Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 13 February 2013 (Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 36h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moar blacklist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bidgee and sockpuppet

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

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

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

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

Persistent abuse of WP:OWN and WP:TRUTH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I was asked to name the 4 editors who edited the Khazar Theory from one to another article, I will do it now. They were Nishadani, Zeero, Andrew Lancaster and recently Jeppiz. All of them participated in the edition of Khazar Theory to the Khazars and to the Genetic Studies on Jews. Nishadani, Zeero made the edition of the same subject to the Invention of Jewish People book site, while Nishadani unsuccessfully tried previously to edit it to Ashkenazi Jews. I do not say that this theory should not be mentioned in this articles. What I said and asked is to determine a clear WP:UNDUE issue, and to place this theory in correct frameworks as per Misplaced Pages policy and in accordance to the prevailing opinion shared by almost entire academic community. This does not happened. Regarding allegations against myself I ask for concrete examples and links from this editors. Yes I slowed down the POV pushing which started with 5 consecutive sockppueppet vandalization of this pages by editors who also tried to push the Khazar Theory in this article in a way which created artificial impression that this theory has broad and universal support.--Tritomex (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I made very few actual edits on this pages and most of my focus was directed to talk pages. I asked and I stil ask very simple and clear questions-Like Why the Hebrew translation of the name of Khazars was edited in to lead? How Kevin Alan Brook a businesses administrator novel can be used as WP:RS for Khazars history and how the Khazar theory of Ashkeanzi Jews can be presented without mentioning that the overwhelming majority of scholars rejected it. For all this facts I presented relevant references.--Tritomex (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Hebrew word for Khazars was put in because, like the Greek and Latin and Arabic and Persian words for Khazars, the Khazars were mentioned by Jewish writers in Hebrew sources, by Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian (and Chinese) chroniclers in medieval times. Anyone, anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the subject knows that. You don't, you know no history at all, it appears at least to me from having to cope with your editing on several related pages. The only history you seem to trust is what peeps out of the margins of genetic papers. That is indicated time and again in your edits. And you belabour endlessly editors who actually do know in some detail these obscure subjects with ungrammatical, uncomprehending questions, while ignoring policy. Just lay of what you do not understand and let competent editors do their work, quickly efficiently and precisely. Then, once a rotten page becomes readable, by all means challenge some detail here or there.Nishidani (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who knows the history of Khazars knows that more than 90% of medieval chronicles mentioning them comes from Arabic historians and are written in Arabic language. Here is the list of medieval

historians of the Khazars: Ibn Qutaybah,Al-Baladhuri, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ahmad ibn A'zham,Ibn al-Faqih,Ahmad ibn Rustah-Persian but his chronicles were written in Arabic, Al-Masudi, Al-Ishtakhri,Ibn Hawkal, Al-Maqdisi, Yaqut al-Hamawi,Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad, Ali ibn al-Athir,Hudud al-'alam. Contrary to this there are no contemporary Jewish historians writing chronicles in Hebrew language about Khazars. In fact contemporary Jewish historians like Saadia Gaon and Benyamin Menashe Lewin whose work covering all aspects of Jewish life all over the world (known by them) writen in Judeo-Arabic do not mention the Khazars at all. The very few Jewish sources related to Khazars derive from Arabic scriptures and were written in Judeo-Arabic. So by this logic, without any exuse Arabic would be placed in first place instead of Hebrew. ---Tritomex (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The question of whether to put Hebrew and Farsi in the first line is surely one for the article talkpage? I think other editors would also be flexible. Tritomex I think you are mixing a small subject into a bigger one. Let's try to get past small stuff like that with minimum drama.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have seen Tritomex editing the articles under discussion and I believe that unfortunately it has been disruptive to the project. The editor has strong opinions on these topics and is unable to accept when a consensus forms against his own position. The editor needs to understand that not everything in the encyclopedia will be written in a way that corresponds exactly to his own personal understanding of the topic. If he cannot get to grips with that I think editing will be a very frustrating experience for him, and he will continue to be a disruptive presence in the articles he involved with. Dlv999 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

Also compare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eyes needed at TfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My IP Stalker and Vandal is back

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

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

User Ash Loomis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I wonder if it was (briefly) compromised back in November as well:. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. So it appears that Ash has been compromised all along. hmssolent\Let's convene 01:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Vhat a tweest! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal threats?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please erase this edit

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

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

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

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

Sanillin1

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

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

College name in Royal College, Colombo

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

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

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

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

Need the eyes of an uninvolved admin

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

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

Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok

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

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

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

• Or we head it off at the pass. Block/ban McAuthor and MrTownCar as SPAs who have no other business here but to whitewash this article. They've managed to edit-war and wikilawyer to the point of protection, where they have had their favorite version (which screams out for attention, and I'm about to heed the call) up for two weeks now. I'm stepping in and will use my magic admin powers to make this a less promotional piece, one that shows more respect for what we consider to be reliable sources, which discusses the trial in neutral terms, which doesn't pretend that opinions given are to be considered factual statements--and one which doesn't blatantly blame the victims. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I gotta say, that's about the worst I've seen, BLP-wise. Rich, it would not have been an abuse of your magic admin powers to have restored UKexpat's version (supported by a number of other editors) by citing our BLP policy. I hope some other admins will scrutinize the competing versions and the apparent interests of the two main editors responsible for that atrocious piece of promotional apologetics. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Careful, based on past experience, MrTownCar will accuse you and me of being sockpuppets.--ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • MrTownCar will find himself in a heap of trouble regardless if he continues to edit in the same vein. Let's see what happens tomorrow. If this ANI thread doesn't prompt action if action is necessary, BLPN is next, with or without ANEW, and then ANI and AN again if needs be. Possibly SPI since I have suspicions of my own. And now I'm all out of acronyms. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Drmies, I should mention here that I agonized at the time over which of the two competing versions of the article I should freeze. In the end, I decided that although the current version at the time certainly had problems, those problems did not meet the specific criteria in WP:PREFER under which an admin may be justified in reverting to an earlier version. It was a "d—ed if I do, d—ed if I don't" kind of decision, and I took it fully realizing that I would be criticized no matter how I acted, but something clearly needed to be done. If I had it to do over again now, I think I would probably have protected the article for a shorter time (maybe just one week instead of two), and I would have brought the matter myself to the relevant noticeboards (instead of just asking the parties to the dispute to please do so) in order to make sure it could be dealt with much more promptly. Live and learn, I suppose. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Rich, hindsight is usually 20/20... You were dealing with some determined warriors, methinks. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have left ANI notices for both Macauthor and MrTownCar.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Has the editor explained why they are removing just "China".Moxy (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bazonka, you do not have evidence that I will continue, and I have promised not to do so. So duly refrain from stirring drama and running, crying to mother after just a few minutes. Would someone kindly close this thread henceforth? GotR 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're going to stop removing links, is that correct? thanks in advance for your confirmation/clarification. And I would very much like to see a clear acknowledgement that you understand that you do not ever remove a thread on ANI which is about you; and very rarely one which is about anyone or anything else. KillerChihuahua 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I just disagreed with the mass unlinking on some pages I didn't think it should be. I don't think it needed to rise to the level of AN. I think both of you need to calm down and take a step back. No need to get so heated over what is really not that big a deal probably. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no reason given for why it is just China that has been unlinked. I suspect there is some POV involved, but I have no proof of that.

Normally, this sort of thing would not be one for ANI, but given the sheer number of articles that have been affected, and there is a risk that further articles could be affected in the future, it needs to be raised. Bazonka (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there is some POV involved—That's right! You only suspect, Bazonka. there is a risk that further articles could be affected in the future—Smacks of "if it snows today, it most certainly will tomorrow" type of idiocy.

@Chihuahua, once again, I vow that the Twinkle delinking will cease. GotR 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet that's not the most serious issue here. Will you also "vow" not to remove threads from ANI? The delinking might be seen as good-faith, but removing a thread on ANI can only be seen as you trying to avoid scrutiny by admins. KillerChihuahua 20:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:TPG, yes. GotR 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

NO. This is NOT a talk page. Please look carefully. This is a Misplaced Pages namespace page, IOW it is a project page. I still really need to hear you will never remove anything from ANI ever again, and not per a guideline that doesn't quite apply, just a simple, clear promise you won't do it. KillerChihuahua 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You have my word, then. GotR 20:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What should be done with the edits - should the edits be reverted? Any recommendations?Moxy (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think most of them should be. I have scanned and found none where China had been previously linked in the article, but a couple where a city in China preceded the word "China". Such as; Beijing, China. It doesn't rise the level of reverting vandalism, and I see no reason not to leave it to the editors of the various pages, or revert all the edits as unhelpful. Either would be an acceptable approach. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@GotR: What does "the twinkle delinking" mean? Your edit summary alluded to the same thing. How about this: "I will stop delinking China period."--v/r - TP 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I manually reverted some of them from the top of GotRs contribs list, but it is a huge number of articles, and with the current technical problems Misplaced Pages seems to be experiencing at the moment, it seems to be a rather massive task. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working through them too. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If no one objects to an arguable technical misuse of rollback, I'm just gonna massrollback them here. Any cases where they should have been unlinked can be handled on their own. — PinkAmpers& 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh. Looks like Bazonka beat me to the bulk of it. Gosh massrollback is a fun script. — PinkAmpers& 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@TParis, "Twinkle delinking" should be unequivocally clear; there is an "unlink backlinks" option for every mainspace page. 2) Regardless of one's interpretations of WP:OVERLINK, Twinkle delinking (or going on delinking rampages) is more disruptive than delinking through general copy-editing; the latter is the case with my editing. So, no, asking me to "stop delinking China, period" is an outrageous request. GotR 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How about "stop delinking period." Does that sound better. You've offered no justification or policy that supports your actions, so how about just stopping delinking China, before someone suggests a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

1) If it is really necessitated, then I will be pedantic. In most situations, articles on nations/states, which are gross overviews to begin with, would fit the example provided at WP:LINK#An example article, and do not fulfil any of the criteria offered by WP:UNDERLINK: A) Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully—clearly, for example, in an article about alchemy, linking to a nation/state article, which is a gross overview, is of no help. B) Articles with relevant information—same reason as for A, and distant nation/state articles, i.e. anything but the US and Canada for a British Columbia topic, go off on clear tangents. C) Articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions—This is obvious D) Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar with readers—Well nations/states certainly aren't. On to WP:OVERLINK, the second criterion of which states names of major geographic features and locations—Nations/states are certainly major.

2) Suggesting I am not invulnerable to a topic ban is laughable; no one in their right mind would think a topic ban pass, as I edit almost exclusively in the Sinosphere, and am indispensable to the project (far more than any of you above). GotR 00:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you drop the "I am invulnerable" train of thought right now. Nobody is "entitled" to edit anything; nobody is "indispensable". A good Misplaced Pages contributor listens to criticism and alters problematic behaivor when it's pointed out. A bad one claims entitlement and usually winds up indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, given your unrepentant attitude and arrogance, a topic ban would actually pass. Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if GotR is trying to goad someone into blocking him, by stating that he is "indispensable to the project" - when there is no one who is indispensable.. (Look at the ArbCom case being brought against RAN, who is a massive contributor, for example) Lukeno94 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto Bushranger and Blackmane. Further to the linking issue, there are two things worth pointing out in this context. First, as needs to be pointed out too often, the part of overlink cited by GOTR above has a specific qualification to the advice against linking "major" geographic features, when said things are "relevant to the topic of the article". There can be a debate on how that might apply to places in China, but let's not pretend that that qualification is not there in the guideline and that blanket delinking of the term China is mandated by that guideline, as opposed to it suggesting editors make intelligent judgments in individual cases (this is a wider problem btw). Secondly, this should possibly be seen in the context of the move a year or so ago of the China and Taiwan titles and content. GOTR opposed those moves and has long been a warrior for the use of the more obscure terminology People's Republic of China/Republic of China to refer to each entity respectively. The term "China" no longer links to a broader "civilisational" article that implicitly includes Taiwan in its definition, but to the page about the modern country known officially as the PRC and universally referred to as China, which is generally taken to exclude the territory of Taiwan. N-HH talk/edits 11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That certainly clears up a lot of questions, and does indicate that this whole maneuver was very much of a pointy (as well as WP:POVPUSHy) character. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please erase this edit

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

• There's something happening: I just removed the same thing, with apparently racist commentary, from Black market. It might be some kind of action directed at a company at that address. I've blocked 75.212.39.29 and 75.217.178.39 for three hours for disruptive editing; there may well be more. There are: 75.212.6.234 and 75.212.59.246. OK, we need a quick filter here if this keeps up. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be alert! Lova Falk talk 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you might want to avoid continuing to use ANI for revdel/OS requests. Might I suggest #wikipedia-en-revdel ? — PinkAmpers& 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I had never heard of it! However, your link was strange. My computer doesn't know what to do with it. I guess you meant: Misplaced Pages talk:Revision deletion? Lova Falk talk 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is the IRC channel; see also Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion Lectonar (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Lova Falk talk 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• And 75.212.179.174. And 75.217.83.66. Pink, ANI is a real quick way to get attention. This is going faster than it should. Hey! Admins! Filter builders! Can someone please calculate a range block or set up a block? I'm serious. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Edit filter 530. Set to log-only for now, but at least it allows for centralized checking and reverting from ; (ignore the first two hits from me, I co-opted my test filter). As an aside, my (shaky?) mental math shows a large amount of collateral damage from a rangeblock. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I sent a request earlier today to RFO and and had 6 such edits hidden. Two (at Wetback (slur) and Crimes against humanity) were particularity nasty.--Auric talk 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• No FPs (not that there should've been any), so I'm switching the filter to block the edits. Keep an eye out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Two such edits still viewable in the history of Fraud.--Auric talk 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RevDeled. For the curious: the edit filter has caught four edits so far (two since switching to block mode). It might be a good idea to still keep an eye on the edit filter's output, to monitor the IPs' other contribs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the filter, Writ Keeper. You are worth your salary and more. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, does your filter search for the string or its individual elements? They've used a couple different permutations. The address was always in there, but sometimes they used the first name (misspelled) instead of the initial. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It searches for a piece of it, not the whole thing. Don't want to give out too much detail, but it's relatively naive, so like I say, keep an eye out for edits that slip through. I've hidden the filter itself, on the wild off-chance that the guy knows/cares enough to look it up; admins and edit filter managers can see what it checks at Special:AbuseFilter/530, in the "conditions" box. (It should be pretty easy for anyone, even English professors, to understand, so don't worry about that.) Any examples of edits (that haven't been oversighted yet, obviously) that got through the filter or look like they would've would be welcome, to help me refine the filter. You can email me the details if necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll RevDel this discussion and your credit cards, just to make sure. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of the edits I am aware of were to articles about topics with an extremely negative connotation, with spurious edit summaries.--Auric talk 21:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped, but I've refined the filter a bit, just in case. I'll leave it in place for an hour or two, unless random false positives start happening. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Help:Userspace draft

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

The help page Help:Userspace draft has gone walkabout; a new editor has overwritten it and has moved it twice. I think it needs an admin to sort this one out, possibly with a history split so that the draft article can go somewhere sensible. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the help pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pusalieth

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

For fear of someone screaming WP:INVOLVED in my direction, I will point out Pusalieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who, upon discovering that I had removed a blatant copyright violation of http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/video2.htm, responded with this attack, and, upon being gently corrected, responded with this and this.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See here, here, and here. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Block Evasion / Edit Warring

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

User:64.134.134.133 is block evading on . Original block was User:64.134.134.64. Suggest rangeblock of 64.134.134.0/24 or at least a block of the evading IP. Vacation9 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and semi-protected the page he is edit-warring over.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Donnelly (journalist)

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Donnelly (journalist) has been inappropriately relisted by a non admin. I request an admin to close. thanks. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The relist is...borderline, but for future reference, AN/I is to deal with relatively serious issues. You also don't appear to have notified the non-admin in question that this discussion was happening or spoken to him about it (for reference, asking him a question and then not giving him any time to reply is not a conversation). In the future:

1. Discuss it with the closer;
2. Then bring it to AN/I;
3. Assuming it's important. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've notified and left a question. Relisting when not necessary is just wasting people's time and thus requires admin intervention. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not approach a single admin, but leave it to a random admin to close. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Then WP:AN would be the place, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Martin_Kimmel - internal error, returning 404 status

The page Talk:Martin_Kimmel is returning a 404 error. A real 404 error, not a wiki "you can create this page" error. It worked earlier today. Martin_Kimmel is working. I'd put a suggest-merge tag on the article, but hadn't done anything to do the merge. Did someone try a merge, or perform some other maintenance operation, and have it go wrong? --John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It works fine for me. Try using http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMartin_Kimmel&action=purge, see if that helps you, and try to clear your local cache. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Working for me as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This happens to me periodically when my Internet is working; somehow my browser just can't load a page. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC close goes beyond the RfC question

A recent RfC on Frank L. VanderSloot was closed by User:Lord Roem in a way that I believe exceeds the question posed. The question was, should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of the article? LordRoem has decreed that the term must be removed from the entire article in relation to VanderSloot's current activities. Discussion at this section has not led to a satisfactory outcome in this regard. The key point is that LordRoem ought not close an RfC in a way that goes beyond the question that was posed; as things stand, he is using his status as an admin to dictate content (together with implicit threat of blocks), instead of determining the consensus of the RfC participants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Let me give some background to this dispute. After seeing a post alerting admins to edit warring on the 3RR Noticeboard, I protected the Frank L. VanderSloot article. I suggested either talk page discussions or an RfC to resolve an apparently long-running dispute there on the term "multi-level marketing". After discussion calmed down, essentially everything that was going to be said was said, and in response to concerns that a contested phrase remained in the protected version of the article, I closed the RfC. After reading through all the comments, I found no consensus for including the term. Under policy, that disputed phrasing then should be removed unless and until a new consensus is reached on whether to include it. While the initial RfC question was focused on the lead, I found that the discussion went far broader; debating whether the term was, in and of itself, an attack or sign of implied corruption. In the RfC close, I said that uncertainty about whether the term was appropriate required that the term be removed. In no way was I "dictating content", as a look of my close reasoning is based entirely upon the arguments raised in the discussion. I think my close was reasonable and I feel I'm correct to insist that there be no edit warring over the disputed phrase until a new consensus emerges. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff that initiated the RfC: link. The role of a closing admin would be to determine consensus on that question. To go beyond that question and decree that the term should be removed from the entire article -- and to threaten blocks if it is included -- is to use one's admin status to dictate content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the admin went beyond what was asked of him, but I also feel he preemptively headed off another edit war that would be almost certain to erupt if he had not provided some guidance in the matter. His logic seems quite unassailable: If the MLM term is contentious and potentially harmful to the WP:BLP subject (thus possibly to Misplaced Pages as a whole) in the lede, then the same term would be equally contentious and potentially harmful anywhere in the article. I am glad he actually provided that guidance rather than making us simply guess at the ramifications of closing the discussion on the lede itself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I both !voted against LR's Rfa and !voted in favor of keeping the term MLM in the lede, not to mention the article. Now this action, which I feel crosses the line. Nomo's objections are both correct and proper, in my view, and I find this new admins actions are troubling. Jusdafax 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say (but without having found to time to read through all of the lengthy discussion yet) that I find L.R.'s closure rather incomprehensible myself. So we're told a term can't be used, even though reliable sources agree that it is appropriate, merely because some editors don't like it and think it sounds pejorative? That is a misstatement both of policy and of the weight of editorial opinion in the talkpage. Where BLP says we must avoid contentious claims, the threshold of what counts as "contentious" is quite a different one: it's about factual contention in reliable sources. I'm open to more discussion, but at first sight I'd recommend to Lord Roem he should undo this closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an important point, and in fact there are no sources independent of VanderSloot himself that contest the term (apart from one article in a Malaysian newspaper -- surely an exception that proves the rule). There's also the matter that the RfC went only for 11 days; the point was to get new voices (not just the 10 editors with a longer history on the page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to (essentially) wheel-war to restore "MLM", as any person who thinks logically about what should be in the article must conclude, but, I increased the promenance of the fact that the company was accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme; copying from the last paragraph of the appropriate subsection to the first paragraph. Perhaps further revision should be done, but removing that is an even more clear WP:NPOV violation. In other words, I'm replacing MLM with "accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme"; there being absolutely no doubt that that is among the most notable things about the company, and it's sourced to at least 7 reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think the result of the closure is contrary to policy; there need not be a consensus for inclusion, only a consensus that the material is adquately sourced by BLP standards. WP:BLP does not require exclusion for material of WP:UNDUE weight, if adequately sourced, unless there is a consensus for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad close per FPaS, AR NE Ent 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) Agree along the lines of Future Perfect and Arthur Rubin, the administrative issue presented is was there a well-supported consensus that this is a violation of BLP, which turns on heightened sourcing; NPOV holds that any matter that is well sourced can be presented in a neutral fashion, which turns on presentation, which is an editorial function and not an administrative one, unless in enforcement of a well founded consensus that there is no possible NPOV presentation. So, the close overstepped its mandate in dictating content, without consensus to do so. Also, censoring arguable terms used by sources counsels administrative restraint when the decision is to censor sources. MLM is not an obvious pejorative, rather than a descriptive, as shown by the discussion. And in any case it is not shown to be presented as a pejorative description of a person. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at the discussion or the article, so this is purely a response to others' comments. Reliable sources aren't necessarily bound by requirements that we have; in particular, if we think that the sources have been biased, we need to implement WP:NPOV by treating the subject impartially instead of praising or attacking it. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

True, certainly as a matter of well founded consensus of editorial judgment, but not an administrative fiat. Part of doing so is recording and presenting sources that have biases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The close was proper and fully-reasoned. The concept of forumshopping in the guise of reviewing the reasoned close is problematic. In the case at hand, the more restrictive use of consensus for an edit with specific WP:BLP implications was properly invoked. Noting further that some wish to state in Misplaced Pages's voice that the company was an "illegal pyramid scheme" or to ascribe the "illegal" as an adjective at all on this BLP requires that WP:BLPCRIME be followed - and since no such legal finding by a court is cited, the policy appears to bar that claim in any case. Collect (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? The term dealt with was MLM. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with FPaS. If I were to close that, I'd have said that using the term in the lead violated WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD but was acceptable in the article as a WP:BLP. BLP is not a shield against bad words in an article. It's a shield against real world damage to a person's reputation. What we're required to do is determine if we would be the cause of that damage or not. Putting this term in the lead would be damaging because it would give too much weight to this person's life. Putting it in an appropriate section in the article, however, would not if sourced to several reliable sources and balanced with neutral language and counter viewpoints (if available).--v/r - TP 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the present situation. But it can hardly be said that there was a consensus in the RfC that putting the term in the lead was "undue". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeb2003, article creation issues.

I think we have an issue here, jeb2003 has had a very rocky entry to the community, he persists in making promotional articles, previously removing csd tags, improper use of block templates and eventually sockpuppetry and blocked for a one month period. His first edits upon expiration of block is to recreate an article Gaisano Iloilo City Center which was deleted via an AFD discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gaisano Center Iloilo. I am greatly doubting his WP:COMPETENCE or willingness to edit constructively within the community guidelines, can we please have an Admin review and determine whether this editor should be blocked or some other community restriction be issued to correct this. Thanks in advance, and for evidence of concerns please look at his talk page, a very large number of issues are evidenced there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I believe we also missed one of his Socks, User talk:Good man76, same area of interest only a few edits before he was ip hardblocked to which I added to the sock puppet investigation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left Jeb2003 a message suggesting he seeks adoption. Whilst his conduct is disruptive, he appears (to me at least) to simply be unaware of or unable to comprehend Misplaced Pages's policies. An adopter may be able to guide him towards more productive editing. If not, well, the blockhammer is always there in the toolbox. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocko hammer is needed, he has again recreated the article and is once more removing csd tags. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

4 times and counting ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted and tried to give some constructive advice. I'd be hesitant about tagging reverts as vandalism though - I think we can still assume he probably thinks he's doing the right thing (even though we know he's not). Ritchie333 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree had he not been blocked for sockpuppetry, removing csd, putting block templates on other peoples pages and a return to the behavior immediately at the end of the block. Take a look through the talkpage, enough is enough. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Number six removal of csd just happened, and he knows how talkpages work becasue he used his sock to ward himself two barnstars...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

All the same, it's good just to keep calm about these things. Maybe if he comes out with something like this gem I'd change my mind. Ritchie333 12:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ip socking to add to the list ]. I'm calm about this, I just think that teh disruption should be stopped. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to stick a spanner in the works, but a news search for "Iloilo City Center" does return a few hits such as this and this - tenuous mentions, granted, but just about enough to get over a CSD and up to the level of a redirect. The AfD mentioned above seems to be just a handful of people saying "But it's just not notable!!!!" Throw into the mix that Jeb2003 might not speak English as a first language, and I can see why he's annoyed. Ritchie333 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He knows enough to write the articles. award himself in English no less ] and at least 5 confirmed sock puppets not including when he IP socks ] and ]. I respect your attempt at assuming good faith but if he can't speak English enough to understand the policy or even attempt to work in good faith he shouldn't be here. Also ] he understand English enough to change his block length out of the template. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on his edits in the last hour or so, I'm starting to agree with Hell in a Bucket - either there's a serious competence issue, or this is deliberate disruption. If Jeb2003 still doesn't get it, whether it's because he doesn't speak English as first language, is too young to understand the complexities of Misplaced Pages, doesn't want to, understands but is being intentionally obtuse, is pissed off at the community, or just gosh-darn-it ain't that all that blessed in the brains department, his activities need to stop. If he won't stop them voluntarily, well, that's why admins get paid the big bucks. I'm not going to block-slap him myself, but anyone doing so will hear no argument from this quarter. At this point, it's gone beyond a question of whether his created articles should be kept or not; this is fast becoming a purely behavioural issue. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess all I'm saying if you do block him (and I'm not saying you shouldn't), it should be more "please come back when you're older" rather than "don't let the door hit you on the way out". I suspect the "2003" in his username is related to his age. Ritchie333 13:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Article which probably shouldn't be an article...?

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

Dear all; have just found this article in AfC, I removed the Sandbox template before looking closely at the article itself, assuming it had already passed. But if so, why? Viz., it's crap. Needs Wikifying in both content and tone, as well as only providing two refs in what is a substantial article. A large amount of it is also lifted verbatim from an Indian Army site and- bizzarely- a US marine page (the links to both these sites is blocked, but google any chunk of text and I think you'll find what I mean). I guess it should be deleted now it's in the name space? Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 12:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• It hasn't passed - the editor created the article in mainspace and since it doesn't scream immediate CSD, NPP probably haven't picked up on it yet. I've moved it into AfC space. Ritchie333 12:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cheers, I dealt with it there.PS, was this not the right place to raise the issue? So as to know for next time.Basket _Feudalist 12:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• You probably want to use Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation - you only really need this place if there is severe disruption and all the regular avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted. Maybe if somebody was spamming AfC with lots of junk articles every day, or was doing lots of bad faith reviews, we could come here, but that's not what we've got. Ritchie333 12:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards