Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:25, 13 November 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User check : RobertRosen

It all started with our differing views on the reliability of a source here. I resorted to WP:RSN to seek expert advice. User:TheBlueCanoe intervened and opined that the source concerned is reliable, wikipedia per se. On reflection, I found that clauses such as WP:SPS too would apply if at all RobertRosen's views were taken seriously and I stated the same to him. RobertRosen kept spouting Misplaced Pages lingo such as WP:AGF and WP:RS and refused to give in to any of my points. He further went on defacing the article with edits such as this. That worried me and made me look up RobertRosen's history to check his intentions. I found instances such as this, thisand this which smeared my assumed good faith on RobertRosen. Sneakily removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries, removing sourced content falsely stating that it is unsupported : his edit history revealed such tendencies. Further check on Aruna Roy's history brought to light his other edits( 2 & 3) which have removed relevant and sourced material such as Aruna's featuring in Time's list of influential people. Maybe a pattern would emerge if all his contributions are scrutinized. The user keeps asking me to take it to his talk page, but I doubt if that would be worth my time and energy. Need administrator intervention. _morelMW 09:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI please. GiantSnowman 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Misplaced Pages should be a reliable encyclopedia sourced from authentic and non-POV sources in so far as BLP articles are concerned. So yes, I do "tend" to remove information on BLPs till they are properly sourced and re-written by editors interested in the subject. I am primarily a Misplaced Pages reader/user and not a Misplaced Pages editor. The present dispute is about personal biographical information about a living person Aruna Roy. I had repeatedly asked the complainant to take it to the ARTICLE TALK PAGE since there were only 2 editors involved. I also advised him that WP:3 is the place to go if he wanted a third opinion. Instead he has brought a content dispute to WP:ANI within the space of a few hours and without any independent editors being allowed to participate. For instance, User:TheBlueCanoe gave his opinion before I had even properly stated my case. If insisting on strict adherence to WP policies is a crime, then please dub me a SP and throw me out of WP. RobertRosen (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any socks. I had to take it to ANI as the problem is not with this one instance, but many, as supported by the disturbing instances cited in my first post. User:TheBlueCanoe did respond after RobertRosen's reply, which still wasn't a favourable one for RobertRosen. This user has a flawed understanding of WP policies and his editing should be monitored closely to prevent him from defacing further articles. _morelMW 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad - your talk of "user check" and "patterns" threw me, I thought you were talking about socking. I'll try and have a proper look if I find time. GiantSnowman 10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is another instance that makes me question his sound knowledge of WP policies. Controversies should be removed from a BLP article only when they form the main content, if I am not wrong. Or am I wrong? _morelMW 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you (MorelMWilliam) are. You're edit warring, not using the article talk page, not responding to a good faith notice place on your talk page, and running off to noticeboards. You're escalating the situation very quickly, and posting to ANI concurrently with RSN. Digging through an editor's history to find "evidence" of past misdeeds isn't really helpful, especially when at some of the links you provide don't really hold up. For example, RobertRosen made some edits to Arindam Chaudhuri with reasonable edit summaries, which were reverted by another editor; RR did not edit war (a third editor repeated some of the trimming). This discussion should be taken to the talk page. Going to RSN to get additional viewpoints is fine, but it's more helpful to give it time to allow other editors to comment rather than going back and forth with another editor. I don't see any need for admin action here. Nobody Ent 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@MorelMWilliam, Just FYI, what I removed on Salman Khurshid was clearly within the scope of WP:LBL. Let me also say that while I respect CONTRIBUTORS like you who add information ("WP is not a paper encyclopedia"), WP also needs those few remaining EDITORS like me who clean up afterwards. So chill and have mutual respect. RobertRosen (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

@Nobody WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM support the addition of well sourced contentious material against Salman Khurshid as they don't garner undue weight in his article. As regards the Arindham Chaudhuri link, RobertRosen deleted the entire content rather than changing it to the way supported by the source. I chose not to take things on my own hands and took it to notice boards for outsider opinion. Besides, all your concerns are that I took it to ANI and not go by talk page disputes, then a 3rd party intervention and then an another step before I get here. Look at the amount of junk that is there on WP:RSN for addition of simple and non contentious facts in an article! Most of his edits, other than today's, have something to do with people/ organisations involved in India Against Corruption movement, and I see a pattern there. His edits are usually content removal, a lot of them of a not so sound judgement. When contacted, he comes forward with wikipedia rules that don't apply. A rollback of some sort for his edits is what I see necessary, and that needs an administrator! _morelMW 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Roy bio cited is SPS originally from and the rmaf site is simply copying material as a copyright violation of the SPS material <g>. Pretty clear and convincing copyvio in fact, thus unuable for two separate and distinct absolute rules of Misplaced Pages. I did not check other issues, but that particular one should be laid to rest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All American Speakers website which has her 'bio' cited lists no author. This website sources content that are on public domain. Such as Jesse Jackson's bio copied from here. So it is not an SPS, but rather RMAF's content mirrored by All American Speakers. _morelMW 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In the ongoing WP:RSN discussion, RobertRosen has veered off to conspiracy theorists' territories. His key points include

• Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation is biased to further American Interests as it is administered by Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.

• Vigil Online, a non notable think tank, authors books that are more reliable than most of the sources here that meet WP:RS.

• He is a self-styled 'door-keeper' who claims that it is because of him "that text from books from "their" side NOR "your" side get through WP's policies and into BLPs".

• He thinks because he knows many books that go "pornographic" when talking about personal details of Aruna Roy, Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation's biography by an experienced filipino journalist Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is unreliable.

• He asks editors to read his Indian conspiracy theorists like Arundhati Roy sending me links to her criticism pieces such as this to become more 'informed'.

• He claims that the personal details of Aruna Roy supported by RMAF is contentious citing a few blogs.

It is now very clear that he subscribes to such ideologues and defaces articles with his wikilawyering. _morelMW 05:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MorelMWilliam, if you describe another editor as 'defacing' an article one more time, when what you mean is 'editing it in a way I don't like' I will block you under WP:NPA. This appears to be nothing but a content dispute, and I recommend it be closed before such an outcome occurs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the roads, did you read my entire post? It is not a content dispute; this user uses his personal research and unreliable/ shifty sources to support his wikilawyering. This RobertRosen has taken over Aruna Roy and many other wiki articles related to India Against Corruption and removes well referenced content citing their differences with his own knowledge supported by unreliable sources. Here are a few instances.

• He believes(1 & 2) that Aruna Roy and Sanjit Roy were never married. However, it is supported by multiple sources such as this and this.
• I found that a different version of the text under dispute was added by an administrator Ekabhishek in 2009. The same was removed by RobertRosen in 2011 stating that version to be copied in entirety from the source.

I am tired citing instances showing his bad judgement and I wonder if the above is not defacing, then what is! _morelMW 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't use my personal knowledge, my personal research or dubious sources to add (or delete) material to WP article space. That would be WP:NOR. My Indian BLP niche edits are usually of the "delete immediately without waiting for discussion" variety and strictly in terms of WP:BLP, WP:V etc.

Secondly, in 22.02.2011 I removed (as a COPYVIO) article text from Aruna Roy which stated that she and Sanjit/Bunker Roy "are not separated". Today User:MWilliam tried to rope the editor/admin "Ekabhishek" whose text I deleted into this dispute to support him at WP:ANI. However, 1 of MorelWilliam's own 2 new sources which he relies on to show they were married ALSO says that they "are separated".

Thirdly, I would ask User:MWilliams to understand Sanjit Roy's carefully nuanced statement (in the 2nd reference he provided) "In India I'm always Aruna Roy's husband."

Fourthly MWilliams is not even allowed to post such an ANI because he did not discuss this incident on my talk page and considering that I had immediately posted a courtesy message on his talk page asking him to do so after I (once) reverted his edits for purely technical reasons.

This is a content dispute and nothing else. The complainant is insistent on inserting a poorly sourced, copyrightvio'ed and controversial text into a BLP and is stalking me to achieve it. Can somebody please close this discussion, and/or get User:MWilliams to stop stalking me, repeatedly examining and maligning my editing style (and despite being advised not to do so by 4 neutral admins), calling for a WP:CU for me without any basis, and dismissively bypassing each and every conventional WP dispute resolution process so as to malign me. RobertRosen (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly(sic), this is NOT A CONTENT DISPUTE.
• Secondly(sic), this IS A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOUR EDITING STYLE and nothing else.
• Thirdly(sic), I am NOT STALKING YOU. I am just not that into you, okay? By the way, did you happen to land on Ekabhishek's talk page just like that?
• Sanjit Roy's statement implies that he is relatively unknown in India, other than for the fact that he is Aruna's husband. What did you understand? You have now come to believe that they are separated from your earlier stand that they were never married.
• You should seek advice from WP:RSN before you remove a source from a page. If it is you who regards a source dubious, then it is your personal knowledge / personal research. I didn't come up lived in sin because of their brehman - low life unconventional mixed marriage. Do you have a reliable source for that? _morelMW 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the editing at Aruna Roy for the past 2 years, I find that an anon IP band 117.xxx.xxx.xxx geo-resolving to BSNL in Rajasthan State in India, has been persistently trying to include personal biographic details of her to the article. I am not the only editor to have reverted this text/anon User:Materialscientist(an Admin) also did so on 22.Feb.2012 and so did User:Jargon777 on 25.May.2012. Curiously MWilliams is going to extraordinary lengths to reinsert much of the same (now seemingly self published) material which was removed by Materialscientist and by me (twice) as say on 10.Oct.2011 much after the text was added by MWilliams on 30.Aug.2011. So its not the first time this very text was added by Mwilliams and removed by me about 2 months later. So the sequence goes like this --> On 22.feb.2011 I remove the disputed text which I noticed after removing a patently COPYVIO image from flickr (which image also repeatedly gets reinserted back on this page), MWilliams adds the text back on 30.Aug.2011. I remove it 2 months later, then the anon IP replaces it and MaterialScientist removes it immediately. Then Mwilliams puts it back and I revert it immediately. It may also be relevant that Aruna Roy's organisation the "MKSS" is based in Rajasthan and she was also involved with a "Barefoot University" there. RobertRosen (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What's happening is a slow-moving edit-war, and just because it's 2 months apart doesn't make it any better, or any less of an edit-war...WP:BRD still applies. However, if you're suggesting some form of "undercover" or covert operations going on, then you'd better take a very quick re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and realign your manner of thinking as the hints, suggestions, and almost accusations above are inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins, I respectfully beg to state it differently. Somebody is repeatedly attempting to violate WP:NPOV on this WP:BLP by inserting a specific set of controversial text including concerning the subject's marital status and parentage. The article subject herself is a controversial personality much in the news. Several independent and neutral editors (including an Indian WP:Admin and a WP:Rollbacker from Toronto) have stopped him/them on technical grounds. None of us (incl. me) have problems with the content per se, we had always removed/rollbacked it for technical reasons. None of us rollbackers (as far as I can make out) have added any significant material to the article. Because of the glacial pace (and the anon IP), we could not see the pattern earlier.

WP:DR I have not contacted those other 2 editors or involved them. I had put a message on MWilliam's talk page asking him to discuss it, either on my talk page or the article talk page but he unilaterally chose to bring it to WP:RSN without any discussion saying "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy." and also "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". He then came to WP:ANI to escape from the ongoing WP:RSN discussion which later went against him. RobertRosen (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've also just discovered that "MWilliams" has also complained about this/me to the BLP notice board and neglected to inform me or place the "blp-dispute" tag on the article's talk page. RobertRosen (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, I also find that MWilliams has moved all his controversial talk page content to archives, and in the period when this slow "edit-warring" first began ie. Feb-July 2011 he had been indulging in massive copyvios and was "blocked" for disruptive editing. It also seems from his archive he had another user name, ... which I've now discovered resolves to former SockPuppeteer "Manorathan" . . RobertRosen (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In view of the above. I would like to try and resolve this "one-on-one" with User:MonelMWilliams, and see if he promises to reform and be a "good boy" at Misplaced Pages in future. I'm not a vindictive person and believe there is good in everyone and ultimately we are working towards the same goal. RobertRosen (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap ... and now you'll only resolve it if he "promises to reform and be a 'good boy'"? Can you be any more condescending? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@RobertRosen : You are delusional and are distorting the facts.

• The WP:RSN didn't turn against me. It was in fact the opposite.
• User MaterialScientist removed (2) unsourced content.
• User Jargon777 removed unsourced text in unrecognised script.
• The anon IP DID NOT replace my text. It was unsourced and possibly of original research.
• How do their edits build the case in your favour? You have forgotten that the sourced text that you removed (first instannce) was added by an administrator Ekabhishek. So the correct sequence : an administrator adds well sourced text, you remove it with a dubious accusation stating that it violates some copyright, I reword it and add it back with the supporting source, then you remove it again which I discover only a year later and then I add it back only to be blanked again by you, which lead us here.
• You claim the well referenced text removed by you to be controversial. Which notable source supports you other than your personal research? You claim the subject to be controversial. What do you mean by that? Where are the sources to support that?
• Don't try to link yourself with those independent and neutral editors. Their technical grounds were different; while yours is a plain abuse of WP:BLP to remove contents without discussion the text that one personally finds poorly sourced, theirs was removing unsourced content. So, stop using us!

And dearie, stop showering this much love on me. You would make my doggie jealous. Stay content with my blown kiss. _morelMW 04:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are not prepared to reform despite being given a 2nd chance. You have continued to indulge in uncivil disruptive editing such as here with former admin "BoingSaidZebedee, and where you abused another editor in the following terms "You don't get it. What I have been asking from the beginning is to add their claims to be Kshatriyas, for which there are many sources. You should perhaps tune up your ability to comprehend. Go back and read my posts on the article talk page". I'm very sorry to say that you were found to be a socker and you continued to behave in a disruptive fashion thereafter with editors other than me. In the past 5 months the only 2 article pages you have worked on were those on which I had removed CONTROVERSIAL POORLY SOURCED AND COPYRIGHTED BLP material. So you are stalking me. Insofar as WP:REFORMED is concerned, charges of further disruptive behaviour can be leveled on the Admin Notice Boards. RobertRosen (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, they are all in my archives for everyone to see. But where is your homework on what this discussion is about, especially the points raised in my previous post? I don't see anything further about Aruna's marriage or her alleged marriage as you like calling it. _morelMW 06:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Now why would one reword a threat? _morelMW 08:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, calling another editor "delusional" should be an immediate NPA block. That's simply uncalled for. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of the post to see why I call him delusional? Distorting the facts and spinning his own version abusing the tendency here to not verify anything, what else is that? Here is an ADMINISTRATOR that finds hidden personal motives behind his disruptive editing. And he uses the word defacing when referring to RobertRosen's contributions. _morelMW 02:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is continuous harassment and trolling. THAT was what Ekabhishek said BEFORE I commented on his talk page, THIS is what he says now RobertRosen (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, this is not harassment/ trolling. This is a genuine concern on your editing style and the motives(such as (this) that are driving you to commit these acts. Are you still over me? Shall we get back to what this discussion is about, because that is not helping you in any way. For starters, what do you think now about Aruna Roy's marriage? And about Ekabhishek's diplomatic statement, he didn't reclaim his remark on your acts or personal motives, did he?_morelMW 05:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and User:IBobi

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

User:IBobi continues to edits to support the goals of his employer Internet Brands after Internet Brands has launched lawsuits against members of the Wikimedia Movement . Wondering if he should be banned under the WP:NLT guideline? I would count this as an on Wiki threat but it is more the real life actions that are a problem. He states his affiliation here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a block on that basis. Additionally, based on his edits today, it's not the last we're going to be hearing about IBobi. If the account isn't blocked now, we need to keep an eye it. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indef'd, given the NLT aspect. Feel free to revert me without input from me. KillerChihuahua 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

edit-conflictedNot sure that we should be banning any employee of a company in conflict with us per-se, even if their employer's actions off-wiki are quite despicable and they certainly are. The reference to consulting the WMF laywer might be simply a reference to their complaint that the trademark has been misused in the past by X and Y and whoever, see their lawsuit. But maybe I'm trying to AGF a little bit too much. Snowolf 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable too. 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IBobi also supported the legal threats against 8 admins on WT by a user called IBLegal. Thus he has a history of making legal threats. Can dig up the diffs if people wish to see them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Philippe has unblocked the account, in staff capacity. --Rschen7754 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Philippe clarified that this is not an office action, but a personal decision. He wants us to de-escalate the situation. The way I see it, IBobi hasn't done any actual harm yet. He can bitch all he wants that we're planning to remove the links to his website – just ignore him. If he does anything truly disruptive we can block him again. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Three admins had declined unblock requests, including you. I think the situation was well in hand. Tiderolls 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much not a fan of Philippe's unblock, but for the moment, I'm willing to take a "what's done is done" attitude. IBobi (and the admin corps) have been advised that because this was an IAR unblock, not an OFFICE one, if he continues his disruptive behavior he can be reblocked without fear of (much) WMF wrath. While I wouldn't encourage any admin to do that re-blocking unilaterally if he continues (as it would technically be a violation of WP:WHEEL), I rather think that if the POV pushing/COI editing continues, the issue can be dealt with by a noticeboard thread and the block reinstated then. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With Philippe conceding in a consensus-finding-discussion that he would not oppose anyone reblocking on any ground (albeit he doesn't recommend it, of course ;-) , I figure that a block would definitely not constitute WP:WHEEL warring by any sane interpretation of that text. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

See also: #Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT

IBobi (talk · contribs) is an employee of Internet Brands, a company presently suing several Wikimedia volunteers over their efforts in creating the new WMF project Wikivoyage, and countersued by the WMF as well (see ). However, he is still actively participating on Misplaced Pages discussions, arguing the company line. This seems like a clear violation of WP:NLT, and I think it would be in Wikimedia's best interest to preventively block him until the conclusion of the lawsuits. Jpatokal (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Just realized there is already a discussion on IBobi's talk page about being blocked for WP:NLT (and another discussion right here on WP:ANI), including a determination by WMF legal counsel that "we do not consider iBobi to be the threatening party in the NLT situation" and a reversal of a previously imposed block. However, this does not equate to the WMF saying he should not blocked, so I would still like to see a wider discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: This edit by IBobi sounds rather a lot like a veiled legal threat. Jpatokal (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, Jani, give it a rest. We just went through this. Admins, please check my Talk page for current discussions and results prior to taking action on this spurious request. Thank you.--IBobi (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing spurious about it, idle threats are a dime a dozen but frivolous litigation that gets noted by the New York Times is crossing the line a wee bit here when it comes to WP:NLT. I have no idea why any WMF project has any templates, interwikis or outbound links of any kind to a company who does this sort of thing, but as far as your editing here the policy is clear: don't do it. K7L (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should catch up on my Talk page.

The reasons for the links and templates are pretty clear: Wikitravel is by all measures the premier travel wiki in the world, and has been for nearly a decade. There's been historical cooperation between our communities. We helped Misplaced Pages grow through links, and vice-versa. Fair enough?--IBobi (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This "historical cooperation" consists of you blocking any user attempting to mention Wikivoyage anywhere on your site, as well as directing frivolous litigation against volunteers here. You are also clearly operating a single-purpose account and acting with a conflict of interest which suggests you're not here to write an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not our communities IBobi. You do not represent the (original) Wikitravel community who cooperated with us. The people one would consider representative of the Wikitravel community (to wit, the (ex-) WT Admins) are no longer working with you.

Despite the above, I do note that ]'s contributions list is very very short. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/IBobi . I submit that it would be a stretch to find anything there that violates Misplaced Pages policy.

IBobi: User:Fluffernutter gave you the standard sage advice: you're welcome to edit on en.wikipedia. However, do note that it is recommended for people stay away from topics to do with their employer or passion, as it is hard to remain neutral on those topics. In your case that means you would be wise to stay away from things to do with Internet Brands or Wikitravel.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, my primary concern is WP:NLT and any possible legal repercussions of discussions with people who are engaged in lawsuits against the WMF and its users, and my secondary concern is WP:COI. If IBobi was merely a random Wikitravel fan boy (a beast almost as mythical as the Caonima), his edits would not be bannable; but, of course, he isn't. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RTFL(inks) would show that WMF Legal Counsel states that IBobi has made no legal threats. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) (But we do get that via Hearsay, I'd love to actually read a statement by WMF legal counsel themselves)

If it wouldn't constitute wheel warring, I'd definitely block here. IBobi claims to be the Community Manager of Internet Brands — that definitely sounds like a high-up position in the company. While individual officials presumably aren't parties to this case (without having looked at it, I'd guess that the main plaintiff is Internet Brands, and any other plaintiffs are presumably other corporations, not individuals), their place as company officials means that they're too close to the suit to be immune from the spirit of WP:NLT. Whether the account named IBobi has made any legal threats on-wiki isn't particularly relevant here. Of course, my argument will break down if the Community Manager be a Dilbert-type job; I'll happily retract my willingness to block if I see evidence that the Community Manager isn't a high-up official. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about a slippery slope! If IBobi is contributing , and as long as he/she doesn't reference the legal aspects of the issue, then I don't see how we can block him/her from editing for NLT. Ibobi should just be aware that making any mention of the legal on-goings, or even the litigating company in general, puts him/her in a vulnerable situation with a very short rope. Standard WP:COI principles should apply, nothing more. Ditch ∝ 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem... he is not contributing in any meaningful sense and is not here to write an encyclopaedia. He is here for the single purpose of advocating for the interests of IB, a commercial for-profit, therefore WP:COI and WP:SPA. That he's here as an IB employee to advocate over three thousand {{wikitravel}} links be retained (instead of being replaced en masse by a 'bot, as everything on that site is already on Wikivoyage) indicates that his aim is to advertise his site here, a WP:ADV and WP:SPAM issue. He seems to endlessly claim to have some number of page hits, as if that in and of itself justifies a link which offers no new info to the encyclopaedia's users that isn't already available elsewhere. As such, he's editing for IB's interests, not Misplaced Pages's interests. WP:NLT is only part of the problem, although I won't downplay that as this is a clear violation there too. K7L (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely different discussion however. And one that frankly the WMF has brought on itself by endorsing the whole sordid WV/WT shenanigans. You do realise why that given that IB's case hinges on interference with their business, removing all the Wikitravel links would be a bad thing to do at this point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IB doesn't have a case. The content is the property of its authors. Read the license. The original contributors have every right to walk away and take their content elsewhere. That's the way it works. And no, Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to retain links promoting any external, for-profit website. What you call "interfering with their business" is called "fair competition" in the rest of the world. Deal with it instead of crying that WMF owes some random for-profit commercial site a few thousand links of free advertising (which it does not, per WP:ADV and WP:SPAM). K7L (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

At the present time the best option is probably to leave him enough rope to hang himself with. No need to be hasty. If current trends continue he'll provide plenty of justification for a block shorty.©Geni 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if WMF were doing exactly that... or letting this run until the opportunity arises to invoke Godwin's Law. So be it... K7L (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It is not really common to find a user who knows where the drama boards are but has zero contributions in the article space. At this point, Misplaced Pages would not lose anything if User:IBobi gets indeffed again. (It probably will not win anything, either).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This odd editing pattern isn't just on en: - a glance at meta:user talk:IBobi shows at least one complaint about this user editing other people's comments in meta: discussions on WMF taking on the Wikivoyage project - an issue in which IB has a financial stake as owner of WT's domain. Edits like this (which autonumber comments made in reponse to "oppose" votes as if they were themselves votes against the proposal) are a bit dodgy. I'm not sure how closely we watch this sort of cross-wiki activity (for instance, the question of whether policies like NLT apply there has come up) but it is worth noting. K7L (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel existed first. There has been historical cooperation between Wikitravel and Misplaced Pages. Both sites have benefited from the other. If anyone would like to deny that the reason these links are being proposed for deletion is out of sheer malice against a 9 year old wiki that serves 250,000 travelers per day, let him or her step forward and make a case. The idea that the "new" WMF travel wiki is not a mirror but a fork is salient here; once the fork is up and running and receiving editorial contributions from WP editors, it becomes a different site, with different resources for travelers than Wikitravel. This has in fact already begun, as the (for the time being) independent site Wikivoyage has forked Wikitravel's original content and that content is being changed in situ. So, what is the justification for denying Wikipedians, and the general public they are supposed to serve, links to *both* of these unique travel sites -- one of which has built and retained said links for *years* with no mention of removing them, until its content was forked? Look to the people proposing this change for your answer. They have left a wiki they helped build; that's all well and good. But they harbor resentments about their former site and now that they have a new sandbox to play in, they want to take a shit in the old one -- no matter how many users they harm in the process. If you're supporting removing those links, that is who you're throwing your lot in with.

But I'm apparently not supposed to talk about any of this.

Whether you agree with my points or not isn't even relevant to this page. This is about an account block that was proposed by Doc James, a guy who simply does not want this *discussion* to take place, because he prefers one site over the other, for whatever his personal reasons are. If this community is going to allow stifling of *discussion* on a technicality (one that is only being taken advantage of by a very dubious interpretation of WP policies), where is the openness? Where is the philosophy of sharing? Does that go out the window because some people don't like the idea of an independent wiki that's supported by advertising? We get it. Ad-supported and donation-supported are different. Does that make a wiki's resources less beneficial to those who come there?

How many ad-supported wikis has the WMF forked lately? Ever? How many WT/WV/WMF/WP situations like this have you dealt with before? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess zero. This is new ground for all of us. It perhaps requires a new point of view. Believe me, nobody came out of this smelling like a rose. The only thing I have proposed, as respectfully as I could, is for the WP community to be able to *hear* all points of view, and decide on a course of action after being well-informed. Those who supported the formation of this fork site have consistently tried to suppress that. And they're doing it again, by suggesting this ludicrous block, and threatening to reinstate it if I have the temerity to continue the discussion anywhere on a WP talk page. Support them if you will. But I don't think it's in the best longterm interests of Misplaced Pages, Wikitravel, or the public they both serve.--IBobi (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages was founded in 2001, wikitravel in 2003. So your claim that "wikitravel was first" is erroneous.

I'm referring to WT vs the new (or old, for that matter) WV site; please familiarize yourself with background before spouting off on who is wrong about what.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• There has been historical cooperation between wikipedia and wikitravel communities. Note, however, that those who could be considered representative of the wikitravel community no longer reside at the wikitravel website. I do not believe you represent the wikitravel community. Instead of you leaving, everyone else did.

Those who speak of "the WT community" frequently make the mistake you're making -- thinking that the community and the admins are the same thing. They are not. The community consists of all readers and editors of Wikitravel. There are dozens of admins; there are tens of thousands of registered users; there are hundreds of thousands of editors; there are millions and millions of readers. That's the Wikitravel community. Your view is hopelessly myopic, but representative of that perspecitve of the former admin community who believe that they = the project. The project is doing just fine, thank you.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The links in question are being shifted to point to the new location of the previously-known-as-wikitravel community. It would be unfair to point those links elsewhere.

The links had *nothing* to do with the admins. They were and are there to serve the public, both of WT and WP, who may make user of them in their research on both sites.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• AFAICT we recognize only one (previously-known-as-)*travel community.
• The people who built the-wiki-previously-known-as-wikitravel hold their own copyrights. They are merely moving their content to a different location, after which the community continues as before. This is despite efforts by yourself to damage the community.

The wiki previously known as Wikitravel is called Wikitravel. It's found at www.wikitravel.org. Honestly, what in the world are you talking about?--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have been granted every chance to talk about this in appropriate forums, you were granted as much space as you wanted to put forward your position. You had time and communications capacity on your side, and you blew it spectacularly. I know this full well, I watched you do it. If you would like to request another chance, feel free, but do so in an appropriate forum. En.wikipedia is NOT an appropriate forum (or -in fact- a forum at all)

Past discussions took place elsewhere because they dealt with discussions taking place there; this discussion is about WP and is taking place on WP.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care to figure out what you're talking about wrt ad-supported or donation-supported or whatever your story of the day is. You are now typing on en.wikipedia. At large, the en.wp community couldn't care less what kinds of squabbles have been going on some insignificant little sites outside this community. Here you are required to adhere to en.wikipedia policy. No more, no less.

Take your own advice and see my previous comment.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think Doc James has some very valid issues with you. I believe it would be unwise to mention those issues on this wiki, as that might lead to a block.

Nope. Talk to WMF legal.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• On this noticeboard, the actual policies that apply here are discussed daily, sometimes hourly.
• You might think no-one came out smelling like a rose, but that is your personal reality, not the reality of hundreds of community members across wikimedia and wikitravel. What I saw was one obstinate person in particular auger in an otherwise perfectly salvageable situation, even while ignoring viable advice by many many experienced admins on their own home wiki, as well as even advice from the wikimedia community.

My advice to you is to talk to some of your own WP people who are not so firmly embedded in your own little thought bubble.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The en.wp community in particular doesn't care what you have to say unless it has something to do with writing an encyclopedia on a wiki. I have personally never seen you do that before, but I'm willing to wait and see. :-)
• I support the wikipedia and previously-known-as wikitravel communities. You have (unwisely) positioned yourself as an opponent to the (now ex-)wikitravel community. The reason they are (ex-) is because you made it that way, by your own choices. I'm not sure you can reverse that choice now; but either way, it's not my problem anymore.

Short version: Welcome to Misplaced Pages. If you are here for any other reason other than to edit a wiki-encyclopedia, please leave. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia, you are most welcome to stay. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a debating society. Are you here to contribute? I mean, we have lots of articles needing references, lots of dead links that need fixing. Maybe write a WP:DYK... —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if he's looking for an article in need of maintenance, en:'s article on Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español has been flagged {{outdated}} for a year now. EL is a fork of the Spanish-language Misplaced Pages which originally split in 2002 (before any version of WT existed) over concerns that Misplaced Pages was going to take the commercial route and plaster ads onto content (which didn't happen, we instead ended up with the Wikimedia Foundation non-profit structure). This article does need to be brought up to date, so maybe a self-proclaimed expert on travel and forks would be able to understand enough español to take a peek? K7L (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to own employers website as spam?

Just noticed this... IBobi's only mainspace edit modifying the page on Mordor to add a link to a joke page on his employer's website, WT. The edit was promptly reverted, but inserting external links to some web site into articles while employed by the owners of that very web site looks a bit WP:COI and WP:SPAM to me. K7L (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Given IBobi's responses in this thread, it's becoming increasingly clear that he is here on Misplaced Pages solely to plug Wikitravel and pursue a vendetta - a paid vendetta, even - against the community that left Wikitravel. He's shown no interest in editing on any topic other than pushing Internet Brands' POV on discussions related to Wikitravel, even when asked point-blank to do so, and he just keeps telling us that he's here to make sure The Truth (tm) gets told. I'm really not seeing any benefit to the community by letting him continue to push his job's POV (or his own, for that matter). I propose that he be indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages until such time as he can commit to editing here in a non-COI/POV-pushing manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Really the only downside of this is that we run the risk of IBobi claiming that he's being persecuted by the community for being a dissident. Well, that would put him in the same category as plenty of other agenda-pushing timewasters. So, yeah, support plonking him on indef until he actually wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not Yet. He hasn't really *done* much of anything at all yet on this wiki, let alone something wrong: Special:Contributions/IBobi . That's kind of a requirement for a block, imo. (blocks are not preventative or preemptive) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Blocks are not meant to be meted out as punishment, but they certainly are meant to be preventative.--Jezebel'sPonyo 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Teach me to type while sleepy: I meant that blocks should be handed out for existing, current, ongoing disruptive behavior, as opposed to potential future behavior. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ADV and WP:SPA. He's operating a single-purpose account to advertise his (or his employer's) commercial business, while contributing nothing worthwhile to the objective of writing an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support doesn't do anything to benefit Misplaced Pages, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also support making a request to the stewards to lock the account. --Rschen7754 23:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  That is not what locking is for and such a request would be declined. Snowolf 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  meta:Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock does list "Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects, such as making repeated legal threats..." among the valid grounds. So far, he's only hit two wikis (en: and meta:) but he might just qualify on WP:NLT grounds. K7L (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  ...and you run afoul of the "grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects" prong. IBobi's only other project, as you note, is Meta and he's done nothing which would earn him an indefinite block there - indeed, his presence there has been rather explicitly accepted (see here) --Philosopher  19:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Where do you see "explicit acceptance" there? His "contributions" there have been equally useless and distracting. Jpatokal (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. IBobi's sole purpose here is to promote the inclusion of links to his employer's website. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and so he should not be permitted to edit any page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:SPA. –sumone10154 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• steady now Less than 50 edits on this project. Lets leave it a bit longer.©Geni 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not yet - as per Kim Bruning. If he does end up doing something that clearly merits a block, it will be easily enough done at that point. Enough rope, etc. polarscribe (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kim Bruning and my own inclination after reviewing the circumstances. My76Strat (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, NOTTHERE and lots of drama. Max Semenik (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of the passions of those opposed, there isn't currently a policy against paid editing, and users should be blocked for violation of policies, not essays such as NOTTHERE. Until a pattern of disruptive editing has been shown and lesser sanctions have not been effective in alterating such a pattern, indef block discussion is way premature. Nobody Ent 13:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PROMOTION is a policy, not a guideline. WP:NLT is also policy. K7L (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He might not have done any one specific edit that is worthy of a block, but it is clear that it is a one-purpose account, there is a conflict of interest and his corporation is making legal threats against Wikimedians. There is no opportunity for good faith editing. JamesA 06:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:NLT. ~ GabeMc 07:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I completely agree that being an SPI is not grounds for blocking, nor is having a COI (we all have conflicts in one area or another), when looking at the totality, I see an editor that is defiant against criticism and has no intention of contributing in a neutral fashion. Because the editor has made it clear by their words and deeds that they will pursue a conflicted agenda, then the only way to prevent the disruption is via a block for an unknowable period of time. I've worked with a lot of COI editors (I was one when I started in 2006) and support paid editors having the right to edit here if they can follow the guidelines and policies. This is not that situation. This is an editor who is afoul of WP:DE in more than one way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should AGF and be more welcoming to all at the site "anyone can edit". - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Couple of points here: COI/SPA/ADV/PROMOTION/etc. are designed to prevent people from putting information into the *public-facing editorial space* of Misplaced Pages -- not for participating in *discussions* on neutral pages. I have NOT done that (while it can perhaps be argued that the single Mordor edit falls into that category, that is a completely different matter from what is being discussed here -- that is also an edit that is directly relevant to that page and supportable; a link from WP Mordor to WT Mordor is valuable to the public, and should not be reverted simply because it comes from a representative of WT; if it's opposed by editors of that page on other grounds, so be it; that single edit is also not grounds for blocking). What is being touted as a reason for blocking is the discussions I've participated in to *preserve* (not add to) legacy links that have existed for *years* between WP and WT, which are being proposed for removal out of malice toward WT by a small group former admins and others, who not only want their changes done, they want them done without full disclosure to this community why they are being requested, and the harm that is being done to the public served by WP by enacting them. All I'm doing is providing background, and opposing their request with reasoned, polite argument. That is worthy of a block? That's just completely misguided. The NLT facet has already been debunked by the WMF legal team and is off the table.--IBobi (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • First of all, those guidelines/policies apply anywhere on Misplaced Pages. While you have not been editing the article space much, what's concerned is that you are opposing removals and participating in these discussions in favor of Internet Brands' interests; tell me, are you here to improve our articles in a personal, individual capacity?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you find that suddenly and spitefully removing links to a long-established and unique resource that serves 250,000 users per day is not detrimental to the mission of Misplaced Pages? Again, while I appreciate the "letter of the law" approach when it is being used generally, applying it to this specific case is shortsighted. There are extenuating circumstances.--IBobi (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the project was forked and the contributors moved their content elsewhere, it doesn't appear to be all that unique. - SudoGhost 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the content was that good, why are the links being removed? Please don't dodge my original question, because I do not believe you are doing this other than to promote your organization's interests. The fact that it might be helpful to Misplaced Pages changes nothing about that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you find it renders that question moot, Jasper?

Honestly, we can all "support" and "oppose" this til we're blue in the face. This community is, with notable exceptions, as hopelessly biased in this issue as I am being accused of being. This will ultimately be resolved through non-community channels.

Meantime, it would be depressing if WP compromised itself merely to score points among its own inner circle. Look into your heart! Search your feelings: you know it to be true. That'll do, pig. That'll do.--IBobi (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying Darth Vader is Babe's father??? Definitely gonna need a rs for that. NE Ent 23:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not supporting a block merely because there is a conflict of interest. It is however true that when an editor is here for the sole purpose of promoting their company, it does raise a few questions. I have no doubt that this editor is here for that sole purpose; judging by their edits they are not here to improve Misplaced Pages, they are here solely to promote their company. I don't think that by itself warrants any action if it results in a benefit to Misplaced Pages. I have no doubt that many well-written and neutral articles have been written by editors that have a conflict of interest in some manner, and that benefits Misplaced Pages. However, when that editor is representative of a company that is effectively creating a chilling effect by suing Misplaced Pages editors, I see no benefit in that. When an editor's sole purpose is not to improve article content, but to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles contain their links in order to drive traffic to their website, I see no benefit in that. Since the editor has demonstrated a singular purpose on Misplaced Pages, and the improvement of Misplaced Pages does not appear to be a side-effect of this purpose, I'd have to support an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:NOTHERE and WP:PROMOTION. The editor has amply demonstrated beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that his sole purpose here is and always will be to promote their employer' commercial interests, and has not or has indicated that they have the slightest intention of contributing positively to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by multiple users on the Election article

Couldn't decide whether to put this on AN/EW or here, but it hasn't been resolved yet after I requested it elsewhere.

Multiple editors keep insisting on adding that Obama has won Florida to the article, against consensus on the talk page. I requested full protection, that hasn't happened. I'd rather not go over 3RR (which if I already have I'd like to apologize to everyone), so can an administrator go revert and then full protect the page? Thanks. United States presidential election, 2012. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN.com still has it too class to call, and I would think that's a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and so does pretty much all other sources (FOX, NBC, ABC, you name it). That's why I'm requesting revert and full protect. The request wasn't handled at other places (RPP) so I brought it here because it continues to escalate. I can't revert or else I'll go over 3RR. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in my opinion this is a minor issue, and it's not happening so often that it's disruptive. The number of productive edits in comparison is much larger, and full protection impedes article improvement. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but what would you suggest for editors who come across the information being readded? I know I can't revert again for at least 20 more hours or so, and if nobody else is monitoring the page, then what should be done? That's the only reason I wanted protection, because it's editors who aren't listening to talk page consensus after being told about it multiple times. There's always the Template:editprotected that anyone can use if they absoultely need to. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Nyttend is on call, I see. Or (but I'm sure you don't want to hear me say this) you can not worry about it. It'll be called soon enough, Romney's campaign has conceded, no one believes what Misplaced Pages says anyway. No, don't go over 3RR, leave it to others and trust that strength comes in numbers. If if gets out of hand someone will re-ask this question, and the admins on the West Coast and in Japan will look at it afresh. Thanks for helping keep the place clean--and my apologies, on behalf of my colleagues, that your request was languishing a bit at RFPP. It's not a heavy-traffic area, as you know. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand Romney has conceded. But the news has said that there's a moderately good chance of there being a mandatory Florida recount, so why call it? I totally understand about the RFPP, no need to apologise there. I'll leave it to others, unless it gets out of hand. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that supporters of keeping Florida neutral greatly overstate the breadth of their "consensus;" there absolutely is a consensus to be careful and not call states early, but it isn't "early" after Romney has conceded. (Note: I have made 0 edits to the actual article although I support changing the article to reflect Obama winning Florida). That said, I'm fine with waiting a day as I'm quite sure that we'll see all the other news sources cited catch up and mark Florida as blue.

The comment about a recount is irrelevant, though; a mandatory recount is unlikely at this stage, and whether a recount happens or not, Misplaced Pages should report what the reliable sources write. (Which would mean potentially calling Florida for Obama if that's what the sources do even if the recount goes off after all.) SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend this discussion be closed; I think there's not much more to say here at present. It seems like edit warring has ceased for now. Additional arguments of whether this should change or not can go back to the talk page, not here. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend we lop off Florida; it looks like a penis anyway on the US map. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is just a giant hanging chad. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it pass the Mull of Kintyre test?--Shirt58 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the electoral map is also posted on the United States elections, 2012 article, along with brief content about the presidential election. Thus please do not have this type of edit warring spill over to that article, or any other related page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the talkpage posters can't work out a reasonable compromise about that table, then it sounds to me like there is tendentious editing going on, and THAT should get intervention. An example compromise might be putting an asterisk in the table cell, pointing to an explanatory sentence giving the current numbers and saying Romney has conceded. The current state of the table is misleading IMHO. FWIW the NYT electoral map says 100% of the ballots are counted and my calculation from NYT's numbers has Obama about 0.57% ahead, which is about the 0.5% level that triggers a recount in Florida. I guess it's possible some absentee or provisional ballots are still being counted, though. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS. Honestly, if the entire article had to be full-protected a couple of days to prevent BS (it would likely be protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION anyway) then so be it ... an encyclopedia doesn't need to have cutting edge news (if it did, my day job would be out of business!) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Auntie Beeb is saying that it could be mid-day Saturday before Florida is decided. Pity they can't simply be removed from United States of America and their spot given to Puerto Rico (or the other usual "51st state" candidate, Alberta :) in the interests of restoring democracy. K7L (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, if Puerto Rico became the 51st state, Vermont would happily replace it and return Canada to its 10 province/3 territory glory (and the US back to 50 states) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources have reported that Obama won Florida, and the Romney campaign has conceded that it lost, is there really any point to claiming we have to wait for networks - for whom the story is no longer newsworthy - to call it? That's the situation found in a dispute on that page's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary to wait. According to a Dutch source () it is still an unofficial result and the counting is still in progress. The Banner _talk 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

'Every result is an unofficial result at this point. That's what calling states means. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Google-translation of the Dutch text: Florida is, 3 days after the election, still not finished counting votes, although the camp of President Barack Obama's Thursday already declared victory. The Banner _talk 14:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is the article being reported in American newspapers some time ago. You know they're still counting ballots in Arizona, right, and yet we'vbe coloured Arizona red. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize, that Arizona has been called by every major news network? No major network has called Florida for Obama: CNN, FOX, NBC/CNBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS. Oh, wait. All of those sources say that Florida is still uncalled. So, we can't add it, as it wouldn't be substantiated as in the other projections listed on the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

States are called, as was well-demonstrated on Fox News, when the available information indicates an extremely low probability that there are enough uncounted votes to make a difference in the outcome. That's how they could call Ohio, even though it looked close. In contrast, Florida has too many votes to count yet in various places, and there's too narrow a margin, to make a high-probability call. Maybe by this time tomorrow there will be enough votes counted that it can be called. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"With only ballots from Democratic-leaning counties left to be counted, the final tally was not expected to change the outcome, Republican acknowledged." - New York Times, November 8. This is so incredibly stupid. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It, for the media, probably has to do with having other things to do which actually matter (until the stories are ginned up about the possible recount). At any rate, this encyclopedia with consensus follows the main-steam, preponderance of sources. It doesn't lead. And the rest of this discussion should be taken to the article talk page. Here, we just say don't edit war, follow policy, come to consensus, and be civil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN has now called it for Obama. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• There's actually an answer to this question, and it doesn't have to do with this or that network "calling" a result... The Secretary of State of each state issues a written "certificate of election." When that happens, the election is over, the end, and the map can be colored in in permanent ink. Prior to that, there are just "apparent winners" leading to a foredrawn conclusion when the electoral college gets together and formally elects the president. I guess the issue has evaporated, but the map for Florida should have been pale blue with a footnote that Obama was the vote leader and apparent winner, subject to recount. The attempt to keep the state blank strikes me as a partisan effort to minimize the margin of victory in electoral votes and should have been whacked down on that basis... Carrite (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There's more than one way to show it. I lean toward the Democratic side, but I don't see a problem with keeping it blank until a reliable source has called it. Obviously, the state's secretary's certification clinches the deal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User Kraxler using abusive language and deleting talk page information

User:Kraxler calls my edits "shit" and me "insane" and an "imbecile" and that I am "fucking up articles on Misplaced Pages" at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover and in the edit summaries in the article space. See a previous ANI here, from 4 May 2011, over him calling me "mentally retarded" and "half-illiterate". He is also removing my additions to the talk page. Otherwise he is an excellent editor adding lots of biographies and doing excellent research on deserving people from history. The problem arises when we both end up editing the same article. We both work in the area of biography and New York, so now twice we have encountered each other. I show respect for his opinions but he is abusive when I edit an article that he has created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree that this is merely when you both edit the same articles: an interaction ban certainly won't fix behaviours of calling anyone illiterate or retarded. The overall behaviour is enough that IMHO it's time to block - this level of filth directed at another editor is wholly unacceptable. I'm not as concerned about them calling your edits "shit" (although that's uncivil) - it's the direct NPA's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair he called me "half-illiterate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified Kraxler about this discussion. I have now done that and I have now left him a 4im warning too. Anyhow, I'm not opposed to an immediate block regarding the nature of his comments. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I notified him at 11:20 with this edit and gave him a 3RR warning for removing my talk page comments again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't sign those (at least originally)... and they were meshed together (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just added the templates. I see they both run together and I added a header so they stand out a bit better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a contrast see how Road Wizard and I interact with mutual respect to improve the same Stephen H. Wendover article. There is no name calling or intimidation, even as we question each other's information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I requested Kraxler tone it down on the 7th. I think he toned the language down a bit - I hadn't realised he was deleting half of RAN's talkpage edits as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can have a second opinion on what started the rude comments. I was editing the article by converting the references that are a list of external links and changing them to in-line citations so that each fact is now tied to a specific reference. Here is his original article and and here is the reformatted version. I also add {{no footnotes}} to articles I am editing, but have not made the switch yet, so I can find the ones that need to be converted to in-line citations. Does anyone have an opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He also left with this edit a threat on my talk page when I added the 3RR warning on his talk page: "Do not send me warnings referring to a dispute you are a party to: See WP:INVOLVED. Besides, You are not and admin, so do not send me warnings anyway, or I'll have you blocked." I am required to give a 3RR warning before reporting him for any 3RR violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As a reminder, no action was taken at the previous ANI which emboldened him to be twice as vituperative during this interaction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• It appears to me that Richard Norton's work is being targeted by Kraxler. I'm not sure the root of the issue, but it seems to be long-running and mean-spirited and it seems to start with him. Administrators should keep an eye on this interaction, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-hounding from User: DAJF

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

Good evening. I am a wikipedia user "Sysmithfan", and I constantly being harrassed by User:DAJF. His annoyance has been going on since August 2012. He follows me practically everywhere. He always changes/reverts the pages that were just edited by me, including: Toshinobu Kubota, Mamoru Miyano, Koe ni Dekinai, and most recently Kreva (rapper). He taken place in dicussions/debates including and recently crossed-over to the Misplaced Pages Commons to participate in my discussion, which had nothing to with him.. In August 2012, I told him to stop following my edits, but to this day, he continues.

When he was recently approached about his wikihounding, he stated that most of the pages were on his "watchlist". While most of these pages I have edited may be on his watchlist (maybe!), I find the need to "watch" my image uploads unnecessary. Furthermore, he would have to be following my edits because most pages I have created, are under the assumption to be on his watchlist. To justify his claim as not wiki-hounding, he also stated that I do not follow most of Misplaced Pages rules, which is a false allegation. If I edits are wrong, why is he the first person to change this, and not another user or admin. The bottom line is, he is Wikihounding me. This has happened too many times for it to be a coincidence. Please stop him from following me. Sysmithfan (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in the diffs you provide above of hounding. Some are pretty old (August). Some, like the AfD discussion, doesn't even seem to be a real dispute between you and DAJF. In the Commons discussion, DAJF wasn't the only editor who questioned your image uploads. As for the other articles, I looked at one, and the dispute was also in August - and a silly one at that, about date formatting. I can see you don't like DAJF editing the same pages you edit, but that isn't sufficient for a charge of hounding. Perhaps if you provide more recent evidence, that would be helpful. I'm still reeling from DAJF's statement that he has over 12,000 pages on his watchlist. And yet he seems to find the time to "follow" you around. I'm surprised he has the time to sleep.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DAJF did not begin the questioning about upload at the Commons, but he did follow me there after I made a reply. Futhermore, I have not problem with DAJF's editing, but I do have a problem with him following most of my edits. I can also do not understand why you denote my claims as hounding considering most of time I edit a page on his so-called "watchlist", he follows behind me by adding something. I am well aware of the fact that he has been on Misplaced Pages longer than me and the number of pages he edits everyday. I am simply stating that most of his edits that coincide with my own, is a little more than a coincidence. Especially considering the fact that he has added most of image uploads to his watchlist. For what purpose is that? As well as following me to the Commons discussion and participating there. There is no way he would have known about that without looking at my contribution history on a daily basis. Sysmithfan (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My watchlist stands at 15,985 articles right now, Bbb23.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I already knew you were a glutton for punishment, Kevin. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your latest round of "wikihounding" accusations seem to be based around you edit warring over a copyright violation you inserted in Kreva (rapper), to wit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kreva_(rapper)&diff=522349244&oldid=522314971. It most certainly is a copyright violation to directly copy text from http://www.syncmusic.jp/wordpress/?p=1880. Inserting it again will result your being blocked from editing. There's nothing wrong with someone monitoring problematic editors and removing problematic edits. The way to avoid such things is to cease being problematic. I'm going to go remove that text again.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now indefinitely blocked Sysmithfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 06:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Complex move chain needs fixing

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

It appears that someone confused about the purpose of the Misplaced Pages:Main namespace page has created a new article, Har Swarup, by copying and pasting the contents of their sandbox to Misplaced Pages:Main namespace. Following this, the page was moved (twice), creating a chain of redirects. I'm assuming that this needs administrator assistance to properly preserve the page histories, so I'm pointing it out here. The move logs are here. Thanks. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh jolly dee. I'll see if I can sort it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That was me. Now all sorted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

English language proficiency of User:B767-500

User:B767-500 has a long history of warnings about their english language proficiency. I am not sure if there are any other serious issues with this editor. is there a way to politely let them know that contributing to WP requires a language proficiency that matches the tasks selected? i have edited foreign language WP's, but usually adding images, or links, but no sentences, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look over their talk page, it's apparent that their language proficiency is well below the par that we expect for editing of any level on this 'pedia. I'm sure they're trying hard to contribute but unfortunately their competence is seriously lacking and it's been a bone of contention over the last several years. Blackmane (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the other party when you post at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at messages to this user, it appears that they have been sufficiently informed about their limited proficiency in English but have done nothing to address or even acknowledge the need. A sample of their edits shows a lack of English skill that significantly diminishes any possible benefit to their contributions. --Kinu /_c 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This indicates that the problem isn't just their ability to speak English (they dumped a load of printers pie onto the talkpage). Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that was joke after too many of beverages and I already removing the junk text. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any clue, and I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, where the editor is from/what their native language is? I agree, this is an issue; directing them to the appropriate language encyclopedia, I think, is going to be the best solution. Go Phightins! 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On their talk page, it was suggested that Thai may have been their first language but a reply implied that Thai may be a second language. At at guess, their first language could be south asian or I could be completely way off. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a CU to find the underlying IP used, then Geolocate the IP, find out the location/language - and then we know where to begin. GiantSnowman 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I already living in U.S. (California) due to asylum. --B767-500 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are you originally from? Go Phightins! 03:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

GS, horrible idea, we don't use CU to reveal private information about editors (even if done in good faith). NE Ent 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible made-up or fabricated citation and hoax

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

The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190.

• This is partly a misleading, nay false, citation. It is not an academic paper, but an entitled, bound and published book, not in or of academic binding, cover or appearance, but that for the consumer – probably also not peer-viewed – complete with its ISBN ("African exodus: The origins of modern humanity", 0805027599) .

• NO such newspaper entitled "The London Daily Times" was known to had existed in England during that time, in the year 1994.

• Given the long history of the modern homo sapien human race, spanning over at least 50,000 years, it is also highly unlikely that a publication with only and merely 282 pages can possibly touch upon the subject of the Chinese community in the United Kingdom in any length.

• Therefore, I would move to allege and denounce that it is also partly a made-up or fabricated citation, with an unrelated publication, and that all of this is ultimately a hoax of some sort.

• This citation is not only used at the article for the British Chinese, but also previously in the article for the Model minority.

-- KC9TV 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You should post this on the talk page of the related article, as that is where the most knowledgeable editors in this specific area. If there were a pattern of this, however, here would be the right place to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is, of sorts, for there are at least in two separate and unrelated – not directly – articles. -- KC9TV 01:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• A pattern of two may not be the same editor... has this been added by the same person? If so, I wouldn't mind checking his/her contributions more closely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have been mistaken - the newspaper cited should have been the Sunday Times, I think. Please see the talk page of Model minority. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just noting that the citation (and the quote cited) appears on page 87 of Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001. -- 86.185.22.166 (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor

This editor had been quite threatening on my talk page, has automatically reverted my edits, and has failed to respond on the talk page... meanwhile calling my edits "vandalism" which is against policy since none of my edits were vandalism. Please warn the user to tone it down and start discussing and also to stop reverting automatically. He needs to defend his edits based on policy, not on the fact that he doesn't like some of them. I refer to edits to Parapsychology and Psychic. Thank you! He's also using Twinkle to revert, telling me to go to talk when I already had.

Oh, my goodness, now he's deleting edits to his talk page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.95.226 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And now he's accusing me of personal attacks, when there were none. Please do something. 98.103.95.226 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts need to take a break from editing the articles until consensus is determined, but SkepticalRaptor seems to have a history of biting the newcomers, not assuming good faith, and simply reverting edits he disagrees with without going to the talk page first. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the IP is ignoring WP:BRD. S/he is attempting to insert controversial material and then failing to use the talk page after a first reversion. This type of article attracts editors with a song they want to sing and experienced editors can get frustrated as a result. Yes the reverts could have been more kindly made, but they are legitimate and the responsibility for explaining the proposed changes on the talk page rests with the IP who made them. ----Snowded 05:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I somehow doubt that the IP is a newbie, and I think the IP is pushing a particular point of view in both articles. With the exception of one edit summary, SR did not label the IP's edits as vandalism but as POV and non-neutral. Same with the template warnings left on the IP's talk page. I believe, just as with any content dispute of this kind, once reverted, the burden is on the editor, in this instance the IP, to obtain consensus for the changes to the article. All that said, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure it does belong at AN/I. You know that you have to strongly resist being discounted and bullied when you edit a controversial article. I'm not pretending to have no experience at WP. I'm just asking for the respect accorded to a normal editor. And I did use the talk page. I also used edit summaries to give good explanations. I ignored BRD yes but I was being reverted as a routine matter with edit summaries just ignored. And I was being called a vandal. And, my attempts to reason with the editor were just deleted from his talk page.

And the POV I'm pushing is that if you look at it objectively, you have to admit some of these things I changed are very poorly sourced. 98.103.95.226 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The place to discuss disagreements about content is on the article talk page, not here, not in edit summaries, and not on SkepticalRaptor's talk page, as he abundantly (and rightly) makes clear. As for him calling you a vandal, he didn't. He called one of your edits vandalism, and there's a difference. Should he have done so? No, in my opinion, but that's hardly a matter for ANI. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lnks, that is someone blanking a section because they wish to push a POV. I'm not sure how you can interpret SkepticalRaptor's response as bitey. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an obvious DUCK of blocked sockmaster BookWorm44, pushing his material back into an article, just like his previous sockpuppets did. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/BookWorm44. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP is also edit warring at What the Bleep Do We Know!?. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the IP was not edit warring on What the Bleep. Rather, bad sourcing was noted and removed, replaced with different sourcing, and that also was bad and was removed. Another revert was not made. I will try to find time to review the new source and see if it makes statements that support the text. So yes it was a revert but it was for a different reason the second time. And I am NOT the BookWorm44 person above. As for bringing it to AN/I, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Tell me exactly how well I would be treated without coming here? You guys know the answer precisely, and you shouldn't mind me shining a bit of light on the situation, increasing the profile you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.95.226 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that article was link-rot, and I think I have things repaired properly now. As for your edits as an IP, I'm of mixed minds. I agree that SkepticalRaptor was unduly harsh. However, given the number of banned and topic-banned editors that deal with the paranormal, I'm not very inclined to take the concerns of an anonymous-but-obviously-experienced editor very seriously. If you want to be treated with good faith, treat us with good faith: log in and let us examine your edits in context.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What to do about a website that does not attribute its content to us?

For some time now, I've seen this one group of fansites (all operated by the same group) copy content directly from Misplaced Pages and claim it as their own. Recently, because an editor was not happy with the way that I dealt with WP:PLOT violating material on an article, he saw fit to move it to its own page which was then detected as being a copyright violation of the fansite, who is actually copying from us but not attributing. It would seem that I'm a member of the central website that manages these pages but I don't know how to raise the issue with them withou being a total asshole (and further distancing myself from the group due to prior actions I have taken here).—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the problem: Misplaced Pages doesn't own any of the material here. The individuals do, who have licensed Misplaced Pages to use it. It would literally have to be the people who own the copyrights for those exact passages that would have to raise the issue. Misplaced Pages has no authority to enforce the copyrights owned by hundreds of thousands of contributors, who may or may not want their copyrights enforced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  It may be a good idea to list the site at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks, to reduce the risk of future copyvio false-positives. bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Please list the site at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks so as to avoid confusion when resolving future allegations of copyright infringement. (Incidentally, that project page also contains some suggestions for dealing with sites which republish Misplaced Pages content in violation of the licence.) —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's a whole series of websites though, so I think I'd have to end up listing at least 5 different URLs, all of which just wholesale copy and paste from the work of the editors here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Nothing about a list of five sites sounds particularly onerous, Ryulong.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Also there's the issue of giving http://www.rangercentral.com/, http://www.supersentai.com/, http://www.kamen-rider.com/, http://www.tokucentral.com/, and http://www.ultramancentral.com/ the recognition.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats User:ChanceTrahan

User:ChanceTrahan issued implicit legal threats in this edit, the blanking of an AFD page. Actions strongly suggest that this is a sock- or meat-puppet of IP User:75.70.221.14, which had been blocked for legal threats in matters regarding the same page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Kww got him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There were some BLP problems associated with the article, most notably that it named the founders without providing any reliable sourcing as to the names of the founders. I've gone through the article history with a meataxe as a result. If anyone can provide a reliable source about the identity of the owners, I'll restore the information and associated history.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's more background on the dispute and the site owners here, and in associated posts (NB: It's a blog). Bottom line, it's not just a Misplaced Pages issue. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Social market economy - set back to a version of 2010|12|26

There was a discussion about some recent edits . After that User:Mr. Mustard set back my changes and I set back his . I think that this is ok.

But now Mr. Mustard set back to a version of 2010|12|26, effectively deleting 28,505 byte and changes of dozens of users. None of these edits were ever challanged on the talk page. I don´t think that this is ok. I informed him about it, but he ignores it . What shall I do? --Pass3456 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The set back to a version of 2010|12|26 is just a workaround till we will find a solution for our conflict. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with our conflict.--Pass3456 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the last version before you began to write your POV without a source in the article. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For two years no one had problems with these couple of edits I made two years ago. Not even you challanged them (until I posted this notice and you try it as an excuse). Moreover the fast majority of text you deleted isn´t even from me. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So name a actual version that is not controversial. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That recent one. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously controversial. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

By which arguments? --Pass3456 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For example because the model was not implemented by most political parties in West Germany. This is absolutely nonsense. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

These are not my words. And it´s not a reason to set back every single contribution of the last two years. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure! --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No I just set back to a version before my changes (see edit summary). But even that doesn´t seem to suit you. "And promoted by all political parties since 1959" ist precise. We can go back to the last user:Christian L Glossner version and correct that. -> Still no need to set back every single contribution of dozens of users over the last two years. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that verify that the model was promoted by all political parties since 1959? I can show you sources that state the opposite. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Why you discus this here?

Because it is completely senseless to discuss anything with you (as your german Misplaced Pages blog log proudly demonstrates). Unless you are getting infinitely blocked in this Misplaced Pages too, you will defend the version of 2010|12|26 for always and forever. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if you don't have sources to verify your statements it is completely senseless to discuss with you.--Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I give you a source if you agree on the proposed.--Pass3456 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I see WP:DRN was attempted first. (Good!) but was just shutdown. Best best is for Pass3456 to and Mr. Mustard to try to come to consensus, not on what the article should say, but what the points of disagreement between them are, and then initiate a WP:RFC NE Ent 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We don´t get third opinions any more since it is obvious that Mr. Mustard takes no advice. Attempts here, here, here, and several requests at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion with 0 responses. User:Christian L. Glossner probably worked on the article due to one of the requests but Mr. Mustard has deleted all of his effort with one edit and sero arguments. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban by User:DeknMike

User:DeknMike was banned on 22 May 2012 from all content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics for one year on as per here. With this edit, he clearly violated that ban. It is a comparatively minor matter, admittedly, but it does violate the ban. To my eyes, personally, the fact that he was even watching the pages he has been banned from to make the edit at all is as troubling as the edit itself. I believe a block is called for under the circumstances, but am not sure that, as the person who requested the ban in the first place, I am myself necessarily in a position to determine the appropriate length. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? First asking for a ban and now trying to hammer him for an small layout matter? This looks like harrassing and following around. The Banner _talk 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, a block is not called for. The ban was for POV pushing, and the edit was a column tweak. Prudent? No. A technical violation? Yes. A bad faith edit? Don't see how. NE Ent 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this was rather hastily shut down, perhaps because John Carter slightly mis-stated the issue in question. but the issue wasn't dealt with. DeknMike's topic ban was quite clear: "User:DeknMike is topic banned from Messianic Judaism and related pages for one year. He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles". The ban was not for "content related to Messianic Judaism and related topics" - rather it was editing those articles. DeknMike is quite well aware that this applies to any edits he makes; in the past, when he's tried this kind of thing before, he's been notified and reverted himself. He's engaging in breaching experiments: trying to see exactly what he can get away with. The question here is whether to give a final warning, or to sanction. Jayjg 20:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted my closure, I'll restate what I said there: de minimis non curat praetor. To block someone over such an edit is process wonkery at its finest. Call it IAR, call it commonsense, this thread should be closed now. By the way, if DeknMike (talk · contribs) were to be blocked over that edit, I would immediately unblock. Salvio 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to start a wheel war? That doesn't seem like prudent administrative behavior. Rather than escalating this, why not step back for a bit and look at the bigger picture: Misplaced Pages is filled with people who receive topic bans, and a certain percentage of them engage in breaching experiments, trying to see just how far they can break the terms of their ban before people are willing to take action. This, of course, wastes the time of others who then have to wade through these edits, trying to decide exactly how far the person has violated his ban, and whether it is worth pursuing - which is, of course, the whole intent of the breacher. DeknMike has been banned from all edits - not just "good" edits or "harmless" edits, but from all edits, and for good reason. He has been given a protocol for getting "harmless" changes made to the article; he has been explicitly told, in the terms of his ban, to propose such changes on the article's talk page. Instead, he has chosen to thumb his nose at all those who spent (or in reality, wasted) a good deal of time dealing with his inappropriate behavior in the first place. Claiming that these obvious provocations should be ignored could itself be seen as "process wonkery at its finest". Again, the question here is whether he is simply warned not to do this again, or is actually sanctioned, so he realizes this time-wasting isn't appreciated. Which will it be? Jayjg 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, your comment is completely out of line. Topic bans are bright-line situations: they say "don't touch this, or you will be blocked". There's no reason for a topic-banned editor to so much as adjust the width of a space within the scope of his topic ban. Actual editing blocks are the natural progression for someone that doesn't understand that concept.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the edit is a violation of the letter of the topic ban, correct? And the edit clearly can be seen as a breaching experiment. If the edit is allowed to go unremarked, the message being sent is formatting changes in violation of the letter of the topic ban are allowed. The problem is that formatting changes can change the message conveyed by the article. Simple "formatting changes" such as applying a different way of quoting something, or greying something out, or using a larger font, etc. can have a significant change in the emphasis an article gives to certain content, without stepping outside "formatting changes." Besides, the original intent of the topic ban was to have DeknMike gain experience editing in other areas with different editors from the ones he was working with in this topic area. Allowing "formatting changes" is in invitation to allow further, possibly disruptive edits in this topic area, undermining the therapeutic intent of the original topic ban. I don't really have an answer as to whether this is block-able or not, but DeknMike has already made two previous MJ-related article content edits in violation of his topic ban. If those two previous incidents didn't happen, a simple warning here might be sufficient, but I think we're beyond that now. Zad68 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous topic-ban violation problems:

1. List of Messianic Jewish organizations, 22 June, handled by AniMate (original topic-ban closer) here, with a warning and clarifying instructions, "Your topic ban was very specific about what kinds of edits were acceptable. You should not edit the articles, but you may participate in discussion on article talk pages."
2. Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, 17 August, instead of reporting I asked him to self-revert here and he did.

Zad68 20:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked DeknMike until he agrees to follow the terms of his topic ban. Might be a 10 minute block, might be forever ... his choice.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a false dichotomy that anything which is not blocked for is permitted. The ban statement provided by AniMate did not specify a sanction, and WP:BAN does not specify how topic bans are to be enforced. John Carter could have simply reverted the edit, or raised the discussion on the editor's talk and asked them to self revert, or have contacted AniMate. Instead -- speaking of technical policy violations -- they appear to have started an ANI thread (contrary to the discuss with editor first guidance at the top of this page) and canvassed Jayig NE Ent 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They've tried those approaches twice before, and the problem continues. This seems to be a reasonable escalation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguable, as the nature of the edits was different (content vs. format), but not unreasonable. Any comment on the canvassing selection notification of other editors? NE Ent 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Corrected NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few, actually. First, I would very much appreciate a clear explanation of exactly how my comment to Jayjg qualifes as canvassing as per WP:CANVASS. I do not believe telling an individual who had been significantly involved in the matters which had led to the ban being placed who is also one of our most respected editors and an admin that a discussion regarding the matter he had been involved in is canvassing. Otherwise, I myself believe that there might perhaps be a rather prejudicial rush to judgment on the part of one of those commenting here, and I believe that it is not unreasonable to request that others not raise apparently unfounded allegations in prejudicial terms, such as have been rather clearly done above. And I believe it is worth noting that I only did this action after having received more than one e-mail regarding this matter from different parties. Also, I should note that I had myself basically stopped watching the discussion after Salvio closed it earlier until I saw DeknMike had been blocked indefinitely. Although I did not myself say this earlier, for fear of prejudicing the outcome, I myself thought that maybe a sanction of one week might be the longest I myself would support given the nature of the edit, and I wouldn't have objected if it were even shorter than that. I am sorry if I sound irritated, but I honestly thought people who commented here might actually be capable of using loaded language would actually be able to use it in a way which indicated they were familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines. Evidently, I may have been wrong in drawing that conclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, Zad68, ThatPeskyCommoner, In incti occuli, Secretlondon, Malleus Fatorum, A sniper, Avi, Plot Spoiler, Evanh2008, brewcrewer, Wikid77d, and MastCell commented on the ANI discussion and AniMate closed it and placed the ban. Of that group, JohnCarter only notified Jayjg. As ANI has 5628 watchers, it's hard to see a justification for notifying one specific administrator. NE Ent 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Informing individuals who have been involved in issues previously is not WP:CANVASS, by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it is recommended practice. Feel free to notify any others you feel were left out. In any event, this is not relevant to what sanction is appropriate for DeknMike. Jayjg 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) FWIW, I was going to clean up some grammatical problems in earlier comments before others commented further. But it is also worth noting that Jayjg had been involved in the previous discussion on the article talk pages, which the others were not. I think that would have been obvious to anyone who might have made an effort to look that far into the history of the matter, and it is also acceptable as per WP:CANVASS to notify some of those who had been significantly involved in those discussions which led to the postings here. I otherwise agree that this line of discussion is in no way relevant to the topic of this thread, and honestly, think it really only serves to demonstrate the lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines of some individuals who have commented. If they believe that there is a serious reason to raise allegations of canvassing, I believe that it is reasonable to ask them to demonstrate exactly how the actions involved qualify under WP:CANVASS, and probably to raise that discussion in a separate thread. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." NE Ent 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has been shown that Jayjg was chosen based on his opinions, but rather based on his prior knowledge of the discussion from the article talk pages. The comment above is in no way demonstrably relevant to this discussion. More than one editor has commented above that these accusations, which are as of yet still not clearly founded and seem to border on personal attacks, have any clear relevance to this discussion. If you think you have a basis for a complaint, as has already been said, please start a separate section for it. Otherwise, these dubiously supported which have no direct relevance to the subject of this thread really should stop. If you wish to file a formal complaint, it is pretty much standard practice to start a separate subthread at least. But, really, the above seems to me to be grasping at straws. Should this continue, I think that it would not be unreasonable for me to start a separate subthread regarding the abusive use of this page by the above editor. John Carter (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• An indefinite block for a technical change which had no impact on the content of the article? One which was made on the seventh and where the author hasn't edited since the eighth? And when an uninvolved admin has already reviewed the situation and declined to take action in no uncertain terms? This is definitely one of the poorest blocks I have ever seen and I fully intend to overturn it. While it's true that topic bans do certainly mean "do not edit a given page", we are not bots and we can apply commonsense and don't have to mechanically apply the rules, which is what WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO are all about. That edit warranted a warning at most, but certainly not a block. Much less an indefinite one. To an uninvolved observer, this looks like a mere show of force. That's why I'll give Kww time to self-revert, but if he chooses not to do so, I will. And, before someone goes around saying I'll be wheel warring: per WP:WHEEL, to undo a fellow administrator's action is not wheel warring. Salvio 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's only indefinite in time, Salvio. As I said above, it will last precisely as long as DeknMike chooses: all he has to do to get unblocked is agree to abide his topic ban. You are right that it wouldn't be wheel-warring, but it would still be wrong of you to undo a perfectly sound block with such a reasonable unblock condition. If DeknMike won't agree to conform to his topic ban, why should he be permitted to edit?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, sorry, but I didn't see you respond to the points being raised. A block requiring DeknMike to agree by writing in his own words that he understands the topic-ban--"He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles." (copied verbatim off of his User Talk page, emphasis mine)--seems a reasonable step, based on

1. DeknMike's previous two topic-ban violations
2. The danger that sending the message that 'technical changes are allowed' could result in changes in the meaning conveyed by an article (as discussed above)
3. The intent of the original topic ban--to get DeknMike to start working collaboratively with editors in other areas so that he better understands WP:V. (Why couldn't he have accomplished his change through an edit request to the article Talk page?)

Could you please address these points? Cheers... Zad68 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is an overreaction. What should (ideally) have happened was a user talk page message along the lines of What the heck are you doing? You know you're under a topic ban. I know you weren't changing content but just editing the page means someone is going to have to check the diff. You can't make any edits to the article, okay? That said, I think Kww's block, while unnecessary, was well-done: They specifically disavowed "ownership" of it, allowing any admin to unblock, and clearly laid out what DeknMike needs to say in an unblock request to resume editing. As an unblock at this point would not send a clear, consistent message to DeknMike, I think it would be counterproductive. NE Ent 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

May I point out:

1. AniMate was the closer of the original topic ban
2. DeknMike's first topic-ban violation (diff) was to the article List of Messianic Jewish organizations
3. AniMate's response to this included "the next time you violate your topic ban will result in a block"
4. This topic-ban violation was at this same article, List of Messianic Jewish organizations: diff

Wouldn't not blocking or undoing the block be undermining AniMate's previous actions on this without discussion? I will invite AniMate to this discussion. Zad68 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm away from keyboard for the next 8 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the block was justifiably preventative but DeknMike should be unblocked if he agrees to completely stay away from the topic. Unlike the incident from June, this wasn't a major violation. Kww summarized the incident well in his block message. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

RevDelete needed

I was on my mobile phone, and it logged me out before I made this edit . Could I get a RevDelete of just the IP address? Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit suppressed. Next time, please use WP:RFO. Cheers. Salvio 17:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy appears to be violating a topic ban

Per community consensus Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Alternative_Proposal_by_IRWolfie-, User:IjonTichyIjonTichy is topic banned "from the Zeitgeist movement, broadly construed", including "everything he does on Misplaced Pages, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in". . As can be seen, IjonTichyIjonTichy has chosen to flout this ban on his talk page, and is now soapboxing regarding the article on movement and on his ban, while engaging in personal attacks on me (thinly disguised). . Can I ask that appropriate action be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not violated the ban. I have not even viewed (not to mention edit) the TZM article or its talk page or related articles. Instead, I focused on editing other WP articles and contributing to developing the encyclopedia. However I recently noticed that the user above has attacked me repeatedly prior to my topic ban (just search for the many the many times 'IjonTichyIjonTichy' appears on the above user's talk page) and post-ban . And I did not identify the user above, or the TZM article, by user name or article title, and I did not mention the TZM article on my user page, user talk page or any WP page since the topic ban. And I refuse to interact in any way, shape or form in the future with a user who vandalized a WP article and who has repeatedly engaged in other offensive, uncivil, abusive behavior, including, but not limited to personal attacks on me, both before my topic ban and after. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The material on your talk page clearly relates to TZM. You have violated your topic ban. And if you don't wish to interact with me, don't post personal attacks on me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Note that in this edit (material added to an old talk-page post), is accusing multiple editors of 'bias' against him, and of them - and seems to be arguing that the topic ban was unjustified, and that he'd been 'railroaded'. Given that it was made absolutely clear that any discussions regarding the ban would need to be done with an admin via e-mail, rather than in public, this seems to be further evidence that IjonTichyIjonTichy is failing to abide by the topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not, and will not interact with this vandal in any way, shape or form, even after my topic ban is lifted. The material on my talk page or user page does not identify TZM or anything remotely resembling TZM (I have now removed the direct copy-paste of the user's vulgar, offensive statement that he used to deface the WP article in his act of vandalism). I am entitled to revise material that I've posted immediately after the topic ban was posted, and in which I directly communicate with the admin who has administred the ban, and I made it very clear the new material is an addition and revision of my original posting from Aug. 23 in which I'm trying to express my thoughts and feelings; as these thoughts and feelings continue to evolve in light of my new understanding of how WP works, I have inserted new material which expresses new insights I gained which help me articulate the (old) feelings I've felt when the topic ban was originally implemented. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Posting personal attacks is 'interaction'. The material you posted unequivocally relates to TZM, and in this edit of yours (dated 6 November) you explicitly refer to "TZM". You have violated your ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked anyone in my revision to my conversation with the administrator. I'm only describing material that is well-known on WP (although regretfully it was not well-known to me up until very recently), and that appears in various forms on various user's pages, WP essays, etc. (Please see my recent revisions to my own user page in which I list some of the things I've learned recently about how WP works). I'm entitled to modify the original way I've expressed my original thoughts and feelings to clarify and to better-articulate my original observations and personal feelings in light of new information that has come to my knowledge and new understandings(s) I've developed. (For example, one of the many sources that I discovered recently that helped me develop new insights is WP:Disruptive_sanctions.) I've made many contributions to WP since my topic ban and none of them come anywhere close to being related to TZM. And I intend to continue to make many more contributions to WP articles in upcoming weeks and months (for example, I have plans to continue my efforts to develop articles on various areas in high technology, especially AI, robotics, etc., and their many subfields, based on citations from IEEE peer-reviewed journal articles), and eventually appeal my topic ban. (I've already written some portions (but not all) of my appeal and will submit it in a few days or weeks when I'm fully ready.) I wish I was aware of the many resources (some of which I recently listed on my own user page) before the topic ban, as they would have prevented, or at least helped resolve, many of the conflicts I've been involved in on the TZM article; in fact if I were aware of this info I would have left the TZM article months before the topic ban and focused instead on contributing to non-TZM-related articles. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is clearly gaming, and a poor attempt at that: . I'm going to presume "UVWXYZ" is meant to be Andy and the protected article is for TZM. I see more hints about andy being a nasty contributor here: User:IjonTichyIjonTichy#Some_insights_on_editing_Wikipedia in this rather long soapbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is based on direct diffs -- except I did not list the diffs, and don't intend to list the diffs in the near future, and thus my post does not identify any particular, specific user. Everything I wrote is based on hard evidence. It is all hard data/ evidence/ diffs. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section from my talk page and pasted it to my user page, but it did not fit there so I removed it, although I intend to re-post it in the near future after I develop it more fully and I will not re-post it. By the way, I'm curious. IRWolfie- has quickly revised the original uncivil comment I posted on the user's talk page (although I realize now, based on what I've learned in recent months, that all IRWolfie- - or any editor - needed to do was to encourage me to revise or delete my uncivil comment, and I would have deleted my comment), and quickly proceeded to open an AN/I on me. My question: why has IRWolfie- not revised, or deleted, the many attacks on me by the same user, on the same user's talk page, in the weeks preceding the AN/I? And why has IRWolfie- not revised the two additional attacks on me by the same same vandal post my topic ban -- specifically, the comment on the user's page, and on my own user talk page , in both of which the same vandal again attacked me? (The numerous attacks in the first diff are obvious; in the second he disparages, belittles and mocks my contributions as "while you do nothing else remotely useful".) Does this (among other things which I'll more fully discuss in my appeal) not appear to justify my revision to my communication on my own talk page with the topic-banning administrator? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite block based on the violation of the topic ban. Ijon's responses are nonsensical. His attempts to deflect this discussion to other editors' alleged misconduct or alleged failures are a transparent distraction. Similarly, his attempts to wikilawyer his way around the ban by thinly disguising the name of the article and the name of the editor are offensive. Having been involved with Ijon and the TZM article in the past, I cannot block him. Otherwise, I would.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I also support an indefinite block. It's a clear violation of the topic ban and a blatant attempt at gaming the system, despite Ijon's pathetic attempts to disguise it. His responses here just destroy any credibility he might have had. Sorry, but I can't see this user contributing more good to WP than bad. He clearly has no intention of improving the behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not initiate the discussion on revising my original comment to the administrator. And I'm not wikilawyering anything. I firmly believe everything I've written. Although I admit I am relatively inexperienced in many aspects of Misplaced Pages and thus I may be (and probably am, based on the response here) wrong in my assumptions and my understandings and my approach, and it seems I probably should have waited until after my topic ban is lifted to try to more properly and civilly address the issue of the uncivil behavior by the vandal. As far as I know I have not violated the topic ban in any way, shape or form in recent months as I've continued to make many contributions to the encyclopedia, despite the fact that an editor continued to attack me on his user talk page post the topic ban. I'm continuing to learn and develop and probably will learn from this exchange too to help me continue to develop to become a better WP contributor. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this diff is clearly and unequivocally about TZM. The topic ban was violated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights on gaming the system by all the editors above. I thought about what the editors wrote and I now understand that your concerns regarding appearing to game the system are valid, and even though I did not intend to game, it may well appear that I have, given that I'm still on a topic ban. Good intentions alone are insufficient -- actions, and all possible consequences including all possible appearances and interpretations of my actions by all involved actors are also very important and I should have thought more carefully about these issues before clicking the 'save page' button. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks for the insights on being much more careful not only about being motivated by the right intentions but also about taking into consideration all possible appearances and interpretations, among the other useful feedback provided above. I realize now that starting the section on my talk page was an error on my part, and does not fit-in at all with my contributions and good behavior in the months since after the topic ban. (By the way I also had strong personal doubts before I started the section, I should have listened to my own inner voice more carefully.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ROPE. — raekyt 23:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please more fully support your accusation of WP:COMPETENCE? Can you please explain how making a single mistake in two and half months of making many contributions post my topic ban (a mistake I quickly corrected after receiving useful feedback above from editors more experienced than me) constitutes incompetence? Is it not true that mistakes are supposed to be an inevitable part of the wiki process? Is anybody on Misplaced Pages perfect in every way? I certainly admit that my development as an editor has not always been linear. It has been marked by forward progression overall, but with many temporary bumps and detours and dead-ends and misguided efforts. In some cases (such as above), I've taken two steps back for every three steps forward. But I believe the overall trajectory of my development as an editor, compared to my efforts as a newbie about six months ago, has been one of positive growth and progress. Do you have specific data (in addition to the mistake I made above) to prove otherwise? Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. In response to the question regarding WP:COMPETENCE, I think it need only be pointed out that IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be continuing with his soapboxing and personal attacks: . If this isn't a demonstration of a clear lack of clue, it is trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. In fact, in response to the helpful feedback from the editors above, I'm in the process of making the material on my own user page even more neutral in tone, and trying to remove any hints of anything that might be mistakenly perceived as relating to the TZM article (or any particular article) or to any particular user. And by the way, since we are on the topic of WP:COMPETENCE, why did the vandal willfully ignore the warning by the admin on my own user talk page to leave me alone? I agree with the admin that there are two sides to every story and I fully admit that my own behavior is the sole cause of my topic ban; but my behavior is not at all the sole cause of the dispute between me and everyone involved, including the vandal. I'm not the sole problem and my topic ban does not vindicate everyone else, including the vandal. I have plenty to say about everyone's behavior that I cannot now. The admin specifically wrote on Aug. 23: Just back off. What you are doing is grave dancing. Please go away. Then why did the vandal continue to attack me about full 10 days after the above notice by the admin ? When an uninvolved editor (Dennis Brown) discussed the vandalism, the vandal admitted he should not have done it , but in the same breath the vandal , instead of taking full personal responsibility for his own actions, appears to be Wikilawyering in an apparent attempt to dodge responsibility and blame others for his own actions, including: blaming what he calls "TZM supporters" and "POV-pushing sockpuppets"; blaming me ("drive(s) everyone insane with walls of text"); accusing me of using a sock puppet; accusing me of POV-pushing and spinning; misrepresenting and twisting what I said earlier about AOTE (ATG, OpenFuture, Tom harrison and Earl King Jr.) (ATG falsely claims I habitually ("at the drop of a hat") accused editors of a conspiracy against TZM where in fact I explicitly and clearly said they were not part of a conspiracy or cabal); attempting to paint a picture of me as a confused, incoherent, inconsistent, incompetent and incapable editor; blaming user: Zgoutreach; conflating me with user Zgoutreach; accusing Zgoutreach of being "the latest TZM-pusher" and implying I was a (previous) TZM-pusher; accusing me and Zgoutreach of exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior and paranoia; accusing me of being coached by TZM ("TZM supporters all get lessons"); calling me a 'contributor' in single quotes to denigrate, disparage and belittle my work; insulting user Zgoutreach by characterizing him as having a "tiny little head" to imply Zgoutreach's intellectual abilities are inferior and implying the vandal is his intellectual superior; etc. ( By the way, the vandal seems to be repeatedly implying that Zgoutreach and myself belong to a POV-pushing cult, conspiracy or cabal, but these are the same exact labels which the vandal himself appears to denigrate, ridicule and belittle when others accuse him of ... Editors have been warned by the topic-ban admin to leave me alone and stop attacking me, as this can easily be seen as an attempt to provoke me to initiate my block; the vandal has in the past, post the topic ban, and is continuing now, to ignore this warning. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that, contrary to IjonTichyIjonTichy's allegations of 'gravedancing', I had made no postings whatsoever to his talk page prior to his recent personal attacks on me - this is my first post, dated yesterday: . AndyTheGrump (talk)

The vandal has not commented on my own talk page, but he appears to have danced on my grave on his own user talk page. The vandal's posting on his own talk page is a serious personal attack on me post my topic ban. The admin's warning to leave me alone and not provoke me applies to all editors, not only to the one (not ATG) who appeared to maybe grave dance. The right course of action for ATG was to leave my name out of his response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about ATG's vandalism. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Yet more Wikilawyering to evade discussing the obvious issues - the violation of the ban, and the continuing personal attacks on multiple contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that the vandal has commented on my own talk page. But he appears to have danced on my grave on his own user talk page. The vandal's posting on his own talk page is a serious, multi-faceted personal attack on me full 10 days post my topic ban. The admin's warning to leave me alone and not provoke me applies to all editors, not only to the one (not ATG) who appeared to maybe grave dance. We are talking about competence here, and if ATG would insist on continuing to attack my competence, I can bring many more examples. The right course of action for ATG was to leave my name out of his response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about ATG's vandalism, and to realize that his own action has directly contributed to my recent mistake (although he is not responsible for my own mistake which I take responsibility for), and to accept my admission of my recent innocent mistake, and leave me alone and stop appearing to attempt to provoke me. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Are you actually trying to get yourself blocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm interested in continuing to contribute to the project. I have not even viewed (not to mention edit) the TZM article since the topic ban, and instead focused on learning how WP really works (although I'm open to considering my new understanding is probably flawed -- hopefully not fatally flawed ...) and on contributing to non-TZM articles. I suggest we both stop attacking each other's competence (or attacking anything else) because it's a waste of everyone's time because I'll attack you back, you will respond in kind, I'll respond and we'll get nowhere. Instead of exclusively focusing on my actions, please also consider your own (without reducing your focus on my actions). Please consider the possibility that the best course of action for you was to leave my name out of your response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about your vandalism, and to realize that your own attack on me, which may appear to some editors to be a direct violation of at least the spirit and the principle, if not the letter, of the admin's prohibition on attacking me, may have directly contributed to my recent (mistaken and misguided) attempt to list the diffs to your attacks (although I'm not sure if my posting the diffs-without-real-diffs was a direct response to your attacks on me). (I admit you are not responsible for my own recent mistake which I take responsibility for.)

Let's declare peace; I'm asking that editors, chiefly (but not exclusively) yourself, accept my admission of my recent innocent mistake, and leave me alone to continue to contribute to non-TZM articles. Persistent, continued accusations may increasingly appear to be an attempt on your part to provoke me into personally attacking you in order to initiate my block. Please accept my admission of mistake, and consider going away, and fully leaving me alone, as the admin requested almost 3 months ago; please consider doing as I did: I've left you alone, and I've left all editors on the TZM topic-ban AN/I alone, and I've left all TZM-related articles alone over the last almost three months (until my mistake a few hours ago). I hope this solution is agreeable to you. Peace and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

So now, after the multiple personal attacks you have posted yesterday and today (hardly 'leaving me alone'), and the clear violation of your topic ban, you want everyone to pretend nothing has happened? It doesn't work that way. (and BTW, no admin ever informed me of any prohibitions on me commenting on you - you are making that up). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying to post one final post before I get some sleep. ( By the way after my topic ban is lifted I will restrict all long posts to my own user talk page, and only post short, concise and relevant posts to the article talk page.)

With all due respect, please refrain from putting words in my mouth and speaking for me. I have not said nor implied I want anyone to pretend anything. I respect all editors here, including yourself, as mature, smart, highly capable adults and I did not request them to pretend anything. Instead, I am proposing a resolution to this issue, (an issue which frankly is becoming increasingly tiresome, cumbersome and nonsensical by the minute), so that we can stop wasting everybody's time here in endless, fruitless discussions and instead redirect our energies to what we are passionate about - developing the encyclopedia.

What I tried to say is that I feel I fully abided by the spirit and principles of the topic ban over the last almost three months, although I fully admit I appear to have broken the letter of the ban in my misguided, mistaken, erroneous, stupid attempt to list the diffs of your vandalism and your many vicious personal attacks on me pre- and post-topic-ban. Thus, your persistent, insistent, repetitive mention of my recent, and only, violation may appear increasingly suspicious (at least to me), as if you may be appearing to have some ulterior motive -- are you hinting that perhaps I should be faulted on a technicality? Can you please explain why it is so important to you that I be infinitely blocked? What good would come to the encyclopedia if I would be blocked as you seem to insist, considering that I made many contributions over the last 3 months since my topic ban, while exhibiting exemplary editorial and personal behavior (until my mistake a few hours ago which may have damaged the high credibility I worked so hard to re-build)? I repeat my suggestion we both stop attacking each other because it's a waste of everyone's time; it's a vicious circle -- you'll continue to attack me, I'll respond, you'll respond and we'll get nowhere.

With all respect to you, please don't pretend you were not aware editors were explicitly prohibited from attacking me. And don't pretend you only 'commented' on me as you write; I can only hope that you may someday realize that what you did was infinitely worse than 'commenting'. You yourself sought the extremely punitive, very harsh sanctions which were eventually agreed by the community against me on the topic-ban AN/I, and common sense combined with a basic sense of fairness and fair-play on your part would have amply dictated that you refrain from attacking me (because you yourself explicitly requested, and the community agreed, that I be forbidden from responding to any potential attacks on me post-ban). Not to mention that you violated WP policies that explicitly prohibit editors from attacking banned or blocked editors. The admin ban on commenting or attacking me or engaging me, the harsh conditions you sought to attach to the ban, the spirit and language of WP policies, common sense, and reasonable levels of awareness and careful consideration of others' feelings would have have all combined to strictly and amply dictate that you should have left me completely alone post my topic-ban. And some awareness would also have revealed to you that (as far as I know) nobody else, except you, appears to have initiated 'comments' on me post-ban. (Although I may be mistaken on the last item as I don't know what has been said about me, if anything, post-ban on the TZM article talk page.)

May I request something of you. Instead of exclusively focusing on my actions, please also take some time to consider your own (without risking reducing your focus on my actions). Please consider the possibility that the best course of action for you was to leave my name out of your response to the uninvolved editor inquiring about your vandalism, and to realize that your own lengthy, massive, multi-faceted, brutal, injurious attack on me post-ban, which appears to have been an attempt to deflect all blame of your vandalism onto me, an attack which may appear to be a direct violation of at least the spirit and the principle, if not the letter, of the admin's prohibition on attacking me as well as common sense and a violation of WP policies, --- I am asking that you reflect on your own actions (in addition to mine), and consider that your own actions may have, directly or directly, contributed (to whatever extent) to my recent (mistaken and misguided) attempt to list the diffs to your numerous personal attacks on me and to your vandalism. And please note that I admit you are not responsible for my own recent brain-dead mistake which I take responsibility for.

Let's declare peace (or, at least, a truce). I'm asking that editors, chiefly yourself, accept my admission and explanation of my recent innocent, inexperience-motivated, foolish mistake, and leave me alone to continue to contribute to non-TZM articles. Persistently continuing to accuse me may increasingly appear to be an attempt on your part to provoke me into personally attacking you in order to initiate my block. Consider admitting that we've both made mistakes: you've made a big mistake in viciously, broadly and deeply attacking and injuring the innate humanity, intelligence, abilities, personality and editing skills of a banned editor (you've shown no compassion or mercy when you've 'hit a person when he's down') on your user talk page, as well as fully deleting and vandalizing a valid WP article; and I'll admit I've made a big mistake as I amply discussed above. Consider accepting the fact that both of our mistakes (as almost all serious mistakes on WP) have unintended consequences, and consider the fact that nobody is perfect on WP and everyone is entitled to make mistakes on WP. Furthermore, consider accepting that the best thing to do right now may be for both of us to go our separate ways, declare a continuation of our 3-month-old divorce, keep a wide distance from each other in the future, and leave each other alone, as the topic-ban admin originally requested almost 3 months ago. Consider following my example: with the single, isolated exception of my recent mistake, I've left all TZM-related articles alone over the last almost three months, I've left you alone for almost three months, and I've left all editors on the TZM topic-ban AN/I alone over the same period of time (and, as far as I know, they've all blissfully left me alone too). I hope this proposed solution is agreeable. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely a violation of the topic ban, a purposeful gaming of the system. I support an indefinite block or ban. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained above, there was no purposeful gaming, although, in hindsight, based on the helpful feedback from editors above who are more experienced than me, I now understand why and how my actions may have appeared to be gaming the system. I now understand my mistake, and have taken action to correct it. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• IjonTichyIjonTichy blocked for 1 month by me for "WP:DE and violating topic ban". The thinly veiled attempt on the talk page and insistence on referring to Andy as "the vandal" in this discussion show a serious lack of clue. While there are many editors here that support an indef block, I'm going to give a small amount of rope and use the least amount of block I think will work to prevent disruption, which is a month. This is in part because they have shown willingness to back off (which may be simply trying to avoid being indef blocked) and some of the rhetoric may be in the heat of the moment. They have never been blocked before and have stayed off the article as well. It is my hope that they will take this month and reflect a bit and try to understand that gaming the system will not work and will not be overlooked, as the next block will likely be for an indefinite period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you took action, Dennis, but I think you're being unduly optimistic. Ijon's behavior here is consistent with his violation of the ban and his previous passive-aggressive behavior. Your parenthetical ("which may be simply trying to avoid being indef blocked") is spot on. That's exactly what he's doing. You should also note in the wall of text (why he has to subject this board to that as he's done elsewhere is beyond me) that not only does he "assume" he is he not going to be blocked but even that the ban will be lifted. Such chutzpah. And it's intentional. There's very little Ijon does that isn't thought out. His problem is he underestimates his audience. The idea that any of this was a "mistake" is implausible. Thus, a one-month block is only delaying the inevitable. But it's your call, and erring on the side of leniency and assuming some good faith is rarely a bad thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it costs us nothing to try. If he is tries to bypass the block, or comes back with the same attitude, I will be happy to revisit it. He is a newish user, and hopefully this "shot across the bow" will cause him to take notice. I prefer giving everyone one extra chance to conform to community standards when there is any hope. If he fails to have an epiphany during this break, well, blocks are cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing, IP-hopping editor

In the past few days I have encountered an editor whose clear agenda is to remove all references to "China" or the "Republic of China" in Taiwan-related matters, often against discussion consensus or inappropriately changing the title field of a template away from its actual name. See this non-exhaustive list of diffs: , , , , , , , , , , Where appropriate, range-blocks should be enacted to prevent playing of "pop the weasel". GotR 20:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• It might be better to request page protection. This is larger than a single IP range, so I don't think a range block is going to work and will have too much collateral damage. I agree that it looks like clear POV editing, however. WP:RFPP can protect pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if this activist moves on to even more pages, the better option would be to seal the ranges rather than mass-protect pages and prevent all non-confirmed from editing those pages. GotR 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Republic of China is commonly known as Taiwan. Changing ROC to Taiwan makes it less confusing because readers not familiar with Taiwan strait issues might confuse ROC with the People`s Republic of China. In wikipedia ,the page "Republic of China" has been redirected to "Taiwan". Most pages about the state use the name "Taiwan". In my opinion,the editor`s changes are reasonable as it maintains consistency of the name and reduces confusion. 111.82.204.221 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the OP here is one who often creates problems for the Taiwan page, and others using that name, with extremely cryptic Edit summaries and a clear agenda to maintain the word China in connection to Taiwan. It's part of a very old political (and initially military) conflict from the first half of last century. This goes against the result of a massive effort at the page some months ago where consensus was reached to rename the article from Republic of China to Taiwan. The IP hopping editor is not really being helpful, but I see his behaviour as at least partly a reaction to out OP's obsession with pushing the POV of the article in the opposite direction, against consensus. Actions to bring our IP hopping editor properly on board, with registration, etc., would be good, but our OP needs to to be watched too. His POV goals to continually fight the consensus recently achieved, and reintroduce confusion over the use of the name China, are not good for Misplaced Pages. The goals of the IP hopping editor are probably more in line with consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Without touching on the far more numerous problems of HiLo, I have let this particular IP editor some leeway when his (her) changes are not completely unreasonable. For instance, I have chosen to ignore the most recent edits to Keelung River, which I have chosen to ignore, and Template:List of Asian capitals by region, the latter which is more questionable. I am not, as HiLo falsely accuses, a robot that automatically inserts "China" in every usage of ROC/Taiwan; however, this IP editor is the robot that performs the inverse function. I must remind all that the decision reached in March pertained only to the title of the main article, and specifically instructed those in HiLo's faction not to immediately alter other content in favour of their unequivocally nevertheless hidden political motives: to eradicate every last modern reference to the first non-dynastic Chinese state. GotR 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, your colours are now fully on display. That you see everyone with an interest in the subject as being part of a "faction" is your main problem. You may be. I have no idea. And I wouldn't accuse. I'll just stick to describing your actions. I just want a better encyclopaedia. Oh, and I DID NOT accuse you of being "a robot that automatically inserts "China" in every usage of ROC/Taiwan". Thank you for proving my point about your style and attitude. GoTR, the IP hopping editor may be a small problem, but you're probably the cause. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the intent of those who wish to (essentially) eradicate usage of "ROC" and whether they support independence, they agree to such eradication; this makes you as much part of a faction as I am. "the OP here is...a clear agenda to maintain the word China in connection to Taiwan."—not explicit, but falls not at all short of accusing me of being a robot. Remember that I have already provided (i.e. debunked) a few counterexamples, A → not B, to your claim of A → B. Your attempts at diverting the focus away from the IP editor have shown to be a ridicule-and-parade-HiLo48-in-a-dunce-hat fun fest. GotR 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Your disruptive, accusatory approach is now obvious. I feel no need to say any more here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IPs edits are making changes from Republic of China to Taiwan. The article of the place-in-question is at Taiwan. I don't understand the problem here. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• See remarks made by Jiang in Talk:Taiwan#"Mainland". GotR 05:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TelusFielder / 68.150.245.177

TelusFielder (talk · contribs) / 68.150.245.177 (talk · contribs) has been entering WP:BLP-violating material in the Asra Nomani article. The Nomani article has been a target of BLP violations for quite some time now, with various (typically IP) editors trying to dig up "dirt" on her and add it to her article. Recently TelusFielder / 68.150.245.177 has apparently read a series of Nomani's blog postings, decided he didn't like certain things she said, and therefore put a pejorative spin on them and added them to the article's "Criticism" section, along with some guilt-by-association and "criticisms" from the site www.loonwatch.com . In the past he's used loonwatch.com to attack other individuals with whom he disagrees (e.g. ). I've removed his Nomani edits a couple of times, as has another editor. TelusFielder's response has been to aggressively revert the material back in, and to remove reliably sourced information from a different article, with the edit summary "Probably not even true". TelusFielder does not appear to have a good grasp of WP:V, WP:RS, and especially WP:BLP. Before blocking him myself, I've brought the issue here for further discussion. Jayjg 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like someone likes to make judgements about other users huh? It's real funny, that this user above me threatened to block me from editing, right after I posted the links. Not even a discussion, just a flat out threat. Does that sound reasonable? Does that make any sense? Honestly, that is very unprofessional. Just because you have the ability to block someone, does that mean you block whomever disagree's with you? I hope other users chime in on this.

Now, lets go back to those sources. I quoted Asra's own words, I linked to an article she wrote, how she supported burning Qurans, how she supported racial and religious profiling. Actually, for the latter, there were some pretty good sources. As for loonwatch, I said that one was debatable, and after I stopped using it. But the user above me didn't care, they began deleting my edits. So I really don't know what this user's deal is?

As for Spellberg's article, anyone can easily see how biased that line was. In other words, she's saying that she's correct and other scholars are liars. That sentence is so poorly written. So, out of good faith, I decided to take it off. I hope other users take a look how this article is written, especially in the begining.

Also, this user deleted my post on his talk page because they thought it wa sa "personal attack". Again, someone please look into this and tell me it is NOT that?

Anything else you want to bring up Jayjg? TelusFielder (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything else you want to talk about

Assertations such as the ones you posted must have the best possible sources as Dawnseeker said in their edit summary, especially when it comes to BLP. I'm not quite sure about the dailybeast refs. That site is nominally associated with Newsweek and since I don't read American newspapers I can't say either way. The other two are definitely not RS, both being blogs. The dailybeast sources link to articles that Asra Nomani wrote but the placement in the criticism section would have implied to the reader of the wiki article that the sources were critiques of Nomani for holding such views, which is entirely not the case.

The removal of the sourced statement in the Spellberg statement was also inappropriate. Although not exactly the best written piece of prose, it could have been improved instead of wholesale removed. At the very least, it should have been brought up for discussion on the article talk page.

On the flip side, I wouldn't have said TelusFielder's post on Jayjg's talk page was a personal attack, per se, uncivil perhaps but not really an attack.

On the whole, Jayjg was entirely correct in leaving that warning. TelusFielder should accept the warning and be careful in future with controversial insertions into BLPs. Edit warring it back in was a definite no-no and should have taken it to the talk page for wider discussion, where it would have been plainly obvious that 2 of the sources failed RS and the other two would have needed careful discussion on their use and placement in the article. Discuss more, not edit war. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate discussion closure

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

A few days ago I started an Afd for Personal (album) because I was unable to find sources for it. Status (talk · contribs) obviously followed my contributions and commented on the Afd, stating that the topic had some notability and should be kept or redirected. I was, quite frankly, astonished to find Status' best friend on this entire project Hahc21 (talk · contribs) to have closed the Afd three days early, with the rationale "The article meets both GNG and NALBUMS." This closure was completely out of line for multiple reasons. Firstly, he clearly presented his opinion when he closed the Afd by stating that it meets both GNG and NALBUMS. The discussion showed absolutely no evidence that the album met these guidelines, as both editors pointed to the album charting as evidence for notability which is not a requirement for WP:GNG. Then, just seven minutes after the discussion was closed, Status was hasty enough to created a DYK nomination for the article, seven minutes later. Obviously there was some sort of WP:COI involved for him to close the discussion and his friend to get credit for a DYK. I undid the closure with the rationale "Keep closure in error" (which it was). He then notified me on my talk page, acting like he is an administrator and has authority over me; stating, "If you are not happy with my close, come to my talk first and we can discuss reopening it or not. Going ahead and reverting a close without being an admin or asking me to do so first is not the way to go." I then responded to this, telling him not to talk down to me and act like he's some admin with power, and explained why the closure was wrong. The closure was also reverted by IP 86.44.24.94.

I request that this user be forbidden from making non-admin closures from here thereafter. Till 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Hahc21 (talk · contribs)'s contribs, you could see he closed a bunch of AfDs at the time; he just didn't randomly close one that I had expanded. Such absurd claims these are. I saw the AfD had been closed, and decided to nominate it for DYK, as I had been nominating several articles I expanded within the past few days for DYK, check my contribs. Whether or not it was closed at the time I would have been nominating it. You can nominate DYKs for articles that are under AfD, it just won't be promoted until the AfD has been closed. As for everything else, I think it's a bit ridiculous and extreme. Statυs (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has been pretty consistent closures should be done by admins; as the closure has been reverted I don't think any further action is needed. NE Ent 23:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, such consensus is true, but I am good doing non-admin closures . I understand that Till might be mad because the outcome from that AFD is leaning to keep and he is interested in seeing the article deleted. Also, as Status said, I closed 4 AFDs within an hour and 14 AFDs since yesterday night. Assuming that I ramdomly closed the AFD is "original research." — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The best practice is that non-admin closures should be reserved for XfDs that have very clear outcomes that could not reasonably be questioned. The one that is the subject of this thread did not have such an unambiguous result, certainly not at the time you closed it early. I don't think any formal action is required in this thread, but please be more conservative in making non-admin closures only in appropriate cases. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your comment, Newyorkbrad. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I am confused as to why it is being hinted at the IP user is either myself or Hahc21, when he accused another editor of being the IP just yesterday, not even a full 24 hours ago. Statυs (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

? No one is accusing you or Hahc21 of being the IP. Till 01:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also this isn't personal or about you, it's about the flawed Afd closure. Because policy says that I have to notify you. Till 01:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When you add "Status' best friend on this entire project" to it, it adds a certain personal flare, don't you think? Statυs (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The closer claims that he has made good non-admin closures in the past but just seconds after searching his list of closures, I immediately found another controversial close done just last month. He shouldn't be closing Afds that have an even number of !votes as "no consensus", that is for an administrator to decide. Further, he didn't even write in the closing comment that it was a non-admin closure. Again, can't some sort of ban be placed on him making NACs from now on? And claiming that I'm angry because it will be closed as keep is quite ridiculous, to be honest with you. Till 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I guess I will just warn you once: The enforcement you are trying to apply over me won't happen anytime soon. I have made mistakes at AFD, I know, but what you are requesting is just ridiculous. Why should I be banned from closing AFDs when only 2 of my 68 closes have been considered as controversial and that matter was handled by an admin long time ago? Just because I closed an AFD of yours? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  Here are some more. You are not an administrator so stop trying to be one. Till 02:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  Uhm... make that THREE. That we know of. And your tone in the preceeding post confirms my conclusion in my post below. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I know I am not an administrator, and I am not willing to be one anytime soon. My first RFA gave me what I need to know about myself and my work here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be luck of the draw, but I have to say that I have noticed this editor three times in the past few weeks, all in the context of serious lapses of judgement.

The first was with regards to a non-admin closure as no consensus that was later reversed, with a final admin decision as delete: ]. The editor should have known not to mess with a hotly contested AfD that clearly needed closure by an admin.

The second was stepping out of his role as a DRN volunteer to throw his weight around on the talk page for Australian Christian Lobby, probably because he was disappointed that no wanted to particpate in the DRN. He made a bad call about sources and article content in this case.

The third was today, when he !voted in an AfD using WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which were reliable for establishing notability (press releases and concert announcements). See ].

I'm sorry, but I think this editor needs to hit the policies and guidelines a lot more carefully before he enganges in activities like non-admin closures and DRN. Based what I've seen, I don't think he's ready for that level of responsibility. It would be a good idea for him to find a mentor if he wishes to continue semi-adminsitrative activities, and to refrain from them for a reasonable length of time to insure assimilation of the policies and guidelines, say three months. After that point, his competence should be assessed by his mentor and two ininvolved admins, and should he be deemed competent for the task, he could resume at DRN and non-admin closures.

Frankly, this editor has gotten a bit cocky and overestimates his own competence, and that is not good for him or the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG. I did not expect this. Lack of judgement? Three months? Two admins? Mentorship? I don't undertand this. I am a mentor myself and I have worked in some policies by myself too . Sorry but I don't get any of this. I will refrain myself from answering here, as it may make more harm than good. I have already apologized for the AFD close, so I have nothing else to say. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just follow NYB's advice. Additionally, if you NAC close an AFD and someone questions or reverts, then that's prima facie evidence it's not an appropriate Afd for non-admin closure. NE Ent 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dominus' proposal, refraining from making NACs for a period of three months seems suitable. Till 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, Hahc21 made a few bad calls in AfD closures. That's it. I'm sure he will remember this for next time. That does not equal to being banned from doing non-admin closures. Additionally to Dominus Vobisdu, how does "The third was today" relate to the closure of AfDs? Now you're just going off topic. And FYI, that wasn't even today, that was several days ago. "Frankly, this editor has gotten a bit cocky and overestimates his own competence"? He appears to be pretty level-headed to me. Statυs (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of Hahc21's phrasing comes across as a little off, so I'm thinking he may be appearing more combative than he intends to be. e.g. "I will just warn you once" strikes my (Northeast USA) ear a bit oddly; specifically the use of the term "warn" in this context. I think if he agrees to be a little more judicious in which Afd he closes and agrees not edit war if someone reverts a close we should close the thread and move on. NE Ent 02:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not combative at all. Also, I try to be as polite as possible. I apologize if I made some aggressive comments. Till is being a bit aggressive lately and I couldn't avoid writing such things. Also, I never edit war =/ I agree I have made some mistakes at AFD and I have, by myself, looked for admin help when I know I may breach some hot water. Why I should be a bit mad or upset? Because this went too far. A message from Till saying "Hey Hahc21, I reverted your close because i think it was inappropiate and it's not inside NAC" would have done the trick, but no. He just reverted without giving me a notice or something. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp the gravity of making innapropriate closures, and the consequences thereof. And yes, your tone does come across as combative and defensive, and fobbing off responsibility for your actions on Till is not an appropriate response. You can expect to see this matter revisted if you continue to make mistakes, which I hope you do not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no big gravity on this . Also, I know I am responsible of my acts. Sorry if I was a bit too harsh here, you may note I never wrote like this back at DRN. Although, It seems like you have a disturbed vision of me, like I am some kind of disruptive newbie or something like that, which I am not . I am pretty sure this won't be revisited, mainly because it wasn't before, and mainly because of other things you may notice as time goes by. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that most closes by Hahc21 have been pretty reasonable, so a ban from NACs seems unnecessary. As someone who has closed a lot of Afds over the past three months, I've found that it is often difficult to predict which closes will be "controversial"--someone will get upset about pretty much anything. That being said, I'd suggest Hahc21 limit his NAC closes to snow keeps of discussions open over 167 hours. (Till has been unhappy with my deletion work in the past, so I guess this should be taken with a grain of salt.) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction with your previous Afd closes is irrelevant and not germane to this thread. The proof lies within the many links that I have provided above which demonstrate the user's inability to exercise sound judgement while closing Afds. Till 03:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that 4 of 68 NACs are proof of "inability to exercise sound judgement"... — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It sure is. If you're doing non-admin closures, you had better be 68-for-68. Perhaps one error could be overlooked. Four is absolutely inexcusable. NAC's should only be done when there is no chance whatsoever of erring. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually seven, including the one that ignited this thread. One two three four five six. And these are only the ones that have been brought up in this thread. Till 07:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@Haha21: If you don't agree that stepping in to close the AfD on Rashmi Singh (author) was a major lapse in judgement, then you shouldn't be doing non-admin closures, period. What in God's name possessed you to step in to an AfD like that? And yes, it's a big deal. Other editors spent many hours working on their arguments for AfD, and here you come along and flush all that work down the toilet.

For the simple reason that you're trivializing what you have done, you've convinced me that the ban proposed above is the best move for hte project, and hope that the administatrors here reconsider. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the ban is the way to go, I will accept it. I guess I have said above that I have made mistakes and I looked for administrative help when it happened . If that's not enough, and the work I have happily made at AFD trying to give a hand is not good enough by community, then I will step out of AFD completely right now. I guess that this has gone too far, and before a ban is proposed on me, I will do it by myself. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to propose one yourself, when we're already !voting on one below (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for the vote. I can enforce myself not to edit AFD-related pages. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's no need for a !vote, then I'll be happy to close the vote as enacted by the community - you've shown your unwillingness to abide by the policy until a !vote had already started - you can't wiggle out of a restriction like that. A closure of the !vote right now will be considered to be a community consensus, and will be registered accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I agree. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban from making non-admin closures. Till 09:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction from NAC's in any forum. The editor has been shown the policy, and is in this very thread refusing to abide by it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction form non-admin closures. It's disturbing how the editor seems to think this is a trivial and to minimize the impact his errors in judgement have made. His responses indicate that he just doesn't get it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction, per all of the above concerns. The user attempting to put a stop to this !vote while it's in progress doesn't sit well with me either. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kollyfan

Hello. Over the past few days, the mentioned user Kollyfan (talk · contribs) has been making large-scale edits to a number of articles, which usually pertain to removing large amounts of factual content along with sources with usually misleading edit summaries from articles related to Tamil cinema (a branch of Indian cinema). It is evident from his contributions that the account is primarily used only to edit/remove box office data pertaining to the specific branch of articles I mentioned above, bordering on WP:SPA. Indeed, it is over a year old, and has gone through a couple of blocks due to personal attacks and edit-warring which arose due to heated disagreement over the same topic.

The user has rarely touched a talk page over the recent past, even though one can be pretty sure that he knows the level of subjectivity his edits carry and that he must get consensus first, as he has had a lifetime experience of disagreements over the same topic over the Enthiran article (that incident took place a year ago, he took a break for one year and returned a few days back, but without any change of attitude). It is high time he was given a topic ban or a further block (it is also worth noting that his past blocks were solely about disruptive behavior, whereas his editing part has failed to receive any actionable notice despite the frustration caused) since he has been told several times in the past not to remove sourced data or perform any controversial edit for that matter without consensus but still failed to abide by the advice. Please share your thoughts over this matter so that further disruption can be prevented. Thank you. Secret of success · talk 09:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ip trolling Mathsci

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

211.222.107.50 (talk · contribs) NE Ent 12:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This was almost certainly Mikemikev who currently appears to be back in Korea. There have been a whole series of these scattered around. I tag them when they are obvious but NE Ent takes the view that, even when obvious trolls, they have every right to edit. Deskana has kindly semiprotected the two user pages affected and run a checkuser. Professor marginalia has also tagged some of the ipsocks. At this stage it is not worth making an WP:SPI request. If and when named socks appear, it might help in identifying them. Here is a selection of the ipsocks, all editing from S. Korea:

• 211.222.107.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 211.222.107.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 116.122.206.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 112.171.196.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 112.218.41.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.37.255.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.37.255.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 121.173.252.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 121.67.169.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 211.222.107.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 211.119.59.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Mathsci (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actual statement: . Per Mathsci's request I have unwatched their talk page and will make no further suggestions to him on any Misplaced Pages forum. NE Ent 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Deskana helped immensely. Tagging IPs is helpful for identifying future named sockpuppets, if any. NE Ent's huff is noted. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the tagging of ipsocks. It's routine maintenance. Those IPs weren't even used by anyone else, so it's entirely uncontroversial. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Putting aside the merits of what should or shouldn't have been done, you unfairly mischaracterized what NE Ent said, and only added to that by dismissing it as a "huff".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted a long time ago that sometimes my unsolicited suggestions to folks are helpful, and sometimes they're not. As this is obviously a not situation I'd prefer to just let it go and encourage everyone else to do so also. NE Ent 15:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good on you! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Checkusers will not publicly confirm IP's as being connected to registered accounts. It may or may not "feed the trolls" by tagging their accounts. Obviously, that template was created for a reason. But it might be better to keep a list of suspected socks offline (i.e. on your PC) and then watch their behavior. If they misbehave, they can be turned in for that misbehavior. Then the question of socking doesn't enter into it, and everybody's happy (except for the blocked user). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's better for them to be publicly tagged. There were incidents in the past when Mathsci reverted some IP sock and then some "super-AGF" editor reverted Mathsci. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

He should definitely tag them, then. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The tag that says "an editor has expressed concern that this may be a sock" could be reasonable in the short term. The question would be, how long should it stay there? IP's can bounce around. If I were to get onto a public library and see something like that on the user page, and it had been posted long ago, I might think wikipedia is run by bozos. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Then visit WP:OPP sometimes. Having a tag on their IP page, which most IP users don't ever check out is definitely less intrusive than an outright block. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since Mikemikev is almost certainly geographically displaced (no recent edits from UCL or ICL), it's hardly surprising there was no correlation when deskana ran a CU. On the other hand it is known that, when not in London, Mikemikev occasionally works teaching English in the Far East. Mikemikev is a completely different kettle of fish from A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. He's active on Stormfront and similar sites. Sock accounts have had to be removed without any possible trace by arbitrators because the usernames were blatant outing; that also happened with diffs on WP:ANI; and diffs mocking the death of Slrubenstein were removed by Alison, etc. The hate image added on my talk page by the Mikemikev sock Comicania was dealt with by MRG and Philippe (WMF) on Commons. So it's just a question of keeping track of things. Who knows how long he'll be in S. Korea. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

AwesomeMachine

This bit of extremely offensive trolling on Talk:Barack Obama alerted me to the existence of AwesomeMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is either completely out of touch with reality or the longest-standing vandalism-only account on Misplaced Pages. Amazingly, he's posted nothing but hoaxes and talk page trolling on and off since 2006 without getting blocked. szyslak (t) 12:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty massive BLP violation as well, and I have indeffed due to its severity. Anyone else can reduce if they disagree (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! szyslak (t) 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

6 1/2 years, but only a page and a half of edits. Either a very-infrequent editor, or a sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can the talk page edit be redacted as well? KTC (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have RevDel'd it appropriately (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. KTC (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It was subsequently suppressed. I am not sure why. I have contacted the relevant oversighter about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the oversighter in question, but I'll say that having taken a look at the edit, whoever suppressed it was absolutely correct to do so imo. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Elizabethcochran00 pushing POV on Amber Lyon BLP

User:Elizabethcochran00 has been contravening the BLP policy by using the Amber Lyon article to push a personal point of view that is not supported by the sources given or offering negative content devoid of sources. The editor is attempting to use the article as a coatrack for negative content about CNN, the former employer of the subject. The improperly sourced content, defamatory content, and inappropriate tone has been removed from the Amber Lyon article numerous times to no avail. Editor has been warned about the inappropriate edits to the article and has chosen to go beyond the fourth warning to continue editing in the same manner, disregarding the warnings offered. While the editor may hold the subject's opinions of CNN as truth, we cannot replicate this position in the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox from which to advocate, present propaganda, or promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Other editors that have attempted to address these issues include User:Silver seren, User:Binksternet, User:Claramince, and User:Hpx5900 (presumably User:207.237.92.219). While I acknowledge there could likely be socks participating in editing this article, it is not yet clear to me which are connected. Elizabethcochran00 and User:XP Ali have been editing in tandem, but the latter stopped editing after the final warning. I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 31 hours as an initial action. I reviewed the article and the user appears determined to insert their POV against consensus and is willing to edit war to get there. Not collaborative at all. Spartaz 18:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive IP editor resorting to personal attacks...

User:68.200.28.150 has routinely removed the same factually correct piece of information from Ancient and Primitive Rite. When warned about it, user assumed a battleground/ownership mentality (basically "you're not one of us, so what's in the article is none of your business"). When further informed as to the fact that that was irrelevant, user engaged in a personal attack. Normally I wouldn't care, but this is definite intent to disrupt and continue to do so because of a personal agenda, so some action is needed to nip this in the bud. MSJapan (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest ceasing to edit war, using the article talk page and ceasing to call a content dispute vandalism NE Ent 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly I'm an idiot, then, because I thought that repeatedly removing factual information without discussion was vandalism, whereas a content dispute was something else. Clearly, I must know nothing about Misplaced Pages, and should therefore consider retirement on COMPETENCE grounds. MSJapan (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours. I think the repeated removal of material probably does come under the WP:VAND definition, though to be fair to the IP the sentence being repeatedly removed is not cited in any way. However edits like this one are not the right way to progress a content dispute and I've blocked to prevent them reverting once again and to stop the disruption at source. Kim Dent-Brown 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing it in WP:VANDTYPES, seems like like the converse of Misplaced Pages:VANDAL#Misinformation.2C_accidental. (Block is fine, of course, for the PA) NE Ent 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw it as illegitimate, repeated and unexplained blanking. But on its own that wouldn't have been enough for a block (a final warning, maybe.) The PA of course is the clincher. Kim Dent-Brown 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

or removal of unsourced content -- there's no reference to UGLE in the rest of the article to support its inclusion. NE Ent 22:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User Sayerslle editing on the Houla massacre

This is my first time bringing something up here, so please accept my apologies if this is the wrong forum. I have encountered Sayerslle (talk) at the Houla massacre page, where Sayerslle has been arguing that an account of the massacre based upon a report by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung should not receive mention in wikipedia's article.

Many editors have weighed in on this subject, but Sayerslle's contributions have been particularly counterproductive because they have been aggressive (), ), sometimes incomprehensible (), have often assumed bad faith (), and at least on this occasion devolved into insulting ad-hominem (). Sayerslle has called the account from the German paper, which he had never heard of before () equivalent to a "fringe theory" () or "pro-Assad" (), though the paper is the largest in Germany and one of the most respected in the world. Sayerslle called further mention of it in the press "regurgitation" (). Recently, when another editor and I with sharply divergent viewpoints began to reach a compromise, Sayerslle responded with what I suppose was meant to be irony (), and then made obviously partisan edits in disregard of most of the talk page, while accusing me of violating neutrality ().

Lastly, about every one of Sayerslle's edits are terribly written, and while this isn't a crime, I can't help but feel that it reflects the value of the edits overall.

The cumulative effect of all this is to create a hostile atmosphere; most editors who were involved no longer contribute here. I can't see, in any of these edits, how the encyclopedia has been improved, and it is disconcerting to feel editors are not interested in creating encyclopedic articles, but rather propaganda of some kind. Perhaps I was wrong, but I indicated that sentiment here () after a group of editors began deleting all mention of the Zeitung account. Any help in dealing with this or adding perspective (if my own is off) would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User:ByCMY

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

This user's page and their edits to Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects might require someone with more experience than me in these issues to look at them. --86.40.97.160 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hate speech at The New Normal

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

The SPA Cellus registered strictly to post the following hate speech on the page for the U.S. television show The New Normal. This editor needs an immediate and permanent block, and the edit permanently removed; such vile behavior cannot and should not be tolerated. --Drmargi (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User keeps making unnecessary deletions

Hi, I'm Slurpy. I was adding information to the article Separation of powers to add the true fundamental information for the article that Montesquiu was also inspired by the Roman Constitution through Polybius and you can see this for yourself in the source but for some reason, User (talk) unnecessarily keeps interfering and deleting my statements and sources for no reason. He and or She said that the source i provided contradicted my statement when it actually supports it. I'm not sure if he just didn't read the whole thing in the source and misunderstood it or he just does it because he just doesn't like to embrace this truth. I would like to avoid an argument and the same time that my statement would be supported and be kept on the article not because i put it there, but because the statement is true and i want to contribute by adding historical background information. sincerely --(talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge has been attempting to discuss the matter with you at Talk:Separation of powers. You should join him in that discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The deletion is good faith: it's based on the principles of WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. It looks like Demiurge1000 is questioning whether a high school research paper meets the definition of a reliable source. I'd suggest discussing the situation at Talk:Separation of powers to see if you can alleviate the concerns of the other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, Slurpy121 has persisted in edit warring and is now blocked for 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 75.51.172.205

An admin is needed to look at 75.51.172.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now disrupting Armenian history related articles by incessantly edit warring with other editors over whether a template should be expanded or hidden. Gave 3RR warning on talk, will notify him of this thread. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If he's been 3RR-warned, why isn't this reported at WP:ANEW? —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth the time to fill out a doggone 3RR report, and I thought it needed to be stopped more urgently. He has also been accused of being the sock of a banned user:Frost778 and it's ongoing at the rate of several rvvs per minute. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He has ignored the 3RR warning and continues to edit war with no discussion. Kentronhayastan (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that because the template itself is protected, he is instead edit-warring the layout of the template on all of its transcluded articles, which means he is breaking 3,4,5,6,7 RR all over the place. So the disruption seems to rise to the level of a more wide scale "incident", and it is still ongoing throughout this whole past half hour. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Profanity

Sitush has called my edits testicles and flatulence. I shared my discomfort with him, he however retorted with more of it. Is it fine to do so? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a complete misrepresentation of what he said; I'm sure even you know that bollocks is a common British expression (I know that as an American myself) and "farting around" is not calling your edits "flatulence" (what on earth that's even supposed to mean escapes me). However, seeing your edits to the first article, I'm wondering if some sanctions are warranted for you; I'm not going to make that decision at midnight, but a preliminary look would seem to back up Sitush's thoughts about your edits there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• First off, you can't tell another editor to "refrain from using slang/profanity", and you really shouldn't act surprised that that wasn't received well. Besides, "bullocks" and "fart around" are such mild slang that there's absolutely no way any administrator is going to sanction a user for it. I'm not going to address whether your edits are or aren't bullocks, but if they aren't the best way to show that is to provide rock-solid reliable sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, that is 'bollocks', not 'bullocks' - and the two words have entirely different meanings. AS for whether it is always appropriate to use such words, I'll not comment - but I'd suggest that there are more important things to concern us all than the odd mild British English obscenity - how about going back to improving the article in question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards