Misplaced Pages

WP:REMOVED says "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." (emphasis mine). The sock block is no longer an active sanction. Logically, forcing an editor to maintain a "free pass to revert me" sock tag on their page makes the sanction effectively indefinite, which is obviously not the intent. I've removed the tag. NE Ent 11:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What happened to AGF? Just because a user has previously socked does not mean they will in the future. Let everyone move on - the tag should not be re-added. GiantSnowman 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Users in good standing have a reasonable measure of control over their user and talk pages, and cannot and should not be forced to live with content they don't want there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Once an editor is unblocked, they are deemed no longer to be a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and reminding other editors that they once were is of no use. If they disrupt again (and I'm not implying in any way they would), it's not hard for somebody to pull out the relevant diffs in a future ANI thread. Ritchie333 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Plus, just like with blanked warnings, it can be found in the page history. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) I would think that if Fareed30 placed the {{User previous account|22 Male Cali}} on his user page then it would satisfy Toddst1's concern of the accounts being properly linked and {{sockpuppeteer|timeblocked|confirmed}} would no longer be needed on the page. My greater concern here, as Bbb23 pointed out, is that Fareed30 failed to notify Toddst1 about this discussion, which Bbb23 has subsequently done. Technical 13 (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• C'mon guys, what happened to WP:AGF?_{Realised I used almost the exact same phrase as GiantSnowman} I doubt Fareed30 has posted at ANI before and thus is probably unfamiliar with the process; while the orange notice does help new users identify and comply with the conditions of filing a request/complaint here, some users do miss it. YuMaNuMa 13:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I thank you all for paying attention, and I believe you've made an appropriate decision. About me failing to notify Toddst1, I was just afraid that he was going to block me. He has done that after I fixed an article. --Fareed30 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Please add the template as I suggested above (or {{User alternative account master}} if you prefer) to prevent any further SPI issues for you as long as you are a good faith editor. For future reference, always notify anyone involved with any AN discussion (including all sub-branches like AN/I here). There is very little chance of a block sticking for an AN report (and actually, blocking someone for filing an AN could result in desysoping if the community didn't agree it was appropriate). Technical 13 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus against the tag. I have no problem with that, but it's in my nature to quibble, so ... First, the tag does not say he is currently blocked; the tense is ambiguous. Second, the BLANKING policy can be interpreted the way NE Ent does, but it can also be interpreted to mean sock notices, current or not. Although wordy, one way to fix that would be to make the second clause read "confirmed sockpuppetry related notices regarding a currently active block". In my view, to change the wording would require a greater discussion than took place here. I might add that some admins don't tag the master even during the period the master is blocked. They only tag if the master is indefinitely blocked. Of course, that begs the question why the template has wording for this type of situation. The template also has a version for a temporary block after a CU, which uses a different tense. It's all kind of messy, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'm as rabid of an anti-sock person as they come, and I can't endorse this usage. The socking is in the block log, so any reoccurrence will take the previous socking into account. It's intended to mark a blocked or suspected account, not as a permanent marker after the block as expired.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'd close this discussion except based on Todd's contribution history, he may not even be aware of the topic, and I don't want to close it before he's had a chance to respond. In the meantime, I propose we name Kevin as "Most Rabid Anti-Sock Editor".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I second that motion. All in favor?...William 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• The tag can obviously go. I wonder if anyone has the balls to block Toddst1 for essentially vandalizing this user's page and threatening him with a baseless block if he didn't do as he was told. Actually, I don't wonder, but in a perfect world... Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• In a "perfect world" there wouldn't be calls for sanctions every time an administrator does something someone disagrees with and the word vandalism would not be bandied about at the drop of a hat or some other article of clothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Could someone please explain to me why User:Toddst1 is not being held accountable for his poor actions and poor behavior in regards to a misleading tag? And what about his threats to User:Fareed30? Am I the only one who sees some serious issues with this admin's actions and behavior? Why is Todd being given a free pass? Caden 14:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the 2nd time in less than three months that Toddst1 has done something suspect. Here he is clearly violating WP:INVOLVED....William 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And he is an admin??? OMG. Caden 15:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Toddst1 was editing today but chose not to take part in this ANI discussion....William 17:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is Todd being given a free pass? Seriously? He is an ADMINISTRATOR. He is infallible. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb. Huh? Are you saying that just because Toddst1 is an admin he doesnt have to follow the rules? So being an admin means you get a pass to break the rules? Is that what you are saying? Caden 14:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Naming and shaming editors on the talk page

User User:Januarythe18th made a thread on the talk page of Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University with a list of all accounts that ever edited the page which he believes belong to the religious movement. Together with the list he places a series of accusations directed to all of them, implying his right to revert all edits made by any of the accounts. Is that a normal behavior in Misplaced Pages? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(After lots of edit conflicts...) Yes, it's quite normal to name single purpose accounts as most of these seem to be. By the way, have you discussed this with the user and notified them on their talk page of this discussion? Kim Dent-Brown 18:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Kim. Does that mean the accounts listed there lose their right to edit the article? I didn't know about the policy of single-purpose-accounts nor that I was one of them, as I edited articles of different subjects/areas in my first few weeks on wikipedia. My account has also been listed there. Yes I did notify him and the subject was discussed on the talk page. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The users listed there absolutely do NOT lose any rights, nor can they be reverted without good cause. And what's more the listing is only one person's opinion; Jan18th may be wrong about some of them but I have to say at a cursory glance many of them do indeed only seem to be focussing on one narrow set of articles (and with one limited point of view. With an article like the one being discussed, I'm afraid it's often the case that very partisan editors (sometimes recruited by advocates of the subject) come along to push a particular agenda. It's usually pretty obvious who they are and it can be useful to identify them in this way. But if your own edits and talk page comments are balanced and constructive, just being on one person's list is no bar to you editing. Kim Dent-Brown 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, Kim. I completely agree with what you said, articles of religious movements naturally attract people who want to portray their religion as the one and only truth, completely perfect, etc. which of course is not near an encyclopedic point of view. But don't you agree, that religious articles also attract the other extreme side - haters of that religion, people devoted to portray the religion as negatively as possible out of religious hate? By watching Januarythe18th behavior on the talk page, I do feel that is the case about him. I think some of the users there who are connected to the religion and which have been placed in that list, are merely people willing to turn the article into a neutral, encyclopedic one, rather then its present version, which all users on the talk page, except Januarythe18th, agree by consensus, is very negatively biased. I feel Januarythe18th is probably an ex-member of Brahma Kumaris and is very dedicated to portraying a very specific and extreme version of it according to his POV.

Sorry, I don't want to bother you with those conjectures. In practice, what all of that means is: I've witnessed some opinions on the articles agreed by 5 editors, including non-members of the religion, except January18, which he insistently reverted and it seems all users are scared from participating on that page. I myself feel scared to even touch anything on that page by seeing how Januarythe18th treats all other editors. He says the article is very accurate and needs no changes. He is the only editor who thinks like that, all other editors think the article is nothing near encyclopedic, and reads like an anti-religious propaganda. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I need to acknowledge this, however, I have no desire to waste more resources over it. It's a simple case of WP:MEAT. A tagteam of editors, some of whom are being centrally coordinated, which has been going on for year to the same pattern. Are we really supposed to believe that someone who has made a total 3 minor edits to the Misplaced Pages (all of which were quickly reverted on Outline_of_chess) has the knowledge and understanding to dive directly into making complex complaints, policy wrangling, and gameplay? If so, then I am Jesus come back from the dead ... (see thread below).

If this is a simple question, then it is in the wrong place and should be in Teahouse. Of course it's not a simple question, it's WP:GAMING.

The Brahma Kumari adherents have been given an option which is to develop a sandbox version of the topic to show us what it is their organization wants, and then to discuss that. They refuse to even discuss the idea.

In the meanwhile they have been asked to contribute something, anything at all, to the Misplaced Pages; and to engage with its community in order to learn more about its values and policies. I believe this response is the most reasonable within the circumstances, and in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages as a whole. They need to learn to give. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, if you have enough evidence that I am a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, please present your evidence in the right place, which is not here. The article is heavily biased and is bait for members of a religion who has 1 million followers around the world, you have no proof the editors know each other. They just see the same obvious problem with the article. An admin already said in this thread that each editor on the article has the same right as you have to edit the article. Tags on neutral POV have been agreed by consensus of all editors except you, but you agressively reverted them AGAIN. I am going to report you right now as editwarring. You are also a single purpose account, almost all your edits are to BKWSU, the only difference is that you are an ex-member with an anti-BK campaign, the members of the religion who are active on the talk page only want neutrality, but you aggressively revert against consensus. You give orders to all other editors as an authority. I ask the admins do they support Jan18's behavior? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And with a grand total of 3 instantly reverted edits on other pages, we are expected to believe you have the knowledge of policy and experience to place three complex complaints? Even to know where to?

