Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:09, 6 December 2012 editDiannaa (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators349,791 edits →User:Danjel: What admin action← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:13, 6 December 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk \| contribs)973 edits →Proposed solution Next edit →
Line 192:		Line 192:
	::Drmies, I honestly agree with just about everything you just said (even where you say my more recent edits to ] were POINTy). Additionally, I thank you for your good faith that I have something to add to Misplaced Pages. However, I regret to say that in my three months of interacting with both Tristan noir and Bagworm (who may have an alternate ] in trying to ban me from ] ] ]), I have found that if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Misplaced Pages articles should be ]. This is a principle I am not willing to compromise, and if it means taking one for the team, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. ] (]) 07:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)		::Drmies, I honestly agree with just about everything you just said (even where you say my more recent edits to ] were POINTy). Additionally, I thank you for your good faith that I have something to add to Misplaced Pages. However, I regret to say that in my three months of interacting with both Tristan noir and Bagworm (who may have an alternate ] in trying to ban me from ] ] ]), I have found that if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Misplaced Pages articles should be ]. This is a principle I am not willing to compromise, and if it means taking one for the team, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. ] (]) 07:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Note, I said "may", leaving it in the middle whether one, or the other, or both have an agenda... I'm trying to be an equal-opportunity offender here. Though it is probably true, as Shiki said, that "One tries for fairness / But ends by cutting up all. / Thus spake the blunt knife." My own translation, of course. ] (]) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)		:::Note, I said "may", leaving it in the middle whether one, or the other, or both have an agenda... I'm trying to be an equal-opportunity offender here. Though it is probably true, as Shiki said, that "One tries for fairness / But ends by cutting up all. / Thus spake the blunt knife." My own translation, of course. ] (]) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

			::::Thank you, Drmies, for your observations, pro and con. On the subject of a broad '''topic ban on poetry''', Elvenscout and I both freely volunteered in hopes of bringing this conflict to an end. Stalwart’s proposal, which opened this discussion, proposed an '''interaction ban''' between Elvenscout and me as well. I do see an '''interaction ban''' as in the best interests of Misplaced Pages and of the editors in conflict, given recent history. Elvenscout, in his response to you, imputes bad faith not only to me but to another editor, when he writes, ''if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Misplaced Pages articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources.'' Comments of this nature are neither balanced nor constructive. In addition, there are continuing matters like this to ] where Elvenscout, in his summary, writes, ''Moving content from ]. My attempt to stop User:Tristan noir from continuing to post spam to Misplaced Pages has led to me taking a self-imposed exile from poetry articles.'' This is contrary not only to ] which states ''“Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved”'' but is contrary as well to ] which lists, among its “don’ts” of edit summaries, don’t ''“make snide remarks”'' and don’t ''“make personal remarks about editors.”'' Furthermore, Elvenscout's edit summary is incorporated into an article that this editor has never worked upon and arises from personal disagreements that have nothing to do with its content. If this were an isolated incident, it would not be worthy of remark, but that it is far from being so lends weight and credence to Stalwart’s proposed imposition of an '''interaction ban''' between Elvenscout and me.] (]) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

	== User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again ==		== User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again ==

Revision as of 02:13, 6 December 2012

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

He/she has apparently had a Misplaced Pages account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.)

The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.

He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources, and I reverted back . This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.

He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.

Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese. The user agreed to this, but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before. I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.

Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there. One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.

Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article. I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms and Haiga, where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Misplaced Pages. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. He/she immediately did so, still refusing to discuss the issue on my talk page or the talk page of the subpage in question. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN. In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist. The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here, and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Misplaced Pages articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ( was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.

It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.

I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.

I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.

While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.

Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity. to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content
In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above. My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin. If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination. My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example). My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Misplaced Pages policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him. My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Misplaced Pages community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character. I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity. to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC) (The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)) Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Misplaced Pages rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Misplaced Pages or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Misplaced Pages). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me. Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging. Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Could someone please tell TN to stop making personal attacks like the above? My reasoning for doing everything he mentions was clearly established multiple times in the edits themselves, and his assuming bad faith on my part has been troubling me for almost 3 months now. My informing User:Drmies of the need to watch out for TN and one other editor while editing the Tanka in English article was justified, given TN's constantly attacking me for making similar edits. My informing User:BDD that I had replied to his query, and stating the reason I forgot to inform him previously was equally benign (the reason was TN's ridiculous assumption of bad faith/personal attack distracting me). My making a slight edit to my initial response to User:BDD in order to clarify my meaning, in light of TN deliberately getting my subpage deleted and making my reasoning unclear, was also justified. (I am beginning to think TN deliberately posted my subpage for deletion without ever trying to discuss it, specifically to blur the meaning of posts where I had linked to it.) My edits to Tanka in English were extreme, yes, but they drew the attention of a couple of good editors and led the article being significantly cleaned up and made into something resembling an encyclopedia article. The fact is that before I added those tags the article was already illegible because of how poorly written it was (almost every sentence read as "The first A was B", with no clarification of A or B's relevance to the article). I would like to hear what TN thinks is "revisionist" about my recent posting on Talk:Uta monogatari . I merely provided a statement of the reasons why the first half of the page's history seems to be a completely different article to what is there now, in the hopes that concerned editors would not think User:Bagworm and I had engaged in vandalism in our completely overhauling the article. Also, I am not sure if Misplaced Pages policy demands that the previous history of the page be deleted because of its copyright violation? TN has, unfortunately, yet to explain why his initial version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article from two weeks earlier... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Correction TN's article was a NEAR carbon-copy of the Woodward piece. The final four words ("and Contemporary Haibun Online") of Woodward's piece were cut, and Gary LeBel's name was added to the list of "other notable poets who adopted tanka prose in the 1990s". Also, while six of the ten work's TN's article cited were Woodward's (the other four, naturally, did not actually use the phrase "tanka prose"), TN failed to cite the one Woodward piece that had clearly had the most influence on the writing of his article. This blatant copyright violation has never been properly addressed. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above.

My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin. If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination.

My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example).

My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Misplaced Pages policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him.

My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Misplaced Pages community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Misplaced Pages rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Misplaced Pages or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Misplaced Pages). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me.

Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging.

Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please tell TN to stop making personal attacks like the above? My reasoning for doing everything he mentions was clearly established multiple times in the edits themselves, and his assuming bad faith on my part has been troubling me for almost 3 months now.

My informing User:Drmies of the need to watch out for TN and one other editor while editing the Tanka in English article was justified, given TN's constantly attacking me for making similar edits.

My informing User:BDD that I had replied to his query, and stating the reason I forgot to inform him previously was equally benign (the reason was TN's ridiculous assumption of bad faith/personal attack distracting me).

My making a slight edit to my initial response to User:BDD in order to clarify my meaning, in light of TN deliberately getting my subpage deleted and making my reasoning unclear, was also justified. (I am beginning to think TN deliberately posted my subpage for deletion without ever trying to discuss it, specifically to blur the meaning of posts where I had linked to it.)

My edits to Tanka in English were extreme, yes, but they drew the attention of a couple of good editors and led the article being significantly cleaned up and made into something resembling an encyclopedia article. The fact is that before I added those tags the article was already illegible because of how poorly written it was (almost every sentence read as "The first A was B", with no clarification of A or B's relevance to the article).

I would like to hear what TN thinks is "revisionist" about my recent posting on Talk:Uta monogatari . I merely provided a statement of the reasons why the first half of the page's history seems to be a completely different article to what is there now, in the hopes that concerned editors would not think User:Bagworm and I had engaged in vandalism in our completely overhauling the article. Also, I am not sure if Misplaced Pages policy demands that the previous history of the page be deleted because of its copyright violation? TN has, unfortunately, yet to explain why his initial version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article from two weeks earlier...

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction TN's article was a NEAR carbon-copy of the Woodward piece. The final four words ("and Contemporary Haibun Online") of Woodward's piece were cut, and Gary LeBel's name was added to the list of "other notable poets who adopted tanka prose in the 1990s". Also, while six of the ten work's TN's article cited were Woodward's (the other four, naturally, did not actually use the phrase "tanka prose"), TN failed to cite the one Woodward piece that had clearly had the most influence on the writing of his article. This blatant copyright violation has never been properly addressed. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tristan noir is here for one thing, to promote the work of Woodward. He consumes a great deal of other people's time; other people who are here to build an encyclopedia, not push a tiny, tiny, non-notable fringe idea. He insults others. Could someone please do the right thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended content
While this discussion proceeds, User Elvenscout, contrary to WP:CANVAS, continues his campaigning and possible stealth canvassing, via posts such as this of Nov 27, or this of Nov 30, or this of Dec 1 on various user’s talk pages. User Elvenscout also, contrary to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, continues to alter and / or suppress unilaterally the content of article talk pages, e.g., at Talk:Uta monogatari with edits on Oct 17 and Nov 30, and at Talk:Tanka in English on Dec 1.Tristan noir (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The above comments are not canvassing. The users in question have equally taken note of TN's bad behaviour, and I have asked heir advice on how to proceed, because this ANI post, like all my other attempts to deal with TN through community involvement, has apparently been derailed by TN's refusal to be concise or accurate and instead relying on ad hominem attacks like the above. The above removal of the contents of the uta monogatari talk page is called "archiving", TN. It is a perfectly normal process for when a talk page becomes very long, and especially in a case like this when the previous talk is almost entirely irrelevant to the article content. Additionally, I removed one account of the recommendation regarding "tanka in English", because after two months neither TN nor anyone else has made any attempt to implement it, because, as was already established by broad consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, the merge would likely bring in WP:WEIGHT issues. Additionally, instead of making any attempt to improve that article or participate in the currently active discussion there, TN limited his edits to making personal attacks against me and arguing entirely irrelevant points about my "ignorance of the publishing industry". (My comments were that fringe-materials that are "published" through Lulu, and therefore do not exist in any libraries or bookshops, are probably not reliable sources and should not be advertised on Misplaced Pages.) In fact, the majority of TN's edits to article talk pages over the last two months have been limited to following my edits, and whenever another user (primarily User:Bagworm) disagrees with me, TN will jump in and attack me, claiming that this is "consensus". One other noteworthy example is , where I had had a dispute with Bagworm over his/her posting of an inappropriate item on a list. When I removed it I explained my reasoning, and Bagworm seemed to accept it in his/her silence, but then almost two weeks later TN appeared and posted a ridiculous argument in response. His argument was that since one author had said that in Japan visual arts are often linked with literature, then a Japanese painting style should be included in a list of literary terms. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I am collapsing irrelevant, off-topic portions of the conversation. Personal issues with my actions on unrelated pages should be brought up with me on MY talk page or on the relevant article talk pages -- they should not clutter this ANI post, which is meant to address Tristan noirs behaviour. Next-to-nothing TN has posted above qualifies as a defense against my pointing out that his activities have been limited to posting spam/fringe theories to numerous articles, and undermining my integrity as an editor. Ad hominem arguments against me have no place here. TN has, throughout all of my interactions with him over the last three months, constantly failed to address his problems with my edits in the appropriate venues; several of the pages he has posted to contain some reference to a separate argument, as well as a reply by me that received no direct response until TN posted something else on an entirely different talk page. The current example is in his constantly using this page to moan about my edits to other pages, when his edit history shows that he has not tried to engage me directly on any other talk page for over two weeks. Probably the most blatant example is , where he attempted to use Talk:Tanka in English to attack my edits on four other articles, but has since failed to bring up his specific problems with my edits on either the appropriate article talk pages or on my talk page. His drawing a link between my edits to different articles was also bizarre, since my edits to each of the pages he listed only vaguely resembled my edits to "Tanka in English". This has made it very difficult to discuss anything with him. Accusations of canvassing on my part are ridiculous: my message to BDD does not mention ANI once! It is exclusively related to a comment he made on a separate talk page two weeks earlier. I also asked the advice of an experienced Wikipedian who had intervened in what TN apparently considers an ongoing content dispute at Tanka in English -- on my side, of course, since TN's view is apparently that the article should include material not found in reliable sources, and should refer to unreliable sources as "noteworthy publications". Further, my messaging Stalwart111 cannot be "canvassing", since he was the one who suggested posting here in the first place, and he had already posted here himself before I messaged him! I was merely asking his advice on what else I could do to stop TN's seemingly endless quest to post spam/OR/fringe on various Misplaced Pages articles. TN's initial response above also technically qualifies as an ad hominem argument in its failure to make any attempt to address my issues with his editing activities, but I guess it needs to be left intact since he is entitled to a response. I don't suppose he would like to post a more relevant defense against the accusations that he is here to spam Misplaced Pages? elvenscout742 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

While this discussion proceeds, User Elvenscout, contrary to WP:CANVAS, continues his campaigning and possible stealth canvassing, via posts such as this of Nov 27, or this of Nov 30, or this of Dec 1 on various user’s talk pages.

User Elvenscout also, contrary to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, continues to alter and / or suppress unilaterally the content of article talk pages, e.g., at Talk:Uta monogatari with edits on Oct 17 and Nov 30, and at Talk:Tanka in English on Dec 1.Tristan noir (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are not canvassing. The users in question have equally taken note of TN's bad behaviour, and I have asked heir advice on how to proceed, because this ANI post, like all my other attempts to deal with TN through community involvement, has apparently been derailed by TN's refusal to be concise or accurate and instead relying on ad hominem attacks like the above. The above removal of the contents of the uta monogatari talk page is called "archiving", TN. It is a perfectly normal process for when a talk page becomes very long, and especially in a case like this when the previous talk is almost entirely irrelevant to the article content.

Additionally, I removed one account of the recommendation regarding "tanka in English", because after two months neither TN nor anyone else has made any attempt to implement it, because, as was already established by broad consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, the merge would likely bring in WP:WEIGHT issues. Additionally, instead of making any attempt to improve that article or participate in the currently active discussion there, TN limited his edits to making personal attacks against me and arguing entirely irrelevant points about my "ignorance of the publishing industry". (My comments were that fringe-materials that are "published" through Lulu, and therefore do not exist in any libraries or bookshops, are probably not reliable sources and should not be advertised on Misplaced Pages.) In fact, the majority of TN's edits to article talk pages over the last two months have been limited to following my edits, and whenever another user (primarily User:Bagworm) disagrees with me, TN will jump in and attack me, claiming that this is "consensus". One other noteworthy example is , where I had had a dispute with Bagworm over his/her posting of an inappropriate item on a list. When I removed it I explained my reasoning, and Bagworm seemed to accept it in his/her silence, but then almost two weeks later TN appeared and posted a ridiculous argument in response. His argument was that since one author had said that in Japan visual arts are often linked with literature, then a Japanese painting style should be included in a list of literary terms.

elvenscout742 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am collapsing irrelevant, off-topic portions of the conversation. Personal issues with my actions on unrelated pages should be brought up with me on MY talk page or on the relevant article talk pages -- they should not clutter this ANI post, which is meant to address Tristan noirs behaviour. Next-to-nothing TN has posted above qualifies as a defense against my pointing out that his activities have been limited to posting spam/fringe theories to numerous articles, and undermining my integrity as an editor. Ad hominem arguments against me have no place here.

TN has, throughout all of my interactions with him over the last three months, constantly failed to address his problems with my edits in the appropriate venues; several of the pages he has posted to contain some reference to a separate argument, as well as a reply by me that received no direct response until TN posted something else on an entirely different talk page. The current example is in his constantly using this page to moan about my edits to other pages, when his edit history shows that he has not tried to engage me directly on any other talk page for over two weeks. Probably the most blatant example is , where he attempted to use Talk:Tanka in English to attack my edits on four other articles, but has since failed to bring up his specific problems with my edits on either the appropriate article talk pages or on my talk page. His drawing a link between my edits to different articles was also bizarre, since my edits to each of the pages he listed only vaguely resembled my edits to "Tanka in English". This has made it very difficult to discuss anything with him.

Accusations of canvassing on my part are ridiculous: my message to BDD does not mention ANI once! It is exclusively related to a comment he made on a separate talk page two weeks earlier. I also asked the advice of an experienced Wikipedian who had intervened in what TN apparently considers an ongoing content dispute at Tanka in English -- on my side, of course, since TN's view is apparently that the article should include material not found in reliable sources, and should refer to unreliable sources as "noteworthy publications". Further, my messaging Stalwart111 cannot be "canvassing", since he was the one who suggested posting here in the first place, and he had already posted here himself before I messaged him! I was merely asking his advice on what else I could do to stop TN's seemingly endless quest to post spam/OR/fringe on various Misplaced Pages articles.

TN's initial response above also technically qualifies as an ad hominem argument in its failure to make any attempt to address my issues with his editing activities, but I guess it needs to be left intact since he is entitled to a response. I don't suppose he would like to post a more relevant defense against the accusations that he is here to spam Misplaced Pages?

elvenscout742 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I have given my opinion (on a number of occasions) and am undeniably "involved" but would like to propose a solution nonetheless (I hope admins will allow that, given how long this has dragged on without a solution). As this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND based on differing opinions / personal views / supposed conflicts-of-interest relating almost entirely to one topic, a topic ban seems (at least to me) to be the obvious solution. An additional interaction ban would probably be a good idea.

