Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 22 September 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Article or topic ban for two users

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Deepdish7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Kolokol1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request that the two users be banned from editing the Berezovsky article and its Talk page, or possibly a topic ban that would prohibit editing any other article or Talk page related to Berezovsky.

The Berezovsky article has generated a lot of controversy in the last few weeks. It has been locked twice by User:Black Kite. The battle has been fought in many Misplaced Pages forums, including the following:

• COIN
• BLPN
• the Berezovsky Talk page
• 3RR archive
• ANI

The article is currently locked and will be until September 28. However, Deepdish and Kolokol continue to battle in some of these other forums during the block. At BLPN and at COIN, several editors have endorsed the idea of an article block (the Berezovsky article and Talk page) at a minimum, and possibly a topic ban that would include anything related to Berezovsky.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• As a side note: This shows clearly the intention of going on with edit warring after the page protection is lifted.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - both users topic banned from editing any other article or Talk page related to Boris Berezovsky - Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over this, I'm seeing that Deepdish7 has issues editing without warring and avoiding other editing issues, and that Kolokol1 has issues with civility. Perhaps it would be easier to give them both a bit more WP:ROPE so that they can hang themselves and earn indefinite blocks? lifebaka++ 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, give them more rope and they'll hang themselfes. Not a good idea I thinkTMCk (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Any topic ban for Kolokol1 will have to be a broadly construed ban. I would suggest a post-1992 Russia topic ban for him, given that he has declared he has a close connection with Berezovsky but refusing to say what that connection is. Not that I am suggesting he should out himself. As he is very clearly an SPA who is engaging in advocacy across a wide range of articles relating to Russian politics, such a topic ban is warranted. But before we enact such a ban, is it possible for him to get a free photo of Berezovsky with OTRS permission for us to use on the article? lol. --Russavia 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just trying to be objective here... Both editors are essentially newbies based on the number of their edits. Perhaps they need some help and advice. They do appear SPA at this point; none of them edited in a wide range of articles. They accused each other of COI problems, which I think was extremely unhelpful. Deepdish7 was already blocked twice, caught with sockpuppetry and said that he is prepared for a "lifetime struggle" . Kolokol1, on the other hand, did not receive a single warning. No idea if any sanctions would be warranted at this point...Biophys (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider useful long term contributors have to deal with this disruption and it affects them - its worthless to the improvement to the Biography itself - never mind giving them more rope - topic ban them now, their disruption of the BLP is enough already. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the BLP issues, it's pretty obvious that main problems come from Deepdish3 editing, as was already noted by several people at article talk page. Therefore you was right by reverting edits by Deepdish3 here. I am telling as a long term contributor to these subjects.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point out exactly where I broke any BLP rules??? I haven't seen any proven case so far, and was happy for information I inserted to be changed to make everything NPOV and correspond to BLPDeepdish7 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 is not a newbie, he has been a single propose account since over eighteen months. Just ban him from the BLP and get it over with. Off2riorob (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Main issue here is not for how long he edited, but that he started receiving official warnings more than a year ago, e.g. here, at the bottom. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• support topic ban for both narrowly construed this bio- any wider topic ban for either user is a separate topic, perhaps AE?--Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• In case 2 users in question are banned then Off2riorob should also is also banned then from editing anything Berezovsky-related as well as all IP addressed he used for that article, since he was engaged in edit war on Kolokol1's side, and is now engaged in edit war on Paul Klebnikov page Deepdish7 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• I would also like to point out, that unlike Kolokol1 I was always happy to discuss my edits and change them to be in accordance with NPOV and BLP. Which makes a big difference between me and Kolokol1, and why I think it would be fairly to block him alone in this case.Deepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Even if you decide to block both of us (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Misplaced Pages whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-basedDeepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• support topic ban for Deepdish7. Reading through this thread including his recent defense further down I don't see any other working solution. No comment (as of yet) about Kolokol1.TMCk (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Although not strictly relevant, I have just spent a chunk of time backing out changes Kolokol made to this discussion, including but not limited to adding section headers in the middle of previous discussions and making a significant change to one of my comments. I have left a stern warning on Kolokol's Talk page. What really made me angry about this was that there was already a discussion on Kolokol's Talk page that I started with respect to refactoring and the problems associated with it. For Kolokol to come here and repeat the same behavior makes reminds me, regrettably, of Deepdish's unwillingness to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, even when they are brought to his attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I inserted two subsections (see diffs below) with the sole purpose of making the reading of this oversized discussion easier for the users. Please don't brand this well-intentioned purely technical improvement as an act of malice - this not constructive and is simply not worthy of everyone's time. And what is the "significant change" I made to your comment? I don't think I did. Please provide diff. Thanks --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450871837

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450872055

• Sigh. First, I didn't accuse you of malice. Second, I would normally have assumed good faith in the addition of the subsections if it weren't for our previous discussion about refactoring. Even so, I didn't think it was malicious - perhaps more willful or stubborn or something along those lines. Finally, here is the diff of the change to my comment, which is, of course, what bothered me the most.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. I hope you will accept my apology and take my word that this insertion of gibberish in the middle of a word was a completely inadvertent technical error, perhaps a glitch in my keyboard. Happened to my posts too.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I accept your apology, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding subsection headers is a standard practice on Misplaced Pages. You should have familiarized yourself with the guideline you are referring to before issuing stern warnings. There is, of course, nothing wrong in not being familiar with it, and subheaders weren't strictly necessary here, but warning people over this is a bit rich. At this point I think it is better for you to let Kolokol1 alone, it is obvious that nothing good will come out of this bickering. Colchicum (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding subsection headers at the end of these kinds of discussions is common (as has already been done here). Adding them in the middle is not and can cause problems in misleadingly characterizing or confining comments to a particular subsection. And you don't even acknowledge my point that he changed one of my posts, which no matter how you interpret WP:REFACTOR and other related policies, is not permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the diffs (including the two above) and haven't found any changes in any of your comments. And I am afraid you won't find many supporters of your interpretation of WP:REFACTOR. See WP:REFACTOR#Resectioning. Stop already. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Response from Kolokol1:If I am banned, I would like to be given a reference to the specific WP policy that I have violated. In the edit war, I was removing information basing on the policy highlighted in the first paragraph of WP:BLP, namely: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have always explained this, specifically referring to this clause. I have never received any warning. My understanding is that the WP:3RR rule is not applicable for WP:BLP. With respect, I do not see how you can ban me for trying to implement your own policy. A ban without explanation and not referenced to a specific violation would be arbitrary and lawless. I will appeal--Kolokol1 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please refer to Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Purpose_of_Wikipedia states that you can't use WP for advocacy. You clearly are, and have admitted as much after the issue was brought up with you. Misplaced Pages:ARBRB#Decorum states no assumptions of bad faith. You have accused me of being in the employ of the Russian government, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I have dealt with such loony accusations in the past, time and time and time again. And then we have Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. Take note. And it goes for both of you. (written by User:Russavia)
    • For the record, I have never admitted engaging in advocacy, as defined by WP:Advocacy. I admitted being connected to the subject, whom I tried to protect from being smeared in an attack page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:BLP#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article.--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Russavia, my understanding is that I am being reviewed in the context of the edit war over Berezovsky. If am penalized for advocacy, I would like to see specific instances of advocacy in my edits. With regard to you, I indeed suspect you of advocacy for the RusGov - both in your posts, and in your campaigning to have me banned. This is not a bad faith on my part, but evidence-based. I am entitled to ask the question, which was perfectly legitimate in view of your impressive body of work promoting various Russian Government agencies, and particularly your correspondence with the Kremlin spokesman, which you disclosed. I am not unaware that your interlocutors in the Kremlin spend millions on PR contractors in the West (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/24/public-relations-russia-georgia-ketchum ), which, of course, does not necessarily mean that you are one of them. I asked the question, you gave the answer, I am satisfied, matter closed. It is now up to admins to consider whether or not this is relevant. I am not accusing you of COI, but detect a strong bias in favor of RusGov, which, as can be easily sourced, is out to get Mr. Berezovsky. If you want me banned on this basis, please file a separate complaint.--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• • You have removed a lot of well-sourced material and violated wikipedia Deletion policy. That alone justifies your ban, as well as having a conflict of interest on this page. I in turn do not have a conflict of interest. If interested admins can see IPs I logged from, one of which was my working address (which should remove any accusations of my connection with Russian government either)Deepdish7 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • For the record, I have seen no evidence linking you with the RusGov, in contrast to Rusavia, as explained above--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Question for admins Is it possible to give both editors a WP:DIGWUREN warning, and as written in the remedy, "counselling" on what the problem with their editing is. That is a fair warning to give, and if they decide to hang themselves with that rope, so be it. --Russavia 06:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding DIGWUREN, I would be happy to have this situation go into arbitration, no problem--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'd like to see very specific references to what is wrong with the editors. Now, Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) has engaded in sockpuppetry (2 times) , repeated instances of edit-warring (wich has already earned him two blocks and page protection of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), posting copyvios (, ), massive BLP violations (see the entire edit history of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), canvassing , misrepresentation of sources, incivility, and his only purpose of editing Misplaced Pages has been "adding negative information" on Berezovsky, which he himself admitted many times and promised to continue no matter what. I haven't seen any disruption of this level from Kolokol1, let alone Off2riorob, who is just trying to enforce our BLP policies. Another relevant ANI thread: Colchicum (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  Support narrowly-construed topic ban (perhaps just the article) for the two editors mentioned in the original post. These two accounts have locked horns and show no intention of disengaging. Not only does a situation like this destabilize an article, it also essentially shuts out any editor who wants to work on the article but doesn't want to enter the morass of angry postings and reversions. Actions not beneficial to WP. The Interior (Talk) 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm getting the feeling it'd be easier to just indef Deepdish, Colchicum. He does not seem to understand our policies, or the reasons for them, and when informed about them seems unwilling to follow them. Even after a few blocks for edit warring, he (as mentioned above) does not seem to understand that he is doing anything wrong and (also as mentioned above) believes that what he is doing is justified, both of which are evident from his currently visible unblock request. He's currently blocked for two weeks for edit warring, but I have a funny feeling that he'll end up reblocked within a few days after it wears off, and since blocks are preventative I think we should just cut out the middle man.

  As for Kolokol1, I worry that he is not necessarily here to build an encyclopedia and he is having trouble discussing content rather than contributors, as well as some other civility issues. There's nothing particularly actionable there yet (except perhaps some discretionary sanctions), but as my obvious subtext implies, I'm pretty sure there will be if nothing changes. Kolokol1, please review our civility policy and other behavioral guidelines. You'll find most of your interactions here a lot smoother if you do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Lifebaka, thank you for your advice. I would be exceedingly grateful for a specific reference of incivility on my part. Will immediately apologize and take it back. I am all for "discussing content rather than contributors", and urge you to read and comment on my content instead of worrying about my motives for being here, which I have stated on numerous occasions: to protect a friend from being unjustly smeared in violation of Misplaced Pages's own policies. I would like to add to the attention of admins: your colleague yesterday asked me to make a formal declaration that I have no intention to litigate over what I called "potentially libelous" material, which I did (COIN#I declare that I have no intention ). Then, presumably, coming here and trying to find an alternative remedy from an unjust attack must not be punishable by bans, should it?--Kolokol1 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I think that accusing me of being an SPA who is employed by the Russian government is one specific reference. Another specific reference is where you have repeated the accusation. Another specific reference is where you have, yet again, repeated the accusation. Refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Involvement_by_security_organs and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Editors_counseled. --Russavia 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Russavia, for god's sake, these references have nothing to do with me! I did not accuse you of anything, I simply noted that because of your self-proclaimed sympathies, your writings, and your declared contacts with the Kremlin PR Chief, you may be working for them, or have COI. A perfectly natural concern under the circumstances. You inquired about my association with Berezovsky on a much lesser grounds, and I did not take offense. But if I offended you, I am sorry. And you are an SPA, or rather DPA, by your own admission, writing almost exclusively on two subjects, as you name suggests - RusGov agencies, and planes. --Kolokol1 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• The "general test" for a SPA: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." In other words, SPA has a clearly negative component to it. Even assuming Russavia is mainly interested in Russian and aviation articles doesn't mean he's a SPA, whereas an account like yours, with relatively few edits, and almost exclusively about Berezovsky, seems to fit the definition. Even assuming, as you state, that you are not using the account "improperly", you admit to having an agenda, which seems to be more about protecting Berezovsky than protecting the article or Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Having read everything above, I have some additional comments. Deepdish, on the face of it, is the more obvious editor to sanction. He has a stubborn, obstreperous, although occasionally passive-aggressive, manner. He has been shown previously on ANI not to respond well to attempts by others to counsel him. He has already been blocked and is now blocked again for two weeks. Kolokol is tougher because his demeanor is more professional and because many of his comments, on their face, appear to be more reasonable. However, his admissions at WP:COIN are troubling: "I do not hide having an association with the subject of this BLP, and accept the COI tag, but I do not see why I should be prohibited from editing." He then argues that despite the conflict, based on quoted policy, he should be permitted to edit. However, the policy he quotes should not be considered in a vacuum. This is a highly contentious article, and allowing Kolokol to edit the article in an effort to supposedly protect the subject, will be a nightmare for other editors, as has been shown by recent events. It's one thing for someone to say that an article says "John Doe was convicted of murder", and there's either no source for the assertion or it's simply a hoax, and he was never convicted of murder. That kind of issue is cut-and-dried. However, in the Berezovsky article, the questions as to what are fair assertions and what are not are far more complex and don't lend themselves to such easy review and resolution. It is with these thoughts in mind that I think an article or topic ban is appropriate, not just for Deepdish, but also for Kolokol.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Then please show diffs of specific content edits which are disruptive. Reviewing articles on unfamiliar topics is never easy, but it is not a reason to ban people. Frankly I see no nightmare around as long as Deepdish7 is removed. Colchicum (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The practical effect of banning Deepdish but not banning Kolokol will be a continuation of the battle between Kolokol and Russavia. Russavia, a long-time editor, has opposed some of the actions taken with respect to the Berezovsky article in the last few weeks. To some extent, he has "sided" with Deepdish in the sense that he felt that the wholesale removal of Deepdish's edits was an overreaction and that more pinpointed surgery would have been sufficient. At the same time, Russavia and Kolokol have been trading accusations on the Berezovsky Talk page about themselves, their editing history, and their motives. You can see some of that in the links Russavia provides above. I defended Russavia in that discussion (I had opposed some of his comments about other things in the past) because I felt that labeling Kolokol a SPA was amply justified but labeling Russavia a SPA was not. Yet, Kolokol persisted:

"The impressive body of Russavia's edits does not negate the fact that the bulk of his work on WP, as is evident from his personal page, is devoted to creating information material about Russian Ambassadors, Russian Embassies, Foreign trips of Russian president, the bio of Russian presidential spokeswoman, etc. He may be doing this out of obsession with the Russian government trivia, of course, but prima facie it looks like a PR job form the Russian foreign ministry."

and

"Kremlin.Ru, my god! That explains it. So, I guessed right. No, you are no KGB, in the old days they would've called you 'a fellow traveller'. You have as much COI, my friend, as I do. I wonder what letters Deepdish has in his treasure chest."

In my view, this behavior does not militate in favor of permitting Kolokol to edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, what does it have to do with the Berezovsky article? Then I (and probably many others) can't say I disagree with him too much. The bulk of R's work is obviously devoted to just that, nobody would deny this, not even R himself. It does indeed look like a PR job form the Russian foreign ministry, though IMO the obsession version is more plausible and I don't care enough about his reasons to bother with speculations. And what's wrong with the second quote? K recognizes that he doesn't think R is an employee of the Russian government anymore, now he thinks R is just like-minded with them (that's what was probably meant by the "fellow traveller" metaphor), which is not news to anybody even remotely familiar with his editing. I'd just say that this need not concern us. R certainly doesn't feel offended by this in the least, otherwise he wouldn't post this information on every corner. Then you have probably noticed that R himself pestered K with automated COI notices , while the discussion with K was already under way in another place, and has a long and dramatic history of battleground behavior. But it is not at all clear what topic bans are supposed to do with that. D is now blocked for two weeks, by the way, so do you see the predicted practical effect? Colchicum (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you mean interaction bans... Colchicum (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The practical effect is a world without Deepdish but still with Kolokol, so my comments assume that Deepdish is banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To Bbb23, with all due respect:

• • Your argument that an interested party should be prohibited from contributing to an article under existing WP guidelines because it "will be a nightmare for other editors" destroys the stated WP policy of discouraging litigation by people who have been wronged by unfounded accusations. It leaves them no alternative remedy (see note to the attention of admins in my response to Lifebaka above)
  • Your argument about permissibility of assertion of murder in complex cases like this, frankly, is quite shocking. What about presumption of innocence? The subject has never been convicted, or charged, or even accused of murder except in the writings of Klebnikov, about whom there is a notable record of allegations of anti-semitism, and whose murder claim has been retracted by his own publisher. And I am not against MENTIONING it, I am against repeating the slur WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Is this NPOV and BLP?
  • In regard to Russavia. First, I have absolutely nothing to do with the two references that he provided. I never accused him of being the KGB, my reference to KGB was in response to his own words, "They have already called me KGB, etc". Second, as I explained above, my concerns about his possible COI were well founded, because (a) he is the principal writer of material on Russian Foreign Service and other RussGov agencies on Misplaced Pages and (b) in his article on Abkhazia - a Georgian province, occupied and annexed by Russia - he simply repeats the Kremlin propaganda line that it is a sovereign state, the notion discounted by the rest of the world. When on top of that he produced a personal letter from the Kremlin Chief of PR, Ms. Natalia Timakova, who actually distributes millions in contracts, every reasonable person would have asked him whether or not he is working on a contract. I assumed good faith, accepted his word and did not report him for COI. If asking such questions could lead to a ban, then why have WP:COIN in the first place? Perhaps my remark about Kremlin.Ru was excessively ironic. And I take the "fellow traveller" back, he is simply a "Russophile", as he calls himself. --Kolokol1 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You make three points.

1. There is a remedy. Other editors are perfectly capable of responding to alleged BLP violations.

2. You misunderstood. I compared a hypothetical article with an accusation of murder to the Berezovsky article generally. I am not addressing any specific accusations against Berezovsky.

3. My comments about you and Russavia have more to do with what I call the "practical effect" below. I see endless unconstructive bickering ahead, which is not conducive to improving the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. for some reason, they have not. The article has been there for nearly 3 years with tons of complaints and abortive rescue attempts, but when I bumped into it three months ago, it was quite a disaster.

2. sorry for misunderstanding

3. Well, I did not edit war with Russavia, He seems quite reasonable for a Russophile :). I am sure, I could work with him--Kolokol1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not add additional editors when the discussion is already underway

I have reverted Deepdish's addition of Off2riorob mid discussion because it is confusing. People were supporting and opposing the ban of the original two, you can't sneak a third in there that they had no comment on. If you want to propose a separate ban do so separately. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban of Kolokol1 Kolokol1 has received no blocks, and most of the warnings on their talk page are for forgetting to sign comments. The evidence presented here is no where near enough to support a rather drastic restriction on Kolokol1's editing. A topic ban should never be a first resort when there is a conflict at an article, and the evidence here does not indicate that alternative corrective measures have been tried and failed, at least in regards to Kolokol1. Monty₈₄₅ 15:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Our edits criss-crossed. I have stated my concerns about Kolokol just above this "subsection". I don't completely disagree with you, though. Whether or not to ban Kolokol is a tougher decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Lifebaka. Site ban Deepdish7 and issue a civility warning for Kolokol1. An especially troubling sign is the posting by Deepdish7 on ruwiki asking for help against people allegedly "bought by Berezovsky".Biophys (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  Could you link that, please? I don't speak Russian, but I'm pretty sure that a machine translation will get enough of the gist. lifebaka++ 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • . There are some words I wouldn't expect any machine translator to know, though. Colchicum (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, he said: "админ BlackKite, заблокировавший англоязычную версию страницы, охуел совсем уже". But incivilty on another wiki probably does not count. The real problem is WP:Canvassing. I wonder how many people may appear to support his version of article Berezovsky. This "oligarch" is quite unpopular in Russia. Biophys (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Google translator: "admin BlackKite, who locked the English version of the page is quite ohuel". "Ohuel" in plain Russian means "out of his f--king mind".--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that Deepdish is back with a vengeance. I will then heed to the advice of a fellow wikipedian to avoid the drama and rest my case. Let the river run its course. Leaving the battlefield to connoisseurs (and Russophiles :) Thank you everyone--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so when I originally supported the idea of a ban for both Deepdish7 and Kolokol1, I wasn't aware of all the details at the time. Here is my analysis... Kolokol1 is a long-time editor (has been on Misplaced Pages longer than me even) with over 1,000 edits and a clean block log. Deepdish7 has been around for a few months and has been blocked three times (including a current block) for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. I also see some evidence of canvassing. I don't see the same level of disruption from Kolokol1, or really any actual disruption. Therefore I don't think that equilateral action is called for. I'm definitely more in favor of banning Deepdish7 than Kolokol1. I think that a page ban from the main page of the Berezovsky article would be sufficient. Having said that, I do have some concerns about Kolokol1's conflict of interest, but as long as the COI is openly acknowledged and not accompanied by actual disruption I don't think that it causes a problem. I already cautioned Kolokol1 at the COI noticeboatd about being careful when accusing others of libel, per WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats. -- Atama頭 01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Atama, saying Kolokol is a "long-time editor" is not quite accurate. Kolokol edited first for a few days in 2006, then nothing until 2008, at which time he made 4 edits to the Berezovsky page. After that, he didn't edit until July of this year. So, although it's true he has been editing since 2006, he really has only been editing in earnest since July of this year. I'm glad you weighed in, though - I wondered what had happened to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. My point is that even though Kolokol1 has had more activity overall than Deepdish7, he has a clean block log, which would indicate that Deepdish7 is far more prone to disruption, and that's why I no longer support applying the same measures to both editors. -- Atama頭 02:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Atama, for taking time to review my history and for acknowledging my clean record. I would still hope that any administrative action taken would cite a specific WP policy that I violated and give a reference to the violation. If I am banned simply to "balance" a justified restraining measure applied to another user, this would not be rooted in any of current WP policies. I scrupulously obeyed all the rules and will exercise my right of appeal in case of an arbitrary sanction.--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

deepdish would like to defend himself a bit

• First of all, despite not having received any warnings (I didn't know it's so important to give a warning here and whether they matter at all, but Kolokol1 clearly knew what he was doing because he saw me getting blocked for exactly same things as he was doing), Kolokol1 has violated multiple wiki policies, such as conflict of interest, one-purpose account, edit warring, deletion, advocacy. He does not only have issues with civility as lifebaka++ mentioned, it's far from that.
• If you want en example of him being engaged in edit warring, check history of Berezovsky page. In the last couple of days, or check it It's just obvious what he was doing. Or check this report:

he wasn't blocked simply because I reported him from another account. You can say it's wrong to report from sockpuppet account and I understand that, but apart from strict wiki rules there's truth and lies, and the truth is that he's been engaging in absolutely same edit wars, but his friends would always report me before I reported him. If that only fact vindicates him in your opinion, then go on block me and don't block him, would be logical. Notice also, that some sockpuppets were protecting Berezovsky on the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Major_POV_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jw2035 would not be surprised if this Jw2035 turned out to be Kolokol1's sock puppet.

• Unless you clearly want to see only rules broken by me and intentionally ignore rules broken by him you will notice that Kolokol1 broke at least as many rules as I did. I don't see that many issues with BLP that I wasn't ready to discuss/edit. The problem always was that Kolokol1 never wanted to discuss anything - he would simply cut text from the article. But since they would be the first to report, it was me who was getting blocked, though again we were engaged in absolutely same edit war, as I reverted his edits as he never responded, just kept saying that everything that Klebnikov said regarding Berezovsky should be erased because some magazine accused Klebnikov of anti-semitism (which doesn't make any sense since he never mentioned Berezovsky's ethnicity, spent his youth in the USA where any racism is strictly prohibited and was a chief editor of Forbes Russia magazine).
• I still haven't heard any opinion on whether Off2RioRob should be banned as well. Carefully check Berezovsky's page edit and you'll see him again engaging in same edit war. He also engaged in edit war with me yesterday on Klebnikov page and I got blocked while he didn't simply because he reported me first. Check history of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Klebnikov&action=history. Moreover he even had enough audacity to revert my edit today, once he already had 4 reverts in the last 24h.
• Even if you decide to block me (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Misplaced Pages whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-based
• "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" that Kolokol1 is trying to use to justify his actions doesn't work here - he was erasing simply everything, not just unsourced or poorly sourced material. And he will continue doing so, I'm 100% sure
• "For the record, I have seen no evidence linking you with the RusGov, in contrast to Rusavia, as explained above" by Kolokol1 is lies again. Check below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Anti-semitic_Bias "From your above comment it is clear that you are on a mission to expose the criminality of Mr. Berezovsky and establish the superiority of Russia over Britain in matters of the rule of law and freedom of the press. While I do not question the sincerity of your zeal, Misplaced Pages is not a Kremlin propaganda outlet but an objective source of information."

• Would also be happy for the page to go into arbitration in case we're not banned lifetime with Kolokol1 on working on this page. Without arbitration there will be a mess if we're both or only I alone am banned, as Kolokol1 doesn't listen to anyone and erases all negative information on the page and inserts white lies in order to whiten Berezovsky's reputation (with whom he confessed of being connected, and as his nickname suggests he works for Berezovsky's Kolokol website).
• "And I am not against MENTIONING it, I am against repeating the slur WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Is this NPOV and BLP?" this is again lies by Kolokol1, he deletes all negative material on Berezovsky without paying attention to whether it's NPOV or not, he just deletes everything. Just read Berezovsky page history for the last two days
• "Well, I did not edit war with Russavia, He seems quite reasonable for a Russophile :). I am sure, I could work with him" - lies again, he doesn't "work" with anyone, but deletes sourced material at his discretionDeepdish7 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Another good example of Kolokol1 not willing to discuss anything but just willing to whiten Berezovsky's reputation: I posted proposed changes on Berezovsky's discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29#Request_for_changes_and_continuation_of_debate_started_in_August Noone apart from Bbb23 has shown willingness to discuss anything. Kolokol1 had perfect chance to discuss, but when the block expired he preferred to engage in edit warring instead.Deepdish7 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked the 3rr report you'd filed as a sock and there was clearly NO violation by Kolokol1. You're right now blocked (again) for violating exactly this rule and you still don't get it right and reading the rest of your post just reads like "some one is digging his hole deeper".TMCk (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
And in my opinion you're already past 6 feet.TMCk (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolokol-1 could be useful to calm things down :) . Count Iblis (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that (sarcassm or truth) but I think Kolokol1 has shown some professionalism here and seems to be willing to hold his temper and be more civil in the future. I wouldn't wonder if they would do so if they don't have to deal with Deepdish7 at the article in question. Just a thought.TMCk (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow his link, it was just a (not very funny) pun. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the (stupid) link that I of course didn't check as it is apparent in the first part of my post.TMCk (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• More response to Deepdish7's defense post: There is another problem I see here. You write:
  "...Kolokol1 had perfect chance to discuss, but when the block expired he preferred to engage in edit warring instead."
  You give the impression that Kokolol1 was blocked at some point even so they have a clean block log unlike you of course who even now can't add this page without a legit proxy as you're sitting out yet another block of 2 weeks for edit warring. Not that i wonder since you already made clear on BlackKite's talkpage that you'll resume reverting (called edit warring here on wiki) after the protection of the article in question is lifted.TMCk (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • He is specifically talking about the article being unlocked, not Kolokol being unblocked. I can attest that Deepdish did post on the talk page whilst the article was locked, seeking opinion, and nothing was responded to. Due to the oft cite "silence equals consent", all editors had the opportunity to discuss changes to the article, but they said nothing. Instead they engaged in reverting Deepdish when he made changes to the article. Look at this objectively, not just one way ok. Russavia 12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Just a technical side note: An article can be "protected" or "locked" but only editors are "blocked".TMCk (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
      And it's the other way around: "Silence doesn't equal consent".TMCk (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed, silence does not usually equal consent. This was another instance in which Deepdish tried to make up his own rules as to procedure. In a less controversial situation, I can see an editor going ahead and making a change when he receives no response on a Talk page to a proposal, but this was hardly a normal situation. Part of the problem is Deepdish is just too impatient, not unfortunately an uncommon problem on Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrassment by Kolokol1

Please refer to this rubbish. Why does he feel the need to do this? It may as well read:

1. You said you wrote to the girl
2. The girl said she was raped
3. You denied you raped her
4. I believe you
5. But hey, I am going to accuse you of being a rapist via the back-door again by leaving shit like this on your talk page.

And yes, I stand by my edit summary when I removed it. As anyone who is familiar with cases involving myself, this accusation is something I have had to put up with for a long, long time....hell Colchicum even basically insinuated the same thing above...instead of possibly informing the editor on his talk page in his discussions that there is no evidence of that, and continued accusations are harrassment and to drop it. Colchicum's comments above only encourage crap like this.

Tell Kolokol1 to stay away from me. He is here to engage in advocacy, and I'll be damned if I am going to continue to be accused of crap like that on a continual basis. I suggested a WP:DIGWUREN warning for Kolokol1; you guys wanted to give him a civility warning? LOL yeah I see that was really going to work. Russavia 21:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My note to Russavia was a well-intended and civil attempt to put the matter to rest by giving him the benefit of the doubt for the record. It was not intended for further discussion. In response, I got curses and insults. I do not know what to say, this place is really a minefield.--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolokol1, generally when one puts a matter to rest, it stays there. So, if I see you continuing to badger Russavia about this perceived COI, I will block you. Russavia, if Kolokol1 does do this, drop me a line on my talk page with the diff. I also agree with DJSasso's comment below, that was not called for. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps based on the edit summary in Kolokol's post, Russavia should get a civility warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolokol1's harassment of Russavia is about as egregious as it gets. I think we should finally start doing something about the constant attacks on Russavia by Kolokol1 and other users. Nanobear (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This topic isn't about Russavia (it's about Deepdish and Kolokol). Perhaps, you should start a new topic about these attacks by editors other than Kolokol if you feel it requires administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey BBB23, have you stopped beating your wife? --Russavia 23:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow...seriously? Consider this a civility warning Russavia. Another personal attack like that will end up in a block. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! I wasn't attacking bbb23, but was attempting to show what Kolokol's comments that were left on my talk page were akin to. If I asked you that same question I would expect you to tell me to fuck off too. Now that I have shown that asking users if they have stopped beating their wife, is exactly what Kolokol posted, I expect some action to be taken against him. He has trolled my talk page to provoke me, specifically after he was told what he has been told above, and he got the answer he deserved. But if you want to give me a civility warning for my response to Kolokol1, that's fine, I promise to never ever ever call anyone an idiot again. On the other hand, SPA trolls need to be told straight. --Russavia 00:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I don't think they are even remotely equivalent. Thinking you have a COI is in no way equivalent to physical violence or a crime. Your "example" was waaaay over the top. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wading thorough all of this: Support topic bans for Deepdish regarding all Russian "oligarchs". Propose administrative deletion of the problem BLP entirely. Propose topic ban for Russavia on all Russian "oligarchs. " Propose that Russavia be trouted for personal attacks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, please see Griswaldo's comment above about adding another editor to this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Russavia injected an interesting issue - were I not to react to the self-injection, I would be dis-serving the reasoning behind this noticeboard. In fact, the history of the noticeboard is that people who make such posts as Russavia made, frequently attract notice to themselves. I note also a post by a "Bbb23" suggesting a civility warning for Russavia just above - I do not see the "trout" as being further afield <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed its the boomerang effect. Well known and not out of line for different people than the original people in the thread to be sanctioned or whatever for what they say here. Threads are not limited to the person being talked about originally. They never are. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally, what I've seen is if someone in one of these topics says something sanctionable, they can be sanctioned, even if they were not part of the original request. I've seen that happen often, although it's frequently the requester who gets the boot (not an invitation :-) ). At the same time, if an editor wants a participant sanctioned because of something that really requires more discussion, it's better to open a new topic, partly because it would be a major detour and a distraction to address it in the current thread. Naturally, that's a judgment call, and not for me to decide. I just noted to Collect, in case he hadn't seen it, that Griswaldo had objected to Deepdish's request to ban Rob. Of course, unlike Collect's request, that was clearly off-the-wall and fairly typical of Deepdish, but it still seemed to me that a discussion of a topic ban for Russavia might be better off in a new thread. Please note I'm not commenting on the merits of the request itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrative action

I believe this topic has been fleshed out by a number of contributors and the time has come for closure. My sense is there is a consensus for topic banning Deepdish, but it's not clear what action, if any, will be taken with respect to Kolokol. Although I raised these issues here, I did it partly because of comments by other editors in other forums favoring topic bans for both editors. After having followed all of the comments here, my support for a topic ban for Kolokol has weakened but not disappeared. I recognize that the community prefers progressive action rather than more drastic action unless there's sufficient evidence to warrant skipping intermediate sanctions. Based on that model, I'm not sure I see sufficient evidence to warrant banning Kolokol. At the same time, I see a pattern that indicates a probability of more trouble without such a ban.

When Deepdish first came here complaining, there was some disagreement as to what action against him was warranted. Ultimately, he received a fairly short block, but not too long after that, he received the longer block that is now in place. Although there is no question that Deepdish's and Kolokol's styles are completely different, I see a strong possibility of the same thing happening with Kolokol if only minimal sanctions are imposed. But I also recognize a certain unfairness in imposing greater sanctions based on speculation as to what might happen in the future.

Finally, putting Deepdish and Kolokol aside for a moment, I see a greater problem with factions in editing some of these articles, with more experienced editors battling as to content and adopting, mentoring, and coaching less experienced editors as part of their group. Although generally mentoring new editors is a good thing, in this instance, it seems more agenda-related rather than helping newbies learn about Misplaced Pages. It's a troubling dynamic.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think this diff summarizes all facts about two users in question. Biophys (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly Colchicum's view of the situation, which I suppose you must support - speaking of factions ( - see also WP:SPEAKENGLISH).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem: people are looking for malicious intentions (COI, work for someone, tag teaming). They should not. Simply look at the recent history of disruption by user X, as evident from his warnings and blocks, and check if he did the same a year ago. Biophys (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm making no accusations of malice. However, in just the short time I've been looking, I do see evidence of admitted conflicts and factionalization. Is that relevant to the current ban request? Maybe not, but it's worth noting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You could be be right if someone supported the sides by reverts in article of the conflict. Let's look at the edit history ... Only one person previously sanctioned in EE affairs was involved in edit warring (on the side of Deepdish7 ). Do you mean we must assume bad faith on his part? Biophys (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My sense of factionalization (the conflicts are admitted) is based on comments on Talk pages and forums, not so much on actual article edit history. I think those comments have evidentiary value and are relevant. The edit history on the Berezovsky article is long and tortured, and I stopped looking at it as it spun out of control, which, by the way, was something I predicted on the Berezovsky Talk page would occur.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there will be possibly be ramifications for other users in relation to the harrassment that is continuing here by Kolokol1 and another user. --Russavia 20:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban Deepdish7. Ban should cover the article and talk pages of Boris Berezovsky (businessman) and all other article and talk pages related to Berezovsky. Evidence of disruptive, non-neutral editing plus unwillingness to abide by Misplaced Pages rules, policies, and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Warning Kolokol1. Warning should cover the article and talk pages of Boris Berezovsky (businessman) and all other article and talk pages related to Berezovsky. Evidence of conflict, some incivility, and possible agenda. Warning should counsel caution in editing these pages and that any subsequent evidence of policy violations may result in a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must protest here. A full ban from editing any article related to Berezovsky is a must. The conflict of interest here is major. The editor has admitted that they are directly connected to him, so we must take him at his word, that he is connected. Him editing any article is akin to all the American politicians whose staffers edit articles...we frown upon that in a major way, and the parallel here is the same.

In the last week of Litvinenko's life, it was also Berezovsky's money that bought the publicity campaign, so expertly fronted by Alex Goldfarb. Thus the view that the British public had of Litvinenko's illness and death was essentially dictated by Berezovsky. Until the very end, neither the hospital, nor the British authorities, nor the Russian embassy contributed anything at all. Berezovsky, through Goldfarb and the PR company, Bell Pottinger, had the field entirely to himself.

Are you guys seriously suggesting that someone connected to Berezovsky, given the above, is not here to engage in advocacy? WP:CAMERA is a great thing to remember.

Additionally, some incivility? I call it outright harrasment. If you refer to the "dark forces" comment on his talk page, who exactly is he referring to here? And the other editor egging him on isn't helping matters either. --Russavia 21:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there may be something else happening here as well. If this person is connected with Berezovsky, which they say they are, please know that Berezovsky currently is under suspicion of ordering the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. Kommersant isn't some yellow journalism newspaper (like Novaya Gazeta) -- in fact, it is one that Berezovsky himself used to own. Given that Novaya Gazeta has thus far approved of how the case is proceeding, there could be some major goings on in the future in relation to Berezovsky, and because of this, the ban from editing anything in relation to Berezovsky is needed as a preventative measure, not as a punitive one. And given that they have already threatened legal action (and retracted it), this Berezovsky topic ban is needed. --Russavia 21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This calls for a response.

• (1) For the record I never threatened a legal action, and hence could not have retracted it. A WP administrator asked me to declare that I have no intention of legal action in view of the nature of the material that I removed, and I immediately complied ( )
• (2) In regard to Anna Politkovskaya, Kommersant reported leaked information that a suspect in custody testified that Berezovsky "could have been" involved in Politkovskaya's killing. A spokesman of Memorial (society), a major human rights group, immediately made a statement of concern that the testimony could have been extracted by torture - based on prior history (). Politkovskaya's colleagues at Novaya Gazeta discounted the Berezovsky theory and the attorney for Politkovskaya family said that her clients "do not need an appointed perpetrator" as reported in the same story in Kommersant (). The leak has not been officially confirmed and Berezovsky is not a suspect. It is precisely for balancing the one sided presentation displayed above by Russavia that I feel my presence here would be conducive to WP goals
• (3)Regarding Litvinenko, it is illustrative that in the initial article that I sought to improve, the suspicion for the murder was pinned solely on Berezovsky (sourced to the statement of the ex-head of FSB in Moscow) without even mentioning the fact that the British police has named another suspect, whom Russia is refusing to extradite. This is another example of smear editing, which should not be allowed to stand here.
• (4) "The forces of darkness" was a humorous remark on my talk page, which was accompanied be the :-) smiley, intended to mock another editor's paranoia (diff: )
• (5) In regard to incivility, I confess to voicing a concern about Russavia's possible advocacy, but this pales in comparison to him calling me an "idiot" or advising me to "fuck off" (which BTW proves that my concern was unfounded, because RusGov would never have authorized using such language)
• (6) The notion of preventive sanctions because "there could be some major goings on in the future" sounds so exquisitely Russian satirical literature - Gogol or Chekhov. Is that serious?--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether he is here to engage in advocacy is decided not by your speculations but by his behavior. So far nobody has presented a single diff of his disruptive editing to be prevented. Where did he threaten with legal action? And his incivility is very mild by Misplaced Pages standards, yours, or mine, or others', for that matter. Kommersant is no yellow journalism, it is just reporting allegations, but what do they have to do with the issue in question? I am not following you here. Colchicum (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Deepdish7 for EE topics broadly construed. Multiple BLP violations, canvassing for meat puppet assistance on ru Wiki. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Barnstar for Kolokol1. For displaying decorum under pressure. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember proposing that when I first started this topic it seems like years ago. :-) I tell you what, regardless of whether Kolokol gets a warning, a barnstar, something else, or nothing, you are to be commended for !voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is disruptive editing - sorry, whitewashing. So much so, another editor has had to revert Kolokol's whitewashing. It is highly unwise to allow anyone who can already be shown to be whitewashing articles be able to edit anything relating to Berezovsky in future. I am somewhat concerned at his intention to edit Alexander Litvinenko, given the history of that article, and the fact that I got blocked for 3RR for removing a BLP violation of Putin being a paedophile from it. Unbelievable right?!? Well, it happened. And given that myself and other editors worked on getting that article to resemble some notion of NPOV, the fact that Kolokol is an admitted advocate for Berezovsky, he should be kept away from such articles. Talk page is fine, but articles, definitely not. Also, bbb23, nothing is a vote around here, everything works on consensus. --Russavia 07:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This "whitewashing" brought the article much closer to BLP and NPOV standards and removed tons of copyvios. Multiple comments concerning the version defended by Deepdish7 in the archives of the talk page () are also quite illuminating, as far as consensus goes. Colchicum (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• - It is just ridiculous to read people saying that I have history of bans and edit wars, whereas Kolokol1 and Off2riorob has "clear" history and didn't do anything wrong. It's not because he didn't do anything wrong, but again, because nobody reported him. Everyone can see clear evidence right now, if you look at recent changes to Boris Berezovsky and Paul Klebnikov pages. Russavia, will you please kindly report them on 4 reverts to Berezovsky page and Klebnikov page accodingly. At least they will receive warnings from you (which would be fair) and if not blocked, then still will not have a right to say next time that they have "clear" history and were doing "useful" contributions (when only thing they do is whitewashing indeed, whilst breaking deletion and many other wiki rules). Thank youDeepdish7 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  On Paul Klebnikov I appear to have one "combined" edit (for 3RR purposes) - please see Misplaced Pages:3RR#The three-revert rule "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." - and on the Boris Berezovsky article there has been no edits for four days as its fully protected. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  You should've been more careful re your Sept. 16 edits though.TMCk (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  Actually I saw that leading accusation of murder a BLP violation. ...the murderer has never been found but according to his brother he was most afraid of ... - I was quite careful also - I had three reverts and then I reported the user and then he was blocked and then I removed the offending edit after that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  I saw your last revert there when you made it and saw it as a serious BLP concern myself and thus said nothing but it would've been better if you'd made your own BLP concerns clear in your edit summary. Just hinting.TMCk (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  Its not easy defending an article about a living person from such a conflicted determined user. I could have been more clear in my edit summary I will accept that - any admin could also just indef the user right now and this will all be resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  very well. so now let's discuss it over again. the gang supporting berezovsky - prepare for days or months of battles - it will be hard for you I promise - this comment is exactly what can be expected if no administration action is taken here against User;Deepdish7 - months ands months of endless disruption and reams and reams of talkpage tldr comments and more and more locking and disruption of the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to move this to WP:AE. Boris Berezovsky (businessman) would be construed as falling under EE and is this could be dealt with as an ArbCom enforcement case under WP:DIGWUREN. This would be dealt with more quickly over there than here. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For those of us who are relatively untutored in Misplaced Pages arbitration policy and procedure, perhaps you could elaborate a bit. What is EE? Enforcement of what? Are you speaking of Deepdish and Kolokol? Just Deepdish? The Berezovsky article?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"EE" is "Eastern Europe". The Digwuren arbitration declared, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Because Berezovsky is a Russian businessman, the article would fall under discretionary sanctions which give administrators broader enforcement powers for disruption that occurs at that article. -- Atama頭 16:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I refer to 4 edits by Off2riorob on 16 september, which clearly were a 3 revert edit rule violation, not a combined recent edit. Russavia or someone else, will you please submit a report on him as well as Kolokol1's 4 reverts in Berezovsky article. Thanks Deepdish7 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) (copy/paste as requested by editor)

I think your suggestion to report someone for removing content that you inserted and revert warred to a point of a two week block in an attempt to keep the content in the article, content that myself and another user in this thread have WP:BLP objections to, just show how in need you are of a topic ban on anything to do with Boris Berezovsky. Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though specific cases are often controversial, reverts of BLP violations and copyvios are generally officially exempt from 3RR. IMO, no violation there. Colchicum (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it wasn't that you "removed what I inserted", since it was you who started cutting text from the page on Sept 5th, and I reversed your edits, and you reversed mine again. And secondly, my edits did not break BLP policy, despite you're claiming the opposite, and everyone can see that if they look at my changes. Dispute arbitration is the only way to go here, as you're using the name of BLP policy to cut any text from the article that you want, wheverer it is conflicting with BLP or not. Since we have very different views on BLP (and Kolokol1 obviously has a conflict of interest here), we need dispute resolution here. Otherwise it's just my word against your word, that's all Deepdish7 (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) (copy/paste requested by author)

I think the discussion is going in circles, and it is a waste of everyone's time to repeat the same thing again and again. It is not getting any closer to a consensus. An administrative decision is long overdue--Kolokol1 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC).

Consensus seems to be fairly clear to topic ban Deepdish under WP:DIGWUREN, above. Although the discretionary sanctions don't say anything about the length of topic bans implemented, I'd suggest that one year is a good starting point, to mirror the block length the sanctions allow. Unless there are any objections, we might as well close this and implement the topic ban. lifebaka++ 17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unarchived to note my action. Although I'm perfectly aware that there is an obvious consensus above to topic ban Deepdish, I have instead opted to extend his block length to indefinite. I must admit, at least part of my reasoning is that I feel as though it cuts out the middle man. While he has been blocked, I have seen zero indication that Deepdish understands that he was edit warring, and I have seen no indication that he's really trying to understand, either. Especially given at least one comment to the effect that he would continue to edit war on Boris Berezovsky (businessman) when his block expired, I believe that an indefinite block is the easiest way to avoid further disruption. I'm open to other opinions, of course, but while he is blocked I see little point in also banning him from a topic. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong & poor policy interpretation: can someone have a word, please

See this from MangoWong. I am becoming fed up of having to counter the often snide comments of this user but this particular one is a recent example of their unwillingness to accept what I believe to be a correct interpretation of policy. There is similar stuff scattered all over Talk:Yadav and other caste articles in which they have had an involvement, and even in forum discussions such as this one. I feel that there is a need for some uninvolved admins to provide some input on what is or is not policy. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of where MangoWong argues the toss about what DougWeller said at AN3. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And recent advice regarding continually bringing up these types of issue and instigating inappropriate "teaching". MW is clearly stalking my edits, given the number of WikiLove messages that they post to users whom I have become involved with, but that is merely an irritation - I can live with it. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion: I don't really think you're dealing with the user particularly well on your part, either. I read from his messages that he's having difficulty understanding WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but at the same time it appears nobody's really bothered to explain in an uninvolved fashion that these are non-negotiable Misplaced Pages policies and that he must follow them. I'd say that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the user seems to be trying to make his efforts in good faith, however misguided, and it might be worth stop seeing the user's lack of policy understanding as "snide" comments. If after explanation he continues to fail to get the picture, then it is possible a WP:TBAN might be appropriate. But, how about trying the WP:AGF route first. --Tristessa (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about my attitude. The problem is not really that but rather the fact that this type of issue has spread across so many articles and tends to be driven by the named contributor. The consequence of this is that there is a substantial back-story and potentially a list of diffs as long as my arm. It has reached the point where I am struggling to nail things down both in terms of examples and in terms of policy interpretation. I am aware that my initial comments here are somewhat vague: this is borne of frustration and that is indubitably my fault because the last thing that I should do is become frustrated with another editor. My request here was for intervention regarding the specific policy issue precisely because it is so difficult to nauil MangoWong down to any particular definitive statement: the pedantry, lawyering and refusal ultimately to "see things through" is extremely disruptive, in my opinion. But it is a frustration shared by others. I'll sleep on it and see if I can better define the issue, a part of which is the repetitive nature of the general policy disputes across multiple articles and the certainty on the part of MangoWong that they are correct despite umpteen others trying to explain that they are not. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had pretty similar problems with MW, as like Sitush I've been involved in the current cleanup of Indian caste articles, which were nearly uniformly in terrible condition, uncited "my caste is severely awesome" propaganda pieces. We've gotten a lot of blowback of "how dare your cited scholarly sources debase my caste's awesomeness!", which is not surprising, but MangoWong has had a very irritating habit of lurking in the background, constantly butting in to encourage inexperienced editors to engage in bad behaviours: ANI-ing Sitush and I for removing uncited material, insisting that citations for the lede don't apply to the infobox and thus material can be removed, making extremely vague statements about articles being "terrible" and then refusing to either improve them or go to dispute resolution, etc. Further, on a disturbingly frequent basis, whenever a "new editor" or IP turns out to be a sock of one of WP:India's many "caste warriors", MangoWong has frequently been their moral supporter throughout the Talk page. As Sitush says, it's tricky because the list of diff's is indeed arm-long, and it's a tremendously long pattern of simply encouraging bad behavior, dragging up endless allegations of mis-editing and refusing to fix, DR, or often even to narrow down what his complaints are. Further, he's made many blatantly incorrect statements both about WP policy and about Indian history, and no matter how many times he is contradicted by other, or how many times his only supporters are sock-puppets, he persists. Sitush, let me know if you need help assembling diffs, particularly of his literally trying to get IPs to edit war on his behalf to keep his hands clean; rather "hey buddy, you're new here, don't let these biased Westerners push you around! Go get 'em man!" MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, MW is clearly a bright person, so I'm not trying to label him a vandal nor am I trying to get him banned or TBed. He just has some sort of huge concern with how Sitush and I are handling caste articles, and simply refuses to actually address the issue, while continuing to get other rifled up about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I had an accident recently and things have taken a slight turn for the worse over the last couple of days, which is making things a little awkward for me. My problem, I know. But MatthewVanitas or anyone else, feel free to stick some diffs in here while I try to sort things out. This is a very complex situation but the obvious immediate examples are evident at Talk:Lodhi and Talk:Yadav, where MangoWong has been arguing the toss about generic policy issues but refusing to provide examples of their point at a localised, article level. Indeed, in both cases, they have mentioned the point that they will reveal more (?) if others turn up to support them. It is a disingenuous and semantic tactic that sometimes seems to have bordered on "rabble rousing" & there have been numerous requests for clarification from MW that have been met with a pretty much stonewalled response. It has been suggested that the wider policy issues be raised in a more appropriate forum (the Pump might be one) but these have not been taken up. And when the issues are raised here or at RSN or at DRN, AN3 or, indeed, wherever ... well. MW always appears to contest the numerous and varied opinions of long-term contributors and continues to restate various non-consensual interpretations of WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:DUE etc on individual article talk pages. Far too many new-ish contributors (as well as clear socks and meats, although not of MW his/herself) appear to have been drawn into untenable positions as a consequence. This is a net loss to the project. I know that there are issues here and I do feel that they need addressing if only because this sort of semantic disruption is actually consuming a vast amount of the time available to genuinely constructive editors but, sorry, I am on Tramadol again and need a little time unless someone else can help me out. Like MatthewVanitas, I do not think that MangoWong is ill-intentioned, merely misguided ... and unfortunately dragging other people down that misguided path. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to block me for incivility. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, guys. I think this is getting way too personal from a number of aspects. I'm really sorry to hear about what you're going through, Sitush; but we'll stick to the matter at hand and let's please try to keep personal affairs out of what's going on. I'm going to see if I can have a chat with MangoWong and talk through his side of things, and advise him where appropriate on how WP:V, WP:RS, etc. are interpreted by the community at large (without prejudice to either side of the dispute). Then hopefully MangoWong will chip in on this AN/I thread and we can go from there. --Tristessa (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a talk page message for MangoWong that I hope might be helpful. --Tristessa (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I am reducing my contributions generally due to my circumstances but having started this thread I thought it necessary to explain that some things have changed and are limiting my ability to see things through. Several people have commented directly on various talk pages & their thoughts are appreciated (well, I appreciate them, at any rate). I have not always acted appropriately in this particular instance but as has been said before, there is a long-ish back story. It is also in a topic area which I sense a fair few experienced contributors have chosen to stay out of precisely because of the fractiousness. It is one that sooner or later is going to need to be addressed in some sort of substantive manner, especially with the WMF "push" to increase the visibility of WP in the subcontinental area. I am simply not in a state to expand on it right now as I will likely only make matters worse. My apologies for this: I have raised an issue here and it will probably die a death due to other events. That's life. Thanks for your thoughts & those offered by others: let's hope that some sort of communally useful progress can be made in due course. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Drama ↑ MW 00:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

↑ MangoWong, surely you're not surprised to find out that some people have a very low opinion of you. Despite the whining displayed on your userpage about how admins are leaving articles to rot (the usual complaint from editors who are wrong), your talk page was again visited by an uninvolved admin who pretended to explain the rules and guidelines to you as if you don't know them.

Hey, uninvolved admins, this isn't kindergarten. You don't have to be nice to someone who doesn't play by the rules, and MangoWong does not play by the roles--and they're dragging along a bunch of sidekicks (like Zuggernaut) who in turn also start crying like a baby over perceived admin abuse. Look at how often these caste POV pushers are taking up space on this board. MangoWong is a net negative who shouldn't just be blocked but banned. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I surely break some rules. Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3#Don't bite the newcomersMW 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an admin could clarify RS policy, specifically what constitutes a "passing comment". It seems a great concern of MW's, as illustrated by these diffs from the last four days: although I notice that despite bringing it up so often, MW has not taken his concerns to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetteDoe (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much an issue of not knowing rules; MW is actually quite well-read on a lot of WP policy, in a short time. Again, intelligent person and sincerely interested in the project, but the issues are that he has taken certain unshakeable stances on India topics (the term "Shudra" should not be used, varna is obsolete) and is using policy as a bludgeon, in such a way that questions whether he is serious about policy, or desperate to exploit policy to further POV ends. Even setting aside that, he's using policy statements as sweeping condemnations vice actually trying to be constructive: "your sources are rubbish and fail WP:V and WP:UNDUE and are full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS" is not constructive, when for a fraction of the effort he spends arguing he could say "on page 12 of Schmidt, I don't think it's accurate to extrapolate the Foo caste's funeral ceremonies in Rajasthan to other areas, since Schmidt only covers one small portion of the Foo's populated area." There's being a helpful stickler, and there's using (often slanted) policy as a weapon.

MW's issues with varna, "Shudra", etc. aren't exactly ANI issues, but are sweeping WP:INDIA issues that we eventually need to get everyone around the table for. In the meantime, however, accusations that Sitush and I are inserting "derogatory material", "OR lies", ruining caste articles, etc. are allegations that either require him to file an ANI over these alleged grievous harms to the project, or else keep his peace if he can't build an actual case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time then to start giving lists of examples, as I did above.JanetteDoe (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The underlying issues here are about sourcing and content and are only marginally behavioral in nature (with no side exhibiting perfect purity). I don't think this needs to be discussed here on ANI. Qwyrxian has opened a consensus seeking discussion on the issue here and, perhaps, the best way forward is to close this thread and let that discussion proceed. --regentspark (comment) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:ChristianandJericho‎

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

I'm working on a close for this thread but it's going to take some time. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd wait, as discussion is still on-going.--Crossmr (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:ChristianandJericho‎ seems to be making a lot of CSD/AFD errors as well as leaving a few inappropriate warnings, for instance a 3RR warning on Future Perfect's talk page. After CSD rejections and other warnings the user wipes their talk page. I don't think the user is acting in bad faith, but could an admin take a look at the contrib history and determine if any action or a warning is needed? Thanks. Nformation 09:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

They identify themselves as 13 on their user page, so perhaps maturity is a factor here. They also note their membership in WP:WikiProject Pornography, where age is no barrier to participation, apparently. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe neither of these statements - particularly the second, as he never appears to have edited in this area. I have left a warning - if he makes another stupid nomination, I would think another block would be in order, and given his previous three, I'm thinking a block of several weeks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how one can refute this, editing aside. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Block him, he's disrupted many articles, including my own. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be disruptive, but I was never warned by an admin, also most of my CSDs were confirmed and deleted so fine I'll read the WP:Deletion thing before I nominate an article for deletion --ChristianandJericho 13:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been blocked three times, now you come back to disrupt again? Indefinite block is needed here. Colofac (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made over 700 contrustive edits to wikipedia, I believe what I did was right and I can join the WP:Porn is I want to, there is no age limit --ChristianandJericho 14:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are the perfect example of why there needs to be a minimum age limit for joining Misplaced Pages. It's quite obvious that this website exceeds your maturity levels. If you think being a member of a porn project is the reason why this debate is taking place, you only serve to further validate my opinions. Colofac (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, despite the fact that in some jurisdictions it would be illegal for someone to sell you (or possibly even just show you) porn, there is no restriction on a 13 year-old editor joining Wikiproject Pornography. Sorry if you thought my criticism was directed at you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-admin, I'd say that if someone (a) claims to be 13 years old, and (b) declares that they want to be part of the porn project, this is sufficient grounds to block, simply for bringing discredit to Misplaced Pages. If ChristianandJericho can't see that, he lacks the maturity necessary to be a useful contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an edit war about the redaction of the comment above by Delicious carbuncle. The comment is so disturbing that I insist it stays redacted until the matter has been resolved. Hans Adler 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please leave it redacted. It has obviously been taken in a different light than intended. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was clearly sarcastic, but one needs to know you to see this. Sorry for bothering you. Hans Adler 16:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, you should probably stop nominating anything for deletion, except perhaps in the most obvious cases, until you get some more experience. You should refrain from making statements, such as that you are active on a pornography project, while simultaneously listing your age; this creates the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are seeking to provoke people or get attention rather than seriously edit. I also hope you will not be offended if I suggest that a reading of Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors, in either the original form I wrote it or its current incarnation, might be useful to you.

Delicious carbuncle, some of your comments above are not helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I move that the user be indefinitely banned, it's obvious he isn't here to contribute within the rules, and given his previous history (No less than 5 blocks), it would be foolish to AGF as he will just throw it back in our faces. Colofac (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't say I agree with a minimum age restriction, since I've seen some users claiming to be middle and high school students, who are actually studying research techniques and grammar for a grade, handle that stuff better than some users who provided evidence they were university professors. In fact, based on my personal subjective experiances, the good university professors tend to be exceptions (the bad ones get banned for incivility over their WP:OR not being accepted, and the good ones realize their degree means nothing here). However, Misplaced Pages's servers are located in Florida, so their laws do kinda apply here. There means there probably should be a policy of "no kids allowed" on the porn wikiproject. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, I agree that your suggestion of an age restriction on WikiProject Pornography (and possibly other WikiProjects) seems like an obvious and common sense move. I hope that a proposal of that action results from this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would mean that every editor would have to send a copy of their passport to the WikiMedia foundation to verify that they are old enough. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are a lot of websites that accept a representation from the user as to the user's age. Of course, this is a legal issue and should probably be evaluated by Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia's lawyers. As an aside, I'm not sure that the pornogrpahy project should be the ones deciding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any edits in WP:Porn because I have been busy, but the subject of pornography interests me (SUBJECT not content) --ChristianandJericho 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I bet a lot of 13-year-olds could say the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not wipe out my talk page, I archive it about 1-7 days --ChristianandJericho 16:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it interests you, you're 13.--v/r - TP 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you giggle when you see the boobies? I bet you do. Colofac (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, your interest in the subject pornography is entirely valid (despite the snide comments above). I have already been chastised for trying to make this point in a more subtle way, but let me spell it out - many of our article about pornography also contain pornography. While it may seem to be obvious what a "fluffer" does by simply reading, even this article contains an image which many people would say is not suitable for under-age editors due to the unexpected appearance of a penis. I hope you understand why people may be concerned about your self-professed interest in pornography topics. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Age verification would be impractical, but we could at least hold ourselves to at least the standards 4chan manages and ban people who admit they're under 18. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no age limit (or maybe it's 13+) for wikipedia, okay here's the deal

1. I stop tagging articles for deletion without a good reason. 2. I will contribute more to WP:Porn (you don't really care) --ChristianandJericho 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The only deal I will accept is your indef blocking. You have 5 previous blocks, the last of which should have resulted in an indefinite anyway - quite how you got around that is amazing. Colofac (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you think he should be indefinitely blocked? Also, what do you mean "deal"? This isn't a negotiation. I find it interesting that you've been here for a few weeks but are already calling for several members to be banned on flimsy premises. See WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for reasons we actually do block. either way (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not up to you is it? --ChristianandJericho 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Misplaced Pages as a whole has no age restrictions, Misplaced Pages's servers are located in the U.S. and so U.S. laws do apply here. U.S. law says "don't give kids porn." Misplaced Pages could get into serious trouble (social and legal) for allowing you be a part of the Porn WikiProject since you have admitted you are underage. Right now the debated options are:

A) You do not contribute to the Porn WikiProject

B) You do not contribute to the entire encyclopedia

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From a non admin perspective unless an age limit is set which it hasn't been for that project he hasnt done anything wrong there up to now. An age limit should be set and he shouldn't be allowed to edit within that area again until he is older. In terms of nominations for deletion more care is needed there and he should be discouraged until he is more competent. To me a ban as such isnt needed unless he chosses to ignore which he might. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a lawyer it is sensible, given draconian punishments, to run screaming away from anything involving kids and anything sexual. That being said, it isn't obvious to me he's breaking the rules. And he hasn't edited there, he has just declared himself part of that wikiproject. I would remind C and J that discretion is the better part of valor and he may be well advised to remove his claimed age from his user page and otherwise lie low for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that "U.S. law", whatever that is, were so simple as don't give "kids" (whoever they are) porn. The law at the federal and state levels on issues of sexually explicit materials and minors (who are defined differently by different laws) is far more complex than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do I think he should be indefinitely blocked? Well as User:Ian.thomson has pointed out, his exposure to such material is illegal, add onto this his repeated abuse, bans block log here and use of sockpuppets. Colofac (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What "material" is illegal to expose him to? The same material that anyone can look at on Misplaced Pages? Some hidden material? What law? And why should we "enforce" a non-existent age limit against him in particular, just because he chooses to admit his age? If he deserves a block, it's for other behavior but not about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look at what I've posted, I've never actually advocated that he be blocked for claiming to be part of the Porn WikiProject. I said that there should be bans for anyone claiming to be underage. Bans are different, he would still be allowed to edit everywhere else. While anyone can go and look at any part of the encyclopedia, that's the parents'/guardians'/schools' problem. But by coming here and claiming to both underage and part of WP:Porn, we're open to at least a media campaign of "Misplaced Pages endorses minors working in Misplaced Pages porn!" All states define 13 as a minor. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(This comment has been 'moved up the thread out of order at the request of 28bytes)The original complainant states there is no bad faith editing on this users part so take the opportunity to analyse this users behavior to make better guides for AFD's. When a good faith editor is making errors, it's because the Docs and guidelines are misleading. Hijacking the discussion into age, age+porn, and america is the whole world is unhelpful, and that discussion goes elsewhere. ChristianandJericho has no reason or obligation to disclose his jurisdiction this suggests to me he may live in a tribal place where he could already be married for example. Or if he lives in Texas, Mexico, Canada, or new hampshire he may have to wait till he is 14. There are also many places where 50 year olds are jailed for reading or possession of porn. So this editor may be acting in a perfectly legal, logical and normal manner as he is entitled to do depending where he lives. Application of Wikipedias Current community guidelines is appropriate. ANI is no place to change the rules, or apply personal ones. Penyulap _talk 05:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you should stay clear of stating legal principles ("All states define 13 as a minor"). Maybe you'd care to provide 50 sources for your statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I contribute to wikipedia as I have been given rollback rights for being a "trusted user" --ChristianandJericho 17:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, I was just starting to edit at the time of "sockpuppets" so and I only used on IP and one account and many users post their age on Misplaced Pages --ChristianandJericho 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The porn project is a distraction from this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's not our job to enforce the "greater good". — Kudu  00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I became aware of this editor in June when they were a disruptive IP inserting BLP violations into articles. If I recall correctly the ChristianandJericho account was created to evade the block the IP had earned for edit-warring over one of those fake "you have new messages" boxes on their talk page. In my opinion this editor has improved since those days, but would still benefit greatly from a mentor, as they still have a ways to go in the competence and policy knowledge departments. Aside from completely missing the point in this thread (no, people aren't wanting you to get more involved in porn articles) there are head-scratchers like giving a final warning to an editor for having external links on their user page. Anyone willing to mentor this editor? This editor willing to accept a mentor? 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not me, but he says on his user page he is willing to be adopted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave the legal argument to the WMF. Ian.thomson can email them if he is that concerned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have no comment on the Porn project membership, and agree that it should be up to WMF. However, to return to the original issue, this user's deletion tagging is extremely problematic. I've had to decline several speedy deletions; in and of itself that's not terrible, but the fact that xe rarely responds to those concerns is. And, to clarify, the user doesn't "archive once a week"--it's actually about once every 2 days. Then, yesterday, it turns out that the user has switched over to making spurious AfD nominations (see this complaint on xyr talk page). So, I think it's time that this user take a mandatory break from deletion tagging of any type. If some user is willing to mentor ChristianandJericho on this issue, that might help, but for now the disruption needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like confirmation from ChristianandJericho at this point that he will not make any more deletion nominations without the agreement of his mentor, should he find one, and no deletion nominations whatsoever should he not find a mentor. Absent that confirmation I would be open to supporting a topic ban and/or competence block. 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A complete block for a good faith editor is destructive to the wikipedia project. Better docs, or a civil word is called for. Or make the CFD process a little more complex for newbies to access. Penyulap _talk 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, your complaint can't really go anywhere, as it would need you to point out where ChristianandJericho has broken the rules, it REALLY helps a lot if you put up diffs (links to the exact place he did something wrong) it also helps if you can suggest a solution, although that is not needed. ChristianandJericho as you have said is not doing anything bad on purpose, just making mistakes. That's allowed. Is there anything you know of where he has done something wrong, plus been warned about it by an admin, and ignored the warning from the admin, and kept going ? Penyulap _talk 06:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really have a complaint, I was just concerned about the large number of mistakes the user was making. I wasn't looking for my "complaint" to "go anywhere" except under the eyes of an admin who could decide whether the user needed something like mentoring. Since the "complaint" is general, I didn't provide diffs as a cursory look at the talk page explains it clearly. With that said, I'll keep your comments in mind if I ever decide to persecute a newbie. Nformation 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho has made simple newbie mistakes and has made an apology here showing respect for a more experienced editor. We need more editors like ChristianandJericho time to close this one or what ! Penyulap _talk 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just tagged another article for speedy deletion BUT for a good reason as the user was attacking admins and using profanic words --ChristianandJericho 09:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you tagged a talkpage. Colofac (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I tagged two articles a talk page, and a vandalism page, which got deleted --ChristianandJericho 09:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User just tried to report me on wp:AIV. Is this kid for real or is he really this thick? Colofac (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering your edit-warring on his talk page, I think an interaction ban between the two of you might be a good idea. Find something more useful to do with your time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The user is Wikistalking me, I feel that it is hard to edit when he is constantly trailing me. Colofac (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your problems (and the problems) with ChristianandJericho, edit warring to preserve the barnstar speaks for itself. I presume you weren't aware of WP:OWNTALK and the rights of user to remove nearly everything from their talk page at their absolute discretion until it was pointed out to you. Even so, while I can understand why people may mistakenly feel the need to preserve warnings and similar messages, trying to preserve a barnstar which is supposed to be a sort of honour (even if it was seemingly misused here) makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This user keeps adding random barnstars to my talk page, also he is spamming my talk page and removing AIV reports, also user is Attack me (check talk page history) --ChristianandJericho 11:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Do you giggle when you see the boobies? I bet you do." At 13? He's not 8. Most 13 or 14 year olds on average have (illegally) viewed hardcore pornography and seen most if not all of the entire works in lurid detail. Usually some old dirty 70s or 80s videos of one of your friends' parents with a sound track like this LOL, or a thieved Mayfair or Penthouse with some ageing tart on the cover nicked by the paper boy and sold to you. C'mon he's 13, the hormones are off the scale, and remember what it was like to be his age. Beats me though why he would want to contribute here when he could be scouring the internet for naughty sites and images. Or has his parents blocked em all LOL. But to be honest I think there should be an 18 requirement for joining WP:Porn as it seems illegal LOL. But if he's stupid enough to declare his age...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to set an age requirement, fine, but don't mock me our call me stupid --ChristianandJericho 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to get defensive, I was actually defending what it is like to be a 13 year old (before you were born) and treating what you are likely knowledgeable about with some humor I thought. But anything with pornography and age 13 in close proximity is going to attract a mass of unwanted attention and send out alarm bells. This discussion is more about that than you invalidly tagging articles for the chop. I know being 13 you feel a lot older amd more mature than it seems to us but from our perspective it is a very bad look to have declared 13 year old contributing to articles about hardcore pornography. A friendly word of advice would be to drop your user page tags and messages with attitude and get on with writing articles about wrestlers and stuff and try to keep a low profile. Why not try to get some collaborators and try to promote some articles like the legendary Hulk Hogan to WP:GA? Feel free to ask me if you want any help on anything. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin comment: This ANI has been raised about concerns of inappropriate CSD tagging and/or other aspects of page patrolling. The only seriously disruptive behaviour by ChristianandJericho appears to be the immature approach to a process as fundamentally important as NPP. I suggest a topic ban from patrolling new pages until this editor has made 2,000 good manual edits to mainspace. Any involvement as a minor with page related to pornography should probably be the subject of a separate discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to mentor the user, if that's satisfactory to everyone. Swarm 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Kudpung is right. A lot of the comments here have been most unconstructive, and totally unfair to ChristianandJericho. I support the proposal for a topic ban. If ChristianandJericho would like to accept Swarm's offer of mentoring then that should be a helpful step forward. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, SudoGhost asked me first --ChristianandJericho 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be a disruptive editor, but I would like to start/continue editing in WP:Pornogrpahy --ChristianandJericho 09:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ChristianandJericho has agreed to mentorship under these guidelines, which hopefully covers all of the concerns found in this discussion. It is my hope that mentorship will resolve these issues, and User:ChristianandJericho's willingness to agree to these guidelines is certainly a good sign, and I intend to move forward with User:ChristianandJericho from here. Thank you. - SudoGhost 09:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic, I didn't see that someone else had offered mentorship. The self-imposed restrictions should be sufficient as well. Thanks, SudoGhost! Swarm 10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to drag this out any more than necessary, but we still have a self-identified 13 year-old who is listed as a member of WikiProject Pornography and has a userbox that says "This user is a hard-core member of WikiProject Pornography". Mentorship seems like it might help address the other issues, but the "hot potato" issue of an underage user working on porn articles has not been resolved. SudoGhost, do you think you can do something about that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He has agreed not to edit porn articles, at least temporarily. As a general rule, I think the issue needs to be decided upon. Swarm 15:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I'll be honest about, I will fight to edit it that area eventually --ChristianandJericho 00:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments like that are precisely why some of the editors commenting above have concerns about your editing at WP:PORN. Someone suggested that you lay low for a while and edit other things, to let the drama die down, and that's sound advice - which you promptly ignored. And that's concerning. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented prior to this, but I've been following the conversation, and frankly I'm not seeing anything remotely encouraging here, and the lack of block is beginning to boggle me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing though, when I joined WP:Porn I made sure there was no age limit, anyway I'll lay low for awhile but when the drama dies out, I'm going to edit those articles --ChristianandJericho 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho, your argument seems to be that there is no "rule" against you editing porn articles, and you are right. That doesn't mean that you will be able to edit articles on pornography. Even if you wait until the drama dies down, someone like me will come here and ask that you be blocked. And you will be blocked, because having a 13 year-old editing porn articles is going to look really really bad if the press gets wind of it. I do not claim to know what laws might apply here, but I suggest that this has enough of a smell that any US-based admin who acknowledges knowing about this would be wise to block you unless they wish to find themselves in an unpleasant situation. Let me ask you a question. You feel that you, a 13 year-old, should not be restricted from editing articles on pornography (most, if not all, of which contain explicit images) - do you think a 10 year-old editor should be restricted from editing those articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on Jimbo's talk page.--v/r - TP 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion Despite the lack of policy violation, I believe it would be in WP's interest to ignore all rules here and slap a broadly construed topic ban on ChristianandJericho with regards to Porn articles until such time as a clarification is made by WMF. --Blackmane (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The user has already accepted a voluntary restriction. Swarm 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the user has agreed to your terms and the discussion is immaterial, then why is the userbox still on his userpage?--v/r - TP 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This diff where he offers to lay low and come back to the articles later doesn't seem to show him accepting a voluntary restriction, unless he's laying low for five years. Or here where he says he'll fight to edit those articles eventually. Dayewalker (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And? If he actually violates the restriction (which he has abided by thus far), there may be a basis for a ban. However, it's unnecessary at this point. Swarm 18:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to strongly concur with Penyulap that the thing about age and WikiProject porn is an unwelcome hijacking of the discussion. The RFC is running something like 10-0 against the proposed restriction. This is a non-starter of an idea. Just please, would the closing admin look at this issue without reference to the age thing, and declare that he is making the decision based on the deletions and prior blocks only! Wnt (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And? he's explicitly stated that he plans to re-engage in edits in that area and fight to do so if necessary. The maturity level just does not seem to be here for this user and it looks like he's going to cause a large time sink with his behaviour, as he's already done, and that is not a net positive. Send him packing for 5 years to do some growing up and then let him take another stab at it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no rule against editing in that area. They haven't caused any disruption in the area. The disruptive editing was entirely unrelated. Do I think a 13 year old should be focusing on porn-related articles? No. Do I think the community should act as a WikiParent and ban him just because we don't like the idea? No, and here's why: the proposed age limit restrictions have been overwhelmingly rejected. We can't ban someone for failing to meet an age limit, while simultaneously rejecting said age limit. So, unless someone is actively planning on proposing a topic ban or a community ban, I don't see what else talking is going to accomplish. Swarm 00:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Moot point now

Blocked

I've blocked C&J indefinitely owing to disruption, along with their behaviour after agreeing to these editing restrictions. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully, I agree. C&J doesn't seem to understand that, regardless of whether or not the rules say he can do something, doing it is not doing him any good. I'll leave him a message to see if I can explain it. Also, I stuck a header on this for ease of navigation. lifebaka++ 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the evidence, and I at least slightly disagree. I still believe there is a chance for "mentoring back to reason", and the disruption is minor and yet still related to the whole WikiProject Pornography scandal. — Kudu  00:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the indefinite block stops 'mentoring back to reason'. Remember an indefinite block is not a 'permanently block' and instead often a 'block until we are resonably certain we can trust the editor to edit again' which in a case like this is 'until they have reached a mentoring agreement and understand they do have to obey it if they wish to edit and understand why their previous behaviour was unacceptable under their agreement (and we resonably believe they will obey it)'. Note that the DGAF issue was part of what lead to his block and while easily resolved it was not part of the pornography problem. As for the porn issue, actually I find his behaviour which lead up to the block in some ways far worse then the porn issue. IMO regardless of how you feel about the fairness of the porn restriction, if he's going to agree to it he should obey it. Despite his age, I find it hard to believe he really can't understand why some people are concerned about it even if he doesn't agree with them. And therefore I find it hard to believe he didn't appreciate his attempt to keep himself listed as an inactive member was basically highly disruptive wikilaywering around an agreement or conditions. I know a few people believe this is an acceptable way to do things if they feel the agreement or conditions are unfair but IMO this is generally fairly disruptive on wikipedia. If you don't agree with something, either fight it openly, follow it despite you disagreement or leave. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked C&J as he's agreed to further restrictions. This isn't a comment on the above porn fiasco and if the user goes against the agreement, any admin can feel free to reblock. Worm · (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

and the time sink just marches on. It is a comment on the porn fiasco since it's part of the restrictions and he's still stating his intent to directly return to it once this process is finished. By unblocking him you're commenting on that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen time and time again, that mentoring is a wonderful way to learn about en.WP, for the mentor. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, they were blocked for violating editing restrictions and ignoring an explicit warning, not for saying they'll join WikiProject Porn once the mentorship is over. We're not their parents, we're not responsible or liable for them, and there's currently no consensus that I'm aware of that would prevent them from doing so if they wanted to. I don't think your comments are justified. Swarm 20:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit restrictions which involved Project pronography right? The current proposal to age limit was mostly rejected on a technical basis. We don't know every user's age so how can we enforce it? While the proposal won't pass, several did support it and But Seb hit the nail on the head with his support !vote. We also haven't heard from the foundation on the matter. It is one thing to have articles with images in them which may be considered pornographic open to any random person for reading. It's another thing to have a self-identified minor explicitly state that they're going to make those articles an area of their focus.--Crossmr (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone addressed the account name with him? It almost seems like its indicating two people are using it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian and Jericho are the names of two wrestlers, that's what I assumed he was referring to with his choice of names. Dayewalker (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But that could've been uncovered with a simple google search. Crossmr, seriously, there is no reason to keep dragging this out. I understand the concerns, and if they cause disruption, I'll be the first to support a reblock. And, if we decide as a community that this particular user can't edit that particular area because of his young age, I will wholeheartedly support that too. However, short of that happening, this ANI thread is degenerating into unnecessary drama. Completely unnecessary, in fact. The problem has been remedied. The user has a mentor. They understand that they're on their last chance. I encourage you to keep an eye on them if you're suspicious, but as of now, the most damage that's being done is the drama caused by throwing more logs into the fire (i.e. dragging this thread out longer). I would respectfully ask that, for now, you let it go. Swarm 00:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what my name stands for my two favorite wrestlers --ChristianandJericho 02:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

There has been a relevant proposal regarding minors and pornography-related articles. I encourage anyone here to weigh in and/or offer a different proposal. Swarm 19:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Let me see if I understand this. This user was blocked on 20 September not because of their competency, but because of issues their refusal to give up their "membership" in WikiProject Pornography. They were unblocked with conditions and mentorship. After only three (3) mainspace edits, they were blocked for competency issues. I guess that means we don't have to address that issue of this 13 year-old editing porn articles anymore. What do we do about the general case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Of minors editing pornography articles? We'd have to take it on a case by case basis. The proposal was rejected on technical grounds (or it will be) since we don't age verify, but if someone identifies as a minor and then proclaims a strong interest in project pornography, then we'd have to look at that as a community. Frankly, I can't see what a 13 year old can bring to project pornography anyway. They're unlikely to be SMEs, have incredible experience in the area, or even be that well versed on the nitty gritty and background. Potentially they could do wikignome stuff, but why limit that to pornography?--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

God forbid they are an SME or have "incredible experience in the area"! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, you say that this is something to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but perhaps you could outline circumstances wherein a self-identified 13 year-old would be welcome to edit pornography articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

I believe that User:Domer48 is being a disruptive editor by violating "disrupting progress toward improving" according to Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing.

The article in question is Volunteer (Irish republican). I removed a section from the article per WP:TOPIC as it is entirely irrelevant to the article. Domer48 reverted saying The Volunteers were and became Republicans. I've since opened a discussion on the articles talk page and Domer48 has continually refused to engage in discussing or answering any questions directed at them. Rather they are continually stating "Sources please", despite the fact i provided a source that is in the article and the fact he has failed to provide any sources at all that back up his claims in any form whatsoever.

This violates attempts to improve Misplaced Pages and constitutes disruptive editing.

Mabuska 12:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I will briefly comment by saying that this sounds like par for the course given my experiences with Domer48. I don't know the details of this dispute but he/she is a very difficult editor to work with in my experience. --RA (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It really is a content issue that is simple to resolve, however Domer48 won't engage in discussion to provide evidence for their opinion on the matter. Mabuska 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you & Domer attempted working things out on either of your personal talkpages? GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If they won't engage in proper discussion on the article talk page, what makes you think going to user talk pages would make a difference? I did already try to engage with them on their talk page on an edit to the section in question and asked them to provide evidence for the content dispute on the articles talk page. Their response was to delete the entire section without a response. How can you collaborate and work with that? Mabuska 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I know whatcha mean. I've been barred from his talkpage for over a year or two. His 'door in the face' method is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when you try to discuss with Domer48 on his talk page. We'd had our differences, but even when trying to keep things civil there's no budging – simply ignoring the problem til it goes away. JonC 13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He gave me the treatment, when I changed my mind & chose to oppose his All Ireland article idea - 'bout 2 yrs ago. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Also i must add in the following "discussion" where Domer48 responds to a further issue with the same section with ad hominem rather than actually discussing the issues and questions raised. Totally unwilling to engage in proper discussion to help improve the article. Mabuska 13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, Domer48 is usually loath to discuss anything he doesn't feel like discussing. He's an expert at gaming the system and will frequently simply trot out an essay or guideline—even if it doesn't really support his view—rather than discussing and trying to reach consensus with other editors. A recent example of this has been at Talk:Kingsmill massacre#Names of victims, in which a new editor was bitten by Domer48 citing rules and calling their points "inane". D48 then simply vanished, ensuring no more progress could be made on the matter. A very difficult editor to work with indeed. JonC 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest proceeding along a WP:BRD path. One editor does not make WP:CONSENSUS, and if D48 chooses to revert without discussion, or engage in policy shopping, call them on it by starting the WP:DR process. It's not like D48 is a US Senator, after all...one editor can't stall the whole process! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I already made the edit before the discussion and they reverted it, hence why the article talk page discussion started. So the avenue of WP:BRD has already been trodden and there has been no relevant discussing from Domer48 on it at all. I simply want Domer48 to answer the questions asked to vindicate his opinion and to stop being disruptive with his lacking or ad hominem responses. I will however take your advice N5iln. Mabuska 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would now like to highlight that Domer48 has decided to turn his hand to making ad hominem statements and canvassing in an attempt to undermine me as an editor and to possibly sway opinion on this matter. Evidence of ad hominem is all of his responses (other than their first one) in this discussion, as well on this admins page where i am "the other editor", as well as canvassing N5iln after they made a response here that they didn't agree with, canvassing that also contained ad hominem.

Alleged issues with my editing behaviour are not the issue here, rather its Domer48's. If there are issues with my behaviour, its for another discussion on this page. Such attempts at canvassing and ad hominem to try to divert from the fact Domer48 is being disruptive by his failure to answer the simple questions asked of him, further highlight the problems of working with this editor. Mabuska 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what he did with me wouldn't qualify as WP:CANVASSING, since he wasn't asking me specifically to side with him. Any time I comment here, it opens the door for someone involved in the particular episode to speak with me semi-privately on my User Talk page. It's part of "normal operations" on Misplaced Pages. With all that said, I think there's more than a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude drifting about. I still feel the issue can be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes without direct admin intervention, but Domer48 first has to take the act of self-preservation and show a willingness to both talk AND listen. Failing that, well...maybe admin action will be warranted in the near future. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As an outside editor looking in, and not one to comment on such matters usually, I have to say I can't make heads or tails of what is going on here. The user's page] is so convoluted, and the article discussion so broad (rather than going at it point by point) that I don't see how anyone aside from experts on the subject could possibly make any sense of right or wrong here. Quinn 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC) BTW, whether within policy or not, I don't appreciate being just because I object to the way you communicate with other editors. The whole point is collaboration. Quinn 02:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In all technicality the core issue to which i reported Domer48 is over a very simple matter that revolves around the removal of information per WP:TOPIC and reverting of that by Domer48 and their continued failure to provide evidence that it is relevant. An expert isn't needed to resolve the issue as all Domer48 or anyone has to do is provide evidence to back their opinion up - Domer48 has continually failed to do so despite continued asking. Mabuska 10:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued failure to discuss

The Dispute Resolution appears to be a dead-end as there is no input at it, and Domer48 still refuses to collaborate and discuss the issue appearing to simply disappear from it altogether other than to remove a couple of article tags i added to the section in question.

To try to vindicate their position without providing a single source at all they even swapped sentences around to make it appear thats its sourced: Heres the swap, and heres the attempt at claiming its now sourced after i placed a {{cn}} after the dubious statement. If it was as Domer48 claims in the edit summary "editor simply ignores fact", then i'm sure they can provide the evidence (which i've been endlessly asking for).

This behaviour is rediculous and regardless of whether they call it a personal attack, is disruption pure and simple by refusing to discuss, whilst continually making edits that constitute synthesis, whilst throwing in an underhand edit to give the appearance that something is sourced. How hard is it to discuss things and to provide hard, cold evidence to back up their viewpoint?

Mabuska 09:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Domer48's refusal to appear here & respond, seems another example of this apparent behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it telling that Domer48 deleted the ANI notification from their Talk page with the edit summary of "per talk page header", and said Talk page header states that "Trolling will be deleted with extreme prejudice". Apparently, "trolling" means anything Domer48 doesn't want to hear or doesn't agree with. I wonder if a notification regarding a pending RfC/U would meet with the same non-response. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've finally gotten responses at the Dispute Resolution notice, and Domer48 finally made a comment on it as well - yet another comment laden with ad hominem and no providing of any evidence. This AN/I was about getting Domer48 to stop being disruptive and to provide his evidence, the Dispute Resolution board i was directed too seems to finally be getting somewhere - and thanks for the suggestion of that place as i didn't know of it.

Whilst that is all i wanted to resolve here, Domer48's overall recent behaviour outside of that article leaves me wondering should anything be done about that? The ad hominem arguements he has recently directed at me when all he had to do was provide a source - colvoluted ad hominem arguements at that; the lack of responsiveness whilst continuing on making article edits; failure to even explain his actions at this AN/I whilst making ad hominem comments about me on other editors talk pages; the fact others here in this dicussion have remarked negatively about his user page and talk page etc. etc.

Mabuska 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Now Domer48 seems to be really ramping up his attempts to get sanctions against me for nothing - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mabuska. When will this incivility end? Mabuska 10:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He's really digging his own grave over there. JonC 10:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Srobak and refusal to disengage

Srobak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked several times to disengage from conversations about LikeLakers2. A formal interaction ban was enacted at this thread. Since then, though, Srobak has decided to comment on LikeLakers2's edits including conspiracy theories about the user "holding things" over admins. He was told, once again, to disengage by by Fluffernutter.

Now, after this recent comment to disengage, he continues to inject commentary about the situation with LikeLaers2 that occurred weeks ago. It seems he has no desire to disengage from this situation and stop being a dead horse. What can be done with this at this point? only (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While that particular comment was fairly temperate, as Srobak's commentary on LikeLakers goes, I agree that it (and his behavior on my talk page today when I gave him yet another warning) shows that he has no intention of disengaging from his anger at LikeLakers2, despite repeated, increasingly pointed warnings. Since the last ANI thread petered out before being closed as "yes, you're interaction-banned, STOP IT," I would suggest a formal, binding interaction ban be cemented between the two users now (Srobak, because he can't disengage, and LikeLakers2, because a one-sided interaction ban never ends well). If Srobak remains unable to disengage even in the face of an interaction ban, appropriate sanctions could then be implemented. Note that Srobak claims I am part of a conspiracy of admins acting against him; you can feel free to consider me involved or not, based on whether you believe that.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to address this once (again), and that's going to be the end of it - so try paying attention this time you two, as you have both refused to do so before. I have explained repeatedly, and even directly to you flutter, on your own talk page... that this has nothing to do with LL, and everything to do with questionable if not shoddy adminship as a whole. Understand - I am not engaging LL - I AM engaging YOU. On more times than I can count over the years I have been told by the same handful of admins to stop reporting about a dozen different accounts (some socks/dupes) who habitually violated policies. I have also witnessed other users be told the same thing, and even observed reporting users getting warned and blocked, often times with WP:BOOMERANG getting cited - which more often than not is pure bullshit in those instances. After my last time around with this (which yes, was LL), I was contacted outside of WP and directed to another location with dozens of users citing hundreds of instances of similar things by less than a dozen, repeating admins. No - this isn't conspiracy theories (and so what if it were?) - but it is awfully damned coincidental. Why are a handful of admins protecting, harboring, enabling, placating to and encouraging habitual policy violators? That is the only question and situation there is here, and it absolutely must be answered as it is detrimental to the WP project. I could give a rip less about LL... his situation just happens to be a recent, shining example of what I am referring to, but is otherwise completely inconsequential. But understand this - none of you... not a single one of you - get to decide what I am doing or why I am doing it. Those determinations are up to one person: me. I have told you what I am referring to with the issues at hand (final hint: it isn't who, it's what) and I have told you why. It is not your place to categorically ignore those and invent your own of what I am doing or why and then try to hold your fiction against me and launch a witch-hunt. Now - with that, I am done with this nonsense... but 2 parting points: this has nothing to do with LL (read that over and over until you understand), and the issue which I have specified above will be rooted out - one way or another. Hasta. Srobak (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Srobak, I would like to remind you that on 31 August 2011, you agreed to a formal community-sanctioned interaction ban between yourself and LikeLakers2, and you agreed to be blocked if you violated the ban. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind you (again!) that 1> there has been no interaction with LL, and 2> this has nothing to do with LL. I have very, very clearly stated above what this is about. Read it for effect, and not for your own fiction. Srobak (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, Srobak was commenting on Colofac's talk page in the thread following his block in relation to ChristianAndJericho and the Nanjing University students project. It's basically shit stirring. Before this blows up into another fight, perhaps a bold admin can close this before the heat:light ratio gets out of proportion as there isn't anything actionable here. --Blackmane (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Support the formal interaction ban. Srobak & Colofac, and LL2 need to stay away from each other. Srobak and Colofac need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Let us be absolutely clear that this is an absolute interaction ban. The two camps of disputants are not to discuss the other with any other editor, including any admin, or any other party to this interaction ban. VanIsaac_WS 10:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind you (again!) that 1> there has been no interaction with LL, and 2> this has nothing to do with LL. I have very, very clearly stated above what this is about. Read it for effect, and not for your own fiction. An interaction ban is inconsequential, solves and accomplishes nothing. I can easily submit an extensive list of other users that have enjoyed similar shielding in their rampant abuse of policy. Stop trying to make this about something it isn't. Srobak (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And I'm saying that ANY discussion or interaction with ANY member of the Misplaced Pages community regarding LL2, I consider to be a violation of the interaction ban. Period. You have to drop the stick. Let it go. Delete it from your memory. Just. Plain. Stop. VanIsaac_WS 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree and it should be obvious too. It's clearly going to be nearly always inappropriate to publicly talk about someone you have a mutual interaction ban with because the person can't respond without violating the ban. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support the formal interaction ban. Nothing good can come out of this situation as it is. Dayewalker (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing good can come out of continued shielding and enabling of repeat policy violators. This has nothing to do with my interaction (or in reality - lack thereof) with LL. An interaction ban is inconsequential, solves and accomplishes nothing. Srobak (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As requested below, some diffs would help here. All that's apparent from your recent edits is that you seem to be being disruptive, and you're upset about something that you haven't really been too clear about yet. I glanced at your edits, you don't seem to have made any cases at ANI in several weeks. I understand you think you've been through all this before, but if you want the help of other editors, you need to do a better job of showing editors who haven't followed this whole discussion what you're talking about. Dayewalker (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it will stop you from "yelling" by excessive use of bolding, underlining, and any other formatting that provides far-too much emphasis on your words? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Understand this - if I want something emphasized, then I will emphasize it, got it? That is my decision to make, not yours. Obviously it is an important detail. One which keeps getting ignored, so if I choose to emphasize it to try and get you people to listen. Maybe if people paid attention to what is being said instead of fictionalizing crap in order to shift the focus off them (read: something to hide) I wouldn't need to emphasize my points. Pay attention, and mind yourself and your own emphasis, Bwilkins! Srobak (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Srobak, please provide links to edits that LL2 is violating policy, or that any admin is "shielding users". Thank you. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Support formal interaction ban between LikeLakers2, Colofac and Srobak. They are clearly unable to interface productively with each other, as the regular appearances at this noticeboard and elsewhere prove. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While I can't support nor oppose due to being the proposer of the first interaction ban proposal, clearly this problem hasn't died off as some may hope. It seems more and more like there's one and only one agenda at hand, and that's getting one user in trouble, which is not what we do on Misplaced Pages. Clearly no evidence has been provided to these accusations, and the only diff posted is of the original proposal. If this gets worse, after if an interaction ban is formally added, that I would look into a block of community blocks/bans here. There's problems and it needs to end.Mitch32 20:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this constitute a consensus, or am I just bumping the thread to make sure it doesn't get archived before we come to a consensus? VanIsaac_WS 12:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would support an interaction ban; it would prevent (or at least mitigate) drama. With a little luck, people could devote more time to working on the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, VanIsaac, this and the previous thread do appear to constitute consensus to give Srobak and LikeLakers2 interaction bans for each other. I'll be off to put a notice on each of the users' talk pages. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"As I said, this is inconsequential as there was no interaction in the first place, and does NOTHING to solve the real problem, which WILL be brought to bare". I'm unclear on whether that means Srobak is refusing to abide by the terms of the interaction ban (since he's claiming there was no "interaction" when this ban would absolutely have covered his behavior earlier this week) or just blowing off some steam about being unhappy to be restricted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your attempt at feigning ignorance here is amusing, if not absurd, Fluff. You have had it explained to you repeatedly - even directly, and you know damn well it has nothing to do with either one of those. Srobak (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether he accepts it or not, the interaction ban is in place. Let's just leave him alone for now, if he breaks the ban he'll get blocked and he knows it. His threats to expose something-or-other are already tiresome, all light and no heat. He's had plenty of chances to make his case, now he can just forget it and go about working on the Wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to messaging people about AN/Is concerning them? I was not messaged about this. Not on IRC or on my talk page. (if I was told on IRC, I didn't see it.) Anyways, even though this already has a consensus, I would support the interaction ban. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops. This thread kind of wandered, and we forgot that you were becoming involved. To be honest, this is really just the formalization of the interaction ban that was discussed previously - an arrangement that you appear to have followed, and which we are only revisiting because others are not. Sorry to have gotten a bit tangled up and backward in regards to you. We welcome any input you have to this matter, and appreciate your understanding displayed above. VanIsaac_WS 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't involved until y'all involved him! I never did. That was my point with this from the very beginning. Now you have demonstrated and proven my point perfectly. All this was an exercise in stupidity on your parts. Congratulations... this will all make an excellent contribution to those discussions about administrative misconduct and will serve as further proof to that effect when it is all brought to bare in the near future. This will be much fun. :) Srobak (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Pacs2.jpg and File:Pacs1.jpg

I uploaded these images years ago, and have tagged them with KeepLocal. User:RHaworth has deleted these images, despite their being marked as such. I restored them and tried to discuss this on his talk page, but he(?) didn't really seem to agree with this, or listen, as he has now tagged them again for speedy deletion, and protected them citing "vandalism". I am not happy, as KeepLocal has been okayed for use on two separate occasions (see its TFD discussions). Also, tagging an image with KeepLocal is not vandalism. As I don't want to get into some kind of half-baked edit war, please could an uninvolved admin undo this, and ask him to behave, and respect the wishes of his fellow users. Thanks. Also, File:Pacs1.jpg. fish&karate 08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• What has any TfD discussion got to do with anything? I am not questioning the validity of the {{KeepLocal}} tag. I am questioning the presence of these two images. The only reason fish&karate can offer for keeping these images is "would like to be able to keep them on my watchlist". I do not consider this a good enough reason for keeping local. I request a ruling by an uninvolved admin. (OK, I apologise about the "vandalism" tag - please read as "uploader is removing speedy tag from their own upload".) — ] (talk · contribs) 09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that RHaworth tagged them for speedy and then protected them - I'm not entirely sure this is an appropriate use of the tools given this isn't a clearcut administrative action, it's a difference of opinion (and particularly pointless given that I'm an admin anyway, so I don't see what possible benefit there was of doing this). As regards the TFD discussion, this contains a list of reasons why a user may want to retain a local copy of the image they created and submitted. I agree with all these and they sum up the reasons I would like to retain the images on en.wiki, very eloquently. I don't understand why this would upset RHaworth so much that he has to delete them, protect them, and tag them for deletion again - whatever happened to respecting a reasonable and in-policy wish from a fellow user? fish&karate 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I also apologise for protecting. After doing it, I was amazed to discover that it was an admin saying weakly "I want them on my watchlist". Also, if you want me to look at some TfD discussion, do you think that providing a link to it might be a good idea? — ] (talk · contribs) 10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The TFD discussion(s) are linked on Template talk:KeepLocal. You may think "I want them on my watchlist" is weak (others do not, see the aforementioned TFD discussion), but is that small request so weak you felt compelled to a) ignore my wishes, b) speedily delete the images, c) ignore my further request to leave them on en.wiki, d) re-tag them for speedy deletion and e) protect the images? If the main point of contention is now that I didn't give you enough reason to not delete them(! - any reason should be enough as they break no policy), why not say so, and ask for additional discussion, rather than summarily re-tag them for deletion? fish&karate 10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The gist of the TfD was that because Commons is not directly answerable to us as editors (i.e. that it has its own policies) that editors should be able to reserve the right to retain local copies of media in case something happens to it at Commons. I'd argue that the only negative thing that could happen to an image at Commons is that it's deleted, and that unless there were a threat of that we shouldn't be retaining forks of any media at all. "Keeping something on my watchlist" sounds all well and good until one realises that this entails essentially overriding Misplaced Pages's use of the file at Commons. Why not just tick the "email me if a page on my watchlist is changed" option in the Commons preferences? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, the gist was that users should not be forced to use Commons if they do not wish to. I have no objection whatsoever if an image I submit is uploaded to Commons (and nor should I - they were freely given) but to retain a local copy is not unreasonable. fish&karate 10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Agree with Chris seems like a week reason to keep copies here, why not list for WP:FfD and see what consensus is rather than debate here. Mtking 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Ah, but, it's not just a case of "retaining a local copy": it's a case of forcing Misplaced Pages to use your local copy when displaying the image. That actually has quite an impact on both projects as it requires someone to attempt to keep both forks in sync, leads to confusion when an editor thinks updating the Commons image will fix it here, and so on. It is not obvious to me that an image offered freely to Misplaced Pages is any different from any other contribution offered freely to Misplaced Pages, and the words "edited mercilessly" spring to mind. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • In that case, Chris and Mtking, why not send every image marked with NoCommons or KeepLocal to WP:FfD and delete these templates? If you want the commons image used rather than a local copy, to prevent the horror that is two copies of an image existing on en.wiki and on Commons, rename it on Commons (I won't mind!) and update the article's image links appropriately. Or go and produce your own image and do what you like with it. fish&karate 11:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
      • There's no need to be so aggressive. I'm not proposing deleting files, just trying to establish why they're being kept in two places at once and whether we should endeavour to come up with a list of good reasons for doing it (rather than the present situation, which seems to be "if you feel like it"). Maybe a |reason parameter on {{KeepLocal}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
        • No aggression here, just moderate frustration that this has been discussed before and people don't listen. For information, there are 2,282 images at Category:Wikipedia_files_on_Wikimedia_Commons_for_which_a_local_copy_has_been_requested_to_be_kept. There is a discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_42#Files_that_are_Commons_duplicates where the community expressed a consensus that retaining a local copy of an image that had been uploaded to Commons was not a valid reason for speedy deletion (reinforcing this TFD "keep" discussion. There are some reasons there. It was suggested in that discussion that someone open an RFC if they wanted this changed, and, as yet, nobody has done so. I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a discussion. fish&karate 11:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
      • The KeepLocal issue is an annoying one: people tag their images (despite WP:OWN!) with KeepLocal with no reason why. I proposed a while back that KeepLocal should have an optional reason parameter so people can put the reason in. What's to stop someone who just has, say, generalized animosity towards Commons from just tagging all images with KeepLocal? "We're using it in a high-value template" is a pretty good reason. "Just because" isn't. "I want to keep it on my watchlist" seems a pretty crappy reason to keep a file locally rather than put it on Commons and enable all the projects to use it and potentially prevent improvement of the image and the metadata. Should we do the same with policy pages and Meta or, say, original source materials and Wikisource or dictionary definitions and Wiktionary? Without particular reference to this case, I think it is high time we re-evaluate continued existence of KeepLocal given the incompatibility with WP:OWN, and the implicit idea that we must always abide by KeepLocal's placed by uploaders for their benefit (like not wanting to use Commons) rather than for meaningful community benefits (like preventing breaking of high value templates). —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Given the contempt that some of the Commons managers have towards wikipedia, keeping a local copy here does not seem unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I'm also concerned that editors who don't want their images on commons (for whatever reason) will choose not to submit them at all, rather than knowing they can submit them and keep them on en.wiki. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
            • If an editor is so spiteful as to not release a file under a free licence in case it happens to be uploaded to Commons (because once a file is freely licensed, anyone can upload it to Commons without the author's permission) then that editor should have a word with himself. The same also applies to the hypothetical "Commons managers" who would delete a file out of spite just because en-wp is using it (I really must make sure I'm up to date on the boogeyman of the week: I thought it was still de-wp). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I recently marked File:SarekOfVulcanAvatar.jpg as KeepLocal because I'm not sure that my licensing would stand up under close scrutiny. I took the picture myself, but the carving I photographed was anonymous public art in the middle of the woods. I have no problem with it being uploaded to Commons: I do have a problem with it getting deleted once it gets there if there's no backup on Misplaced Pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
                • That sounds like an imminently sensible rationale to me, as was SlimVirgin's in the last TfD for {{KeepLocal}}. Evidently there is some degree of support for local copies; the question is to what degree that is. Now that the immediate problem at hand has been resolved, though, that discussion should really take place somewhere other than ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded images of Mategna's Triumphs of Caesar here that I reconstituted from the Royal Collection because of possible problems on Commons (cf the National Portrait Gallery problems of Dcoetzee). The joins between the layers of the images could be detected when magnified 10 times (each image being made up of about 10 pieces). An Italian user uploaded my images to Commons claiming he had found them at the website of the Royal Collection, but that licensing was deceptive since magnification shows that they are my reconstituted images (the detailed images can only be viewed piece by piece). In addition one engraving from Vienna was deceptively labelled as being from the Royal Collection. In cases like that, there is a reason for keeping images here. Mathsci (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that after the great "porn" purge a bit ago on Commons, several users walked away from the project. By forcing their images over to commons, you may alienate them from uploading anything at all.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While I have a low regard for the way Commons is operated, losing a few (child?) porn purveyors doesn't seem like much of a loss. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about child porn? That's a rather disturbing comment to make about other editors, with no evidence that I can see, and despite not being directly targeted at an individual editor, it could be construed as being targeted at anyone who stopped uploading to commons over that fiasco, and thus easily identifiable. Honestly you should be blocked over that. Child porn allegations are extremely heavy handed. From what I saw, even users who didn't upload any "pornographic" images left the project simply because of the way the entire incident was handled with Jimmy just going through and wiping out anything he didn't like.--Crossmr (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool your jets. It was my understanding that Jimbo was zapping stuff that he considered to be child porn, but I don't know if that was the scope or if it was broader (maybe you missed the question mark in my comment). But the whiners seemed to forget that they're anonymous, while Jimbo is the very public face of wikipedia, and he had to do what he thought best. Kind of a broad-ranging IAR. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo went off half-cocked as part of a knee-jerk reaction to some article on how Commons was a treasure trove of degeneracy. From what I saw at the time, basically anything with nudity in it was fair game, and there were messages all over the place trying to get him to stop. With him running roughshod over anyone who disagreed with him. It certainly wasn't limited to, nor focused on child pornography, and he deleted a lot of in-use images at the time as well. The people who left were image uploaders, but also those who were just disgusted by his behaviour in general. tacking a ? onto child does very little to soften the implication and generalization of what you wrote.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo was zapping stuff that he considered to be "out of project scope", which included child porn but also pornographic artworks like , which he deleted three times in a row (so hardly an error) despite being clearly in scope for Commons and not child porn at all (it is now used on ten Misplaced Pages articles in different languages). Actions like this led to the departure of a number of Commons contributors, and the removal of a bunch of rights Jimbo had previously, and probably a loss of faith in the leadership qualities of the co-founder for many other editors as well. Fram (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

One question: What, pray tell, are those images supposed to be? They look like blobs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the rest of us were afraid to ask ... --Epeefleche (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

MRI scans of the thoracic cavity, from the look of them. Center is the heart, with the lungs on either side. Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. fish&karate 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

War of the Romanian diacritics

• BAICAN XXX (talk · contribs)

This user has an issue with Romanian diacritics, performing a substantial number of undiscussed page moves and content changes to accommodate his taste. One recent example was the renaming of Deşteaptă-te, române! (the Romanian anthem), changing "ş" to "ș". Yes, you need a good screen resolution to see the difference. Admittedly, I can't even order a beer in Romanian, but it's pretty clear from assorted searches (and the Romanian Misplaced Pages) that the original spelling is the common one. But we are not here to discuss truth; the issue is the user's unwillingness to explain and discuss in spite of several invitations to do so on their talk page. As may be seen from their global contributions, this behavior extends over several Wikipediæ, and they are blocked from the Romanian one (because of sockpuppetry) as well as the English and Romanian Wiktionaries. The editor is at it again, having ignored my note, so I'm seeking consensus to use stern measures. Favonian (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours to stop the immediate problem (the user was still making rapid edits of this sort right up until blocked, which was ten minutes after the ANI comment). With any luck this will encourage the user to discuss his edits. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the spelling with the "comma below" (ș) is considered the normatively correct one for Romanian, but since that character was for a long time unavailable in many computing environments, it has become very common to see the spellings with cedilla (ş) substituted for it. See Romanian orthography#Digital typography for a bit of background. If he was moving stuff to the "comma" spellings, there's a case to be made that his edits were correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and the explanation. The latter gives me a good excuse for not reverting all those page moves right now ;) Should something be done about the global account? Favonian (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As a person who has been involved in Unicode for a number of years (I'm a script sponsor and researcher), I can tell you that the problem with Romanian is quite old. The correct spelling of these articles should be with the S with comma below, but as you can see from the Sorting It All Out blog, Romanian Misplaced Pages only updated to the correct characters last year, and this is an issue that has taken decades to get straightened out. Blame shortsighted ISO people that made 8859-2 in 1987. VanIsaac_WS 23:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow! And I thought we had problems, just because certain people think Æ, Ø and Å are diacritiacally modified versions of A and O. Thanks a lot for the link and your work in this area generally! Favonian (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ALL diacritics should be eradicated from English Misplaced Pages, ALL of them. Let the Non-English Wikipedias have'em. We're only stuck with them, due to many editors letting their 'home country' pride or ancestry 'home country' pride cloud their judgement. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I respect your opinion and I find you an outstanding editor, but I don't think AN/I is the place to circulate unfounded allegations about why wikipedians such as myself use diacritics. I also take objection to the misrepresentation of our motives (namely, that we are doing this because of some patriotic fantasy), and invite those reading this to look further into the issue and note what was already discussed in the past. I am a cosmopolitan man, a rationalist, and a nominalist, and nothing of what I have ever done, here or in real life, was ever motivated by "country pride or ancestry" - I am sure many who support the steady use of diacritics where required are just like me in that respect. I deserve better than to be depicted as some troglodyte with a clouded judgment. Dahn (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My use of diacritics has absolutely nothing to do with any home country pride - I'm at least fourth generation English speaking in any branch of my family tree - but has everything to do with properly rendering foreign names and terms. VanIsaac_WS 13:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the whole polemic about diacritics is irrelevant to the present case anyway. We are not just talking about article titles and use in running text; we are also talking about the formatting of text that is explicitly tagged as quoted Romanian (such as alternate native names of geographic places etc.) GoodDay, please take your ideological battle elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only be grateful that reliable sources take a different stance on diacriticals to GoodDay, and with a little luck wikipedians will follow what reliable sources say rather than taking GoodDay seriously. However, I'll take it no further; we have a dedicated page for arguing about diacriticals, and this isn't it. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that GoodDay is practicing Reductio ad absurdum in this argument. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Persistent deletion of a Dance Guru

This is the master page and the following link will have the latest content that would include "Dr. Bidisha Mohanty and several others around the world."

The following are the series of edits done by the user "DanceCritic1971"

• 17:18, 20 September 2011 Karan1974
• 17:17, 20 September 2011 DanceCritic1971 This the latest edit which I have reverted
• 15:15, 20 September 2011 Karan1974
• 14:37, 20 September 2011 DanceCritic1971
• 15:46, 19 September 2011 Karan1974
• 07:32, 19 September 2011 DanceCritic1971
• 03:51, 19 September 2011 Karan1974
• 19:17, 18 September 2011 DanceCritic1971
• 15:58, 17 September 2011 Karan1974
• 15:58, 17 September 2011 Karan1974
• 07:49, 17 September 2011 DanceCritic1971
• 07:27, 17 September 2011 DanceCritic1971
• 15:56, 15 September 2011 Karan1974
• 13:15, 15 September 2011 DanceCritic1971
• 17:30, 14 September 2011 Karan1974
• 12:18, 14 September 2011 DanceCritic1971

I have requested the user "DanceCritic1971" to provide me with their rationale behind this edits but am yet to get a response. The following is the content of the user talk page of "DanceCritic1971":

User talk:DanceCritic1971

• Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Still awaiting on the rationale. Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am not sure of the reason you have behind this edit. So, could you be kind enough to please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Still awaiting on the rationale. Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I also wish to bring to your attention that a series of ids have been created just to pull out Dr. Bidisha Mohanty's name. May be it is kind of "Sock Puppetry" being played out here. The other profiles which got created only to edit out Dr. Bidisha Mohanty out are as follows. Strangely these have been created newly during this month of September, 2011 to facilitate edit and give the impression that a multitude of people are involved.

There is a user named "Mukkhuu" who was pretty much vocal about not including her name during 2010 and I have provided the apt justifications behind that and the person had grudginly agreed but I believe not totally convinced. Initially the person had agreed but I could see a fake BOT profile getting created (Editbot3) just to edit out her name. I had reverted the edits made by "Editbot3" and after quite some time Wiki found out that "Editbot3" was a humanoid masking as a bot and had BLOCKED it. Thereafter user "Mukkhuu" again started editing out the information. I again provided the justification to user "Mukkhuu" and again he agreed to keep Dr. Bidisha Mohanty's name. But, we see that a host of profiles are getting created with the sole purpose of editing her name out. These ids are

• Profile >>> Profile Created on
• OdissicriticDelhi 13:41, 12 September 2011
• IndianDanceCritic 16:46, 3 September 2011
• DanceCritic1971 09:25, 13 September 2011

I could presume these multitude of ids are created by user "Mukkhuu", who probably wishes to provide a clean profile but is carrying out his purpose behind different facades.

I would earnestly request the admins to please block the following profiles of ("OdissicriticDelhi", "IndianDanceCritic", "DanceCritic1971" and "Mukkhuu") as they are not inherently healthy and reduce the genuineness of the article. My request for discussion is not entertained (except for "Mukkhuu" and we can see that there are biased editing (singling out a person) which is not healthy for the community. I only gave the extract for user "DanceCritic1971" as the other users "OdissicriticDelhi" and "IndianDanceCritic" have done it only once and they never responded to my call for discussion.

Thanks. --Karan1974 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC) --Karan1974 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are userlinks for the editors in question:

• Mukkhuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OdissicriticDelhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IndianDanceCritic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DanceCritic1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I might open a sockpuppet investigation if checkuser data is needed but I'll look over the edits myself, it it's obvious enough per WP:DUCK I'll block unless someone else does first. -- Atama頭 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I should also include Editbot3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. -- Atama頭 20:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear enough for me to do any blocking so I opened up a sockpuppet investigation here. Also, none of the editors mentioned here have been notified of this report, as is required, so I will do so. -- Atama頭 21:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just an update, checkuser has shown that OdissicriticDelhi, IndianDanceCritic, and DanceCritic1971 were a "direct match" as well as a fourth editor. All 4 accounts are now blocked. Mukkhuu was unrelated to those 4, although it was shown that Editbot3 was a likely match. Since Editbot3 was blocked over a month ago, and Mukkhuu doesn't seem to have socked since, I left a warning. -- Atama頭 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied to your "warning" Atama. "Mukkhuu doesn't seem to have socked since"??? Further to my earlier reply to you Atama, My "Editbot" got deleted coz at that time I was not aware of the username policy about using "bot". The moment I was made aware of this I stopped using that and used "Mukkhuu". I have never socked, nor will I ever do so. I would like to ask you to look into the "edit history" of "Odissi". Karan1974, the person asking for investigation of me has been writing messages on my board, long rants about my deletion of this person's name from a list. I feel mildly threatened at his big-brother attitude about this wiki article. I tried to handle it good-humourdly, but Karan's messages are long and offensive. His accusing me of multiple sockpuppetry is extremely irritating and offensive to me. He chose to make major changes in the page recently, including inclusion of "Dr. Bidisha Mohanty"'s name in the list of prominent Odissi dancers and since then he seems to keep such a careful watch over it, it is not possible for anyone else to make any changes without Karan1974 immediately meddling with it. The person he included is not a prominent dancer, and like he mentioned in a message to me, she is his daughter's dance teacher in California. Several people tried to edit that, unfortunately turns out a few of them are sockpuppets. Nevertheless, Karan1974 will not give up his attempt to keep that one name and there is nothing that anyone else is being able to do. Mukkhuu (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Impersonation Accounts

Interesting evening over at Anderson Cooper, two new accounts have popped up tonight. The first claims to be Benjamin Maisani, and made comments on his talk page and the AC page. The second claims to be editing in tribute to a deceased Wikipedian, and is disrupting at the AC page, Talk:AIDS, and Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality‎ in their memory. Some admin attention would be appreciated, thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this heads-up. The second account has been indef blocked by NawlinWiki, and those edits have been removed. I've removed the name of that deceased Wikipedian from your comment, for the sake of those who don't want this account associated with his memory. More eyes on those articles tonight would be useful. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, is it possible to force a name-change on an account? (Of course it's technically possible, but do we do that sort of thing? That would be nice in this second case.) DeliciousBits (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of these accounts were, of course, banned User:Brucejenner. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That account should further be blocked indefinitely as it is itself an impersonation account. --76.6.36.188 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Brucejenner already is indef'd. (An indefinite block is SOP for banned users.) —Jeremy v^_^v 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand's disruptive editings

Hi. Administrator Atama advised me to report this issue here. User:Gilabrand who has previously been block by the ARBCOM and is unblocked with the promise of not causing any further disruptions, is engaged in disruptive editing in Babylon (program). He refuses to come to term with the editors, often in form of remaining silent, refusing to participate in the discussions (See and ) and simply reinstating the changes that are times and again contested without supplying a description, as well as supplying bogus edit summaries. He has also vandalized my talk page.

Diffs

• This and this diff are of an edit warring in 10 May 2011. He has:
  1. Removed all maintenance tags from the article with this edit summary: "tags unneeded" and "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them"! Well, I do not know how he can possibly count {{bare links}} as someone having grudge, or how he can count {{Unreferenced section}} as unnecessary!
  2. Merged "Company information" section with the lead section, which is against WP:MOS. Lead section must no have novel info.

• This diff shows the six edits that he did in 10 May 2011 which include:
  1. Moving the auxiliary information about the company from "Company information" section at the bottom of the article to the top, and rewriting them in an advertising manner.
  2. Using euphemism in "Malware-like behavior" section to reduce its effect in a non-neutral manner: He replaces the accurate adverbs of time with the inaccurate ones, which is not allowed in WP:MOS. Also, he renamed the "Malware-like behavior" title into the vague "Controversies".

• This diff is his eight edits that he has done on 15 September 2011. He has:
  1. Again, has shifted focus of the matter from Babylon to its creator in the History section, thus converting the "History" section so that it is now "History of the producer" instead of history of the product.
  2. Again, has add novel information to lead section that is not about the subject of the article. (Something about "Babylon-Enterprise", which is obviously a separate product.)
  3. Commited the same violation of WP:MOS about use of accurate time adverb that he did back in May, in the same section ("Malware-like behavior").
  4. Again, he attempted to reduce the negative weight of "Malware-like behavior" section by calling the behavior "potentially intrusive" instead of "intrusive".
  5. Added a single spam link to See Also section; though this is not much of an issue.

• This diff is that of an edit on 21 September 2011 (today). He has:
  1. Failed to respond to my communication in his talk page. (See latest permanent link.)
  2. Reinstated all his previous edits while knowing that they are likely to be contested. These include deletion of External Links section, removal of formatting from References section and reduction of the image size despite the fact that the image is no longer the same.
  3. Supplied a bogus edit summary that reads: ce; add info & ref

• This diff is what he has done to my talk page on 21 September 2011. He has:
  1. Deleted many of my communications
  2. Deleted the protection template
  3. Supplied the following edit summary: "Edit warring and other violations of Misplaced Pages policy"

Correct me if I am wrong but is it not vandalism? It looks like naive act of vengeance.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

FleetCommand has already cites these "arguments" at the COI noticeboard. He was informed that the editing of the article actually improved it, and he admitted that he had no evidence of COI. Meanwhile, he has accused other editors - in fact anyone who comes to the page - of COI, and has engaged in active edit warring for the greater part of the week. I never touched the article after he made a string of edits. They were objected to by other editors. There is a clear consensus for my additions to the article, which were all reliably sourced. Yet FleetCommand insists that I am in violation of consensus. An administrator even wiped out some of his problematic comments this morning. I left him a polite note on his page regarding his challenge of my edits, but he has chosen to focus the problem on me. Looking at the history of the article, there is an obvious attempt to keep information from being added, especially if it reflects well in any way on the company. FleetCommand's attempt to commandeer the article and draw me (and others) into a fight, all the while appealing to various noticeboards for support, is worrying.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This argument is only half true. I was told that his edits were not COI, but was also told that they are not okay. In fact, administrator Atama said "that may be like saying that a burglar is innocent of jaywalking". In any case, Gilabrand has failed to participate in the post-noticeboard discussion and continued to reinstated previously contested edits. As for an administrator wiping out my problematic comments, this is another matter entirely. Surprisingly, Gilabrand has removed that administrator's comment in my talk page in his vandalism attempt (for which I supplied the diff above). Now, since I supplied the diff, you can see for yourself that this second COI is another COI entirely. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That said, I would like to reiterate that if a user is once suspected of COI but was cleared, it doesn't mean that he can do ANYTHING he wants, like disruptive editing and refusing to work towards reaching a consensus. Also, there is no policy that says "if FleetCommand is told that he was wrong about a COI case, Gilabrand may refuse to work towards a consensus." Fleet Command (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification, I pointed out that Gilabrand was indefinitely blocked for WP:ARBPIA violations, and less than a month ago the ArbCom block was "provisionally suspended". My comment about "burglar innocent of jaywalking" was because disruption at an Israeli article (Babylon is an Israeli company) for a person in Gilabrand's circumstances would be much more serious than a COI suspicion if this was shown to be in violation of the block suspension. I also suggested that there did seem to be MOS violations, but I also stated that I felt that Gilabrand's edits at the article were "overall an improvement". My suggestion to try ANI was because there may be other administrators more familiar with ARBPIA or Gilabrand's previous troubles, and that WP:COIN was a poor place to try to find administrator advice or action since there aren't a lot of admins that hang out there. I also brought up the possibility of making a request at WP:AE but I doubted that this fell under the P-I dispute area. I don't like to get involved in AE-related issues personally, which is why I suggested another venue for advice. -- Atama頭 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: In his latest edit, this user has broken apart the "Critical reception" section into two "Malware behavior" and "Awards" section, again integrating the same contents that are times and again contested. This contribution has one message: "I have interest in conflict and love dispute." In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and avoid an edit war, I shall stop editing the article for a while. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Fleet-As mentioned in the talkpage discussion, it is clear that you are passionate. But it is also clear that your views are non-consensus, relative to the subject matter of that string. I wonder whether you may not be bordering on using noticeboards to seek to chill the editing of others, whose view does not match yours.

I mused about that when you used a noticeboard to bring this complaint against me, which was found to be without basis. As we were involved in precisely the same editing dispute. Your views in that complaint were not shared by other editors. You then accused a second editor, who had disagreed with you, of COI--in statements that had to be suppressed by a sysop on the basis of our outing policy. You then brought another complaint, which similarly went nowhere, against yet a third editor -- the subject of the complaint. And you now bring this fourth complaint, which I don't see as having merit, though of course I am involved in the underlying issue in which you are disagreeing with the three mentioned editors and others.

And, of course, this has all happened within a few hours, as you have reverted multiple editors at the Babylon article, without consensus support for your views. I would hope that you are not using these noticeboards as tools to seek to intimidate editors with whom you have an editing dispute. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. In addition you are gaming the system: You are stealing another person's topic to win a content dispute in your favor on the pretext that the articles are the same. Yet you are committing the same error as him: You do not discuss the content at all. You constantly comment on me and make believe that a consensus is reached while there is no such thing. Until now, you have refused to even comment on my objections. Please stay out of here. Fleet Command (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and besides, one person might lodge many complaints in ANI and all of them might get rejected. Neither the lodging is a crime nor the rejection is a shame. Most important of all, lodging complaints and rejection does not mean you are allowed to do whatever you like. In Misplaced Pages, consensus is the primary way of decision making. Disputes should be solved through dispute resolution. Fleet Command (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(On a small side issue, and without prejudice to FleetCommand's primary complaint here.) FC, your response above seems to indicate you thought Epeefleche's contribution was a personal attack. I didn't read anything remotely attacking in there and it only weakens your case if you make such assertions. Epeefleche may have written things you disagree with and which you think are an attempt to weaken your case; this does not make it an attack. Also, any user can comment here and it does no good to ask people to stay out. Bringing an issue to AN/I implies that anyone and everyone can and will comment, and that your own as well as others' contributions will be closely scrutinised. Kim Dent-Brown 12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But my dear friend, if you actually read clause #2 of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, you see that it defines "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" as a personal attack. If Epeefleche's comments are not meant to to discredit my case against Gilabrand and his disruption of Misplaced Pages, please tell me: What are they meant to be? Fleet Command (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat that Epeefleche's comments above did not, in my opinion, constitute a personal attack - even in terms of the clause you mention above. I have now had the chance of looking at the discussion on the talk page of the Babylon (program) article and this seems to me to be a content dispute which should be resolved there. I cannot see anything at present requiring administrator involvement, though I would counsel all sides (yes, you too FleetCommander) to be scrupulously polite to one another. There is an unnecessary degree of acrimony over what is really a rather trivial detail in the article itself. Kim Dent-Brown 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I do accept your counsel and I will either initiate a MEDCAB case or leave the matter entirely. I also do not demand any action against Epeegleche. (Though I still think his post can be at best seen as pointless and should be removed and at worst a personal attack and a malevolent attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages in favor of his friend.)

However, let us not go astray from our discussion: Gilabrand. His past actions have not been constructive to the article and will prevent it from ever becoming a Good Article. He has shown no sign of willingness to abandon his disruptive behavior. At this point, I believe it is enough for him to promise that in the future, he will be more cooperative, will respond to my communication and do not refuse to get the point. Although I believe that a block may also be appropriate, with respect to Blocking policy § Disruption and with respect to the Arbitration Committee motion that has set a much more strict standard of behavior after his block is suspended, as well the recent chain of personal attacks that he has started against me in his talk page. At this point however, taking the matter to the arbitration committee is not very friendly. Fleet Command (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason that academic arguments are so viscious, said Henry Kissinger, is that there is so little at stake. That is certainly the case here: this entire war is about the most picayune editorial changes. Gilabrand wants to say it this way, FleetCommand wants to say it another way. Gilabrand wants company information at the beginning of the article, FleetCommand wants it at the end. Gilabrand wants to write "...Israeli entrepreneur Amnon Ovadia who sought to create an English-Hebrew dictionary", FleetCommand wants to write "...Amnon Ovadia who had the idea of creating an English-Hebrew dictionary". FleetCommand insists that it is important to specify the exact date that Microsoft issued a warning about Babylon - 7 August 2010, while Gilabrand thinks that the month alone is sufficient.

It is true that FleetCommand has deleted a few documented facts from the article. The stuff he wants to delete might be construed as a commercial pump-up of the company and the product, but then again, it might not. In any case, it isn't really important stuff. FleetCommand is obviously touchy about people futzing with his prose, and Gilabrand clearly has a short fuse, something that has gotten her into trouble here before.

Full disclosure: I am the editor who recommended that Gilabrand's indefinite block be rescinded. I therefore feel a sort of paternal concern in ushering her back into the fold of wikipeace and love.

Be that as it may, this editing dispute ranks in my mind as one of the stupidest and most pointless that I have seen. If I were an arb, and if editing conflicts had asses, that is where I would kick this dispute out onto. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, I must contest your use of euphemism to describe the situation. Gilabrand has vandalized my talk page. In an edit, whose summary reads "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them", he has deleted {{bare links|date=February 2011}}! Besides, he has failed to communicate thrice and violated WP:BRD. These cannot possibly be passed for a good-faith content dispute. Fleet Command (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So, to the substance of Fleet Command's complaint. I find little to differentiate the behaviour of this user and Gilabrand. The latter certainly refactored a talk page comment made by the former which was ill advised, but not what I myself would call vandalism. Nothing that Gilabrand (or for that matter FleetCommand) has yet done deserves a block, unless pointless angels-on-head-of-a-pin arguments render you both due a block. You should both spend more time proposing constructive compromises rather than prolonging this. Please note, I'm not taking Gilabrand's side in this content dispute. But it was you FC, not Gilabrand, who brought this to AN/I and in my opinion it doesn't belong here so it's you I'm criticising for this. Now, I've made my position clear and won't prolong this with further posts. If any other admins wish to express a contrary (or supporting) opinion that would be fine. If none is forthcoming in the next 24 hours I suggest we strike this issue as 'no admin action necessary'. Kim Dent-Brown 20:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? He deleted three whole discussions on my talk page as well as one of my replies and you don't call it a vandalism? What do you call a vandalism? Yes, it is obvious that you are taking Gilabrand's side, you need not have said it. Fleet Command (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Kim (and others), as to dismissing the complaint brought against Gilabrand, which is the original focus of this matter. As to Fleet, I have a different view. See, e.g., my above comments re Fleet's editing against consensus, Fleet's attempted outing of an editor w/whom he is in conflict (itself, a blockable offense), Fleet's bringing multiple baseless complaints in the past 24 hours against a series of editors w/whom he is engaged in a content dispute, Fleet's edit-warring (2.5 months after being unblocked on the basis of an agreement not to edit war), etc. Whether they are addressed elsewhere or here, these have built up to such a point that they do perhaps deserve some attention, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Note: If anyone is looking for further input on the above from Fleet, please be aware that he has been blocked for 36 hours for edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Edward.Didier

The subject of this complaint is User:Edward.Didier, a disruptive POV-warrior who apparently seems to have a history of making ethnic-centric and pro-MQM edits on Misplaced Pages, which is a Pakistani political party. This user is relatively inexperienced and has repeatedly been making undiscussed changes which go against WP:NPOV such as on Politics of Karachi (where he keeps replacing a well-structured sentence with a gramatically incorrect and unclear paragraph); on the same article, he has removed a large chunk of writing about the Pashtun community of Karachi and also "see also" links to the articles Operation Clean-up and 2007 Karachi riots. He has also frequently vandalised the Imran Farooq article, such as removing a whole paragraph, inappropriately tampering with references. Another article where he tried to push his pro-MQM POV is on the Major Kaleem Case article. On the Wali Khan Babar article, he keeps removing a sentence (that is again, clearly referenced) about some protestors accusing the MQM party of Babar's murder without providing any reason. He is also tampering with a sentence on the 2007 Karachi riots article which presumably mentions the MQM, as can be seen here. On the article Suspension of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, he removed a reference without giving any reason. The talk page of this user shows that they have in addition been warned before of vandalising the Nawaz Sharif article (a politician), suggesting that this user seems to have some sort of political agenda in nearly all the edits he makes. On the Najeeb Ahmed article, he removed a sentence (with a citation) alleging that Ahmed was gunned down by MQM workers (see here). In the Zeeshan Kazmi article, he removed the lead which mentions Kazmi as a police officer "who gained popularity during the Operation Clean Up in Karachi against the MQM" (see here). On Mafia Raj, this user removed the word "MQM" from a sentence (see here), which I had to revert. He has been messing around with the MQM article as well, including removal of references and an entire section (see this and replacing The Guardian, which is a reliable source, with YouTube which was reverted by another user (see this).

However, most importantly, this user has repeatedly been removing a large paragraph about Pashtuns on the demographics section of the Karachi article, without any valid rationale, as per here). I tried to request this user to stop persisting in these unconstructive edits by posting a message to his talk page . A few hours later, Edward.Didier replied by copy-pasting exactly the same message I had posted to him back on my own talk page, only changing "pro-MQM" to "anti-MQM" . I had reverted his edits on the Karachi article at least three times (see this and this), but to no avail, he came back and immediately reverted me here and more recently, again. He's also reverted me on the Wali Khan Babar article () and two times on the 2007 Karachi riots article (here and again here).

Since the attitude of this user suggests that he does not want to engage in dialogue, but rather wants to go down the path of edit-warring and persistently making unconstructive edits that are damaging the quality of articles, I think some concrete action needs to be taken. Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of his blind passion for reverting all my edits, he has now also reverted another edit of mine at the Imran Farooq article which involved adding a citation he had previously deleted. Mar4d (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, on one bad note, the user clearly seems to have switched to editing while logged out (see these IP contributions), which are identical to the ones that Edward.Didier was pursing. That being said, it's not so clear to me that Edward.Didier is the one in the wrong here. For example, see this revert by the IP, whose edit summary reads "fake report reference not shown what he tries to show". As far as I can tell, that edit summary is completely accurate: Mar4d is attempting to keep/add (not sure which) information that is not found in the source, including a direct quotation which appears nowhere in the source. At this point, I see no reason to consider Edward.Didier's actions any worse than Mar4d's, and possible even better if Mar4d is including information not covered in the connected sources. So...any other admins think that they both need to be blocked for edit warring? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because someone has directly tampered with the ref (the name of the citation which supports the quote is "ET", not "PT"). I suspect its Edward Dider up to his old tricks again. I have fixed it now, so please go check again without making accusations on me. If anyone needs to be blocked, it has to be Edward.Dider for repeatedly messing arround with references (see the links I gave above), deliberately changing and modifying information and causing disruption to the project. I am merely trying to clean up the mess he's causing and preserving the articles in their original shape. It would be nice if you afforded some acknowledgement of that to me, keeping in mind how much time I have wasted already pursuing this user's vandalism. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Attempted character assassination

A recent thread on this noticeboard refers to "the alleged plagiarist Grutness". Grutness has been an admin for over six years, and is one of Misplaced Pages's more consistent, prolific and useful contributors. He seems highly distressed and has withdrawn from the project. The original allegations were presented in the form of militant attacks by Rjanag, who also alleged Grutness was a liar. It is understandable in the face of this onslaught, and in the absence of editors coming to his support, that Grutness retreated in despair.

As will be seen throughout the threads and related threads presented here, Rjanag is always right. Once she has made her decision, that's it, and she seems willing to go to any length to suppress contrary views. She appears unable to listen to reason, and repeatedly asserts she will not reconsider anything once she has made a decision.

Comments from other editors on this issue can be found primarily here (these are the views Rjanag sought to suppress). Rjanag not only failed to establish Grutness was a plagiarist, but according to her own standards, Rjanag is a plagiarist herself. On the issue of lying, Rjanag did not convincingly establish credibility issues with Grutness, but simply bulldozed him into the ground with an a priori assumption of guilt. It is unfortunate Grutness did not hold his ground and fight back. He may have been overwhelmed by the savagery of the assault.

Bringing matters to a notice board like this seems to me a last ditch thing to do, but Rjanag made it clear this is the only remaining option. I would like to see other editors assess this situation, and the redress I seek is that Rjanag should make a full and adequate apology acceptable to Grutness, on Grutness's talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the administrators' incident noticeboard. It is difficult to see what administrative action is being sought here. Demanding that people make apologies to editors who have ostensibly left the project is not really within the remit of the admin corps, no matter how much polemic said demands are attached to. It's understandable that Grutness felt deeply insulted by what happened, and the project would be better if he returned, but there's not much that can be done with the tools to remedy that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(Ec)What is the purpose of this thread? The incident happened over a week ago. Users other than me agreed with the plagiarism concerns. I specifically said that I didn't see anything more to discuss, no one else asked me to do anything, so I recused myself from the rest of the discussion; the last sentence of your message to me on that talk page suggested to me that you didn't want me to comment further either. What is the point of digging all this back up a week after it ended?

Also, I don't see how I've sought to suppress any views. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well that is a typical Rjanag-style response. You know very well Rjanag, that I already replied to your claim that other editors agreed with your plagiarism allegations. My reply was included in the diff you just gave. Since you are pretending you haven't read it, here it is again:

You say there are editors who have "agreed with the plagiarism concerns of the original version of this article", that is with your false plagiarism claims. I can't find these straws you are clutching at. Surely you don't mean Flagstaff1? If so, his supposed support of you was the subject of an ANI. Nor is there another supporting editor on some talk page linked above, unless you mean this one. That is just someone saying that he hasn't time to look into it, but the the duck evidence you initially presented was strong. Yes, well I would have thought that too, if I didn't take time to look into it. That is precisely the problem, that you skillfully present what at first blush looks like a convincing case, but it falls apart on closer examination.

It is also disingenuous of you Rjanag, to cherry pick a diff from that message to you when you know very well that I had second thoughts about trusting you any further, and had retracted that last sentence. And you say you don't see how you've "sought to suppress any views". I gave you the diff above. Here it is again. You tried to hide a direction to views opposing your own by placing the direction on a nomination talk page, where nobody would ever look at it. Another administrator dissented and took you to task about it. And you ask, "What is the point of digging all this back up a week after it ended?" It never "ended" Rjanag, and I took four days, not "a week", to respond. I already explained I was going to persist . There is an absence of core decency here that rankles, and I find I can't work productively anymore in this muck. I feel like a lazy coward for not trying to put things right. It seems impossible to engage Rjanag at a rational level. It is really depressing if what you appear to be saying is true Chris, that even when it drawn to their attention, administrators will simply ignore matters like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors who expressed concerns about the writing include SL93, MaterialScientist (contrary to your creative reading of his message, he explicitly states there that the evidence of plagiarism is difficult to dispute), Crisco1492, and Bbb23 (who did not call it plagiarism, but nevertheless said the writing felt "wrong"). The other user who has been involved in this dispute, Carcharoth, as far as I can tell said that I should have given the editor more time to improve the article, rather than saying that the article was already OK (Carcharoth, you may correct me if I'm misunderstanding).

Regarding the "suppression" thing, this has nothing to do with trying to suppress views. I have for weeks now been enforcing the DYK nomination system, which includes not allowing edits to be made to archived discussions (a rule that is also in place at AfD, ANI, and many other locations); if you look through the history of WT:DYK you will see I have done this to several other editors and it has nothing to do with wanting to "suppress" dissent against anything. I certainly don't feel like Carcharoth "took me to task" about it; we had a disagreement and discussed it like adults without flinging loaded words at each other, which is more than I can say about you. Please refrain from using unnecessary fire-and-brimstone prose (accusations about people "suppressing" disagreement or people "retreating in despair") if you want to have a civil discussion about the issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So you still seem to be insisting plagiarism occurred. Now that's a really serious example of "flinging loaded words" about. So, to use the language the way you use it, what about your own plagiarism? And in a featured article! --Epipelagic (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think that article is plagiarized, you are welcome to nominate it for WP:FAR. But I think you need to read WP:Plagiarism and brush up on what plagiarism is, if you think that article is comparable to the wholesale copy-pasting that happened at Tom Skinner. I have nothing more to say on the matter of my article here, as it is a content issue not relevant to this topic; if you wish for more comments you are welcome to raise the issue at a more appropriate forum. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in keeping with your usual style, your list of your supporters doesn't survive examination either. It gets too tedious, so I'll just mention the first of your claimed supporters. It seems to have escaped you that this supporter didn't support you on your plagiarism allegations at all, he never even mentioned them. He just baldly announced that Grutness was a liar, and then detailed some rather shoddy ways he had treated Grutness. I posted some queries to your supporter which he reverted. That fellow and Flagstaff1 seem to be the only real company you have on your crusade. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not on any crusade. I reviewed a DYK nomination, pointed out that it didn't meet the criteria (which it didn't), and failed it for that reason. I would be just as happy to leave it at that. You're the one who wants to keep reviving the issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also notice that Grutness is still editing, which is what people who say they're "leaving the project" often do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Epipelagic, but this isn't really an AN/I incident, despite you being correct in what you have written. I haven't discussed it further, because there was no point. Rjanag got the idea that I was plagiarising, and then when I explained what had happened, (s)he accused me of lying. There's no point in carrying it any further. I cannot prove that what I have said was true, and even if I was able to do so, it is clear from Rjanag's comments that I would not be believed. I have left Misplaced Pages. Since the incident I have made one edit to an article, that which Rjanag has helpfully pointed out, when I was researching a subject and was surprised when Misplaced Pages took me to a page other than the one I expected (I added a hatnote). One edit, compared to over 10,000 in the previous three months. So technically, Rjanag, you are right that I have edited since then. But you're also right that it's ended. My years of work on Misplaced Pages have been irreversibly soured by your unjustified, unwarranted slanders, and I am currently not contributing to the project. Grutness...wha? 14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the editors here, but at the core of the issue is plagiarism. I've read through the original ANI thread as well as the diffs with that and find that there is a lot of talk about plagiarism but no evidence. ?There's a great deal of "take my word for it, I know what I'm talking about". --Blackmane (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner. The user nominated an article there, I reviewed it, and pointed out my concerns. That's all this is, a review someone disagrees with; it's a content issue that Epipelagic apparently wants me to apologize for. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence for close paraphrasing, and some for close paraphrasing before the source in question had been cited. That this blew up into accusations of plagiarism is unfortunate, but irrespective of that nobody forced Grutness to retire ("retire" of course being very much a subjective word in the history of wikidrama) and posting to ANI (especially in the manner Epipelagic did) is not an effective way of reversing that. Grutness is still presently free to return if and when he wishes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've got it. The system upholds administrators behaving like Rjanag. My behaviour is wrong. Note to self: Look away, keep your eyes averted. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is absurd to portray this as some sort of admin abuse when a) Rjanag did not use his tools in the incident in question and b) Grutness is one of the project's most experienced administrators. Frankly, all this sort of factionalism (conducted as it has been on the main drama board) does is negatively impact the perception others have on your objectivity. FWIW I've no stake in this particular issue at all and have collaborated with Grutness many times in the past. I've got a low opinion of GBCW actions in general, however, especially when they lead to this sort of attempted retribution from sympathetic third parties. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I never portrayed this as "some sort of admin abuse", just as plain abuse. I haven't asked for any sanctions against Rjanag, certainly not admin sanctions, merely that he do the right thing, by acknowledging the impropriety of his attacks and apologising for them. I wanted to see if that was possible on this board. I accept with Rjanag that cannot happen. If by objectivity you mean Rjanag's systemic and creative reframing of the facts, then no, I don't aspire to that at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you weren't asking for administrative attention (and just wanted to communicate with Rjanag), why did you post this at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sascha30

This follows on from this earlier thread, now archived: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Can action be taken against an IP user who constantly refuses to follow guidelines on Talk pages?
The IP user, who is now occasionally logging in as User:Sascha30, has not taken heed of any of the guidance given to him and is continuing to make unhelpful edits.
I recently reminded him of correct Talk page etiquette . I admit that my post was a little tetchy (I have since apologised).
He then made this reply in which I was told to leave the discussion, and called a useless bureaucrat who posts nonsense.
I feel that this is the "defiant response" that User:Qwyrxian mentioned in the earlier thread. Can anything be done? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who have commented on the relevant pages. Things seem to be improving. Bazonka (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are clear competence issues here. The user is incapable of accepting any other opinion regarding anything (wikipedia editing details as well as content issues) and regards anyone not looking for "those 79 states of which we have no proof of recognition" as against the "spirit" of making the page ok. I ran out of patience 3 weeks and decided to ignore his talkpage monologues (but lookng now: not much has changed). There is a limit to what even a good faith editor newbe can do... L.tak (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/99.88.78.94, block expired but block bar still showing

Is anyone else still seeing a pink "this user is currently blocked" bar for this IP's contributions count? From a look at the block log the last block should have expired on the 8th, but still... pink bar. Am I missing something in the block log, or is this a bug? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That will be an autoblock from a recently blocked account. It can also indicate a range block, but not here. -- zzuuzz 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, autoblocked via user:Timmy Polo, which neatly establishes that the user who shared that IP recently was indeed one of his socks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, autoblocks - or rangeblocks - don't show up as a pink bar on an IPs contributions (plus the one that's showing shouldn't be, because it's expired). This is surely a bug (or very misleading). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If an IP is actually blocked, even indirectly, the most recent block log entry for that IP is displayed, even if that entry has expired. It's been that way for quite a long time. I'm sure it would be nice to see the real reason for the block, but still it's useful to see if it is blocked. bugzilla:23059 btw. -- zzuuzz 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't displaying the "real" reason allow other editors to match up the IP with the user name, thus a potential privacy violation? Franamax (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The only indirect method which exposes the underlying logic tying users to IPs is autoblocking, isn't it? And if a user is autoblocked then if the user name is known it's already possible for non-checkusers to confirm the link between user and IP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see it, and obviously he's not blocked, or wasn't. Perhaps resetting the block explicitly will override it? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's autoblocked, and apparently with good reason. -- zzuuzz 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've reblocked the IP directly for another year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User Pages

Somebody added a link on my userpage recently - a link to an article he had created. This was done without my knowledge nor consent -in fact, I don't even know the guy - and I personally wasn't too happy about it. I left a message on the person's talk page basically requesting him (politely) not to do it again. I have received no reply, and do not expect to. However, it got me thinking. Are there any rules against modifying other people's userpages? I know that articles are considered to be everybody's and therefore we are all free to modify and edit them as much as we want, but userpages are not articles. Do we own our userpages? Anyway, are there any written guidelines or rules which deal with this? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP and WP:TPO outline the expected conduct associated with User and User Talk pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple RfCs

Dear Administrator, yesterday, the article on militant atheism was appropriately locked due to continued edit warring. One RfC was already opened and is still receiving comments. However, today, User:Binksternet started two new RfCs, which has not been the policy over the past few months of discussing, obtaining consensus and then changing the article. I reverted the creation of the two new RfCs and asked the reviewing administrator who is mediating issues on the talk page to determine whether starting two new RfCs was appropriate. However, I was reverted back and do not wish to edit war on the talk page. If it is, I am willing to restore the two new RfCs and apologize for my action. I have informed the creator of the two new RfCs to please wait until a response from the reviewing administrator is received. Could you please comment on this issue and watch the talk page? Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam 15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy to limit RfCs on talk pages. The article was locked to promote discussion, and discussion is what I am after in opening two RfCs. There is no formal mediation underway, and Master of Puppets, the locking administrator, has not shut down the talk page. In fact m.o.p. specifically called for discussion! The RfCs will stimulate discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to start two more RfCs at the same time that one is already going on at the talk page, User:Binksternet. Please revert what may be considered disruptive editing until we have a response from the reviewing administrator, User:Master of Puppets. Thanks, Anupam 16:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I concur that the page was properly protected, with an aim to foster discussion. But I'm unclear as to why the existing RFC could not be (or was not being) used for that purpose - nor do I see how three separate RFCs would do anything to clarify matters. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here's my input. Technically, there's nothing stopping the two parties from starting ten RfCs each. The fact that there are three ongoing discussions is not against policy. Therefore, it is not within my power to limit the amount of RfCs. However, given that I've been mediating the page for the last two months, I'd suggest waiting the current RfC out before starting another one (or two) - having three discussions underway may prove hectic.

Again, I should restate that I am not saying not to do this. How the parties choose to conduct themselves is not my decision. I would recommend letting the current request for comment run its course before starting another two, but if others feel that's not the right way, then so be it. m.o.p 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Then explain your position to Anupam who is using your authority as an excuse to violate talk page policy. See here. He's been using your authority to get his way on this page for a month now. What are you going to do about that? Will you warn him for removing other people's talk page comments and edit warring? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I have any experience with the history and problems with the article but in this particular case I would suggest leaving either a combined or both the other RFCs open may be advisable despite the problems. It seems to me if consensus is reached to either split and particularly to turn the page into a disambig page, discussion over the LEDE may become redundant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And no doubt that is why Anupam is willing to go as far as to remove the comments of other editors and edit war over it in order to keep these RfCs off the talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect User:Griswaldo, your allegations of WP:OWN have not only been dismissed by the reviewing administrator, but by other editors as well, including User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and NYyankees51. Moreover, I did not unilaterally remove the two new RfCs today but asked the reviewing administrator if starting two new RfCs was appropriate. He also did not think that starting two new RfCs was appropriate, as indicated by his response above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne, actually there was an RfC to split the article this past summer and it was closed as "no consensus" to split the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC several times) Not that I have much involvement in RFCs but I don't believe there's any 'one at a time' requirement. In some cases it would be better to raise or merge issues in to an existing RFC but if they are mostly unrelated issues I don't see anything wrong with two simulatenous RFCs and indeed think I've seen it done before. 3 does seem like quite a long and in particular, the issue of whether to split the article or it should become a disambiguation page seem quite related so I don't personally see the need for seperate RFCs on those 2 issues. P.S. Under Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography I found there appears to be 2 ongoing for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. P.P.S. While it's good you stopped, I would suggest removing the RFCs in the first place was not advisable. I don't see any reason why it was that urgent, if you felt the admin would remove them then it's best just to leave it up to them unless there was a history of rejected RFCs from that user on the page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be covering different topics. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is 100% correct. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The two new RfC's don't overlap with the other one. They deal with a problem that many of us find more essential than the one Anupam is discussing. The first RfC has also been ongoing for over a month now. Also, I would like to add that Anupam has violated the talk page policy here, but not only deleting the new RfCs but edit warring to keep them deleted - , , . While Master of Puppets doesn't believe that there is an ownership problem with Anupam's edits, many of us don't agree. I would like another admin to review this. I posted diffs of ownership on MoP's talk page - HERE. Of course this latest attempt to delete good faith RfCs might just take the cake. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect User:Griswaldo, your allegations of WP:OWN have not only been dismissed by the reviewing administrator, but by other editors as well, including User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and NYyankees51. Moreover, I did not unilaterally remove the two new RfCs today but asked the reviewing administrator if starting two new RfCs was appropriate. He also did not think that starting two new RfCs was appropriate, as indicated by his response above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? You said above:

I reverted the creation of the two new RfCs and asked the reviewing administrator who is mediating issues on the talk page to determine whether starting two new RfCs was appropriate. However, I was reverted back and do not wish to edit war on the talk page. If it is, I am willing to restore the two new RfCs and apologize for my action.

Are you now saying you did not remove the RFCs? Because a quick look at the page history suggests your first statement is the correct one. The fact you initiated a discussion with the mediator (rather then just removing) is a good thing but as I said above, I don't think you should have removed it in the first place since even though you may have genuinely believed it having simultaneous RFCs on different issues wasn't allowed and Master of Puppets would stop it, there was no reason why it was urgent to remove the RFCs. Master of Puppets response indicates that while they would prefer there to only be one RFC, they also concur you should not remove the RFCs. In the absence of anything else I don't personally see the need to make a big deal out of this but I do hope you agree not to remove RFCs again without very good reason and understand why you shouldn't have removed the RFCs (not just because there's nothing stopping multiple RFCs but because it was best to let others handle it).

Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Nil Einne, thanks for your response. Yes, I reverted the addition of the two new RfCs to the page and left a friendly note on the creator's talk page, informing him that I was checking in the the reviewing administrator whether it was appropriate to do so. I apologize for removing them as I said I would do if my actions were deemed to be incorrect. As I indicated in my statement to the reviewing administrator, I was not opposed to the idea of holding those RfCs. I just thought it might be less confusing if we did once at a time. I hope this helps and once again, I apologize for my actions. Respectfully, Anupam 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been on articles from time to time that had several RFC's going on, covering different topics. Master of Puppets questioned having 3 going, not for any policy reason, but just for possibly adding to the chaos. But if there are multiple independent issues, then multiple RFC's can be very appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem here with the new RfC's. They pertain to a different question than the RfC that was already in progress. I'm also concerned by Anupam's attempts to WP:OWN the article with his filibustering and attempts to intimidate other editors by misrepresenting statements of the mediating administrator. I'm having a very hard time assuming good faith here on his part- it seems that he wants to discourage further discussion. Very troublesome is his repeated removals of the RfC's and his denying doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

For all those not in the know, a previous RfC on splitting the article resulted in no consensus. m.o.p 22:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anupam violating WP:OWN

I would like someone to look into the issue of Anupam's editing at this entry. Some of us think he is violating WP:OWN. These editors have said so on Master of Puppet's talk page -Abhishikt, Snalwibma, Mann jess. I provided diffs to Master of Puppets regarding this issue as well. They can be seen User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Diffs_of_WP:OWN. Anupam's deletion and edit warring over the two new RfCs is the latest example of this, already mentioned here and also listed on MoP's talk page. I'm not particularly keen on the idea that more than one admin now knows about that and has not warned him officially not to delete other people's talk page comments, and not to edit war on the talk page. The over all pattern of ownership that he exhibits on the talk page can be seen in the diffs provided to MoP. An RfC of months ago that he opposed ended in "no consensus." Another more recent RfC that he supported was closed in his favor by Master of Puppets (despite only having a 7-5 margin I should add). He uses these two facts to shout down those who disagree with him on the talk page and to revert people trying to make changes to the entry. When he does this he cites the authority of MoP who decided the RfC. In the last episode he went so far as to cite MoP's authority as he deleted talk page comments and edit warred over it. Can an uninvolved admin please review this matter?Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect User:Griswaldo, your allegations of WP:OWN have not only been dismissed by the reviewing administrator, but by other editors as well, including User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and NYyankees51. Moreover, I did not unilaterally remove the two new RfCs today but asked the reviewing administrator if starting two new RfCs was appropriate before doing so. He also did not think that starting two new RfCs was appropriate, as indicated by his response above. Part of the issue here, is that User:Griswaldo, User:Snalwibma, & User:Abhishikt were part of the dissenting party in the consensus introduction RfC; as a result this is a dispute issue, not one of WP:OWN. Moreover, User:Griswaldo, there was no consensus to remove the information. In fact, three editors, including myself, User:Cody7777777, and User:Turnsalso expressed our disapproval with the information being unilaterally removed. User:Snalwibma did not discuss the removal of the information but did so unilaterally, which is why I reverted him once, two anonymous IP Addresses reverted him several times, and User:Cody7777777 reverted him. The removal of information was not performed after consensus. You did not even add a single comment to the discussion that was taking place about the topic! Instead, you reverted the reinstatement of the consensus version and are now stating that I was violating WP:OWN, despite the fact that I was not edit warring, and even engaged in discussion with other editors on the topic. As such, it is totally appropriate that User:Master of Puppets protected the article (preserving your revision by the way) because you were not following the injunction given by the reviewing administrator: Also, any further changes should be discussed on the page. We've only got consensus on this proposed versions (and loose consensus at that) - please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes. You also ignored the page notice given to create a spirit of discussion, consensus, and then change. As a result, do not criticize User:Master of Puppets, but look to yourself for violating consensus, edit warring, and posting rude messages, when you never bothered to discuss your edits in the first place. With regards, Anupam 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you stop repeating that falsehood about not removing the RfCs? You removed them, then you asked for advice on the matter from the admin, and the whole while you kept reverting, before this admin ever replied (and his reply in the end doesn't even support your removals). How is that not "unilateral?" Nil Einne also challenged you on this above. Here are the diffs, again - , , .Griswaldo (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing your accusation of WP:OWN, which has been thoroughly refuted, not my mistake which I apologized for. Please stop trying to frame me because your dissenting position was not in line with consensus. Thanks, Anupam 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet formally weighed in on the question so I will: I think Anupam exhibits article ownership problems in several ways such as using the first person in talking about article issues, and in berating and demeaning article editors who do not agree with him. Anupam appears to own the article by responding to each opposing discussion in an RfC. Anupam shows ownership problems by challenging the person of opposing editors rather than the argument forwarded, and also by wikilawyering about policies rather than addressing the issues brought up. Anupam has driven other editors away from the article because of this obsessive ownership style. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Pure unadulterated WP:BOLLOCKS. Anupan presents persuasive arguments which engender consensus with a majority of editors at the article. His positions have enjoyed majority support a number of times. His current Introduction proposal has 9 editors supporting and 5 in opposition. He doesn't have to own the article, he owns the discussion by virtue of his erudition. These attemps to censor him are pathetic. – Lionel 00:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved admin) Nobody "owns" a Misplaced Pages discussion under any circumstances whatsoever, just as no editor "owns" an article. There is no special virtue accorded in discussion as a result of the persuasiveness or "erudition" of the arguments an editor presents -- it grants no special authority. Consensus is also not arrived at by a simple majority vote. I personally do believe that Anupam's approach to discussion and consensus-gathering relating to Militant atheism and the RFCs in the dispute diaspora are starting to look a shade like gaming the system (and this may be entirely unintentional), and frequently involve a level of wikilawyering. I certainly do see WP:OWN-type behaviour from Anupam -- again, quite possibly undertaken with the best of intentions -- relating to his view on when editors have "consensus" to modify the article and under what circumstances, which does seem to be of a self-determined kind. I would politely suggest to Anupam that he might consider stepping away from the article for a period of time, and I believe that other users involved in this dispute could benefit from doing the same also. --Tristessa (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Tristessa. I do not believe that Anupam is going to curtail his style of editing unless he is warned that it crossed the WP:OWN line and the he needs to try to stop it. Many editors have commented on this already and he simply denies that he is doing it. I was not a regular contributor to this page or its talk page discussions, though I have it watchlisted because irreligion in general is an interest of mine, but what I saw from Anupam was just more of the same behavior - bullying editors with authority based one claim of "consensus" and the one administrator who declared it, stifling conversation with walls of text and wikilawyering, etc. I thought that maybe one persistant voice added to those who were being worn down by this behavior might help, but it hasn't. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Logged out user, with unchanging IP, continually restoring a "badge of shame" comment on my talk page, that I keep deleting

A logged out user keeps restoring a comment I keep deleting.