The way forward is for the Brahma Kumari supporters to develop a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic to show us what their organization wants. You need to stop crying wolf and all this WP:ADMINSHOPing circus, and go edit some pages to gain more experience. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I would like to ask the attention to admins that Jan18 is aggressively editwarring against an edit which came from a wide consensus on the talk page, of all editors except himself. Is 1 single editor allowed to revert an edit agreed by more than 5? - which are editors from different backgrounds, NOT a team as Jan18 claims. Jan18 himself is NOT comming from a neutral point of view, being an ex-member of Brahma Kumaris. He has a very specific point of view on the subject, which is not neutral. Should he be able to make his POV prevail over all consensus? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:ADMINSHOP again. You'll find you fall out of favour very quickly if all you do is come on the Misplaced Pages to make complaints and expect other people to run around for you.

Again, you're misrepresenting my position entirely to establish prejudices and although I am happy to clarify, here is not the correct place to discuss it. Please stop wasting other people's time. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would REALLY like to call the attention of admins to this. After making 3 reverts with the account Jan18th, a 4th revert was made using a logged off IP address!!! GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to scream, although I agree that the revert by the IP is troubling. The article has now been locked by @CIreland:.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for screaming, Bbb23, thank you.

Excuse me, I think it may be worth mentioning here that Januarythe18th may be violating WP:HOUND. He followed me to a page I was editing: Outline_of_chess and made a post on the talk page , completely personal and unrelated to the article, behaving exactly as described by WP:HOUND. Although it was a simple process of WP:BRD and my edit was accepted by consensus, Januarythe18th said things like: (quote)"They do not have any obligation to spoonfeed you and so do not expect them to spend their time pandering to your every whim nor explaining every action." I tried to politely ask him, on his talk page, to use my talk page instead, since his message was personal and unrelated to Outline_of_chess. In his response , while seeming loaded with what seems an anti-religious mocking, he also turned one of the words in my post into bold. Is he allowed to edit the posts of other editors? He has also done the same thing with a post of the user Danh108, where he stroke a part of the message he didn't agree with . — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyWinterOwl (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Legobot is (was) malfunctioning

It appears that for a short period of time this morning, User:Legobot was editing logged out. User:Crazycomputers has blocked the IP, so there may be no further action needed. There is a corresponding gap in the bot's contributions as well. I'm notifying here in case anyone has additional insight into the issue. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've unblocked. I've already stated that I fixed the issue when it occurred. Blocking internal IPs like 10.4.1.125 can cause issues for users who are using an internal proxy that passes XFF headers, so it probably wasn't a good idea to do so. Legoktm (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I somehow knew you'd already be on top of it. Thanks for the note. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to be running an unapproved bot, either. It was a great idea to block the IP until the problem could be fixed. NE Ent 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot was fully approved under harej/Chris, and I don't think anyone was complaining that RFC bot/GA bot were back. Furthermore, blocking any internal IP is a horrible idea because we now have XFF blocking, which means that anyone who's internet setup may be using internal proxies that send XFF headers, can get blocked. Legoktm (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Carter Article

Hello! I'm having a dispute with a user named Beaconboof ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Beaconboof&action=edit&redlink=1 ). I've sent them a message. I've also started a discussion on the 'Talk' page of the Sheila Carter article but they've ignored it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sheila_Carter

It's an article regarding a fictional character named Sheila Carter. The problem is Beaconboof, at some point, filled the latter part of the article as well as the lead & the infobox with viewers speculation, questioning and fans wishes without discussing it at all! I do not always monitor that article, that's why I only very recently found out. All I want is the article to be unbiased, objective and simply resume storylines the way they've played out onscreen.

- 1. What happened is the character of Sheila Carter (The Young & the Restless), a very well know villain, tricked her friend and accomplice Sugar into having plastic surgery to look just like her. Sheila then arranged for Sugar to be committed to some mental institution so everyone would think Sheila was put away and was not a threat. Sugar ended up leaving that facility, then stabbed Scotty 'cause she knew that would hurt Sheila a lot. Sugar got arrested and Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, Sheila's nemesis, realized Sugar was not Sheila 'cause the latter could not walk well at the time.

- 2. In the following scene, the real Sheila was seen at a plastic surgeon's asking him to make her look like a person on a photograph she handed him. Several months later, she came back looking exactly like Phyllis Summers. Actress Michelle Stafford confirmed several times the character she portrayed was Sheila Carter, so did former executive producer and head writer Lynn Marie Latham. Sheila as Phyllis kept acting like the old Sheila and also remembered stuff only the old Sheila and a few others did (taking pictures of Lauren & Brad). Lauren ended up shooting Sheila in self-defense. An autopsy showed it's truly Sheila that got shot.

- 3. Years later, Sheila's never-before heard of sister, Sarah Smythe, showed up in town looking exactly like Lauren Fenmore after cosmetic surgery. Sarah confirmed several times her sister Sheila truly did have surgery to look like Phyllis. Sarah said Phyllis made her think of Sheila. Sarah showed Lauren a picture of herself and Sheila before their surgeries. Sarah also held both Lauren & Phyllis responsible for Sheila's death. As a matter of fact, Sarah tried to kill Phyllis twice but Lauren shot her in self-defense before she could kill Phyllis. Actress Tracey E. Bregman confirmed in an interview Sarah is indeed Sheila Carter's sister and that Daisy Carter & Ryder Callahan are Sheila's children.

This is what played out onscreen and was confirmed by actors, execs and writers. The problem is storylines 2 & 3 weren't well received and accepted by quite some viewers and fans of the Sheila character. Some of them refuse to believe it's Sheila that was made to look like Phyllis and that Sarah was ever her sister. Some of them also refuse to believe Daisy & Ryder are truly Sheila's children with Tom Fisher. Beconboof is one of them and even replaced Sheila's name by the name Pheila in the latter part of the article. The name of the character is Sheila, not Pheila. This is when Becaonboof started making such changes without discussing it first: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sheila_Carter&diff=499017451&oldid=499017269

I have found a solution. Since Beaconboof is not responding and refuses to discuss it on the 'Talk' page, I re-edited the article, once again, so it simply shows the facts as played out onscreen. I then added in a new section called 'Critical Reception' in which I address all of the viewers & fans' concerns, speculations and presumptions (Sheila as Phyllis and Sarah as possible imposters etc.)

I'm trying to be fair! What did Beaconboof do? They've just reverted my edits... Once again, all I want is the article to be unbiased and present what happened onscreen and was confirmed by executive producers, writers and actors. I have taken the time to address concerns, presumptions & speculations by Beaconboof, fans and viewers of the soap opera in a special section of the article but that ain't enough for that editor. They absolutely want the intro, the latter part and the infobox of the article to reflect THEIR PERSONAL disbelief (or disdain) of elements from storylines from 2006 and onward... I've had to revert it again...

One more thing, Beaconboof has recently edited the Daisy Carter article and kept implying Daisy is not truly Sheila Carter's daughter... What do you think? According to the 'Young & The Restless', Daisy IS Sheila's daughter. Period! Why take a fictional storyline so personally? I've just reverted their edits. That's exactly the issue I'm having with that editor; just because they do not like or accept a storyline, they keep editing articles in a biased manner.

As for references, I did not write most of the 'Storylines' section. I've only made minor changes to the '2005-2007' part and added in the '2009-2012' section as well as the 'Critical Reception' segment. I have slightly edited the lead of the article & the infobox so they reflect what was seen onsceen and confirmed, NOT viewers' disbelief etc. All that disbelief is addressed in 'Critical Reception'. I have now added 1 reference: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . I wanted to add in this link ( http://soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php ) but it's already being used earlier in the article.

Now, see this... https://en.wikipedia.org/Kevin_Fisher#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/Gloria_Abbott_Bardwell#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Baldwin#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/Jill_Abbott_Fenmore#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/Lauren_Fenmore#Storylines

I did not write any of the 5 articles above, and none of them use any reference in their 'Storylines' section at all! Soap opera articles on Misplaced Pages very often lack references in their 'Storylines' sections 'cause it's just viewers that watch the show then type in what they saw. Israell (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of observations here as someone who is not involved. Beaconboof (talk · contribs) has been editing since April 2011, most frequently in the area of soap opera characters, and has been editing the Sheila Carter article since that time. Another thing I noticed about BB's edits is that they have never, ever used a talk page or a notice board, or any other type of discussion. They have never once used an edit summary. This is a silent, uncommunicative editor. This editor is now exhibiting symptoms of article ownership on the article in dispute. I recommend that a short block be issued, for edit-warring or disruption, in order to get this editor's attention. If this editor refuses to discuss collegially with Israell then nothing can be solved. On that note, I will mention to Israell that you should be careful about continuing to edit-war. There are no winners and nothing can be solved there. I am pleased to see that you are taking steps to resolve the dispute at WP:DRN and here. Unfortunately, ANI can do nothing about content disputes and only user behavior. This is somewhat a content dispute, but I think it can be agreed that BB is behaving badly here and that needs to be addressed. Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Beaconboof. The reason I have never responded is that I did not know how to do so, or how to use these specific utilities in order to exchange messages. I am sorry that the other user is dissatisfied with my edits. I feel that the writers of Y&R had no true knowledge of the Sheila Carter character from the time they brought Michelle Stafford on to play a version of her. Too many things do not add up and it seems to me that the user Israell is trying to sabotage any chance of Kimberlin Brown returning to her role through his edits. 'Pheila' was NOT confirmed as Sheila and the body was stolen from the morgue, edits that have not been retained. Sarah Smythe was NEVER confirmed as Sheila's sister. These are mere assumptions. I am not behaving badly. I am trying to preserve Bill Bell's legacy character from further desecration. I would ask that my edits be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaconboof (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that both editors involved here have article ownership issues. Israell mentions several times above that they want the article to be this, or they want the article to be that, which shows the symptoms of WP:OWN.

Be that as it may, I know nothing about this soap opera, all I know is that the entirety of the storyline section is completely unsourced. If you can provide reliable sources for what you are claiming, then it goes in. Fan speculation articles, what people think is happening, forums, blogs etc are not reliable sources. So if either of you can get reliable sources for what you're claiming, then it can go in as per WP:Verify. In the meantime I'm tagging them all as unsourced with the plan to delete the entire section if reliable sources can't be located.

I also suggest you both use the article's talk page to discuss this matter instead of bring it here to the administrator's noticeboard, as it is there is no real administrator action needed. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Beaconboof, your comments above make me strongly inclined to block your account indefinitely. What you've just described is completely inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor. Your purpose here must be only to write neutral encyclopedia articles about notable subjects. Any desires you have about "preserving a legacy" or influencing the casting/scripting decisions at a soap opera should be done via letters to the production company and a personal website. Do you actually want to contribute here neutrally, based on facts in independent sources--note that that does not mean what actually happened on the show, as that's the primary sources here, but sources like show reviews, academic analyses of the show, etc? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, an edit war--that's probably why this happened to come by when I was watching Recent changes. I made an edit or two, unaware of any controversy, though I did note what a bloated bag of fan trivia this was (par for the course in this area, I suppose) and tagged it as such. I have no opinion on the meat of the matter: my admin pay check is not nearly big enough to warrant reading the article and its history. Can't soap editors use Wikia or some such thing to jot down their plot summaries and OR? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, what's going on is user Beaconboof doesn't seem to accept the fact the fictional character of Sheila Carter DID have plastic surgery to look like the character of Phyllis Summers Newman. It's exactly what played out onscreen and you can see it all here: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php . The links says: "Paul Williams managed to track Sheila to Argentina in October 2006 and discovered that she had undergone plastic surgery to look like Phyllis Summers, then had killed the plastic surgeon." I lengthily explained on the 'Talk page' of that article that executive producers, writers and actors all confirmed it's Sheila that had that surgery.

Sheila's body never disappeared from the morgue. That was just a rumor that was never seen on 'The Young & the Restless'. I just asked other viewers just to make sure: http://boards.soapcentral.com/showthread.php?906183-Question-for-Mods-amp-Others-Regarding-Sheila-Carter .

Also, former head writer & executive producer of 'The Young & the Restless' Maria Arena Bell decided to expand Sheila Carter's family and created the characters of Sarah Smythe, Sheila's sister, and Daisy Carter & Ryder Callahan, Sheila's twins with Tom Fisher. You can see it all here: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . The link says: "Sarah turned out to be Sheila Carter's sister who had plastic surgery to impersonate Lauren and Daisy and Ryder turned out to be Sheila's twin children."

But user Beaconboof keeps editing the article so it says that Sheila was "believed or presumed" to have surgery to look like Phyllis. They also keep implying Sarah was not truly her sister and that Daisy & Ryder are not truly Sheila's children. It's NOT true. All those things were confirmed and played out onscreen. I'm just trying to have the article reflect exactly what was seen on 'The Young & the Restless' in an unbiased manner.

I understand that Beaconboof and others do not like such storylines and feel the legacy of the Sheila character is being tarnished but that's NOT ME; that's what the writers and executive producers have decided. Beaconboof just admitted he wants the article to reflect his personal dislike of recent storylines, that he feels the writers did not truly understand that character and that he's hoping that Misplaced Pages article somehow influences a Sheila comeback. I'd love Sheila to come back too but the article should remain unbiased.

Any time I revert such edits (Sheila was "believed" to look like Phyllis etc.) they revert it over and over again... I DO listen to Beaconboof's concerns and that's exactly why I added in the 'Critical Reception' section so I can address the fact several viewers have a big problems with storylines from 2006 and onward and disbelieve the fact Sheila was made to look like Phyllis, Sarah was ever her sister and Daisy & Ryder were ever her twins but Beaconboof keeps adding such speculation elsewhere in the article.

I have added two more sources to the article in the '2010-2012'. It directly concerns the character of Sheila Carter and the possibility she might still be alive. Israell (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Canada-based IP user posting problematically in hundreds of RMs

I've had positive interactions with 76.65.128.43/76.65.128.222/70.24.244.158 (and probably some others he/she has used as well) in the past, but lately I've found this user's jumping across hundreds of RMs problematic. Most of his comments are inane and irrelevant, drawing links between barely-related RMs, with the (possibly intentional) effect of undermining one by false association with the other. And when he/she !votes it gets even worse: on both Empress Jingū and Empress Gemmei his/her oppose !votes implied he/she had not actually read my OP argument, and had done zero research on the topic. In the former case it worked out okay, but in the latter ... let's just say these topics don't get much traffic, and it's likely one bogus "oppose" will cancel out my OP comment, with the end result being "no consensus". This user is apparently trying to rack up thousands of edits without any regard for what those edits' effects are. I don't mind shifting IPs !voting in RMs, but I would appreciate some more care being taken in the process. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you characterize most of my comments as inane or irrelevant? It seems you're only upset I've opposed your suggestions regarding the use of "m" versus "n" in your particular area, as you haven't participated in the other requested moves. Further how is noting that you've made other move requests for other articles to be renamed from "m" to "n" on the same transliteration rule either irrelevant or inane? And what is irrelevant or inane about using the previous move request result and the arguments therein to support my position? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There were no arguments presented in the previous RM, and if you weren't too busy hopping around RMs in hundreds of different topic areas (you clearly aren't an expert in all of them) you might have noticed that. Why can't you be more careful? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you would want to participate in the RfC I filed at WP:VPP on renaming then? If you're tracking my activity on requested moves, surely you'd have seen it.

So, your implication is that only experts in a particular subject are allowed to post opinions? We are not Citizendium. If you present a strong argument supporting your requested name, and if the arguments in opposition to your rename are weak, that should be enough to rename pages. Closure is not headcounting, it evaluates the arguments for and against. I already know that as an IP editor, my arguments have a lower weight that yours do in any consensus discussion.

The old move request clearly shows usage, that is an argument presented.

You yourself said that modern usage shows "Emperor" being used, so why use a half measure when your own nomination shows that it was sliding towards "Emperor Genmei" ? I took your presentation at face value. You've since posted a reply correcting the impression left by your nomination, which I hadn't yet read until now.

Perhaps you can participate at Talk:Ed Farhat ? That surely is low participation and needs more editors to comment on it. Or at my own nomination, at Template talk:Oceanic topic which as you're an expert on Japan(?), would fall into your area of expertise, since some Japanese territories lay within Oceania.

-- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Ideally a large number of people would participate in all RMs, examine the evidence, and actually engage in discussion. In practice, though, it's very common for users to come along, !vote based on their gut instinct, and then fail to return and discuss when they are challenged. This is only problematic in a very few cases, where there's never going to be much participation, period. I would have expected the Empress Genmei RM to go pretty much like the Edogawa Ranpo RM -- no one else cares one way or the other, and the proposed move passes by default. You failed to notice that, as I pointed out, almost all reliable sources published in the last decade refer to her as "Empress Genmei", not "Emperor Genmei" or "Empress Gemmei". Anyway, ideally there would be a large amount of active participation in all RMs, but it's not necessary. If we have a choice between a very small number of users discussing moves, or a large number of dedicated RM-junkies going around casting !votes in as many RMs as possible and then failing to actually discuss or provide valid reasons, the former is almost certainly the choice the majority of Wikipedians would make. I am not saying anything should be done to you or that these aren't just good-faith mistakes. I am asking you to either think before you cast a !vote in an RM, about whether you might inadvertently hijack the RM and cause a negative outcome (you may have accidentally set a precedent that all female tennōs in Japanese history need to be called "Emperor"), or to come and engage in discussions that you started, and consider my reasonable responses to you.

I should also note that I'm not interested in participating in the same amount of RMs as you. It's not a contest, and participation in Misplaced Pages is voluntary. I'm only editing as long as it's fun and rewarding for me, and posting to RMs in subjects I know nothing about and have no interest in is neither fun nor rewarding for me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As you've examined my efforts at RM, you would have noticed that several other uses participate in many RMs. It would be nice if you would also participate in those with low participation, though I do understand why you haven't from your statement of interest. Though the proposal at VPP deals with all articles, Japanese included, so might be in your area of interest (concerning accurate naming for files, so that the files used for articles are named well)

Concerning females, and emperor, I personally, have no problem with using unisex titles for everything. We're already drifting that way for the English language, with the reduced use of actress in favour of actor, the loss of the word aviatrix, and so forth.

As for lodging a reply at the RM, I'll wait to see if I'm blocked or we're given an interaction ban first. That move is directly related to this ANI discussion, so I'd like the admins to weigh in on it, and give advice on my conduct, as you've already started this ANI discussion.

-- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that you'll be blocked or IBANned, given that no one has requested either of those. Yes, I am not asking for any sanctions against you. I just want this thread to be closed now.

As for your other points: I don't mind unisex titles either, but we shouldn't be going against the majority of reliable sources unless it's a small majority (it is) and we have a style/consistency guideline (we don't). If we moved Empress Gemmei because you and I would prefer "Emperor", then we'd have to move the other 7 articles linked to in Japanese empresses#Empresses regnant, all of which are equally obscure (and so WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really apply to them). I actually think this is an interesting issue that I might raise on WikiProject Japan or MOSJ, given that The Japan Times has joined the list of sources that say "female emperor". But I took enough bull for my last large multimove request, so I'm not interested in bringing up other issues in the Gemmei RM. I actually recently got in a minor dispute over on Commons recently over whether Misplaced Pages consensus and style guidelines should apply to file descriptions, and probably titles. I might take a look at the VPP thing, then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 - I think you should just accept that if you participate in Misplaced Pages, some people will disagree with your proposals. I cannot see anything wrong with the IP editor's activities. Like you, he/she is not infallible. Sometimes he/she will be right, and sometimes you will be, and quite often there will be no consensus, because it is not clear who is right. You should welcome other editors taking the time to look at your move requests, and assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally take a look at these two editors' contributions.

• Special:Contributions/70.24.244.158
• Special:Contributions/Hijiri88

It tells a tale.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I know other people disagree with me. I can accept that. I'm actually kind of disappointed I largely missed out on a lively debate that was happening on Talk:Revere the King, Expel the Barbarians#Requested move. The problem is that this IP user doesn't disagree with me. He/she has just failed to read my comments thoroughly before casting a !vote. The fact is that, if he/she had not showed up at Empress Gemmei and made a bizarre proposal that isn't borne out by any of the evidence, it's likely no one would have commented on the RM and it would have passed as unopposed after a week. Now it's just as likely no one else will comment, and it will be blocked as no consensus just because 70... didn't look at sources I presented. (Note that Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2 probably would have come out that way had I not mentioned it in passing on a related ANI thread and a bunch of other users immediately shown up, read the evidence, and supported the move.) I'm not asking for sanctions, and I'm not saying these aren't simply good-faith mistakes. I just want 70... to be more careful in the future. Perhaps occasionally come back and reconsider his/her !votes when other users respond. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

With your comment about my editing my own talk page for more succinct and less inflammatory section titles, I'd like to avoid some incindiary statements at the RM request. While you may be forgiven for civility breaches, I doubt I would be. We're at WPANI, so lets just stay out of each other's way until this is resolved. And in future ignore each other's replies at any requested move. (and not reply to each other's lodged opinions at requested moves, only lodging an opinion on the move request itself.) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your trying to work with me to resolve this, but that's the opposite of what I want. Probably my main problem with your RM comments is not that you make problematic !votes in the first place, but that you don't come back and retract said !votes or otherwise engage me when I point out that your !votes run against all the evidence. I really wouldn't mind you jumping around hundreds of RMs on subjects you haven't researched, if you actively engaged in the discussions following your !votes. This would demonstrate your good faith and willingness to admit that you are wrong sometimes. There's no problem with making a good-faith mistake if you come back and correct it when other users inform you of it. The problem is when you just leave it and let others come along and either ignore it or (worse) follow your suit and !vote against because "everyone except the OP is against the move". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do not see your point about 70.24.244.158's comment at Talk:Revere the King, Expel the Barbarians#Requested move - he/she did not make a comment.
• 70.24.244.158's comment at Talk:Empress Gemmei#Requested move is a perfectly reasonable comment. It is not "bizarre" as you claim.
• At Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move, he/she made a series of helpful, useful comments, as follows:

1. At 12:57, 12 August 2013, he/she pointed out that "the nomination template does not match the text used." Your response to this was to accept that you had made some mistakes when you made the nomination.
2. At 05:39, 14 August 2013, he/she, made the point: "see also Talk:Edogawa Rampo for a related rename discussion"

Here is a list of how many comments each user made at Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move, I have compiled this based on the number of signature blocks. I have also noted the nature of their comments. You will notice that the propose made 18 out of 36 comments. That two editors supported the move, and fourtwo opposed it.

• Hijiri 88 18 (proposer)
• Necrothesp 6 (opposeoppose one out of six of the proposed moves)
• Enkyo2 4 (oppose)
• In ictu oculi 2 (support)
• 76.65.128.222 2 (commenting)
• Oda Mari 1 (opposeopposed, accidentally, moments before the close, retroactively indicating that they wouldn't oppose the move)
• Kusunose 1 (opposecomment)
• Cúchullain 1 (adjudicating)
• BDD 1 (relisting)

Your complaint about 70.24.244.158 does not stack up. I suggest you drop it on grounds of WP:SNOWBALL.

One of Hijiri 88's posts on Talk:Empress Jingū#Requested move 2Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move about User:Enkyo2 is worth quoting here:

"Try actually reading the reasoning I have presented you with 3 times already. Stop assuming bad faith and stop opposing this RM as "revenge" for me removing your problematic "note". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

This suggests to me that the problem editor is Hijiri 88 and not the people that he/she is complaining about.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy1, I'm genuinely sorry to have to refactor your above comment, but I told you numerous times that you were mistaken, and even still you refused to retract it. This indicates that the above was not a good-faith mistake, but rather a bald-faced lie. There's no reason why the completely off-topic lies of an uninvolved user who knows nothing about the issue at hand should remain on the record without correction. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've told you plenty of times now, so your refusal to take it back clearly shows you don't give a damn about the facts, but the Jinmu and Jingū RMs were completely different and unrelated affairs. Jinmu saw little support, but little opposition either. Oda Mari accidentally opposed a matter of minutes before the close, and apologized for the misunderstanding when I showed her her mistake. Kusunose didn't oppose the move, rather just commenting and posting some NGrams. Enkyo2 indicated that he didn't oppose the move (when he deleted his own oppose !vote), but then came right back and opposed because I had posted a complaint about him elsewhere. It looks very likely that he's going to get a site ban for the same reason I complained about him. I was not in the wrong. And when it comes to the actual Jingū RM (not your imaginary Jingū RM) it received overwhelming support from a wide range of Misplaced Pages editors across the spectrum. It may in fact be the only RM toward a diacritic that Fyunck(click) supported. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!? You're linking to the RM on Emperor Jinmu, but claiming it's the RM on Empress Jingū. Please stop this madness. The Empress Jingū was supported by every single participant except the anon. Get your bloody facts straight and stop bringing in completely unrelated bullshit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, search this page for "Enkyo2", and you will find another user (not me) calling for him to be indefinitely blocked. Please do your fucking research before randomly bringing up completely unrelated bullshit in order to harass me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, I never said 70... was involved in the Sonno joi RM. Read my goddamn comments before going around misrepresenting me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You raised a whole series of things in your posting of 08:52. I commented on them. If the things you raised are not relevant to the IP editor's conduct, you have only yourself to blame for raising them.

By the way, I did not appreciate the abusive comment you just left on my talk page. It is clear to me that the problem editor is Hijiri 88.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I appreciate this edit by you {{collapse top|title=Collapsed off-topic comments by third-party user who didn't check the links}}

--Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Hijiri88, sorry but I think this is uncalled for on the basis of your diffs. And generally I have quite a bit of respect for 76.65.128.43/76.65.128.222/70.24.244.158 's contributions to RM discussions, even when not agreeing with some of them they are generally for good reasons and show understanding of sources, guidelines and context. Likewise cross-notifying of related RMs also strikes me as good and helpful housekeeping. Move to close this discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

IIO, you know I respect you. I even respect 70.... I am very close to resolving the issue with 70..., and I think I have this thread to thank for it. I wasn't kidding when I said the only reason I spent so long examining source after source on the Jingū RM was so 70...'s careless !vote wouldn't lead to a no-move result. The Genmei move is currently in a similar situation. Although, honestly, I think it's probably okay for 70... and I to just work out our differences on 70...'s talk page right now, and this thread has also invited at least one very unwanted guest who boasts on his page that he can't speak English, and I am beginning to believe it's not a joke ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please can Hijiri 88 be blocked for abusive posts. Here is his/her latest.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy, if you don't give up this unprovoked, ridiculous and utterly bizarre campaign against me, you're going to be back here pretty soon and you'll be the one getting blocked. Stop deliberately misleading people by claiming the Jimmu RM is the Jingu RM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Toddy, your call for a block is unnecessary at this time. Hijiri88, please don't continue with that sort of incivility or it won't be. We don't need an interaction ban, do we? --BDD (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Hijiri88, but I think I have to agree with IIO on this one. Cool down. We don't have a speech code, but profanity usually indicates that things are getting too hot. If you think uninformed IP votes are blocking what would otherwise be uncontroversial moves, try taking one or two to move review or bringing them up with a closer. I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of trying to work in an area like Japanese linguistics that just doesn't bring out the sort of participation that, say, Bradley Manning gets, but you should keep in mind that the Misplaced Pages community has little patience for editors with little patience. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've disagreed with Hijiri88, as here and now. Presumably the reference to support of MOS:JAPAN as "trolling" indicates Mister nine millimetre (talk · contribs) is the latest addition Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori/Archive? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think this thread has seen enough ridiculous drama. I just wanted someone to tell 70... to be more careful, but BDD has given me some decent advice on how to deal with it. I also note that of 4 uninvolved editors to participate here BDD and In ictu oculi are the only ones to actually be both rational and helpful. To be fair, JoshuSasori can't reasonably called "uninvolved" given that he followed me here, but still. And the less said about Toddy1's bizarre attempts to create a version of history where this move had minimal support, the better. Better close now. If no one supports the Gemmei (or other) RMs and they fail on minor technicalities I'll just get around that somehow. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Mister nine millimetre is clearly a sock with a grudge, probably JoshuSasori, and they should be blocked as per WP:DUCK; even if they are not Joshu, they've admitted to being a banned user already. Quite why they weren't blocked for their very first post in this thread is beyond me. Also, Toddy1's name is very close to Toddst1's name, but they've been around for a similar period of time, so it's just a weird coincidence. Frankly, Hijiri and Toddy are both very experienced users, and should know better - but we all lose our cool sometimes! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

NOTE, there's a continuing conversation on my talk page, related to this ANI discussion, so if some of my responses are a bit off, there may be some material on my talk page that is connected to my response here. As this ANI discussion is also getting quite long, I apologize in advance if I posted a reply in the incorrect position. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has just pasted another abusive threatening message on my talk page. He was warned by an admin about posting abusive messages.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

He/she has also posted abusive threatening messages about me on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you've been posting lies about me here and elsewhere, you said I should be blocked for asking you to stop lying about me, you posted a supportive message on the talk page of the latest sock of the user who outed me, harassed my real-world employers and has been thoroughly CBANned. I was warned by an admin for using inappropriate language. I was not warned by an admin that I am not allowed warn other users that their abusive behaviour has consequences. You are following the exact same pattern of behaviour of a user who has since been banned. I am trying to help you by reminding you of the danger of what you are doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we just go through Hijiri 88's statements above:

• "Dude, you've been posting lies about me here" - I made a mistake in my posting of 09:55, 7 September 2013. I went through some of the RMs Hijiri 88 referred to in his/her previous posts and one of them was different one than I thought I was commenting on. Given the nature of Hijiri 88's complaint about the IP editor, my error did not matter.
• "Dude, you've been posting lies about me... elsewhere". Where? Please show diffs.
• "you posted a supportive message on the talk page of the latest sock" - some editors created an SPI report without notifying the subject of the report. I posted a neutral message informing that editor, so that he/she could respond. When I have made SPI reports on editors, I have posted messages on their talk pages.

I think the comment "harassed my real-world employers" is about somebody else, and not about me. As I have had no interaction with Hijiri 88 other than in connection with this ANI report, the messages on my talk page by him/her, and the SPI report, I do not see how that is relevant to me.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Toddy, if you're not even going to attempt to read Hijiri's post properly, then what's the point in replying? Your SPI message wasn't actually neutral, because it cited the reporting parties, whom obviously have past issues with JoshuSasori - SPI messages are not mandatory, don't forget, so posting any message at all was poking the bear - and the guy immediately confessed to being a sock with his ANI megaposting. And the comment "harassed my real-world employers" was NEVER aimed at you as it was referring to JoshuSasori; even a ten year old could tell that if they actually read Hijiri's post. And Hijiri, I've already told you that these threats aren't going to help your case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions from User:VP44444

Hi, this is my first report at WP:AN/I, so if I make any foolish errors, or if I'm in the wrong place, I apologize.

VP44444 has been editing regularly at various articles related to SpongeBob Squarepants, which is a heavily-vandalized series of articles. While the user does often contribute what are technically "constructive" edits, their constructive edits usually appear after a spate of indecisive test edits, resulting in edit histories (and Watchlists) being flooded with their edits. The user has previously warned for edit-warring with themselves. User is unresponsive to warnings or discussions related to their edits., even though they have been specifically invited.

User toned down their indecisive edits slightly after receiving a final warning about their disruptive edit style, but their disruptions picked up again. If the editor is not capable of understanding why their flip-flopping test edits are disruptive, that should be addressed. If they are creating intentional disruptions, and attempting to mask vandalism behind constructive edits, that should be addressed. I notice that the user has twice previously been fingered as a possible sockpuppet/master. And though they have protested their innocence in the past, I do not see that this editor's contributions (while at times constructive) are typical of an earnest editor who makes a few mistakes here and there. Rather, it seems, there is either a fundamental incompetence, or a pernicious motivation.

The following are some examples of their disruptive edits over the last month or so. I focused more on patterns instead of recent edits:

Thanks for your time. I almost want to apologize for all the information, but I wanted to properly document the issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would support this ANI thread for this user. User has been reverting changes leaving no explanation. The one that really got onto my nerves was his revisions in the season nine article changing the directing credits to writing credits. I know he was just adding the "Storyboard" credits but not thinking that he would affect other columns, that's just nonsense. I have reverted that edit manually but he reverted me again without explaining why. He had also been disambiguating unnecessary pages to another pages like this which was then reverted by another user for being "unnecessary." Like what was mentioned above, user is not responding to warnings but persists on disrupting pages. I don't want to be the "bad" guy here or something and I don't want to say something that's bad but I have no choice. This user in question is helpful yet undesired in the project. I would suggest to have this user blocked (temporarily or indefinitely if the case have been so worse now) because of being so disruptive to the project. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 01:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit warring/disruptive editing by Enciclopediaenlinea and their IPs

This user has a long history of disruptive editing as evident by the number of warnings in their talk page.

There's a slow edit war happening in the article Spanish language caused by Enciclopediaenlinea and their IPs. It's quite evident that they are related. See the following diffs by Enciclopediaenlinea: , , , . The most recent IPs have continued to edit war with 83.58.113.183 and 81.32.191.163. He was already warned by another user and myself.

More disruption can be seen in articles like Equatorial Guinea and Dominican Republic. He/she was warned for their disruptive editing. They were also involved in edit warring on the Dominican Republic in August. He/she has continued the same pattern on Dominican Repbublic for which they were warned for.

Would appreciate a block on Enciclopediaenlinea and the IPs or a semi-protection on Spanish language. Elockid 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the last one, not the one from before. The IP and the master got two weeks, which might well turn into something longer. Article semi-protected for three months. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a bunch! Elockid 04:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My block of Dede12341

Dede12341 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously warned for BLP violations; I blocked it for decade/century vandalism, for which the editor had been reverted, but not warned. I have no objection to the block being changed to a 4-imm warning, but I don't see evidence that the editor is here for a constructive reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good block looks like there was a final warning on aug 30th. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  My concern is that the final warning (and, in fact, all warnings then present on his talk page) were for BLP violations, and my block is for decade/century "vandalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I would expect an account under final warning not to vandalise at all. Besides, it isn't like there's a lot of constructive edits to balance any of this out. Switching one's method of disruption doesn't wipe the slate clean. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullying on a AfD

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any "bullying"; what admin action is being asked for here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This, near the bottom of the page now, sounds like some kind of threat to me: "I suspected as much and was simply being kind in offering you a way to regroup with dignity. Your choice to concentrate on just the one offered source makes it appear that you are ignoring that the guideline acceptable WP:NEWSBLOG was not the only source offered. And if you are aware of applicable guidelines and still choose to promote a stance that runs contrary to existing consensus and community standards, that's on you... and good luck."

• Yes Kitfoxxe, what administrative action are you requesting for what was simply a polite caution and a wishing of luck to an editor who feels that his personal opinions supersede that of policy, guideline, and established consensus. No threat from me. No bullying from me. Schmidt, 19:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess the "that's on you... and good luck" sounded a little, well, mafia-like. As if bad things were going to happen to a person who dares to go against "existing consensus and community standards." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Had you asked me before bringing this to ANI for an as-yet-to-be-defined administrative action, I would have been happy to respond to you. I think we've all seen the wished-to-be-avoided drama which occurs across these pages when editors act upon a feeling their personal opinions outweigh or over-rule "existing consensus and community standards." Advising that running afoul of policy, guideline, and established consensus can have unfortunate consequences is more a warning and statement of fact than any promise or assurance of ultimate repercussions. Those visiting that discussion will see that I was not the only one pointing out the error of that editor's premises... but admittedly, I was the only one wishing him luck in future discussions if he continues to claim his personal opinion over-rules existing guideline and policy. Schmidt, 20:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you just drop it, Schmidt. I'm completely uninterested in continuing this argument with you, as I've already said everything I have to say on the matter (in a more appropriate arena); repeating it ad nauseam does nothing to bolster your arguments. If this matter is resolved, I think we can just close this discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I was properly responding HERE because an ANI was opened HERE over someone else's perception that my comments toward you at AFD were "bullying", and an explanation/defense was required HERE toward any assertion of bullying. And yes, though my clarification may be of use to others reviewing this ANI, we need not rehash HERE a discussion elsewhere about application of policy or guideline. However, the base question remains "was it bullying or not". When the issue brought to HERE is resolved, and in response to your suggestion above, I can certainly "just drop it". Thanks, Schmidt, 22:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think all involved have agreed that it's not bullying and essentially a misunderstanding. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Schmidt, 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. I see that NinjaRobotPirate is tough enough to take care of him/herself. But I should have known that from the name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Only User:NinjaRobotPirateZombie would be tougher! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Threats Made Against Me by User:67.218.41.166

67.218.41.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:67.218.41.166 made threats and claims he will have an Administrator kick me off of Misplaced Pages because I was allegedly harassing another Misplaced Pages user. What I did was simply contact User:Burgerkinger39 and stated that I was concerned that his username may violate WP:Username Policy and asked that he review that policy and consider changing his name and nothing more then that, then completely out of the blue this IP address user comes in and starts posting obscene language and threatening to have an administrator kick me off of Misplaced Pages. Any assistance would be appreciated. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You have an IP stalker it looks like. Not sure why, but it goes back to 2012. The IP appears to have first started impersonating you back then, trying to get your rollback removed (, , ). It was blocked three times for doing that. It also tagged one of your articles for deletion last month, which was quickely kept (). I also see that you have brought this IP to ANI before, which led to some of the above blocks (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#Wikipedian Impersonation and bogus request to admin and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763#User:67.218.41.166.

Most likely, this is an editor who you rolled back once, and since has been stalking you from their IP. Prior blocks have not solved the problem. I am prepared to impose a longer block. Singularity42 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Singularity42 for your help. I have one question maybe you can answer, Is it at all possible to have my user page and talk page semi-protected so that only registered users can make changes or ask a question there and if so how to I go about requesting this? Thanks again. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your user page is easy, you just make a request, usually at WP:RFPP or directly to an admin. I've taken your above question as such a request, and semi-protected it. As for your main User talk page, we are very reluctant to protect user talk pages except for very short durations, and where no other solution, including blocking, is going to be a viable solution. There are often good reasons for IP editors to need to contact an editor, and not being able to can cause problems. You could make a seperate talk page that you monitor for those unable to edit semi-protected, but then you still get the messages. The relevant policy is at WP:UPROT. Monty₈₄₅ 02:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you User:Monty845. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ban of User:JoMontNW

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

To be frank, I don't understand why JoMontNW (talk · contribs) hasn't been banned from editing; the lattest sock is JRSMTNorth-West (talk · contribs). For two years JoMont has been vandalising Misplaced Pages, putting special emphasis on articles like Good Morning America, Today (U.S. TV program), Full House and their cast, including, but not limited to the articles Natalie Morales (and its talk Talk:Natalie Morales), Hoda Kotb or Matt Lauer. User:Bongwarrior may know more about if you have questions about this person. So, as this person hasn't make a single good edit and considering s/he is de facto banned, let's make this an official ban, so I support as nominator. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If somebody has doubts about this person, s/he created Earth13iphone (talk · contribs) and NBCIntern13 (talk · contribs) while this discussion was opened and the user was notified about it. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support: From the looks of this user's contributions, it looks like they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Not to mention the numerous amounts of sockpuppets and attacks against other editors. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - To be honest, I had thought that they were already banned. The user is only here to troll - revert and block without giving them a second thought. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oh hell yeah. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - Definitely not here to collaborate like Ten Reasons I Hate Misplaced Pages? Really? Get him out of here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like Bongwarrior already banned him. Erpert 14:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support We don't need anyone like this around here; there's probably some Today fansite they can go to in order to defend their favorite show (and stalker zeal for one of the anchors), but their edits aren't welcome here, and Full House bashing, like Barney bashing, is just plain passé at this point. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit queue

Can one of the brilliant minds who frequent this poophole and who also happen to be sysops take some time off the drama to process the protected edit request queue? The world (actually, just me) would be grateful. — Lfdder (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling Misplaced Pages a "poophole" isn't the wisest way to make a request, you know. Erpert 14:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I called ANI a poophole, not WP. — Lfdder (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally, this kind of request goes to the AN poophole.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted it here so that the people who visit this particular poophole might be impelled to do something constructive. — Lfdder (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(It didn't work. — Lfdder (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

Maybe not, but you inspired me. BBL. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

JPaestpreornJeolhlna going astray

After a more reasonable talk, started by JPaestpreornJeolhlna , it went dirty. JPaestpreornJeolhlna did not respond but started insulting and blind reverting. . Ultimately . I propose this user be told what wiki communicating really is about. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

JPaestpreornJeolhlna notified: -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To start, DePiep removed a helpful note for editors (which is extremely commonly used and placed among many other templates) from the template {{IPAslink}} in this edit. I reverted the edit​, and immediately afterwards, I posted a message on DePiep's talk page informing of the widespread usage of the note that (s)he deleted, to which DePiep's initial response resorted to profanity and ridicule of my username in the first sentence. Following this ridiculous first line, DePiep added that (s)he "had nothing to add", admitting that (s)he merely continued to stand by his/her own opinions. After my reply that this wasn't only a matter of his/her opinion, DePiep ended the section abruptly by completely avoiding any conversation or reasoning, telling me to "go away", and immediately deleting the entire section of the talk page (while, yet again, making fun of my username, calling it "weird name" in the edit summary) in order to cover up all (s)he had said in plain avoidance of the conversation.

I find it extremely hard to believe that I was the one who made this "dirty", as DePiep mentions above, "after a more reasonable talk". Nonsense; DePiep is the one who needs to be taught about communication here (and editing templates as well) . — |J~Pæst|  03:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose this one be closed without further ado. I think no wikicrimes are hidden at all. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Concept (Rapper)

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

Johnhoward217 has removed 3 CSD tags from the article Concept (Rapper), one of which after being warned. The article shows absolutely no importance, and would have already been deleted by now if he didn't remove the tags. Hope this helps! buffbills7701 01:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In my not-so-adminny opinion, this may assert notability enough to pass A7, "His type of music has influenced many of the people", "started his own label named Global Music Group". Granted I don't think this person is notable, but I'm not sure it meets the "no assertion of notability" required for A7. ~Charmlet 02:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If I created my own music label today, I still wouldn't be notable. "His type of music has influenced many of the people" is very weaselish, and also sounds a bit like a promotion. I hope this clears things up for you. buffbills7701 02:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not whether they are notable, it's whether they assert importance or notability in any way. In my opinion, it barely got by saying some things that look to be claims of importance. ~Charmlet 02:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Atrisacompany

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

Atrisacompany (talk · contribs)

The username above is a blatant violation of WP:USERNAME, and as such warrants a spamusernameblock/softerblock, but as his/her/their edits are almost exclusively to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Atrisacompany, I am uncomfortable with bringing this user to WP:UAA. hmssolent\ _{ship's log} 05:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please close this thread. This isn't the right forum - will try other venues. hmssolent\ _{ship's log} 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/99.181.135.238

Should all these edits be mass reverted? See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list --Glaisher 11:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, I reverted all the edits after seeing that Favonian started reverting them. --Glaisher 11:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty please can I do a mass rollback next time, so I can hear what it sounds like on Listen to Misplaced Pages? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Help regarding User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

I have been contributing to the Saath Nibhaana Saathiya (Indian television series) article for some months now, primarily because of the rife vandalism it has experienced in the past (it is currently semi-protected until next year). My particular grievance is with the user TheRedPenOfDoom. For the past week or so, this user has been focusing on deleting a table of characters and cast members and replacing it with a simple list. This would not be a problem at all if the relevant and correct information was kept. Instead, the user seems to be inputting incorrect information about the duration of characters and cutting out altogether the roles of certain actors, for (ostensibly) appearance's sake. Names of relevant characters have been removed simply because their names are not known to the public.

Some contextual info is needed here: It is important to note that the channel that this particular series airs on, Star Plus, appears to avoid mentioning actors whenever possible - indeed, I referred to this on the user's talk page: the Star Plus website mentions none of the actors cast in the roles on Saath Nibhaana Saathiya, nor are these actors credited in the opening sequences - in addition, they collect awards in the ceremonies held by the channel (Star Parivaar Awards) firmly in their character roles. The lack of information regarding actors' names seems to be something very inherent in Indian television, whereby the channel intends to make "household names" out of their serials' characters. None of the actors are promoted by the channel or its website, as can be gleamed from the reference list on this article. The few actors that are known have been mentioned in such sources as newspaper or magazine websites, not from sources related to the channel, and it is those newspaper/magazine sources I added to the table of characters.

Nonetheless, in order to avoid an unhappy atmosphere, I conceded and agreed with many of this user's points, and I restored my original table but cut down on many of the parts he/she objected to, such as details referring to the relationships between characters. Nonetheless, the user has continued to either revert or significantly amend my edits to the point of total confusion. This user insists that unknown actors shouldn't be labeled as "unknown", insisting that it is "vandalism". Instead, he/she has removed information regarding those characters whose portrayers' names are not known.

In addition, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding "cast" and "characters". This user insists that the table is a "cast" table, and should refer to the actors first and characters second. While this makes sense, it is also misjudged, seeing as many actors are simply unknown (but the parts they play are as significant as the others, as they appear on-screen with enough frequency to warrant their names listed in this article). My view is that it should be a "character" list, with all known characters referenced and listed in an encyclopedic manner.

I have discussed all these points and more on the user's talk page over the last couple of days, and I don't think I have received a relevant or reasonable response. I re-added some of the content that he/she removed and provided sources, but they were still reverted.

Looking through this user's contributions list, it seems that they are fixated with introducing a (probably well-meant, but confusing) "uniformity" among the cast/character sections of Indian television shows, with little regard for the correct information. Some of his edits make sense in that some pointless trivia is removed, I agree, but his reasoning for removing characters or inputting potentially misleading or confusing information is rather flimsy.

It all feels rather petty, and I take complete insult to his insinuations that I am "vandalising" this article (see his edit descriptions on this article's page, as well as my own talk page).

LBM | 17:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - also please provide some diffs as evidence of behavior. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The base problem here seems to be an insistence on describing the plot of the work as opposed to providing verifiable information about the work. This article is ridiculously plot heavy, and an insistence on describing characters (even in the complete absence of information about them) as opposed to a verifiable cast list is just another symptom of the base problem.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a content dispute and an edit war, neither of which belongs here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be very grateful for any help on how to solve this dispute. Here are the relevant diffs from the article mentioned: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . LBM | 18:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

First, you stop edit-warring. Then, you take your dispute to the article talk page (much better than user talk pages). Then, if you can't agree, use one of the dispute resolution mechanisms.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered listening to TheRedPenofDoom and taking his advice? As others have said, this is primarily a content dispute, not really a behavioural one, although both of you are coming up on edit warring problems. Since he has a stronger foundation for his argument, that will turn into a case of either the both of you being sanctioned or perhaps you being sanctioned. The chances of people declaring you the "winner" and acting solely against TheRedPenofDoom are quite remote.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Come on GS, play nice. It's not that long. LBM, I have some advice for you: drop it. I'll speak as an editor: tables are unnecessary (I looked at the first diff and the two versions it presented). The information you're trying to stick in there doesn't need to be in there. In addition, it makes a bad article (unverified plot summary) even worse. Now as a colleague: this is not the proper forum. As Bbb says, take it to the talk page. Then consider Dispute resolution. Then consider a short vacation to the beach without internet. Finally, I'll speak as an admin: stop edit-warring. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I don't want to be the "winner". I take offence at his insistence that his following protocol when in fact his edits result in incorrect information being added to the article (i.e., actors being credited for parts they no longer play). I'm not looking for praise, and I have indeed followed his advice by removing parts of the table he disagrees with. I gave up editing the article when I lodged my complaint, so there's no warring going on now. LBM | 18:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not for the faint of heart. You've gotten advice from four administrators, three of whom know what they 're talking about. Don't react negatively. No one's accusing you of bad faith. Try to separate out which issues are most important and focus on those. It sounds to me like the "incorrect information" (I don't know what is or isn't correct) is the most important to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm completely fine with all your comments and help! I'm just rather annoyed with the article in question. Anyway - I'll follow all your advice and see how things go. Thanks for the help once again. LBM | 18:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, the WP:CONSENSUS is that plot summaries for television programs, movies, and works of fiction are "sourced to the subject" and therefore don't require citations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

68.175.127.180

Hello,

Recently, |this user]] has been making a lot of edits that don't appear to be constructive, most (but not all) of them consist of adding or changing dates without providing sources. Here are a few examples.

I don't know what to think about all these edits. This is not the first time this happens. The last time, I just reverted the bad edits that hadn't been reverted yet. This time, I think it's time to investigate.

Thank you, --TheMillionRabbit 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Aw shucks, missed another mass rollback opportunity. IP blocked. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed the long report, to make the board easier to navigate. Ansh666 09:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sock edit warring on Religious views of Adolf Hitler?

I just got this message on my talk page, which indicates a suspicion that User:Greengrounds is already back, under an IP address, edit warring at Religious views of Adolf Hitler. So, yeah, it looks like Cynewolf was right above, when he said above that it looked like Greengrounds was going to return -- it looks like he has here. I don't deal with socks that much, but I think we need to probably except more of the same, and would very much welcome input from others who deal with socks more regularly. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi protect the page. NE Ent 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

John, you missed 1 edit from the IP. As I have done a revert on this article, better someone else to semi it. - Penwhale | 23:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

{{trout}} "any reasonable admin" -- just semi the page already. NE Ent 23:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I semi'd the article for a week and blocked IP for 72 hours. - Penwhale | 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde

User:L'Origine du monde, fresh off a block, is now trying to blackmail Reaper Eternal, EdJohnston, and JamesBWatson by ordering them to "apologise sincerely for all mistakes" or L'Origine du monde will "pursue further complaints". Obvious blackmail there and obviously not a good idea.

Since the user was unblocked under two hours ago, I am requesting that User:L'Origine du monde be reblocked and indefinitely (as they previously were), as they are obviously not here to edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as well as the unblocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wrongly blocked for evading a block that did not apply to me. Blackmail is not involved. Serious mistakes were made by three administrators, including one check user, and it is important this does not happen again. BEFORE using this board, it is normal to initiate discussions on the talk pages of the editor involved.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 03:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were, in fact, wrongly blocked, there would already be an active discussion here on ANI or over on AN, there isn't. But saying you won't do A if someone does B is blackmail. You saying you won't "pursue further complaints" if the admins don't "apologise sincerely for all mistakes" is the definition of blackmail. Attempting to blackmail an admin goes straight to ANI and bypasses the user talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are opinionated. I suggest you read my talk page. I am afraid I thought that the procedure was first to discuss problems with the relevant editors on their talk pages, and only to raise the issue here should that fail to give satisfaction.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 03:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you object to this edit too - ] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely "opinionated", but not in this. Let's wait for the admins as any back-and-forth between us will do no good.

As for the image request, yes, I do object. It could be seen as you only wanting it taken off the blacklist so you can put it back on your userpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde, if you continue to be so abrasive towards everyone else involved in this incident, no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt. To be honest, after reading your recent comments, I have absolutely no interest in helping you because your comments are so off-putting. I strongly suggest that you take a deep breath and try to calm your tone. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not supposed to add images to that list for that purpose, but for widespread vandalistic use. It took the painting away from a number of other pages without discussion. I see no reason why a consensus could not be reached that I am entitled to use that image. It has been used as a user page image for 4 years without any complaints.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 04:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The bad image list is meant for images that could be seen as inappropriate for use outside of very controlled environments. For example, many images of genitalia are on the list because those images should not be on pages that are not assumed to be about that subject. Think of if you clicked on World or Earth and saw a picture of a tangentially related genitalia. ~Charmlet 04:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the admin saw you were doing something that you weren't supposed to. Since your userpage was deleted, I can't tell for myself. Also, I highly doubt it was used as an image on your userpage since you have only been an editor here since August of 2013. Also, you might want to read WP:NPA, because your continuous snide remarks and personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, however, isn't the reason for the perceived bad block immaterial to this ANI? Is the purpose more to discuss L'origine's behavior post-block? --McDoobAU93 04:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The deleted userpage contained nothing but the image being discussed with regards to the bad image list. Monty₈₄₅ 04:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine, in this edit are you stating that you do indeed have sockpuppets? Zad68 04:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If not the registered editor I conflated him with, he might be talking about this, this and this IP account that I was discussing with Elockid; those are accounts that L'Origine du monde‎ used. AndyTheGrump might have had more experience with L'Origine du monde‎ than any other editor while L'Origine du monde‎ was editing as IPs. L'Origine du monde‎ has not been editing Misplaced Pages only since August 2013. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that any of the admins here misused any of their powers and were following policy. It's quite evident that the edits of the IP were L'Origine du monde's. Since none of the admins here had CheckUser uses at the time of the blocking evidence, it's very believable that the L'Origine du monde appeared to be a returning blocked/banned user. Furthermore, to complicate things, the person who was editing behind the IP can't be disclosed due to WMF's privacy policy. It would appear then that L'Origine du monde is socking. Honestly, if I didn't have CU access, I probably would have also thought that L'Origine du monde was a returning blocked/banned user. This was all just an honest mistake. I can understand L'Origine du monde's frustration. However, I don't believe that this is the right venue. Elockid 04:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the talk page messages I don't think they are actionable. Asking for an apology, which would imply an admission of error, as way of resolving a dispute is reasonable, and mentioning that you will pursue it further if not resolved is not blackmail. The messages were worded strongly, and seem unlikely to have the desired effect, but they aren't blackmail. Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If Elockid thinks this isn't the right venue and Monty845 thinks there isn't any blackmail (even though I disagree), I will accept their opinions and we can call this resolved, unless anyone else feels different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Elockid thank you for your contribution. However I disagree about abuse of power. Reaper Eternal blocked me because I asked you a question on your talk page and he didn't like my choice of painting- but didn't want to discuss it. After you explained what I was asking about (for some reason he never asked you, and I didn't realise I could email you till two days ago), he wrote on his talk page

Elockid has clarified that the block on the IP was not targeted at him, but, rather, at another user who apparently was spoofing Ldm's IP. Since he's convinced I have a "conflict of interest" regarding his block (from what I don't know), I'm not going to take any action. And honestly, now that the issue of block evasion has been cleared up, I'm not going to complain if he creates another account with an acceptable username and userpage. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

He obviously still doesn't understand how IPs work (no spoofing was involved), refused to lift his block, and doesn't understand

"Conflicts of Interest Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace."

He also failed to explain what he was doing, or why. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Reaper blocked you for asking a question. As I stated previously, it would seem that you were evading your block and that was the main reason why Reaper blocked you. He wasn't a CU when he made the block so there wasn't any misuse of tools there. He probably was simply acting on WP:DUCK. Might not be the most practical way, but it's the best thing we have right now considering how Misplaced Pages works. Elockid 04:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer. What I meant when saying not the best venue was that it probably would have been better to ask for an apology privately or at a more friendly tone. This way we can avoid all the drama and perhaps L'Origine du monde could have gotten what he asked for. I'll have to stop commenting here for now as it's getting late for me. Elockid 04:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Elockid: My mistake, I misunderstood. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If this discussion could focus on removing File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg from the Bad image list I would be happy. This file depicting the famous 1866 oil painting l'Origine du monde by the French artist Courbet, on public display in the Musee d'Orsay in Paris was added to the list by User:Reaper Eternal. This removed it from a number of pages in the userspace where it had happily been for many years with no complaints. He made this addition because he objected to me displaying the image on my user page, which he had previously deleted. Given that there had been no widespread problem with this image of an iconic painting, I think he was wrong to add it to the list without discussion. MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#Remove_File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg_from_the_Bad_image_list ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 05:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently L'Origine is now trying to blackmail me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, dude/dudette, L'Origine, going around and demanding apologies is something that children and governments do. It's a waste of time, and never gets the desired result anyway, since you can never even be sure of the sincerity of the apology. Just go about your business, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If people make mistakes with their administrative, or checkuser special powers, and don't understand why, wikipedia has a problem. Apologies are a simple part of civility, and the natural response to making mistakes, particularily when they have caused pain, as this 3 week ban has. Neutral homer started this discussion - and was offensive to me on a talk page he was licking - why should he interfere in my communication, be rude, and not apologise?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 07:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This was my request to neutral homer -

Hi! I strongly object to your disruptive ignorant page stalking, and misleading comments. While you are entitled to your opinions, I find your unfounded accusations of blackmail, and negative remarks about my intelligence offensive. If you apologise on my talk page I will not complain further.

@L'Origine: I said on the aforementioned talk page: "Blackmailing an admin, not a smart move, one that will get you nowhere but another block." Now, I'm not sure what in there you found "offensive", but it doesn't warrant an apology.

While we are on the subject of apologies, when someone demands one while threatening "further complaints", one isn't going to get the response they seek. I'm not going to apologize just because you think you are owed one. If you think you were wronged, I can't help ya. Nothing I said warrants an apology and you won't be getting one. Like real life, here at Misplaced Pages, you aren't owed anything.

Now, take Qwyrxian's advice and go about your business. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have User:JamesBWatson on my watchlist and have for awhile. Also for the record, I will not apologize to avoid a block as I have nothing to apologize for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any chance of a not here block? The user name "L'Origine du monde" refers to File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg which is a magnificent piece of art, but coupled with the user's contribs indicates that Flyer22 is going to need help soon, and given the user's outbursts it would be kinder to give a firm response now. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about neutralhomer rudely interfering in my talk, and repeatedly accusing me of blackmail. This is not appropriate behaviour. I also strongly object to him starting this ani, as an unaffected editor, without even giving an explanation on my home page. I feel that his actions constitute bullying. The fact that he is unwilling to admit that his accusations were wrong, and repeats them should be recognised. He started this ANI, on a matter which has otherwise nothing to do with him - does he not deserve censure. With regard to apologies- shit may happen, but when you clearly (look at my talk page) explain to people what has gone wrong, and they persistently fail to understand simple concepts it is wrong.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 09:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. Any editor can bring something here even if not directly involved with the dispute...WP:TROUT for no discussion but no big deal...I'd suggest that you drop both sticks and walk away you can continue to complain but right now if you notice it is starting to {{WP:BOOMERANG]] on you.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Still rather hurt by the ban :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ 09:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

New user moving user pages of a blocked user

Not sure if this is an issue or something innocent but I just noticed an odd couple of page moves by User:Kose zane Khosrow, specifically of blocked user User:HistoryofIran's user and talk pages to User:Koskesh. Normally I would bring this up with the user but am logging off and won't be able to follow up soon in case it is something problematic. Will notify both users momentarily. Nformation 07:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, HistoryofIran's pages were semiprotected - not sure if this is relevant. Nformation 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well now Kose has reverted a revert of vandalism by User:EdJohnston (who also protected the page originally) on the Koskesh user page. Starting to look like trolling. Nformation 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Off to the dentist shortly, but I'm not going to AGF, looks like some minor bad edits to boost editing count to get autoconfirmed. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this briefly. Isn't HistoryofIran awaiting someone dealing with his unblock request at the moment? It seems like it would be very self-destructive for him to be doing this at the moment. Therefore I'd guess it's one of the following:

1. (I'm guessing pretty likely) This is some other user/troll trying to set HistoryofIran up. Did he have any enemies? Particularly ones who are already blocked?
2. This is HistoryofIran, he doesn't know about CheckUser, and legitimately thinks he can get away with this. Did he ever participate in an SPI before? If so, I'd say this is incredibly unlikely.
3. (Not very likely) This is HistoryofIran, and he doesn't care about getting his main account unblocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Slightly complicated. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)