Topic ban - if either party is genuinely here to build Misplaced Pages, they will accept a topic ban and move on to editing other unrelated topics. I suggest a topic ban for "poetry" (broadly construed).

Interaction ban - to prevent the battleground cancer from spreading, an interaction ban for elvenscout742 and Tristan noir is proposed.

For the record, I came to the original AFD completely at random (I probably participate in around 5-10 a day) and have had nothing to do with either editor in the past in any way shape or form. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any article relating to poetry, save for perhaps the biography of some obscure 17th century noble who happens to have also written some poetry in his spare time. Given topic bans (as I understand them) are designed to avoid future conflict or prevent disruptive editing, I can't see the face-value, but if admins believe my actions have exacerbated the problem then I will quite happily sign myself up for a topic ban as well. Stalwart111 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment As a peripherally involved editor I have found the negative interactions between the two editors in question quite disruptive, and I'd like to voice my support for User Stalwart111's proposed solution as outlined above. While on the face of it, the proposal may seem extreme, the volume of heat and friction visible across a range of poetry-related articles has reached intolerable and disruptive levels, and I believe that if both editors are prepared to place Misplaced Pages first then they should accept it. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

*I like this solution in theory, but I'm not sure about "unrelated topics" -- does it mean I am limited to editing articles on topics unrelated to the TN's topics? Or does it mean I am banned from editing articles on Japanese poetry? While I am here to build an encyclopedia, my area of expertise, and my only real interest, is Japanese literature; this is also a topic I have generally limited myself to up until now. If I am still allowed edit articles related to Japanese literature, then I agree to the above solution. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban would prevent you and Tristan noir from editing any content related to poetry. I've read most of the background here and, although you, elvenscout742, can be wordy, I haven't found your editing to be anything but on-policy and generally constructive and civil. So I can't support topic-banning you. Also, I'd prefer to offer Tristan noir the opportunity to return to the topic if he demonstrates constructive on-policy editing in other areas over the next 12 months. I'm not sure an interaction ban is necessary, but if both parties agree to it, why not? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

~~:::I don't think I can accept a blanket-topic-ban on poetry when I'm in the middle of an incomplete translation of an article on poetry... elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)~~

User Stalwart111’s proposed two-part solution above seems reasonable, constructive and fair. I am quite willing – would be grateful, in fact – to accept an administrator’s decision to enforce an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me.

:I do share the reservations Elvenscout expresses regarding a topic ban, however, due to Stalwart’s suggestion that said ban cover “’poetry’(broadly construed).” Elvenscout has made contributions to a number of Japanese poetry articles that I’ve never edited and do not intend to edit; I’ve contributed to articles on American and Russian poetry that Elvenscout has not touched and perhaps will not touch. I see no need to ban Elvenscout, for example, from articles such as Waka (poetry) or The Tale of Genji or to ban me from articles such as Jones Very or Zaum; these are articles where our editing does not intersect. In place, therefore, of “poetry (broadly construed),” would it be possible to establish a narrower parameter, one that includes only those articles wherein we’ve been in direct conflict or wherein we’ve both directly participated? If so, like Elvenscout, then I can agree with Stalwart’s solution.

It might be constructive for all concerned, also, to archive the Talk Pages of these same articles where our disputes took place – to remove them, that is, from immediate view. Those articles, to the best of my recollection, include Haibun, Tanka in English, Uta monogatari, Renku, Haiga and Prosimetrum. If I've mistakenly left anything off of this list, Elvenscout can supply it.

Anthonyhcole’s suggestion above that this editor alone be placed under a topic ban “over the next 12 months” is slanted and hardly justified when taking fully into account both sides of the lengthy WP:BATTLEGROUND conflict that Stalwart addresses in his proposal.Tristan noir (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Uta monogatari was already archived. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Uta monogatari was archived with this edit on Oct 17. You have subsequently, on Nov 30 and Dec 2, added three posts here, here and here to the same talk page, however, that reintroduce old controversies, and to what purpose? I haven’t responded to these edits as that can only exacerbate the situation but I believe, as a good faith gesture, that they, too, should be archived or deleted, Elvenscout. We’re here trying to put this conflict to rest, no? The talk page edits that you’ve added are rather inflammatory and do not contribute to a possible solution here.Tristan noir (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:*Addendum: Would it suffice, in other words, to replace a broad topic ban with an article and page ban that would stipulate as off-limits those articles (and their talk pages) enumerated above? Wouldn’t this less restrictive ban, in conjunction with an interaction ban, do the trick?Tristan noir (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

~~::It seems a little odd to ban me from editing an article I created. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)~~

:::On second thought, yes, you are right that it would be “a little odd” to ban the creator of the article from future editing of it. However, see my concerns above about the current state of Talk: Uta monogatari.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating a separate archive page for three edits is pointless. I'm deleting them, since they are no longer relevant. The first was posted to provide a concise explanation for why the article changed subjects in September, but since then all edits prior to 13 September have been blocked from view for copyright reasons. The later edits were posted in response to your comments here, but given that all three possible topic/article bans under discussion have you not editing that article, a response to you seems irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::How about this: Tristan stays awayis banned from Japanese poetry, I stay awayam banned from English and American poetry, and we both agree to generally avoid non-culture-specific poetry articles (like Prosimetrum), as well as Tanka in English and Haiku in English. My main concern is that both myself and Tristan seem to be primarily concerned with poetry, and banning us both from all poetry articles doesn't seem constructive. Tristan's most constructive edits have been to articles about western poetry, and mine have been to articles about Japanese poetry. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably the right time now, Elvenscout, for you and I to pause and let others weigh-in on Stalwart's original proposal and / or your suggested modification above or my earlier modification above.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Change of heart It occurs to me now that since the purpose of the proposed topic was to demonstrate that we are both here to build an encyclopedia, either one of us placing weaker restrictions on the ban defeats the purpose. I will therefore accept a full ban on poetry articles in order to prove that my primary reason for being here is to help improve Misplaced Pages. While my main interest is Japanese literature, and poetry is a huge part of that, there is still plenty of work to be done on Misplaced Pages's coverage of classical Japanese prose as well. (I think I might go back to improving The Tale of Genji.)

On examining WP:BAN, though, I notice that it mentions several times that such bans are imposed for being "disruptive", and so I must emphasize here for the record that the reason I am self-imposing this ban is not because I believe I have been disruptive (I think community consensus would agree that I have not), but merely to demonstrate that my recent actions have been in the interests of building an encyclopedia. Therefore, I don't want to be stigmatized as having been "banned" for being "disruptive".

This "ban" is self-imposed and only meant to prove that I am not here to post spam or POV on Misplaced Pages poetry articles. User:Stalwart111 and User:Anthonyhcole understand this; User:Bagworm and User:Tristan noir, if they have understood WP:AGF, will also agree to this. (I don't want to see any user take this as an opportunity to go around reverting every edit I have made that he/she disagrees with.) If at some point during my ban I accidentally slip up (once or twice) and, say, add a notice to a poetry-related article that I was reading for my own enjoyment, I expect a polite reminder on my talk page.

I do not want, for example, a posting on the article talk page (where I can't reply) "In this edit user Elvenscut742 violated a topic ban that was imposed on him by community consensus for being disruptive. I have therefore reverted the edit and have reported him to an administrator." This kind of action (from anyone other than Stalwart111, Tristan noir, Anthonyhcole, Bagworm, and whatever admin chooses to close this discussion) will result in me responding on that user's talk page by drawing their attention to this discussion. This kind of action from any user who should know better will be treated as a personal attack.

Of course, all of the above is dependent on Tristan noir accepting a similar topic ban. Or such a ban being imposed.

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally see no reason for you to restrict your topics at all. I favour Tristan noir avoiding all poetry, not just Japanese, as you've made a convincing case that he is editing problematically in a genre that crosses English and Japanese poetry. We need more eyes on the case, though, to be fair to Tristan. The difficulty is, a grasp of your case involves an hour or two of reading, and time is our currency here. You may make appraisal from your peers "cheaper" for them if you can restate your case more succinctly. Perhaps take your time - a day or two if necessary - to construct a clear, simple and concise case for Tristan noir's exclusion from poetry articles (or whatever you believe would be the mildest effective sanction). A few paragraphs with diffs would be ideal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that TN, as he has done before, is still guaranteed to respond with a 1,000+ word spiel about how I am equally responsible for this "dispute", and Bagworm, as he has done above, would likely support any move to get me banned from poetry articles in order to go back to owning numerous articles about classical Japanese poetry, despite apparently not understanding Japanese. The latter should know better than to claim that "my dispute with Tristan noir" has been disruptive, since his siding with TN in near every case and regularly flouting Misplaced Pages policy have undoubtedly been more disruptive. I specified above that even though I am taking this self-imposed (and temporary) ban on editing poetry articles, I will still treat attempts to undo my previous edits to these articles as a personal attack. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m willing to follow Elvenscout’s good faith example and to agree to Stalwart’s original proposal above, viz., that Elvenscout and I mutually accept an administrator's implementation of a topic ban for “poetry” broadly construed as well as the implementation of an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Does a "topic ban" include edits to articles only peripherally related to the topic? Just now I edited the page Glossary of literary terms in order to remove inappropriate mention of a style of painting that someone had added (again). Since the entry was related to poetry, I can see how that might be inappropriate if I am under a topic ban, but I can see other users having a problem with me editing, say, The Tale of Genji or A Chaos of Flowers because those articles' subject-matter deals with a topic that is peripherally related to poetry. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by all this. I have (had) limited interaction with Elvenscout and none with Tristan, and it has been related to Tanka in English, which I simply happened upon--I cannot remember right now how I got to it. I had some trouble with Elvenscout's work there; it seemed a bit pointy to me, and I suppose that can be explained (though not justified completely) by their negative interactions with Tristan. I do have the feeling--and I'm speaking here, again, as someone with limited experience who has not delved into the histories--that Tristan might well have an agenda that's not set by Misplaced Pages: there are things in the history of Tanka in English that suggest that, and there's another editor involved as well. To put it bluntly, if I went further I'd be OUTing, and I don't think that's warranted or to the point.
My point, if I have one, is rather that I don't think that the project is best served by both of these editors topic-banning themselves from editing poetry. I think they have something to contribute: in the case of Elvenscout I'm pretty sure of that, in the case of Tristan I'll take it on faith in the hope that they are or will be able to edit with the project's best interest at heart. If they wish to limit themselves and refrain from editing poetry articles, I guess they can, but I don't really see why they should. I wish they could learn to co-exist, which they will if they see a common goal here--that may mean that both have to leave something (an 'agenda') behind. Perhaps this ANI thread may lead to some kind of understanding between the two: after all, was it not Basho who said, "Once we stop fucking around and messing with each other we'll see that we both love passion fruit and sheep frolicking in the spring"? Drmies (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, I honestly agree with just about everything you just said (even where you say my more recent edits to Tanka in English were POINTy). Additionally, I thank you for your good faith that I have something to add to Misplaced Pages. However, I regret to say that in my three months of interacting with both Tristan noir and Bagworm (who may have an alternate agenda in trying to ban me from poetry articles in general), I have found that if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Misplaced Pages articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources. This is a principle I am not willing to compromise, and if it means taking one for the team, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, I said "may", leaving it in the middle whether one, or the other, or both have an agenda... I'm trying to be an equal-opportunity offender here. Though it is probably true, as Shiki said, that "One tries for fairness / But ends by cutting up all. / Thus spake the blunt knife." My own translation, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies, for your observations, pro and con. On the subject of a broad topic ban on poetry, Elvenscout and I both freely volunteered in hopes of bringing this conflict to an end. Stalwart’s proposal, which opened this discussion, proposed an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me as well. I do see an interaction ban as in the best interests of Misplaced Pages and of the editors in conflict, given recent history. Elvenscout, in his response to you, imputes bad faith not only to me but to another editor, when he writes, if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Misplaced Pages articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources. Comments of this nature are neither balanced nor constructive. In addition, there are continuing matters like this edit of Dec 5 to Waka (poetry) where Elvenscout, in his summary, writes, Moving content from Tanka. My attempt to stop User:Tristan noir from continuing to post spam to Misplaced Pages has led to me taking a self-imposed exile from poetry articles. This is contrary not only to WP:REVTALK which states “Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved” but is contrary as well to WP:CIV which lists, among its “don’ts” of edit summaries, don’t “make snide remarks” and don’t “make personal remarks about editors.” Furthermore, Elvenscout's edit summary is incorporated into an article that this editor has never worked upon and arises from personal disagreements that have nothing to do with its content. If this were an isolated incident, it would not be worthy of remark, but that it is far from being so lends weight and credence to Stalwart’s proposed imposition of an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me.Tristan noir (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again

BAN ENACTED It's been over a day since this discussion started. I count 19 people supporting (counting people who voted twice as a single vote) and 6 opposing the topic ban. Based on a combination of the numbers and the strengths of the arguments, the topic ban is enacted as described: "LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics." --Jayron32 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

After admin Black Kite's 48-hour block for disruptive editing expired, LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned immediately to editwarring over diacritics (what he was blocked for before). In fact, he appears to have done absolutely nothing but editwar about diacritics at Lech Wałęsa and argue tendentiously about them at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, despite being warned to not do so. His edits are extremely WP:POINTy, insisting on adding "better known as " to this and (previously) to other articles with diacritics, as if anyone could not understand that "Wałęsa" is sometimes rendered "Walesa" in English. If not stopped, his "WP readers are idiots" editing would affect many thousands of articles. He has been on a WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against diacritics at WP:RM, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WP:TENNIS articles, and any other forum he can think of to shop this to, for months and months. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason given for my block was that I reverted several attempts by User:SMcCandlish to trash titles and contents of my RfC on "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLP". Trashing the contents of somebody's RfC is like rewriting the comments of another user, and is surely forbidden. There was a comments section for making comments, but User:SMcCandlish trashed the contents of the RfC itself.
The reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. There are several guidelines covering diacritics:
WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"
and I am not aware of any decision that all of these are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation.
I do not think that politely discussing, on the article talk page, the reasons why the English version of Lech Walesa's name should not be totally stripped from the article constitutes "disruptive editing". I do think that SMcCandlish's repeated insults and repeated attempts to intimidate other users (see also discussion here) and silence polite discussion are far below the minimum acceptable and tolerable behavior on Misplaced Pages. I believe that he deserves a block for refusing to tone down his abusive, vindicative, and insulting behavior, even though cautioned by other users. The insults, character assassination, and veiled threats under "Better use of WT:BLP time" below this RfC are also surely far below minimum acceptable standards of behavior on Misplaced Pages. You can see another example of such intimidation and character assassination here. LittleBen (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ben... please learn to use the SHOW PREVIEW button (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No seriously - please use the 'show preview' button. Giant Snowman 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided otherwise, two things need to change; LittleBenW needs indeed to use the preview button (24 edits in this discussion already, to compose one message? The last 17 edits on Talk:Lech Wałęsa all by the same editor, for the same comment?), and templates in userspace should never be used in the mainspace: <ref>{{User:LittleBenW/Template test|Lech Wałęsa}}</ref> was part of the Lech Walesa article until User:Volunteer Marek removed it; moving it to template namespace will not help in this instance though, a "Google search" is not a reliable source that should be introduced into articles. Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A Google search of only agreed-upon reliable sources, as was the suggestion, is surely the best way of determining what reliable sources say. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The template {{User:LittleBenW/Template_test|Lech Wałęsa}} : Sources for Lech Wałęsa on Google searches only reliable sources (the list of reliable sources can easily be changed). This template makes it so easy to research English-language usage (and rank the results) that it surely eliminates stupid excuses for not observing the above Misplaced Pages guidelines as listed above. LittleBen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I suspect the only answer to this problem is going to be a diacritics-related topic ban for this editor. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that is my feeling as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Djsasso: It appears that you asked User:AlexTiefling to try to sabotage the RfC, is that correct? LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he asked me how to start an RfC on your behavior. He came to me and asked. Nice try though. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. I make no secret of having done this; I also asked Dominus Vobisdu for help, as I really don't have the first clue how User RfCs work. I did not know the full back-story, and I was surprised and relieved to see SMcCandlish bring the case here last week. I freely admit that I painted a bit of a target on myself during Ben's RfC by describing my contribution as an 'expert opinion'. I am not, and do not pretend to be, an expert on diacritics. However, I felt I had sketched out my area of knowledge, and its relevant to the discussion, fairly clearly. I was therefore surprised by the vehement hostility of Ben's reply. I found his behaviour thereafter to be hectoring, wilfully ignorant, and generally obstructive. I would especially emphasise the following points: (1) persistent biased description of his own views, opinions, perspectives and so on as 'neutral' and 'NPOV' (for which, I refer to Bernard Woolley's observation that "Railway trains are impartial too, but if you lay down the lines for them that's the way they go."); (2) constant not hearing what others are saying - in particular, claiming not to understand Agathoclea's perfectly clear and lucid use of English; (3) his wildly incompetent editing style, resulting in dozens of consecutive edits to the same few pages, and making it really difficult to get a word in - as I mentioned in that discussion, at one point it took me four attempts to get past edit conflicts with him in order to post a single short paragraph; and failing to sign comments, or indent correctly, leading to misattributions and unclear threading;(4) his persistent attempts to censor others' opinions by unilaterally declaring repeated moratoria on other people editing his RfC, and collapsing sections of the page which contain criticism of his views and methods; (5) his fiercely confrontational style, including inserting ad hominem attacks into his comments to me after I had already replied to them. My response to this report can be found below. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite: Please explain why your user page contained the statement, "In response to this abuse of power by ArbCom, I am withdrawing my services as an editor and as an admin, except for commenting on this case. Although I have great respect for some members of the current committee, I do not feel I can contribute while the current ban motion is still viable. Should these things change, I may reconsider, but if not then I thank all those who have made my time here so pleasurable, and I apologize to those whom I would otherwise have been happy to help" on around Nov. 17, right before blocking me. Also you did not specify any rational reason or any successful RfCs or other decisions that justify your premature closing of this RfC. You reason sounds like a deliberate fabrication. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  - He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    - - What is your point? Black Kite is in protest of something unrelated and voluntarily walks away. Obviously he still checks his userpage, saw what he deemed inappropriate behavior and handled it. Which policy was violated by Black Kite? He can do what he wants. You do not get to dictate the terms of his break.--v/r - T P 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    - And SMcCandlish asked him no such thing. He notified him of this discussion. His previous comment on the talk page was in response to BlackKites handling of your edit warring on the 3RR page. It is quite normal and expected to notify and administrator who blocked a user of further disruption by that user. You keep digging your hole deeper by misrepresenting the facts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban, for the last two years we've had non-stop excessive drama about diacritics, and it is nothing more than disruptive. - filelake shoe  14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Just from the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user has demonstrated here it's plain that this user is going to be single minded in their persuit of diaretics issues. From having to do 24 edits for their initial response, to digging into commenter's histories to look for a reason to discredit the outside comments on the grounds of being involved, to digging into Admin's histories to find a reason to ignore the advice. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Topic ban Having had a look at the previous ANI that got them blocked for 48hrs, LittleBen should have considered himself lucky not to have been indef'd. Assumptions of bad faith and combatative attitude in this area justify and indefinite topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Support. I noted, as part of LittleBen's battleground behaviour his attempt to rally an ally after this ANI was created. That comment led me to investigate his argument that SMC "attempted to intimidate Fyunck(click)". Except that SMC's only comment - strongly worded - was directed at nobody specific and was merely an expression of frustration at the tendentious nature of the argument. In short, LittleBen is inventing bad faith motivations for his opponents (also noted by his misrepresentation of DJSasso and AlexTiefling's brief interaction). LittleBenW is not so much an editor as he is a crusader, and that is far too problematic to ignore. Reso lute 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here let me comment. I did not find SMC's strongly-worded comment "intimidation." However, saying it was directed at no one in particular would be naive. While I have been intimidated by two other diacritic allies of his, to the point of needing administrative assistance, SMCs wording was simply the same kind of frustration I sometimes have felt being on the other side of the coin. And while Littleben is correct that the title should be at "Lech Walesa" here at this English encyclopedia, removing diacritics is not a fight I've been recently pushing... too frustrating with the same old faces on each side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban - editor refuses to listen. Giant Snowman 14:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal topic ban proposal

I've just realized that we are basically !voting on "a topic ban" without really defining it. So, I'll formalize the proposal using the same verbiage from other cases: LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.

Naturally, my support comment above stands. I will leave it to others who have already weighed in to reconfirm if this specific proposal is adequate. Reso lute 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Support this formal resolution. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Support User completely in the battlefield mentality on this topic. Digging into peoples histories and mis-stating facts just to try and discredit those who disagree with him is ridiculous. I already thought he should be topic banned, but his behaviour in this discussion has only solidified that more. (moved from earlier in discussion to indicate I support the formal wording) -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd have to oppose because, honestly, the user is in the right...and as I myself have found in this project from time to time, it is hard being right in the face of such abject obstinance. The article in question should be moved to Lech Walesa, even; start recognizing the en aspect of en.wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  - Asking people to either follow Misplaced Pages guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Misplaced Pages) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Misplaced Pages guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    - The only one doing any intimidating, bullying, baiting, and insulting at the moment is you. With the way you are lying and misrepresenting facts in this current discussion. The RfC that got shut down was far from civil, you were removing any comment by anyone that disagreed with you. You were rigging the outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    - Actually Tarc, this issue has been sliced, autopsied, analyzed, examined and argued from every possible angle. As one example, take Britannica, which in the past user has claimed does not use diacritics for "Lech Walesa" - it turns out it actually does, it's just that he had the diacritics turned off on his browser somehow. Here it is: . If it's standard English (the en part of the encyclopedia) on BRITAINnica, then why does it all of sudden cease to be English here? Perhaps because some of the people who think they know English usage, actually don't. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    - One further comment - this has been brought up before as well - why can't we have the technology which would allow users to choose a diacrtic or non-diacritic versions in their preferences? It certainly seems feasible and if it puts an end to all this stupid bickering once and for all, it'd be money well spend by the Foundation. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make this about solving the diacritics 'problem'. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. This is about LittleBen's conduct, which, frankly, stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Reconfirm support See my reasonong above. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Suppor, the RfC was an extreme example of IDHT, and doesn't seem to be an exception for this user. Fram (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
support wording. - filelake shoe  15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Support this as a bear minimum. Frankly, I feel that Ben has failed to show the competence necessary to contribute. I am sick of dealing with an editor who consistently 'plays the man and not the ball', and cannot himself ever make a single, clean edit to a page. I would gladly support a longer full block than the one already issued, in addition to topic and interaction bans. If I never have to deal with this anti-diacritics nonsense again, it will be too soon - but if its proponents conduct themselves more graciously, that's my problem. When it's the sort of behaviour Ben has displayed, it's the community's problem, and I say we bar him from the topic for good. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per Tarc. He's right KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Support Although Tarc is in principle correct, it appears that Ben turns both nasty and "I didn't hear that" when dealing with anything related diacritics. As such, it's best to keep Ben away from such articles and discussions until he's willing to actually a) not edit-war, b) not attack others, and c) actually listen to others. As such, this topic ban proposal has complete merit in its goal to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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. Giant Snowman 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 - T P 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

Boldly closing as an entirely inappropriate digression from the matter at hand. Entertaining this discussion further is taking away LittleBenW's shovel and giving him an earthmover. Blackmane (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TParis's suggestion, that an RfC be allowed to proceed, surely is another way of saying that the reason given for terminating the RfC (and that Black Kite refuses to back up with facts) was fraudulent, deliberate fabrication. Administrators are supposed to be fair, honest, and unbiased, which certainly does not seem to be the case here. Surely to shut down a discussion which was courteous, until his crony SMC came along and started trashing it, is gross abuse of authority. Black Kite should keep his word (as posted on his talk page) and relinquish his Admin powers if he can't or won't clean up his act. LittleBen (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Note: I have advised Ben to amend his personal attacks above, and have amended my OWN !vote above to become "strongest possible support" for the topic ban due to his extreme bad faith and his personal attacks related to this subject overall (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) As I explained above, the reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. As I also pointed out above, I am not aware of any decision that all of the guidelines listed above are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above guidelines) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation. LittleBen (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Ben, I don't think it's likely that you have seen any evidence of "fraudulent, deliberate fabrication", so you should strike that. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I said if he can not produce evidence of "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (the reason that he gave for shutting down the discussion) then surely it is untrue. He seems to be refusing to reply to this. The suggestion by User:TParis that a fair and neutral RfC is necessary surely supports this viewpoint (that an RfC was needed, contrary to what Black Kite claims). LittleBen (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC) You are just being tenacious, you have been in repeated discussions that have resulted in your preferred outcome not being accepted. You are well aware that you were just bringing up the same discussion again in yet another forum where the outcome was going to be exactly the same. In all cases it was very clear there was no consensus to implement your wished changes. Trying to claim he has no proof that such discussions occurred is ridiculous and is just you trying to shift blame to whomever you can. It is in fact further proving the need for the topic ban above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) We've had numerous RFCs on the topic, and they never turn out the way you hope. TParis is trying to save you from a topic ban with a good faith suggestion that he basically mentor you through a "proper" RFC. Two problems, however. First, I doubt very much you will get what you hope out of it. Second, when you fail to get what you want out of it, I have exactly zero faith that you won't simply continue forum shopping and battling. Hell, even while facing this topic ban, you continue to attack editors who disagree with you and continue to cast aspersions on those whom you view as opponents/enemies. The issue here is not the usage of diacritics. The issue is your behaviour, and so far you have given no evidence that you either see anything wrong with your behaviour, or that you intend to change it. In fact, it is telling that you simply ignored TParis' comments about your needing to ensure you offer no disruptive behaviour. Reso lute 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Are you saying that threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they participate in an RfC, and (yet again) attempting to intimidate people participating in an RfC ("Better use of WT:BLP time") is acceptable behavior? Is it illegal to hold an RfC to determine mutually-acceptable and neutral ways of confirming real-world usage and so end this user's long-running and disruptive intimidation and move warring? He has been cited for the same disruptive behavior many times before, such as here and here. LittleBen (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) How many hundred diacritic-related controversial moves that defy commonsense do I brag about getting away with? LittleBen (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The general consensus on Jimbo's talk page seems to be that there is no justification whatsoever for not making the English version of Walesa without diacritics the preferred spelling. I'm surprised that none of the Admins here are threatening Jimbo with a block for permitting a civil discussion of diacritics. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Boldly closing as an entirely inappropriate digression from the matter at hand. Entertaining this discussion further is taking away LittleBenW's shovel and giving him an earthmover. Blackmane (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

TParis's suggestion, that an RfC be allowed to proceed, surely is another way of saying that the reason given for terminating the RfC (and that Black Kite refuses to back up with facts) was fraudulent, deliberate fabrication. Administrators are supposed to be fair, honest, and unbiased, which certainly does not seem to be the case here. Surely to shut down a discussion which was courteous, until his crony SMC came along and started trashing it, is gross abuse of authority. Black Kite should keep his word (as posted on his talk page) and relinquish his Admin powers if he can't or won't clean up his act. LittleBen (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have advised Ben to amend his personal attacks above, and have amended my OWN !vote above to become "strongest possible support" for the topic ban due to his extreme bad faith and his personal attacks related to this subject overall (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As I explained above, the reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. As I also pointed out above, I am not aware of any decision that all of the guidelines listed above are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above guidelines) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation. LittleBen (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ben, I don't think it's likely that you have seen any evidence of "fraudulent, deliberate fabrication", so you should strike that. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I said if he can not produce evidence of "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (the reason that he gave for shutting down the discussion) then surely it is untrue. He seems to be refusing to reply to this. The suggestion by User:TParis that a fair and neutral RfC is necessary surely supports this viewpoint (that an RfC was needed, contrary to what Black Kite claims). LittleBen (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are just being tenacious, you have been in repeated discussions that have resulted in your preferred outcome not being accepted. You are well aware that you were just bringing up the same discussion again in yet another forum where the outcome was going to be exactly the same. In all cases it was very clear there was no consensus to implement your wished changes. Trying to claim he has no proof that such discussions occurred is ridiculous and is just you trying to shift blame to whomever you can. It is in fact further proving the need for the topic ban above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We've had numerous RFCs on the topic, and they never turn out the way you hope. TParis is trying to save you from a topic ban with a good faith suggestion that he basically mentor you through a "proper" RFC. Two problems, however. First, I doubt very much you will get what you hope out of it. Second, when you fail to get what you want out of it, I have exactly zero faith that you won't simply continue forum shopping and battling. Hell, even while facing this topic ban, you continue to attack editors who disagree with you and continue to cast aspersions on those whom you view as opponents/enemies. The issue here is not the usage of diacritics. The issue is your behaviour, and so far you have given no evidence that you either see anything wrong with your behaviour, or that you intend to change it. In fact, it is telling that you simply ignored TParis' comments about your needing to ensure you offer no disruptive behaviour. Reso lute 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they participate in an RfC, and (yet again) attempting to intimidate people participating in an RfC ("Better use of WT:BLP time") is acceptable behavior? Is it illegal to hold an RfC to determine mutually-acceptable and neutral ways of confirming real-world usage and so end this user's long-running and disruptive intimidation and move warring? He has been cited for the same disruptive behavior many times before, such as here and here. LittleBen (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
How many hundred diacritic-related controversial moves that defy commonsense do I brag about getting away with? LittleBen (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The general consensus on Jimbo's talk page seems to be that there is no justification whatsoever for not making the English version of Walesa without diacritics the preferred spelling. I'm surprised that none of the Admins here are threatening Jimbo with a block for permitting a civil discussion of diacritics. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

"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. --No unique names 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. Reso lute 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)

The discussion went on for "over a day" (!) and 25 editors voted. I noticed the discussion, blinked my eye, and it was already closed before I could vote Oppose. I guess you could interpret this as a really strong consensus, although I see it as more of a rush to judgement. Putting titles at the common name of the subject and writing articles in conventional English should not be controversial. Kauffner (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Anything that goes persistently against consensus is controversial. In this case it was the way he went about it. His bad luck was that his behaviour was so obvious. Others have managed to sock and delete/hide RM discussions with impunity because their behaviour was not quite so obvious to everbody. Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  - P.S. it should be noted that there was some email canvassing about this issue. Agathoclea (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that the validity of the ban is in question, I propose that it should not stand on its own and should either be re-opened or a new ban discussion should be started. Quickly counting above shows 18 unilateral supports and 1 conditional that specifically does not support the ban enacted. 6 individuals opposed above (not counting the special case). Since the close, an additional 4 have opposed. That would give us a total of 18 for the ban as it is, 10 against a ban, and one against this specific ban. 18-6 (or a misread 19-6) may have appeared to be consensus, but 18-11 is much less indicative of such. Given the severity of the ban, a simple majority would not be enough. The community has not endorsed the ban in continued discussions, and the ban is voided, as it lacks sufficient consensus. --No unique names 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're basing your hypothetical count on the assumption that all further votes would have been "oppose" votes. That is a highly unlikely scenario. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

While that has proven to be the case so far, it would work particularly well if support and oppose both chimed in equally from this point onward, as the overall percentage difference would trend toward (without ever reaching) 0. My point was that, based on current responses, the ban is not sufficiently supported. --No unique names 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that has not proven to be the case so far. You forgot to take into account that any potential participants that would have voted "support" have far less motivation to state their opinions now than those who oppose the ban, so their silent "votes" are invisible to you. As far as they are concerned, the case is closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then re-open it and fold in the opposes above. Silent supports would then have a reason to speak up, clarifying the issue. --No unique names 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to reopen it. If you disagree, take it to Arbcom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

AN would be more logical. --No unique names 01:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely to get you anywhere as the closure was consistent with WP:BAN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruption by ipsock (open proxy) of Echigo mole

RESOLVED All socks blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 22:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Shocking Afd closure

RESOLVED Faustus37 has voluntarily agreed to refrain from doing any more closures. --Jayron32 21:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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. Giant Snowman 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)

I agree that "shocking" isn't the most appropriate description, but this does seem to be the right place to have brought the matter.
1. Regarding NACs, IME there doesn't seem to be general consensus in the community about what is and isn't appropriate. (WP:NACD states Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. - emphasis added). But what's clear is that WP:INVOLVED states In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. - again, emphasis added. I believe there can be common sense exceptions to this (for example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Breyer horse is one which I seem to have so far escaped a wrist-slapping for (and with hindsight, I should have referred to the snowball clause)... but I challenge anyone to claim that any reasonable editor could have arrived at a different conclusion in that particular case).
2. Regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights, this comment (Relisting Comment: My vote is still a Keep for this one given the sourcing, however I'm relisting anyway due to an obvious lack of consensus ...) surprised me at the time, considering that the editor in question hadn't previously formally cast a !vote.
3. Regarding the lack of backlog, I suppose that's a fair comment. However, it can be said that the assistance of non-admins at AfD (and elsewhere) frees up admins' time to undertake tasks which actually require the tools.
4. I think that an acknowledgement from the user in question that some recent closes have been clearly inappropriate is desirable.
-- Trevj (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My overall opinion of this is:
1. No one, administrator or not, should be closing any AfD they are WP:INVOLVED in.
2. I don't have a problem with non-admins closing AfDs with low participation as "no consensus." Non-admins usually should not be allowed to close any AfDs that require discretion and/or deletion, but in cases where it's just a trivial votecount, such as the already accepted case of WP:SNOW keep, they should be allowed to do so. If an AfD has a single "delete" !vote and a single "keep" !vote after two relists, it can hardly be closed as anything other than "no consensus WP:NPASR."
3. The use of "shocking" does seem a bit sensationalistic and unnecessary, per above. Just call it inappropriate or involved.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that if I'd also been involved in the subject matter/editing of Breyer Horse, then I obviously wouldn't have closed it. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course, withdrawn AfDs can be closed by anyone (as long as there are no outstanding "delete" !votes). In fact, why nominators don't just close it themselves is beyond me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Precisely to avoid any claims of "shocking" behaviour because they dared to close an AfD started by themselves. KTC (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As stated above, perhaps if Faustus37 (talk · contribs) acknowledges that their behaviour was inappropriate and will not be repeated again, we can call this a day and move on. If not, it appears that more serious action will need to be taken to address the issue. Till 10:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As someone who have NAC closed "no consensus WP:NPASR" in a number of AfDs, I'm obviously believe it is not a problem in clear cases. Regarding the original AfD in question, Faustus37 shouldn't have closed it given he or she had !voted in it that we all agree, but the no consensus closed itself wouldn't had been that unreasonable if the 3rd relist had been allowed to run for the full 7 days, and the only comments are the nom, a weak delete and a weak keep. -- KTC (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking the recent discussions summarised by Uncle G in turn, my thoughts are as follows:
1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - ~~While not~~ involved in that discussion, the user ~~did~~ also !voted keep at the related Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012, which was linked to in the close.
  - Closed inappropriately, as an editor who was ~~loosely~~ involved ~~in recent discussions in the subject area~~.
2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Not closed inappropriately, but probably came to the wrong conclusion, as discussed above.
3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fuzzball (sport) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Not closed inappropriately, but possibly came to the wrong conclusion: after a brief look, this seems to me more like no consensus than keep - relisting could have been considered, although there may have been little merit in this case.
4. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Albannach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Closed inappropriately as an involved editor.
  - Per WP:NACD, Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. (emphasis added), which I read as specifying that non-admins shouldn't reopen inappropriate closes but should seek advice.

-- Trevj (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He was involved for #1. He was the very first user to !vote keep. Till 11:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right - sorry for not double-checking before clicking Save! -- Trevj (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not closed inappropriately??? Per my link above , he closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights as Keep with 4 Keeps and 7 Deletes, including a number of editors who suggested it should actually be speedied, and only later reversed that and re-listed after being called out on it. WP:NAC is very clear that this is the sort of debate that shouldn't be closed as NAC, even if they'd got it right. If that one isn't a clear sign that the editor isn't competent to close AfDs, I don't know what is. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm referring to the process of closing it, i.e. not being obviously involved at that point. As you've pointed out, the conclusion stated in the close was inappropriate, which is why it was initially questioned. As has been said before, there doesn't seem to be general consensus in the community about what is and isn't appropriate in terms of non-admin closures. The adminship tools can be granted to an editor with little AfD experience - e.g. if they state no intention to work there - but that doesn't preclude them from working there in the future. Sometimes some admins close in questionable ways (you're only human, and of course mistakes/misunderstandings happen). Being an admin doesn't automatically mean that all closes performed will more accurately reflect consensus.

Having said all that, I do agree that the editor hasn't exactly shown the competence required to close contentious AfDs, and should proceed with caution for some time. -- Trevj (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Take a day off and look what happens. (1) I truly apologize for the NAC for Albannach and others I voted in beforehand. There's really no excuse other than it was a stupid indiscretion on my part. It won't happen again. (2) I wouldn't put too much into my ill-fated admin application. That was made several months ago before I had any real experience in "behind the scenes" Misplaced Pages tasks. Frankly it was also a bit over-emotional on my part. One can safely say I've become significantly less radical since then. (3) In any event, given that my NACs are clearly causing more problem than they're solving, I'm simply not going to do them anymore. I'm just glad I didn't do anything outrageous. Faustus37 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

The admin pressed a block button and the software did some things. I'm not claiming the block was automatic. I'm saying the stuff that happens when the admin presses the button should work differently than it does now, so the user is prevented from editing, but in a friendlier way than now. Also, the communications with that user (see the talk page) were absolutely atrocious and it's no wonder they didn't respond. If we see this problem over and over and have to keep blocking new users, the problem isn't with the new users, it's with us. We get edit warring because our user interface and our interaction style is conducive to it. As long as we keep shifting the blame to non-malicious users who try to contribute useful info and see the reversions as just another misbehaving software system to fight through, we will keep deluding ourselves and losing them.

And no, nobody told them to stop, at least no human being did. They got a bunch of obnoxious prerecorded warning templates (added: sorry, there was this, one exception in the middle of the noise). That's not a person telling them anything, that's a computer giving them an error message, and people know that error messages from computers are usually bullshit annoyances to work around or fight through, but in any case to ignore the content. So they follow their reflexes. There was no human who specifically tried to discuss with the person what they were doing. THAT is one of the most broken things about this place. Modifying the block software might help with that, but mostly we've (collectively) got an attitude problem, and that's much harder to change. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The templated warnings are not automated, they are left there by a real human being, created in such a way to ensure that warnings and messages are consistent, plus provide links to the appropriate policies so that the editor can learn and change. In other words, they're pre-recorded on purpose - but whoever left them still has to choose the correct message to leave. So yes, a human being DID tell them to stop by using Misplaced Pages's suggested wording. The onus was on them to at least reply to one of the messages, which could have started a more personalized discussion. The block was also done by a person, and the chosen block pre-recorded message was also left by a person based on the specific situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

All true. However, a perceptive human might have noticed the template approach wasn't working and tried something different, a little more personal perhaps. Additionally, I'd expect savvy Wikipedians to be having discussion on the talk page instead of attempting to have a discussion via edit summaries. The IP did make an attempt to engage in discussion but only received a technically correct but unfriendly and curt response. If the only goals were to stop the edit warring and prevent addition of unsourced material, the action here was a "success." WP is not (or shouldn't be) a zero sum game; a bigger success would be to stop the edit warring, prevent unsourced material, and bring a new editor into the fold. Given the article has 14 month old stupid tag at top, it seems getting more editors would be a good thing. NE Ent 13:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You actually missed another non templated message. In the very first fairly polite template message on the IPs talk page, RedRose64 left an additional comment that was directly relevent to the situation and which should have been obvious to the IP it was not a templated reply. The IP did reply to that comment only after again reverting see User talk:Redrose64#Horwich Crabs - locomotive 42859 and the contrib history. RedRose64 again left a non templated reply to the IP in response to the IPs message. Beyond a clear lacking of understanding to policy despite multiple attempts to inform the IP of it, the IP's message didn't IMO clarify RedRose64's question. They were still referring to some reference in a 'mysterious' notes even though there's no sign of these notes (the article has a note section but there was never anything relevent in it unless for some reason books from 1975-2009 mentioned a court order given in 2012) or any actual evidence of a court order in any of the IPs edits nor in the existing article. When an IP keeps referring to something that we can't even see, you can blame existing editors for confusion. (Of course it's unlikely the court order or these 'notes' would be an WP:RS but when an IP keeps talking about something we are supposed to be able to see, except it's not there and we've told the IP of that, it's difficult to help them.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot that one of the edit summaries did include case number, it may be this is what the IP was referring to by their continual mention of 'notes' in a reference section. If so, this reflects an even poorer understanding of how wikipedia works which the IP was apparently not willing to do anything about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why was there no discussion at Talk:LMS_Hughes_Crab? NE Ent 13:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do agree linking to the UK Railways discussion on the article talk page and providing a link to the IP would have been wise (although I doubt it would have helped) since it's the sort of thing people unfamiliar with the specific topic or with wikipedia are unlikely to find on their own but there was actually decent discussion there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

What Milowent says, and just about everybody else. Wrong thread, wrong venue, y'all just settle down. Seriously: there is no consensus to ban anyone, though there is broad consensus that someone should really tone it down. Sorry PBP, but that's you. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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:

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

p b p 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 p b p 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)

Notice I've set up the MfD: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 4 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.

Template:Rescue list should be speedy kept. All delete votes are critically flawed. Even The Devil's Advocate understands.
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 p b p 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 p b p 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 p b p 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) p b p 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)

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

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)

Actually at the bottom of the page on RalphDrollinger.com , there is a release allowing Misplaced Pages to use his image. It's not the same image, of course, but it's still him and the release on the bottom of the page doesn't necessarily state that he allows only that image on the website. Just my .02 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 12:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Here it is in fact. That's jolly decent of him isn't it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's licensing requirements, does it? Try Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The particular image in question needs to be explicitly released under an acceptable licence. Releasing to Commons would be preferable, because any free license used here would AFAIK be appropriate for transfer anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The subject of the photograph is not the copyright holder and is not in a position to release it. The original photographer (or in some cases the photography studio) is the copyright holder. So this note on the website is inadequate under copyright law. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting development. I don't think that message was there before. If it was, I apologize for missing it. But as others have said, it doesn't resolve the situation by itself. Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad username

A new usernmae has been registered called User:Lionsystemss. Users single purpose is to edit Tau Gamma Phi and nominate it for deletion. User:Lionsystems (one s at the end) is a (spa) contributer at Tau Gamma Phi. Double s name appears disruptive, trying to look like the single s name. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Put {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page as a first step. If they persist in disruptive editing, take it to WP:UAA. I don't think any admin intervention is required just yet, but it may depend on this user's edit frequency. --Ritchie333 12:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Put the uw-username on as suggested. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  - In the afd in question User:Andy Dingley suggests we should "block that grossly bad faith username" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tau Gamma Phi). I agree with his suggestion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    - We may well have a major sock issue here, or at the very least, a large influx of editors with a shared COI. User:TgpLionsystems is also an SPA that has only edited this page. User:Ribarch has made a single edit to the page, and nowhere else. User:Kepyas and User:Zebra1057 have made a multitude of edits to this article, but again, nowhere else. User:Sidenro and User:Wyzt have edited only at that page and a related page, Tau Gamma Sigma. User:TGPlink has made two edits here - also note the COI-suggesting username. In fact, there are several others going right back towards the beginning of this article - I got back to 2011 to find those, but I can see SPAs going back to 2006 in the history. And that's just looking at users in the Tau Gamma Phi... Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account which opened the AfD; it's a blatant attempt to impersonate. Plus an account whose first edit is to open an AfD is almost certainly a sock. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I take the sockfarm I believe I've found into its own AN/I, or can it be dealt with here? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal notice, WMF involvement?

New user Shadow003 (talk · contribs) requested indefinite semi-protection of Flavio Briatore saying that the article "contained false and slanderous information, and it has been formally contested by Mr Briatore’s lawyer with a letter of formal notice to the Wikimedia foundation." Shadow003's edits to the article have twice been reverted as removing sourced information. I declined semi-protection, which would not solve anything, and have posted at WP:BLPN#Flavio Briatore to get more eyes on the article.

I take this as a legal notice rather than a threat, but do we need to involve the Foundation? JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it's a legal threat - intended to chill. If Legal had heard about it, they would have protected or taken other office-action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sounds almost like Mr. Briatore's lawyer has already involved the foundation from what Shadow003 said, so it might be nice to have a comment from the foundation. I would agree, though, that it seems more a notice than a threat (at least from a blocking standpoint). Ks0stm 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(Aseeming legal notice have indeed been served to WMF) If WMF's lawyers consider there's any action that needs to be taken, then office action will be invoked. In the mean time, just decline and move on. -- KTC (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on User talk:Geoffbrigham to close the loop. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think our policy is perfectly clear on this, and the editor should be blocked immediately. His comments are clearly designed to change the article by fiat, rather than by consensus, in violation of NLT. What's more, NLT states that when legal action is ongoing, the editor is required to not edit wikipedia until the legal matter is resolved. Worm(talk) 14:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. They were just told on their talk page they didn't post a legal threat. NE Ent 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is a thinly veiled threat. Should be blocked until things are figured out and legal threat resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And I'm saying that was incorrect. Indeed, if they had not been told that, I would have blocked them myself. {{uw-lblock}} specifically states "you have been blocked for making legal threats or taking legal action" (emphasis mine) Worm(talk) 14:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy is pretty clear: If the consensus is their request was a legal threat, they should first be asked to retract it, before blocking. NE Ent 14:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ent, policy is extremely clear on this matter, thou shalt not subvert Misplaced Pages's consensus driven process through legal means. Editors are of course allowed to take legal action (which this editor confirms has been taken), but whilst legal action is ongoing, the parties may not edit Misplaced Pages. We're not talking about someone who's just used legal terms (which is what that paragraph is refering to), we're talking about someone who has specifically retained a lawyer, written to the foundation and is trying to subvert process. What more do you want? Worm(talk) 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

JohnCD might wish to amend his statement on Shadow's page to "though I accept that you perhaps did not intend to make one". Indeed, I would also have been likely to block, but I think some discussion with them might help - I also smell some WP:COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Amended as BW suggests. I am prepared to be over-ruled if there is consensus to block, but WP:NLT says go to the Foundation and that's what they have done, or say they have done. That isn't subverting process, that's what process tells them to do. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers JohnCD. I'm in the middle of writing a note to the editor - explaining matters, which can include blocking should consensus here be in favour of that. By subverting the process, I was referring to the "consensus driven content process" rather than the legal process. Worm(talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of "we" also raises the possibility this is a role account; the editor should also be asked to clarify that. NE Ent 14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general statement, many lawyers and law firms around the world have no familiarity with how Misplaced Pages works, nor is there any reason to expect them to. While we cannot simply change article content because some lawyer asks us to, there also is no advantage to our assuming that any mention of a lawyer reflects bad faith or a legal threat. Such editors need to have the collaborative nature of the editing model here explained, to be referred to OTRS, and to be advised that except in truly extraordinary circumstances (which as a practical matter almost never happen these days to the best of my knowledge), the Office does not get involved with article content. Starting off the discussion with a threat to block, while permissible within policy, may not be the most productive approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I generally find the threat to block (or indeed the block) necessary in NLT situations, but as always, it does depend on how it's explained. I've dropped a note on the talk page, I would have blocked with the note but didn't think it prudent in this situation. Worm(talk) 14:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't look like a threat to me, it looks like an informational post from a third party, such as an Italian Misplaced Pages editor who has been dealing with the situation on it.wp. Better to just ask the person what their connection with the situation is, explaining the NLT policy. Added: Worm's usertalk to Shadow003 post is ok; shadow003 can clarify as required. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- You should look harder. The same threat has been issued, and indeed the same cycle of events has already occurred, on the Italian Misplaced Pages a fortnight ago. Ironically, the Italian Misplaced Pages article, thanks to the back and forth as people didn't bother to fix things as they went along, now sports a notice about lacking sources and cites no sources at all, in place of the 16 sources that it cited before this began. I hope that history does not repeat itself in that respect on the English Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we tried ... NE Ent 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The intent to create a chilling effect in NE Ent's diff is clear now. I'm going to block per NLT, unless someone objects (or has done it already). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- And blocked, with what is hopefully a polite message. As always, anyone should feel free to fix anything I did as necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Thank you Writ keeper. Yes, that was indeed a boarderline legal threat that deserved the block. The editor can request unblock but this was not a person that just didn't realisw what they were saying or doing. It was meant to chill. Dang, am I sorry now I didn't support your RFA. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what did Wikimedia receive but Shadow001 did almost the same on it.wiki but, in addition, it also replaced page content with a promotional text. I rejected protection request and I tried to de-emphasize the text. It's definitely an example of media-maquillage but, imho, some request should be taken in consideration. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For those who missed the cycle of events repeating: Vituzzu declining the protection request and editing the article on the Italian Misplaced Pages almost a fortnight ago. JohnCD declining the protection request here. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Does posting a bounty count as a threat?

117.220.151.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a bounty for someone's head on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a threat, whether its credible enough to justify reporting to the foundation emergency contact is a judgement call. I would say probably not. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandal/troll, block needed. NE Ent 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked. I think Breivik was the target, as opposed to any other editor - but still completely inappropriate. Giant Snowman 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He did try to have a conversation with Alexander the Great, which makes me question his capacity, but still leaves me totally convinced that he wasn't an editor we needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the two revisions in question. MLauba 16:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that WP:EMERGENCY states to "Treat all claims seriously." Obviously I can't see the original threat now, so maybe there's some other reason reporting isn't necessary, but I think the point of EMERGENCY is that "whether it's credible enough to justify reporting" is not something we're supposed to take into consideration. — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable point; I just emailed diff to WMF NE Ent 17:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a returning IP signing as "Amanbir Singh" who has been trolling us for a long time. I brought this to WP:ANI a couple of months ago here, also that one after a more or less implicit threat. I endorse NE Ent contacting of the foundation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged canvassing by user Emmette Hernandez Coleman

There is an ongoing dispute between myself and user Emmette Hernandez Coleman (latest summary of opinions here) on the general issue whether entity related articles can be referred to as Palestinian Authority or Palestinian territories. During many debates, which Emmette initiated on many related pages (like those ,,,,,), he was suspected of canvassing and a complaint was issued on Administrator's noticeboard on November 22, which however wasn't closed despite remarks by other editors. While meanwhile i took some time off the argument due to political developments - upgrade of Palestinian Authority to the State of Palestine, an administrator closed one of Emmette's initiated discussions of renaming Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority->"Human rights in the Palestinian territories" in his favor (related to the canvassing case). I herewith request to investigate the canvassing case as summarized in the AN complaint , so other discussions where he is accused of canvassing will not be closed prior to an investigation.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

When things "fall off" it's typically because no action will be taken. From what I recall of the situation, people on both sides of the argument had been notified, and thus it was not formally by the definition of WP:CANVASS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

First, i was advised to move the discussion here. Second, that is exactly the point - users only on one side were notified! Let me quote the original issue:Greyshark09 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"... a series of discussions/polls were launched by both of us on the talk page of the Palestinian National Authority article, during which user:Emmette resumed spamming my talk page, and hence i warned him on Nov.17 not to spam me for the second time . On this occasion user:Cptnono also warned user:Emmette of an apparent votestacking of his view-sharers from previous/similar discussions . For a while, user:Emmette didn't make any suspicious moves, but suddenly on Nov.21 started a messaging campaign, apparently in a legal way - making notifications to participants of the discussion on PNA talk page . Shortly after, on Nov.22, he however started blatantly and openly votestacking various users from different discussions, who would share his specific POV regarding the discussion/poll Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity, in a kind of attempt to change the opinion balance in this discussion:

First, user:Emmette asked user:Tiamut to participate in discussion on PNA page , but didn't ask User talk:Bleddynefans with an opposite opinion from the same thread .

He also approached user:Int21h with the same request , but didn't approach user:Alinor, who also participated in the same thread , but with an opposite opinion.

Finally, there was a message to User talk:Andrwsc , regarding his post on Pt/PNA .

So far, user:Int21h responded to Emmette's message in supporting him (as expected) . Since user:Emmette could not restraint himself from doing anything to "win" the discussion, and warnings didn't do any good, i ask for an official investigation on his actions.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)"

Unless you're in the mood for an WP:RFC/U or ArbCom, then there's no such thing as an "official investigation". You raised an issue on the noticeboard for urgent incidents. Nothing urgent was found in the brief investigations by a number of admins. It fell off the board as nothing to action. You now have other options. It's sadly that simple. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He may also bring it to WP:AE but he probably should first warn the users on the sanctions in the area--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, new editor

Please review contributions of MaxXD1 (talk · contribs) NE Ent 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've re-reverted his edits; he apparently has an axe to grind after being banned from Serebii IRC (a Pokemon website, don't ask). I'll talk to him. Block probably needed, but might as well try; hope springs eternal and all that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs taking to SPI, I'd say. Giant Snowman 17:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this user's behaviour is way on the wrong side of WP:POINT, and that WP:NOTHERE strongly applies. I was just on my way here to report the same thing (which I'd spotted at sibling).AlexTiefling (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ETA: Seriously? IRC sites still exist? :-) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages uses IRC for several different reasons, though the reasons have been questioned as back room dealings and canvassing in the past. Hasteur (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I doubt he's a sock, unless you know of other similar cases. My guess is that he got banned from Serebii's IRC and came here to change Misplaced Pages to support his complaints, so that he could point them to the Misplaced Pages articles. I doubt he's edited Misplaced Pages before, or he'd probably know that that won't fly. NOTHERE, certainly, and I'm pretty sure that talking to him is a lost cause, but whatevs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right - I saw the list of names in this edit and thought it referred to banned Misplaced Pages editors; closer inspection shows it's actually users banned from other websites. Giant Snowman 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of possible misuse of Administrator privileges by Administrator KillerChihuahua

NO ACTION No evidence (diffs) presented of abuse by KC NE Ent 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I have several concerns regarding possible misuse of Administrator privileges by KillerChihuahua, including:

1. Imposition of a sanction ex post facto.

KillerChihuahua placed an editing restriction based on an edit of mine that had already been retracted and reversed before the sanction was imposed.

My edit that prompted the edit restriction is here.

KillerChihuahua's sanction is noted at the top of this section on my Talk page, or, here.

I had already acknowledged and apologized for my editing mistake, and I made sure it was corrected -- at 02:06, 28 October 2012 diff.

KillerChihuahua's sanction was imposed after this the following day -- at 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Diff.

Also, the length of the editing restriction was not specific, but was "for a period of approximately 2 months" (see here).

I requested several times that KillerChihuahua reverse the editing restriction she imposed. However, KillerChihuahua refused to acknowledge that it was inappropriate to apply a sanction ex post facto. The history of our discussion about this on my Talk page can be viewed here.

2. Misuse of Administrator privileges: biased application of warnings and sanctions.

I perceive that this is but one example of KillerChihuahua applying WP policies in a biased and selective manner for this article. I find this particularly egregious behavior displayed by a WP Administrator, especially given the controversial subject matter of the WP article in question (Men's Rights Movement).

This is also exemplified by her comments on my Talk page here and here.

This bias is further documented on the Log of Sanctions wherein she reserves warnings primarily to those editors who attempt to add relevant and sourced material generally supportive of the Men's Rights Movement, while editors contributing pro-feminist critiques of the topic do not receive the same level of intense scrutiny. This bias has also been noted by another editor here.

Additionally, KillerChihuahua terminated a Talk Page discussion about this very issue of bias on the article Talk Page. I had posed for disucssion: "Is the article a neutral and an accurate overview of the MRM and the men's rights for which it advocates?" This was followed by comments from editors offering very differing opinions about this issue here. I believe the rationale for this termination of the Talk page discussion was based on a pretense that further exemplified biased policing of this article.

KillerChihuahua has for quite a long time policed this article, and it appears to me that she looks for pretenses to apply warnings or sanctions primarily to those editors who do not edit and contribute content from a pro-feminist / anti-Men's Rights Movement perspective on the topic. Again, this concern is echoed by another editor here.

3. Misuse of Administrator privileges: hostile and disrespectful tone

I have concerns about the civility and respectfulness of this Administrator (per WP policy: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."). Again, see our discussion on my Talk page here and here where I repeatedly pointed out what I perceived to be excessive hostility.

I request that KillerChihuahua's privileges as an Administrator be reviewed for possible biased application of warnings and sanctions on this controversial article (and possibly others), and, for showing inappropriate hostility an editor(s). Memills (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2012 (CST)

Endorse the need for thorough review of this administrator. Belchfire-TALK 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Disclosure: Belchfire has been warned by me for his actions on Men's rights movement. KillerChihuahua 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment KC is quite active in this 'area' of Misplaced Pages (I have no idea how to categorize it, but a look at their contribs should make it clear what I mean). So it might be best if they refrain from admin actions in these related articles. Arkon (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a diff, thank you. To the best of my knowledge I have made no edits which were not in my role as neutral admin enforcing probation. KillerChihuahua 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
A diff of what? Do you need me to list articles that fit into this 'area' that I mentioned? Arkon (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
A diff of me making an edit showing involvement beyond enforcing probation and trying to help editors with policy, etc. KillerChihuahua 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I made no such claim, so no. Arkon (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Then what did you mean by "KC is quite active in this 'area'.... refrain from admin actions" - I can see no other way to read that than that you are saying I am involved. Please clarify, post a diff, or strike your sentence. KillerChihuahua 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant exactly that. You are quite active in that 'area'. Which again can be seen by looking at your contribs, be it unitewomen.org, war on women, men's rights (This is a quick glance over your last month or so). One could argue that these are unrelated, but I don't by it. The 'might be best' part of comment also means exactly that. Arkon (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
So provide a diff. Otherwise, your statement is without merit. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, you want a diff for -what-? That you've edited the articles I mentioned? I can certainly do that. Arkon (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You hinted that KillerChihuahua is WP:INVOLVED "KC is quite active in this 'area' of Misplaced Pages". Since she disagrees with this claim, the onus is on you to substantiate it, or retract it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Which has been done when I listed articles from this 'area' in the comments above. Arkon (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You need to provide a diff of me editing an article in the area of Men's rights movement, and two of the articles you mention do not qualify. you did not list "articles" you listed one article which is in that topic area, and two which are not, and provided no diffs at all. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, let me paste my original comment again. KC is quite active in this 'area' of Misplaced Pages (I have no idea how to categorize it, but a look at their contribs should make it clear what I mean). I mentioned 3 articles above, one in which you are acting as an admin, the others as an editor, I also mentioned this is just from the last month or so. If you wish to argue that Men's Rights, unitewomen.org, and War on Women are completely unrelated, I am certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. I believe it is quite clear that they are all gender/political issues and therefore in the same 'area'. The end. Arkon (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't know KillerChihuahua from Adam (or Eve), but prima facie this is suggestive and hollow. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should endevour to learn about people before commenting. Arkon (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Or you should provide some evidence that warrants the slippage from "edits in this area" to "can't function objectively in this area as an administrator". Drmies (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't even "edited in this area" as War on Women is politics and Women, not Men's rights movement. KillerChihuahua 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I never said that, then. Arkon (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
If you fail to see the connection, I may need to revise my 'might be best' to your inferred 'should'. Arkon (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
They do not fall under the umbrella of "Men's rights movement, broadly construed" I assure you that anyone attempting to enforce the MRM probation on the WOW article would be swiftly advised of their error. KillerChihuahua 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if you would stop arguing against things that I never said. Arkon (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) tl;dr. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. (I wouldn't be surprised if Memills ended up with either a topic ban or a community ban.) Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, that won't happen unless admins actually go read User talk:Memills from A friendly notice to the end. Admins are busy. KillerChihuahua 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. After being blocked for his POV edits on Men's rights movement, he showed some understanding that he had not been adhering to the wikipedia guidelines for editing. Unfortunately after that, he back-tracked. With this histrionic outburst/rant, he shows that he has no understanding of the basic editing principles of WP. Hence the possibility of some kind of editing restriction. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that User:Cybermud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). the editor who is offered as agreeing with Memill's concerns, has been blocked for his actions on Men's rights movement. Hardly a neutral opinion. KillerChihuahua 19:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Even though this isn't a vote, I still !vote against any sanction, or any review even, of KillerChihuhua's actions. Looking at his warnings, he's done nothing wrong. He enforced article probation, and if that angered an editor, well, too bad. Probation exists for a reason, and if the editor doesn't like it that doesn't mean come to AN/I. gwickwire_edits 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- 'She' not 'he'. Mathsci (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Articles that are so frequently subject to tendentious editing (such as this one) need firm guardrails to protect the neutrality of the content and to ensure other editors aren't swept-up into the inevitable poisonous cycle that comes very quickly when point-of-view pushers are given virtually any leeway. Several of your edits have been poorly considered. After being advised, several times, to revisit your editing, you went further still. I'm not of the opinion that your simply "reversing and retracting" your subsequent bad edit provides immunity from the restrictions that you were told would be forthcoming if you edited further towards the cliff (which you did). User:KillerChihuahua wasn't being arbitrary and you shouldn't have been taken by surprise. I am not categorically calling your editing tendentious, but several of your edits were close enough, and came after sufficient warning, to reasonably justify restrictions. jæs (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

−

Question Can somone point me to a diff that places these paternity/men's rights related articles under discretionary sanctions? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is linked on the Men's rights movement talk page, but here is the direct link: Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation KillerChihuahua 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- You actually want Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Community topic probation. As long as people remember to use internal links, Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Men's rights/Article probation takes one right to it. Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Thanks, Uncle G, I misread the question. KillerChihuahua 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Thanks both of you. I've examined the sanctions, warnings and diffs. There is no ex post facto enforcement by KC. The warning was properly given. The fact that Memills apologized for his edit, and if we AGF that he intended to self-revert before someone else reverted him doesn't excuse his actions. KC was well within her right to issue the sanction. As for the length of the sanction, it was until the end of the year, which in my calender means sanctions end on 12/31/2012 @ 11:59:59PM UTC. little green rosetta (talk)
      central scrutinizer 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still at a loss as to what KillerChihuahua is meant to have done that was inappropriate? From two of the linked discussions, I think KillerChihuaha has things right here: User_talk:Memills#Editing_restriction_on_Men.27s_rights_movement.2C_broadly_construed, and I fail to see the issue here: User_talk:Memills#Be_cautious. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken it appears that Memill believes that the mistake they made that gained them the sanctions was not worth the sanction given because someone else reverted or fixed the edit. Memill feels that KC is involved, probably due to the block they recieved earlier for one week by the same admin. Their history shows a lack of understanding on how to deal with blocks and bans and it appears the editor has made a number of mistakes when requesting sanctions be lifted, this being just one.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Endorse actions by KillerChihuahua and move to close this thread by Memills. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Sock farm builder?

5 SOCKS BLOCKED All accounts are now blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Curious series of account creations...

Smelly Smaug (talk · contribs)
King Thorin Oakshield (talk · contribs)
Saruman the white wizard (talk · contribs)
Good Gandalf the grey (talk · contribs)
Radagast the brown bear (talk · contribs)

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure--Tolkien is still hip. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hip? That term dates you Drmies. LOL! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Don't flip your wig! It's copacetic! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Warn us when the Sacksville-Bagginses start to show up. little green rosetta (talk)
central scrutinizer
It's possible that it's just a coincidence, given that the movie is coming out soon, but I'd keep an eye on the accounts nonetheless (it probably isn't a coincidence, though). However, if it is a sock farm, it isn't a very good one...everyone knows Beorn was the bear, not Radagast. - SudoGhost 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the accounts were created in rapid succession to each other, within minutes, I seriously doubt it's coincidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Ah, I missed the part about the timing of the accounts. That makes it much more obvious. - Sudo Ghost 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- And it's Thorin Oakenshield. Jeez, what a scrub. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, it has been established at User talk:Drmies/Archive 40#sub unit or not? that Drmies is no square and has his finger firmly on the beat of popular youth culture. As such, xe surely knows that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey goes on general release within the fortnight. After all, Drmies digs all of that groovy modern lit, man. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- - That's heavy man. Once activity begins we will know for sure, but seriously...I note that the filing editor did not notify each one of the editors (accounts). Should that have been done. Not a real big deal for me....I always seem to forget. But below I see that one at least has begun editing. Lets see what they are up to.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    - With a dancing editor like that it's hard to know which account to notify, and notifying all of them can be hard to keep up on them. As soon as one began editing, I notified that one. See User talk:Smelly Smaug. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Bard the bad bowman (talk · contribs). Anyway, {{checkuser needed}} to determine whose socks these are. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(@Uncle G) Like --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Smelly Smaug (talk · contribs) now vandalising multiple articles. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone at SPI is on it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them all for vandalism and sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncle G is a just a frood that knows where his towel's at... wait, wrong fandom... --MASEM (t) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Bilbo has diodes down his left side? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bilbo is a paranoid robot/android? That explains... nothing. Never mind. KillerChihuahua 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there some well-known ANI drama junkie named after a Tolkien character? Seems awful suspicious to me. Jester of the court (sock) 21:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that guy's a nobody. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Mass BLP violations - date of birth from primary source

By chance, I came across the biography of a living person today which had a birth date sourced to "U.S. Public Records Index". WP:BLP is quite clear on this subject: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". It also says that dates of birth should only be added if they are "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I left a note on the talk page of User:Spacini, who seems to have added dates of birth to many BLPs, but they simply deleted the message. A Google search shows that there are hundreds of biographies which use this source, but I do not know who added it or how many of these are living people. This may be a job for a smart bot. Additionally, it may be useful to have an edit filter look for this source in edits. Any other suggestions on how to address this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPN and what is the article, please? Thanks. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone strokes out, I started removing all of the primary source citations I added for living persons' biographies. I was completely unaware of the BLP rule about this issue when I began adding them. I was simply working from the Category:Date of birth missing page and adding in the DOBs where I could find them in the public index. Fortunately, I got bored with the never-ending work and stopped sometime in July (maybe August). I'm working my way back and will continue to remove all the citations where I find them. Should I be removing the DOBs altogether? I'm not quite sure why the WP:BLP rule was created, given that the primary sources where this information is found is public information, easily obtained for free. But, whatever needs to be done, I'll fix it. Now, back to my bourbon. Spacini (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Most excellent, thank you. KillerChihuahua 03:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Spacini. You weren't the only person adding this source, but I will give you some time to do your thing and then I'll fix the remaining ones myself if need be. An edit filter might still be a good idea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a terrible result. The purpose of that is not because primary sources aren't trustworthy for DOB, it's because the DOB shouldn't be included (per WP:BLP, which I think is a terrible decision for the encyclopedia). But in any case, having unsupported birth dates is worse than anything else we could do so either the birth dates should be removed, or the source should be reinstated. Ryan Vesey 13:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Per policy, both the birth dates and the source will be removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Could anyone explain the purpose of this policy? It seems like a bad idea, but I suspect I'm missing something obvious. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I learned long ago, Hobit, that many Misplaced Pages policies defy rational explanation. This is most certainly one of them. I agree with Ryan that it's a terrible decision; it diminishes the accuracy of Misplaced Pages and furthers the long-held notion that much of what contained herein is unreliable (a notion that I disagree with). I'm off to remove all the DOBs with primary source citations that I added. Peace Wikipedians! Spacini (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit more optimistic and suspect there is either a good reason or this is fixable. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's related to privacy; however, I don't know that it's a good policy, at least for people born in the United States. I'm not sure about laws in other countries, but birth certificates are public record in the US. I feel like, at a minimum, the US should be excluded from that. It's never a privacy invasion to post a public record. Even if they weren't public, I still wouldn't see a reason not to post somebody's birth day. Care to take it up at Misplaced Pages talk:BLP? Or Misplaced Pages:Village Pump (policy) (it probably needs a wider audience). Ryan Vesey 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious activity at Micah Baldwin

This article came up in an September 2012 ANI discussion about promotional throwaway accounts. (wiki-pr.com was the subject of the original thread.) The article was created by a sock, but most of the content was added by User:Fountainflower in their first (and only) edit. The article looked great on the surface, with tons of citations for everything, but when you dug into the sources it was mostly sourced to blogs, Linkden, Twitter, and publications by or about the subject's company, Graphic.ly. Also when you started reading the actual text of the article it came off as very promotional. The subject himself is a CEO, and apparently one of those entrepreneurial you-can-do-anything types who maintains an inspirational blog and is active on Twitter. I'd guess that his notability is debatable. Anyway, the article was deleted near the end of September as "promotional".

Today the article was recreated in a single edit by User:Rudeerthanyou (a new user with 51 edits) and marked as <d>"Reviewed"</d> patrolled less than a minute later by User:Noiratsi (a user with 197 edits who has had an account for about 5 days and has <d>reviewed</d> patrolled about 50 other pages today). Rudeerthanyou has also been active on Graphic.ly where they (along User:Denimd, a blocked sock of User:Bartlbs) basically rewrote the entire article to a more promotional sounding version. Anyway, I suspect something hinky is going on, and I'm not sure what to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmph. Apparently I'm not the only one who didn't know what to do. I went through the article and cut out all the sources to blogs, twitter, LinkedIn, other social media, and self-sourcing, and got rid of a lot of the peacocking too. There's not much of an article left but it was an educational experience for me. Feel free to close this thread, but I believe that someday we're going to have to confront this problem. My feeling is that if we continue to allow companies to use "burner" accounts to create promotional fluff articles for their clients, they will keep earning money, and the practice will become more widespread. (Meanwhile the Misplaced Pages community continues to shrink.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the article in good faith, though maybe a little precipitously, because the subject seemed to be notable and I couldn't spot any immediate problems with the article. As you point out I'm new to this whole reviewing thing and I'll be more careful in future! As far as I can see from your edits the problem I should have noted was that a lot of the sources seemed suspect. Smartse (talk · contribs) seemed to agree with me that the article didn't quite meet WP:CSD#G11, and I'm afraid I didn't think to check the page log for previous deletions. Thanks for flagging this up! --Noiratsi (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. A promotional page certainly isn't the worst thing that can happen to Misplaced Pages, so please don't let this deter you from page patrolling. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Highly disruptive IP editor

IP blocked. Next time , the correct venue is WP:AIV and/or WP:RPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

An unregistered editor whose IP Address is fixed, 14.200.28.81, has frequently vandalized the article for Christian Mortensen, and several other articles, for an extended period of time. Can a ban be imposed, to preempt any further mischief on the user's part? Thanks. KirkCliff2 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a vandalism-only account. gwickwire_edits 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've given the IP editor a short block, but if they resume their disruption after it expires, please report them to WP:AIV. —DoRD (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Note, dear editors: there was no account. If this starts again, report to AIV and consider asking for protection at RFPP. Thank you DoRD thank you DoRD, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Again

This is over. "Massive hypocrite" is not sanctionable in anyone's opinion, and editors should worry less about who is insulting whom at which points in time and run off to whomever to complain and more about...just about everything. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I like Till (talk · contribs) and I believe he's a very good user, but calling another user a massive hypocrite is way beyond the boundaries of civility, regardless of Status (talk · contribs) actions. I thought this was over for good and we could all continue to edit as we used to. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of hypocrisy: "A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for." A hypocrite is someone who indulges in hypocrisy. He got upset when someone called him blind, when he did the same thing to me. He is thus a hypocrite. This isn't uncivil or a personal attack, it's a fact. End of. Till 03:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Tilll. The issue isn't if Status is a hypocrite or not. He can perfectly be a hypocrite and that's his business. The issue you calling him that way. Actually is not Status, is anyone, regardless of the deffinition. ... — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Status has hastily retired from the project. I believe his last edit outside his userspace was this, a note to Dennis Brown. Go Phightins! 03:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us take a look at the evidence. Here is his Status' rant about being called blind by another user, in which he says: "When people literally tell you that you're a "blind", "ignorant" and inexperienced user..." Now take a look at what he wrote to me: "You're clearly blind", with the edit summary "get your eyes fixed". Point proven about his hypocrisy. I have no further comments regarding this ridiculous and unnecessary thread. Till 03:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a hypocrite is at most a bit rude, it is nothing that requires intervention or sanction. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is starting to become a childish playground fight, but I believe Status is also at fault here as he assumed bad faith and made assumptions and comments/personal attacks when I tried to improve the Jennifer Lopez article. He has repeatedly reverted my good faith changes (I think he violated 3RR as well), saying that I am trying to add original research when he is the one restoring the original research and single-source opinions back into the article (which Arre 9 also did.) I think I'm being dragged into this issue, but I'm just bringing these up. I've actually made some personal attacks against Status, but I've retracted/refactored them. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Status needs to stop running to Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) whenever he gets upset, and handle this situation like a mature, reasonable editor. Getting Hahc to open such a nonsense, unactionable, time-wasting ANI thread against me is pretty ridiculous as well. Till 04:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Till, I'm sorry if you've had conflicts with Status in the past, but I am uninvolved in any prior issues you may have experienced. I don't like the fact that you're trying to add in personal grievances you may have against Status, and I think it is bordering on defamation. I am merely reporting what I've experienced about Status's behavior against me and other editors on the article, and what I've gathered is that he makes bad faith assumptions and says that other editors are trying to add OR/POV/incorrect statements into "his" article (he might have an ownership problem with pages on his watchlist or pages he frequently edits). He might need to be temp blocked/topic banned to return to being civil or assuming good faith, but now the block isn't necessary since he's pre-emptively announced (temporary) retirement. Of course, I may need a break as well, but I don't think I'll need enforcement. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tarc here, at least to the extent that I disagree with the idea that it was "beyond the boundaries of civility". It is hypocritical to call someone blind and then complain about calling people blind. We're all hypocritical at times though so all I see is overreactions from all sides. No sanctions are needed for anybody here. Ryan Vesey 04:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

M0rphzone, this isn't a personal attack nor is this; In the edit, Status was reverting your edit (one of which he credited as 'good faith') because it just didn't flow correctly "Jennifer Lopez is an American entertainer and one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood." isn't a great opening line. Apart from this, I believe M0rphzone was concerned for the article's best interest. Till, I'm not judging your nor do I know much about this situation but what you're basically saying (by referring to Status as a hypocrite and implying that he doesn't have the right to be upset because he said one of those words to you in a past discussion) is that it's okay that M0rphzone called Status 'un-experienced', 'blind', etc. Try to handle the discussion in a different way apart from referring to another user as a 'massive hypocrite'; maybe making a note of Status' past action would be less insulting and more digestible/civil? Ar re 04:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Slew of bad faith edits by editor Konullu

User Konullu has went on a rather wild editing spree, adding unsubstantiated POV tags to a large number of articles relating to Armenia/Armenians. He has added considerably incendiary material on the Armenian Genocide, in a vain and relatively pointless attempt to mitigate and cast doubt on its veracity. The same material has been copy + pasted onto the article on Armenia, Armenian resistance (1914–1918), Greater Armenia (political concept), the Armenian Highland, stretching the imagination on how this information can even considered remotely relevant. I think the sheer volume of these edits are enough evidence to warrant some sort of action. I do not think this editor is interested in discussing his edits; otherwise, he could have started on one article and opened up a discussion. No such discussion has been started and I and a few other editors have largely reverted every addition he has made. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless Konullu starts edit warring following getting reverted, I don't see any need for action at this time. Being bold, getting reverted if someone disagrees, and sitting down to talk is something we've always rather encouraged. Iff he's to start edit warring, I'd support applying the WP:ARBAA2 restrictions, but I don't see any indication that's happened yet. Seraphimblade 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars

For some time now an IP (which changes every month or so but often signs messages as "Claudia") has been making poorly sourced (or not sourced at all) edits on various subjects to do with the New Zealand Wars. These edits tend to push an extreme anti-Māori viewpoint. Claudia relies mostly on self-published fringe writers (most recently, conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart), often ones so obscure they can not be found in libraries; while her attitude towards mainstream scholarship ranges from the dismissive (; and , the last phrase of which also displays her racial attitudes) to the outright hostile (, in which having been appointed to a position at the University of Oxford becomes having "high tailed it to England to escape local scrutiny".

The current incident involves the article Wiremu Kingi, at which Claudia is edit warring to introduce these edits , the only sourcing of which is to primary sources: proceedings of the New Zealand government as a belligerent party in the war in question, and to a self-published work by Wishart. This has been brought to her attention but still she insists on its presence .

I can't figure out which of this labyrinthine series of message boards to bring this up at as it involves edit warring (but not 3RR), reliable sourcing (or lack of), fringe theories and skates close to including BLP issues. If this is more suitable at a different board feel free to move it. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also just noticed that Claudia was also the subject of this report here ]. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is ongoing, and right now I don't have the time to delve much deeper into this--but a quick perusal (and a revert) of some of the recent edits, including but not limited to Wiremu Kingi suggest that edit-warring and disruption are happening here. Since it is ongoing, I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. They can make their case on their own talk page, if they have anything to say, and some kind editor will no doubt copy their comments here if they're worthwhile. What is to happen in the long run may be difficult: article protection is one option, of course. I hope someone else, in a different time zone, will invest a bit of energy in this case, to correct me or to add to it. Daveosaurus, as far as I'm concerned you chose the right forum; good luck with your efforts. Drmies (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I was considering similar action myself, and agree with Drmies' temporary block and assessment. This has reached the point of seriously disruptive behavior (and yes, this is the proper venue to report that, as above). The anonymous editor has been counseled many times on appropriate editing behavior, to apparently no effect. Should they return to the POV pushing and edit warring following the block, I would support a significantly longer-term sanction. I personally would prefer to see a range block rather than semiprotection used if possible, it's always a shame to prevent editing because of a single individual's misbehavior. Seraphimblade 07:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think article protection is useful to prevent Claudia from editing, as her interests include very many articles on 19th century New Zealand history, particularly those involving race relations. We would have to semi-protect a very large number of articles. Also, she has been active on ever-changing IP addresses for at least three and a half years (Special:Contributions/125.237.35.252 are the earliest edits I can find at short notice).

For the most part, her edits are useful, although her odd formatting requires cleanup. She is undoubtedly very knowledgeable about her subjects, and her edits usually accurately reflect her sources. The sources vary considerably in reliability. Claudia sometimes emphasises subjects that most mainstream historians prefer to minimise, such as cannibalism in traditional Māori culture. I believe the Misplaced Pages articles should reflect the mainstream (academic) opinion, not by suppressing such viewpoints but by balancing them.

Because she is prolific, copyediting and balancing her edits would be close to a full-time job. So far, no editor has been willing to put in this effort in the long term, although several of us have from time to time made attempts.

More background can be found at User talk:Gadfium#Agenda pushing by IP user.-gadfium 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re your second link after "ranges from the dismissive" — according to Central Otago Gold Rush, the Maori had no knowledge of metalworking, so "Stone Age" isn't inaccurate, and if the culture were warlike (I don't know either way), then the idea of "Maori as stone age people with a very violent culture" is accurate. Even if they were peaceful people, it's not a racial thing; it's simply an inaccurate statement. No comment on anything else, since I've not looked at anything else. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not as cut and dried as that. See our Stone age article which has a section titled "The Concept of Stone age":

"The archaeologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries CE, who adapted the three-age system to their ideas, hoped to combine cultural anthropology and archaeology in such a way that a specific contemporaneous tribe can be used to illustrate the way of life and beliefs of the people exercising a specific Stone-Age technology. As a description of people living today, the term stone age is controversial. The Association of Social Anthropologists discourages this use, asserting:

"To describe any living group as 'primitive' or 'Stone Age' inevitably implies that they are living representatives of some earlier stage of human development that the majority of humankind has left behind. For some, this could be a positive description, implying, for example, that such groups live in greater harmony with nature .... For others, ... 'primitive' is a negative characterisation. For them, 'primitive' denotes irrational use of resources and absence of the intellectual and moral standards of 'civilised' human societies.... From the standpoint of anthropological knowledge, both these views are equally one-sided and simplistic."

Misplaced Pages is reporting experts as saying the term "stone age" is controversial and anthropoligists discourage its use. Moriori (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivil comments by an editor

I'm commenting now on something that I see has been ongoing with an editor. I first took note of this editor (User:AndreaUKA) when I started taking part in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. I simply removed unsourced content as well as links that would not be considered as reliable sources. In return I was called "arrogant", sniped at for my grammar, and generally talked down to when I tried to recommend that she not remove templates without actually addressing the issues they highlighted. While it always hurts to get your edits taken off, it is a fact of Misplaced Pages life. AndreaUK also seemed to have a sense of ownership over the article, getting angry at any changes to her version. She argued that she was going away for a week, essentially asking for the AfD to be put on hold and when I made the edits, got angry that I made them while she was away and presumably unable to approve the edits herself. If it was just this, I'd let it go, but I looked into her history and notice that she's had an ongoing history of abusive behavior to other people and a definite sense of ownership over anything she has put onto Misplaced Pages as in the case of User_talk:AndreaUKA#Yes.2C_I.27m_here_about_an_image.21. It also appears that every time something comes up, she brings up that she donates money and threatens to leave Misplaced Pages forever, as can be seen on her talk page as well as on the AfD for Bennett. There's also the stuff on Talk:The UKA Press, which generally makes me concerned because I've nominated the article for deletion. I know I'm going to be accused of various things, such as doing this as an attack and so on. (It's not- the company is simply not notable and if it was, I'd have left it alone.) Considering that her getting upset in the UKA Press AfD is a given, I think that it looks like it's long past due for an admin to step in here. If it was just the Bennett article I wouldn't particularly be concerned, but this looks like it is overdue for notice and I am fairly certain that more will only follow with the article about her company being put up for AfD since it doesn't pass current WP:CORP guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit seems very uncivil. Threats about her donations "drying up" and saying "surely you could have waited until I got back" are the only "arrogant" things that I've seen here. – Richard BB 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

~~Also, please remember to notify the user in question that you've started a discussion about them here. In this instance, I've done it for you. – Richard BB 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)~~

(she did: 23 minutes before you did ... it's just not under its own header) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Another uncivil edit which is cause for concern, including editing his talk page post. Will warn. – Richard BB 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd added it to the page, but it looks like it didn't come up with an automatic subheading and instead came up under my AfD notice. I've differentiated it to show up better on the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, sincerest apologies! I appear to have forgotten how to use my eyes. – Richard BB 10:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea certainly doesn't understand the project as a whole. WP:OWN is bad, "I'll take my donations and go away if I don't get things my way" is a threat that we don't need on this project. We have rules, processes and policies - you agreed to them when you signed up: if you don't want to follow them, the little X on the top right is always available. Otherwise, stick to the rules. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry, but I find this all a bit petty (not to mention grossly over-exaggerated by Tokyo girl:)) I'm also at a loss to understand why a 'deletion' notice has been slapped on an article (UKA Press) which has been there since 2006 (approx) and has already been voted to 'keep' years ago. And yes, I'm afraid I do think it's been done out of spite. I could point out (possibly) hundreds of other WIKI articles far, far less 'notable'...

Still, never mind, I won't argue all the points, it's not really worth it from my point of view. Just go ahead and delete whatever you want to (don't forget all the other articles I started). I won't be able to help correcting spelling mistakes if I see them on articles, though :)AndreaUKA (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because an article survived one AfD, that doesn't mean it has a right to survive them all. The community will decide whether or not the article should be deleted, so there's no need to fear it being out of spite (which seems to be an assumption of bad faith, to me. As for other articles existing, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think there are other subjects out there less notable, please nominate them for deletion and let the community decide. – Richard BB 10:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, there's a widely held common misconception (more off-wiki than on, admittedly, but I see time and time again on WP:AfC) that articles are deleted because people don't like them, they're on a power trip, or they like stomping on kittens and clubbing baby seals to death. I can't emphasise it enough that this just isn't the case. All Misplaced Pages articles need to start from sources, and be based on those sources, and if they don't - they should! This essay by Uncle G has further reading which may be of interest. Unfortunately with several million on articles on Misplaced Pages, and writing articles from the source up being a non-obvious working method, it means some articles that should be cleaned up per our policy get left behind. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kuda Bux (band) is one such example I saw only yesterday, and that got wiped into oblivion without so much as a how-do-you do. --Ritchie333 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. It just seems a bit silly to propose deletion to an article which has already been voted (by the community) as notable enough (especially one with the glaring 'notability' of Kevin Brownlow). I'm sure there are plenty of other, more fruitful things editors could be doing. As for me 'nominating for deletion' yes, I could, but I won't be trawling around looking for them :) I have seen many which are pretty feeble though...thanks Richard.AndreaUKA (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because something passed notability guidelines years ago does not mean that it passes the current standards of notability. It's actually fairly common for articles to be nominated for deletion because they were initially AfD-ed in the earlier years of Misplaced Pages where notability standards were incredibly loose. Over the years these standards have been made stricter and stricter because it was very quickly realized that the previous standards were not enough to keep out the blatantly non-notable topics such as "Bob's Burger Bistro" that has only gotten 1-2 brief mentions in articles. A great example would be books that previously passed notability guidelines simply because they had ISBNs, yet did not receive any RS coverage. The same thing goes for businesses and previously surviving an AfD does not guarantee that it will be notable in the future. Again, this is fairly common. As far as other things editors could be doing, this is pretty much what editors are supposed to be doing: adding articles and culling the ones that don't pass notability guidelines. I think that recently I've been saving and adding twice as many articles as I have nominating them for deletion, so it's not like I'm a deletionist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And considering your reaction to the edits I made on Bennett and your reaction to other people questioning the notability of various things you've added, it's quite reasonable to expect that you would react at least somewhat poorly to an article you made for a company you work for being nominated for deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, many of your talk page comments seem to be removing other people's. While I've brought this up on your talk page, your last edit here deleted several parts of several other discussions on this page. I'm not sure of the reasons behind this -- I'm willing to assume that Andrea isn't doing this maliciously -- but it seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive (intentionally or not). Does anyone know the reason why this might be occurring? – Richard BB 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to happen from time to time -- haven't figured out the pattern. Probably an issue for WP:VPT NE Ent 12:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it to NE Ent in fact. Deleted something from an entirely different section with nary an edit conflict in sight. No idea how. I thought it might have been an issue with my mobile browser but was unable to replicate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is also taking place here. I'm curious as to how text could actually be added this way. I did a ctrl F for the added text, and found it replicated no where else. – Richard BB 12:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that a sockpuppet investigation for this user has been opened. – Richard BB 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC

Hi. I'm referring this up the ladder, since Poeticbent seems to want it to come here (and to be honest, I'd welcome that. It needs sorting). At Talk:Richard Tylman some time back, an RFC was run to deterime whether data from Genealogy websites could be used as a source - it was requested to be closed, having had no activity since October 12, and Chris Gualtieri closed it, with it having no consensus, thus defaulting to the status quo, of "no". Poeticbent reverted this close to the RFC on 3 December.

Now I've looked back over Richard Tylman, and indeed, Chris is uninvolved with the article itself, openly admitting that "I (Chris) don't know two things about the subject and I don't personally care about the subject." He was completing a procedural close, for which he doesn't need to be an admin. Poeticbent then decides to revert his close of the Richard Tylman RFC a second time, this time with a threat in the edit summary. This occurred on 4 December.

This is where I waded into the battle - and I stress I wasn't canvassed to do this. I've had the Richard Tylman article and Talk on my watchlist for a while now, pre-RFC opening. How it got there, I have no idea, I don't remember editing it, still I digress. I reverted Poeticbent's undoing of the closure, and gave him a very clear, very blunt (read: bordering on incivil), untemplated warning on his talk page not to revert it again or he'd wind up here. Poetic has now replied at his talk page, to both myself and Chris, stating that he intends to "get more answers" here. So here we are :) All parties involved have been notified. Fish 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The close by CG was fine. The "listen up" in bold stuff on Poeticbent's talk page placed by BarkingFish -- not helpful. (Rest of the message was okay). NE Ent 12:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The close by CG should've been "No consensus" as no one but TFD supported exclusion and yet CG closed in TFD's favor. The other two editors make decent points. But the biggest knife in the CG's close cake is that the larger consensus at the RS noticeboard was also non-consensus leaning toward careful use of Ancestry.com as a source. So I'd say that CG's close was actually poor. However, Poeticbent's behavior certainly isn't good; especially since he was involved in the other discussion. The right thing to have done would have been to discuss it with an administrator or bring it here rather than get into a fit with other editors and reverting the close.--v/r - T P 14:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that CG was a neutral uninvolved editor and Poeticbent would be well advised to not accuse others of bias simply because they didn't agree with his bias.--v/r - T P 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So you say throw out policy and convention on the number of votes cast in the RFC? Also, the actual discussion itself about Ancestry.com being a reliable source is pretty straight forward. See here. Many well founded opinions and comments are already present for that, and I cannot simply disregard what seems to be a strong argument against Ancestry.com's teaser hints as being a valid and reliable source. As I mentioned in the RFC close, I would have taken them as primary or secondary sources provided they were verifiable, but the links used were not even viewed by Poeticbent himself, and much of the postings are a synthesis and original research because of it. Furthermore, as they were being used as external links and WP:ELNO is pretty clear about not having paywall and minimal use.

Also, please remember that these links were not solely Richard Tylman. They included links to "William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614), with children" and "Richard Tylman IV (1569–1614). Born to Nycholas Tylman III and Jane Benson." Furthermore, the links in this family tree assembled by some amateur are really reliable? Even other 'reliable sources' used in the article are questionable such as this one. 'Freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com'? Seriously? This is no different then taking some random angelfire, yahoo or other website and posting it up as proof. Its like the one line fragment used from a Lulu.com (a POD print book) as a reliable source in this article? So, I'd seriously consider what is really reliable and what stands out as a massive synthesis of material. We are already aware that there are many Richard Tylmans and that others lived in the same area, and there is at least 5 if the assembled geneology is to be right. Though this is coming from a website that tries to push that almost everyone is related to kings and queens of olde. True geneology research takes time and even people at Ancestry.com know that the trees of others can be entirely garbage. Only the documents themselves are useful, not the assembled product of amateurs seeking to glorify their pasts. I would assert that Poeticbent does not even have access to the pages upon which he linked, as the dates for the events and such would be surely included, but nothing more then what the 'free' look is taken. As far as I was concerned, they do not meet the standards for WP:RS and WP:V, let alone WP:EL under WP:ELNO as they were. So yes, even though the number of !votes were leaning away, the simple fact that the sources themselves were garbage in full view of policy means I could not simply go against a community concensus of what is reliable (even the side discussion at RSN proved as much) and had really no other choice then to act in accordance to policy. Poeticbent began disrupting and making personal attacks on me immediately thereafter. There was no activity in that RFC since Oct 15th, after I close I am called to be non-neutral, partisan, a bully, and commiting 'fakery' by mere closing of the RFC.

The real disconnect, even amongst the supporter of the previous link Clemrutter is as follows, "...I can happily agree that two commercial websites are not valid sources. I fail to understand how they shouldn't be cited for external links- so the dear reader can share the external links he will need to use if he wishes to do OR." This kind of mindset underscores my decision, Clemrutter agrees that they are not valid sources yet wishes to include them as external links for OR. If they aren't valid sources, they shouldn't be used, even if you must argue it, ELNO covers it then. If you cannot count the source as reliable and verifiable, don't stick it under 'external links', it shouldn't be on the page. So here we go round the circle again. I decided the RFC on policy. Clemrutter's comments seem fair. And if you really want to be super-precise on the RFC the count was 3 to use, 1 to not use, 1 comment. One of the uses were from a blocked sockpuppet (and didn't add an argument anyways) and the other use was include because AGF that the geneology info is correct rather then see if it is reliable or not. Making the whole RFC in reality, 1 to use and 1 not to use. TFD's arguments and the discussion at RSN was really the important matter as it as on policy, as all good decisions are made. I do not think I was 'poor' in judgement for deciding it that way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All of that makes a great comment in an RFC, not a close. Taking a single editors comments and closing it as the "consensus of an RFC" is a joke. If anything, you should've closed it as "No one seems to care" or just simply "no consensus."--v/r - T P 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I listen on policy instead of popularity. You take a blocked sockpuppet's 'me too' as a vote? You take someone who admits the sources aren't reliable as a pro use? You take a comment by Clemrutter who just after the close agrees the sources aren't valid yet think I closed wrong? Seriously? If you oppose and state, 'the sources aren't valid', you really are saying that they are not valid, and Misplaced Pages deals in reliable sources. So Clemrutter doesn't understand External Links, but he knows what a reliable source is. 2 to TFD as I see it. The other not vote from GeorgeLouis fell into the same boat as 'Let the reader decide if it is reliable or not and I AGF it is correct'. These are not strong arguments. If the sources cannot meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V then we should not use them, not tack them onto external links and try to let it fly in the face of WP:ELNO. The RFC as small as it was, had only one major argument rooted in policy, and that was TFDs. Consensus is fine for certain things, but Misplaced Pages as a whole is not going to be locally overruled because 2 people with flawed arguments are numerically more then someone who roots arguments in policy, and that those said sources do not meet community standards. Unless I am sorely mistaken, rather then argue about the number of votes, how about someone argue on a matter of policy and how those sources are okay in light of it. Forget it being about external links, they won't even pass RS or V, if they do, I'd add them as sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed on the RS noticeboard about how WP:V can apply to Ancestry.com. Where you are mistaken is believing that your interpretation of policy is the only one. That is why we consider consensus in discussions. Other editors have a different idea of how WP:V can be met. As a closer, your job is the summarize those ideas, identify the ones with the strongest policy based rationale, and show how much support that rationale received. You can't stick with your understanding of policies when closing. You have to recognize the community's interpretation before your own. The larger discussion offered solid ideas and took WP:V into consideration. So the close wasn't done well. I would've said "No consensus" which would've resulted in the same thing. Instead, we essentially have a supervote.--v/r - T P 16:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the close is one thing, but calling a good faith effort "a joke" is uncalled for. My first thought when reviewing was there wasn't enough discussion on the article talk page, but when I followed the link to RSN my read of the discussion was similar to CGs. NE Ent 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The effort isn't a joke, the "RFC" is. I read the RSN thread completely different than you then. My takeaway from it was that WP:V could be met given certain conditions on Ancestry.com.--v/r - T P 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I understand the different. Ancestry.com has some good and rare records that can be used. As I stated and have been stating, I'd take a primary document of worth. As so is the discussion at RSN. The problem is that no documents have been provided and that even Poeticbent does not have access to said primary documents (its the free content only) and the tree as was in the external links was not even about the subject alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see RFC closure as a deterministic process -- it's a messy process. Lacking evidence CG was either involved or grossly ignored the discussion, closing it as they did seems reasonable to me. I'd have said the same thing had TP closed it as no consensus. The whole point of RFC should be to bring closure to a discussion; I think it counterproductive to Misplaced Pages overall to allow reopening of RFCs by parties disagreeing with an outcome unless there's compelling evidence the closer made a gross error. NE Ent 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, I fully support CG in this thread. It was certainly within discretion. It's just not how I'd have closed it. As I said earlier, the result is the same and I tend to get tied up in principals, but I agree CG was uninvolved and perfectly capable of the closure and Poeticbent doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on here.--v/r - T P 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I was in the process of opening this, when User:BarkingFish beat me to it, so 'm skipping the intro. Informing other editors about ANI is not a threat, and not an insult contrary to what BarkingFish said on my talk page... We have a prolific user here, ChrisGualtieri, a rollbacker with long edit history, who forgot that he's not an administrator (and for a good reason) dishing out controversial judgements with no regard for the contributions of other experienced Wikipedians. His personal views are so entrenched that he doesn't seem to realize that what he dishes out from his own little corner of RFC doesn't smell good. Comfort breeds contempt apparently, and his ego-self is compelled to pretend to the throne. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're currently at the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. You've thrown out a ton of insults against ChrisG without at all addressing the close or substantiating your accusations. What makes Chris biased? What makes him egotistical? As far as I can see, Chris is completely neutral and uninvolved and although I disagree with his close, it doesn't at all support the remarks you've made about him. Editors have just as much capability of closing RFCs are administrators do. Whomever told you that only administrators closed RFCs was mistaken. You've given no evidence that he has a personal view prior to closing the RFC. You've given no support that his views are entrenched. You've given us nothing but your word that your insults and accusations are the truth. Seriously, welcome to WP:ANI.--v/r - TP 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  - (Quote): "Chris, I will report you to ANI for misuse of process tools, partisan editing, revert warring, fakery and general bullying." Now tell me - does that look like Poetic is "informing" the user about AN/I, or threatening to report him? To me personally, it looks like a direct threat to report Chris for a load of stuff Poetic can't actually substantiate. Partisan editing? Fakery? General Bullying? What the hell... Step up to the plate and back up your claims, if you can. Fish 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Policy states it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. NE Ent 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The attacks come against me from the moment I closed, I even mentioned this before. Its a wonderful example of 'i didn't hear that'. I never edited the page before closing the RFC, the view history is easy enough to check. He called me horrible things for simple closing in disagreement, based on policy nonetheless. Poeticbent created the article and has done a lot of the work, but is suffering from WP:OWN and is lashing out, even calling my close of the RFC as an XFD. I don't want to delete the article, never did. I just don't like the response to my close and how not once has an arguement over those sources been made, instead its attack the editor. If those sources pass RS and V, I'd be happy to have them on the page. Though they do not meet the criteria and Poeticbent does not have the primary documents either to back it up. Makes verification nearly impossible, and the marriage one is only one line in a book as are some of the other sources in the article. And those too have flaws, yet I didn't remove those. I was solely here for the RFC close as per the request on the page.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This would probably be more easily solved by reopening the content issue and taking it to RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to WP:ELN as they wanted it as an external link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has no dog in this hunt: it's very clear from the many WP:RS/N inquiries on ancestry.com that there's a wide consensus that its material is often unreliable and that most of the reliable material would tend to be considered primary sources. If the RFC had been conducted at RS/N it surely would have attracted a lot more negative responses. Moreover, a quick read over the article leaves me quite uneasy; it feels very much like a piece of original research that is having to put together a lot of material without benefit of secondary sources having done the work first. Personally, I think a procedural close sending to the issue to the correct noticeboard would have been an appropriate response, but I don't think CG's closure was out of line. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to the ELN right after I closed it by TFD. TFD was in favor of removal. It should be RSN as it was before. Though I closed the way I did was because it had already been to RSN. As it was here . So I closed the way I did because it I took both arguments from the pages into consideration (as the majority of activity occurred at RSN anyways). If you are implying that I should have closed by sending it back to RSN, then its surprising to me. Since I thought the matter was already handled adequately there. It bounced forums and is doing so again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that you should have done differently, only that you could have chosen to do so, with the likely outcome of that being essentially the same as your closing result. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This article was sent to AfD five times not because of Tudors... and certainly not because of Ancestry.com website. The subject was targeted by WP:EEML, one of the biggest arbitration cases in Arb history originating from Eastern Europe. When ChrisGualtieri approached this article he saw its history and instead of stepping back and acknowledging the lack of consensus he chose to take one side against the other. What's worse, he also performed unilateral revert in main space. No editor can call himself uninvolved anymore, as soon as he begins to perform unilateral reverts in support of one side in a bitter and long-standing conflict. User:The Four Deuces is an active participant in Eastern European conflicts regarding communism and he knows a lot more than he cares to admit. His two AfDs were no accident. Some of the best Wikipedians were prohibited from casting a vote by ArbCom. For him, the article subject does not matter as much as the fact that it is named Richard Tylman. Read the opening line of his second AfD. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Non-admin comment - the "Richard Tylman issue" has been going on for quite some time and is far more complicated than some of this thread suggests. Having had a very good, long look at the whole history during the last AFD for Richard Tylman, I posted this note which gives some background. Poeticbent had tried to explain some of the background (as he has here) but without some of the details that might be construed as a conflict of interest on his part, given his openly declared conflict of interest with the previous article of the same name. Was it smart to create a new article about a different person with the same name as the subject of a very controversial article with which he had a direct conflict of interest? No, probably not "smart", but also not prohibited. There will naturally be more "eyes" on the new article given the history of the old one but it's probably not helpful to describe that extra scrutiny as "general bullying". Poetic might feel like he is being watched / scrutinised / hounded but transferring that anger onto an uninvolved editor won't help the situation, regardless of the actions of that editor. That said, nor is it particularly helpful to consider the history of an article (having "stumbled across" it) and then non-admin close a discussion based on an opinion. It doesn't help that the editor in question cited an WP:RSN discussion (with basically the same content) started by the same OP that had not yet been closed with any form of consensus that had been started only days earlier. I'm not sure why the OP felt there was a need for an RSN and a talk page RFC but citing one unclosed discussion to NAC another probably wasn't a great idea. In reality, WP:RSN is probably the best place for such a discussion and NAC'ing the RFC as a "duplicate" while directing editors to RSN would probably have been okay. To be honest, I can't see that there was a great deal of malice here, just a little bit of line over-stepping (all around) that can be quite easily resolved with a re-wording of the closure (noting duplication and directing to RSN rather than citing it) and an agreement to discuss it there with civility. Stalwart111 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bettina Wulff

I'm requesting eyes on here, please. An individual with access to many IP addresses, or a group of folks (which would be a scary thought), are intent on linking to an image with an opinion regarding how it relates to the subject of the article. The first attempts were edits made to the article, when the article was protected they moved to the talk page. The talk page was protected briefly but they have returned to continue. I don't mind requesting lengthier talk page protection (and I don't mind continuously reverting the edits), but I'm hoping that there are other options available. Thanks for your time Tiderolls 15:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In the mean time, I extended the talk page protection until the article's protection expires on 7 Jan. This has been going on since October (or earlier), so I doubt a month of protection will do much.--v/r - T P 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought - would blacklisting the image URL (per Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist) be an option? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into this matter before--it's about the worst kind of BLP violation you can imagine. I think we should pull out all the stops, if we have any. Range blocks, for instance, are a valid option, even one where we let the chips fall where they may. Blacklists, edit filters, whatever we have to prevent this (I'm wondering--is this happening cross-wiki?). It's one instance where I'd support Jimbo hiring a PI, a lawyer, and a gang of Russian mobsters to make a housecall. Thanks, Tide, for sticking to it. TParis, go ahead and make that indefinite protection, if you like: these articles are not that exciting for average editors, and it's better to be safe than sorry in this case. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Threat of Deployment of Law Enforcement Agencies by User/IP

I am here to notify the administrators of Misplaced Pages that I am receiving public threats of having law enforcement agencies deployed against me by the user/IP 82.73.35.159. I came to contact of the mentioned user while editing the article Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. The user seems to have abruptly undone a number of my edits, which earned him a ban by a WP administrator. Now the user seems to have come back from the ban and reappeared in the article’s talk page to threaten me personally. The user also mentions about my family in the threat and defamatorily categorizes them to substantiate the threat made at me. I request for attention of the administrators in the matter. Thank you. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the comment by the IP, and I don't read it as a threat of physical harm. If read literally, it's a statement of fact that the IP has contacted the police. It's not an appropriate comment to make at Misplaced Pages, but I'm having trouble classifying it as a legal threat or a threat of harm; however, it is a personal attack. The article, which has a contentious history and has been a subject here before, has been semi-protected against roving IPs, but, of course, that doesn't stop them from posting on the talk page. The comment should probably simply be removed and the editor warned, but I'll let others comment first.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, not a legal threat; but clearly intended to intimidate. Improper employment of the article talk page, altogether. I don't know if the connection the IP made is outing as I have no idea if the OP has self-identified. If not, the IP is seriously missing the point of our processes. Tiderolls 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP has a lot of identifying information on their user page, including a link to his LinkedIn profile. At the same time, I don't know if the material the IP refers to is disclosed somewhere by the OP (he has a lot of "external links" about himself on his user page).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In my opinion it seems an effective legal threat; in some areas you might have a lawyer send a cease and desist, and in others you call the police and get them to knock on doors. However, I'm not very experienced in these issues, but just wanted to give my impression. a13ean (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with a13ean. I don't see that criminal law is exempted from WP:LEGAL, and the IP's talk of defamation and settling personal scores is indistinguishable from the language of a normal legal threat. If you read the rationale for the policy, you will clearly see that this is exactly the sort of thing that the policy was created to deal with. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those instances where reasonable editors are going to disagree as to how to characterize the IP's comments. However, I've removed the comments from the talk page and warned the IP that the comments constitute a legal threat and/or a personal attack, in either event impermissible, and that a repetition will result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. a13ean (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Who cares if it's a legal threat or not, look at the rationale for why we have WP:LEGAL: It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Misplaced Pages remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles. It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith. This is clearly the intention here; saying you have called the police on someone is clearly aimed at creating a chilling effect in a discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Some help with a suspiciously named new user account and some IP vandalism

Recently these two IPs 128.163.8.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 139.55.32.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (both geolocated to Lexington, Kentucky area) seem to have a fascination with reverting edits of mine(unexplained removal of infoboxes, etc), some are same article. Now, a brand new account Psedonymbosch (talk · contribs) (which is suspiciously named compared to my user name Heironymous Rowe) is making a similar edit to a related article (all are related archaeological sites). Someone is here to troll me. Thoughts? Any actions to be taken? He iro 20:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I left the new editor a warning. I have blocked one of the IPs--the other one was not exclusively after you. I gotta run, but if you explain how that user name compares to yours, perhaps the next admin will swing the block hammer. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's something to do with Heironymous Bosch, with Psedonym being a similar misspelling of "Pseudonym" as Heironymous is to "Anonymous" (though perhaps not Anonymous --Ritchie333 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, nothing to do with Anonymous, I've had this internet handle for years longer than they have existed. It is close to my real name (initials anyway) and I am a professional artist, plus it was a nickname I had in HS many moons ago. He iro 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Theirs is "Psedonymbosch" or "Pseudonym Bosch", mine is "Heironymous Rowe", and then there is the artist Hieronymus Bosch, which is why I think they created this account to harass me. He iro 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It may just be a kid who's read books by Pseudonymous Bosch. Deor (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have thought that if they had made edits with the named account before switching to the IPs, but it was vice versa, which makes me think they created the named account after I left them several warnings at the IP talk pages. He iro 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Ways of Seeing being used by a class?

Today there have been a large number of new accounts that have been editing this article. 14 18 20 22 different new accounts have been adding material. All the material is uncited, and much of it is synthesis that does not rely on any source for such synthesis. I've reverted once, but the additions continue to be added to the article. I've contacted each account that has been doing this with no response (example). Thoughts? Temporary semi-protection? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've put in an RFPP . --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and looked, and just had to revert a plot summary that wasn't encyclopedic tone or referenced or anything at all.. I see a few options, either a class, a group of friends, an edit-a-thon for new users, extreme socking (AGF of course), etc... I'd support semi/full protection, or at the very least PC (but with such a high EC maybe not good). I'm watchlisting this so I could handle the PCs gwickwire_edits 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My bet is a class, so where's the supervision? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Still, not a single account has been willing to communicate. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Drmies protected it now . Curious to see if that sparks discussion from them or not. Hopefully, they don't move on to another article. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's a class, my assumption is that it's one that the instructor has not even bothered to contact WMF/WP or look around for our policies on classes editing; he just told his students go make an account and edit. I'll look through some contribs and see if I can't ascertain the supervisor's account (if they communicate with xe through xe's talkpage here) NOTE: One of the users may actually be in #wikipedia-en-help, can't tell if it's one from this class though. gwickwire_edits 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a class. Finally got some communication from one of them . I've invited them here (again). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That explains it. Well, imo, the person I'm helping in IRC isn't going to be the same class. Thanks Drmies gwickwire_edits 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's right here, BMK: I've protected it. Class dismissed, until it can discuss matters on the talk page, with supervision. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the instructor to stop what they are doing, via the one account that has communicated (see User talk:Beliveau). I'm trying to get the instructor to review Misplaced Pages:School and university projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I have contacted the class and asked them to discontinue contributing to the page. I thought the contribution process was less cumbersome, and the page really needed expansion.I have to say that the more complex you make this the less they can get involved in the wikipedia project.Beliveau (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beliveau (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau Yes I am the instructor. Earlier this afternoon, I went to the page and posted an addition 9which is the first one that you probably went back and removed.) I saw it on the page, and then in class demonstrated the posting and the history page. I asked them to set up accounts and then read though the existing "Ways of Seeing" page and make a contribution. (We have been studying the book and the series for the last three weeks.) They started to post, and then the flurry of activity and the removals occurred. The contributions I have seen from the students are a good start for them to get involved, but they cannot interact if all the posting are pulled. what is it that they need to include for their contributions to follow wikipedia guidelines? Remember that they are new at this, I am new at using this in class, and I would like to learn how to get students involved, but really in the "without facilitators" structure...at least at this point. If I can get a handle on how to teach with it, I can devote more time to the incorporation in the future, but this was really a brief extra credit way of getting them involved. Beliveau (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beliveau (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau

Was my user account terminated for some reason? I had to re-start a new page.Beliveau (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau

No it wasn't--you never had a user page. Hi Beliveau. The problem is that the content being added didn't really improve the article: it was mostly rather lengthy plot summary that might be relevant in a book report or so, but not in an encyclopedic article, where plot summary needs to be dry and concise. In one of the edits the cover was described at length--that is not usually the kind of thing that's helpful to a reader of an encyclopedic article, especially not if it comes with analysis. A short and to-the-point plot summary can often go without secondary sources, but analysis cannot: it's original research (WP:OR), and that's not what an encyclopedia should contain. Now, I think this is best handled on the article talk page; if a post there does not get a quick response one can always type {{helpme}} on it and someone will come along. I've protected the article since the flurry was considered disruptive (a judgment call); if discussion on the talk page is positive and can lead to article improvement, that's easily lifted and I will do so right now, in the anticipation of article edits being preceded by talk page discussion and being in accordance with various Misplaced Pages guidelines, in particular the linked one on original research, and probably the ones on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources WP:RS). Thanks, and let us know if we can help. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's that time of year again. Uncle G (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:OldHouse2012 and WikiProject banners on History of Vojvodina

G'day, this report relates to the disruptive and WP:POINT behaviour of User:OldHouse2012 on Talk:History of Vojvodina (talk page of an article covered by ARBMAC).

On 30 November, User:Thehoboclown placed the WikiProject Hungary banner on the talk page . Quite a reasonable action given Vojvodina was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austro-Hungarian Empire for centuries prior to 1920. I can't speak for User:Thehoboclown's actions outside of this one.

However, on 1 December, User:OldHouse2012 reverted User:Thehoboclown's edit, using the edit summary "Wrong WP".

On 2 December, User:Thehoboclown restored the WikiProject Hungary banner with the edit summary "restored project banner".

At 13:07 on 3 December, User:OldHouse2012 again removed the WikiProject Hungary banner with the edit summary "this is about serbia, not about hungary and this is wrong wp".

At 13:55 on 3 December, User:Iadrian yu became involved, restoring the banner with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Oldhouse2012 (talk): This is about history of Vojvodina... and that is related to Hungary too." User:User:Iadrian yu then created a section on the talk page for discussion here and explained that it was quite reasonable to add the WikiProject Hungary banner, and using as an example the History of Transylvania article.

At 21:35 on 3 December, without engaging on the talk page section created by User:Iadrian yu, User:OldHouse 2012 again removed the WikiProject Hungary banner with the edit summary "please discuss on talk page why this WP template should be here", and then made entries on the talk page section stating "Page about Transylvania should not have WP Hungary as well. But, that article is not interesting to me. Let discuss this one: Province of Vojvodina was formed in 1945 and it have no any relation to Hungary. I understand that this article mention some events before 1945 to inform readers what preceeded formation of Vojvodina, but it is not reason that wrong WP teplate is included here. Also, former multi-ethnic country with name Kingdom of Hungary and modern Hungary of ethnic Hungarians are two different countries. Another problem is that many countries ruled in Vojvodina and only WP Hungary was adeed. Why? It is wrong. Why you did not add templates Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Great Moravia, Yugoslavia? Why only Hungary? And if we follow this logic we can add more than 20 WP templates because of similar reason why you add WP Hungary".

User:Iadrian yu responded in the talk section .

User:Brianyoumans became involved, explaining that the policy on adding WikiProjects is inclusive , and User:Iadrian yu agreed .

I then restored the WikiProject Hungary banner per the talk page, noting the consensus of User:Iadrian yu, User:Brianyoumans and myself that the WikiProject Hungary banner was reasonable with an edit summary warning User:OldHouse2012 of a possible report of their actions if the disruption persisted.

User:OldHouse2012 then added 16 more banners to the talk page here . This is where WP:POINT became obvious.

I reverted the addition of all the other templates , and User:OldHouse2012 reverted . At which point I brought it here. In the meantime, User:Brianyoumans has been patiently looking through and culling the 16 banners added by User:OldHouse2012. You are a better man than I am Brianyoumans...

Could an admin please reinforce WP:POINT with User:OldHouse2012? I think the other users involved here have been more than reasonable and patient with this. This type of behaviour is very unhelpful and disruptive, and is clearly being done to make a (nationalistic) point. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Deonis 2012: copyvio immediately following end of 72-hour block

Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked 3 days ago because of repeated copyright violations. Either he made a sincere attempt to understand why he was blocked and resolved to change his editing behaviour, or he did not, or maybe somewhere in between. Today, after the block was lifted, he made this edit to Battle of Aleppo (2012), 5 Dec 2012, citing a NOW Lebanon article (NOW Lebanon).

Deonis 2012's text: "... Seven people were killed in the Syrian regime’s shelling of the Aleppo neighborhood of Bustan al-Qasr, activists said."
NOW Lebanon's text: "Seven people were killed in the Syrian regime’s shelling of the Aleppo neighborhood of Bustan al-Qasr, activists said."

IMHO both the "did not" and "somewhere in between" hypotheses are excluded. Quotation marks are not used, the WP:WEASEL word "regime" is retained, and there is no attempt to summarise or place the information in the context of the article. This is not a case of "no other simpler, more correct, more compact way to state the information".

Deonis seems to have never responded to any attempts to talk to him on his user page, nor has he tried discussing on other user talk pages or article talk pages.

IMHO something stronger than blocking for 72 hours is needed, in order to prevent continual copyright violations. Boud (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In case anyone cares, Duplication Detector report for this edit and the source. gwickwire_edits 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My assumptions are that Deonis has not learned and that they will not talk to us. I've indeffed Deonis. If they want to edit again, they're going to have to persuade us (this will require them to talk) that they will not continue to violate copyright, that they will not edit disruptively (they've done so in the past), and that they will edit collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba

TPA REMOVED NE Ent 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Confirmed Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk · contribs) has violated the conditions of the standard offer by leaving this personal-attack edit summary on his talk page after having been previously warned that the editing restriction in the standard offer apply to his own talk page as well, and that he would lose talk page access if he did not comply. (Which means he was actually eligible for revocation when he removed that very warning, but this mudslinging should seal the deal.) — Francophonie&Androphilie 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mangoeater is also trying to resurrect a blocked sockpuppet here after agreeing to the standard offer. 72Dino (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general practice, we don't file ANIs on indeffed blocked users ... a passing admin will revoke talk page access if / when it becomes necessary. NE Ent 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have revoked User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba's talk page access for his continued abuse of the unblock system and uncivil comments being made in edit summaries. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Danjel

Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So there’s this AfD for chili burger, an article I create. Most people have been voting keep; Danjel votes “Delete”, but that’s not the issue. What is the issue is that he’s turn this into another excuse (yes, he’s done this before) to character assassinate. He gets totally off-topic and mentions a series of AfDs regarding schools (his personal baliwack) that Epeefleche mostly started, and I voted “Delete” on, right here. Completely ungermane. Later, instead of actually proving an argument, he rants on here about my supposed AfD track record, using a tool that I’m almost certain is broken, by the by. Again, it seems to be indicating that this vote is some sort of compensation for my votes on the schools. And when I told him to stop mentioning the schools AfDs, and to not make it personal at AfD, not only does he ignore my imploring, he reverts me here and there, as if it was vandalism. Could somebody tell him to stop beating the dead horse that is those schools AfDs, and to not character assassinate? (for previous times he’s brought this up, refer to the ANI archives, my talk page history, and Epeefleche’s talk page history) p b p 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, add Twinkle misuse here, undoing the good-faith edit that was the ANI notice. This is the second or third time a good-faith post has been tagged by him as vandalism p b p 01:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, you need to learn to sign and date your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wasn't vandalism, as he alleges. I didn't want it to come to this, but he ignores and then deletes as vandalism anything I post on his talk page... p b p 01:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor is free to remove messages to their talk pages, with very few exceptions. While labeling the message vandalism in the edit summary is not appropriate, some editors just like to hit that TW vandal revert button. I wouldn't make a big deal over that point, and focus on the issue at AfD. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've hatted a couple of the more offtopic diversions on the Afd. I encourage PBP to cease contributing to the Afd fracas by not responding to the off topic stuff. Stay focused on the article and ignore the ad hominem stuff, and don't start your keep comment with Seriously, dude, you're giving us deletionists a bad name -- the colder and more clinical your posts the less likely you'll get into these things. Danjel is entitled to remove message from their talk page per WP:TPO, but should stop calling the edits vandalism. NE Ent 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

PBP, what administrative action are you requesting or expecting here? ANI should not be your first stop for dispute resolution; it should be one of the last. -- Dianna (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"ASA Statement on the use of 'primitive' as a descriptor of contemporary human groups". ASA News. Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth. 27 August 2007.

Category:

Misplaced Pages noticeboards