Per our Misplaced Pages:User pages guideline, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages."
Per our Misplaced Pages:User pages guideline, "Policy does not prohibit users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed."
Per Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. It is also wrong to force them to keep it there as a sort of 'Badge of Shame'." (emphasis in original)

Our Misplaced Pages:User pages guideline states, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user," but the anon's edit summary establishes that this is not his or her purpose.

The interesting thing about this user is that the user's IP doesn't change. Can it be discovered who this tendentious game-player is? This may be the only way to stop this mischievousness.

Is there something I should be writing on the anon's talk page, so as to get to the point of blocking or something? I've had more to do with my life than Misplaced Pages lately, so please forgive me if I've forgotten what to do. -- Ríco 22:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the message, and if the IP restores it again, you can leave them a pointer to the policies and guidelines you've referenced above. If they persist after being warned you can take them to WP:AIV. There's not much point in warning them now, they've only made two edits and both are over a month old. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have given my support to Ríco's comment on the IP talk page. Since last time the IP's removals were about 1 month and 10 days apart and it's only been about 1 month and 10 days, I don't see any harm in giving a clear cut warning to that IP at this time. If they are still using the IP this should make clear to them they aren't allowed to repeat their actions and if they do, filing a block request will be easier. If they come back with a different IP, that specific IP can be warned. If someone else using that IP sees the warning well another editor already left a welcome and ISP tag and in any case they were always going to see the ANI discussion tag. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You can delete nearly anything you want to from your talk page. You can also go to WP:RFPP and ask for lengthy semi-protection. In such a case, you should also provide an unprotected sub-page for IP's to edit upon (and which you can ignore if necessary, and it won't pollute your normal talk page). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have re-removed the message you originally removed. As others have said, this combined with the warning should hopefully be enough. If the user persists in re-adding the message feel free to report them. BTW, in terms of determing whether the IP is a logged out editor with an account, there's not much chance of that happening, see WP:SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Rangeblock

Could I get someone to do a short (probably 3 hours) rangeblock on 62.0.224.128/26? Repeated vandalism of the Scottsboro Boys article from multiple IP addresses including:

62.0.224.157

62.0.224.159

62.0.224.160

62.0.224.161

62.0.224.167

Thanks. Trusilver 06:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, the vandalism stopped after the page was protected and did not extend to other areas of the project. Trusilver 07:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop User:Northamerica1000

Despite repeated requests to stop, User:Northamerica1000 continues posting thesame discussion in different places, each time asking to continue the discussion in that specific page, instead of somewhere central. I have posted a correction the first five times, but he just continues doing this, even in the mainspace and userspace (15 different discussions started so far). He has finally replied , but clearly doesn't understand the problem. Can someone discuss this with him or issue a short block to make him stop? It is disruptive. Fram (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

the above is a violation of WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

more an issue of an etiquette but Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) continually ignores repeated requests to use actual edit summaries and not simply add in whole wiki text. I've given several warnings with limited effect. , , . LibStar (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps tell him at the same time that signing edit summaries is not only unwanted, but actually doesn't work... Fram (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply

The users above are attempting to censor free speech and valid, relevant and useful discussions that I post on discussion pages. It is my and all users' right to post comments on discussion pages in Misplaced Pages. There is absolutely no Misplaced Pages policy stating otherwise, or that discussions about topics have to be limited to one page, per another user's choosing. Any allegations of "being disruptive", etc. appear to be based upon the desire to censor the following content, which is highly relevant to the discussions on each respective discussion page and the topic that each discussion page refers to. Why are people trying to censor this data? Additionally, it is against Misplaced Pages policy to censor or remove comments on discussion pages. Why do these people above feel that they have to message one-another about my good faith discussion page additions, form a quick union of two against one, and then immediately remove them right after they are posted? This is against Misplaced Pages policy entirely. Why is an administrator immediately needed to intervene? Discussion pages are just that, discussion pages. Rather than contributing to the discussion, the users above are injustly removing my additions to discussion pages, which again, is entirely against Misplaced Pages policy. Maybe they have biases about the message and are pro-deletion of articles, and want to minimize people reading these views. Here is the message:

It is functional to discuss matters about Misplaced Pages on discussion pages. It is against Misplaced Pages policies to remove posts to discussion pages. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll let other people judge the value of this reply, but one factual correction: "Why do these people above feel that they have to message one-another about my good faith discussion page additions, form a quick union of two against one, and then immediately remove them right after they are posted?" I have not messaged Libstar, and he hasn't messaged me. No such messages have been "immediately remove them right after they are posted" either. I posted my concerns, and Libstar seems to agree with them. We have not interacted about this at all. Fram (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have collapsed your copy of the message here. It isn't really needed here since anyone can see it in the 15 or so other locations you've posted it but I've left it be since it sort of speaks for itself that you felt it necessary to post it yet again. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

nor has Northamerica actually addressed the issue I raised about ignoring requests to provide actual edit summaries. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While WP:CANVASS does not mention reverting of suchlike messages but rather suggests blocking the editor in question, it is current practice to revert talkpage-spam. WP:CANVASS also defines Excessive cross-posting as spamming. Agathoclea (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And in reality, of the 15 or so messages he posted, only one was reverted (once), and that was because he posted a Misplaced Pages discussion to an article talk page, which goes against Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable (final bullet). While I believe that the number of posts was excessive as well, the main problem was that each posted specifically and explicitly asked to discuss it on that page, not in one place, thus creating 15 separate discussions on the exact same issue. Why Northamerica1000 can't see that this is counterproductive is beyond me. Fram (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages which I guess you're referring to was removed twice. Once by you then when they added it back I removed it again. As you say, it was clearly OT as it doesn't relate to improving the article. While sometimes such discussions are simply archived or a comment is left that they are OT, I felt removal was appropriate here given that the message had been posted to so many other places. In any case, I agree with you that while posting to 15 or so places is in itself problematic, asking for 15 seperate discussions is discussions is the deal breaker here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to administrator: The above user Nil Einne collapsed part of my rationale in my comments here above, which is unfair, like blocking part of someone's reply on this administrator's noticeboard. I feel that this is unfair. Additionally, notice the tone used to qualify doing so that the user stated above. It was necessary to provide the text to provide context to what these people are speaking about. Please be sure to read this section as well. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary because anyone looking in to it will see the message when looking in to the many diffs. In any case, I did not remove it, so anyone who really wants to read it yet again is free to do so by simply expanding the section. P.S. I had already noted above that I collapsed the section as you yourself noted as well but I have now made it clearer I was the one who collapsed that section Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

More replies from Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• My addition of the above stated (now collapsed) information to discussion pages about article deletion, essays about article deletion, the Articles for Deletion discussion page, etc. is in no manner intended to be canvassing or "spam". The message is highly congruent with the theme, intent and spirit of each discussion page. The rationales presented by the users opposing these additions to discussion pages may be biased per a pro-article deletion stance. To the admin, please consider checking out the user contribution pages for these users who immediately decided to gang up on me. It appears that there may be another agenda involved, to remove good faith information added to discussion pages about article deletion, and to prevent users, in this case myself, from introducing new ideas to improve the Articles for Deletion nomination process, for whatever subjective reasons. To reiterate, I don't perceive my messages on discussion pages to be "spam". I'm not trying to sell anything. It's functional to see points of view that may vary in different discussions.
• All of the sudden I received messages about the style of my comments in edit summaries, which I base upon common sense. Sometimes is it functional to add verbatim changes so other users can view them right on the history section of a page. For example, the "full text" type of edit summary, abbreviated as "ft", is used to show additions to text in articles, in which case users can view the contents of the changes without having to refer to the article, as stated in the Misplaced Pages:Edit summary legend. Providing the full text of changes enables viewers to immediately view the changes in the history section of the article, and is often more useful than using a bunch of abbreviations, which some newer users will view as jargon, and likely not understand. This seems to be over-reaching nit-picking on the part of the user making these statements, going through edit summaries in history sections of articles, rather than focusing on Misplaced Pages's purpose, to build a digital encyclopedia. I have viewed and am already quite familiar with the Help:Edit summary guidelines. The person making these statements is taking matters entirely out of context in this case. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The above diffs demonstrate that the comments on your use of edit summaries started before you started adding your message to multiple places. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages are to discuss the content of or changes to the the page in question. In nond of those instances have you suggested a change to the page in question. If you want to have a change in policy you will need to post on a policy page, where this then will be discussed. But I can tell you now that our policies on spam and copyright will not be changed very easily (There are no servers in Afganistan where we could move to to avoid the copyright question for example) as that was the reason for the articles deleted. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, why do you want to discuss the same thing on 15 different pages at the same time, instead of on one page, with links from those 15 pages? Fram (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to point Northamerica1000 to {{Pls}}. This could be used to direct potentially interested parties to the single point of discussion. (I found my way here because I'm watching WT:Deletion process#Merge discussion and noticed the new topic there.) --Trevj (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reply from Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's functional to receive points of view from several people. Most people don't view discussion pages. My discussion additions are functional and entirely relevant per each discussion page and topic. Most people don't view discussion pages in Misplaced Pages, since Misplaced Pages's focus is upon building a digital encyclopedia and improving the articles within it. It only makes sense to discuss matters about article deletion policies on discussion pages that focus on the topic of article deletion. In this manner, people can view and comment regarding ideas to improve the nomination for deletion policies, add to the discussion, and perhaps form a consensus. These are attempts to reach consensus. It seems a little absurd for people to try and reach a consensus about limiting discussion that in and of itself, is also intended to promote consensus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you perhaps just reply to the question? The question is not why you want to have as much participation as possible, and therefor posted it on 15 or so pages. The question is why you also want to have the actual discussion fragmented over these 15 pages, instead of having one common discussion about it, linked to from those 15 pages. Fram (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet another reply from Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to administrator who views all of this: I think my referral here was done hastily, as no harm has been done and no disruption of any sort has occurred. I received messages to keep discussions to one page (on my user page from objecting users), but only very basic rationales were provided to justify and qualify the statements, such as "it is better to do so this way." (My quote). Please refer to my discussion page here for context. The problem with the arguments presented on my talk page is that they weren't really valid, because the text I added to the discussion pages is just about 100% correlated with the topic of the articles, which the discussion page is based upon. Very importantly, the information I placed on discussion pages also complemented topics on each respective discussion page that was already present and being discussed, which was overlooked or unnoticed by all of the objectors above. In this manner, the context of my discussions wasn't taken into consideration, per the other discussions on each respective discussion page. My discussion added was in many cases in response to topics already being discussed on the discussion pages I posted my message on. My comments on discussion pages are intended to be in context with the discussions occurring on those pages, and congruent with the accompanying article's topic, of course. Rather than address my concerns, instead objectors immediately decided to remove my comments on discussion pages, very zealously, and over-hastily for that matter. To reiterate, it is important for Misplaced Pages to understand that my intentions were (and are), in this particular and singular matter, to work to reach consensus regarding improving the nomination process in articles for deletion, and to prevent topics that are actually notable and worthy of inclusion from being hastily and unnecessarily removed from Misplaced Pages. This was the only intention in this matter. The manner in which I was "ordered" to to immediately stop stated positing of arguments is also concerning. It doesn't seem fair to have to "look over my shoulder" now when I post on discussion pages, in the event that someone might come along and decide to remove my comments under a blanket rationale of limiting discussion to one discussion page on Misplaced Pages. This sets a very poor precedent when viewed objectively, that if a topic is discussed on one discussion page then it cannot under any circumstances be discussed on another discussion page, which of course, is ridiculous. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone makes an objection to your edits on your user talk page, but you believe that the rational for it wa unclear or too basic, you could have replied with your reasons for continuing anyway, or (preferably) have asked for further explanation. Instead, you ignored the messages and continued as before. Then, you claim that "objectors immediately decided to remove my comments on discussion pages, very zealously, and over-hastily for that matter." Your comment was removed from one page, an article talk page. To claim that this was done on "pages" (never mind very zealously and over-hastily) is clearly incorrect. On all other pages, the only thing I did was add comments like this one. This is not censoring, this is working to make a discussion more effective. You still haven't replied why you want to have 15 parallel discussions instead of 1 central one. You claim that this means that we want to achieve that "if a topic is discussed on one discussion page then it cannot under any circumstances be discussed on another discussion page": obviously, this is taking the reaction to your extreme actions towards the opposite extreme. But even so, if someone notices that a discussion which is being held at place X is also being done at place Y, then the normal reaction is to consolidate both discussions into one, and to invite further participation at that location. What exactly is the problem with that? Fram (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For further context, please refer to my remarks at this discussion page: Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with reporting you. You were spamming boilerplate rhetoric in over a dozen different discussions, including obscure things like essay talk pages. That's disruptive on the face of it. If you have some boilerplate response that you like to give to discussions (because God knows you're not the first inclusionist to have helpfully given us all the answers) then add it to an essay and link to that if you specifically need to make the point therein. If, instead, you wish to start a discussion on a given subject, then start it on one talk page and link to it from other discussions as you've already been advised. For the time being, it would be an act of good faith to revert all of the mess you've made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Northamerica1000: You've made some long and detailed arguments above defending your decision to post the same material in multiple places. You cite policies and principles to support your right to do so. Unfortunately, your interpretation of these and that of others can always differ, and we come down to the caveats in WP:BURO. Any policy is only a post-hoc reflection of agreed practice, and the agreement developing above is that your practice of posting the same material in multiple places is not a good one. In due course this may get written into policy but for the time being it's clear that you are the one out of step. Please take on board the considered views of the different editors who have posted above, and also the (to me) key observation that nobody has yet chimed in to support your contentions. When voices are unanimously against you it really might be time to consider that you might be mistaken here about the best way forward. Why not post your argument in one central place, then add a link to it from everywhere you feel it is relevant? That way there's no restriction of freedom of speech, and discussions can be very helpfully centralised. Kim Dent-Brown 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there was a major discussion on the topic less than three months ago Black Kite (t) (c) 11:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reply from Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I now have a better understanding about the concepts being presented about limiting speech to particular areas of Misplaced Pages. It wasn't my intention to "canvass"; I wasn't even aware of the policy about "canvassing" until someone finally pointed it out, as could have been done initially. I was also unaware of the possibility to place a comment on one discussion page and the availability of an option to provide a link on other discussion pages to it. Now I'm aware of this possibility, thanks to the editors who actually cited policies. Thanks to the people who actually provided examples of policies to inform me regarding these matters. While I disagree with some of the subjective language presented above, such as my opinions and ideas being "spam", perhaps by the manner in which the data was presented on several discussion pages, the content of the actual statement (collapsed above) hasn't really been addressed. Please refer to: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion, where an actual discussion has actually transpired, which was my only intent, to promote discussion about the topic of improving procedures and criterion for the nomination of articles for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You apparently aren't that aware, what with having posted this to at least two separate pages. And you really, really don't need to preface every one of your comments with an introduction line. You're already signing at the end. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, now that you are aware of the reasons for the objections, rethink your approach to this. Next time someone voices an objection and asks you politely to stop, consider doing this, even if you don't understand why someone asks you to do this. Stop, engage the other person, ask for clarification, explain yourself. Don't just continue. Due to the lack of response from you (not stopping, and not replying to messages), this thing rapidly and needlessly escalated. Your responses here seemed to be written not from an objective look at what people actually said, but from what you perceived to be their motives. Your first reply here (the one titled "reply" above) four times states that what was done was "against policy", yet now it is clear that you have no idea what the applicable policies were. It's not a problem that you don't know all our policies, but it would be better, more prudent and constructive, if you would ask "what policies am I breaking?" instead of stating with such certainty that others were acting against policy. Finally, again, please do something about your edit summaries. Edit summaries with partial words and sentences are useless, and signing your edit summaries (like ) doesn't work, and is useless since your name is already mentioned next to it anyway. (edit conflict: and what thumperward said as well!) Fram (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And what's up with the identical statements you post to the talk page of articles kept after AfD? They already have a link to the AfD result at the top of the talk page, they don't need a section declaring that "The article was deemed worthy for inclusion", "it's functional and appropriate as a Misplaced Pages article" and "its inclusion is congruent with building Misplaced Pages".... Fram (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate you were not aware because very early on before you came to this discussion I made this comment at your talk page which linked to WP:FORUMSHOPPING which mentions:

You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Misplaced Pages:Policy shopping.

The prohibition on canvassing is also mentioned in that page although perhaps not in a way that makes it clear it applied to you.

In any case, as others have said if you didn't understand any of what was being said to you, your best bet was to engage with other editors when then tell you there is something wrong with your current actions rather then repeatedly insisting there is nothing wrong with what you are doing and that was no policy allowing deletions (even though I mentioned that it was allowed in some cases in the same comment and pointed out to you not long later the talk page guidelines which makes this clear).

BTW, it seems you are still not aware what Fram mentioned earlier i.e. that signing in the edit summary does not work. If you don't want to take my word for it, please take a look at your contribution history for confirmation.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

there is such a thing as excessive zeal to accomplish something that is intrinsically meritorious. To start with, repeating the same thing in multiple places bores people, and when they get bored they stop paying attention, regardless of the value of the contents. If it continues, they get annoyed enough to get antagonistic to the message--even if they would otherwise support it. And, finally, they become antagonistic to whatever else one might be saying. The history of the article rescue squadron as a whole is a good example, and so is the career of some of those associated with it at the first. There are equally good examples on the other side, such as some attempts to delete all articles of a given kind. And it's prevalent in attempts to change articles to read a given way, or to use a particular terminology, or enforce a given rule particularly strictly--or leniently. The structure of Misplaced Pages is not very susceptible to bulldozing on any issue to which people are paying attention (the tactic can unfortunately work well in areas where few are watching--one zealot can bias things in such cases and still escape notice). There are too many people, and most of them think for themselves./There is much less follow-the=-leader thoughtlessness here than in many other places. (That's why canvassing is usually ineffective--it gets noticed and brings out all the opponents as well as those who reject canvassing on principle). People here tend to behave like cats, and can't be herded--though sometimes it is possible to get them all screaming. They also , like cats, go their own way doing their own thing, and can not be easily or permanently distracted, though they do, again like cats, sometimes take the bait of a familiar phrase like "blp", or "not-censored."

The only way to be effective here is to be selective in where to use one's efforts. My algorithm for what to try to save has 6 factors: what is intrinsically worth saving, what is likely to be saved, what arguments are needed as an example, what is easy enough to do without losing sight of everything else, whether other people will cooperate, and what I in particular can do effectively. Sometimes I'll deliberately suggest something rather extreme, or that I know will not be successful, in order to get the argument familiar for the future, or to register a protest that a few people might understand, but I try not to make a nuisance of myself by doing it very often. And I listen for the reaction: it is the mark of zealotry to ignore the reception, to say what one wants to say regardless. And even when posting essentially the same thing to an absurdly large group of articles brought to AfD with the same repetitive rationale, I try to distinguish myself from the nominator by varying it a little, to show that I at least have actually looked at all of them individually.

Northamerica, I see you going down the wrong road here, and I'd hate to lose you. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC on adding future fights to fight record table

An RfC was started June 29, 2011. Since then, to my knowledge, the consensus was found, but was never finalized. The discussion was whether to keep announced MMA fights in tables of the fighters who are scheduled to fight. There were some editors against keeping the announced fights in the table. Those who were against are still doing dozens of daily reverts (e.g. , , ) on many MMA bio articles based on the often contested rule that was the subject of the June 29 RfC. The rule is found on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mixed martial arts ("Never add future bouts" and "Upcoming bouts that have been officially announced can only be mentioned within the body text..."). Can someone help finalizing the June 29 RfC properly if that has not been done yet? Thanks! Fayerman (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards