Misplaced Pages

• And now we have the much-anticipated appeal to Jimbo by Ben (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap. I hardly know where to start with what's wrong about this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added "strongest possible" to my support, primarily due to this edit by Ben that shows a) it's personal to him, and b) that he just cannot stop himself from personal attacks and bad faith (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tark. LB is correct and it is always tough if you're correct and you face several editors of opposing views. I also think handing out a topic ban is way out of proportion here regardless of wrong or right and wiki should be going out of its way "not" to impose these things at the drop of a hat. Editors should usually be given written warnings acknowledged by a couple "non-involved" administrators that their behavior is bordering on a topic ban and that they should reflect and change their modus-operandi lest further action be taken. Otherwise it seems like an old western small-town mob hanging where if the victim had walked into a different small town he might be regarded the hero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even if he was right he has proven to lack the competence and collorative spirit in contributing in this subject area (see also this comment on his talkpage) The competence issue goes beyond the diacritic issue, he has repeatedly been made aware of his wrongly marking edits as minor. He obviously does not understand English and his discussion style is so bad that I was on the verge of asking the community to impose a different limitation to the one suggested here - limit his contribution to a maximum of 10 edits per discussion, but let's keep this idea in mind for another day. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support mostly on the basis of the activity being disruptive and pointy. Volunteer Marek  19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per VM and others - and also because edit-warring over MOS issues is of no benefit whatsoever to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but without "participating in any discussions about the same." Tarc is right: the article should be Lech Walesa, to hell with the MOS if it says otherwise. But that discussion is over (at least for now). Tough luck for me and other people who prefer the version without diacritics. It's a re-direct, I can live with that. As per VM, this is about "disruptive and pointy" editing in articles. But: the editor should be allowed to discuss it all they like. What is their time, they can waste how they please. Just not others' time. (And people, please: spell-checker, does your browser have one? Then use it!) --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Extremely disruptive battleground behavior and incivility that has already consumed countless hours of editor time. Absolute refusal to listen makes it impossible for this editor to ever work contructively with others on this topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support – LittleBenW's stridently anti-diacritic antics of the last two years has made it very hard to have any serious discussions of the issues. Holding him out of the way will allow more normal processes to proceed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support; editors do have legitimate disagreements over diacritics; the battleground mentality is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Being right or wrong is irrelevant here (and it's absurd to even claim that an issue like that has one clearly right and one clearly wrong answer). Disruptive edit warring gets you topic banned, simple as that. --Conti|✉ 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose gross over-reaction -- the person should absolutely be allowed to discuss the issues, and this ban would not aid Misplaced Pages as a project. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Conti, being right is not the point here. And it is clear that Ben's editing has been found wanting. However, it does not automatically follow that whatever remedy someone proposes will be the best one. The behaviour of both sides should be examined here. It seems to me that some editors have been too eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics and giving them this satisfaction would not address that issue. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, a ban should be a last resort, after other reasonable measures have been tried but failed; not one of the first measures applied, for the convenience of silencing an opposing view that ought rightfully be heard. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support a short ban (a couple of months or perhaps as long as six months) to allow a cooling off period. I do not support an indefinite ban. I am also worried about the process within this ANI as I see some editors acting as prosecutor, judges and executioners. If there is to be a topic ban of over a few months then I think the more appropriate venue would be a user RfC (although those too can degenerate into kangaroo court). If an RfC is initiated before the end of the year, I think that all those who have commented here should be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per my 'informal' comment above. GiantSnowman 15:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unlike a content dispute about the shape of the earth (flat vs. round), there is not an objectively correct answer about how to handle these diacritics. It's a somewhat arbitrary decision about house style, made by WP editors through discussion/consensus. If someone is acting disruptive, it's completely appropriate to remove them from the process, so other editors will decide the issue without them. Even if it's a different decision, it's still not "wrong".

  Tarc's objection seems to be that there's a MOS argument for writing Lech Wałęsa without diacritics, so we're doing it wrong and we should accept unlimited amounts of disruption to avoid the catastrophic, project-destroying error (snort) of writing Wałęsa instead of Walesa in the article. The remedy for that concern is to have a talkpage or RM discussion narrowly about the Wałęsa article, not using it to fight a proxy battle about diacritics throughout the project. The discussion will close with either (depending on your perspective) either the "right" outcome (in which case the situation got handled just fine without Little Ben), or the "wrong" outcome (in which case we add one more to the countless tiny imperfections in Misplaced Pages, probably way below the millionth on the list in terms of consequence, so not worth any significant amount of disruption, and in case this outcome is to remove the diacritics as Little Ben wanted, it also benefits from his non-participation by decreasing the stridency). Our reading public is frankly not going to care one way or the other which way we write it. (And to whoever suggested a reader preference: no that won't work, almost all our readers don't have accounts, and anyway it would be a sort of POVFORK). 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

What if I or someone else volunteered to mentor User:LittleBenW through conducting a proper RFC and ensured there was no disruptive behavior. The community could dictate that to accept this suggestion, LittleBenW would be required to accept the decision of the RFC as binding. Would that work instead of a topic ban? Several folks have said he is technically correct, right? I have no opinion on the specific use of the English language (if anyone has seen me write) so I've got no particular opinion.--v/r - TP 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, but surely the diacritics pushers would not support discussion on a fair and level playing field. LittleBen (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Sanctions are only advisable if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Why not try this? Against the current (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You might want to ask him first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as an alternative. As the diacritic issue is just part of the problem, albeit the worst, I recommend mentoring to solve the underlying issues and then for the mentor to come back here when his mentoring has been successful to lift the topicban and then guide him through a diacritic related rfc. Agathoclea (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While diacritic marks may have been the gateway for this user, I see the embers of the WP:DIACRITICS war in the verbage. The answer is not to coddle them, but to stamp out the embers as soon as possible as this has nowhere to go (including the Jimbo Appeal) but straight into a full out diacritic war. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The situation has gone far beyond the point where a gentle slap on the wrist will do. I, and many others, have tried to reason with him, all to no avail. You can't reason with a true believer who's on a crusade. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose - I would oppose this and the section above, but if these turn out to be the only two choices then I would support this lesser alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Part of the problem here is that some editors have been excessively eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics. Ben has played into this a little, because he does not appear to have to experience necessary to formulate a robust RfC question. This has led to his frustration. If he were given support to enable him to see an RfC through to its conclusion (and assuming he were willing to abide by the outcome), then that would substantially solve the problem. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Another alternate suggestion

"It's been over a day since this discussion started." When the community is deciding on an indefinite ban for an editor, a month at an RfC is not considered excessive. My count of the "votes" is 18 (excluding the IP opinion) to six, and a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus. I think that this should be reopened and lets see if a broader consensus can be found for a shorter ban rather than indefinite one. As I said above I think that two months for this ANI is more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus" - but 18 for, 6 against is exactly 75% in favour.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then if you prefer to split hairs a ratio of more than 75% ... Either which way I do not think that there was a rough consensus here. . -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (for the record). Came here to participate in the discussion and oppose a ban, but judge, jury and executioners were in a real rush to judgment this time and I didn't get my vote in.--Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd oppose, too. Unfortunately, I didn't get in under the deadline, either. --Nouniquenames 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BAN states "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly." (bold mine) The formal ban discussion began at 15:07, 30 November 2012; and I, as an entirely uninvolved admin, closed the discussion at 19:59, 1 December 2012, 28 hours and 52 minutes later. If you would like to change the rules at WP:BAN regarding the length of time a topic ban discussion should remain open, please do so at WT:BAN. I can only follow the rules that are written down. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  your highlighted section says "at least 24 hours" not "a maximum of 24 hours". 28 hours and 52 minutes may comply to the letter of the sentence, but the spirit of the sentence is to give time to see if there is a consensus to implement a particular ban. As there is not a clear consensus (not even a rough consensus), I think you ought to reconsider your close. -- PBS (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  I have reconsidered it. In the reconsideration, I stand by the summation I gave. --Jayron32 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: The extreme ban is not supported by 75% - at least one of the supporters makes clear that his support was not inclusive of a ban on discussions, ans I suggest that the close statement is errant with regard to the extent of any such ban. Further that where such a broad ban is proposed, that 28 hours is actually insufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know where people are coming up with this "75%" bit. That's not a rule at all, and I think it's taking this discussion off-course. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS and About RfA and its process as an example of where it is used in practice. It also used to be used more at WP:AFD and WP:RM, but those decisions tend now to be based more on interpreting policy and guidelines than they used to be, however for a number of years the %ages for all three used to be listed at WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. This case is closer to the RfA process than the other two, so I think it is appropriate to ask the question would the rough consensus here be enough for someone to be given a broom? If not, then is this rough consensus strong enough to ban a user from editing or even commenting on an issue indefinitely? -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea was *not* to have to ban the user from editing, but to stop the disruption he causes on his crusade. If he is willing to be mentored and someone is willing to mentor him to solve the editing issues that make him disruptive in addition to the diacritic issue, then he and his mentor can come back here and say, "we solved the issue, reconsider" I am sure that many to are for the topic ban now will reconsider. Maybe you can offer? If on the other hand the reason for some to oppose the topic ban is that he does their dirty work for them, and they succceed in allowing him to continue to cause disruption, then this no doubt will end in arbitration. And unlike the arbitration for Goodday I doubt that many of his "opposers" will plead with ARBCOM not to ban outright. Agathoclea (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, rough consensus has always as far as I am aware been considered to be about 60%. Except at RfA where it was specifically upped on purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions re appeal: 1) Is there is an appeal to Arbcom in an AN/I topic ban situation? 2) Has a topic ban appeal board from AN/I, similar to DRV and Move Review, ever been discussed? Appeal would seem to allow for reflection, where a "quick" AN/I would not, and also perhaps bring more uniform standards, over time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would fall under point 2 of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities. Specifically, otherwise restricted users appeals. MBisanz 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It would seem a jurisdictional thing than, but does anyone know if it is "exclusive" jurisdiction (the appeal board, I am thinking of would be limited to indef. topic ban. To avoid/restrict the Arbcom v. Community, or Arbcom v. Closing Admin issues, as well as less stressful resolution (hopefully)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Arbcom would at least hear an appeal but in my view, LittleBen was on the fast track to Arbcom already. This reminds me a lot of Ludwigs2's obsessions that led to the Muhammad images bruhaha. I would rather see LittleBen step back from this issue and edit elsewhere productively than go down the route of RFCU then arbcom. And based on GoodDay's arb case, from which I took the exact language in this proposal, I think it unlikely that the committee would have viewed things differently than the community has. Resolute 15:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Right but with Arbcom, there is a lot more procedure, time, etc, when these things are enacted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just think it's important to say I agree that more time should have been allotted for discussion and consensus. I believe we need to do more to promote and protect the collaborative nature of the project, but I would have opposed an immediate, outright topic ban (trying more discreet tools before the banhammer, so to speak). jæs (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the topic ban should be amended so that it excludes LittleBenW's user space. He should have the freedom to refactor as he pleases there. Reyk _YO! 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparent violation of WP:BLP and other policies by Zbrnajsem

User:Zbrnajsem, already familiar to ANI from a previous discussion relating to our article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford ‎ (see archives: ) has chosen, after a long and rambling discussion over 'free speech' and why he thinks that Misplaced Pages articles should be sourced to whatever a contributor (i.e. himself) prefers to push a minority POV, to make a personal attack on the professional integrity of a respected academic, Professor Steven W. May (currently of Sheffield University, see ). Professor May is self-evidently well qualified to write on de Vere, specialising on the period as is evident from his list of publications. Zbrnajsem however, disliking May's descriptions of de Vere as the sometimes less-than-successful individual he was, has accused May of being "misleading or grossly false" and of engaging in "vile gossips". This takes what would otherwise be a content dispute well into WP:BLP-violation territory as I see it, in that it is a direct attack on the professor, based on nothing but Zbrnajsem's dislike of anyone who fails to portray de Vere as the great poet, virtuous nobleman, and self-evident author of 'Shakespeare's works that Zbrnajsem wishes. I have asked Zbrnajsem to redact the personal attack, but he has declined. If he is unwilling to conform to policy in regard to resorting to personal attacks on the authors of source material, while likewise filling talk pages with what is self evidently vacuous waffle regarding his rights under the US constitution to fill Misplaced Pages articles with whatever he feels like (see for example ), I cannot see how his presence on the article talk page can be anything but a net liability. It is one thing to have a heated debate regarding content, but when unfounded personal attacks on outsiders are being made, and debates are endlessly dragged off-topic by irrelevances and a failure to understand elementary tenets of Misplaced Pages policy, any hope of reaching a reasonable compromise seems futile. I therefore ask that Zbrnajsem be asked to redact his personal attacks on May, and that he agrees in future to conform to talk-page policy regarding the de Vere article - staying on topic, not abusing it as a forum, and not engaging in pointless rambling posts regarding aspects of Misplaced Pages policy that cannot possibly be rescended on article talk pages. Should he fail to do so, I would propose that he be topic banned - at least from this article, though I suspect a broader ban regarding all articles etc touching on the 'Shakespeare authorship question' might perhaps be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I redact my personal attacks on Mr. May, if what I have written is qualified as personal attacks on him. OK, he is surely a great historian, and I hope this is appropriate. It is difficult and maybe futile to discuss anything on Edward de Vere if one has the sincere intention to see that historical person from all sides. What I have said and what I have done in the article - just deleting a half-sentence - was only with the sincere intention that this person gets so to say equal and just treatment as other historical persons, i.e. no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article concerned. I am frustrated, this I may say. I ask you to read the whole discussion about Edward de Vere from the last say five days. If you who read it think that AndyTheGrump was polite to me personally during the discussion, then I will believe it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem, no one doubts your sincerity. But removing anything critical about a person is not giving "equal and just treatment as other historical persons". It is not the case that there should be "no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article" (compare the article on his contemporary Gabriel Spenser). It is the case that it should be fair and rounded. This half-sentence was the only "negative sounding" part of a substantial lede section. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that this isn't the place to engage in content disputes. Zbrnajsem has agreed to redact the comments regarding May, which is a start, but we still need to address the other matter I raised - Zbrnajsem's soapboxing on the article talk page, combined with an apparent inability to accept that WP:RS etc policies are non-negotiable, and that appeals to the US constitution etc regarding 'free speech' are not only off-topic, but downright disruptive. I'd like to see some evidence that Zbrnajsem accepts that the de Vere article must conform to policy, and that the talk page is no place argue otherwise. Contributors are of course free to argue that policy should be revised - but doing so on article talk pages is pointless. Instead, discussions have to take place within the necessary limits of existing policy. Unless Zbrnajsem accepts these limits on the scope of talk page discussions, the disruption is likely to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion. As far as the disputed full sentence in the article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is concerned, I still maintain my opinion that this rather long sentence has no sufficient inner logics and does not offer a proper consecution of arguments (see also the Talk on this page). It is composed from two or three sentences of different origin and with different points of view as intended by their authors. I maintain that this is no proper way how to argue on Misplaced Pages. Please look at the lede to the article. And I cannot think of any disruption of any discussion if the right for freedom of opinion and information is briefly mentioned in connection e.g. with the choice of sources. At times, however, during my participation in discussions, I had the impression that my participation was not welcome, and my views were fiercely rejected and not discussed properly. Of course, I have to take for granted that there is a policy of WP which maintains that there are mainstream theories on one side and a so-called fringe theories on the other side. My view is that in the past some theories previously labeled by the majority of scientists as fringe were later proven as correct, e.g. (but not only) Wegener´s theory of continental shift. So I suppose that it is within the limits of serious discussion on scientific fields if there is a certain scope of freedom for discussion on noticeable fringe theories. The existence of several articles on SAQ is a good evidence that there is such discussion on WP. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your response to my complaint that you were dragging the talk page discussions off-topic seems to me to consist largely of yet further off-topic irrelevances. Wegener´s theory of continental shift is of no more relevance here than the US constitution was in the original discussion - and we are not discussing the content of the lede here, we are discussing your behaviour on the talk page. You are hardly going to improve your case by once more demonstrating the problematic behaviour that lead me to raise the issue here in the first place. Once again I'll ask you - are you willing to accept that Misplaced Pages articles have to be written according to relevant Misplaced Pages policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions like 'freedom of speech', and likewise argue that Misplaced Pages policy should be ignored where it suits your objectives? If you get the impression that your 'participation was not welcome', does it not occur to you that it might be because you fail to actually participate in discussions in the way expected? This is what is being discussed here, and this is what needs to be sorted out. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for righting great wrongs - it is an online encyclopaedia, written according to the best available credible sources (or at least that is the intention, if not always the outcome), and if such sources fail to reflect your opinions, you have two choices. Either work within Misplaced Pages according to the policies arrived at by consensus, or find another arena to promote your views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that Misplaced Pages articles have to be written according to relevant Misplaced Pages policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions. I would only like to ask you, AndyTheGrump, who decides that someone has argued for irrelevant abstractions? Up to now, only you have objected my contributions using this terminus. Likewise, I would like to read a very precise definition of irrelevant abstractions. If there is such a definition, please give it to me, then I would be better informed. Although I have got some education, it is not quite clear to me that it should be easy to decide about the content and quality of irrelevant abstractions. Besides this, there is no information that you personally would have the rights as administrator of Misplaced Pages. So it is possibly not quite correct if you, AndyTheGrump, give me very pointed advices and treat me as a pupil. Up to now, in this section, no administrator has objected my recent behaviour on Misplaced Pages, no administrator was engaged in the way you did in the above text, and also in the whole discussion which we had. My objections are now only towards the personal conduct between you and me, and could be made a case on my behalf. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that I'm not a Misplaced Pages admin. I have never suggested otherwise. AS for the fact that so far no uninvolved individuals (admins or otherwise) have commented, that is unfortunate - I too would welcome such input, and it was in the hope of getting such input that I started this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk)

If no one is listening here, you could consider going to with a case for a topic ban. This thread seems to contain typical examples of Zbrnajsem's witterings and it shouldn't be too hard to put together plenty of documentation of his persistent tendentiousness in the SAQ area despite frequent reminders of Misplaced Pages policy. Doesn't address the BLP problem you originally raised, though presumably BLPN would be the place for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem wrote: "I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion." that may not have been your intention, but it certainly was the result, as evidenced by the edit war that you instigated with your comments and participated in.

You also directly above respond with irrelevant abstractions when told that you indulge in irrelevant abstractions.

As to Andy's choice of language in trying to explain policy to you, how many times do we have to repeat a point before you finally get it and modify your behavior? Either your command of the language is deficient, or you're stupid, or you refuse to get the point. Which is it? Because it's been explained to you over and over. Nobody says you have to like it; but you do have to conform to it if you want to participate here. If you don't, that's fine; there are plenty of Oxfordian echo chambers where you'll be hailed as a hero and a champion of free speech. Make your choice what it is to be.

I haven't chimed in on this before now because I'm sick to death of his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him--I've had years of it. For some reason they seem incapable of understanding Misplaced Pages policy and attribute their unsuccessful attempts at promotion to evil "Stratfordian" control. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I got it that Tom Reedy is a reviewer, but does not hold the rights of an administrator. In the same time, nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions, Tom Reedy. Citation: ...his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him... Would you please refrain from such expressions? I wonder what administrators possibly say about your misdemeanor on this page. AndyTheGrump, you forgot Paul Barlow´s contribution above. He reacted in a very decent tone. I appreciate it very much. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"...nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions...." Oh? What happened to your little "freedom of speech" idea? I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and I didn't call you any name; I said I was tired of your bullshit, and I am, which is why I've been ignoring your droppings on my talk page and the deVere talk page. I'll now return to my ignoring you. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that Paul Barlow has been involved in discussions on the de Vere talk page, he isn't 'uninvolved'. As for Tom Reedy's comments above, has it ever occurred to you to wonder why so many people seem to find engaging you in any sort of discussion so frustrating that they resort to incivility? I know I'm sometimes inclined to respond in this manner myself, often with less justification than might seem appropriate, but if you get this sort of response from so many different people, shouldn't you perhaps ask yourself whether you may somehow be at least partly responsible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I don´t think so. I cannot be made responsible for the conduct of other contributors. I have a certain standing, the others have theirs. I normally keep my actions pretty restrained, comes what may. It´s good to see that you lowered the tone of your previously temperamentful comments, AndyTheGrump. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So are you going to stop using the article talk page as a platform for off-topic waffle about 'freedom of speech' and the like, and instead stick to using it for its intended purpose, or aren't you? This is the issue here: you aren't being 'restrained' at all when you climb on your soapbox and sound off about the injustices of a world that won't let you portray de Vere in the manner you so desire. Like it or not, Misplaced Pages isn't going to abandon its policies solely to place a long-deceased noble on a pedestal. If we were in the business of putting the world to rights, I somehow think that this alleged 'injustice' would come somewhat low in our list of priorities anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you start it again? You have absolutely no right to tell me how I should think about Edward de Vere. And just deleting one half-sentence, when there is no inherent logics in it in combination with the other part of the sentence, this is no disruption of an article. Moreover, you are not obliged to take part in any discussion if it is too complicated for you to understand what is in stake. Paul Barlow is not so vehemently engaged here, he is interested in serious discussion. He in fact made a proposal for a cooperation of Wikipedians who are Oxfordians in their ideal world, but want to be part within the limits of WP. Furthermore, you can´t make me responsible for actions of other contributors. They are also free people as you and me. No administrator took part in this discussion, no administrator supported you, so please stop your comments. I don´t intend to waste more time with further answering. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

More bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If Zbrnajsem continues to waste the time of other editors at Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford admins will consider imposing a topic ban under WP:ARBSAQ. Should he want to offer a well-focused content proposal for a decision on talk he should consider opening up an WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat over the speedy deletion of Kidd Cole

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

I tagged the article Kidd Cole for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. The creator, User:TeenHollywood, subsequently made a threat of legal action against myself and Misplaced Pages for "Defamation of Character". The threat can be seen on my talk page, this diff. I have warned the user on their talk page about legal threats, this diff. -- Patchy1 05:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably some socking going on at GOOD Music as well. I'm on an iPad, so opening an SPI is an issue for me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a sock. He used his real name for both accounts.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef'ed as a spammer (promotional username, promotional material added). --Rschen7754 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to rev delete the legal threat as it contained a phone number and seem to have made a mess of it. I'll chalk this up to the perils of editing right before bed. AniMate 07:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the revdel. --Rschen7754 07:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Miguel Melendez his manager the page wasn't suppose to go wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.38.117 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrew 3770

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

Not sure if I'm at the right place, but IDK what's apt. This appears to be a single-issue account, dedicated to adding Diego Firestone here. It also suggests to me a sock of User:AndrewFirestone777, since the singular emphasis is the same & the usernames are so alike. It's also a possible COI, IMO; this has the smell of said Diego Firestone angling for his own page. Any action would be appreciated. TREKphiler 13:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. as an account used only for spam. Basalisk ⁄_berate 20:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've tagged both accounts for sockpuppetry as well. Obvious sock, may help with CU later if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! TREKphiler 04:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User: CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT

Blocked for the username and an unambiguous threat of prosecution. This edit summary references a "denunciation to the National State Police. I've left them a note as well, but am leaving for the day and won't be able to follow up. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to be a case of Don't overlook legal threats. Something fishy is clearly going on at those articles and it is for me very hard to determine what are facts... I have tried to engage him in moving his behavior from focussing on his legal position to an information-based argument, and am a bit disappointed (although factually fully correct, and possibly the outcome of a discussion anyway...) this has led to an immediate block... L.tak (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

L.tak is right. There's more than just an account issuing threats of involving the police, here.

• IIMSAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DrManini (talk · contribs)
• Jageshwar (talk · contribs)
• Elena.dalis (talk · contribs)

What a mess! Uncle G (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

L.tak is right. However, now we have another account making similar denunciations to the police. Their objections shouldn't be overlooked, but neither should attempts at criminalizing edits be overlooked. If there is some sort of disinformation campaign going on, that needs to be dealt with too, but not by calling the police. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In trying to sort this out, Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization, Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute, IIMSAM, Sulaiman Al-Fahim and Diego Maradona (with peripheral activity at Monica Seles) and others appear to be the targets of a number of role accounts, some of whom are making unsupported or poorly supported allegations of misconduct, while others are removing them. Several editors have cut much of the junk from IIMSAM in particular (thank you all), but it looks like severe pruning may still be needed, with protections. I am particularly concerned about Jageshwar (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs), but IREOtruth (talk · contribs) raises the traditional alarms for usernames containing "truth." A number of other accounts may by organization staff. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is basically a fight for power/true UN representation of (disputed) subsidiairy bodies of Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (CISRI). That organization seems notable (it is established by international treaty and has UN representation). However IIMSAM is either a separate organization (standpoint of (former?) CISRI boss Manini) without UN representation or a subsidiary program of CISRI or both (2 things, and the suggestion of the IIMSAM org that it is affiliated with the IIMSAM program of CISRI). In both cases it doesn't need an article (as a non UN accredited org, I see no shred of notability; as part of CISRI it should be merged...). I will therefore propose a merge (I am telling that here, as many of those editors are clearly against any association between the two names, so a merge proposal is likely to be controversial)... L.tak (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems like a sensible course. I'm quite certain that it'll result in more denunciations, but so be it. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

← From a purely technical standpoint CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed and as such I have blocked DrManini. Jageshwar (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely and Elena.dalis (talk · contribs) is  Stale. Hope this helps, Tiptoety 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Jageshwar (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for putting back poorly referenced defamatory allegations from primary sources. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone do the honours for Unirev (talk · contribs)? L.tak (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, and another note left on the advisability of explaining what the actual problem is so that it might be dealt with in some constructive way rather than the unlikely-to-succeed method of complaining to the Italian police about English Misplaced Pages content. Other editors are welcome to engage. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

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

We seem to have yet another incipient edit-war over infobox content for our East Germany article, and in particular, User:Trust Is All You Need is insistent that it be described as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' based on his/her own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content, which makes entirely clear that the formal constitutional position was that the Volkskammer included not only representatives from multiple parties, but from various other organisations as well. While it might be true to state that, at least by a clear historical consensus, the reality was that real political power laid with the upper echelons of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands bureaucracy (or possibly with its big brother in the USSR), it is nevertheless entirely misleading to assert this as uncontroversial fact in the infobox. This would of course be a content dispute, and thus not a matter for this noticeboard - except that I cannot see how knowingly inserting factually-incorrect material into an infobox could be anything but a violation of policy, and at minimum, Trust Is All You Need needs to be given a firm whack with a trout, and also needs to be told to use infoboxes for the purpose intended, rather than as a platform for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seem to more like a content dispute did you followed WP:DR before coming here?Also that GDR is single party state in not WP:REDFLAG claim and its easily verified for example --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it would be a content dispute, were it not for the fact that Trust Is All You Need is fully aware that his edits are factually incorrect in formal terms. I'm sure that the DDR has been described (perhaps many times) as a 'single-party state', but that was never the formal position - and infoboxes are no place for opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also recently had a problem with "Trust is All You Need", who renamed the Harmonious Society article (a well-known concept in Chinese politics and written about in English too) with his neologism "Socialist Harmonious Society", based on his personal understanding that "democracy in the Chinese sense of the word means Socialist Democracy, that is democracy that will not hurt one-party rule" (incidentally, China, like East Germany and unlike most Marxist-Leninist states, permits the existence of multiple political parties, although they don't act quite like Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Without a move discussion, and with nary a response to my inquiry, he has also replaced all wikilinks to his preferred title. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does AndyTheGrump consider it an "opinion" that East Germany was a single-party state? It is well-known that East Germany was governed by one political party.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. Our article states otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Article 1 of the East German constitution reads ""Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei".. The SED was given the rights to rule East Germany indefinitely.... This is not what I mean, this is what they said. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of a primary source. As you are well aware, the supposed 'single-party state' had no less than five parties in the ruling alliance, including the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands, the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands, the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands as well as the Marxist-Leninist Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. It is simply factually incorrect to describe a five-party 'alliance' as a single party, and even more so to describe the first four named as 'Marxist-Leninist' - and yet you chose to add this, with not even a token attempt at discussion, into an infobox clearly intended for uncontroversial factual material. You knowingly and intentionally added misleading information into the infobox. That is a policy violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Some editors around here need to stop threatening with the ANI-bomb and creating drama-storms every time they get into a c/d. Keri (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC) creating drama-storms

• Wrong venue, Andy, but I will stop by and opine. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• East Germany was a puppet state taking its orders from the USSR. That's hardly a news flash. That's why Reagan asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is taking place at Talk:East_Germany#Single_party_in_info_box. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just would like to note that edit warring by User:AndyTheGrump in this article continue . He made four reverts during just over last 24 hours; he also refuses to constructively discuss sources . Since this article is under discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe, I think he (and possibly User:Trust Is All You Need) should be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions, unless they were warned already. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That it's continuing is because no admin has taken any action to stop Trust repeatedly inserting clearly incorrect information without consensus. It would make no sense to reprimand Andy since he is not the cause of the disruption. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair, I left TIAN this notice, and he also makes unconstructive comments . My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the forth edit - I'd forgotten that I'd already reverted three times, and that it was that recent. However, given that My very best wishes chose to alter the disputed infobox content with no consensus whatsoever while the discussions were ongoing, I think that any comment regarding sanctions might better come from someone not already skirting close to violating such restrictions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert.I don't have to explain to you that 3RR is a bright line that you don't cross.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)One editor violating 3RR does not permit another editor to edit war while reverting them, so it makes perfect sense to sanction ATG. And TIAYN has yet to actually cross over 3RR. With 4 reverts within 24 hours and 18 mins, ATG should be sanctioned: " Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." He needs to at least self-revert. Keri (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I've not crossed it. However, if it makes you both happy, I'll revert - but with the proviso that I shall then expect My very best wishes to do the same, and restore the infobox to the state it was in before the entirely inappropriate edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It was already reverted to your version . Honestly, I think this discussion about "single-party state" is simply ridiculous. Even Soviet history textbooks always claimed that GDR was a single party state, just like Soviet Union, where the primacy of Communist Party was officially stated in constitution (which did not exclude "real democracy"). Based the article edit history, this is a long-term battleground between multiple parties. I must avoid such places. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion. Andy the Grump is arguing that describing East Germany as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' is against policy. If we have any trust in reliable sources, whatsoever, we have to tell him outright with no hesitation that he is just plain wrong, and will be banned for disruption the next time that he brings it up. Shouting "Black is white" multiple times, and then arguing that people who disagree with you are breaking policy, has no place on Misplaced Pages.

I'd like to point out something even more remarkable. At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes All You Need is Trust asserts that North Korea is not Communist. (And, in-context, it is clear he is arguing that it "never was" Communist). If you allow 2 people to scream "Black is white," and "No, white is black" and then ask for protection from Misplaced Pages policy because the other guy is being disruptive, then you are asking for every fringe quack in the world to come here and pollute our pages with their gibberish. Admins need to take some responsibility for this. Ban them both. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think requesting bans in this delightful little thread is particularly helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we ban Trust for pointing out on an article talk page that some sources have asserted that regarding North Korea, rather than seeing it as being 'communist', 'we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia'. . I was unaware that agreeing with Christopher Hitchens was bannable under policy, though I can see the occasional benefits of such a proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A query regarding discretionary sanctions

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

~Since this has come up, and a quick look at the relevant page Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe doesn't seem to resolve the issue, can anyone clarify whether East Germany (which by geographic standards at least is in Central Europe) comes within the remit of the Digwuren/Eastern Europe sanctions? From the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Motion: To rename Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren it appears unresolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that edits to East Germany would be subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The remedy says "Eastern Europe" and Misplaced Pages says: The term has widely disparate geopolitical, geographical, cultural and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile, and there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region". So -- who knows?? I'd run it past WP:AE or Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. NE Ent 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As with most of these kinds of topic restrictions, the language says, "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I also note that if you look through the sanction log, you'll see editors being topic-banned from articles related to Germany, even though I'm not saying that Germany itself is subject to discretionary sanctions. Obviously, if you or someone else feels the need for increased definition, knock yourself out, but I think it'd be a waste of time and resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the dispute that provoked the DIGWUREN case (original name without the hair-splitting baggage of EE) revolved around "East-Bloc" issues, I'd be inclined to include East Germany as within the scope of the decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IP

Im not taking this too seriously and I was unsure if I should report it here or not.. But an IP made this comment to me recently at my talk page . I think a warning is appropriate as I have remained civil, a threat of reporting me just because I tell the IP my opinion seem quite drastic by a one-day IP. Im not the only one being somewhat POV-ed by the IP I guess. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to warn them about. Let him report you. Not sure for what, but it could be humourous. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. (Personally, I prefer to mock them a bit first, but that can be construed as rude or battlegroundy or somesuch.) An extra step is to check the IP's other contribs to see if they're doing similar to other people who may be more easily pressured, or if they're resorting to legal threats (as opposed to just threats to "report") elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! You both made my day:) I think this this edit summary by me at my talk page sums it up:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile unknown to me. Just after my first attempt to resolve the issue, the user tried to flag my "seriously POV-pushing" edit as vandalism and after it was rejected, he tried the same with claims I threatened him and when this failed as well, he came here.

This guy maybe "civil" and "not taking this too seriously" as he claims, but that not how I see it. While I was upfront with him, he instead of communicating went behind my back and misusing the vandalism mechanism to fast track his requests( btw same with his next/last two requests, , ) and same here he ignored the "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" part. So Yes I find this user behavior not social, constructive nor contributing to a positive atmosphere.

Also I would still very much like to know the reason for the revert, so that I know how to proceed.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Case closed move on. Basically nonsense discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That the whole point, I don't know if he think that it should be moved or ? (Because that information is already presented in the section I specified, its first word linking to an article that deals with this subject specifically, providing an uptodate figures from 2012 in the lead.) So by ignoring attempts to resolute, providing a simple explanation or offer his versio, he waste all of our time with this elaborate process, leaving me one edit short of 'editing warring'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have responded already. If that response was not what the IP wanted to hear that is not my problem. I think the IP was POV pushing and stand by it and the IP was reported to ARBPIA for a reason, and that is my final comment to this meta debate. I think that users Bwilkins and Demiurge1000 responses to my request is quite telling about the general consensus concerning these kind of debates. Especially this comment sums it up "When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. " Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In light of further concerns, maybe you can help solve the issue and explain how exactly this edit was "POV pushing", after all my edit summary, contact to you and explanation here are detailed and technical enough for that.(the rest of your post is just more attempts to deflect, all of which related to your conduct here which I already covered in my previous post).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment, NE Ent. I think there are some long-standing WP:CLUE issues here. Against the current (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by Deonis 2012

User:Deonis 2012 has made the following copyright violations on Syria-related articles:

1. National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, 19 Nov 2012 (cf AFP)
2. Siege of Base 46, 25 Nov 2012
3. Battle of Aleppo (2012), 25 Nov 2012
   • source of both: AFP
4. Rif Dimashq campaign, 16:31 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP)
5. Rif Dimashq campaign, 18:35 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP, NOW Lebanon)

He gave a source in each case, but didn't understand that giving a source does not justify copy/pasting into a Misplaced Pages article.

He was warned on his talk page on 20 Nov, 25 Nov and 1 Dec shortly after each of these incidents. He apparently is a fairly new user (started 7 Oct 2012) who has never given an edit summary, and has never edited any talk page. Despite his talk page being filled with warnings, he has apparently not realised that he has to talk to other editors and come to consensus. Apart from copyright violations, there are several claims by other editors (see his talk page) that he has been involved in edit warring.

It seems to me that at least a short block is needed in order to convince him that free-licensing of our material is critical to the project, and that he needs to read and understand Misplaced Pages copyright policy and communicate with other users through talk pages and edit summaries rather than let (at least) perceptions of edit-warring continue. Boud (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A new copyvio, and no response from Deonis on his talk page (nor any other obvious place):

1. Rif Dimashq campaign, 2 Dec 2012 (cf AAP or the source that Deonis gave)

Boud (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they violated copyright in two edits to that article. One was rephrased by another editor. I reverted the other one. I have left a final warning on their talk page that any more copyright violations will result in a block. Please feel free to update this topic or leave a note on my talk page if they do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• They did it again. I think they're clueless, probably mistakenly believing that attribution eliminates the violation. I conservatively blocked them for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Apteva disruption

I warned him (see User talk:Apteva/Archive 3#Warning) that another disruptive move and I would ask for a block at AN/I. His previous round of disruptive RMs and MRVs all closed against him, and his continued disruption after that led to the RFC/U at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva. Even with that open, and a ton of editors trying to explain to him that his last two months of behavior has been disruptive and needs to stop, he went ahead with this WP:POINTy new one at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy_9#Requested move.

I would appreciate it if an admin with no prior involvement with Apteva would take a look at these links and see if a block to prevent continuing disruption is in order. Of course, it should be made clear to him that if he wants to continue participating in discussion at the RFC/U about him, he can be unblocked easily by agreeing to hold off on the disruptive behaviors while the RFC/U is open. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an absurd example of being pointy. The RFC/U is merit less. Comets are spelled with hyphens. No one can dispute that. Check with the IAU. I do not decide what punctuation to use in comets, nor does Misplaced Pages - the IAU does. Apteva (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)In all honestly, yes, Misplaced Pages does decide what punctuation it uses. And Misplaced Pages has repeatedly come to consensus that it should stay how it is. I agree that you opening another RM was pointy. The IAU can decide what punctuation it uses, but Misplaced Pages decides through established consensus what we use. gwickwire_edits 03:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, yes Misplaced Pages can do whatever we want to do, but our policies and guidelines are not normally in conflict with each other. In this case they are, with the policy, WP:TITLE, saying to use common use, and WP:MOS, a guideline, saying to use a hyphen for comets, but uses a dash in a comet as an example of using a dash, which creates a conflict with the policy. It is just oh so simple to fix this conflict - admit that no proper nouns ever use dashes, and be done with it. See Misplaced Pages talk:MOS#Three corrections. Make those those three corrections to the MOS and eliminate the conflict. Apteva (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then work to fix whatever comet-specific guideline it is, such that it becomes, "WP naming of comets should follow IAU practice". I for one would support that, whether it's hyphens, endashes or Egyptian hieroglyphs.

What you're actually doing though is pointy, disruptive edit-warring outside this. That's a no. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Although you may hold the WP:TRUTH, we go by Consensus that has been reached on Misplaced Pages, and not someone else's consensus. Try to gain ground on MOS for your desired policy. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Until then, follow Misplaced Pages's policies. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that Apteva has tried, repeatedly, to "gain ground on MOS", and failed every time. It seems he just doesn't hear it. Powers 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeeesh. I am fully aware of the local consensus at MOS, and I do not appreciate the squashing of my attempts to "gain ground" by calling the RM's "disruptive". If anyone has a better suggestion for methods of "gaining ground" I would appreciate hearing them. A block would be incredibly out of place. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Pointy disruptive RM closed speedily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The basis of this block request is that he keeps saying that he intends to keep at it. I still request an uninvolved admin to have a look and decide about that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If he does one more actual move, tell me and I'll block him myself. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That is he or she, thank you. This is like telling someone not to use the letter K. This not Sesame street. This is an encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's not Sesame Street, why are you behaving like a child? You're right then, "if they do one more actual move, tell me and I'll block them myself. Better? Still just as valid. This is not telling you not to use the letter K, it's telling you to NOT use the letter K when the rules of the specific language call for a C. We have a specific language - use it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If what I'm reading of the history here (that he's tried and failed to get local consensus at projects), this VPP RFC on standardizing hyphens seems pointy, canvassing, and in the face of the RFC/U complaints. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is there because I was asked to put it there. It is not an RfC, so will not likely need to stay long, but it is an important opportunity for everyone to weigh in, not just the MOS editors. I would like to get input of 50 or 60 editors though. Apteva (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While I see JHunterJ pointed you to VPP for this, I think you need to be aware of the number of times that people have told you that the consensus is likely not going to change, hence the fact that its beating a dead horse at the different/proper venue and still a problem. --MASEM (t) 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I can either laugh at WP or I can try to fix it. I choose to fix it, or try. WP does not need to stick with something that really makes no sense. I can assure everyone that I will follow procedures, policies and guidelines, though, and this ANI is meritless. If WP is still misspelling comets in a few years I will bring it up again - deal? Apteva (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close, with alternate venues: As requested, User:Apteva has complied with requests to address concerns in the proper venues (wp:RFC/Apteva), posting a topic at wp:VPP (dif-616, 01:31, 3 December) about hyphens/dashes as would affect all areas, beyond just guideline wp:MOS, to include policy wp:TITLE, wp:ACCESS, and names in charts or graphs, etc. Because the use of hyphens/dashes affects many areas of Misplaced Pages, then this thread (1 of 32 active) should be closed to avoid further distraction, and instead focus on the other venues, so that WP's use of dashes is not seen as "laughable" by major factions of the community. We need to properly assess the issues in consideration of worldwide views, NASA, IAU, other space agencies, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  The supposed issues regarding WP's dash style can be addressed in other venues. This noticeboard is not seeking to address the dash "issue", but to address Apteva's latest disruption incident. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Right, the issue is that this appears to be the N+1 attempt recently to get something changed that the editor has been told is consensus, but keeps trying anyway. Noting from Apteva's comment above about "follow procedures, policies and guidelines", the type of approach they appear to be taking is that of Wikilawyering - in this case, taking JHunter's advice of VPP posting without considering all other factors involved. I've encountered editors like that before - it can be hard to get them to understand that all of WP's policies and guidelines are meant to be worked and understood in concert and not to get too hung up on one specific one - in Apteva's case, understanding that the point on dash-vs-hyphen has been explained and spelled out with no apparent change in consensus and yet the editor is trying to change it. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  The MOS is inconsistent with WP:TITLE, and removing that inconsistency is trivial. Apteva (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Filter 139

A little help would be appreciated on monitoring filter 139 - all hits should probably result in a block, but I can't keep up with the rate myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You know about User:Animum/easyblock.js right? --Rschen7754 07:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I do now, thanks :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen and psychoanalysis

Widescreen has been involved in numerous disputes regarding psychological articles, often pushing a pro-psychoanalytic POV and removes well cited material that contradicts it. Recently he's been in slow moving edit war in the Psychoanalysis article and has been told multiple times not to and is editing against consensus.

• First edit
• Second edit
• Third edit
• Fourth edit

Previously Widescreen has been blocked twice for edit warring in psychoanalytic/psychological articles.

Because its the third time this came up and because its specifically in psychological articles, I think its worth considering a short topic ban. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that while Widescreen can go OTT, CartoonDiablo hardly comes here with clean hands. In a previous dispute between the two CartoonDiablo was proved wrong on the content issue and Widescreen right when other members of the community got involved. In that case CartoonDiablo was pushing a strongly CBT position. On that occassion CartoonDiablo used an ANI report to obtain a ban for Widescreen. So if there is to be a topic ban I'd be tempted to make it for both of them. ----Snowded 07:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Some further background is at this old arb request. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats such a cheek of CartoonDiablo! Thats no Editwar, that was the result of the discussion ! CartoonDiablo starts this WAR. The last edit of CartoonDiablo on Talk:Psychoanalysis was at Okt. 16. --WSC 09:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who drafted the material (cited to reliable sources) that WSC twice blanked (first and second edits linked in the OP. I have to say from my point of view that did feel like a short burst of edit warring. I had the suspicion that WSC seemed to be removing any material that described psychoanalysis as ineffective. We have discussed things on the article talk page however and I would like to AGF a little longer. I've invited WSC to add references to articles which he thinks should be cited, if he feels the article is poorly balanced. That would be a better way forward than removing material he disagrees with. I'm not in favour of a topic ban right now; what is needed is more editors with knowledge of the field and of WP policy to be active here (ideally in drafting additions to the article, and not merely talk-page commenting.) Sadly, as in many technical areas, editors who are knowledgable are likely to have a strong POV and those without a POV may not know the literature well! Full disclosure: I probably fall into the former camp, as a psychotherapy researcher and a cognitive analytic therapist. WSC's relatively poor written English (though better than my German!) does not help, but can we wait a little before invoking sanctions? I'd rather not ensure a quiet life at the cost of excluding an editor who seems familiar with the area but might just need some guidance. Kim Dent-Brown 14:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, it seems like no one is really interested in high quality. Kim Dent-Bronw drops two selected studies in the article by ignoring about 10 others (). But it seems like no action is required. There's "material (cited to reliable sources)", the autor itself called gold standard (Cochrane Collaboration) are still excluded. No sense of responsibility for our contens we presented our readers is apparent: "Maybe anyone will balance that in five years or so..." In my view that looks like lousy work mixed with indifference. I would call this a kind of "naive positivism" in wikipedia. What is verifiable by a more or less good source is right. But thats no quality at all! --WSC 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

KDH's advice about WSC sounds good. Looking at the talkpage with WP:AGF, I didn't as much get the impression that WSC was "removing material he disagrees with" as trying to put the section into balance. If the literature about some topic represents views A and B about equally, and the Misplaced Pages article cites 90% view A, then view A is overrepresented (wp:undue weight) and the long term remedy is to research and add citations for view B until the representation is equal. But in the short term, the article has a neutrality problem (WP:undue weight for view A) and WSC's doubts towards "naive positivism" (also called m:eventualism) are understandable. In WP practice it's generally not ok to remove well-cited material from an article without consensus, and certainly anything removed from the article in that situation should be transferred to the talk page for possible later re-use. A collaborative approach (not always feasible) is for editors (using their general familiarity with the literature) to agree ahead of time about how much representation each view should get in the article, and then collect citations and draft text in the talkpage until there's agreement that it's well-balanced and ready to put in the article. If that fails and there's a dispute, then yeah, our practice is to put a neutrality dispute tag into the article and WSC did that per KDH's advice.

KDH and WSC, is it reasonable to say that the two of you are getting along ok now? WSC, can you live with the current situation of having a temporarily unbalanced section with a neutrality tag, until more material can be added to balance things out, or else trying to reach some agreement on the talk page about what to use before removing stuff again? That leaves a possible issue with Cartoon Diablo and I wonder if KDH has any thoughts. Maunus in the checklist section of the talkpage makes the interesting point that "psychoanalysis is not primarily a clinical discipline - its aim is to understand the mind, not necessarily to cure it - that is only an incidental aspect of psychoanalysis." From that standpoint, maybe the entire clinical aspect is overrepresented in the article. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick response to the above: I don't think WSC and I (I presume you mean me when you type KDH above) are collaborating terribly well, no. But he has stopped blanking the material I added and I can tolerate the NPOV tag he has placed. I don't by the way agree that the section is currently unbalanced - there is some material speaking to the effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatment and some saying it's less effective. That seems balanced to me and to reflect the current scientific consensus. But we are straying into content discussion here and the main issue, one of conduct, is not currently a problem as far as WSC and I are concerned, in my view. Kim Dent-Brown 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is about adding a POV tag, notice WSC removed material and then added a POV dispute tag without discussing it. Later Snowded did the same (diff) and made no mention in the talk page as to why. It seems clear that WSC and Snowded are trying to remove anything critical of effectiveness, and if not, to insert POV tags without discussing why they did so to make it look like the section is flawed when it isn't.

And to the other point, Psychoanalysis has been considered a clinical since the 1890s which is why there is a vast literature of its effectiveness to begin with. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

At present the main person I can see actively edit warring is CartoonDiablo with this latest reversion to remove a NPOV tag yet again. Now myself I don't think the NPOV tag is justified, but I don't think I'd be right to unilaterally remove it and nor is CartoonDiablo. The right thing to do is improve the article to provide a fuller, more balanced and fully detailed picture. Warring over the addition/removal of the tag does not improve the article for the average reader of Misplaced Pages who is in ignorance about what goes on under the bonnet. Kim Dent-Brown 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Back in October Arbcom came close to accepting a case about the edit war on Psychoanalysis. At least one arbitrator thought that the community would be unable to deal with this. What I get from the comments that the arbs made then is that they hoped the community would take this to a content RfC. That still seems to me the best option. If an RfC reaches a conclusion and then someone edit wars against the result, an admin can take action as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Kim Dent-Brown above. CartoonDiablo has twice removed a NPOV tag before the issue is resolved. This is exactly the behaviour which resulted in the Arbcom case. I'm not taking sides in the content dispute, other than to say I think it could be more balanced, but that is not the point. Unresolved con conflict = PoV tag, RfC etc. ----Snowded 06:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the distinguished mediation. I can't live with the current situation. Thats why I try to phrase a own paragraph with my poor written english. No fear! It will be proofread by an english user. If its disires by Kim, we can discuss it on the talkpage befor adding it to the article. But I doubt that CartoonDiablo will accept that, whatever I write. After the last revert I doubt a consense with him. I don't expect problems with Kim but with CartoonDiablo. I hope Kim will give a comment to my paragraph. I don't know but I think, the NPOV-box is a good interim arrangement. CartoonDiablo don't edit the talkpage since oktober but requires a discussion about the box. But Kim and I alrady discuss that? Here's my proposal: I try phrase out the paragraph and we can discuss that on talkpage. I try to add it to the article, but CartoonDiabolo will revert that. Than we can start another RfC or DRN? That seems to me the most "efficient" way. --WSC 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) KDB, I'm sorry I wrote KDH, I'm not sure why I did I can't even think of a good joke about a Freudian slip. Yes, Cartoon Diablo's reversion was inappropriate and its edit summary is inaccurate since you and WSC did discuss the tag. WSC's objection about balance, I thought, was not the presence of your cite about schizophrenia, but about the absence of a bunch of other stuff that he mentioned. Unless you're saying that the stuff he wants to add is either irrelevant or already sufficiently represented (in which case you shouldn't be telling him to add it), it sounds like the section is in fact currently unbalanced.

Maybe some mediation could help for the long-running conflict in the article? Has it been tried? As for the clinical thing: I don't know anything about the subject (psychoanalysis) but I know that figures into non-clinical work. For example, Sherry Turkle has used it to study interactions between people and computers, Marvin Minsky called Freud the first computer scientist and suggested simulating the ego, superego, and id in AI software, and Freudian theory is apparently influential in political science. This type of thing seems more interesting to me than the clinical stuff, and nothing like it is in the article at all. So it sounds to me like Maunus is onto something. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is both a fundation to understand mind and a clinical discipline. Just like cognitiv science aims to understand mind and developed clinical interventions. I think you can't separate that. --WSC 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Mongo Feels Better

Mongo Feels Better (talk · contribs)

Please could someone take a look at the behaviour of this editor. Their edits have been BLP/OR violations against one particular subject. This morning I asked this user to stop posting on my talk page if they can't do so within policy as I've had to redact much of their posts as BLP violations three times. The response was this, which seems to be a threat to sock. January (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 48 hours for BLP violations, sock puppetry threats, and personal attacks (calling you a "shill"). Do you have any clue as to who the editor is, i.e., have they edited here before using another account?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • First edit from that account suggested they were familiar with its history - I had a similar dispute with another account just before this one showed up, but didn't think at the time it was enough for an SPI as they could also be one of the various IPs who have been adding attacking/negative material over the last few years. There is a Facebook group and Twitter account about Ankit Fadia who have been discussing his Misplaced Pages article and this is probably bringing his critics here. January (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Woah, that looks to me like a pretty crappy article, and Mongo Feels Better's concerns are legitimate. Obviously MBF's edits to the article aren't the way we do things, but wp:don't bite the newbies is still best practice. I think MBF is basically right that the article should be deleted and I'm not impressed with January's approach to this. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoever you are (the IP has an unusual editing history), I'm sure you know there are legitimate processes for deleting articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I've got a tin foil hat on here, but could this user be in anyway an attempt to imitate, discredit, or in any way attack MONGO (talk · contribs)? – Richard BB 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Obviously, given MONGO's notoriety here, it would be hard not to wonder about any relationship between the two accounts (I don't mean sock puppetry), but there are so many meanings for the word, I figured it was coincidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • A possible relationship (in the broadest possible sense) between those two accounts was my first thought as well, but it seems to be purest coincidence—I don't see any overlap at all between their editing histories, so socking, taunting, or a joe job all seem quite unlikely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah I also thought of MONGO but it seems coincidental. Anyway (re Bbb23) I think an AfD for the article is sadly unlikely to succeed. It's an article about someone working in a technical field (computer security) sourced primarily by popular-press articles that a security professional wouldn't consider remotely reliable about security stuff. So it ends up with a heavy slant towards stuff coming from publications that are basically marketing adjuncts to the IT product industry, yet AFD is unlikely to be willing to get rid of it, and we end up looking stupid to knowledgeable readers. I have other stuff to do today but may look into it a bit more later. I'd support an unblock of MFB if he can agree to back off the invective and help with the article's neutrality (it does have some poorly source cruft in it). I may try to talk to him later if he's still around. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I was initially suspicious of User:Jimbo online. Go figure. Per Bbb23 "Mongo" could mean pretty much anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, MONGO admits his names comes from the movie Blazing Saddles, as does the catch phrase Mongo Feels Better (actually I think it was Mongo feel better, but close enough). Whether that is close enough, I don't know, but it is borderline problematic at best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe "Mongo feel(s) better" to be apocryphal, although I haven't seen the movie in some time and may be in error. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Now you have an excuse to watch it again! — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems fair enough. I'll remove my tin foil hat. – Richard BB 09:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Back to the problem at hand, now? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• 66.127.54.40 is right in this instance. There is an on-going problem with this article. Mongo Feels Better was incapable of expressing it without adopting a tin-foil hat of xyr own and assuming that people here are in some vast conspiracy to promote Ankit Fadia. It was a problem in 2007 when Tqbf wrote this and it was a problem in 2006 when Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankit Fadia happened and I tried to get a horde of externally canvassed drive-by contributors to stick to policy and make a good argument based upon it. (66.127.54.40 above and Mongo Feels Better on the talk page have merely predicted the events of six years ago, notice.)

  The problem here is that there is one set of sources promoting a person and another set of sources discrediting the picture put forward; and the people who have written the latter set of sources haven't published them properly or put their names to them and reputations for fact checking and accuracy on the line. It's compounded by the fact that this article has been the focus of sockpuppetteer Kalpesh Sharma (talk · contribs) (see also Kalpesh Sharma (AfD discussion)), which of course casts suspicions of sockpuppetry on single-purpose accounts like Mongo Feels Better.

  I invite everyone reading this to worry less about whether Mongo Feels Better was quoting Blazing Saddles and more about the accuracy of a biographical article on Misplaced Pages in the face of six years of sockpuppetry and people's unwillingness to put their own names and reputations on the line in a newspaper or something, as Bbb23, Little green rosetta, and others already have. The link to the BLP Noticeboard discussion is at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Because an over-aggressive spam filter won't let me post the below as normal text, I'm going to try writing it backwards. I'm sure a software wizard like Uncle G can unscramble it and edit it back to normal, and this would be much appreciated. Thanks and sorry for the nonsense but I'm low on other ideas.

    .elcitra eht ni ti gnisu ot tcejbo ylbaborp dluow enoemos os SPS s'ti tub ]lmth.40rpSsuballys/suballys/562SC/pmats/ytlucaf/ude.usjs.sc.www//:ptth

    • The policies are not in fact as you state them to be, and you make the very same mistake as the people who mis-apply them in such fashion do, ironically. That's a problem, but it's not a problem with the policies. I recommend reading a sampling, over the years, of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and indeed Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, back to their earliest versions. The idea that something is self-published automatically makes it completely unreliable is a falsehood, as is the idea that sources have to be paper. The problem here is in part that the sources desired by some editors in this case have no identifiable authors whatsoever. Another part of the problem, of course, is that the people wanting the article deleted have been shooting themselves in the feet for six years. The herd of canvassed drive-by contributors, who couldn't put a policy-based argument together between them, got themselves a speedy keep for their lack of effort, and Mongo Feels Better decided to have a pop at the article's subject and other editors, and got xyrself blocked.

      Real Administrators don't need toys in Perl for the task of reading backwards, by the way. ☺

      Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

      • I was hoping you could unreverse the post so that other people could read it. I didn't write it backwards as an exercise for readers, I did it because I couldn't think of another way to get around the edit filter. Yes I'm familiar with the old versions of those policies (we can have a philosophy discussion about them sometime) but I'm talking about the way stuff actually happens on WP. If you want to open a new AfD for the article, then I'll support deletion, but I don't have much hope about the outcome. The reality on Misplaced Pages is that WP:N trumps everything else almost all the time, no matter what other policies or common sense it conflicts with. It's extremely difficult to delete an article once it has minimal published sources. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A moving war on A.C. ChievoVerona

I think A.C. ChievoVerona to A.C. Chievo Verona is controversial. However i probably started a moving war. Would admin first blocked the page to move first in order to let involving parties to sit down a give citation for and against on proposed name? Matthew_hk tc 12:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that either version has ever been protected in any way, shape, or form, so I'm confused: what do you mean by the "admin first blocked the page"? If you could provide a link at which the page was blocked, it would help. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I request to protect it first in order to avoid moving war continues . Matthew_hk tc 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that you already asked somewhere else, or is this thread the way you're asking? I'm not trying to make it hard for you; I just don't want to respond to your request only to find that you asked somewhere else and got a response different from what I gave. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked for somewhat intermediate measure on that page, as i moved back to the original namespace twice already. Or as lease someone with admin status to have a look. Or did i solved already by edited the page A.C. Chievo Verona? Matthew_hk tc 15:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It now won't be able to be moved back there, but it could be moved somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"In fair Verona, where we lay our scene". Romeo and Juliet, Prologue, line 2. I am working with my therapist about my compulsive Shakespeare quotation problem, though it is minor amongst the many of my other problems. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The page has been protected; I strongly suggest all parties stop warring and start a RM on the talk page before we hand out any blocks. I'm an English major but will refrain from any quotes ;) GiantSnowman 12:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User Anarose.antonio

• User being reported: Anarose.antonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Still introducing copyrighted images after talk page warnings and a previous block for copyvio:

Anarose.antonio seems to be motivated to improve articles related to Asian TV stars. Unfortunately we don't know whether they understand talk page messages, as they do not respond, nor use edit summaries. It is hard work picking through a long list of trial-and-error edits to find the problems. – Wdchk (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that they do not understand talk page messages as they are able to navigate around the project just fine, heck they even know to upload the files to Commons. Additionally, they are currently serving a one week block on Commons for copyvios. I'm thinking that might solve the issue for now. Tiptoety 21:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed

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

Hi. Not sure if this the right place so please redirect me if necessary. If you examine some of my recent edits you will see I have overwritten certain material which in my opinion should not be on the site, even if the original editor does have justification through "history". Can you advise me if I have acted correctly and point me towards relevant guidelines in case I should need to explain myself. How does one go about becoming an admin, subject to first gaining sufficient experience? Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the second time I have posted this today. The first was summarily removed by User:Widescreen without any explanation. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you post your first question at WP:EAR. It would also be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits you want others to look at. As for your second question, I think it's a little early for you to even think about becoming an admin, but if you're feeling really masochistic, you could start watching places where admins hang out (heh), like here, WP:AN, WP:RFA, and a whole slew of other administrative noticeboards. Also, it never hurts to read up on policy, guidelines, etc., to become more knowledgeable about how Misplaced Pages works.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Bbb. --Old Lanky (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User:76.189.126.40

IP account is engaged in edit warring on a talk page (removing posts by others) . Any attempts to diffuse the situation have been met with hostility. "You have been educated" "Stay off" "You think you have any authority Rushyo" and any notices/warnings have been deleted and ignored with threats "You've been warned, stay off my talk page" .

Diffs demonstrating further incivility towards others: "Do you not understand English" "As I said, thanks for revealing that you are a stalker. The losers who do that aren't usually dumb enough to actually admit it in writing" "Go away, sock. Your use of so many different accounts and laughable interpretations of how Misplaced Pages works make you someone that cannot be taken seriously. You don't even know how to spell your own name." "Bullshit Qwyrxian, there is no consenus at all" .

I'm only just scratching the surface of this behaviour, which appears to be systematic towards a variety of editors. Add to that really quite absurd accusations of harassment and I find it hard to find anything redeemable in this user's editing, he's just combative and uncivil. Attempting to de-escalate this behaviour is not working. -Rushyo 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to come here and request the same thing. The user is perceiving personal attacks where there are none. As I advised the user, removal of comments from talk pages should only be done in very serious circumstances (either ongoing WP:NOTFORUM contributions or clear personal attacks), and only be done by involved contributors in the most obvious and extreme circumstances where everyone would agree. I get that 76 believes there is sockpuppetry going on on that page, but s/he has yet to provide any actual evidence of that. Yes, that page is a mess, with a variety of people misunderstanding policy, and attempting to use Misplaced Pages for to advance their own personal causes...but especially in the last 24 hours, I think we're starting to get somewhere. The attacks on others are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked the IP address for 1 hour. I have done so despite being WP:INVOLVED. The user was edit warring to remove comments on Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi that contained no personal attacks despite claiming that they did. Furthermore, the editor is making baseless threats against a number of editors, although, I must admit, including myself. I know I broke WP:INVOLVED. I did so because I felt that any other admin would have blocked, at least temporarily, to stop the disruption. I accept this puts me at risk. I invite any other admin to unblock (or, of course, to extend the block if you don't think I'm wrong), and place myself at the mercy of the Dramahboard, asserting that I merely wanted the disruption to stop long enough for us to actually discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I reported this at AIV at the same time Qwyrxian was blocking. A simple shortcut would be for another admin to act on that report (which the bot has already marked as done). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good block, as has been pointed out even WP:INVOLVED may be ignored in blatant cases. A 1 hour block is hardly a draconian measure. Kim Dent-Brown 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A note: I am very likely going to be away from Misplaced Pages for a few hours, so I won't be responding here rapidly; more importantly, I won't be here when the block expires, and comments on the user's talk page make me think the user may not be done reverting. So, eyes would be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see this - I have extended the block for 48 hours. IP is definitely WP:NOTHERE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

N-Word

Not sure if this should be for AIV or here. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

AIV will work fine in the future, but either way I have blocked the IP. Cheers, Tiptoety 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've RevDel'd the diff, and the edit summary of another containing the same phrase. Basalisk ⁄_berate 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There's probably an embarrassingly obvious answer to this, but when I go to the page i'm still seeing the image in question. I've done WP:PURGE which seems not to make a difference. DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

someone's now rv'd it but the image itself doesn't appear to be rev del'd DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to delete the image. FWIW, E4024, if you get trash like that on your talk page you're probably doing something right. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Block review

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

This recent AN/I discussion ended with me blocking two litigants on opposing sides of a court case who had brought their fight to Misplaced Pages. I unblocked one of them, Mary Cummins, after she agreed not to continue the legal battle on-Wiki. She subsequently started to comment on her own talk page, discussing the case and presenting her side of the argument. I warned her not to do this again, but she subsequently took the argument to another editor's talk page. I have blocked her and said I'd bring the block here for review. I will notify her immediately now that I have done so. Kim Dent-Brown 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If parties to a legal case are fighting each other here, they've not violated the letter of WP:NLT, because they're doing more than threats: they've already sued. Blocking them is the only way to follow the spirit of WP:NLT. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No issues, as per Nyttend. Of course, stating your case on Misplaced Pages instead of holding onto it until your court date is pure stupidity ... but I digress. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cummins's comments were not a legal threat, but they were a direct violation of her agreement in the last unblock to stop commenting on the legal issues. She's clearly too involved here to be a useful Misplaced Pages contributor. She needs to walk away, settle her real life legal problems, and not worry about what a WP article says (especially since it doesn't mention her by name anyway). The block is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Good block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This editor is now requesting unblock. Kim Dent-Brown 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins declined the unblock request. I was about to do the same, but he's faster than I am. In her previous unblock request, the editor stated, "I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki." There are other reasons to decline the request, but her violation of that alone would be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Cut and paste copyvio fix

Hey Wikien2009 blanked User:Auric/Lia 19 with this edit then created Lia (actress). Auric's copyright was violated because attribution was not given in the cut and paste move. There was also some poor form on the part of Wikien2009 by even creating a page using Auric's content even if he had correctly given attribution. Can an administrator fix the copyvio by performing a history merge? Ryan Vesey 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Very poor form, very sneaky; but Auric does not own the "copyright": "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." ("You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.") Keri (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Auric does own the copyright. He holds a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright license. The conditions of that license were not upheld in Wikien2009's cut and paste move. When you post something on Misplaced Pages, you do not release it into the public domain. Ryan Vesey 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. And even if you were correct, Wikien2009 "distributed" the work under the exact same licensing as Auric, which is all that the license requires. Keri (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You're very wrong. Wikien "stole" the work of another editor(s) and claimed it as their own. That's removal of the input/work that Auric had put into it, and thus violated the attributions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to re-read the GFDL: "2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." As you clearly do not grasp what that entails, there is no point my continuing this thread. Keri (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires proper attribution of edits - you're right, no sense continuing if you don't get that. Thankfully, it has been actionned already. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ryan Vesey 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Keri, the BY in CC-BY-SA means that attribution is required. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. What you are all missing is that this is dual-licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 AND GFDL. Heres a line from Wikimedia which might help explain: "If a work is published under a single license, all of the terms in that license must be followed. If a work is multi-licensed (that is, released under more than one license), re-users may choose which license's terms they wish to follow." As I said, what the editor did was immoral, sneaky and underhand, but not theft and not a copyvio. Bwilkins would be laughed out of court for attempting to prosecute that case. Keri (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee Keri, what YOU are missing is that Misplaced Pages's community-confirmed policies and processes require it to be done a certain way - an in this case, attribution is required. Maybe a quick tour through WP:CPM might be a good start, and perhaps a few less chips on your shoulder might go over well too. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

lol I have never said it wasn't against policy. I said you can't go around accusing someone of larceny and copyright infringement when they have actually followed the terms of the GFDL license. Keri (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

When something is dual-licensed, the smart thing to do is follow the one that's most restrictive. Otherwise, you're taking a risk. If the light at an intersection is broken and showing both Red & Green, driving through without stopping isn't a good idea. Judges & juries don't always see things the same way we might. I personally think the CC/GFDL compromise was a bad idea, but it's old hat now. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a more relevant point here is even if you are following the less restrictive licence, most legal discussions I've seen agree you cannot relicence GFDL content under the CC-BY-SA licence (except for the limited exception which expired) as mentioned in our own article GNU Free Documentation License#Compatibility with Creative Commons licensing terms. Since all wikipedia content is dual licenced except for that from other sites which may be CC only, the editor was claiming they released the content under both licences. But if they are following the terms of the GFDL they cannot then also licence it under CC-BY-SA. The only way they can licence it under CC-BY-SA is by following the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence which the original licensor granted. In other words while the editor may be able to get away with it legally if they are doing it on their own website and only claiming to licence the content under GFDL (since they can chose which licence to comply with), they cannot legally do it here since they cannot chose which licence to release it under, they need to release it under both licences which they cannot do unless they comply with the terms of both licences. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely we're missing a point here: if you copy just the text of a document, under the GFDL that's not Verbatim Copying. Verbatim Copying would include copying the copyright notices (Keri quoted this). If you're not copying verbatim, then what you're doing is covered by Section 4 – Modifications. This requires you to list "at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." GFDL It therefore seems to me that GFDL does require attribution, and further I don't see how dual-licensing could work if the two licenses were to differ on such a fundamental point. (Non-lawyer spokesperson). – Wdchk (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruption by ipsock (open proxy) of Echigo mole

• 58.68.21.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

This is the second time Echigo mole has used an open proxy from Chennai in the last few days. This time, as well as trolling on ACE2012 discussion pages, they are removing user page tags for ipsocks of Mikemikev (recommended by Deskana) and from their own open proxy user pages. Please could an administrator block this account, which is now disruptively edit warring on Jclemens' ACE2012 discussion page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If Mathsci is aware of the WP:HUSH policy, perhaps he would like to explain how he justifies tagging accounts as sockpuppets that he has never even reported at SPI. --58.68.21.67 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)WP:DENY per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This banned user cannot comment on the SPI page because it is indefinitely semiprotected (and rightly so given his capacity for trolling). To comment, he would have to use another of his named sockpuppet accounts, which would then be blocked by a CU. He is currently engaged in mindless reverting of tags on 4 ipuser pages. Mathsci (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious troll sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

More of the same disruption with new open proxies / ipsocks

• 209.13.157.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.106.99.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 76.6.52.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 115.87.217.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Echigo mole has just found a new open proxy with which to pollute this site with his trolling. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And a second one. Please could they be blocked per WP:DUCK, since they're continuing the previous proxy's mindless disruption and trolling. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And a third ipsock has now appeared. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And another. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

All now blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Association of Business Executives(UK)

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

• Association of Business Executives (AfD discussion) Special:DeletedContributions/EconomicTiger
• Association of Business Executives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The above article was re-created by me was deleted by User:JamesBWatson under G11. I request any Admin to verify whether it is promotional and provide the deleted content to re-create the page. Association of Business Executives(UK) is a Notable educational institution in Africa and Asia on providing affordable business education at low cost. In Africa only it has 12, 000 students. I couldn't understand how without placing the service tag on the article on promotion(if that is the case), a speedy deletion is possible?EconomicTiger (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "providing affordable business education at low cost" looks like promotion to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In most of the Africa and Asia, you can't promote Ivy League programs with their very low Per capita income.EconomicTiger (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • In most of the English-speaking world, one wouldn't refer to "the Africa and Asia" if one wished to claim any sort of academic credibility. The "the" is redundant - or more likely just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, I am wrong. I am not from the English-speaking world, I mean my mother tongue is not English.EconomicTiger (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • But I did a Google search and found its usage - "the Africa and Asia", in various places.EconomicTiger (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• perhaps this is too much of an obvious question, but why would "a Notable educational institution in Africa and Asia" be calling itself "Association of Business Executives(UK)"? How exactly are they 'UK'? And why is this relevant, even if it is meaningful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • AndyTheGrump, you should do some research before you cast your opinion. That is a British institution providing business education globally and it's programs are popular in Africa and Asia.EconomicTiger (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No idea on the origins of the name Andy, but I do think you owe it to the community to have a look at the web site content before you come up with an opinion. ----Snowded 09:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • … as well as the link to the actual article title, given right at the start by EconomicTiger and cleaned up by me, at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this -- I'm in East Africa. I'm happy to consult a colleague at the British Embassy here and ask if they're familiar with this organization. It's not dispositive, but if they say yes, it certainly would indicate legitimacy. ⇒SWATJester 09:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually their site indicates that they're more active in Namibia; I'm reaching out to a colleague there who would know if they're legit. ⇒SWATJester 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• You can ask whether it is legit or not from Rt Hon. Nahas Angula, Prime Minister of Namibia, Hon. Anna Kachikho, recently Minister for Local Government and Rural Development for Malawi, Dr. David Namwandi, Deputy Minister of Education for Namibia, and the Hon. Abubacarr Jah, Honorary Consul from the Republic of The Gambia to Malaysia.EconomicTiger (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just because it says these things doesn't mean that it is true. Those could be honorary positions bestowed unilaterally by ABE without the knowledge of the "recipients". That sort of thing sometimes happens here. Or it could be completely legit. I've already asked and will let you know what I find out. ⇒SWATJester 10:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, getting too much into the weeds. The article was originally AFD'd here in 2010. Not long after, Economic re-created it with the text "The Association of Business Executives (ABE) is a professional membership body and an examination board. It develops business and management qualifications at Certificate, Diploma, Advanced Diploma and Postgraduate Diploma level. ABE qualifications provide progression routes to degree and Masters programmes worldwide". That text was as close to identical as possible to the original AFD'd text. There was nothing that showed anything remotely close to notability, and to be honest, the article should have been CSD'd immediately in 2010. Fast-forward 2 years however, although notability might have been partially established, it certainly had become a gigantic promotional piece that basically advertised the services (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Bwilkins, you are wrong. Even before the advent of internet and Misplaced Pages, the Association of Business Executives is there since 1973. Most of the coverage about this institution is offline and not online. It is because of the Misplaced Pages page, the institution gained notability shows, your depth in assessing offline world and other networks. If I could remember in 1989, a powerful former president in a South Asian country participated its award ceremony; it's not because of the Misplaced Pages page, it is because of the powerful people and influential network behind.EconomicTiger (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What am I wrong about? I gave a history of the article and its deletions, and a comment about the wording and promotional tone of the article, confirmed possible notability, and tried to corral people back into a discussion about the CSD, not educational notability. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And we on Misplaced Pages should not be carried away being as Administrators and Editors, we are above the rest of world and the various universities' senates and boards who recognize the Association of Business Executives(UK.) are inferior to us.EconomicTiger (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• ABE's Chief Executive has an honorary degree from Anglia Ruskin University in the UK, according to the University's own pages. It's hard to find really good RSs on a first skim but this fact alone makes me think there must be an article here. Universities don't award honorary degrees to completely non-notable people or leaders of non-notable organisations. Kim Dent-Brown 11:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Are random UK "universities" still RS for anything? Some are, but the title of "university" in the UK has been hugely devalued in the last couple of decades. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • .....the title of "university" in the UK has been hugely devalued in the last couple of decades. Who says?. It is not the same Oxford or Cambridge which were there 200 years ago; there are lot of changes. This could be applicable to every other modern Universities in UK.EconomicTiger (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • There are number of colleges and Universities in UK and they have got a page on Misplaced Pages; are they always featured in the reputed British media?EconomicTiger (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• People, let's not get sidetracked into issues of U.K. educational politics. Andy Dingley, you know better. Kim Dent-Brown, I refer you to recent history when it comes to honory degrees from U.K. universities. Everyone, the issue at hand is the speedy deletion of the re-created article given the prior AFD discussion. And the simple answer, which could have been given hours ago, is:

  EconomicTiger, the right thing to do is go to User talk:JamesBWatson and simply ask, not to come here. If JamesBWatson declines to talk to you (and remember that xe isn't necessarily even on the same continent as you) your next port of call is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • My point about the honorary degree was not that a University website constitutes a citable RS. Rather that from our point of view as editors it's a point in favour of the notability of a subject. The existence of such a degreee speaks to the possible notability of the recipient and the organisation for whose work he was honoured. I don't understand the Jimmy Savile link. Surely you're not suggesting that he is not notable? Kim Dent-Brown 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The issue at hand is the speedy deletion of the article. Bwilkins has tried to put this discussion back on track, as have I. Why are you continuing to de-rail the discussion? You know full well the procedure for challenging a speedy deletion — the usual "just talk to the deleting administrator for starters" routine. EconomicTiger now knows what to do, at long last. You're confusing the poor editor with irrelevancies. It's rather saddening that it took six established editors (Yes, I'm counting myself. I'm probably established by now.) more than four hours just to provide an editor who has come to the wrong place with the simple directions that can be found at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Instructions, which we all (or at least the four of us who are administrators and who would like to have this happen if it were our speedy deletions being challenged) supposedly know. JamesBWatson is a reasonable person, and is willing to discuss xyr speedy deletions, in my experience. Let that discussion happen, and stop confusing the poor editor. For all we know, JamesBWatson might be convinced without any fuss by a reasoned argument on xyr user talk page as to the application of the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G. Even in the AfD, other than the nominator, there was only one delete vote. I don't think so there is a wider community consensus to delete it. I will take this issue to User talk:JamesBWatson and will ask him to comment here.EconomicTiger (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is what you should have done in the first place ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:L'carpetron Dookmarriot

Vandalism-only account, has been given a short-term block, possibly treated leniently because of an apparently-erudite userpage which in fact has been copied from User:Seraphimblade. Please consider converting to a permanent block. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Shocking Afd closure

Earlier today I was patrolling the discussions listed at Afd and went through the December 2nd log, to find that were was an error with the technical closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Albannach, due to the missing archive template at the bottom. As I realised what the problem was, I noticed that the closure of the discussion was non-administrative and closed as "no consensus" by Faustus37 (talk · contribs), which I found rather odd as there were two delete !voters (including the nominator) and one "weak keep" !voter, which would suggest that administrative action would be required. I reverted the close as an improper NAC closure with the edit summary "Requires administrative judgement and didn't give others a chance to opine", and notified the closer of my actions regarding its revert. A few moments later, I took another look at the Afd to see if any new comments had been made, and was, quite frankly, astonished to realise that the user who !voted "weak keep" was the same user who improperly closed the discussion as "no consensus" (Faustus37). Till 12:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see that's been undone. However, when you get to three relistings without anyone commenting, it's probably better to close as "No consensus" meaning "nobody cares whether the article stays or goes" - but it should be done by an admin. Although I've done the odd non-admin AfC close, they've always been ones where there's been a unanimous "keep" !vote from everyone (example here). Looking at it, the only comment that actually properly shows evidence of policy and WP:BEFORE is Michig's "Weak Delete". --Ritchie333 12:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Faustus simply should not have closed an AfD that he !voted in - that doesn't matter whether he's an admin or not, it's basic stuff. GiantSnowman 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not the first questionable close. NACs should be uncontroversial; if the close is questionable, that defeats the purpose of NACs (sparing admins the need to respond to no-brainer closes). Faustus37 should probably step back from these, particularly given that the ARS is supposed to exist to improve articles rather than just to track AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this user has a tendency to make inappropriate non-admin closures. In fact, just a quick search through their contributions and I immediately found another discussion that he both closed and commented on. If this editor thinks it's okay for him to close discussions that he has opined to—regardless of whether they are NACs or not—then there is something very wrong. Till 12:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah he shouldn't have closed an Afd he commented in. That is Afd 101. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)...and then adds the closures to the ARS list of rescued articles. As someone who supports the controversial ARS, this is seriously lame. --Cyclopia 12:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • And people in ARS wonder why it is a controversial group. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If you think that's bad, how about closing an AfD as "Keep" when there were 7 Delete votes and 4 Keeps, and at least two editors (including DGG!) had suggested it was speediable as G11? This editor needs to be informed quite seriously not to mess with AfDs, they've clearly got a COI in terms of their stance on notability. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Is "shocking" really the right adjective? It was inappropriate and against policy...but "shocking"? That said, active ARS's probably shouldn't NAC anything due to conflict of interest as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that the user "did wrong." But those closes apparently were uncontested, at the time, and there is no evidence of discussion with the User that s/he did wrong. At the very least, discussion with the user should have taken place before this report. "Shock" seems too dramatic. Mistaken acts even patterns are part of the wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you check the one I linked just above? Closed against consensus, and the editor was very clearly told about that one on their talkpage . Also, the answers to the Oppose votes at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Faustus37 are enlightening. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Would it be inappropriate to suggest a topic ban for Faustus37 on NACs? GiantSnowman 13:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No. As stated above, this editor was already warned about such behaviour and chose to ignore it while making this close. Till 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • (e/c) Black Kite - Looking at that one, didn't they change that close when the issue was brought to their attention? And for whatever reasons the article still exists. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • And how do you justify this? The evidence is there. On 15 November 2012, he writes "Keep: As with International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012, this is a good WP:LISTPURP with plenty of precedent on other election pages. Given its length I think it's appropriate to keep it separate rather than merge it." On 24 November 2012, he writes "The result was Keep. The virtually identical AfD International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 closed as a Keep as well. (non-admin closure)". How is this behaviour condoned? Till 13:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
          • No one is condoning anything, except discussion with the user about problems before admin reports. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
            • If a user is told something they've done is inappropriate, and they then do it again, I don't see a problem in reporting it here. Again, I'd suggest you read their RFA, which includes such statements as "I'd much rather keep crap than delete the good stuff" and equating deletion with censorship. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading the RfA, the User was told to participate with AfD. Obviously, in doing so they have made "bad closes." Therefore, why those are bad closes should be explained in discussion, so the user understands and acknowledges, those problems. And, yes, stops and reforms (hopefully on their own). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban seems a bit too much, unless it's very temporary. Strongly suggesting a, say, couple months pause in NACs and seeing if he only does uncontroversial ones when he gets back to it could be enough. If he's doing it again, then a topic ban could be appropriate. --Cyclopia 15:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

He should only be making uncontroversial ones anyway, and there's no backlog at AfD so I simply don't see the point of it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Black Kite, this editor has been previously warned about such behaviour and this recent close is just a blatant example of their inappropriate closures. Till 13:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Till, while I definitely agree that there are issues with Faustus's NAC record, and fully see the need for starting this AN/I thread, it's worth noting that this is the second time you've started a thread on inappropriate NACs using some rather hyperbolic rhetoric. — Francophonie&Androphilie 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  These are not interrelated. That user's inappropriate NAC behaviour involved closing Afds early without justification and closing discussions that were contentious (see this, whereas this editor makes NACs despite previously opining to the discussions. Till 13:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment on the "Don't NAC close if you've !voted" - the above example of my NAC was one I !voted in ... the crucial decision for my close was that the nominator effectively changed his mind, resulting in a totally unanimous "Keep". However, that's the exception to the rule, even the one person implying "Keep, but I'd settle for a redirect" could be considered problematic. --Ritchie333 13:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• That wouldn't really be you closing it then. That would be a closure as withdrawn by nom. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• So, before we whip out the tar and feathers, shall we wait for a comment by Faustus? From my review, they haven't edited the project in almost 3 hours. As a minimum, I think we would need to see the following:
  • recognition that they cannot close AFD's they have been involved in
  • recognition that NAC's can only be done in extremely obvious cases
  • recognition that they have been warned about such closes/behaviour in the past
  • a voluntary decision to no longer perform NAC's until such a time as they are fully aware and willing/able to follow the policies
• If not, a NAC-ban will need to come into effect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight so that it's easy to follow. The discussions being put forward are:

• 2012-11-24: International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 (AfD discussion) — still closed
• 2012-11-26: National Association for Gun Rights (AfD discussion) — closure self-reverted
• User talk:Faustus37/Archives2012/November#RE: National Association for Gun Rights
• 2012-11-30: Fuzzball (sport) (AfD discussion) — still closed
• 2012-12-03: Albannach (AfD discussion) — closure reverted by Till
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Faustus37#Oppose

Anything else? Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Might also be worth making a note of Faustus37's AfD stats, which shows about 74% accuracy over 74 AfDs. --Ritchie333 14:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• How much might that percent be boosted by the fact he closed a number of them that he commented in. In other words of course he has a good percent when he is closing them to match his comments. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandal bot?

I'm doing some vandalism cleanup and noticed in List of The Emperor's New Groove characters the partial phrase added

• Also, he tends to be considered one of the sassiest of the Disney princesses

Ordinarily I would revert and just move on, however I recall reverting this exact same phrase in another article in the past week. My hunch is that this is some strange automated vandalism. I've no idea how to search my contributions for this phrase so I can investigate further. Any suggestions?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Google doesn't seem to find anything else on Misplaced Pages.  An optimist on the run! 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Diff of this one, please? And any idea about when you saw it last time? An approximate date range? I imagine it will be pretty hard for anyone to respond to your actual question until someone can find evidence. Well, I'm off to stalk your contributions and see if there's any tools that might help. Thanks for coming to my defense yesterday, by the way. — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(od) The IP's contributions show they just reverted you on November 27. Also, the article history shows where they were edit warring over the phrase. So the place you saw it was in this same article and probably not in a different article. Looks like they also edited as 38.100.117.129. Probably best resolved by taking it to WP:RFPP. Rgrds. --64.85.216.11 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm . Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Court case edit warring

Could an uninvolved admin look at LMS Hughes Crab please. An anonymous editor has been repeatedly reinserting information about a possible court case about a preserved steam locomotive. I don't know the full facts of the case, but the IP is unable to provide any WP:RS, other than claiming the court order itself is a reliable source (though it does not appear to be published anywhere). Whether this is the case or not, the IP has violated 3RR, despite final warnings. There is a discussion about this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways#LMS Hughes Crab.  An optimist on the run! 17:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. Next time please report this at the edit warring noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO there was a bit more to this than just a simple 3RR - i.e. the repeated addition of unsourced information which could be considered negatively. For tsis reason I decided to post it here rather than ]. Thanks for dealing with this.  An optimist on the run! 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a forum thread about this locomotive with some discussion about the wheel theft here. Not a suitable RS for an article, but enough to call for a bit of AGF towards the person who was adding the info and had no clue how editing works (WP:BITE). We ought to change the blocking software to handle this situation better, since it happens all the time. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP wasn't blocked by software. They were manually blocked by an admin. The block has nothing to do with whether the IP was adding the information in good faith. It has everything to do with the fact they were warned to stop and didn't stop. There is no good faith in repeatedly adding information to an article after someone has repeatedly told you to stop. Sperril (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus, CallawayRox, and the ARS drama machine, again

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

• Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CallawayRox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you know, the ARS is a point of contention in a number of arenas; they use to have Template:Rescue which they emblazoned on articles to canvass inclusionists. That was deleted, but they made Template:Rescue list to replace it, which does exactly the same thing (get out the inclusionist vote), but is pasted on AfDs instead of articles. So I nominated it for deletion, on the sole grounds that it. Dream Focus, naturally, was up in arms, and tagged the rescue list with its own rescue tag, a highly inappropriate act since the rescue tag is supposed to be used for improving articles, not notification of deletion discussions on templates. When I informed him of how inappropriate that was, he insisted that the ARS had to be canvassed, and that the rescue list (rather than the WikiProject's discussion page)

The last straw was the personal attacks I've been subjected to from. Rather than actually give a good reason for keeping Template:Rescue list, Callaway's comments here and there are nothing more than personal attacks. Then recently, Dream Focus accused me of being 11 years old, and also refused to name a policy for where it said ARS had to be canvassed. This isn't Dream Focus's first rodeo; he's been to ANI countless times, blocked thrice, and several people have suggested he be indeffed

The following things ought to happen:

1. First off, this template's gotta go. It creates way too much canvassing drama, and duplicates a SALTed template.
2. CallawayRox needs to be told that personal attacks are unacceptable
3. Dream Focus needs to be blocked again; and probably banned from XfDs for a very, very, long time

pbp 20:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you'll gain much traction here with this, and I also don't think that this, for instance, is a personal attack. They may be wrong, they may be right, but it's not a personal attack. Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with trying to rescue the rescue template. Finally, an ANI report won't help you speed up deletion of the template: that will be decided at the appropriate forum. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks to PBP for pointing out an odd typo on my part: correction added in bold. PBP, one more thing, and maybe you don't want to hear this from me: less is more at such MfD discussions. ;) Best, Drmies (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the diff you used is one of Callaway's, not mine pbp 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I did not tag it, I simply restored what someone else had, as I already told you. I explained to you already that all Wikiprojects have a thing you put in AFDs which tells people that Wikiproject has been informed of the discussion. That's what this is, not the totally unrelated banner that formerly existed. And please stay on topic. The discussion of him on my talk page is at and if you read through that, and the other two places this is ongoing, tell me if my comment was inappropriate. He does seem immature and has a problem understanding very simple things. Dream Focus 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Since my unrelated three blocks were mentioned, let me explain. First off, he brought this up previously when arguing with me on my talk page, and I already explained it to him there. User_talk:Dream_Focus#October_2012 I'll just copy and paste it here for people to read my explanation. "You keep trying to change the subject to something to totally unrelated. In 2009 I was blocked for 24 hours for undoing vandalism and violating the 3 revert rule by mistake. In 2009 I was blocked for a simple mistake on a talk page, for 12 hours, which meant when I logged back in the next morning and saw it, it was over already, too late to protest. The third time I was blocked was earlier this year in something that many administrators in the discussion about agreed was inappropriately done." Dream Focus 20:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I will note what I just noted at TfD. You want to nominate the rescue list at MfD, not the list template at TfD. The former is what notifies ARS members of AfDs, while the latter just notifies AfD participants of ARS involvement. What we need is a speedy close of the TfD discussion and pbp can then nominate the list page at MfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The list was speedy kept at AfD, and endorsed at DRV, so I would highly object to a new MfD in light of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron. I thought you guys (Wolfie, PBP, and you) were preparing a new RFC at some point (not that I really welcome that either, but at least it promised to be based on some sort of comprehensive evidence in light of the outcome of the RFC).--Milowent • 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "you guys", but I was preparing, I ran out of the time limit though for userspace storage. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• You know, if we deliberately ignored the project and discounted the percieved influence they have in their activities, there wouldn't be any membership or people to monitor the alert list. I'm going to say this once at both sides of the debate, Stop bringing your quasi-religous schoolyard fight here. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm really not surprised to see PBP show up at ANI. Last I heard IRWolfie- was planning some mother-of-all RfCs on ARS (despite the outcome at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron, a mammoth three-month long RFC that closed just in June). PBP was encouraging Wolfie on this, but it seems the draft RFC was later deleted though User talk:IRWolfie-/ARS RFC Prep archive remains. In any event, putting the rescue list up at TFD, done by PBP, was guaranteed to elicit a very frustrated response by ARS editors are very tired of this stuff.--Milowent • 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have a copy of the prep. I do think the RfC is warranted, and there are plenty of reasons why, including disruptive keep votes where ARS editors (i.e Dream) vote sometimes without even understanding what a topic is (it would be funnier if it wasn't disruptive), stealth canvassing by Warden by his refusal to provide notifications at AfD about ARS notification etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To my comment "You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool" was given the response "Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct."

ARS members are fairly open with the fact that they canvass for AfD. FeydHuxtable said, "Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements." .

Warden lists topics at ARS without adding notification to the respective AfD discussions, despite being asked to provide the notices .

Warden made this vote: 15:14 7th Oct Then Bangladeshi political families was listed. 15:18 7 Oct. No improvements have been made to the article as of this verison of the AfD 19:03, 10 October 2012 no edits to the article were made after it was listed. ARS member Dream Focus just turned up to vote keep and didn't improve the article. His rationale was a WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: . IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Is it that time of year again? This kind of persecution of the ARS appears regularly. We get it, you don't like how the ARS operates. Fortunately, those doesn't tend to achieve much effect given that, like the current one, they're more inflammatory and emotional than based on reason. Diego (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban Purplebackpack89 from ARS

• Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Purplebackpack has been bothering the ARS for awhile now. He should get a WP:BOOMERANG for this latest nonsense.

1. Template:Rescue list should be speedy kept. All delete votes are critically flawed. Even The Devil's Advocate understands.
2. Purplebackpack needs to be banned from interacting and commenting on the ARS.

CallawayRox (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No I fail to see the reason for an interaction and topic ban. And you're misrepresenting what TDA is saying -- I don't read it to say that the delete votes are critically flawed; just that the deletion discussion is occurring in the wrong venue; that diff has no bearing on the merits of deletion or not (other than that, as I said, TFD is the wrong venue). Not to mention that this is a completely inappropriate reason for a speedy keep and does absolutely nothing to explain why it should be kept -- something you might want to think about if you're claiming that others votes are "flawed". ⇒SWATJester 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Callaway, it would be helpful if you would address the thread PBP started, rather than jumping immediately to demanding a topic ban. Maybe one is warranted, but we can't know that unless you actually speak about what's going on. Right now, without that, it looks a bit retaliatory: "Oh, you're going to report me? Well, I'm going to try to get you back!" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support - Someone who, out of his explicit dislike of a given wikiproject then tries to delete a Wikiproject template and then whines if such wikiproject notices, or that actively accuses users of canvassing, is a textbook case of disruptive pointyness. It doesn't look like s/he's going to stop. The guy should leave the ARS alone, or back his serious accusations with something. --Cyclopia 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out the examples of ARS canvassing, &c pbp 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think that PPB needs to step back and trust the process to take place now that he has set it into motion. It is rarely helpful to respond to every single comment made by someone that disagrees with one's own stance, and PPB seems to be doing that at the AFD. I would counsel them to just step back, respond no further, allow the process to work itself out, and accept the results whatever they may be. However, even though that behavior isn't helpful (and neither was starting this ANI thread) I don't believe that formal bans or blocks need to be handed out regarding any of this. Both sides need to be counseled to leave each other alone, and stop personalizing this. Neither side needs banning as yet, and I'd like to keep it that way by seeing both sides step back from the personalized back-and-forth bickering. --Jayron32 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: For starters, the rationale given does not come anywhere to justification for a topic ban, and seems to be nothing more than CallawayRox out for blood. It also troubles me that ARS wants to boot someone mainly because he disagrees with the inclusionist views supported by a preponderance of their members pbp 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How surprising you oppose your own topic ban. Anyway no, I don't want to "boot" you because you disagree with inclusionist views or with ARS views. Plenty of people do, and it's fine -it's part of the diverse community we have. However most of these people tend to more or less respectfully discuss them, instead of trying games like deleting templates that project use and then complain of canvassing if the wikiproject takes notice. --Cyclopia 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Meh. The list should go to the right venue for a proper discussion. The rest of this is all unnecessary. jæs (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As a completely frivolous and disruptive attempt to silence a critic. I would say the delete votes have a "critical flaw" in that the template is not the rescue list and deleting it will have no impact on the rescue list. MfD is where the discussion needs to go and it needs to be the page for the list, not the template, that is up for deletion. If the page is deleted then the template would be speedily deleted for no longer having a functional purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support You'll have to show plenty of revision edits to convince everyone else of the problem though. He isn't part of the project, just out to get it, and has argued constantly with those who are active in the project on its talk page and elsewhere. Should someone be able to go to a project they don't believe should exist and constantly argue with them nonstop without contributing anything useful to the project ever? Dream Focus 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Diffs...diffs... I contest the assertion that I have "ever contributed anything useful" to the project. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist...not only did I vote "Keep", I laid out a framework for how the article should be expanded, and where to look for additional information. And what about the opposite argument: should WikiProjects be allowed to boot minority views from their spaces? And there's never been (and never going to be) a requirement that you have to be a member of the WikiProject to participate in discussion, so me being a member or not is irrelevant. It's no different than someone who doesn't believe AfD should exist in its current form still voting at AfDs pbp 22:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If the person insults the project constantly, and says he wants it deleted, and is right now trying to delete it, then their only reason for being there is disruptive. Dream Focus 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I don't see where PBP here is insisting that we delete the ARS. He's arguing for the deletion of a page that belongs to the ARS, and he may well think the ARS ought to be deleted, but going at him as if he's holding a knife to the throat of the very existence of the ARS right here, right now, in this thread, is blowing what we're actually talking about wayyy out of proportion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

At User:Purplebackpack89 he says I believe that WP:BEFORE and the article rescue list should be abolished. And yes, he appears to believe he nominated the ARS not just that one template that tells people in an AFD that the discussion was mentioned in a Wikiproject. Dream Focus 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're discussing people's user pages, User:Dream Focus has a section entitled "Please stop the deletionist from destroying wikipedia!" (sic) I nominated the template for the reasons I said: because it bears too much resemblance to Template:Rescue, which in of itself is all the deletion rationale you need (actually, that's almost enough for a CSD) pbp 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No project is a walled garden (that's what lead to the UFA/MMA issues a while back) and needs to have introspection from time to time. As long as the contrary posts are not purposefully disruptive, editors should feel free to post criticism of a project - in hopes of improving it - there. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that criticism is fine. AFAIK, ARS gets it every day. But pbp is not bringing criticism -he's being disruptive, with pointy template deletion attempts and unsupported accusations to other editors. --Cyclopia 22:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep because the ARS sent me. (Wait, this isn't an AfD?) —Tom Morris (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose mainly per Hasteur above, whilst noting the somewhat amusing meta-irony of the fact that the only people supporting this are from a project accused of block voting on discussions. Still, I suppose typing "Support" at least gives their "K" and "E" keys a rest, if not their "P". Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Ban proposals belong at WP:AN, not here. Moving it there would be disruptive, so I'm going to leave a note there. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Not going to vote on this but will say that this sub section should be closed outright as an obvious retaliatory measure. This is symptomatic of sand pit fights of this sort. The original ANI hasn't even been dealt with and one of the opposing members has tried to create a smokescreen. Collapse this and finish one thing at a time for fucks sake. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Close Both Sections: PBP has irked me many times in connection with ARS, but I think its highly doubtful that PBP is going to be banned based on the very limited statement made by CallawayRox. It would take lots of diffs to lay out the history, and life is too short to do this in almost all cases. And in most of those cases, bans aren't that common anyway. I fervently wish PBP would work on improving articles, including little unsourced stubs he creates like Chili burger that would probably die at AfD in their current states, but what he chooses to focus on is his choice.--Milowent • 23:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Milowent, don't feed the drama queens. Diego (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Asking someone to review my actions at Ralph Drollinger

Several times, User:AccuracyInPosting has tried to add this image to the Ralph Drollinger page (most recently, ), and several times, I have removed it (most recently, ). I can't even find the image at Ralph Drollinger.com, let alone a statement about the public domain. I've left multiple messages about the image at User talk:AccuracyInPosting, but I haven't received any real clarification on the matter.

I do suspect that User:AccuracyInPosting is associated with Drollinger - just look at his edit history. However, he has made statements such as this ("I do not work for Drollinger, and the fact that you would ask such a question serves to reveal your premeditated mindset.") Thus, I can't just assume we can use the image, can I? Zagalejo^^^ 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct we cannot assume that we can use the image. There's no evidence that the photo is in the public domain as claimed. The copyright for the image is owned by whoever took the photo unless it has specifically been released under license. The image qualifies for speedy deletion as {{Di-no permission}}. I have placed a speedy deletion tag on the image and notified the uploader. The uploader has seven days to try to get an WP:OTRS ticket in place for the file. If no OTRS ticket is forthcoming, the pic will be deleted in seven days. User:Orangemike is a highly experienced admin and he can likely help with the BLP and COI issues you are facing on that article. -- Dianna (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your actions are fine. There's no release on the page they cited; from their talk page, it appears that AccuracyInPosting clearly does not understand the concept of copyright. ⇒SWATJester 05:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)