Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 10 August 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

Mass spamming from multiple socks

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

Note mass spamming from LauraBrad (talk · contribs) as well as MaryBroady (talk · contribs) and however many others. May need help with this one. -- œ 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From MaryBroady) - Apologies, I was not trying to spam. I was adding reference links to a new Diocese Calendar for Catholic Diocese pages, which I thought was an appropriate link for their WIKI pages. I am very sorry for the confusion. --MaryBroady (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything appears to be rolled back. What do you still need help with?--Chaser (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought there might be more than a few socks/meatpuppets here but it seems I've overreacted. Everything's rolled back, user has been informed, nothing too extensive to be fixed. -- œ 04:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From LauraBrad)Diocese Calendar References

Apologies, we are not trying to spam. Every Catholic diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on xt3.com If someone is looking for Catholic events happening in their diocese this is where they can find more information and upload their own events happening at their parishes within their diocese. There must be an appropriate place for this information? This is useful for all Catholics in that diocese also please note that all the diocese links are different and specific we are not just copying and pasting information --LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions i would say you are not correct. You have clearly been adding links to a calander trying to promote it. In That case, I propose a temporary block.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses, if they wish to do so online, is from the respective diocesan websites. There's nothing wrong with you creating a commercial central website for this - although it's farcical to imagine you could possibly keep up with the doings of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis - but you cannot promote it on Misplaced Pages. Ravenswing 05:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ravenswing, The central website is called xt3.com (however it is not commercial) it has been created for WYD 2008 by a team of English and Australian Catholics and overseen by an Australian diocese. It was created as a service to all dioceses in the world. Every diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on the site. Therefore a link to the specific diocese calendar on wikipedia is a useful reference for all dioceses in the world. The diocese calendars are user generated therefore priests, youth ministers, etc can upload their local events on the diocese calendar therefore it is not "farcical to imagine keeping up with the events of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis." (you could say the same thing about wikipedia) Your comment that "The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses is on the respective diocesan websites." is problematic as many dioceses do not have websites, especially in rural Australia and African countries that is why we wanted to reference their diocese calendar and homepage on xt3.com on wikipedia. --LauraBrad (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the url for the Sydney Archdiocese event calendar on xt3.com http://www.xt3.com/diocese/calendar.php?dioceseId=19 it is widely used by catholic agencies and parishioners in Sydney Archdiocese, this would surely be of interest to anyone in that diocese who search for the diocese on Misplaced Pages?? --LauraBrad (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Laura, adding the link to a number of articles is problematic due to the rules on spamming. While it might not be "commercial" in the traditional sense, it isn't a scholarly source, but instead a blog of information for a particular organization, hence commercial in respect to our policies (ie: it is promoting itself). If there is an article on that diocese, then the link would be appropriate as a primary link, but not likely in other articles. Keep in mind the goal is to verify facts, as we are an encyclopedia, and not to just create a list of links. To everyone else here, biting isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'll add that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only and exclusively an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages articles include "encyclopedic" stuff like date of creation of the dioceses, historical buildings owned by the dioceses, and other items of what is known as "knowledge". What you want to add is not knowledge, it's information. Misplaced Pages is a compilation of knowledge, not a compilation of information. And Misplaced Pages is not a directory of links, either. Adding links to multiple pages is frowned upon, unless your website has valuable encyclopedic knowledge that is difficult to obtain from sources like books and journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. We always add an EL to the official home page of an organization. We would for a school district--we should for a diocese. If these pages are being prepared or coordinated by a central agency, I do not see how it is wrong to use them. I think from what Laura says they have semi-official status. This assumes, of course, that the link goes directly to the appropriate page for the particular diocese=, not to a general site from which one can search for the particular diocese. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see adding these ELs as terribly problematic, but I think in an encyclopedia it would be more appropriate to link to the diocesan homepages on xt3 than to their event calendars – which are easily reached from the homepages. For example, for the Archdiocese of Sydney, Australia, that would be www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=19.  --Lambiam 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lambiam I agree and would be happy to edit selected diocese as such. --LauraBrad (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments DG. and to re-emphasise xt3.com does have official status in the Catholic community Rome Reports even did a story on the site http://www.romereports.com/palio/modules.php?name=News&file=article&newlang=english&sid=1386/ we webcast global Catholic events such as World Youth Day and canonization of saints such as Mary MacKillop we are run by the Sydney Archdiocese in Australia, it is not a freelance website it is official as it is under the Archdiocese authority and is a central website for the service of all Catholic diocese in the world. Many diocese turn to the trusted calendars and homepages on xt3 as they don't have the resources to keep up a diocese website themselves therefore not providing an EL to a calendar for their specific diocese could leave them with the impression their diocese is a ghost on the internet apart from the historical dates and facts on Misplaced Pages. This EL link can alert them to the events happening in their diocese. I can see your point that this could be seen as information and not knowledge but why would a person go to a diocese wikipedia page? They may be seeking knowledge about events in the diocese. There must be an appropriate place to direct people to the fact that their diocese whether its Sydney Australia or Aachen Germany, has a homepage and an events calendar on a central Catholic website? Where can this information be added that would fit the vision of wikipedia and not be censored?

Furthermore the diocese event calendars and their homepages were created to be a support to all dioceses in the world especially those in rural areas who do not have websites. Every time I edited the information on a diocese wall on Wiki I provided an EL that linked to the specific diocese event calendar (not a general one) and I never mentioned xt3.com therefore I believed I was abiding by the self promotion rules of wikipedia for example when editing the Diocese of Aachen website I linked to the diocese of Aachen events calendar on xt3.com not to a general calendar and I took great care in doing so. So I was surprised that half a day's work was removed. I thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing your response. --LauraBrad (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not believe you are promoting the xt3.com website with what you added to Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen? You linked to instructions on how someone could integrate the calendar into their website and even to a page where they could find other dioceses that had already done so. To me that tells me you are promoting the website. You should read the guideline on external links. GB fan 03:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If the links to the instructions are the problem then I will leave them out and only link to the specific diocese calendar. Would this be acceptable? --LauraBrad (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not the only problem. The links are not any help to an encyclopedia article. They are something that belongs on a website for the diocese and the Misplaced Pages articles are not webpages for the dioceses. Did you read our guideline on exteral links? GB fan 04:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Closing admin's comment: Laura and Mary, I'm sure your edits were made in good faith in possible ignorance of the policies and guidelines. Please take note of admin advice by Dennis, DGG, and GB fan, and also take a moment to familiarise yourselves with Using Multiple Accounts (in case it's appropriate) and Conflict of Interest before making any more edits to the encyclopedia. I'm closing this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes thank you for referring me to this link. I have read it and what I gather from reading this is that links to the diocese homepage on xt3.com should be as an EL External Link) rather than placed in the body of the article (which was the mistake I made originally) I have read what needs to be considered when adding an external link to an article and I believe the EL to the diocese homepage does fill Misplaced Pages’s criteria see below • Is the site content accessible to the reader? Yes xt3 is accessible to anyone • Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes it would be useful to someone in the Archdiocese of Sydney to know there is a homepage and an event calendar for their diocese. • Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? Yes. Therefore if this is ok I will add EL to Diocese Pages on Misplaced Pages in the appropriate section. --LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)--LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• • We get so much spam, we sometimes get a bit trigger happy here as well, so hopefully we didn't bite down too hard. If you have any issues or concerns with the links in the future, just drop a note on my talk page and I will try to help you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• The editor continued to add links, and I have reverted these edits. These pages do not provide more information about the diocese itself, it is providing information about possible activities. That is not the function of Misplaced Pages. If you want information about the diocese, you go to Misplaced Pages, if you want to know what they are up to, you go to their homepage (or you use Google to find thát information). --Dirk Beetstra 11:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked all of them, but noted some already had primary links. In the event that one of the diocese didn't have a primary link, ie: no website of their own, then this would be acceptable as the primary link since it is under the control over the organization (as not to be too bureaucratic here), but I tend to agree that as a second primary link, it is likely not within WP:EL. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I must confess that I did not check all additions, but the first three (i.e., the last three edits) link to a page on xt3 which gives as information:

Welcome to the Xt3 homepage of your diocese - this is where you can check out your local events, groups and projects (those that give their location as this diocese will automatically show up here), and connect with others in your area.

The diocese homepage is a fantastic place to stay in touch with members of your diocese on Xt3. The coordinator of the page is able to update all the information on it and contact everyone in the diocese via a private message. This is not an official diocesan contact point until it is adopted by a diocesan representative. If you work for your diocese and would like to become involved in maintaining the page, please do contact us through the feedback form.

In the meantime, please post messages on the discussion board and add your photos...

()

In other words, no information.

I'll assume good faith, and that other pages will have more, but I start to be afraid that these pages are then for those dioceses which do have an own webpage already, and that the information on xt3 is mainly copying that information, or just some general chit-chat without additional information (see number 4:

Howdy Y'all - Welcome to the Rockhampton Diocese Homepage.

Stef your friendly WYD Coordinator has now transformed into your friendly (but only on Friday's) Youth Ministry Coordinator for the Diocese.

Let's get connected and stay in touch.

Commit to check out this XT3.com page at least once a week and update us with what's on in your area. Feel free to post messages, add your photos, create a group or two (remember to put Rockhampton as the location so it appears automatically on this site) and generally keep each other informed.

If there is something special that you woudl like to see hear for the Rocky pages then please let me know!!!!

Looking forward to getting connected. Cheers from your friendly Youth Ministry Coordinator Stef Lloyd :-)

Official URL: www.rok.catholic.net.au

()

which still fails our inclusion standards completely). If, if there are pages which do give really more information worthy of inclusion (though that may actually be included into the wikitext content) then individual editors can add such a link, but we do not need to spam that link onto every Diocese wikipage, as most (if not all) of them simply fail. --Dirk Beetstra 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is about time I put in a word here. I was not commenting earlier as I am regular contributer of content on several other pages (which have nothing to do with this matter being discussed) - I was worried that I could have my account suspended. But I do need to clarify that I am not the same person as LauraBrad as someone has claimed. That aside, I just want to mention that Laura and I decided to add these links as we found the young people are not visiting their diocese official websites. But they are visiting Misplaced Pages, and they are also visiting Xt3. Therefore it made sense for us to add a link to the Xt3 Event Calendar and Diocese pages as an alternate source of information about a particular diocese on its Misplaced Pages page. It is simply another resource adding to the pool of knowledge about the Diocese. We have to get with the times - young people are going to visit a website that is based on Web 2.0 and encourages user-generated content, as opposed to a static Diocese webpage. This is why the links that we added are a positive contribution to the relevant Wiki pages. --MaryBroady (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Dirk Beetstra I understand your original concern however I would ask you to reconsider your response to remove *the EL. These external links are not inappropriate Xt3.com is a recognised and respected official Catholic website in *the catholic world community and the specific diocese link to that diocese homepage is indeed relevant and adds useful *information to a person interested in their diocese, the aim was not to alter search engine rankings but to direct *people to the semi-official diocese homepage. I have already had a discussion about this in the administrators page and *2 people agreed that this was acceptable to add in the External links section (not in the body of the article which was *MaryBroady and my mistake originally.) There seems to be some question here amongst administrators to these inclusions, *so who has the final decision here? I can see that this is an unusual situation for wikipedia and that multiple *external links are frowned upon however it is an unusual case that I believe needs to be discussed further --*LauraBrad (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

1) You appear to be going through the Misplaced Pages categories on RC dioceses and creating clone pages on Xt3 for them. At least once this has been in error: Diocese of Aberdeen is the WP historical article on the modern Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen, yet there is the cloned Xt3 link.

2) Most of the Misplaced Pages articles on the dioceses already have a link to that diocese's official homepage. Social events do not fall under WP purview. If the official site hosts a link to the Xt3 sites, that is their choice.

3) Since there are already church-supported homepages for many of these dioceses, the addition of Xt3 links feels more like linking to a social network. The fact that "the young people are not visiting their diocese official websites" is not a problem that can or should be fixed by networking links on WP. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

*Dear UTC what are clone pages?

• To me a clone pages suggest content is all the same but if you see the below URLS this is not the case
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=22
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=19
• http://www.xt3.com/diocese/view.php?dioceseId=33

Regarding Diocese of Aberdeen and the add to the EL on the WP historical article as opposed to the modern Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen, thank you for picking out that mistake, however a mistake in one article due to an oversight should not lead to all my ELs being removed. Misplaced Pages would be pretty empty if you dealt with every mistake like this.

addressing your second point that

• 2) Most of the Misplaced Pages articles on the dioceses already have a link to that diocese's official homepage.
• With this reasoning will I be allowed to add an EL to the Catholic Diocese of Albany which has no Official diocese *homepage? For example
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Abancay

Social events do not fall under WP purview. 

We have addressed this before that is why I am now adding EL's to the diocese homepage only not the events calendar

What if someone does not know there is this diocese homepage resource "the WIKI knowledge" that I am trying to contribute is that xt3.com is an available resource for their diocese" this is useful content and fits with Misplaced Pages's policies the diocese homepage also has information about the diocese. I would appreciate if my external links would remain I know you must see a lot of spam but this is not spam. --49.143.225.34 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clone, as in all of them say the exact same thing. While Adelaide has extra words and pictures inserted, it still says the same thing as, say, Broome, which has a few different words and pictures. They are cookie-cutter copies, placeholders that present little to nothing encyclopaedic that cannot be garnered from reliable sources.
• If a diocese does not have its official homepage linked in the article, then editors should find and add the official homepage. If such a link cannot be found, leave it blank, or link to the archdiocese's page about the diocese if there is one. If someone wants to find a diocese's web presence, there are plenty of resources outside WP to do it with. A social networking site is not a substitute for an official page, not even temporarily.
• Xt3 is a social networking site, not a reliable source. It presents nothing that would be allowed in an article that cannot be taken from reliable sources. The pages you are linking are not even officially under the control of the diocese: both Broom and Adelaide above contain the line, "This is not an official diocesan contact point until it is adopted by a diocesan representative." That I cannot find a way to determine when a page has been "adopted" is not important. What is important is that there is no reason this social networking site should be treated any differently than Facebook or Myspace, per WP:ELNO #10. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"What if someone does not know there is this diocese homepage resource. "the WIKI knowledge" that I am trying to contribute is that xt3.com is an available resource for their diocese" ..." and thát is exactly the plain violation of WP:NOT that is happening. Misplaced Pages is not a place to 'advertise'/'promote'/'suggest' the existence of your site by linking utterly non-informational pages throughout in sometimes erratic, often useless, and often superfluous ways, where it is even questionable whether the pages will provide information in the future, and the ones that have been created sometimes do not yield any encyclopedic information either. I have reverted again one of the additions, and I would strongly suggest that from now on you do NOT add any of those links by yourself, but let it be done by other editors without a conflict of interest. I see the point that these links sometimes may be of interest, but as has been obviously shown a couple of times now, but that is not your call anymore. Please, be careful with further pushing of these links, other admins may consider (I am considering) that it is time for blocks on single-purpose accounts or even blacklisting of the links to finally stop the pushing of links. Leave it to the community. --Dirk Beetstra 07:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Index to isotope pages, moves and a deletion ended incorrect

About Index to isotope pages -- Template:Index to isotope pages (by periodic table). One is content, one is a Redirect. There was some moving & deleting, which left an incorrect situation.

1. 20:14, 24 July 2012: DePiep move from Article to Template space, leave a R
2. 19:26, 1 August 2012‎: IP tagging the R with DB-R3
3. 20:13, 1 August 2012: Martijn Hoekstra: MH moved the tagged R page to his Userspace
4. 20:17, 1 August 2012: MH removed the R3 tag.
5. 03:00, 2 August 2012: Matthewrbowker (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD R2).
6. 05:51, 2 August 2012: Nyttend deleted the R page for DB-R2
7. 14:32, 2 August 2012: Double sharp moved content page from Template to Article space, leaving R.

So the page was fine for almost eight days in Template space and an R. An IP vandalised the R with a speedy tag, MH moved it to (his) userspace, which invoked deletion for R2. That left many red links on article pages, so DS moved it back to Article space to make them blue.

The situation now is that it is template page in article space. I request reversal, back into the situation before the vandalism started (so: code in Template space, the Article page a redirect).

The move by Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs) MH was bad judgement and did not address the R3 tagging. When I asked for explanation , MH was incomplete. Later on, MH was evasive, did not explain his motives, and ducked responsibility . I find the behaviour of MH (bad move and not cooperating) disruptive. I contacted Nyttend to discuss (propose) undoing the deletion , but Nyttend denied, arguing that the R2 deletion in itself was correct at that moment (which is a valid point too). He then helped me clarifying the process (I am not an admin, I didn't see everything). I concluded to take the whole issue here.

Anyway, I request a reversal. Note: if the pre-vandalism situation is to be challenged (arguments have entered), that should be done after reversal, and on apropriate pages -- not at ANI and not by es. The current situation was created by vandalism and bad judgement, which is not the process to imply changes. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, what administrator intervention would you like, and what here can't be fixed through requested moves? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Notified MH, DS, Nyttend. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While I don't really agree completely with the index page being moved to template space, I don't really mind either if it is (though there do seem to be many precedents for keeping indexes in article space, I'm quite undecided on the matter, since an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles). My major motive (which I put first in my edit summary) for moving it back is that the links were broken, and it seemed easier to move one page that edit 118 pages. I wasn't aware of this situation until now, since I wasn't involved in the speedy deletions going on on that page.

While cross-namespace redirects are generally considered to be a bad thing, I would consider that if they are linked by many pages or are also of interest to readers, like Periodic table (standard), then they should remain. This is especially true for pages that straddle the boundaries between two namespaces: for example, Template:Periodic table is in the template space, while Periodic table (large version) is in the article space, even though they are very similar. Likewise, while an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles, it could also be argued that putting an index in template space (or some other namespace) means that readers are less likely to find it (unless, of course, it is linked heavily and prominently). In such cases, especially when the actual content page is not in the mainspace, there should be cross-namespace redirects to ensure that readers will find it if the page is useful to them. (An R3 posted on the redirect Periodic table (standard) was not carried out, as it had many links from the mainspace and was thus manifestly useful to readers.) Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly this discussion should be elsewhere, and after the revert. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DS acted in good faith when doing that last move. No complaint from me. It's just that IMO, seen the process, the situation should be mirrored. -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, I'm not seeing any Misplaced Pages:Vandalism here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So you did not see? What an impressive argument. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I think you did not even read. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That was uncivil and uncalled for, DePiep. CBW has done nothing to deserve an assumption of anything but good faith from you. That said, I only partially agree with CBW. I see a series of good-faith actions on the part of others that combined to result in an unfortunate disruption. While that's certainly not vandalism, it is a problem. - Jorgath (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that CBW did not read the thread. CBW did not contribute anything to the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read the entire thread and followed all the links. I still don't see any vandalism. The only possible way that the IP edit can be described as vandalism is if it is expanded to cover using the wrong speedy template. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding R3 was vandalism. Then, the thread is about more. The red herring is yours. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no intention of any red herring on my part it was a valid question. You called the IP edit vandalism and it is not that, even Martijn Hoekstra didn't claim that. The most you can say is that the IP made an error. Also if the the IP is guilty of vandalism why did you not add a warning to their talk page? In fact I now see that you didn't even bother to notify them about this discussion, which I have done for you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Because IP adding R3 is not the issue here. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

re CBW: "No intention of red herring"? -- but still you did. You followed it by yourself. "a valid question"? I'm not seeing any Misplaced Pages:Vandalism here you wrote. Is not even a question. "even MH didn't claim that." -- Had you read the thread, you'd know that MH is the lowest authority you could invoke. MH is the perpetrator. And IP vandalism is not the ANI topic. "you didn't even bother to notify" -- Talk for yourself. You did not even check your thing. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"User does not agree with me" does not equal "user did not read what I said." You are being uncivil. Furthermore, vandalism has a very specific meaning here on Misplaced Pages. What you encountered was quite possibly disruption, but CBW is perfectly correct to claim it was not vandalism. Finally, notification of being mentioned in ANI is not optional. - Jorgath (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP is not the subject of this thread, not even his edit. Neither is the R2 tagger or the bot. Just in between edits. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Smells like Jorgath and CBW are after the same red herring. Have a nice distraction. Now please read what MH, an editor I accused, wrote right below . Is what I call being great. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As a general note, I would like to note WP:DONTPANIC. The tagging the IP did was wrong, the move I did wasn't the smartest thing to do, I don't think the deletion of the mainspace redirect was the best idea, though certainly defendable in policy, the move back by DoubleSharp fixed the acute issue of redlinks. The wiki isn't burning, everything can be solved by normal processess (let this be the third time I go on record suggesting requested moves to move to template space). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to describe it as you see it. And I agree. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Thumperward and templates

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

User:Thumperward today redirected a template without any prior discussion. Earlier today he decided to move Template:Category relevant? to Template:Cleanup-categories, which clearly is not the same thing, and then later undid this move himself. I remember having some history with him, about precisely this same subject - undiscussed merges. I find his conduct unacceptable for a Misplaced Pages administrator. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you started an RFC for this? That would be more appropriate as this isn't the place. I don't see that anything under question involved the use of admin tools, did it?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lordy. The Honorverse situation was one where Debresser defended a huge wad of un-universe garbage for years before it was finally cleared out, against his wishes, after I made a drive to do so. The {{cleanup-laundry}} situation occurred after a TfD with an inconclusive outcome three months ago; I decided to boldly merge the two today rather because I was annoyed at how plainly terrible {{cleanup-laundry}} was at its intended purpose. So far as I know, none of this required the use of my admin bit. I've had conflicts with Debresser before, mostly due to the way that the most basic conflict resolution is seemingly escalated to teeth-pulling levels every time he's involved. This would be more of the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The underlying problem being that a Misplaced Pages administrator should know better than to make merges of articles and maintenance templates without prior discussion. But perhaps this is indeed better discussed at an Rfc. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If the rules prevent you from improving Misplaced Pages, ignore them. I think his change was fair game. But your objection is also fair game. So the question is, when you raised the concern, what happened? Resolute 18:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

User:VideoGamePhenom

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

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

The user has been warned multiple times on their talk page about vandalism and edits without citing verifiable source. A final vandalism warning was issued at 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC). Since then, the user has made multiple unsourced edits that have been reverted by other users including:

Drew Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Dave_Lombardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Ben Sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Princess Peach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff

Bobby Abreu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff

Additionally, the user has also been warned twice about marking non-minor edits as minor, yet still continues to mark all edits as minor. The disruptive editing pattern which is burdening the community with the need to revert, combined with the masking of edits as minor needs to stop. Warnings and discussions on talk page regarding reliable sources, vandalism, and NPOV, have not been effective to date.—Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Propose block per WP:NOTHERE, "General pattern of disruptive behavior." - Jorgath (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Continued even after being notified of this discussion. So, blocked indef, until he indicates that he understands the problems with his edits and will not repeat them. JohnCD (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Malik_Shabazz repeatedly deleting my talk page comments

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

I posted a comment on 211.26.243.21's talk page and User:Malik_Shabazz has removed the comment three times, claiming it is trolling. I believe removing my comment from a talk page is a violation of WP:TPO and I warned Malik Shabazz each time he removed it. Here is the revision history of the talk page, which shows how my comment kept being removed and I kept adding it back. I first wrote to NawlinWiki's talk page, which shows what I was told by User:QuiteUnusual (QU) and User:Drmies, including Drimies threatening to block me if I added my own comment back one more time. Drimies also reverted my comment, making it a total of four times it had been reverted. Also, QU wrote to Malik Shabazz to tell him I had reported the incident, which makes it appear that they are all working together. My comment said nothing inappropriate or threatening in any way. It simply made a comment and asked a question. Are they allowed to remove my talk page comment? Can I add it back? Thank you. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you lay it low and go away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Asking someone why they vandalized a user's page as though it was the vandalized editor's fault is at least inciting ire towards the victim of vandalism. The alternative, if you were not trying to go after Tenebrae, is that you were trying to grief the IP editor. Either way, that's not really a good idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I told Malik Shabazz that they were being discussed because you hadn't - and you should have done as discussing another editor's conduct without notifying them is inappropriate. As I noted on NalimWiki's page, I am a disinterested observer. I was patrolling recent changes, saw your original question, and decided to comment. I have no prior interaction with Malik Shabazz as you can easily check and we are not working together. I stand by my view that your question is trolling. Approaching a vandal to ask them what an editor did to make them angry because that editor has a track record in upsetting people (or words to that effect) reads like trolling to me. QU 22:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

QU... actually, as my edit comments show, I had already warned Malik Shabazz if he reverted it again. And he was obviously following my contributions page closely because he kept coming back right away when I put my comment back. And if you thought he should have been contacted, you should have simply asked me to do it instead of sneaking behind my back to tell him (without informing me). It sure gives the appearance that you and he are working together. I have no idea what that guy's track record is (the guy who added the bad image to Tenebrae's page). All I know is that one thing he did, which I told him I was not going to say I thought was appropriate. And it should be mentioned that Malik Shabazz failed to disclose that he knows me from an article's talk page discussion we were both involved in a few days ago, in which he and Tenebrae accused me of being a sockpuppet (a term I didn't even undertand at the time). I filed a report about it, but Tenebrae has since learned from the other useer that he was wrong. So Malik Shabazz is not some disinterested user at all, as you claim yourself to be. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"So Malik Shabazz is not some disinterested user at all, as you claim yourself to be." -- say what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sarcastic remarks like "say what?" are not helpful. If you don't understand something I said, just ask me about it. Malik knew me days before he made the repeated reverts and falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. So it was not like he was some impartial user who just stumbled on something. Therefore he was not a "disinterested" party to this, as QU told me that he (QU) was. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I thought you were a sockpuppet has nothing to do with the fact that you were trolling. How many people have to tell you that your message was trolling before you get the point?

And for the record, I've never dealt with QU before today, when she/he notified me as a courtesy that I was being discussed somewhere. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They key point is that you falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. And did so without filing a report, which, as I've been told by another administrator, can be grounds for being blocked from editing. Then after that, you're removing my talk page comments. So clearly not disinterested. And QU appeared pretty excited to tell you that I was "complaining" about you instead of using neutral language. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This IP has had enough food. Close this thread. Block if trolling continues. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to assume that Choyoołʼįįhí:Sebaz86556 is not an administrator. Because an administrator would not be rude and act like a bully when I am trying to have a sincere discussion. So far, all's he's said is "go away," "say what?" and "This IP has had enough food." A classic bully trying to instigate a gang mentality. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as I suspected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Sebaz86556 has multiple blocks for incivility, vandalism and battlegroundbehavior. I know a bully when I see one. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it was - the intriguing thing your talk-page comment referred to - it is apparently deleted now, i.e. it's invisible to us in the general public. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed four times. Haha. You can see it in the revision history links I put in my original comments here. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Before you posted here, you were advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. I would reiterate that suggestion, and recommend WP:ROPE to you as well. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Malik, this report is about you so you're not exactly impartial. I am doing nothing wrong. I am replying to people that are commenting to me. So please stop the condescension. Interesting how you see that one user (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556), who's been blocked repeatedly, bullying me, yet you say nothing to him. That says a lot. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find the number of Seb's blocks that have not been undone is precisely one, not "repeatedly". But I'm going to re-close this; more heat than light. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Malik here. The IP should know that talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG apply to edits on talk pages. The fact that the IP claims to not be a sockpuppet is not particularly important, unfortunately - very rarely to sockpuppets acknowledge their status. What is probably more important is that the IP has indicated behavior which tends to be associated with sockpuppets. That includes any number of variety of unacceptable behaviors. I have to think that starting this thread on such a spurious basis as this one probably does nothing but further support the evidence of unacceptable behavior by the IP. I suggest that the thread be closed, as non-actionable. However, if the IP editor wishes to continue in posting here, based solely on the evidence presented, I suppose we could perhaps consider sanctions against them based on WP:DE and other possible conduct problems. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm replying because your comment appeared after it was closed before. I don't get how reporting this is "spurious" at all? Some guy repeatedly kept removing my talk page comment. So I asked him to stop, he didn't, then an admin gave me a link to this page to file a report. So how's that spurious? And as I explained previously, the original editor who accused me of being a sockpuppet subsequently found out I wasn't. He even apologized to the other guy for calling him/us that. So anyway, I came here because I was directed here and I simply wanting a ruling on whether removing my talk page comment was allowed. So if it's not I think something should be done about it. Thanks for your comments. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I went back in time and closed it for you... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

News

Misplaced Pages is front-page news at USAToday.com. Things must be a little slow today. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it was necessary to semi-protect those pages. Electric Catfish 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wonder who planted this quasi-news story. I also wonder if it's true that some of the potential VP candidates' pages were fully protected as opposed to merely semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the latter, because I have very little confidence in the ability of news media in general to understand the difference. - Jorgath (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Turns out that only Pawlenty is fully protected, at the moment - the others are semi'd. The USAToday piece refers to Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and David Petraeus "all have locks on them with a message that the page is either fully or partially 'protected due to vandalism'." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, in relation to at least Romney and Portman, could someone take a look at User:Viewmont Viking's edits and tell me I'm seeing things? Would make me feel a lot better. Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I pulled up WikiChecker and took a look. I see an interest in two (maybe three) topics: Mitt Romney and Florida (and possibly Florida animals). On the Florida-stuff, I don't see a problem. On the Romney stuff, I see mild POV-pushing, but much more restrained than some of the silly-season stuff that happens around here. That said, this user takes WP:BOLD to extremes, and should probably discuss more. - Jorgath (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So I am fairly new at editing and cannot believe I have already been added to the Administration Notice board. The original warring complaint which Viriditas made didn't really have a specific edit warring that I was involved in, when asked to provide one he came up with a change I made to the 2002 Winter Olympics. The information had been on the talk page for almost 24 hours before I removed it, and still no one else has complained. In addition Viriditas made warring threats to a number of editors at about the same time he made it to me. He made them to. to Belchfire on August 4, Causa sui on August 3, 32.142.204.111 on July 31, 130.65.109.101 on July 31 (These two may be the same person), And Ianmacm on July 30. As for the Portman article I did not make any edits. I mentioned that controversy sections invite controversy in the talk page. For Mitt Romney I was working to improve his Elections Campaign 2012 when things got too heated I pretty much backed off. As you can see from my edits, I also went much more to the talk page once a number of additional editors got involved. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry I had didn't sign I meant to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(squints hard) So you did. All right, I take back the last sentence about BOLD and discussion. I won't retract this: you do dhow a mild POV in favor of Romney. It's not strong enough to keep you from editing Romney stuff, but I'll ask you to keep it in mind that if someone suggests something is non-neutral when you thought it was perfectly neutral, they may be right. We all run into that eventually. Other than that, I say nothing to see here, move along all. - Jorgath (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Misplaced Pages should allow BRD to provide cover for naked partisanship. Anybody who understands BRD (understanding is not universal, mind you), should also be able to comprehend NPOV. Using one to ignore the other is simply disruptive, and should draw sanctions. Belchfire-TALK 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll appreciate you taking up your baseless sockpuppet accusations at WP:SPI. causa sui (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Carthage44

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

Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues to resort to personal attacks, "you know nothing about baseball" being a popular refrain in baseball-related articles. User was issue a final warning on personal attacks on 22:27, 6 August 2012‎ (UTC).

Here is a sample of the attacks:

1. 02:17, 27 May 2012 "Again, you should stick to whatever it is that you update and stay away from the baseball pages because you have no idea what you are talking about." attack warning
2. 09:09, 26 July 2012‎ "You clearly know nothing about baseball or you do not understand English. I am just glad you don't live in this country because people like you don't belong." attack warning by admin Djsasso
3. 22:09, 6 August 2012 "If you know anything about baseball ...", "Muboshgu has bullied many Misplaced Pages users for years just to get his way. He thinks he owns Misplaced Pages and will do anything to make sure pages and Misplaced Pages are the way he thinks it should be. I really wish someone could take a stand against him because Misplaced Pages is NOT owned by Muboshgu." attack final warning
4. 21:39, 8 August 2012 "If you follow baseball, which I now you do not" attack

The user is also disruptive with using reversions in lieu of discussion, despite multiple blocks in the past over edit warring and receiving a recent warning at WP:AN/EW. Here are recent reverts to List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to user's preferred version:

1. 21:53, 6 August 2012‎
2. 21:12, 6 August 2012
3. 21:05, 6 August 2012

The disruptive behavior needs to stop before valuable editors get frustrated and leave.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on this and say that Carthage44's disruption and edit warring appears as a frequent topic at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball. Ryan Vesey 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that discussions are at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball#Carthage44, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball#Carthage44 reverts, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 26#Help with 2011 Major League Baseball Draft. Ryan Vesey 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Carthage apparently goes to a lot of Sox games and is a student of the details. Unfortunately, it appears that his enthusiasm is being overtaken by a sense of "ownership", as with the top 500 base stealers thing, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just checking my 2007 Sporting News record book, the last one TSN published. They list what were then the top 66 base stealers of all time. Not using 66 as any kind of magic number, but rather 400 stolen bases or more. Because countless players are going to have stolen bases, but that does not make them notable base stealers. Carthage's list gets down into the 150 area. That's 15 a year for a 10 year player, or about 1 every 10 games. That's not a base stealer, it's just a guy who has some stolen bases. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ownership issues and uncivil displays

1. 21:39 8 August 2012 "Just because I beat you when it comes to updating Adam Dunn's page first, doesn't mean you have to be so inconsiderate and immature. If you follow baseball, which I now you do not" made here
2. 15:14 8 August 2012 Ownership behavior displayed in edit summary here

Thanks, Zepppep (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Implied legal threat

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

User talk:109.144.205.34
Edit summary 1: "Criticism: Much of the information in the article referred to is incorrect and is being challenged by the author and his legal representatives." Diff 1
Edit summary 2: "Criticism: The article referred to contains several inaccuracies and is being contested by the author and his legal representatives" Diff 2
Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not really a legal threat per se, pretty borderline since the IP is not explicitly stating that they're the one taking legal action, unless of course information comes to light that the IP is the author. Blackmane (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's close, but not exactly a legal threat, especially as broadly as "his legal representatives" could be interpreted (for instance, his manager could qualify. His mother could qualify. It all depends and we don't know). ⇒SWATJester 09:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the statement is that action is being considered against the writer/publisher of the original source article, Nick Cohen, that is being cited in support of the content. If the edit summary had been "Removing biographical content that was sourced to an op ed.", you probably wouldn't have blinked an eye. That's what the person not using an account was actually doing. Given the whole backstory surrounding Johann Hari, Cohen, and others, which you can start reading about in this Signpost article and continue to read about in the archives of the BLP and COI noticeboards, strenuously requiring good sourcing in all of the biographies of these people is a very wise move, even if the less-than-exemplary actions of a possible partisan in the affair are what draw our attention. Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The wording of the summaries plainly states that the action is being taken against the cited source, not Misplaced Pages, so this isn't NLT territory. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning card

Someone want to take a look at this? Article started in 2009 and seems to have been a constant battleground between COI editors ever since. Currently fully protected in an effort to dissuade the latest incarnation of an editor who is on account #4 now (not to mention all the IPs) from warring with another SPA whose deleted contribs suggest he's involved with a competing technology. Given the complete lack of references at any point in the article's history, and its obvious use as a promotional tool by multiple parties, is it worth simply nuking it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AFD, not ANI. Nobody Ent 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (which is why your summary dismissal of it after eight minutes was grossly inappropriate). There is every chance that there is a notable subject in there, and deletion should be a last resort take only if we agree that the warring is completely intractable. It would be far better for a solution to be discussed which allows for the article to be developed without being constantly tugged around by SPIs. Input from the admin corps (and "experienced editors", if they're not too busy shutting threads) is welcome as to how to proceed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Severe problems with how an article is written or it's editors is not a reason for deletion. The subject looks wp:notable and enclyclopedic to me. That article has such blatant simple (= easily remedied) problems (e.g. far reaching unsourced claims of primacy, superiority, noteworthiness, prominence for particular companies, individuals, approaches and methods) that I think that a few extra experienced sets of neutral eyes could get the article in a lot better shape. Also has declared (via user name) COI editors (which is better than stealth ones which are probably also present) which could use a little help/guidance on wp:coi. I'd be happy to help a bit. (am not an admin) North8000 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD isn't just for deletions, and there has been discussion about changing the name from "Deletions" to "Discussions" for year. Often, it is the most effective way to fix an article, as the bickering parties become inspired to cooperate once it's head is on the block. Not sure if this is at that point yet, but it isn't obvious that it meets criteria either. To me, AFD is at least a viable option here, since it has exactly zero sources and only spammy looking external links and a boatload of original research. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that all of those things happen there; I've been involved in many of those decisions and subsequent reworks/rescues myself. And it would force it to pretty quickly get a few references. Then it could be nuked to the stub of what is covered by the references. But any wiki-experienced person would know that this article should not be actually deleted. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the easiest way to build something is to destroy the thing that is in its way. Takes all the arguing out of it. Forcing it to become a sourced stub and grow from there, regardless of how it is achieved, is likely the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TNT says it well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Dennis, although I've been occasionally abused at AfD for not fixing it myself. Sometimes, I come away a bit battered but the batterers do improve the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Misplaced Pages

Criticism of Misplaced Pages was originally an article. A February 2011 NPOV noticeboard discussion came to the consensus that it should be a disambiguation page. This was created and content merged to the listed articles.

The following month RekishiEJ (talk · contribs) reverted the page to an article . Rememberway (talk · contribs) then restored the disambiguation page . Over the following months there was persistent sockpuppetry to restore the article, and some restorations by other users - particularly QuackGuru (talk · contribs) e.g. .

Per a talk page discussion with only 3 participants, , JTSchreiber (talk · contribs) converted into a redirect to Misplaced Pages in July 2011. In February 2012, Extra999 (talk · contribs) refined the target to Misplaced Pages#Nature of Misplaced Pages., which was undone by an anon in May 2012 . Longbyte1 (talk · contribs) nominated the redirect at RfD in June 2012 , the outcome of that discussion was "keep" with Reliability of Misplaced Pages suggested as a possible target by several participants (note: I participated in that discussion). However, during that discussion Guy Macon (talk · contribs) changed the target to Misplaced Pages:Criticisms without commenting at the RfD and this was not noticed by any of the participants nor apparently by the closer, Ruslik0 (talk · contribs).

On 5 August 2012, Ibicdlcod (talk · contribs) nominated the redirect at RfD (see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Misplaced Pages) . Yesterday (8 August 2012), Silver seren (talk · contribs) reverted the page back to the most recent article version, stating "The NPOV/N board a year and a half ago was the wrong location anyways. This should have been taken to AfD or a Request for Content should have been started. This is all highly inappropriate and I oppose it.". Despite being aware of the ongoing RfD they did not mention their actions there.

Although I am a participant in the current RfD discussion, and therefore not neutral regarding its outcome, the comments so far do not show a consensus for returning this to an article (although it has been suggested).

AN/I is not the correct location to determine what this page should be, and so do not comment about there here please. However, it is a place to get advice regarding what actions (if any) should be taken against any of the users and to get advice on whether the ongoing RfD should be continued (with or without reversion to a redirect) or whether it should be taken to AfD or another location? That is what I am seeking here. I will now notify all the users I have mentioned above and the current RfD discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with the assumption that I would edit war? I already said my piece at the RfD. I, however, didn't know that there was a talk page discussion about changing from a DAB to a redirect, but I must say that it is highly unimpressive and doesn't seem like any kind of consensus to me. Silverseren 11:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I closed the RFD as "keep the redirect", which means that there was a consensus against reverting it back to an article (at least, until NPOV problems are sorted out, which should be done on its talk page, not at RFD.) The exact target was not important and, in fact, was not discussed except for one comment by Michaelzeng7. (I noticed that the target was changed.) Ruslik_Zero 12:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On 2 July 2012 I searched for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages", and discovered that the page it redirected to was stupid.

On 12:00, 2 July 2012, I changed

Criticism of Misplaced Pages #REDIRECT Misplaced Pages

to

Criticism of Misplaced Pages #REDIRECT Misplaced Pages:Criticisms

with the edit comment

"Someone who is searching for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" is not looking for Misplaced Pages. He/she is looking for Misplaced Pages:Criticisms or for Reliability of Misplaced Pages, which is the first hatnote at Misplaced Pages:Criticisms."

Here is that edit.

I left the redirects for discussion notice intact.

The state of the redirects for discussion page when I did that is here.

or, if you prefer to jump to the section in question, look here.

Please note that the RfD was closed. thus, the above statement that "during that discussion changed the target to Misplaced Pages:Criticisms without commenting at the RfD" is factually incorrect. My action was after the discussion was closed and marked "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it." I don't go around changing redirects that have open RfDs. That would be disruptive.

The actual close was six days later, then there were no edits for a month.

I was simply following the advice found at WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. I made a bold edit (which I contend fixed a real problem), explained why in my edit comment. and waited for someone to revert and discuss.

Also, I made the right decision. The existing target sucked. Someone who is searching for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" is not looking for Misplaced Pages. He/she is looking for Misplaced Pages:Criticisms or for Reliability of Misplaced Pages, which is the first hatnote at Misplaced Pages:Criticisms. Does anyone here dispute that my decision was correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On 2nd July the RfD was not closed but still open, so you should have commented at that discussion, linked from the redirect page when you visited it, rather than ignoring it. As for "Does anyone here dispute that my decision was correct?", yes - everyone who has commented so far at the current RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong.

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion as of 09:33, 2 July 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=500305985 (Search for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages")

My edit on 12:00, 2 July 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=500319163&oldid=498111108

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion as of 00:13, 3 July 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion&direction=next&oldid=500305985

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion just transcludes the daily subpages, so all those links are showing you is which subpages were transcluded at those times because, exactly with templates and all other forms of transclusion on Misplaced Pages, the current version is transcluded rather than the version that was live at the time of the historical revision. To see the state of the RfD discussion at the time you need to look at the historical revision of the daily subpage - the link I gave above. To illustrate this, see the version of the main RfD page as of 23:11, 18 June 2012. See also Bug 34244. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And in that case there's a perfectly good reason to assume it was just an honest mistake. If it appears closed in the transclusion that Guy Macon was looking at, and it appears open in the one you show, then that's an "oops," not a "you were disruptively going against consensus." - Jorgath (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. For the record, if I saw a stupid redirect target that had an open RfD, I would have made a comment at the RfD saying I though it was a stupid redirect target. I would never purposely change a redirect while the RfD is open. That would be rude as well as disruptive. I wish someone had noticed and reverted or commented at the time. Right now I don't know exactly what I was looking at and how I missed the open RfD. I apologize for the error. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Errr, in July 2, the RfD page was transcluding the discussion as it was in July 2, when it was still open. When you opened the RfD link from the article, you were shown a still-open discussion. The transclusion was showing an open discussion. You must have mis-readed the RfD page, and mistakenly believed that it was closed. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how I made that mistake, but it was a mistake, and I certainly will be extra careful in the future to avoid making it again. Again, I apologize.

That being said, I see several other actions by several other editors mentioned at the top of this section. Perhaps it is someone else's turn in the barrel? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RM backlog

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves has a pretty large backlog, with many requests well over their 7 day expiration. I'm going to take care of some of those later today, but I won't have time to clear the whole backlog myself (and I can't close those discussions where I'm involved). ~Amatulić (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:FerrerFour

I would like to make a formal complain against the user User:FerrerFour the user has been making continued personalised attacks on users whom they disagree with on the discussion page of the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. They have referred to myself as a liar in this comment in this comment they specifically state I am the problem and that I am incompetent . In this edit they are stating I have no understanding of things In this edit they state "anyone with half a brain could see that" . In this comment they state "I see no reason for anyone to be forced to listen to your continued insistence that black is white," . Here they state "I do know what I'm talking about, whereas you pretty obviously don't." . In this edit they attempt to defend their personalised comments . In this edit they refer to other editors contributions as "More rubbish", "clearly nonsense" " there's people talking about policies that they know about, and then there's you" . In this edit they state "I shouldn't trust your reading skills if I were you" . in this edit they make numerous personalised uncivil comments . In this comment they use phrases such as "Just get this through your thick head will you" and " I just think it's garbage, born out of your weird hatred of the press" .

Can some action please be taken against this user who is clearly making uncivil and personalised comments on other users which is getting disruptive and is getting highly offensive. Sport and politics (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• This might have gone beyond WP:WQA based on the sheer quantity of uncivil commentary. They're simply wiping out formal warnings from their talkpage. I have given them a "welcomecivil"" template, as I note they had not been advised of Misplaced Pages's rules formally, although that excuses nothing. dangerouspanda 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like they need someone patient and understanding to bounce talk with back and forth for a day or two, to understand that this isn't a forum, and we discuss instead of debate. Sounds like a job for a Panda. (wink wink, nod nod, hint hint) I would rather see that attempted before we take any other action since this guy is really new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I stumbled across this yesterday after receiving a less than courteous reply from Sport and politics to a legitimate question, in which I was basically accused of soapboxing, and I'm afraid I was a little vexed at the time. It seems to me both FerrerFour and Sport and Politics appear to be embroiled in an argument that spreads across several threads on the page, and is gradually escalating, with FerrerFour clearly out of line with some of his comments. But I'm also concerned about Sport and politics, who appears to be throwing a lot of guidelines about, but not really understanding their true nature. I think they both need a bit of coaching. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• This does need nipping in the bud, but the controversies page is not exactly the most friendly page. Moreover it's not so much the personal attacks, but the oppositional attitude of which that is the symptom that creates the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
  

I stand by my comments. If Misplaced Pages cares more about the likes of Sports and Politics being offended by being told he is incompetent, rather than actually investigating whether he is indeed incompetent, then there's no hope for it as a serious project. As Paul points out, this guy is just throwing links out there all over the place on the talk page, as if he understands them, when he clearly doesn't. That's bad enough, but when you also consider he is also slashing and burning sections of the article based on this incompetence, someone has to put him through a rapid Misplaced Pages education programme. I'm doing my bit by giving him a bit of plain speaking wherever I see him talking nonsense, which is of course quite different from being out and out insulting or vulgar for no reason. FerrerFour (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You could just use the word "incompetent" and stay away from some of the other stuff. "Incompetent" is not an insult, it's even a guideline around here (WP:COMPETENCE). The other stuff is not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I should add here I did actually revert something he claimed to have archived because I couldn't find it there. That he didn't add it could have been a genuine error though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That error has now been rectified I missed it off as it was the top discussion being archived when I transferred across. Sport and politics (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though to be honest there's no need to manually archive anything as MiszaBot is doing the job. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise that was occurring. Sport and politics (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:COMPETENCE isn't a guideline and it is an insult. It even said so in the essay: "This essay is often criticized for being uncivil." FerrerFour: Someone may be incompetent, but telling them so isn't going to solve any problems. If it were acceptable to just write someone else off an incompetent, then every time any of us had a disagreement we'd just say the other is incompetent. Nothing would get solved. You need to back off the insults and focus on the content and use reliable sources to back up your position.--v/r - TP 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used reliable sources and I've discussed the content. Sports and politice rejects all of this, precisely because of his incompetence. If you don't believe me, how about you try having a logical discussion with him instead, see how far you get when it becomes clear that he has no clue about the links he keeps throwing out there. I hope you like banging your head against a desk. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:FerrerFour appears to be new. (Although his claimed detailed knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies is somewhat of a surprise given that situation.) Almost all his edits have been on topics related to the London Olympic Games. He has very strong views on some of these matters. In addition, the article where the problems being discussed have occurred, Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics, is a very controversial article itself. In my humble opinion, it is currently an incredibly bloated platform for anyone with any complaint on the Games to broadcast their whining. User:FerrerFour disagrees, very rudely at times, with me and others. Where I'm going with this post is that, while User:FerrerFour's behaviour has been less than perfect, the nature of the article he is arguing over is part of the problem. If someone with appropriate authority could lay down some firmer rules for what that article should contain, and police it appropriately, a lot of this whole problem would disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have strong views about people who say things like "it's an incredibly bloated platform for anyone with any complaint on the Games to broadcast their whining", when quite clearly, this is a total lie. This is the guy who called me a "games hater" and made all sorts of other bullshit accusations about my motives, for doing nothing more heinous than pointing out what is a bloody obvious fact - being sent home from an Olympic games is nearly always considered a controversy, as can be verified in the reliable sources. This is the guy who claims incidents like this get forgotten about in a few days, then goes silent when I show him a reliable source that proves the exact opposite. I think I've been quite restrained in the face of such deceitful and disgraceful behaviour quite frankly. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefaced the words you quoted with "In my humble opinion..." That you chose to leave that out does your image no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

His edits elsewhere (e.g., Talk:Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics) haven't exactly been the most polite either. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Another excellent example of what people have to face in Misplaced Pages when others are minded to dispute things while not really knowing anything about policy - 12 days it took me, 12 whole days, for the user I was arguing with at that page, to come up with a source to back up his claims. And even then it didn't come from the place he'd been insisting it would be found. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it took twelve whole days...there is no deadline, remember. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly does WP:NODEADLINE have to do with the time it takes for one user to respond to a direct question from another? FerrerFour (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. See Talk:Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Percieved_elitism_section for Sports and politics

As for Ferrer, he does seem to know about guidelines et al pretty well for someone who is hardly a fortnight into the WP.

I would say Ferrer's responses here are not exactly helping him (reminds me of YRC's RfC ironically). Also see Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#David_Rudisha, though not eactly wrong per se, its another sign of such incivility that needs to change. He starts off accusing instead of posting and then continues.

Also the content is not under discussion over here, its the WAY the discussion has been done.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that through the entire discussion linked above I have only commented on the content of the discussion and to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the comments I have made. In one place I refer to another editor making more implications of edit warring and explain the whole cycle of being bold then reverting and then discussing. If there is any comments of a person nature in the section on elitism please point them out to me and I shall explain them. Though my current reading of that section can find no comments of a personal nature by myself. Sport and politics (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• FerrerFour, at Misplaced Pages, it takes more than "being right", you also have to get along. No one is asking to love everyone, but if you continue to be rude, you will it difficult to get others to be persuaded to your point of view, and you aren't going to have a very good time being here. As remarkable as your knowledge of Misplaced Pages is for such a new editor, you should also be familiar with the WP:Five pillars, the very foundation of Misplaced Pages, which uses a large chunk of this precious space to talk solely about civility. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. Here's another classic example of Sport and politic's total and utter incompetence. Earlier today, he removed this from the controversies article. He did this because it defames private schools, and is a BLP violation against the British competitors from private schools. You simply cannot deal with this by simply talking about content or sources, it's a basic issue of competence. If nobody here is willing to speak out against this sort of outrageously incompetent act, and is more interested in bitching at me for telling him he has no idea what he's doing, then shame on all of you. FerrerFour (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're right that his reasons were completely wrong (BLP violation? I think not) but ironically he was right to remove it; it's not a controversy about the games, just Moynihan making a political point knowing it'll be covered due to its association with them. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's irony? I don't think so. I think it's a case of looking the other way if the outcome of bad behaviour is something agreeable to you. Sort of like Russia ignoring the bloodbath in Syria if it means they can sell more helicopters. FerrerFour (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the latest personal comments from FerrerFour . It is clear the user is not understanding that it is not how to go about contributing on Misplaced Pages in a civil manner. Sport and politics (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase it then FerrerFour: It doesn't matter if you think you are right, being rude is unacceptable anyway. His conduct is a different issue. Right now, I'm talking about your conduct, the reason for this report, which has been rude. "You two are really full of it. " "You really are a very silly man. " "You can talk as much rubbish as you like..." "More rubbish." "it's actually a lie" and other rudeness. Your demeanor on that talk page shows you digging in there like you are here, and it is a WP:BATTLEfield mentality, which is incompatible with what we are here with. Stop it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• • What you're basically saying is you're more bothered about him being upset at being called incompetent, rather than his actual incompetence. Good to know. Brilliant to see just where your priorities lie. All I see here is a system designed to encourage incompetence. And as they say, stupid in, stupid out. FerrerFour (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I'm concerned that you are rapidly working your way towards a block. Claiming incompetence without demonstrating clear and obvious proof in the form of diffs is insulting, and at this point, is bordering on a personal attack. You are trying to use your opinion as a justification for continued incivility and quazi-personal attacks, and you are about to run out of rope. If you can't admit your own methods are inappropriate and clearly against WP:CIVIL, then you have only proven Sport and politics right. I'm not inclined to be much more patient here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I have posted at least one bang to rights example in here, at 23:14. You made this accusation a full 85 minutes later. I stand by my comments, and I will not be lectured at by the likes of you about not backing up my claims, when it appears you are so lazy you cannot even see that post, even though it's barely a few centimetres above this one. Further evidence is on display at the controversy article talk page, the only skill required to assess whether I'm insane or not is a pair of eyes and an abiilty to read English. But I get the sense that it's a little bit of a stretch for you to go look, which rather ties into my theory that you're not interested in the least in assessing whether Sports and politics in incompetent, you're only interest is in nailing me for highlighting it. Rather than being concerned about me working my way to a block, your apparent aim seems to be to accelerate it, much like a corrupt cop accelerates a case by accidentally losing some of the evidence that doesn't quite fit with his theories about the suspect. You can call my claims opinion all you like, Sports and politics is busy ripping articles apart based on nothing but his opinions. I'm not getting any sense that one is considered more of an issue than the other by you, which is quite surprising given the primary purpose of this project. FerrerFour (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You posted where he deleted a section, that is a content dispute, not CIR evidence. Looking at the talk page doesn't support your claims either. Claiming I haven't looked at the diffs or claiming my motives are impure isn't helping your case, nor is the examples you have given. They don't support WP:CIR claims of competency, so either find better diffs, or drop the claims. In other words, I've seen your evidence and disagree with your conclusions, so you need to stop with the rudeness and personal comments. It isn't an escalation, I'm simply trying to tell you that you are wrong here, and you can't seem to get that. I'm trying to do you a favor by telling you that you need to back off the aggression or else you will end up getting blocked. It is just factual, not personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • That's not quite right now is it? Let's tell the whole story shall we? I posted where he deleted a section because it, according to him, constituted defamation and a BLP violation. Now, let's examine that whole sequence, with respect to WP:CIR. From WP:CIR - "Factual incompetence The best good will is unavailing if basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and the cultural context is lacking". Please explain to everyone here, under what cultural context or mainstream interpretation, was that section's content defamatory? You can look up defamation if it helps, or you could just consider the fact it was printed in about a million papers. How often do you dismiss that sort of basic factual error, as a mere element of a content dispute? How many times pray tell, are editors who do know what defamation is, are supposed to put up with the likes of Sport and politics ignoring them? To quote WP:CIR again - "Bias-based incompetence Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively From his explanation for the removal, picking a random statement, "To single out individual competitors background which is something they have no control over is the same as singling out competitors race, gender, age...a non-story made up to sell newspapers" That statement is referencing the large number of news stories generated by a fact based comment from a high profile public servant which singled out nobody. How often do you overlook such obvious bias in the naive hope that the person has the ability to engage with people who don't share the same views? How often do you dismiss that sort of rhetoric as a healthy component of a run of the mill content dispute? Again, how many times are editors like myself supposed to put up with the pretence that people who hold such views, and still hold them even when they've been shown to be at the very least based on factual errors, is just a normal part of the to and fro of healthy Misplaced Pages discussion. I could go on, but I think I might be wasting my time if you missed even obvious examples like that. The guy is incompetent. You can either accept it, or deal with the conqeuences as the number of editors who encounter him reaches critical mass. Me, I don't much care. I don't think I'll be too motivated to contribute in future if this is the sort of environment that's considered normal. FerrerFour (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list so far of the policies Sports and politics has shown he has no grasp of, by either completely misusing them, or invoking them in circumnstances where no reasonable person would ever agree they applied:

• BLP
• NOTNEWS
• NOTE
• 30
• NOTFORUM
• RECENTISM
• NPOV
• NOR

Here's a sample of some the various actual arguments he's been making on the talk page that show that he has no grasp of the various wider issues that you need in order to have a sensible and productive discussion about current event type content and its eligibility under policies like NOT#NEWS or NPOV:

• Misplaced Pages using the same terminology as a newspaper is original research
• Newspaper articles are just one persons opinion
• This sort of coverage is "one newspaper"
• Not adding commentary in an article about how many newspapers didn't cover an issue, is "cherry picking" sources
• Something is not a controversy if only newspapers in one country call it one
• If newspapers have different accounts of an incident, then it's not a notable incident

I could go on and on, he is propogating this sort of nonsense in every section of that talk page for crying out loud. How much more evidence is needed that this guy is total and utter incompetent? He needs to be stopped, before he does some real damage to the reputation of Misplaced Pages. What is the point in creating all those policies and guidelines, if nobody is prepared to condemn the people who willfully ignore them, or stop the people who can't understand them? FerrerFour (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is highly misrepresentative and is not what is at issue here, if at all. What is at issue here is the uncivil comments and general rude and abusive nature on Wikipeida that FerrerFour is exhibiting . An exampl eof the above being misrepresntative: the Kim Collins issue is about weather it a "controversy" and not about one newspaper. An editor said it was called a controversy in a newspaper and I responded by saying that was just one newspaper calling it a controversy, where as other sources were not calling it a controversy. It is not just this article or me this user is uncivil towards. The comments being made by FerrerFour are now starting to be highly disruptive as they are preventing genuine constructive discussion from occuring. Sport and politics (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Every single item on that list comes from things you said. I dare you to deny it. And here we have another example - you claiming that because some sources don't call that event a controversy, then it's not a controversy. What you somehow forgot to explain, is the nature of the coverage in all those sources, which is 100% a description of a controversial incident. Not one of them was denying it was a controversial issue, not one, yet you chose to interpret the absence of a single word in a rather more broad fashion, to make the outlandish claim that there is somehow dispute in reliable sources about whether this is or isn't a controversy. Somewhere in your mind, once you mix in links to OR and POV and NOT#NEWS, this comes out as justification to remove the material from the article. Now, having had time to observe your mind at work, I know that explaining this to you is a waste of time, you'll only repeat the claims again and again, as if that progresses anything. But what I'm hoping to do is illustrate just how pointless it is talking to you without addressing the core issue - your total incompetence. FerrerFour (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets just close this abject dramafest asap and get back what we can do best, editing. I dint want to suggest a block all around, but it seems the same thing recurs and the counterparties don get the issue. Perhaps a short block of 12-24 hrs should give thought enough to get away from the article AND realise what it takes to avoid another block. I know it seems punitive, but its also to avoid the disruption here and on the talk page. Sports and politics seems to be partaking in discussion, but he too sometimes indicates a modicum of OWNership. A trout perhaps?

Also Blackkite, the content is under discussion on the talk page, you are encoruaged and invited to contribute to that there.Lihaas (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are further demonstrations of the highly personal nature and unwarranted comments being made by FerrerFour. There is no point engaging with FerrerFour by me due to the torrent of abuse that is hurled at me. Can some action please be taken against this user to prevent this user from further disrupting Wikipeida and to prevent them form continuing their unwarranted personal tirades. Sport and politics (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The personal nature of the comments reflects the fact that the cause is a person. You are the cause of your own incompetence, not the article, not policies, not the weather, it's you. In that post I described in precise detail an example of your incompetence, and it is because you are incompetent that you have no answer to it except this whining about me. If you truly weren't incompetent, if you truly understood policies and how to make an argument with them, then you'd have been able to give a decent explanation for that sort of behaviour by now. You'd be able to outline the path of reasoning that leads us from the abscence of the word controversy from some sources, to you wanting to take the section out of the article. But you don't have this, do you? Just like you had no answer to why you threatened a user over making a FORUM post, when it wasn't one. Just like you seem to have not explained why you thought that the link I posted above was a BLP violation. Just like when you asked for a third opinion for a discussion that had already had five. Etc Etc Etc. FerrerFour (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is just another example from FerrerFour as to the fact they are continuing with wholly inappropriate commenting. Sport and politics (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

^^^^Like I said, this guy is not able to defend his positions, which is something any competent editor would easily be able to do. It is not inappropriate to call an incompetent editor incompetent, in the same way that it's not inappropriate to call someone who is vandalising articles, a vandal. Although at least the damage caused by vandals is easy to fix. FerrerFour (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FerrerFour Is no longer worth engaging with when all they do is make unwarranted uncivilised comments towards myself. Sport and politics (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a surprise, in your opinion, accusations of incompetence levelled against you are unwarranted. Well I never. Who would have thought it? Case closed everybody! Now, let's get down to the seirous issues - who do you suggest we contact about the very serious defamation that the BOA chief has committed on British athletes by highlighting the public school issue. Wait, no, first let's remove that talk page post about Murdoch, as it was a blatant violation of FORUM. No, I have a better idea, let's remove all the sections in the article where we cannot prove that every source uses the word "controversy". Hang on a minute, our first priority must be to scan the article for sections only sourced from papers from one country, as they will not be notable. Etc etc etc. 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerrerFour (talk • contribs)

FerrerFour is still failing to see they are editing in a manner which is uncivil. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Sport and politics (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, the initator of the thread dosnt reccomend punishment because one issue is that clearly he was involved. Thats why theres the centralised noticeboard to elicit other opinion. It could turn into a BOOMERANG issueLihaas (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not recommending any action I am simply asking for some to be taken which is different. I asked for action to be taken when I opened the thread. I never suggested or recommended what action should be taken. It is for others to decide if they agree with my request for action to be taken and for others to decide on the action to be taken if they agree with my request for action to be taken. This talk is getting out of hand in my opinion. Sport and politics (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It just doesn't stop the latest comments are nothing but a tirade of a personal nature. There is little (if any) content discussion which is not layered in being highly disruptive Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentally ill or incompetent editors

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

I don't come to Misplaced Pages often enough to really answer Help Desk questions, but this is one I felt needed some clarification. I don't think sending the person here would necessarily be the right answer, but there wasn't a clear answer on the Help Desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please see WP: CIR. Second of all, I'm sure that there are some editors here with mental illnesses, and there is a fantastic admin here who wrote an essay on editing with mental illnesses here. Electric Catfish 21:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR is covered, but another answer said "off-wiki" and I have gotten no response from the person who wrote that as of yet. I will add that second one to the Help Desk response, though. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And we got a response about how to report the person.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Felipito1.966

This user has been performing largely unconstructive edits throughout his edit history, mainly changing US spellings to British in defiance of WP:ENGVAR and adding Spanish diacritics to non-Spanish names (such as geographical and biological names in the Philippines). He would stop at nothing, even turning a working link into a red link (see this and this). His blatant defiance WP:MOS has been pointed out numerous times (see his talk page's history, especially his removal of comments) and he replies extremely rudely (including a very uncivil e-mail to me). With this long history I concluded that he was beyond final warning and nevertheless posted a Level 4 warning. Then today he did a similar edit again. He had been warned by so many editors, yet he called every recent poster of his talk page "dictators". His British English supremacism needs to be stopped. HkCaGu (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked his responses to Alphathon just now and they smack of arrogance. So what if you're an English teacher?--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards