user is just going to end up indeffed, and quickly, for IDHT and TE. He hasn't yet had a chance to acclimate to our policies, so that may not be entirely fair (even if necessary).   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. He's been indeffed, and based on his last few messages, I've become convinced that he's either a troll or suffering from competence issues. Either way, I don't see any reason to waste more time on it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to mentor this editor. Penyulap ☏ 06:57, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

You've been here for a 15 months, have under 8000 edits, only 26% of which are to article space, while over 20% are to Misplaced Pages space, while another 23% are to User talk. You're not qualified to be a mentor, as you seem not to realize that we're here to build an encyclopedia and not to chat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I accidentally kick your dog or something ? That first sentence sounds rather impressive, I thought it was just getting towards a year and 8,000 sounds kind of small, I thought I talked more than that, but then again I like dark green contribs even better than simply all green contribs. I've looked over where this user is going wrong, and I think I can help. Mann_jess did specify 'anyone', Jess specifies 'Someone who has a lot of patience' Drmies says 'cooling down is always better than escalating' and indef is as escalated as it gets, no? I agree that 'He hasn't yet had a chance to acclimate to our policies, so that may not be entirely fair'. I think I can help someone settle in, I've done that quite a few times, and with such success that it may have escaped attention. I don't think this is rocket science I think it is just being plain *nice* <twinkly smile> Penyulap ☏ 10:03, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

You are not qualified to be a mentor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of percentage of edits = qualification, an editor with the amount of...controversy...like that Pen (rightly or wrongly) attracts probably shouldn't be a mentor. Even if the controversy is unwarranted it poisons the well for the mentored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That being said, however, while I agree that mentors ought to be experienced editors, may I ask from where BYK is getting his information on the qualifications to become a mentor? I certainly see nothing of the sort at WP:MENTOR ... which is, come to that, an essay. If he's just giving his personal opinion, well, okay, but there's no call for reiterating "You are not qualified to be a mentor" as if reciting from a black-letter rule to a slightly slow person refusing to listen. Ravenswing 18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What have we got to lose. I'm here to build an encyclopaedia one editor at a time. I'm looking at the WP:MENTOR page, it doesn't say that I need a Degree in medicine before I can hand someone a box of tissues. Penyulap ☏ 13:13, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

An editor who has been blocked twice in the past month, for disruption and personal attacks, is not an appropriate mentor. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think mentoring will help in this case. A quick review of his talk page shows that (whatever the reason), he's not open to receiving input, reading pages that are suggested to him, or changing his behavior in any but a more disruptive way. I doubt he would even be open to being mentored to begin with. Finally, I have to agree with Bushranger; even if I'm wrong about the mentoring, at this present time, I'm not sure you should be pursuing mentorship. I haven't been following your edits closely, but I've still seen a lot of drama attached to your name (rightly or wrongly). I think you may be a good editor in a lot of other aspects, but it would be unfair to push that drama (or any potential causes of it) on to an inexperienced editor. Again, that's just my opinion... please don't take it as a comment on your character or person. My opinion, and this state of affairs, may well change in the future. In the interim, I think there are better things for you to focus on than mentoring. When the cloud (and recent blocks) clear, it might be a good time to re-evaluate things then. Personally, I do appreciate your eagerness to get involved. It's just about timing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, I won't help if so many are going to protest, maybe the editor in question is more productive as an indef blocked editor. However my skills in radical approaches are indeed exotic, so this was right up my alley. I'm just going to say I was right, and you were all wrong and I give up. Penyulap ☏ 23:07, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and football kit removals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm dealing with a problem across both English Misplaced Pages and Commons involving Walter Görlitz. Walter Görlitz has gotten involved in several edit wars over at Commons regarding the logos of football clubs appearing on kits. Some of the larger edit wars can be seen here, here, and here. It's happened in well over a dozen pages. He's been rather aggressive and condescending towards the people over on that project that disagreed with him, and I told him to stop edit warring and to communicate in a more appropriate manner over at Commons. Thankfully that mess seems to have cooled down, as the people he was edit warring with have left.

Meanwhile over on this project Walter Görlitz has been removing the kits from infoboxes in their entirety, citing the logos in the shirts. Here's an example. I reverted him and told him that instead of removing the images here, he should just edit out the images over there (which he had been doing already), but he reverted me. I reverted him a second time, to which his response was "Shall I tag you for perpetuating copyright violations or would you prefer to self-revert?" (diff). Now I've been trying to help this guy over at Commons for the better part of an hour, but I'm not going to get sucked into an edit war, and his beheavor at Commons indicates that there's no hope of it going antwhere else (indeed, he's already reverted my second revert). I'd like for someone to settle this. Ideally, I'd also like an admin to tell him that his behavior is unacceptable, and possibly block him, but really I'd settle for just having the reverting stop and for him to calm down. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've stopped reverting since I've seen someone fixing the copyvios at the commons, however, we cannot leave copyright violations in articles even if the copyvios are housed at the commons. If that's an incorrect understanding, I'm willing to be corrected in that. Here's one of Sven's reverts: Edit out the logo, what you're doing is making the kits inaccurate where he clearly knows that I've been trying to edit out the logo on the commons, as stated above, and a cabal of five editors reverted to copyvio versions. I then stated on an admin page that until the issue was cleared-up on the commons, that I would remove the kits with copyvios on the English page.

As for aggressive at the commons, nonsense! I didn't realize that once could leave comments when reverting since the field is pre-populated and when I realized that one could change the default comment on commons, I clearly indicated that I was reverting copyright violations there and never aggressively.

Meanwhile Sven Manguard restores flags in infoboxes against other guidelines as part of his overly zealous reverts that include the copyvios. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, looking at this I can't even make out the logos. At that scale I don't see how they're not fair use - they're demonstrating the actual uniform, removing the logo makes the uniform erronious. Of course, we had somebody once seriously propose using a hand-drawn-on-lined-paper illustration of the Chengdu J-20 instead of fair use photos, so I've seen worse suggested in the name of 'copyright'... Anyway, I honestly don't see the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was on your side of the logos and crests on kits debate at one point, but you'll see at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#Logos on kits and the discussion in the commons that inclusion, even at that scale, are copyvios. I hate being the one to enforce a rule that I don't fully agree with, but there it is. No club, manufacturer or shirt sponsor would complain about the violation, and the sponsors have paid for their name to be there, but it's the standing decision. I don't know if it's policy though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

...I'd say something about that being "madness", but I have no desire to be kicked into a pit at this time of night. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was on the fence, so I asked some people on IRC, and Dcoetzee made a rather convincing case that each individual image (despite being combined in that weird template) has to stand on its own, and that on its own, the logo on the torso section dosen't pass de minimis. As to The Bushranger's concers, some of the logos are more recognizable than others (Real Madrid and Barcelona's logos both are very clear, Bayern Munich and Arsenal's aren't), and the kits are already inaccurate since they don't have the sponsor's logo on them. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't be included at all then, I reckon - misleading is worse than not having them at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen (I haven't followed it religiously), Walter is arguably using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, arguably upholding policy. Sven's response appears to have been to launch a nuclear warhead.

At the examples given, a solitary, 14-year-old user is insisting on restoring a clear breach of Nike's rights (using their brand logo in association with a low quality representation of a product), while multiple established users are restoring the plain version. As the restoring user is making no justification as to why the content is free, Walter is perfectly entitled to assume that he is covered by 3RR exemptions on non-free content. Commons systems should be dealing with the problems at their end – if they are incapable of doing so, then Walter is right to remove the most problematic versions at our end pending resolution. Sven has attempted to deal with the issue on Commons, quite rightly. In the meantime his response on en.wiki appears to have been to knowingly restore inappropriate content, and in doing so knowingly provoke reverts.

If, and I accept that further work needs to be done to establish the facts, but if this post is an accurate representation of the situation, then it is Sven who we should be thinking about warning. —WFC— 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to close this, and give resolving it with Walter Görlitz again. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Stephen24157

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

• Stephen24157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stephen24157 seems to be an account specifically set up to vandalize the Mormonism article. So far the user has a total of 2 edits, both are clear-cut vandalism.

This account is vandalizing. If this account vandalizes past a level 4 warning, it can be reported to WP: AIV, and the process there is much quicker than over here. Electric Catfish 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Due to the types of edits, indef blocked as a vandalism only account. Normally, WP:AIV is the better venue for this type of activity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:72.181.28.40

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

Almost all this user's edits to date have been disruptive edits of various soccer related articles moving lists out of alphabetical order without reasoning or warning (I won't bother posting the diffs since every edit on his edit list save his first so far is an instance in question). He's been warned 3x by two different users to stop this behavior but has persisted, again without explanation or acknowledgement. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited since his final warning. If he does again, I suggest WP:AIV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ric Richardson and recent news & trolls

Due to a recent lawsuit filed by Uniloc against several video game companies, there are a large number of fanbois that are becoming very aggressive and antagonistic against that company and the related pages, in particular the Ric Richardson page that seems to be in particular the target of a systematic vandalism attack by the fans of those video game companies. Off-wiki canvassing on various forums is even actively encouraging this sort of vandalism.

All I'm asking is for an active admin to take a look at these pages and monitor them and to make a determination if some sort of protection level is necessary.

Places off the top of my head where this is being discussed can be found here:

• http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/07/22/0219242/patent-troll-claims-minecraft-infringement
• http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1368898-lawsuit-filed-against-mojang-this-time-for-obscure-patent/
• http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/wx3cm/minecraft_developer_mojang_sued_by_patent_troll/

I'm sure other sites could be cited, but I think this is more than sufficient to show recent off-wiki activity is happening on this topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mutante96

Mutante96 (talk · contribs) - I am reluctant to bring this here because Mutante96 is editing in good faith, but I see that this might be the only way to get this editor's attention. As anyone can see by this users talk page it's pretty much like I state here If the edits made by this editor were not obviously in good faith this would be a Vandalism Only account. My only concern here is to get Mutante96's attention. I was going to wait for a response to my post on their talk page before posting here, but since there has been none to anything else on that page I don't see the point. Thoughts ? Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 18:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this here, because I've had problems with Mutante in the past, not on a personal level, but just him making edits that don't belong, and I've tried to tell him through edit summaries, and then on his talk page, that he needs to quit making those edits. You can see the post I made on his talk page here. But, it seems that he just doesn't look at his talk page at all. And he doesn't have a user page. So, to me, it looks like he just made an account and then just started editing, and it seems that's all he does. He probably has never looked at his talk page in his life. Hopefully someone can get his attention. I don't know how they would do that though. Akdrummer75 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this discussion will reach a consensus to do just that. Thanx for your comment. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 03:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go through Mutante96 live edits and fix what needs fixing, posting this here in case my edits are construed as WP:HOUND. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please watchlist WP:ERRORS

Admins: I just got a note on my talk page that response time at WP:ERRORS has been slow. That page exists to correct mistakes on our welcome mat. Please watchlist WP:ERRORS and help us respond quickly. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird; I check it every so often and don't remember ever seeing any unfixed errors...Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 civility

We've had a bit of a flare-up over at WP:ITN/C that could use administrator attention. User:HiLo48 has been showing significant anger lately over postings of items, and it's leading to increasing name-calling. On 16 July, for example, he responds to the posts of other editors by calling them "arrogance": . Two days ago he called User:BorgQueen's posting of an item "quite immoral" and "stupidly rapid" ; he also calls another user's comment "stupid" in the latter and insults the manners of American editors as a whole. Several editors have directly requested that he be more civil , to which he responded "LOL". After a dozen posts with this tone in that thread, he then proceeded to open continued discussion in a new forum, bludgeoning each oppose vote as invalid and misunderstanding him, posting about twenty times (see thread at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. This afternoon he responded to one post asking if the user was an idiot in an edit titled "Bullshit". I asked him again to be civil and he responded that he was not being uncivil, but I had simply misunderstood.

I'd ask that HiLo receive some sort of block or warning for his behavior. I respect that we disagree, and I hope that he'll contribute constructively and respectfully again in the future. This repeated name-calling and hostility, though, is needlessly poisoning the atmosphere of the project. Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Related historical ANI and WT:ITN discussions on similar behaviour from HiLo48 can be found: here, here, here and here, amongst others. Once, we can AGF. Twice, you get weary. Three times, you wonder why nothing's been done. We're well past that now… and still nothing's been done. I appreciate Khazar's efforts in bringing this to a wider audience at ANI.—Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's generally three strikes and you're out, right? And this editor has had, as per Strange Passerby, over three strikes before this last one? After at least four previous discussions on basically the same sort of matter, I rather doubt at this point a simple warning would do any good. But such comments as those above do nothing to contribute to the atmosphere or even the opinion of others regarding the person making the comments. I tend to agree that some sort of block or ban seems called for, but I'm not sure based on the above what kind of action or how long it would optimally be. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, every time I've looked in at ITNC, he has displayed the exact same behaviour. Personally, I'd say a topic ban would be useful. Maybe in a couple months he can then return to the arena with a better attitude. Resolute 19:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is sufficient. His attitude is generally uncivil, confrontational, needlessly argumentative, and exceedingly pedantic. For example: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities#Young_Earth_creationism_and_Gnosticism, where he tells Dweller to 'run off to Conservapedia' after Dweller took issue with his tone; Talk:Mitt_Romney#Romney.27s_behavior_at_Cranbrook_school, where he deploys his usual high-handed tone to dismiss the valid concerns of others; Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Controversy:_Minute_of_Silence_for_murdered_Israeli_athletes, where he accuses others of Wikilawyering whilst engaging in exactly that behaviour himself; and right here, below this comment. He's very fond of saying provocative things, and then claiming not to have said them because he did not, in exactly as many words, say the precise thing he's accused of. Calling me an idiot talk ITN talk is a fine example - he provided a neat Morton's fork, whereby I was either a troll or an idiot, and then rejected the accusation of having called me an idiot. No doubt if he had been reprimanded for saying I was trying to provoke him, he would have said that he hadn't said that, either. It is the Magician's force technique, and we shouldn't fall for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Khazar2 accuses me of name calling, then provides precisely zero examples of me doing so. I have certainly expressed dissatisfaction with the BEHAVIOUR of other editors. That is NOT name calling. I choose my words carefully. Others might do well to try to do the same thing themselves. I proposed a radical change. I have been involved in introducing change in many organisations over my life. I know that it's common for one of the first reactions to a new and radical idea is for those used to the old ways to feel threatened and to attack the person with the new idea. That certainly happened with my suggestion at . An independent observer looking here should definitely look at the reactions of several editors there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I commented earlier this year on HiLo48's ongoing long-term incivility and disruption of the ITN feature and am not surprised to find this matter at ANI. The solution is a topic ban of substantial duration. Jusdafax 21:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's quite some record - as Strange Passerby has also highlighted above. For what it's worth, I advocate a complete ban for at least a month; preferably longer. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would make the point that I have gone out of my way to warn HiLo48 in that same thread . Now that I understand that HiLo48 by no means restricts his abusive commentary to the ITN feature, I have started a subsection to block him as a preventative measure. Judging from his reply he is unrepentant. And having dealt with him for years, in my view he is a poor candidate for mentoring. Jusdafax 22:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that an ITN topic ban misses the broader point of this user's difficulties with comprehending how to interact with others on Misplaced Pages. See (), which was NOT at ITN. Arguing in defence of ridiculing others' religions is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Making ill-informed guesses about the personal beliefs of other users is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Telling other users to leave Misplaced Pages is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. I think this user needs to radically adjust their norms of interaction. Banning him from ITN won't address the issue, but will just push the bad behaviour elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what would you suggest? John Carter (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From what HiLo48 says above, his intent is to comment on the behavior of other editors, and he doesn't see this as relating to Civility. Perhaps a better explanation is needed as to why this comes off as incivil to some editors and how Civility is bigger than just "No Personal Attacks"? It sounds like HiLo48 is perfectly willing to comply with Civility policy, but has not yet seen how this applies to his actions. -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've never had any contact with HiLo before, but I'm not impressed at what I've seen. The diffs provided by the editors above demonstrate a sustained problem of incivility towards other editors. What is even more worrying is that HiLo seems never to acknowledge that his manner is utterly inappropriate (indeed, his response to this report, claiming that there are no example of name calling illustrate this nicely). If it was just a case of incivility from an editor who knew he'd done wrong, I think we could be lenient. However, the long-term nature of the problem, and the inability to even understand that his tone is regularly inappropriate, suggests to me that a block of some length may be necessary. ItsZippy 21:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans work where it's the nature of the topic that stimulates bad behaviour. I really don't think that's the case here. I'm also not sure a block is a great idea. HiLo is capable of being constructive and productive and much of their contribution history is positive. It's when dealing with other editors that the problems come in... the talk page history includes much that is really problematic. Blocking HiLo IMO does not generate a strong possibility of improved behaviour in the future because I think they genuinely don't understand what they're doing wrong. I'd ideally want HiLo to agree to being mentored and then we'll have the thorny problem of finding a suitable mentor who agrees to doing the job. If that fails, I'm concerned that a block will begin a sad route, via future blocks to an eventual ban and that would be a shame. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said above, anyone looking for incivility need only look at several of the responses to my sincere suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring would be a good step forwards, if HiLo will agree to it and we can find a suitable mentor. ItsZippy 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is a good editor, but inclined to be intemperate and uncivil, which detracts from his contribution. His response to warnings and relevant wikiprocess is to become increasingly uncivil. A good example is his contributions during discussion on the Craig Thomson affair which made the news due to the level of poor behaviour. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, HiLo's tendency to directly attack an editor isn't limited to ITN. HiLo was involved in an article with another editor, who brought the issue to ANI. I'd done some poking about on the talk page and generally found that if things don't go HiLo's way, their outbursts are pretty explosive. These were some of the gems I found last time. Here, here and here. Back then, HiLo's behaviour was buried under the subsequent discussion in to the disruptive behaviour of the other editor. I guess it was only a matter of time before this came up again. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't topic ban HiLo48. I hope this process has given the editor pause, and that they will take a self imposed break to realize that ultimately Misplaced Pages is not that important :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed block or topic ban from ITN of HiLo48

• Support block - On further contemplation of this issue, I'd agree that not just a topic ban but a block is called for regarding HiLo48's long-term and ongoing disruption, including the ITN feature as seen in discussions and this one where consensus was reached that HiLo's actions were unacceptable . This has gone on far too long, in my view, and it appears to me now that the problem extends further than I realized. Jusdafax 21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in line with Dweller's comment above. With no specific appraisal of HiLo48's comments with respect to civility, if there is indeed an issue here then mentoring is far more likely to produce a desirable result. This seems like a situation that requires a more nuanced approach to solve than simply wheeling out the brute force solution of the blockhammer. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban I have to say, the civility issue is clear here, but I think a block is unnecessary. HiLo is a good editor. Perhaps a topic ban to let HiLo cool his heels a bit? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic ban from ITN yes, block - no. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, pending mentorship proposal, see my comment above. If that fails to get off the ground or the mentor reports it fails to succeed, I'd reconsider. Definitely oppose topic ban, for reasons outlined above. Understandable motivation, but unlikely to succeed in this case. --Dweller (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless attempts at mentoring do not work, in which case I'd support a block. ItsZippy 23:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban. The disruption has gone on far too long, and there's no reason to believe that it will cease as long as HiLo continues to post on ITN-related pages. His adversarial approach has a chilling effect on discussion, discouraging the participation of both editors disagreeing with him (who don't wish to be berated) and agreeing with him (who don't wish to align themselves with his vitriol).
  Honestly, I don't know why a topic ban wasn't enacted after consensus was clearly established here.
  As noted above, HiLo sees nothing wrong with his conduct, so a block is unlikely to inspire reform. If he's willing to accept a mentorship, this is worth trying as an alternative to a site-wide ban. —David Levy 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any level of action, at the very least a topic ban. It's nothing new, I've scarce seen an interaction in which HiLo took place without being insulting or condescending, not only on ITN but the front page talk as well, and there is a long history of AN/I. Frankly, it would seem that so long as nothing is done, he will continue to flaunt this; it is unfortunate because he is an active editor. If a block is deemed to severe I certainly support a topic ban, mentorship, or whatever else might be done to remedy this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading through some of the threads presented, I do not find the same pattern. Also, some comments by other editors in these threads show a similar standard of civility. I would suggest that if editors are concerned about civility they should ask an administrator to monitor the talk pages. Below are a few of the examples I looked at.
  • Wikilawyering. An editor argues that, since WP:NOTABILITY only applies to creating articles, not to article content, "Once the article exists, any sourced material that is relevant to the topic, and that does not violate any additional Misplaced Pages policies, can be included; notability does not enter into that equation." Although HiLo48 had used the term "notable", WP:UNDUE would exclude non-notable content. It seems the accusation of Wikilawyering may be fair comment and yet AlexTiefling, who is calling for a block accuses HiLo48 in this discussion thread of Wikilawyering while providing no edit differences.
  • Are you trying to provoke me.... HiLo48 is replying to AlexTiefling's comment, "Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you...." Khazar2, who is the complainant in this case, then tells HiLo48, but not AlexTiefling, to be civil.

TFD (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the distinction to me was that HiLo had engaged in a long pattern of this behavior; I also didn't engage with HiLo about civility when he first called other editors "arrogant", BorgQueen "quite immoral", or the comment of another editor "stupid". After he continued the behavior for 24 hours, though, the pattern became clear. I don't believe Alex has the same history, either in this particular thread or on ITN in general. Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to show long term abuse here, especially when there are no blocks or sanctions recorded against this editor. May I suggest you go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, whether or not your application here is successful. It is a much better forum when no single edit would warrant sanctions, but when they form part of a pattern. TFD (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama, but if necessary, maybe someone else can take the baton from here. But are things like calling another user a "prick" over and over really not actionable without that step? Our civility policies are a lot more toothless than I realized. Khazar2 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was uncivil to HiLo in that thread. I apologise for letting my feelings get the better of me. I came to that thread directly from the ITN discussion about Aurora, and I definitely should have gone and got a cup of tea first. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (but oppose block). We have to take this first step. A topic ban from ITN will make it abundantly clear that we won't tolerate this kind of behaviour – and, if Dweller's fears that HiLo would simply bring this behaviour elsewhere come true, we can then escalate to blocks. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - At most, mentorship should be used in place of blocking. However, there is no reason why ITNC should have to put up with his attitude while a mentor tries to help mend his ways. We can lift a topic ban if and when said mentor determines that future disruption is unlikely. Resolute 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and oppose block - the big guns can be called out later if needed, but right now a topic ban should solve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. One has to start somewhere. It is true that HiLo48 is not the only one with a systematic pattern of disruptive behaviour at ITN. Somehow, ITN seems to attract users who'd be blocked/topic banned/whatever for POV pushing, political soapboxing and incivility at just about any other page, and yet their conduct is largely tolerated at ITN. However, that does not mean that nothing should be done, in fact quite the opposite. If the worst offenders start being held accountable, the others will take notice. In my observations, HiLo48 conduct at ITN has been consistently non-constructive, often provocative and incendiary. A topic ban from ITN would certainly be a reasonable first step, to see if HiLo48 can engage in more productive editing elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, neutral on topic ban. HiLo's recent behaviour is obviously uncivil, but it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognising the problem and agreeing to correct it. A short topic ban probably wouldn't hurt, but may not be needed if there is a sincere undertaking to self-improve. Mentorship may also not hurt if someone is willing. But I'd be surprised if HiLo is not able to work out for himself what he needs to change. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognizing the problem and agreeing to correct it. And that's been asked of him many, many times. But in HiLo's view, the blame belongs to everyone but him. This is nothing new. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fair comment, but it may be that HiLo reflects on the concerns raised it this thread and resolves to turn over a new leaf. If he does, then I'd say its reasonable to take him at his word. If he declines the opportunity, then, sure, a topic ban is appropriate. Formerip (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  If that were to occur, I'd be delighted to take HiLo at his word and give him another chance. But we've been here too many times for me to expect such a turn of events. And this is HiLo's current assessment of a previous determination by the community that his behavior was unacceptable. —David Levy 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't endorse rude comments, ITN has all sorts of very major problems (in short: it's American-biased and often links to low-quality articles) and the points HiLo was making actually look quite reasonable to me. This comment included in the orginal report was made in response to an extraordinarily rude comment from AlexTiefling (which includes "You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms"). Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think this misunderstands the issue slightly. Bias and premature postings are things that can be, should be and are discussed at ITNC while keeping a civil tongue. I don't endorse AlexTiefling's tone, but his assessment is basically correct. In this instance, HiLo was too strident and deaf to other editors. Formerip (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  That an actual systemic bias problem exists is all the more reason to put a stop to HiLo's disruption. His rants are so vitriolic that they accomplish nothing other than poisoning the well. When others attempted to express such concerns respectfully, their efforts were mistaken for HiLo-style trolling and unfairly dismissed. Regardless of where someone stands on these issues, his/her ability to engage in constructive discourse is compromised. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  As I said above, I don't agree with uncivil comments. However, ITN is, from my experiance and observations, a very frustrating area to edit in (reasonable criticisms posted politely are often met with strong, and often quite arrogant, counter-attacks), and HiLo was responding to fairly extreme abuse in that comment I linked to. As such, I don't see how sanctioning a single editor will resolve what's a much larger problem. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  And what about his comments at the Ref Desk? Hot Stop 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of limited duration, oppose block. ITN may other problems with civility, but I'm not sure that excuses any of HiLo's behavior, especially since he's displayed identical behavior elsewhere (see, for example, BlackMane's diffs above where HiLo repeatedly calls another editor "a rude, impatient prick" or Dweller's where HiLo mocks a user's religion and tells them to leave Misplaced Pages). I hope we'll see HiLo contributing to ITN again some day, but until he cuts back on the vitriol, he's doing much more harm there than good. Mentoring sounds like a good step too if HiLo's prepared to accept it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, Neutral on block For a few months now, I've noticed that he has often been very uncivil when it comes to responding to nominations he feels are not worthy, and to comments made by other editors that he disagrees with. These comments usually lead to bickering between HiLo and the editor(s) that he rubbed the wrong way (one example). He is not always uncivil, but when he is, it always sparks some kind of argument that can be seen on the related ITN nomination. I would hope a topic ban from ITN for a while would be sufficient enough. He has shown this behavior enough in the past for several discussions to take place regarding his conduct throughout Misplaced Pages, so I would not oppose a block, but in terms of his behavior lately, I don't feel as though blocking him is really necessary unless he shows that he cannot be civil in future discussions. If the topic ban were to expire, and he goes back to being uncivil in the discussions, I feel he should be blocked. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (wide) topic ban, oppose block (for now) HiLo should be topic banned not only from ITN and its subpages, but from the refdesk as well and perhaps any WP/WT page. I would, however, oppose a block since I've found his editing outside those areas to be positive. Hot Stop 04:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick-D. I deal with him on Australian topics all the time and while he is sometimes a little brittle to deal with (and possibly somewhat more in the topic area under consideration, from the diffs I've clicked on), he is a productive, cooperative and useful editor who works towards building consensus in discussions and is generally coming from the right place content wise. Dealing in difficult areas of the encyclopaedia where even editors who behave normally can be mistreated, it's not hard to lose perspective and get very hard-headed about things - I know that's happened to me before, although I've usually known when to walk away. Perhaps mentorship is the answer, I don't know. Orderinchaos 05:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've had a lot of interaction with HiLo48. 3/4 of the time we are opponents/disagree. But I have the utmost respect for them. They clearly understand what what an encyclopedia should be and work towards that end and aren't afraid to take a little heat in that effort. I find that their blunt talk much less nasty than the more clever wiki-lawyer methods of warfare more commonly used. They are a strong proponent of avoiding US-centrism in Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or at least some level of action. Countless diffs can be provided of HiLo48's bouts of incivility. I have no doubt that he is a productive editor, but all of his efforts on WP:ITN have consistently been counter-productive and deliberately antagonistic.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose mentorship (and fallback to topic ban from ITN of HiLo48, if mentor is rejected)

It seems that a topic ban is supported by a consensus of people above, and mentorship was proposed right before the poll above started. I would suggest that a mentor of AN/I's choosing be given an opportunity to guide HiLo48 for 2 weeks, if this mentoring fails, in the opinion of the mentor alone, or a consensus of other editors, then a 3-month topic ban from ITN would *immediately* replace the mentorship. If after 2 weeks, HiLo48 has demonstrated improvements, then the mentorship could end, with a warning to avoid further conflict or a summary 3-month topic ban from ITN would be imposed, solely at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am on board with the idea but I personally think it would be more appropriate, given the rather lengthy period of these problems and HiLo's denial of any wrongdoing, to impose a (perhaps temporary) topic ban and mentorship concurrently. HiLo has said in his own words that he is interested in making this a better encyclopedia; to me, the best way to demonstrate this would be to work on other articles and take a break from ITN. If things look better the topic ban can always be lifted. I must admit I am also interested to see if ITN itself cleans up at all as a result of this, not just from HiLo taking a break but also perhaps the demonstration to others on the borderline that this is unacceptable. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If he wants to take on a mentor, that's fine. But I doubt someone who's been editing since 2008 will change now. And plus, as proposed it seems over bureaucratic. Hot Stop 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I above suggested to the editor that regardless of the outcome of this discussion thread, that they file an RFC/U. Their reply was, "an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama". If the complainant shows that lack of interest in their application, I do not think that it merits any more of our attention. TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's a sine qua non for you, TFD, I'm willing to pledge to start the RfC/U--and if this was the wrong place to come for repeated personal attacks, I apologize. I'm comparatively new to AN/I, and was just surprised to hear that it didn't deal with those matters. FWIW, I'd also point out that I'm far from the only complainant on this page, as the many diffs above demonstrate. Khazar2 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, disregard what I wrote above. As much as I dislike HiLo's abuse of other editors, I'd rather focus on content than spend another day or two researching and setting up a second community referendum on this. Hopefully, though, the many diffs above will be enough to obviate the need for further escalation. Khazar2 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It's pretty obvious that there is divided opinion as to how to proceed. Rather than continue with the drama that will ensue if the discussion of a topic ban or mentorship continues. I propose that the discussion be stopped here with a very stern final warning that the next time that HiLo is brought here harsh sanctions will be applied. Blocking now will be punitive, a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill and mentorship of an editor who has been here for 4 years is demeaning. Blackmane (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support HiLo is too good an editor to block, to experienced to mentor successfully, and a topic ban won't fix the problem. The solution has got to come from within, and I wish that HiLo could just stop and count to ten or something. This sort of behaviour can't go on, because it is disruptive, and it is a distraction from good editing work. But it cannot be ignored. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe there is currently consensus for a topic ban, and all this does is circumvent that consensus. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As evidenced in the above mentioned "Previous DR Attempts", the point has not sunk in to HiLo that their comments are significantly below the minimum standard of civility for the page and at Misplaced Pages at large. Stern warnings have already been provided. This Alternative of an alternative of an alternative is an end run around the thin consensus for a topic ban from ITN. We're not supposed to give unlimited 2nd chances to unreformed disruptive entities. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that blocking now will be punitive, and a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill, but mentorship for an experienced editor isn't demeaning. It's a sign of respect and affection and It may work, and should be offered before more serious sanctions are imposed. But let's see if this discussion has an effect on HiLo's future interaction style first.

HiLo, I followed your pregnancy argument and in that you occasionally crossed the line in terms of civility, but not until you'd been called a pervert by a passing IP (and no one had criticised or removed the comment) and been patronised by Ludwigs2. I think you were told by someone that you are stupid, or it was implied. Someone criticised you for striding up and down the RfC comments, challenging any opposing view, but you weren't standing over or bullying people, you were arguing, which is what we try to do here. What really annoyed me was your propensity to insult the intelligence of your interlocutor. Literally. Tell them their ideas are ridiculous. That doesn't advance your argument; it isn't necessary, it polarises the debate, and it makes you look unpleasant to deal with. And, as in the case of Ludwigs2, it can get you blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment Don't mistake that I'm aiming to circumvent a consensus, which I don't see yet, and coming down on either side of the fence. I don't approve of HiLo's behaviour either and in fact, brought up their behaviour in the previous ANI. Given that there are examples of their incivility elsewhere, I'm not sure what a topic ban would achieve. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Observation I don't know if this provides any path to consensus, but it appears that editors who know HiLo primarily from ITN are almost unanimous in supporting action (the sole exception being the IP who asks HiLo to voluntarily take time off), while those who know him from other areas are conflicted or opposed. As linked above, an August 2011 ITN discussion, involving a number of different editors from the current one, was also one !vote short of unanimous in supporting a topic ban for HiLo. The sharp divide suggests to me that HiLo is a largely effective editor elsewhere and a largely disruptive one at ITN. Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think he's just as disruptive wherever he goes. It's the same editor with the same interaction style. But he spends a lot of time at ITN, so I can imagine they'd appreciate a break from him. But let's see if he engages here and agrees to stop insulting his interlocutors. If that doesn't happen, if there's no recognition of a problem, we might as well just ban him, or agree to put up with the present style, because change is unlikely if you haven't acknowledged something needs changing. It's very late where he is, so this thread should stay open to give him time to respond. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

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

Excuse me if this is at the wrong place, but I feel something should be said about . I feel the anon's comments has passed beyond run of the mill anti-americanism into bigotry and hatred. The extreme callousness of responding to my request for the dead to be respected by calling me a 'sycophant' is disturbing to say the least. I felt this should be brought to attention, again, sorry if it's in the wrong place, or formatted badly. I'm out of practice. Zazaban (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Trolling which has since been removed. GiantSnowman 19:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And that an anon editor is attempting to re-instate. Zazaban (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And now a registered user. Edit war has started. *Sigh* Zazaban (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not after starting an edit war. You've made yours and Misplaced Pages's position clear. The matter is closed in my book. If you think those comments are bad, then I suggest you get out more. IP said some off key things but absolutely not hatred by any stretch. Seemed to me to be misplaced exasperation. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Section is removed again; calm has descended. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In search of edit filter savvy

If there's an admin about with edit filter savvy, I'd appreciate them stopping by WP:AIV. There's a crop of sock/meatpuppets tripping a filter and creating/editing articles that, IMO, meet A7 (credible assertion of importance). Thanks Tiderolls 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Call off the dogs, situation handled. Tiderolls 20:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Socks of Jude Enemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); all blocked. In view of their track record, a long, hard range block may be called for. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected page and deletions

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

In this edit a vandal deleted another editor's comments. The page was then protected, but the deleted comments have not been restored. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What a mess.. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When is this guy going to get that we don't take kindly to trolling and block evasion? I've seen several IPs get blocked today. At what point does a range block become appropriate? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I collapsed the comment on Jimmy's page. I missed that when I protected the page. If he wants to delete it, he will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Were the comments that the vandal deleted restored? The ones in other sections further down by Guy Macon. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Added back manually with a link to the diff that deleted them. Ugly, but effective enough. Inside collapsed section as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And to answer the question, we can't range block. Troll is using a few Class B networks, collateral damage would be too great. Not sure, but think I blocked a dozen of the IPs myself, and protected a few pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Abitoby's disregard and continued "vandalism"

Per User talk:Abitoby, specifically User_talk:Abitoby#Pranab_Mukherjee, User_talk:Abitoby#Indian_presidential_election.2C_2012 and User_talk:Abitoby#Article_ownership. Hes also previously been here and then admitted to a "friend" account which doesn't edit here (these excuses have often come up at SPI). He has the major ownership issues, he doesnt discuss (after i initially vinvited him toread the guidelines and ask for help. Ive repeatedly warned him about a block he could face but he seems to want to challenge it and just an hour or so ago posted similar edits. Virtually all his edits are reverted by someone or the other and he fails to be adding anything contsuctive. He also pushed a pov and personal view , as well as twice adding strange ownership notices. Its not the first time, but i cant keep going to that and warning him and reverting him. He is new, but he was nicely told to ask and read. As an aside, hes also had multiple copyvios in images and in text (posted to 2 articles, then claiming he wrote it Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that User:Abitoby blanked this section with this edit. Evanh2008 09:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one of three times he did that. I blocked 24h solely for that ongoing disruption, without considering the behavior that led to the initial report. DMacks (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They've started edit warring over the block notices. I've just reverted their second removal. Blackmane (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Shoudlnt there be a discussion on the issue itself for a possible extension?

Hes possible engaging in sockpuppetry, as no one else add his bengali povLihaas (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun a little. I know that decline block reviews on an active block aren't to be removed by the user. Does this apply also to notices about active blocks? WP:UP#CMT isn't exactly clear about thatBlackmane (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible problem developing

I have run into a problem with an editor developing their own "correct" list to override an existing list in some manner. The editor moved the article into Main space. I have moved it back to AfC. You can review my discussion on the user's talk page: Charlirox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The two lists in question are List of birds of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/List of resident birds of Sri Lanka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs).

I'm not sure of the best approach here, the new editor may be correct, and it's hard to fight City Hall (I'm sure there is a Wiki saying for that). There was a small edit skirmish. The obvious option is to keep the new list in in AfC forever, but that helps nothing.  Thanks.  :- ) Don 05:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• What ever we end up doing regarding the two articles, Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/List of resident birds of Sri Lanka is copied from List of birds of Sri Lanka without attribution, and if we keep it around in any form we will want to correct the attribution issue. Generally, if an editor intentionally moves an article from AFC space to article space, it should be addressed as a new article, rather then moving it back to project space. I'm not sure what the best approach is regarding the main question of what to do with the two lists. Monty₈₄₅ 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed about the list, but if editors moved articles to Main from Afc with no ramifications, we should close down AfC and move everyone to NPP.   :- ) Don 06:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Both lists are valid - one is a list of bird species recorded in Sri Lanka (494 species), the other is a list of species resident in the country (240 species). The resident list is taken from the larger list, with non-resident species removed. Why not move the resident list back to article space, with an attribution note saying that it's been split off from the recorded list? That should satisfy attribution. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'll just do that. If there's any problem with that solution, give me a shout. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I wish the editor had explained it to me, or maybe I did not understand. Or, I guess I have a problem reading at that hour.  :- ) Don 13:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift 1RR

I request that my 1RR restriction, that was enforced as a result of this discussion be removed as it was mainly enforced due to perceived baiting of another user's 1RR restriction by an administrator. I declined to recognize the restriction and got my block (18:43, February 15, 2012 by bwilkins) reviewed after which restriction was enforced by the community in the mentioned discussion. Now the other user's 1RR has been lifted and the issue from me can no longer exist. On the other editwar related points raised, I respected the community enforced restriction and never violated 1RR and have only one unreverted block in my blocklog since the restriction was imposed and it is not for editwar or 1RR vio (also the reverted ones are not for these and were invalid anyway). I ask for this because I've been finding it pretty hard to keep up the spirit of BRD and find my self reverted repeatedly by editors who do not follow WP:BRD and take advantage of my 1RR restriction knowingly. Atleast 1 of such editors got a 1RR himself for gaming my restriction and am currently being editwar with on single edit as per RFC closure ... (these are just examples and I'll not like to involve any one here for now). Based on this I can say that 1RR is no longer appropriate for me. The topic area is also about to get Discretionary sanctions apparently and the editwar issues by all users should be dealt with accordingly on their own merits whenever they occur. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm torn TopGun. On one hand, the ethical response to DS having their 1RR restriction removed is that yes, you should also have yours rescinded. My question is this: have you been blocked or warned for EW/1RR violations since the 1RR was finally acknowledged? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I've never violated 1RR or editwarred after that (some editors watch my every single edit, had I violated, I'd have been blocked right away)... I already addressed that above with a link to my block log. My reverts now usually have days between them. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

190.44.158.38

I reported this IP yesterday (to the wrong place) for its continued massive incivility when interacting with other users, unfortunately, the behaviour has continued here, and also on edit summaries here, such is the extremeness of his conduct, I feel it should be reported again. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything dramatic in that. In a report at a noticeboard, please ensure the first couple of links point to something worthwhile, and add a brief explanation so onlookers don't have to wonder what the problem is. By the way, when you revert that IP (as here), please don't use edit summary "rm vandalism" unless WP:VAND is clearly satisfied. In that case, the IP's edit looked good to me, and it certainly was not "vandalism". Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is fairly clear from the IPs contribs - edit summaries such as "You want to be a dick about it?", "some twat just removed my explanation of why this version is better", "who the fuck says what he's best known for? state the facts", "lazy fucking plagiarists" etc. Whilst their edits are generally good, their interaction isn't. I'll drop a note on their talkpage (and notify them of this thread, which wasn't done). Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I recognise the Whois information and the style of the writer. Its a rolling IP, the guy is regularly blocked for incivility to any editor who has the temerity to change or revert his edit. When his IP changes he is back again doing the same. See also for example. Black Kite you blocked the guy last October for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Threats

During my past wikibreak, two other users and myself have been threatened by a Misplaced Pages account Warhammer76 (talk · contribs). The threats were relayed through two talkpage posts (in Serbo-Croatian) and an e-mail apparently from the same user . The other users threatened were Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) (producer was threatened in the e-mail, where Warhammer76 demanded his name and address). In Serbian, the user threatened to "slander my name and image" over the internet if I did not cease editing Serbia-related topics - and had actually attempted to do so. However, as Warhammer76's e-mail address is "ignaciojose2006@yahoo.com", I strongly suspect Warhammer76 is a sockpuppet of User:FkpCascais, who was recently topic-banned for another six months, and is a Serbian user joining us from Portugal, wich is quite a unique "combination" (and the user happens to be something of a self-proclaimed "arch-nemesis" of mine). I have limited access to my computer and the internet at the moment, and as the threats were rather serious, I'd like to request assistance in this matter from any willing admin. Someone should probably notify PRODUCER and Peacemaker67, and run a quick checkuser for any connections between FkpCascais and Warhammer76. Regards -- Director (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should indeed notify those two users - that somebody should be you. You should also have notified the two you are making accusations against - in fact, it is more important you notify them! I've done all four for you. Also if you feel two users are linked, use WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 10:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the Warhammer account, but that of course doesn't really mean much. I doubt we here will be able to link this abuse to any established editor as a sockmaster, so I don't think this ANI discussion will be able to achieve much. You could of course ask for checkuser assistance. The threats are serious enough I'd recommend just contacting Arbcom in private – and getting the police involved. This is not just Misplaced Pages abuse, it's definitely criminal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman. My apologies: like I said, my internet contact is extremely limited at this time (I am, in fact, on a sailboat, editing from an older cellphone). Thank you so much for notifying everyone.

@Future. Indeed I have replied to "Warhammer76" making it clear the police and my lawyer shall be notified should any evidence of slander turn up (he has removed the previous "taster"). However as I'm reasonably certain this could be User:FkpCascais' attempt at "revenge", a positive SPI may put an end to this quickly. -- Director (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience lately. I got a message meant to intimidate me from Nado158 (talk · contribs), whom Fkp frequently chats with on their talkpages, stating "why you make always propaganda against Serbia? Why you do this? You think all users here are blind?" Accounts HuHu22 (talk · contribs), Koo88 (talk · contribs), and now Alariccc (talk · contribs) have showed up and repeatedly removed any information they view as offensive to Serbia. Threats also followed. . -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I say DIREKTOR and PRODUCER threat to themselves to accuse Serbian users for this to block them. I am sure Warhammer76 is sock of DIREKTOR or PRODUCER. HuHu22 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Checkuser note: I have just run a check on Warhammer76 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and blocked two confirmed socks. Cheers. Salvio 13:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Link 128 (at time of writing) is evidently an egregious remark that nobody should have to encounter. I speak Serbian/Croatian so I also get the message but this is very uncharacteristic of FkpCascais. He has on several occasions found himself in battles whereby he has defended his nation against detractors but he has always managed to argue his points without the need to make personal threats. In fact, that looks more to me like an attempt at framing someone, "we know who you are, and when we publish your details negatively, your name will be dirt". Yes Misplaced Pages does court propagandists from every side of every conflict but this is because it is open to everyone and even invites such persons to make contributions. To that end, there is nothing special about any specific editor ridiculing the Serbian nation, and besides, where it can be proven that an editor really is only out to discredit one nation/movement then it soon becomes WP:DE and the editor in turn tends not to last much longer. Rarely will you find someone who has made 20,000+ edits over the course of several years who is really "bad faith". FkpCascais has been here long enough and knows how WP works not to have to stoop so low. I hope the guilty party is found and thrown out but I'd be shocked if this were Cascais. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason for my allegation is the e-mail address. Its rather remarkable to find people threaten you in Serbian from a Portuguese (or Spanish?) e-mail address. If it is indeed entirely unrelated to our resident Serbian user from Portugal (who happens to be topic-banned) it would imo be quite the coincidence (though I imagine the police find it less of a problem to trace e-mail addresses to their owners). -- Director (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A description like the one stated above by Evlekis regarding the behaviour of an editor as being someone who "has defended his nation against detractors" is disconcertning to say the least, as it represents defence of obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV-behaviour. It should not be the stated goal of anyone here on Misplaced Pages to "defend their nations against detractors" (or of course for anyone to detract other nations), instead it should be their goal to create unbiased articles based on what the reliable secondary sources say. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Help

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

Hi I'm new here, I don't know how to add sources to this article it's about a Peruvian footballer called Alberto Junior Rodriguez and I can't work the formatting properly, can anyone with experience of these kind of articles help me? Also I understand this may not be the right place to write this but as I'm new to all this i really wasn't sure.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read "Your First Article" to see how to handle all the wonderful mechanics for editing/adding sources. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

gaming of my 1-rr restriction by user ankhmorpork

user ankhmorpork has a long history of tag-teaming against me, hounding me and follow my edits. this behavior has been confirmed by administrators and other editors .

i have been baited into edit warring several times due to this tag-teaming. last time i felt into this trap and got blocked, i made the decision to abide by the 1-rr restriction and to use administrative venues when i was harassed and hounded , rather than getting into a fight,

originally, after a dispute on the british-pakistani page, ankhmorpork started to follow my edits and started edit warring on the dhimmi-page, together with user shrike. i have the diffs to prove this. after a warning by an administrator concerning ankhmorpork's tag-teaming things calmed down. however, he is now edit warring and hounding me again. the only reason for this is the fact that i have today edited on this page, , a page created by ankh (see the discussion on about its neutrality on the talk page). he has at least followed me to 3 pages i have edited today.

one of them is the dhimmi-page. he is now trying to edit war content into the dhimmi-page which has been removed by other editors before before. i reverted him and told him that the burden is on *him* not others, as his edits has been rejected before. instead of discussing he reverted back the content, knowing very well that i'm under a 1-rr restriction. could someone please revert ankhmorpork as he is blatantly edit warring and adding content without any consensus. content that has been removed by other longstanding editors. could someone please block him for this continuous hounding? shrike should be warned as well. -- altetendekrabbe  13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Typical misuse of sources by Ankhmorpork. s/he is using a source which discusses the way "classical Islamic law" had discriminated against both Muslim women and dhimmis - but conveniently ignores the former, in spite of the fact that much of the surrounding text relates to discrimination against women. s/he uses the source to justify a claim that dhimmis "would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions" when the source actually says that the degree that such "discriminatory distinctions" were legitimate was a matter of dispute amongst Islamic Jurists - and ignores entirely the fact that the same source also points out that such discriminatory practices were unevenly applied. The book cannot be cited for categorical assertions that dhimmis 'would' face anything - and if it were to be cited for the fact that they 'might', should also point out that so might Muslim women. In any case, this is a total red herring. There is nothing remotely unusual in any system of "classical law" discriminating against women (as seen from the modern, Western 'perspective'), and likewise nothing unusual in legal discrimination on the grounds of religion either. To make out that this was somehow a significant feature of "classical Islamic law" is a highly dubious proposition, and certainly doesn't belong in the lede, particularly when the body of the text (which the lede is supposed to summarise) makes clear that the situation was much more complex, and that dhimmis were sometimes at a legal advantage under systems of "classical Islamic law" - and indeed sometimes had their own legal systems, with Islamic courts constrained from interference. The proposed edit to the lede is nothing more than spin, intended (as with much of ankhmorpork's 'contributions') to portray Muslims in as negative a way as possible, through selective (mis)reading of sources. That Ankhmorpork is still permitted to misuse Misplaced Pages to push such an agenda is a disgrace to the entire community. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your use of AN/I to attempt to resolve a dispute is in direct contravention of one of your two editing restrictions. I hope this results in a block for yourself. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards