Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 12 August 2012

Whatever you were about to say, don't bother. I've had enough of this ridiculous 'project', and am not going to waste any more time tying to keep the obnoxious POV-pushing bigots and deranged cultists from filling Misplaced Pages with complete bollocks, while at the same time being followed around by The Incivility-Finder General who seems to think (along with far too many of the 'contributors' here) that being 'nice' to each other is more important than not filling the encyclopaedia with horseshit, spin, snake-oil, and illiterate drivel about episode thirteen of some vacuous TV series that nobody over the (mental) age of thirteen ever watched. If I ever express a wish to contribute to an online encyclopaedia again, please send for the men in white coats... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your comment not to bother, because it isn't any kind of bother for me say what I what to say!!! I'm very sorry I didn't see the page protection request earlier, and I have now protected the page. I don't think I've ever had any dealings with you before, Andy, but I have long seen the important work you do at keeping this encyclopedia on track, in multiple ways, including some of those you mention above. Take a break. We all need one once in a while. But then do come back. Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You forgot...

...to link "filling Misplaced Pages with complete bollocks" to the user you were addressing here. Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Caution

I've blocked Iamthemuffinman for 24 hours for the personal attacks and leaving a note here to ask you to turn it down a bit. You can accomplish goals easier if there aren't insults being hurled around. Please leave the insults off even when others attack you, okay? I think you will find that you are more effective that way. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A whole 24 hours! Wow. Talk about cruel and unusual punishments... ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

And I've now blocked you for two weeks. Your recent actions were utterly over the line - your block would be shorter were this not a consistent habit rather than a one-off. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask for the block to be extended? Clearly I'd be better off not visiting this lunatic asylum where the 'punishment' handed out is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the 'crimes'. A longer block would at least make clear that mine was a minor offence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider requests for self-blocks. And for reference, you're both acting inappropriately - the difference is that this is his first such time doing so, while you have a long and sterling history of flying off the handle. If I see him engage in such behaviour again, his next block isn't going to be the sort you come back from. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"this is his first such time doing so". Yeah right. I think you mean 'his first such time with his current account'. A 'new' user, really: AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll call in a checkuser :). Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

this is outrages. the other user ("iamthemuffinman") who made sexist and homophobic remarks was blocked for a mere 24 hours , . i request to unblock andy, or at least reduce the block to 12 hours.-- altetendekrabbe  13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So we give people get-out-of-jail cards as long as the other participant was being a dick first? I think not. Now, personally, I'd love to extend Iamthemuffinman's block - but as someone who declined his unblock request it's probably inappropriate at this stage. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, Andy started it with this userpage vandalism. Unless there is something else that I am missing here, I have to support this block. --MuZemike 13:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Try gathering further... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That userpage vandalism was preceded by a duplicated personal attack by "iamthemuffinman" several hours earlier. benzband (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, how about someone pointing out on iamthemuffinman's talk page that he is lying through his teeth: "I was started on and became the victim of a calculated and viscious series of attacks by a user with a grudge against me" - nope. See here: . And how could I have 'a grudge' against someone who's (allegedly) only had an account since July the 22nd? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, that use of the misspelled "viscious" to describe "attacks", and also the "grudge" allegation, are redolent of a user you ran across at a noticeboard fairly recently. I can't remember who, exactly; but you might. (Not that there's necessarily any connection.) I remember you hazarded a guess that "viscious" might be a neologism, lol. Writegeist (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Viscious' at AN/I was User:R-41 I've had run-ins with him before, but I doubt that it is him - more likely one of User:AnkhMorpork's gang of Islamophopic meatpuppets, I think. There are a fair number of them, along with a smattering of IPs. To be honest though, I've no idea who muffin-brains is, but it seems self evident that someone who gets into an edit war over Talk:Main Page within 7 hours or so of creating an account knows their way around well, and knows how to game the system. Still, if you want to find out for sure, you could ask muffin-head himself: he said that I have a grudge against him - so presumably he can tell us where I made this apparent, and what account he was editing under at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a sort of timeline on my talk page. If you have a look at this talk page's history Iamthemuffinman left a post about 5 hours before AndytheGrump posted the first on User talk:Iamthemuffinman. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, because AndyTG has now been blocked, his suggestion of suspected sockpuppetry/ meatpuppetry just gets disregarded? From what I have seen, it's very likely to be a case of "Iamthemuffinsock". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I've spoken to a CheckUser, but as I understand it things have been accelerated somewhat further up the food chain. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, do you have an idea who this might be?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, I started this two weeks ago when I stumbled across it. I'm tempted to just fix it myself if they won't, as my patience isn't infinite and I'm tired of babysitting this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One thing I've learned over time is that arguing with a sock doesn't usually do much good. They rarely own up to it, and often just try to push the limits and get somebody else blocked. So the solution is: Don't get mad; get even. Take the suspected sock to your most trusted admin and ask, "What about this?" You don't have to swat the mosquitoes and run the risk of malaria. Let the admins do that. That's what they're paid for, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though Andy was kind of dismissive of me for pointing it out, I think a huge part of the problem we're seeing with this little war of Andy's is his lack of Civility. Iamthemuffinman doesn't have that many edits as a registered account and so its pretty easy to see a pattern develop. Iamthemuffinman makes some 'normal' edits, endorses a block against an editor at AN/I and not too long after that, Andy decides to start calling the guy a sockpuppet, other people join in, and this newly registered editor attempts to use Wikiquette to resolve the problem, but has a hard time getting any traction there because people are still failing to assume good faith and being incivil.

Iamthemuffinman states he has been editing as an IP for a very long time (link here), and our rules say that is fine. As I said at Wikiquette, the proper way to debate and to handle a sock is not to use it as an ad hominem attack in a debate, but as BaseballBugs says above, take the concern to a trusted admin and work on resolving it. One of our basic pillars is Civility, and editors routinely ignore that in favor of just throwing mud and dirt. I would hope that the accusations about socks can be handled professionally in the future, and that Andy would understand that a lot of very good content makes its way into Misplaced Pages without a need for him or anyone else to belittle their fellow editors. At this point it might be necessary for an interaction ban to be implemented between Andy and Iamthemuffinman in order to prevent more problems down the road, but simply acting in a professional manner would probably do just as well. -- Avanu (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

can people please note that (amongst other things) it was Incivility-Finder General Avanu's endless repetitious whining about 'civility' all over the place that led me to post the comment at the top of this page. Avanu, just to make things perfectly clear, I don't want to see your comments on my talk page - your clueless hounding achieves nothing beyond inflaming the situation further. You aren't being 'civil' you are being obnoxious. Go do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman appears to have edited as User:2.99.69.69 before registering his account. However the IP account has a limited history, only editing on Talk:Main Page and his own talk page that day. It might be useful to run a checkuser on that IP. It seems that Iamthemuffinman may be familiar with altetendekrabbe and possibly Andy. Does either editor recognize him? TFD (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As said, a CU has investigated and thrown it up the food chain. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it has been 'handled', there's no need for continued focus on Iamthemuffinman by the two editors below. Don't you think it is a good time to finally drop the stick here and actually focus on something other than this one editor? It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy that this guy is getting all your attention, and simply moving on wouldn't hurt. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, can you please explain why you continue to post on my talk page after my explicit request that you cease doing so? - or preferably, don't explain, just stop posting on my talk page. Frankly, this is looking more like hounding by the minute. Haven't you got someone else to piss off with your relentless bullshit? This isn't about you. You aren't an admin. You aren't involved. I have already pointed out that your self-important 'civility trolling' is one of the things I've found most objectionable in the last few days - your pompous waffle about 'civility' may seem important to you, but when it repeatedly derails ANI discussions etc regarding serious issues concerning article content, as it did here , it becomes a net liability to the project. Yes, we know 'civility' is a Pillar - but that doesn't give you a license to engage in endless spamming of discussions just because you don't like the tone of the debate. Either report people for breaches of policy, or troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"iamthemuffinman" came out of nowhere and tried to get me banned on the an/i where i had reported ankhmorpork... if i remember correctly, he had a total of 20 edits or so at that time. there exists a pack of editors who are whitewashing extremists' views and personalities here on wikipedia. in addition, they are trying very hard to smear islam as well. their favorite weapons include misrepresentation of sources, the use of fringe sources, and edit warring. please have a look at this page. the page promotes bigotry via gross misrepresentation of sources.-- altetendekrabbe  22:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One other point. In his first appeal against his block, Iamthemuffinman writes that "I was started on and became the victim of a calculated and viscious series of attacks by a user with a grudge against me". Can I ask that Iamthemuffinman provides the evidence for these "calculated and attacks", and explains how I could possibly have 'a grudge' against a new account. Or failing this, can I ask that his block be extended further for making unfounded accusations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read it

I apologize moist sincerely for making a mistake. I saw your paged had been blanked and I did not think that was right. I restored it. Then I went to the page history I saw my mistake and fixed it. Speaking as someone who has defended you in the past and who approves of the fact that you defend numerous articles from nonsense and time wasters I would suggest that you not lash out at every single editor you come across. I have no problem with you being Grumpy but being vindictive is a different thing. That is a path on which you will wind up with no one to defend you. I'll take your page off my watchlist so that I won;t make an error here again. I will miss some of the banter that goes on here but I certainly don't want to offend yu. Again my apologies.MarnetteD | Talk 15:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - sorry for flying off the handle at you - if I'd been in a calmer state I'd have realised why you'd done it. Maybe what Misplaced Pages needs is a built-in delay after 'save page' is clicked to enable everyone to think about what they are doing, and change their minds... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack and hounding by User:Avanu

Avanu, who evidently sees himself as some sort of self-appointed Misplaced Pages civility-monitor-in-chief, has now posted a personal attack on me on his talk page, in response to a request that he cease edit-warring on this page (reinsertion of a post of his I deleted after asking him not to post here). In this, he repeats the assertion that I have been 'hounding' Iamthemuffinman: "While it is *possible* that Iamthemuffinman is a sockpuppet, heck anything is *posible*, he is completely correct at this point in asserting that Andy is hounding him, and continues to focus on him even during his block". The simple facts of the matter are self-evident. I have not been 'hounding' anyone. Iamthemuffinman chose to hound me by repeatedly posting abuse here, without provocation. How the hell can I 'hound' someone without interacting with them? Yes, I responded inappropriately to a personal attack, but that doesn't constitute 'hounding'. And yes, I've continued to discuss Iamthemuffinman's behaviour here, and whether he is a possible sock/meatpuppet or not - but so have multiple other contributors. Have they also been 'hounding' him? Is the contributor who initiated the checkuser procedure regarding Iamthemuffinman 'hounding' him? It is worth noting that in the ANI thread where I first came across Iamthemuffinman, there were multiple contributors suggesting that he wasn't the 'new' user he appeared to be - including at least one (Darkness Shines) on the other 'side' of the debate . Has Avanu accused others of 'hounding' Iamthemuffinman? Not as far as I'm aware. In fact Avanu's recent contribution history seems to suggest that he has been tracking my edits, and is going out of his way to stir things up. He recently unilaterally collapsed a section I was posting in on Jimbo Wales' talk page - twice . Of course he is entitled as anyone else to raise issues of incivility - but when he restricts this to my incivility alone, while ignoring entirely the fact that the supposed victim of my 'hounding' chose to call me a "tosser" and "a pathetic litle cunt" , and to vandalise my user page with a bizarre homophobic rant , it seems entirely reasonable to suppose that Avanu isn't interested in combating 'civility' per se, but is instead engaged on some sort of bizarre crusade - or alternatively, simply hounding me. Yes, I've been uncivil, and yes, I know it is inappropriate, and no, I'm not going to try to justify my behaviour by going into personal details, or by offering excuses. I believe that editors should be judged on their net contribution to the project, and on nothing else. Some people (quite possibly including me) simply aren't cut out to contribute here for long - the petty bureaucracy, endless POV-pushing and the rest eventually drives many people to react inappropriately, and lash out in frustration. In my case, one of the reasons I felt this way was made entirely clear at the top of this page - It is bad enough having to deal with the nonsense, without being tracked by self-appointed 'guardians of morals' who happily accuse others of 'hounding' people by um, er, well, not actually doing anything until the person involved posts abuse about them, but seem incapable of recognising that their own behaviour constitutes hounding. Anyway, I clearly shouldn't have responded to the foul-mouthed halfwit responsible for this latest ludicrous dramafest, and should have walked away earlier, with what little dignity I had intact. So now I'm off, so so long, thanks for the fish, and congratulations Avenu for your success in adding to the strife that drove me away. I hope you are happy, now that I'm going and won't bother you any more - though no doubt you'll find another victim for your infantile crusade. (Personal attack removed)AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though I don't necessarily agree with Avanu's interpretation; don't add personal attacks. Whatever point you are trying to make just gets clouded by it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think at this point I give a fuck? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Postscript.

For the record (should anyone be interested in such things), I think it should be noted that Iamthemuffinman has now been globally "locked due to cross-Wiki vandalism" . Surprised, anyone? I'm certainly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About an <- pre-redacted: begins with 'A' ->-2012-08-06T17:08:00.000Z">

see on another talk page that Avanu is trying engage in a bit of 'analysis' about the whole thing with me, the Muffin Man, AnkMorpork, altetendekrabbe, all the other contributors at the ANI thread , and at Wikiquette assistance, and with attempts to tag an entire ethnic community as paedophiles . Curiously though, Avanu's 'analysis' seems to omit one of the key participants: Avanu himself. Since he is engaging in Martix-style speculation about alternative universes, perhaps he should instead engage in a little self-analysis, and ask whether had he not disrupted the ANI thread with his pompous self-important 'lectures' about civility, and had he not then gone out of his way to hound me over my lack of civility (which I'm not denying, needless to say), while not only ignoring that of others, but actually encouraging muffin-between-the-ears to engage in further troublemaking, and, incidentally, grossly misrepresenting what went on (unless Avanu believes that I have a time machine, or have hacked Misplaced Pages's past records to alter the apparent sequence of events, his assertion that I was 'hounding' muffin can only be seen, at minimum, as a terminological inexactitude), things might have gone differently? Or has he now transmogrified from a mere Incivility-Finder General to His Holy Infallible Omniscience himself? Is He above reproach? Is He beyond the analytic powers of mere mortals? Or is He just another self-obsessed <- pre-redacted: begins 'P' ->, all too keen to criticise others, but incapable of seeing His own faults? Should I prove to be so deranged as to wish to engage in making further contributions to this 'project' it will no doubt be advisable to ask for an interaction ban between His Imperial Omniscience and myself, but I'm inclined to think that it might also be advisable for the project to deny His Pompous Infallibilitude access to any topic involving 'civility', and from making any comments on the 'civility' of others, unless and until He accepts that for the purposes of this encyclopaedia he will be seen as a mere fallible mortal, regardless of the Truth of His pronouncements. What think you? Can we risk taking on the Gods? Will the Roof fall in if we do so, as we take on the very Defender of the Pillar that holds it up? Or will we instead find ourselves actually better equipped to produce an encyclopaedia, free from the distractions of this <- pre-redacted convoluted sentence, epithets begin with most letters of the alphabet ->? I'd say that it might be worth a try... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)"> ">

Some semi-retired support! Try this - ALOTBSOL, well, it was that or "No one expects the Spanish Incivility Inquisition!". Keep on Grumping ;-) CaptainScreebo 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm blocked, so I can't fix this myself...

 Done by Baseball Bugs - Youreallycan 03:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my block - I'm probably better off staying out of this funny-farm, but I noticed a rather blatant BLP violation on a talk page (allegations reported as fact, and an ethnic slur), Needs deleting at minimum: AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs and YRC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your break Andy and come back a happier Grump - regards - lovely weather here - enjoy - Youreallycan 03:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Too hot... ;) I expect I'll be back though - can't seem to escape. Meanwhile, I'm thinking about writing an essay: You don't have to be mad to edit Misplaced Pages, but it helps (and it annoys Tarc too, which is a bonus) - see here for why Tarc deserves a special mention. His suggestion (I assume Tarc is a 'he'), if implemented, would require a special block template: "You have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages on the grounds of suspected mental illness. To appeal against this ban please provide references from a qualified medical practitioner stating that you are no more nuts than the rest of us...". :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the deranged cultist's page...

Oooer, a personal attack - send for His Imperial Majesty The Great Civility Enforcer ;) Per this ridiculous edit , as soon as my block is lifted I'll be proposing that User:IjonTichyIjonTichy be topic-banned from any articles relating to TZM etc, on the grounds of complete and utter cluelessness. Adding a link to Wright brothers, Nicola Tesla, Imagine (song) etc to the 'See also' section? This can only be seen as evidence that Ijon is either utterly incapable of understanding how Misplaced Pages works, and what is for, even after all this time, or (more likely) he knows full well, and is simply engaging in a relentless campaign of trolling to piss so many people off that he'll have the article all to himself. Not that a topic ban will achieve anything much, given the number of 'new' editors that turn up, all promoting the infantile cult, and all incapable of communicating in English. On this basis, I'm also inclined, per WP:IAR to propose deletion of the article on the grounds that while TZM may be marginally notable by Misplaced Pages standards, they are also exceptionally annoying, and if they can't keep their POV-trolls under control, we can do without the article anyway - at least until they take over the world, and their robotic database-enforcers tell us to do otherwise.

Here endeth the grump of the day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Imagine there's no Zeitgeist movement, it's easy if you try. I'm a bit surprised that this isn't at ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bah, I see that Avanu has reverted the nonsense 'see also' links, and just as I was thinking about engaging in a little creative editing vandalism/sockpuppetry by logging out and adding Enghelab Metro Station, Count Dracula, Raipur International Cricket Stadium, List of Brachyscome species, Cristoforo Foppa, History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874–1961), Noctis Labyrinthus and Albéric Collin to the list. Some people have no sense of fun. ;)

Seriously though, Avanu, if you saw this here, thanks - though I doubt that it will do much to solve the long-term problem. We've tried civility, we've tried rudeness (or at least, I have), we've tried blocks, we've tried page protection - whatever we do, the same old problems occur. Ultimately I can see it ending in one of two ways only (unless and until TZM's dictatorship of the database comes about ;) ) - either it gets deleted per WP:TOOBLOODYANNOYINGTOBEWORTHTHEBOTHER, or it gets put into permanent full page protection. Not that the latter would shut the cultists up, judging by their previous behaviour.

BTW, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with TZMs bizarre use of language, I see that the justification given on the talk page for describing TZM as 'non-violent' (which they probably are, though it isn't really something one should source from the organisation itself) is a quote from their 'Mission Statement' which reads "The range of The Movement's Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication" . I'd hate to think what a 'violent method of communication' would involve. Any guesses?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And to answer my own question (I might as well, since nobody else has), we have an article on non-non-violent communication: Propaganda of the deed - though this is of course an anarchist concept (or at least, it was - they seem on the whole to be a little less deranged these days), and TZM's philosophy is about as closely related to anarchism as I am to a brachyscome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just blatently disregarded my block:

See ] - the IP is me, no SPI needed. I don't particularly care at this point if this results in me getting blocked for another fortnight, or indeed until the sun goes pop and vaporises this deranged-primate-infested planet. User:IjonTichyIjonTichy needs to be banned from editing Misplaced Pages, reading Misplaced Pages, and even having the ability to recall that Misplaced Pages ever existed. Along with the rest of his moronic cult of infantile loons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you do more good for this project than you do bad. But you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, and only harming your cause. This might be one of the things you want to sit down and think out before you do it. But you already knew that. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure you're trying to get yourself blocked. The edits you reverted were entirely vanilla, and the edit summary was over the line. I can only think that you're trying to prove a point (WP:POINT of course) and go down in a flash of martyr's glory for a while. Or maybe you see that Misplaced Pages is bringing out the worst in you? I can't read your mind but I think your behavior is utterly baffling. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 08:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see why AtG did the revert - the material is not "entirely vanilla," it smells of "non-profit commercial promotion" from here. See for another editor who also finds it spammish. And the amount of interest the promoter has in the topic "Zeitgeist movement", and at insertion of Carl Sagan therein. That article's talk page also notes that editor's belief that Carl Sagan was a believer in the ZG movement apparently. There is, in fact, substantial conflict between Tichy and the other editors on that topic per that talk page. And so while AtG violated a rule, he did so in apparent attempt to enforce another rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC) See allso <g> and as evidence of the non-vanillaness of the edits. Collect (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Collect. The edit I reverted (only one) was of a blatant link-spam for an organisation that SPA IjonTichyIjonTichy has been repeatedly promoting with complete disregard for Misplaced Pages policy for months. Magog, can I suggest that before using 'mind reading' to try to understand what is going on, you do a little research - starting at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and its long and tedious archives, filled with ludicrous WP:OR arguments for why entirely unrelated topics need to be included in 'see also' (e.g. the latest effort, which included links to the Wright brothers, Nicola Tesla, Imagine (song) and much else besides ), explanations of why people who have as far as can be determined never even heard of TZM should be portrayed as supporters, and all sorts of other facile repetitive drivel, almost certainly written in an attempt to drive non-TZM contributors away so the 'movement' can revert it back to the illiterate and unsourced promotional page they'd like. And then ask yourself whether you'd still call anything that Tichy (or any of the other pro-TZM accounts and IPs - the place is an obvious sock-and-meatpuppet farm, and Tichy's is actually about the most rational of the accounts) has engaged in "entirely vanilla"? It isn't, unless Misplaced Pages has changed its policies in the last few days, and has decided to be a web-hosting site for bizarre fringe 'non-political' political cults. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And needless to say, Tichy is now edit-warring to retain his moronic 'see also' links: . Can someone please raise this at ANI, and get the deranged loon blocked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy that article/group are clearly attempting to use the project for promotion - Its been going on for a couple of years now, I had a spell there and it was one of the worst conflicted articles I have ever seen - I respect your willingness to accept blocks to highlight that - I have done the same myself - you will not change the built in problems with the En Misplaced Pages project that allow them to do that though - Users that really care about neutrality and respect for living people that unidentified editors use En Wikipeda to publish to the WWW like yourself, and I include myself can do good work elsewhere - to other projects - I will meet you there - LOL - have a nice day Andy - Youreallycan 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Andy: What forms of dispute resolution have you tried? Did you try notifying WP:FRINGE/N or WP:NPOV/N? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that TZM-related issues have been raised at the entire alphabet soup of noticeboards etc at one point or another, and going through the same processes again isn't going to achieve anything concrete. Essentially, what needs to happen is that TZM gets the message that the article isn't theirs, and they have two choices at this point: a properly sourced and neutral article written by uninvolved contributors, or no article at all. I'm inclined to think that the latter would be the best procedure for the encyclopaedia as a whole. Endless arguments over an article concerning a marginally-notable (at best) political cult divert resources from more useful things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And TichyBrains carries on with the edit warring: . Se also his facile comments on the talk page, where he seems to be claiming that our article on the Wright Brothers is 'peripherally related' to the TZM one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)