Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate suggestion

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

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

Another alternate suggestion

continued 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. --Nouniquenames 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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. --Nouniquenames 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. --Nouniquenames 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. --Nouniquenames 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. --Nouniquenames 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)

"the closure was consistent with WP:BAN" only if you think that there was a consensus for a ban ("The Misplaced Pages community can decide, by consensus, to impose ban."), which is what is being questioned. -- PBS (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that "Moving to AN or opening RFAR = forum shopping" because BAN explicitly states "Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in a discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard or at requests for arbitration."

You also write "Consensus is not a vote. Rationales were also weighed in the closure." Rationales are not what Jayron32 emphasised when (s)he initially closed the ANI ". Based on a combination of the numbers and the strengths of the arguments,...". If it is not primarily based on the numbers, it would be most helpful to allay concerns that this was not the correct decision, if Jayron32 were to explain in more detail what were the very strong points raised by the participants in the discussion, or guideline and policy suggestions in favour of this topic ban, that caused the debate to be closed less than 29 hours after the initial formal topic ban was proposed. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note from another uninvolved admin: Jayron32's close was both appropriate and a good judge of consensus. Those opposing the ban did so primarily because they said that LittleBen is right; however, this has absolutely no bearing on the behavioral issues which resulted in the call for a ban. Another editor opposed, saying that LittleBen should have been warned first; this is obviously wrong, given that he's not only been warned but, in fact, blocked for this same behavior. I'm not saying that all of the opposes are lacking, but some clearly are. The strength of the arguments lies with those supporting the ban, and, as such, Jayron32 acted to sum up that consensus. Note, also, that an indefinite ban is not an infinite one; perhaps if LittleBen can demonstrate a more appropriate approach to Wiki-argument, then in the future s/he could have the ban overturned. Alternatively, as pointed out above, s/he is free to appeal to WP:BASC. In the meantime, there are billions of things that LittleBen could do on Misplaced Pages other than worry about diacritics. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Ryan, US birth certificates are not in general public records. E.g. (Pennsylvania) "Birth certificates maintained by the Division of Vital Records are not public certificates and, therefore, cannot be released under the provisions of Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know-Law." Consider also the hullaballoo about getting POTUS Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate even with his permission. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Opened at the pump. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for keeping the DOB out of the article is that the combination of the name and DOB is used to identify the person in law enforcement and other databases, so publishing the exact DOB assists identity theft. We leave it out for the same reason we leave out the person's social security number, which public records can (sometimes) also let us dig up. We have been through this many times. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I added some links about DOB and identity theft here since some people were arguing against the connection. The notion that "it's never a privacy invasion to post a public record" is completely wrong here on Misplaced Pages. We treat home addresses, phone numbers, etc. as private too, and those are generally easier to find than DOB's. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:17, 6 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)

• There is an element of truth in all the accounts of history (both the ones above and the ones promulgated by anon in many articles). However the way to improve our coverage is not though poorly sourced rewritings and additions, but though consensus-based, closely referenced articles presenting the several points of view. Many of these topics are politically, economically and ethnically charged and frequently revised by academics in the last 30 years. Add to this the fact that we have politicians passing history texts as law (see for example the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill) and you have quite a lot of space for confusion and thus demand for close sourcing. The anon has been editing for quite a while and shows little sign of improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(copied from Claudia (122.62.226.243)'s talk page by gadfium)

Hello One and all. Some editors seem to think that history has just one point of view and that is the "official" sanctioned version. My professional background and my extensive reading over too many decades show that this is seldom, if ever, the case. I totally reject any any allegation of racism or anti Maori bias. This is nonsense. My history edits are to show that often commonly accepted incidents in history are factually wrong. Even the most main stream historians in the past make endless mistakes simply because they didn't have the wealth of digital information that is now available even to a student. Both Belich and King made bloopers. Belich made some big ones. King in particular had an increasingly skeptical view of Maori only sources as he matured as a writer. Some of these he wrote about but didn't print. After his death his daughter published it for us so we can see his later thinking. Most NZ history editors will know that he got offside with some Maori academics who did not want a Pakeha writing "their" history. (Despite the fact that King was a tiny bit Maori -a bit like Christian Cullen, although he didnt know this when he first started writing Maori history ) One editor said that NZ govt sources are not acceptable for wikipedia as they were an interested party in NZ history. This is just complete and utter nonsense. On this basis you cannot have any Maori source for NZ history either as they are interested parties! What I am looking for is factually accurate history with a balance of points of view where there are different points of view (as their clearly are!). It seems some editors who undo my efforts are not historians or researchers and delete information for what I consider highly technical reasons ie they would prefer an inaccurate, lop-sided account of an historical incident although it reads lie something out of the 1950s. It is interesting that one editor has it in for I Wishart. Remember that M. King began as a teacher and journalist. At times Mr King was dreadfully sick and drank quite heavily by his own account. I note that no one has pointed out any errors or falsehoods in Mr Wishart's work. On the contrary his work has been praised for its thorough research. For example Wishart has gone into enormous depths to show the background to Wiremu Kingi's war in Taranaki, which was the immediate background to the NZ land wars. His research is first rate and 100% accurate. It blows away many of the wrong misconceptions that kiwis commonly hold about their history.

As part of my professional work I have developed a keen nose for censorship. Do I detect a whiff wafting through? Some editors seem wedded to a particular conservative point of view of NZ history that I would call dated and partial, in view of all the new information that daily flows out into the digital world. It seems strange but every day we know more about what really happened hundreds(sometimes thousands) of years ago. I note some editors have put their hands up to being cranky and impatient. They seem to delight in hitting the delete button as it is so easy to do. Patience is a virtue, possess it if you can.

Thank you to the editor who went into bat for me regarding Maori being Stone Age and historically violent. I think both these minor points are well accepted now, almost self evident if you read the Musket Wars and Maori Culture. My apologies if my edits are not always 100% technically correct as I have eye problems which are slowly being rectified. I always endeavour to improve. Seasons Greeting and happy holidays to all.C.

The IP editor admits above that she edits articles to try to redress what she sees as errors, for reasons of ideology or otherwise, of published historians. The problem is that historians such as Belich, Moon and King are reliable sources; self-published authors such as Ian Wishart are not. Wishart's claims do not qualify for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. The IP user has persisted with the use of terms such as "massacre" and "slaughter" to colour certain wartime events in New Zealand colonial history despite the absence of such terms in academics' writings. (See here, where she justifies her use of the terms by saying a massacre "likely" took place at Oakura because of Maori traditions). She also relied there—as elsewhere—on contemporaneous newspaper reports that were indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership. Really, just grasping at straws to find sources that support her preconceived views.

In fact it often becomes difficult untangling the propaganda from the fact; elsewhere she has relied on reliable sources (poorly cited though they are), but presented cherrypicked facts in a manner only that supports her political or ideological agenda, and without necessary qualifications or balance. BlackCab (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note above the newspapers at http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?a=p&p=about&c=niupepa&l=en&nw=utf-8 do not fit the description above of 'indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership' but we don't use that collection as sources nearly enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have misread your tone, but that last comment, quoting my reference to a newspaper article being "indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership", sounds rather accusatory. Just to be clear, my use of that phrase related to the IP editor's resorting to a sarcastic opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald in 1866 to justify her use of the word "massacre" relating to events at Oakura. I do agree with your earlier comment about seeking the truth from a range of sources. And thanks for the Niupepa link. BlackCab (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we're having a violent agreement. There are lots of sources, essentially all partisan on at least some points; the IP is not using an appropriate selection. Aside: My day job gives me access to some sources in this area that are not internet-accessible / google friendly. Editors are welcome to ask me for specific topics / works on my talk page or by email. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bite. Thanks for the offer. BlackCab (talk) 00:35, 7 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)

• I'm writing here because AndreaUKA keeps taking personal swipes at me. So far she's called me "arrogant" and "petty" as well as making several other comments that disparage my edits here on Misplaced Pages. She keeps getting nastier and nastier in how she is reacting. One of the latest things she's done has been to go onto Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The UKA Press (2nd nomination) and make various comments about other articles I've created and edited. An admin really needs to step in here because she just keeps getting ruder and more petty with each day, making more and more personal attacks on my edits and character here on Misplaced Pages. Her current conduct on the AfD for UKA Press is pretty much the epitome of why I brought this up on this board. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to state that so far Andrea's recent edits are mostly comprised of her making personal attacks against my editing and other articles I've created. Other people have told her that some of her comments were way out of line, but all she has done is continue on with her activities. I'm at my breaking point: can an admin please step in and put an end to all of this? I'd say warn her, but she's been warned by people on various forums about her attitude and she's ignored them. I'm not going to say block her from editing for a few days, but considering that she has yet to take anyone's advice about ceasing her personal attacks on my edits and character, that might be the only thing that would really get her attention. All she's really doing at this point is being disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now she's accusing me of bullying in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaUKA. I want to state up front that at no point have I endorsed bullying, nor have I asked anyone to come onto the pages to harass her. All I have done so far is to open up an AfD and edit another article up for deletion. So far she's harassed me, insulted me, insulted my editing, and accused me of bullying. The only thing she hasn't done is call me names. I'm honestly not sure what else needs to be done for an admin to step in and take action. Nothing that I or other users have said or done seems to be sinking in with her. I'm getting rather tired of her getting away with making continual personal attacks against me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Seriously, can an admin PLEASE do something about all of this? Now she's going into my own personal userspace pages and editing them under the guise of "helping". If she wants to edit the mainspace pages then fine- go ahead. But it's pretty obvious that the only reason she's doing this is because she's angry that I edited pages that she created and put one up for AfD. This is getting really old and pardon my language, but I'm pretty damn tired of her being able to get away with this. These are not good faith edits she's doing. Just one look at her rude and condescending responses to me in the multiple AfDs and the sockpuppet investigation makes that blatantly obvious. She keeps making personal comments and other aspersions against my character. She's starting to lighten up a little, but the fact remains that she has been making personal attacks against me, editing my userspace pages without my consent (some of which are already on the mainspace, making her edits useless), and generally insulting anyone that tries to explain the current notability guidelines. Seriously guys, it's time for an admin to step in because at this point the arguments are just going around in circles and most of the arguments on the pages concern her behavior. Most of her edits lately have been to argue with people, insult me, among other things. She hasn't really been all that helpful lately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 8 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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)

Arbitrary break and expansion

Some have thought my actions may be a bit much, in light of such strong words, even without evidence behind them, such attacks have already proven somewhat effective. So I'll point out once again, that I had no idea what I was stumbling into, I didn't even care to check the AFD history. After this little fuss started I checked and saw it was about some poet and figured that the article was in no shape or form related. How wrong I was. Stalwart seems to have pieced together what I did not know and it was eye opening. In fact, I was a little bit taken aback as the article probably didn't need to be deleted, COI notwithstanding. I really had no idea of what this drama was about or why my actions are somehow related to this mailing list and Arbcom stuff which has long preceeded my wiki activities by a span of years. When I say neutral and uninvolved, I really meant it in all forms, as I was entering the matter completely ignorant of any history and dealt with the matter purely from the RFC and the RSN noticeboard discussions. A plus or a negative, debate amongst yourself, but I had pure intentions. I decided according the guidelines for closing an RFC and did so with the policy, as policy is a foundation for good decision making, not !votes. Sadly, something with this article and the deception as well as the outlandish attacks against me have stirred a curiousity. While I looked at the sources briefly and specifically dealt with the ones concerning the RFC, the others I AGF and let them be. In light of such attacks, I feel that something was trying to be covered up, trying to scare me away, anyone who could disturb Poetic from this article. With Stalwart's post, I realized this entire thing is under POINTY. The Richard Tylman article is full of original research and synthesis and outright false information tediously crafted to portray a single individual. Simple fact, Richard Tillman was the merchant who in 1580 made 33 voyages during the 6 month recorded in the Port Book. Depending on your views as purposeful malicious action or very poor editing, the problems begin with lines like this, "In 1580 all corn sold by Faversham dealers to the London merchants came from Richard Tylman..." No source backs this. Its also blatently wrong. Even if he was mayor, the connecting stemming from a letter which states as such and a note in the history of Kent in one source but not the best one, states a Richard Tylman was mayor. Problem is that the best source says he was a merchant, nothing is said about him being a merchant AND a mayor. A bit rough to say based a single letter record which isn't a primary document, but an account of a letter rather then the letter itself. One of the sources tied to him is supposively 16 years after his death. The article itself is full of synthesis and original research. Not even Faversham's own web page makes a single mention of Richard Tylman. I'd love to straighten this mess out, but I think something major is going on here and me closing the RFC was truly a blind man's folly as I've wound up in the middle of this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the close. It used the same reasoning recommended for closing AfDs, to evaluate the arguments about the interpretation of policy. This issue however would probably not have gone to ANI except for Poeticbent's defensive attitude toward other editors. I did not participate in the first three AfDs and, except for Poeticbent and myself, no one involved in the current article had any involvement with the previous one. And while some of the editors who voted to delete in previous AfDs were involved in Eastern European articles, many were not, yet Poeticbent impugned their motives. The only editor participating in the first nomination who was involved in Eastern European articles voted to keep. TFD (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is just another petty dispute about nothing. This should never happen. The article in question is really nothing, it may or may not exist - who cares? These databases may or may not be used - either way is fine. Whoever brought this to ANI, do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is valid to discuss whether the RfC was closed and reopened properly. My thoughts is that involved editors acted mostly in AGF, and that we should reclose the RfC as no consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I did actually revert the unclosing of the RFC by Poetic, Piotrus. If the RFC needs to be reclosed, fair enough - my understanding was that in the event of a no-consensus, closure reverts to the default - whatever it was before, in this case being a no to the decision. Will reclosing it again with a different reason make a blind bit of difference to this? It's still a no, either way. Fish 00:51, 7 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 - TP 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)

• Er, no calls for gangs of mobsters here, please, not even in jest. That sort of comment can be taken as a serious threat of violence. Otherwise I agree; talk page protection is indicated and perhaps a rangeblock of 95.33.xx.xx if this continues elsewhere and the collateral damage is not too high.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I take the jest back. I am waiting still, though, for someone to step in and make that block. In the meantime, I'm going to extend that protection on article and talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It was an entertaining idea (the mobster thing) but a bit of an overreaction for this lame edit warring (linking a cheesecake photo to the talk page). The permanent talkpage semi-protection over a handful of vandal edits is excessive too. (not sure why I thought it was permanent instead of 1 month) A range block or blacklisting/filtering/autoreverting/manually reverting the link would be more surgical. I do see some similar edit warring from the same IP range at de:Diskussion:Bettina Wulff. I don't even think it's exactly vandalism as much as clueless and maybe misogynistic editing. The IP has been arguing about the photo on the German discussion page at some length. If it were up to me I'd probably just merge the article to the one about Christian Wulff, but I know that wouldn't fly. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually unless other pages are affected, a range block isn't justified IMHO. Even the month of talkpage semi-protection is maybe slightly overkill, and filtering/reversion of the specific link would be better. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Both the Bettina Wulff article and its talk page have been semiprotected into next year. That probably concludes the need for this thread, unless an admin wants to consider a range block. In my opinion a block of 95.33.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months would be tolerable and would block only a few legitimate edits. (The rangecontribs shows only 21 edits since 1 January 2012, most of which are by this guy). Since the editor only seems interested in Bettina Wulff at present and we already have semiprotection in place the possible range block should be deferred until it is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ed, I defer to your experience. IP66, you have plenty of experience too; I believe I've seen you before, with different last digits. That you don't think this is vandalism should be belied by that experience, which should include the thought that we take our BLP violations seriously. For clarity's sake, what is included by the supposedly clueless (and supposedly no more than that) IP is the suggestion that the subject is a call girl, time and time again. If this were an article on some slug, or the fossil teeth of an extinct rodent, we could let that slide, but it's not. Even if it were just "clueless and misogynistic", that this is a BLP places an extra burden on us, and that it continues on the talk page is an indication of a kind of determination that could be called clueless only with kindness--and if this were a registered account, it'd have been blocked for incompetence at the very least. Calling it "lame edit-warring" is, and I'm surprised I have to argue this with you, completely unjustified: there can be no doubt that this is a BLP violation, and edit-warring doesn't apply in such a case. "Lame", well, you can take that up on the talk pages of the editors who reverted it, including those of MountWassen, Tiderolls (a bunch of times, esp. on the talk page--thanks Tide), and possibly Gerda Arendt. Anyway, I will refer to Ed, and I will have faith in the rest of the editors. If you want to propose a merge, you know the process, and if you're successful we'll probably extend semi-protection to that article. Drmies (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The allegation that Wulff worked as a call girl is apparently well known and notable (which of course doesn't make it credible; I'll put it in with the birther allegations about the US president). It's discussed in the article's "lawsuit" and "book" sections. Yes of course that picture is a BLP problem, though on the scale of extremity let's just say Misplaced Pages has had much worse. Anyway I'm ok with the 1 month semi-protection of the talk page, or the range block. You can probably read the German pages much more easily than I can, so I'll defer to you about their contents. My impression from recognizing some words here and there was that the IP was trying to use the talk pages as a WP:FORUM, which is already improper whether or not it's vandalism per se. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The German article is interesting enough (learned a new word: Verleumdung), sure, as is the talk page, where the links have been removed and possibly revdeleted. (I'm not an admin there and I'm guessing--I'm also guessing that they're not consistent.) Anyway, the allegation (or, the discussion thereof) is one thing, the links that supposedly prove it, that's quite another. I think we disagree, if we do, is on no more than intent--but even if we do, I think protection is warranted and when that runs out, a watchful eye and perhaps more protection. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 06:39, 8 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:Oldhouse2012 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)

• I endorse the version of events given by Peacemaker67 above. Except that he is probably a better man than I am, since he seems to do a lot more editing in this contentious area than I do, and he hasn't exploded with frustration yet.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't even read the entire description but just from what I saw on my watchlist I concur that Oldhouse2012's WikiProject censorship/spamming is entirely pointless. I'd wield the axe myself, but because it's a broad scope of articles that require intervention, I'm overly cautious because someone might cry WP:INVOLVED. --Joy (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I looked at Oldhouse2012's categorisation; I think it's a little quirky (those categories could be better named, perhaps, without so much emphasis on the modern view of Hungary) but it's not really bad per se. Brianyoumans has already provided Oldhouse2012 with some good feedback and there's not much I can add to that. Those WikiProject changes look a bit pointy to me, but it's not an avalanche (yet) - I'd like to see what Oldhouse2012 does in their next editing session (they seem to edit at a particular time of day) - whether it's more pointy edits concerning projects, or going back to benign content work. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with Bobrayner above. However, I have to wonder... this is a lot of very technical editing for a new account. When a new account pops up and the person immediately starts making some complicated edits, revising categories and wikiproject tags, one has to wonder whether they have edited on WP before. And when their edits are fairly contentious, almost immediately, one has to wonder if maybe their old account got blocked. But I agree that Oldhouse2012 has done some reasonable editing, and deserves a chance to show that they can play nicely.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Incidently, I had a very hard time commenting here, as the "edit" tags seemed to be way off; if you clicked on the edit tag at the top of a section, you would get a different section, several sections away. Very odd.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree re the editing. When I first saw these edits, the language and obvious experience made me think "duck" but I've given that aspect the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• There have been a lot of socks in this area. I had a quick look at editing patterns and couldn't find a close match to any of the first few sockpuppeteers that sprang to mind. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I got hit with a bit of vandalism on my talk page not long after I made this report (which is par for the course really) but it could be meat, rather than sock. Where do I start? I have a bit of a fan club developing, apparently... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with user Peacemaker67, Oldhouse2012 is abusing wikiProjects on the page of Vojvodina (WP:POINT) by adding "all and everything". I said other wikiProjects are welcome but only related ones. I saw some projects that don`t really have a connection to Vojvodina and I think that is an abuse of other projects. Adrian (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was beginning to think that Oldhouse2012 might have gotten the message, but he clearly has not, per Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Move_forvard. In particular his insistence that WikiProject banners not be removed unless the WikiProject in question removes them. It's straight out WP:POINT and WP:HEAR. EdJohnston, I think something firmer might be necessary. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I only suggest that Peacemaker67 try to chalenge my arguments on talk page instead to attack my personality. I done nothing wrong. I was discussing this problem on talk page and I was changing my position because of good arguments of other users. But, my last arguments are also good and I do not understand what could be wrong in exchange of arguments on talk page? Oldhouse2012 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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) pbp 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 pbp 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... pbp 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. Monty₈₄₅ 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If an editor misuses the tool to remove something off their own page as vandalism.....that IS a missuse of Twinkle. It is a big deal and one shouldn't just gloss over such on an ANI report for any reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, sorry. Being that I had asked for him not to post to my page per WP:BLANKING and WP:NOBAN it was WP:HARASSment (with particular reference to WP:HUSH). If only Twinkle had a rollback (HARASSER), I'd be fine. ˜danjel  08:48, 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)

What? This is not a content dispute. This appears to be a problem with an editor during an AFD who is missusing twinkle to delete messages on his own talkpage. Where does it state anywhere that ANI is a resort for Dispute resolution of any kind? If it is urgent, then this is the best place and lets face it....very few things are that urgent. No.....ANI is not a part of the Dispute resolution process. Last resort for such is either formal mediation or arbitration. ANI is to report an incident which this editor has done. You can ignore it....but you don't need to post to blow the editor off. Just don't post at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your point is taken, Amadscientist. It was just a failed attempt to shut down the drama machine, — Dianna (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Above I said "Could somebody tell him to stop beating the dead horse that is those schools AfDs, and to not character assassinate?" That's what I want: I want someone he'd listen to to tell him to not bring up resolved schools AfDs in AfDs and Misplaced Pages-space threads about other topics, and I want him to not go off-topic to mention my AfD track record using a broken tool. And it isn't my first stop: the diffs above show I tried to talk to him on his page, and he just reverted it. I don't necessarily think he needs to be blocked, but he should probably sit out the rest of the Chili burger AfD, and maybe lose Twinkle for continually telling attempts to talk to him vandalism pbp 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions for everyone's amusement:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Danjel_and_school_AfDs.2Fimprovements

The point is my !voting delete. I have provided clear argument for my !vote, and Purpleback89 presumably just doesn't like it. The WP:COMPETENCE and WP:OWN issues I have raised there are quite relevant to the discussion. It seems to me that Purplebackpack89 is trying to discount my !vote by pointing out that I drew a comparison between a school article that should have passed and this article in a completely tangential discussion with another user.

In regards to my removing his posts on my talkpage, WP:BLANKING aside, I have previously asked Purplebackpack89 not to post to my talk page, here. If I choose to call it vandalism, what's the big deal? Is he upset about the {{uw-vandal4im}} I didn't put on his talkpage? Or my missing report on the issue to WP:AIV? Drama. ˜danjel  02:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There's some further comments by PBP and a response from me on my talk page: User talk:Diannaa/Archive 24#Danjel ANI. -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Making an accusation on the edit summary of vandalism that is NOT vandalsim IS a big deal DON'T DO IT! It is beyond uncivil as it uses the space, watchlisted by many editors, to publicise your accusation. It is not appropriate and is a missuse of the twinkle tool. If you want a place to agree with you that such behavior is "No big deal", you came to the wrong venue because it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW and without digging for all the diffs, PBP has a long history of combative and POV behaviour. It's hardly surprising that Danjel gets riled. However, they both need to learn that AfD is not the place for a slanging match and that the DRN is the place for this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Here here....accept for one small detail, is this a content dispute? I don't think so. Once a dispute goes to another venue, DR/N declines it until the other venue closes and....since this is about behavior on the AFD, it is NOT a content dispute and would not be accepted by DR/N. Only a dispute about the content itself would be accepted and not any discussion about behavior or conduct. I have to agree that it may or may not be surprising that Danjel got riled up......but his actions are unacceptable. Twinkle is not his/her personal sword of justice and making accusations of vandalism in the edit summary is beyond the pale and should NEVER be done EXCEPT when someone has actually vandalised his page. Just posting after a request to stop is not vandalsim. Its annoying, but it is not vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to respond to the baseless accusations Danjel posted (taking an editor with 12K edits to AIV? Really?) or the equally unsubstantiated claims by Kudpung. I would suggest we close the AfD already; the article's been sourced and expanded; and merger can be dealt with elsewhere. And this can't very well go to DRN if one party won't even let the other talk on his talk page. Danjel's gotta open up on that pbp 03:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I have asked for you not to post to my talkpage is because previous attempts to reason with you individually were spectacularly unsuccessful and only served to further promote your belligerent attitude. ˜danjel  03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, though. I read them, found them to be erroneous, and archived them. That's the difference between you and me. I consider you to be offensive and repetitive. You consider me to be incompetent and a vandal, which is a distinction I think very few people would agree with (because it's wrong) pbp 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. That seems an accurate summary for the most part. ˜danjel  03:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If a simple apology will suffice then I suggest Danjel simply make it and move on, but in my opinion he needs to be warned about accusing editors of vandalism, using Twinkle to remove non-vandal edits and for discussing the contributor and not the contributions on an AFD.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Without digging further into this, can i just say this: if I ask someone multiple times to stop posting on my talkpage, and they continue to do so, then yes, I MAY remove it and call it vandalism, and use whatever anti-vandalism tool I have. I can't report it to AIV, but I can report the harassment to ANI. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. I see nothing that describes an editor refusing to respect a request to stop posting on an editors talkpage as vandalism. Using Twinkle to lable such as vandalsim is an missuse of the tool. Yes, you may report it, but it still may not be vandalism. Vandalim has a very specific definition for Misplaced Pages and this is not it. Annoying, maybe even harrassment in some cases but it is NOT vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I ask you repeatedly to stop posting on my page. You continue to do so. That is certainly not a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and thus meets the definition. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not just by the posting. It has to meet the criteria for vandalism. Just not liking it does not meet that standard and is not written as policy or guideline anywhere. There are many things that it may meet to have an admin intervene but it is still NOT vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just removed your rather bizarre amendment to my words - please do not do that again. We're going of down a road rather bizarrely here, and it's detracting from the issue at hand, but I just showed how it DOES meet the definition, and it has been held in the past to be appropriate on the situation noted above, so do not chastise editors for having done it - you're wrong (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this is not assuming good faith. I was moving my own use of the same wording "Assume good faith" and simply made the mistake of deleting it off your post by accident. I accidently deleted your use of the same wording by mistake, thinking I was fixing my own. That is not an amendment, it would be a deletion and you need not go into a rant about "Bizarre" to undermine my posts. No, I am not wrong. There is no policy or guideline suggesting this to be vandalism. I have not chastised anyone. Please do not start becoming beligerent.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't delete anything from Bwilkins' post - you added something. GiantSnowman 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, your right. I see what happened now. I thought I was adding "Assume Good faith" to my own post! LOL! (not really funny I guess, but true).--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

When WP:NOTVAND specifically points out that harassment is not vandalism, it's not appropriate to call it such, as it most certainly does not meet Misplaced Pages's definition of vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific meaning, and is handled in a very specific way and harassment is handled another. Neither one is beneficial to Misplaced Pages in any way, but it serves no purpose to ignore Misplaced Pages's policy and call something vandalism that isn't. - SudoGhost 10:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been widely accepted that in the specific case where an editor who has been asked to remain off your talkpage continues to edit there, the tools can be used on your own talkpage, and it's not a violation of rollback or Twinkle ... let's not add more to what I'm saying. It's a very narrow point, not worth polluting this entire discussion over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you cannot rollback such edits or use Twinkle, but using rollback doesn't imply vandalism, and Twinkle doesn't automatically label them vandalism either; you have to specifically go out of your way to label such edits vandalism, that's something completely different than just hitting rollback on your talkpage. - SudoGhost 12:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to take one for the team, so I have mentioned Amadscientist's concerns here. As can be seen above, PBK and Danjel appear to have made peace with each other. I move that this discussion be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirt58 (talk • contribs) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle provides four places to click when looking at a diff in the history -- clicking on one of the three that doesn't say vandalism is far less disruptive (and timesaving) than getting into wiki lawyerish justification rhetoric using the vandalism one. NE Ent 12:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

True. Of course, I expect that you'll at least somewhat agree that if someone is edit-warring on your talkpage to re-include something they want there, and you have asked them not to post there before, that vandalism just might be a valid word :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you discuss it and get a consensus to change Misplaced Pages policy to say that, no. Misplaced Pages policy as currently agreed upon says that neither edit warring or harassment are considered vandalism. Harassment is harassment, not vandalism. - SudoGhost 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We have reasonably precise wikiwords for most not good behavior -- vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring have distinct meanings understood by experienced editors. I certainly don't get terribly concerned when a newbie hasn't learned the code -- I'll usually just mention it like it's not a big deal, but in the future... The question I try to ask myself before pressing submit every time is: Does this escalate, deescalate, or is it neutral to the overall WP karma? (Note to stalkers: flooding my talk page with examples of where I failed isn't necessary -- I said try not succeed -- and I've probably figured it out already where I didn't.) Another wiki philosophy tenet of mine is WP is not zero sum -- when I'm butting into someone's conflict I'd really like to see a win-win outcome; unfortunately lose-lose outcomes are frequently common -- which is my segue back to the specific discussion at hand: Danjel's reverting with a description of "vandalism" is a suboptimal response to pbp's disruptive posting to Danjel's talk page; I don't see any particular benefit to ranking their respective poor behavior. PBP should stay off Danjel's talk page, except for required notifications, and Danjel should stop using vandalism for reverting non-vandalism edits. 14:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

You're asking for too much. If the guy is badgering me on an AfD page, and drops a load of meaningless information in response to me else, it's perfectly acceptable to ask him to stop, regardless of whether or not he has asked me to stop. If he didn't want to communicate with me, he should stay away from all my edits period. It is worth noting that after he attempted to kick me off his talk page, he continued to post comments on to my talk page; to say nothing of continuing to participate in this AfD that appears to be some sort of grudge match for him. I cannot condone your calling good-faith edits and requests to stop adding useless information "vandalism" because they aren't; Danjel needs to be warned about this on his talk page and maybe even lose Twinkle for it. pbp 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Pssst ... you already know that Twinkle can no longer be removed - it's part of the basic interface (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proof (in the form of diffs) that I continued to post to your talkpage, pbp? ˜danjel  15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proven You proved it yourself, Danjel, in that link to my talk page archives above (User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 7). On January 24, you began reverting edits I made to your talk page, while posting a long diatribe on my talkpage. In the middle of it, I ask, "Why did you revert comments on your talk page?" You cited WP:OWNTALK, then continued posting on my page. If you did not want to interact with me, you would either have a) Stopped talking to me on my talk page, or b) Never have posted on my page in the first place pbp 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So the proof that I kept editing your page after "kicking" you off my talkpage is... That I kicked you off my page? Presumably after realising that you will never participate in any meaningful discussion I should have retroactively removed all my posts? ˜danjel  16:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should have at least stopped adding more to my talk page. If you didn't want to interact with me, you should have not commented on my talk page, nor in the ANI I participated in. The accusation that I "will never participate in any meaningful discussion" is ridiculous, BTW pbp 16:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Point of Order Per the top of WP:DRN This is an informal board for resolving content disputes on the English Misplaced Pages. My reading at this point is a conduct dispute that is bordering on levels of harassment, and therefore has the strong possibility of being sumarily closed on the grounds that this is not a content dispute. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on "just take it to DRN: I had done that several back in response to Danjel's pestering of Epeefleche and myself, and in regard to the first time he reverted me as vandalism (archive 19). That was closed as "take it to WQA or ANI". The ANI discussion was closed as "take it to WQA", while the WQA discussion was closed as "take it to ANI or back to DRN". pbp 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You raised the issue at WQA on Feb 10 (Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Danjel_and_school_AfDs.2Fimprovements). In that WQA thread you asked for me to blocked (or be asked to "step away from Misplaced Pages for a while"), topic-banned from schools and school related discussion, and forced into mentorship, in spite of the instructions at the top of WQA being that no binding decisions will be issued there. You received a less than positive response, mainly because of the fact that you wholesale ignored the WQA process.

While WQA requires a week long process, you then decided to move the issue to ANI on Feb. 12 (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel, because you weren't getting the mob-on mentality response. At ANI, yes, you were asked why you weren't letting the WQA thread run to term, a point for which you had no answer, editors surmised that you were out to silence an opponent and were told to "knock it off" because you were being a drama queen. I didn't even have to reply before it was closed.

Two separate questions: (1) why am I the only one actually providing links to evidence? (2) Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the situation? Actually don't bother answering. There's nothing of any significance or value in this thread but another attempt at high drama. In my opinion, there are significant issues for you of bad faith and competence, but I have tried to work these out with you before and failed. So I'm out. ˜danjel  23:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop calling me incompetent every other thread. Thinking I'm incompetent doesn't excuse your actions, and it's about time you learned that pbp 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of meatpuppetry

Danjel appears to be accusing me and Epeefleche (as mentioned above, the guy who started the school deletes he didn't like) of meatpuppetry here. That accusation is completely ridiculous; the only contact Epeefleche and I have had in months was a boilerplate notice I placed on his talk page to inform him of this thread. Meanwhile, he's been referring to me as a "kid playing on his whiteboard". I spent the last eight hours sleeping. He appears to have spent the last seven hours racheting up the drama. pbp 14:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another user, with whom you are associated, who is also renowned for a fairly high percentage of delete votes, particularly (excepting, of course, that he hasn't had to !vote on one of his own articles), comes in and almost completely echoes what you have said to the point where it could have been copied and pasted. Hmm. Yeah, as I said, I'm trying to leave that to one side and not go into it. He didn't contribute anything else, so... ˜danjel  15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why'd you bring it up? Why'd you use the term "meatpuppet" at all? pbp 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That diff says "leaving aside any possible WP:CABALism or WP:MEATpuppetry", which is bad, but it's not a simple, direct accusation of meatpuppetry. I think that everyone should stop ratcheting up the drama. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree with Bob's intent here. At the same time, of course as Bob indicates it is bad ... Just as saying "leaving aside any by editor x of his sister" would be bad. But not, as Bob points out, a simple, direct accusation of the heinous act. The point isn't that this rises to an accusation of anything heinous. The point is, as we are all aware, that the intent of the person "ratcheting up the drama" (as Bob puts it) with such statements may well be apparent. Perhaps the project would benefit from us all avoiding baseless "implicit" accusations of that type. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD on Eunice Panix and Administrator Mark Arsten

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

Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AFD

DRV on Eunice Panix

I'm bringing this to ANI because this is a clear cut case of an closing administrator not just ignoring the consensus of an AFD but imposing an outcome that had virtually no support. The Eunice Panix AFD was closed as 'redirect' in spite of just one editor in the discussion favoring that result compared to seven editors for delete. The reasons for deletion, that the subject failed WP:POLITICIAN, and the supporter of redirect using the argument WP:Cheap.

Me and and another editor who supported delete, voiced our concerns. Go here(Please note the administrator rudely archived this talk page discussion 13 minutes after somebody replied there. Note there were older threads and ones not anywhere as close to active left on the page making the archiving look like an attempt to muzzle further talk especially when you consider the talk discussion was put in an archive without a link on the main talk page) and here to see all the arguments. I'll quote two highlights from the first once.

Mark Arsten wrote- 'You were the only one to voice opposition to a redirect. Three people were amenable to that close. To go against the numerical consensus would require a strong argument. That a "redirect" would encourage the recreation of an article is not a particularly strong argument against a redirect, in my view.'

Niteshift36 replied 'You did go against the numerical consensus. 6 said delete. Just delete it. Get rid of it. Be gone. 2 said delete bet they didn't oppose redirect and 1 said redirect. Note that "not opposing" re-direct isn't supporting it. 1 even said it was pointless to do it.'

Mark Arsten said he went by the numbers, but the numbers don't support it. I suggested he let another administrator review the AFD for an outcome, but he ignored this and the thing went to AFD where the same editor is again arguing redirect and other editors don't seem to grasp that Mark Arsten totally ignored the consensus at AFD.

This shouldn't be in DRV now. I also will state that the AFD sets a very bad precedent. Namely that a closing administrator can override consensus. I also think the closing administrator was both rude and condescending in response to me and Niteshift. Yes he apologized, he still doesn't see how dead wrong the AFD outcome and that and his other behavior clearly brings into question his ability as an administrator....William 14:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit I was feeling a bit snippy on the day you approached me about that. I suppose I could blame it on too much coffee or something, but in any case, it was rude of me to cut you off by archiving. What I should have done was say "Please file a DRV, I believe our conversation is no longer productive". As I said earlier, you have my apologies. As to what to do with this redirect, I'll gladly defer to consensus at the DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the people mentioned here, I have to say that Mark apologized to me for his phrasing, conceeded that he could have said it better and, for my part, I consider it over with. I still disagree with his decision and reasoning for it, but since this is already in DRV, I'll continue to address that part there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• William, you have already opened (two days ago!) a deletion review about the article's close, you have already received Mark's apologies, what are you still looking for? Cavarrone (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

St Marys Church, Clophill

Can we get a CU to have a quick look at the history of this little article? I'd go duck hunting but I'm on the run. Also, edit war historians might get a kick out of the recent history. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I've blocked the lot. Thanks y'all, for your timely assistance. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) have blocked two accounts you had missed. You pretty much nailed them all. Salvio 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • There was more? One wonders how such edit-warring goes unnoticed! Thanks--and please see a note I left on Dennis Brown's talk page about the paperwork, and he'll send you the check for the two blocks. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'd reinstate this. I've had a look around, and it isn't something that's just being made up and put into Misplaced Pages. It's also not related to the content dispute over the film. If you want a university press that gives the exact date, the name Jenny Humberstone, and — yes — the skull on a spike, you could do worse than Ellis 2000, pp. 211–213. Indeed, there are several worse sources to be had, but they all seem to agree on the facts of the media coverage of this church from 1963 onwards.
  • Ellis, Bill (2000). Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813121703. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Let's discuss that on the talk page or, if you like, add the info (minus the sensationalist weblinks) to the article. Note that I have just added body snatching to the article. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This has spiralled a bit. Drmies and I failed utterly to resort to the talk page, now blanked, and Template:Did you know nominations/St Marys Church, Clophill seems to have sprung up. We've been visited by a bunch of flying pigs carrying a GPS receiver, and I woke up someone in the next county. But, per User talk:Senra#Churches in Bedfordshire and User talk:Drmies#St Marys Church, Clophill a Misplaced Pages writer capable of copying a drawing from an old book is still needed. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing (MMA)

There's some apparent off-wiki AfD canvassing at http://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/13govr/hi_rmma_im_one_of_the_folks_resisting_ note: I have no view as to the merits of the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting, but not really unusual. It doesn't look like Mtking has been notified of this and I'm not sure about who 'agent00F' is because the username is not registered. Slap the standard canvassing notice on the AFD and if we can figure out who the individuals are in this matter, have it brought to 3O or another venue. This really isn't major drama, but this is sounds like a personal matter and it does impact the wiki. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Agent00f is who you're looking for... Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified Agent00f Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've notified User:Mtking. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Of note there is a previous RfC/U regarding Agent00f and MMA based topics. See the mentioned previous visits to ANI in the RfC/U and their mainspace contributions when evaluating their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy. Recent AfD's have been plagued by socks. Look out, here comes another flood. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Off site convassing from those who want every single MMA event and fighter ever to have their own article on Misplaced Pages and damnation to anyone who would dare disagree! 76.205.1.40 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just finished reading the off-site thread. Wow - no wonder Mkting left. Agent00f absolutely made it clear that Mkting and a few others should be chased off so they can keep building their walled garden. Ah well - anyone who's tried to get in their way has been chased off so they certainly don't have any reason to stop. 76.205.1.40 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically. I had a look at the utterly laughable SPI report that some pro-MMA folk filed alleging that Beeblebrox (a damn oversighter) and Scottywong are socks of Mtking. In MMA-related discussions, I've seen numerous accusations that Mtking was some kind of "abusive admin" (his user rights log never show him having been granted the mop, of course). That a user as patient as User:Dennis Brown can jump headlong into the MMA disputes and come out of it reeling in disgust shows that something is definitely wrong. There was a RfC/U on Agent00f's behaviour and nothing has come from it. (I know, an RfC/U failing to positively change problematic behaviour? That's never happened before!) I have no idea what to suggest, but that this nonsense has continued for so long is ridiculous. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any current (or imminent) AfDs of MMA articles? bobrayner (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:MMA#Article_Alerts lists no items that in my mind would set the MMA flood to come and derail the conversation, however it has been observed on multiple instances that calls to arms similar to this one have derailed any meaningful progress in attempting to improve the guidelines so just as I'm one of the named individuals in "the axis of MMA deletionisim" I would strongly encourage the previous behavior be considered before this ANI vanishes into the archives as all the previous ones have. Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of the finding in WP:EEMLmessages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided. I'd support an indef for Agent00f on that basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Any chance that this might be a joe jobs?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Having read the external discussion it reads like Agent00f and does have the hallmarks of their writing style including the blind hatred of people who understand WP's policies. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll defer to your judgment. I didn't bother reading it myself, but thought someone should raise the possibility.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LGR -- It's possible, but looking at the posts makes me think that's not the case. That someone cares that much about this is of order unlikely, but that someone would care enough about this to set up such a detailed fake is of order unlikely^several. a13ean (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never personally participated in off-wiki canvasing, and I don't particularly condone it. Maybe it's fine for soliciting advice to make articles better, but I'm guessing that's not what we're talking about here, and I am no fan of cyber-harassment. However, the attitude towards MMA I am seeing here is the sort of thing that is making it very difficult to move forward. Meanwhile many excellent contributors to MMA articles have run away from all of the drama, leaving people who are heavily invested, people who are jaded, or people who outright thrive on drama (I assure you I don't fall into the last category). Meanwhile a very pleasant guy who also worked very hard on MMA articles like Oskar Liljeblad? Gone. Anyway I think very few people who have helped out in WP:MMA would object to outside editors asking them to trim the fat. However there's certainly a middle ground between cutting an extremely notable event like UFC on Fox 2 (was the first two-hour UFC card on national television, and was headlined by two title eliminators in addition to eight other matches that had ramifications in five different weight divisions), and an article on Wild Bill's Fight Nights (an actual promotion by the way). That casual Misplaced Pages users and editors with an interest in MMA have reacted to the top-down approach taken towards deleting MMA events as a malicious attack, is hardly surprising. If you were going to try and improve hockey articles, you'd maybe delete some articles on minor league players who never reached the NHL, not random NHL All-Stars, and while that's not a perfect analogy, it's basically what this feels like. Grouping MMA fans together and belittling them as a whole as I've seen all too often around here is furthermore not constructive and not a way forward. This has been going in circles for a year now and it's reached farcical levels. As it were, I'm all for reasonable discourse. I think the pro-MMA camp would be very happy to re-establish specific criteria of what merits individual articles, what merits omnibus condensing (omnibuses would mostly be for combining multiple events into single articles, by year or whatever), and what does not merit any sort of article. I believe this was tried very briefly last time but the two sides were miles and miles apart. If anyone here wants to try to settle this again by establishing clear criteria with an open mind for what is inherently worthy of an MMA article and what is required to support that, I would certainly be open to trying that again (probably I'm going to regret this, but again, I hope we can at least all agree we need a constructive path forward). Beansy (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Walledro

• Walledro (talk · contribs)

User:Walledro A SPA who seems intent since joining on BLP vios on this fellow David Hammond (director) for reasons known only to himself, I figure a ban is well overdue. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I've commented at the article talk page, 3RR noticeboard, and have asked for page protection. I imagine an account block will be seen as sufficient, but given the duration of BLP violations think a protection request has some merit. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the allegations at the talk page , it may be also appropriate to remove much or all of the section. It's inappropriate stuff, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to follow up, the user was blocked for a week for 3RR. a13ean (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy of Nyttend, who must be in a good mood. 99, I am sure you're keeping an eye on this. Keep us posted, you defender of the wiki. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Nah, I'm inclined to go back into hiding, for a few days or longer. But I do maintain that there's been a string of BLP violations that beg to be permanently expunged. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User Robbiann

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

Please note that Chris Natundi (and all variations thereof) are one and the same person- who in the UK is known as Chris Nathaniel. He has dual citizenship and refers to himself by different names. He was arrested and charged with murder in June 2012 along with 8 accomplices. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/agent-chris-nathaniel-charged-with-murder-of-teen-danny-oshea-7873604.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiann (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a single purpose account that has been adding unreferenced information to article Chris Nathaniel in violation of WP:BLP. This has been treated as vandalism, though it has perhaps been done in good faith. William Avery (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should update the article with the negative information, properly referenced. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The "negative information" is that the subject was arrested on suspicion of murder, but that suspect appears to have been a different person with the same name, earlier in the year. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it appears that this is the same person, take a look at the most recent story I could find in the British press, dated September 2012

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-court/neasden_man_denies_taking_part_in_revenge_murder_for_sports_agent_linked_to_usain_bolt_and_ashley_cole_1_1537147

the story also appeared in The Daily Mail here on June 26th. I can find no retractions of this story that two people have been conflated into one with a possible case of mistaken identity by the press. Among other information, the following is in common between the kilburntime story and the WP article: Mis-Teeq, NVA, Live the Dream Foundation, meetings with PMs Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, etc. Nathaniel and his business partner Paul Boadi along with their other co-defendants had a court appearance on November 23rd, as reported in this UK blog, which originally reported on the story in June and has since updated it in September and in November: http://www.duchessofhackney.com/2012/06/25/christopher-nathaniel-and-paul-boadi-denied-bail/ . --Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes I did look at a few other news stories, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of overlap between the activities of the murder suspect, and those of the guy in the article. If they are the same person, then the article has quite a few other deficiencies, for the descriptions to be that far apart. It's possible though. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources that confirm that the agent and the man arrested for murder are one and the same:

• London Evening Standard
• Court News.

There are also two WP articles about Nathaniel & Boadi's business ventures: NVA Holdings, NVA Entertainment. The two founders/principals being arrested for murder is referenced from multiple, published reliable sources and is notable enough to be included in the Nathaniel, NVA Holdings and NVA Entertainment articles. --Shearonink (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty amazing that it wasn't already in the article, given how long ago the arrest was. This kind of tells me that Misplaced Pages doesn't have the ability to maintain this sort of article any more (if it ever did). Thanks for chasing that down. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

I meant to reply earlier to this - I didn't realize the bot archives information so quickly. The problem is this isn't the first time such edits have been made. A while back, he created an article titled "Famous armenian murderers released from imprisonment," which was duly deleted. Just today, he readded the POV tag on the Armenian Highland article, again without any explanation or justification, and added it on other articles, including a work on Armenian history, dating back to the fifth century. On the Sumgait Pogrom article, he removed a link at the bottom of the website with the following explanation "I delete references to sumgait.info as it is biased propaganda source owned by Armenian guy in Yerevan." A source can be removed without making explicit mention of its author's identity but I think the pattern here has shown that Konullu isn't much interested in editing in a friendly environment but to edits certain articles and certain peoples without much to show for it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marshal Bagramyan, your comments are controversial. In the beginning you blame me for NOT GIVING explanation to my edits (the POV tag on the Armenian Highland article), later you blame me for GIVING explanation for my edits (Sumgait Pogrom article, removed link at the bottom of the website). I put POV tag only on articles which have only or mainly one-sided sources. I am not against all articles about Armenia, I only put POV tags to the ones that (I think) need this tag. I don't do vandalism, I don't delete the content or reliable sources either. I just contribute for improvement of those articles with more reliable sources. Best, Konullu (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Rapid fire AfDs by Probable Sockpuppet

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

I opened up an SPI for User:Puffmaster as a probable sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, but they are setting up AfDs so rapidly (see here) that I was hoping more eyes may be at ANI than SPI. Any help would be much appreciated with this serial sockpuppeteer. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks at the least like an editor with an agenda—and not a totally new editor. I speedy-kept one of the AfDs because the nomination was to merge the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your timely help. 72Dino (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is complete disruption. Can we rollback all of the edits and delete all of the discussions? Ryan Vesey 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw another "requested merge" in an AfD he made, so I NAC Speedy Kept it, if someone else wants it to actually run, feel free to revert me. This looks awfully little like a new editor, looks like either a vandal or a hater of a certain school.. Either way, not beneficial to the project to keep him around imo. I agree with Ryan that all of them should be SK as bad faith nominations with no basis in policy, but I'd rather let an admin do those SKs. gwickwire_edits 03:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan; if it were a good faith contributor, this might be different, but this is at best an SPA, at worst a sock, so I would concur with deleting the discussions. Go Phightins! 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Call me bold, but this is pretty obvious. I've blocked them since it's ongoing and I have no doubt. They should all be squashed; it's a repetition of what was happening last night on List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people and Polytechnic Institute of New York University. These nominations are sour grapes and an attempt at revenge on another editor. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The ones with no other contributors are clear delete, whether it be G3 or G5. The rest, I'll leave to others to judge, but I speedy closed the ones with votes. Monty₈₄₅ 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A few of the deletion discussions were closed; I deleted the rest (I think I got all of them). I tagged the user page; let's not waste any more words on this sad person. Only one question, I supposed--whether to keep the deletion discussions closed by gwickwire and Monty. 72Dino, thanks for keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm deleting and salting them: the record should not reflect this vandalism, and salt is always tasty. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Monty, they posted an unblock request. I'm biting my tongue. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, now he's not after articles, he's after your admin status! gwickwire_edits 03:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you might as well get rid of them, too. They're not really doing us any good and they were created as disruption. That said we keep the inevitable April Fools AfDs, so I could really go either way. Go Phightins! 03:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting them, but also no problem with keeping them.. I lean delete as pure bad faith nominations/borderline vandalism. gwickwire_edits 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all from a de-facto banned editor anyways (serial sockpuppeter, never going to be unblocked). Just delete them all under G5. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is true, as I see it; nonetheless, some of the articles written about various subdivisions of Cal Poly are in my opinion clear overcoverage, and need at best merging and quite possibly even deletion. I will be merging (or renominating) some of them. Drmies, I assume that you will have no objection to my over-riding the salt? And these are not the only colleges with this sort of puffery: the entire field needs a general clean-up. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've blanked the disruptive rambling from the sock's talk page. There's no justificcation for the personal attacks and attempt at outing (regardless of it being baseless/inaccurate). If it hasn't been done already, I would venture to say that it's probably not unreasonable for his talk page access to be revoked should he endeavour to repost or further spew disruptive blather (or even if not, given it's a sock). jæs (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Revoke talk page Could some fresh admin eyes stop by User talk:Puffmaster and take the appropriate action. Launching attacks against the blocking admin is not an acceptable user of talk page access while blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 16:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

CoI 'Keeps' in AfD?

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

Please take a look on this AFD nomination: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/24/7 Techies. I suspect CoI comments there, especially those that !voted for keeping the article. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 07:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag comments of SPA accounts as appropropriate. If you suspect socking, which is what I think you are saying, open an WP:SPI. LadyofShalott 07:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Demolition of Babri Masjid

User:Wantsallanger moved the page to Demolition of Babri mosque citing Misplaced Pages:WORLDVIEW, without any discussion or move request in the article talk page. Given that it is beyond the editor in question to revert his edit in this case and since it is an issue almost completely covered only in Indian media as the demolition of Babri Masjid, considering WP:COMMON NAME, I request an administrator to review the move and move the page back if necessary.

P.S. Since I'm in my mobile with poor internet speed, I might be late in notifying the editor. If anybody can do this for me, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Suraj T 15:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Notified the editor. Suraj T 15:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably wasn't a good idea to do that without discussion, but the conclusion to do so probably stems from Babri Mosque being the main page and Babri Masjid being the redirect. For redundancy and ease of use, the redirect does not seem to be malicious in nature. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "...given that it is beyond the editor in question to revert his edit in this case...". Anyhow, if the OP is contesting the move, then I think the natural course of editing would be to revert the move and open discussion on the talk page. Unless I'm missing something. Ditch ∝ 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Suraj. You can move the page back over the redirect and ask the other editor to start a discussion. No admin action is necessary here.--regentspark (comment) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried moving the page, but since the old page is a redirect, that has to be deleted first right? CSD R2 and R3 certainly doesn't apply for the redirect. WP:RFD? Maybe I am thinking too much here. How do I revert page moves? Thanks for the replies. Suraj T 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

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

There is a new user called LatinoLatino who is insisting on adding stubs (that no one will improve and that will never be more than stubs) into a template that is supposed to be a quick guide to the most important articles related to a topic. So far so good. I tried to talk to him through the template talk page. He didn't care. He seems to be very emotional and things turned bad when he said "I AM IMPROVING THE STUBS YOU IGNORANT!!! You are hindering my work by destroying navigation". I'm unwilling to pick a fight for so little, even more with someone who is so offensive and perhaps unstable. I was wondering if someone could do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the one who initiated talk at the template talk was me. Lecen is ignorant, since he seemed to not have read the articles in question.

• He wrote: "None of those are about provinces of the Empire ,but of present-day states of Brazil. This template is suppose to be simple, straightforward".
• I replied "Not true, they are not about the states!!! READ. And see TALK!! "
• He writes: "You should stop creating stubs that no one will improve"
• I replied: "I AM IMPROVING THE STUBS YOU IGNORANT!!! You are hindering my work by destroying navigation"

When I gave reasons for inclusion I replied "Yeah, whatever.". And attacks me with "I can see that you are new here." ... Not answering to the topic.

• I reply: ... have you seen Template:Portuguese overseas empire? Why can the Portuguese Empire have such a monstruos template, and the Empire of Brazil template can not have one or two lines for the provinces?

But instead of answering he runs like a little child to the board here. I think this is a content dispute and Lecen should properly discuss. If it is forbidden to create stubs, I would like to see the policy saying so.

His above statement about me "He didn't care." is a blatant misrepresentation. I did care, and replied to any of his comments. LatinoLatino (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, calling someone "an ignorant" (especially in capital letters) is a pretty significant personal attack. If you're going to get that hot-headed when someone challenges you, Misplaced Pages might not be the best place for you ... again, the whole internet might not be good for you. Or even a library. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a developing battle between both editors. I suggest that LatinoLation not use full capitalization in his edit-summaries. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest LatinoLatino not edit at all. He claims to work for progress but simply creates one sentence articles and changes names of existing ones. He seems to contribute nothing and only hinder the works of others, while having a truly fowl attitude. This is just my opinion, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I understand Lecen's concerns, I'm a tad surprised that he made the report. Afterall, he's in the process of retiring from Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know ... I'd like to think that even if I intended to retire from Misplaced Pages, I'd still find the time to report a hostile and antagonistic editor such as LatinoLatino. That he seems quite sanguine about his personal attacks suggests that he sees nothing wrong with making them, and that's not an attitude we can afford on Misplaced Pages. Ravenswing 22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have a look what caused me to use upper case. He simply was ignoring and refused to properly talk about the issue at the template talk. This all is a pure content dispute, there are easy ways to solve them. LatinoLatino (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Though it can be difficult at times in a dispute, it's best to try & control one's temper. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomas, aren't you the one whom I helped to find out that there were two entities called State of Maranhão, and that your placement of the article about an entity that does not exist for decades under that name, whilste there is a modern state Maranhão? Aren't you the one who created

• Category:Captaincies the Portuguese Empire and
• Category:Captaincies of the Portuguese Empire ?

Didn't you add a country template to an article that was about a set of entities? Didn't you violate WP policies by copy paste moving full articles? So maybe people have a look into what these two editors are into. LatinoLatino (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that User:LatinoLatino refrain from further personal attacks and name calling and work together with other contributers. That said, the rest of this is a content dispute and may be better brought up at Misplaced Pages:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I would also note that the opinion of User:Lecen appears to be without much merit as there is simply no way to know that "no one" will expand these articles and to suggest that they stop creating on top of the accusation that these articles have little to no value is what may have set off the other user. Civility is a two way street. While Lecen cannot be accused of a persoanl attack they may wish to reconsider their own approach when biting the newbie.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno -- "perhaps unstable" seems personal enough to me..Moriori (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I would agree that suggesting on an AN/I that they are avoiding a discussion out of a perception that the other editor is "unstable" would indeed be a personal attack as well as a method of undermining the editors work. Thank you. Good point.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And still no answer by Lecen or any contribution by Cristiano Tomas to the talk page Template talk:Empire of Brazil. Cristiano just made a hate-post here, and that's it. Maybe he is angry because I changed some of the stuff he did. But that is WP, not? LatinoLatino (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Yes LatinoLatino, I am a human that makes occassional mistakes, but I'd like to think that the couple mistakes I've made have been overshadowed by the contributions of actual content I have also made. This arguement you just pulled, really quite low and childish of you. Why not take a look at Portuguese nobility? or why not look at Portuguese Crown Jewels? or Kingdom of the Algarve? But instead you call me out on what is obviously a few mistakes I've made. I would look past your mistakes if there was anything else to look at, but all your edits, as I have reviewed, have been really quite meaningless. Sure, you have added templates to many articles that were linked to it, but you have created countless stubs and articles, all the while having a quite rude attitude (which I recognized I may possess at the moment). Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what administrative action is being asked for. "I suggest LatinoLatino not edit at all." Why? Just quickly reviewing his edits, I don't see anything particularly wrong with them (outside the unacceptable tone of his edit summaries). An "empire" is composed of territories, not generals. It is expected and quite natural to add them to the template, even if currently underdeveloped. His attempts to disambiguate Maranhao is spot on and necessary. I don't see anything particularly egregious or unproductive. He is a new editor, and yet instead of his participation being welcomed and his changes being discussed, he is greeted with reversals, dismissiveness and hostility and now an ANI asking for his block? What happened to WP:AGF? While there is a problem with the tone of his edit summaries, he hasn't exactly been greeted very cordially either. Walrasiad (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad - Thank you!!! Thank you for actually looking into the contributions. Too bad, I just removed the provinces from the Template:Empire of Brazil and used again the Template:Provinces of the Empire of Brazil (created by me). LatinoLatino (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it might help if everyone would realize that what may be a strong insult in English isn't necessarily so in the romance languages (as it appears that ESL issues may be in play here). That is not to excuse LatinoLatino's responses, but to put them in context. And, as pointed out by Walrasiad, he hasn't exactly been received in the way one would expect of more experienced editors; he sounds like a frustrated, bitten newbie from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that true? I believe that Lecen is Brazilian, and therefore a speaker of one of the Romance languages, and he seemed to find some of the comments offensive. Having said that though, I've learned from bitter experience that even in different English-speaking countries certain insults such as "fucking cunt" are interpreted in quite different ways. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Lecen is, he went away from content discussion and impromperly attacks other users. "And no, he isn't helping. He is clearly not improving, expanding or fixing any article. He is creati9ng a bunch of unnecessary articles that have no room to be expanded" - everyone can see how I did expand, improved and fixed articles. LatinoLatino (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? It seems you haven't done your hw. Lecen has almost singularly created many featured articles. Writing more content in one of the articles than you have added in your entire time here. But this is not on Lecen or my record as an editor, but yours, so why not stop bringing our edits into question. This is on your conduct, which has been below exemplary. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

POV and new/ip editors at White privilege

There is a new editor at White privilege, as well as a new ip editor, both pushing the same POV. This POV is nearly identical to that of an editor Apostle12 believed to have violated WP:CAN in the past, down to the focus on the lede paragraph and the insertion of mitigating language, which has been discussed at length on the talk page. I do not know if Apostle12 is involved, nor frankly do I have any reason to suspect them other than their previous seeming violation of WP:CAN. Regardless, the article could definitely use some experienced editors and/or administrators to help with this influx of new editors. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I don't now Apostle 12. I was interested in the topic long time ago, as it interests me how we can talk about white privilege of whites for example in Nazi camps compared to their Japanese allies-or state European colonialism where majority of European ethnic groups were not part of colonisation.--Questionentity (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I too have little reason to think that Apostle12 canvassed the new editors to the page. However, if anyone finds it relevant, here are diffs of Apostle12's apparent canvassing of other users: , , and . There is currently an RFC/U being drafted to address this and other problems.WP:RFC/U/A#First_RfC -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I asked three previous editors to consider rejoining the discussion. I was completely transparent about my request and announced it on the White privilege talk page. Ever since, Marie Paradox has been endlessly harassing me about "canvassing," referring others to a section she opened on my talk page. Now she raises it once again.

For the record, when I contacted the previous editors I had no idea what their edits had been, since I never looked. I knew only that they felt the article lacked sufficient criticism to be considered NPOV. As I recall, at least one editor had quit editing out of frustration because the entrenched editors kept reverting his edits. I had no idea whether or not their opinions were similar to my own; I knew only that, in general terms, they felt the article lacked balance.

One previous editor I contacted, Thucydides411, did rejoin the discussion a few days ago. His comments have been extraordinarily thoughtful, and he brings a high degree of scholarship to the article. He too has become frustrated by editors UsetheCommandLIne and Marie Paradox.

Apparently some new editors have arrived (Today? Haven't read their edits yet, since I decided to take care of this first.) I certainly didn't canvas them--I assume they aren't even among the three I contacted several weeks ago.

Perhaps UseTheCommandLine and Marie Paradox would do well to drop their intransigence and accept that the article as presently written, and especially the lede, is flawed. The article carries an NPOV tag for a reason. Any similarity between the new editors' work and my opinions may simply be a case of "great minds thinking alike."

UsetheCommandLine has also raised the possibility of me using sockpuppets. I will expect a full apology when he discovers how mistaken he is.

By the way, in early November UsetheCommandLine explicitly requested that I add a "Criticism" section to the article, so I spent a full evening doing so--refreshing some criticisms that had been deleted for poor sourcing, finding new sources, and adding some new perspectives. Immediately I was attacked by Marie Paradox, and then by Usethe CommandLine himself - for adding the requested section.

Following these attacks, and especially following Marie Paradox's endless nagging about "canvassing," I decided to stop trying to edit the article. My participation since then has been limited to monitoring Talk and commenting occasionally. Apostle12 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of the blue an editor with the same agenda, with a one track mind. --Inayity (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will note that after further consideration and a bit of looking at edit histories, I filed a request with WP:SPI anyway. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, when I reverted the disruptive edits, I got this little bit of cheek. Clearly this user is a troublemaker. Midhart90 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Spinner (wheel)

Please review this diff. I have not notified the posting editor of this thread. --Tgeairn (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Gragg, his socks, and his IPs have already been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor (self-identified as Gragg) has posted an apology at the article talk, using yet another IP. --Tgeairn (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked too. He has also posted the same missive on my tp. The apology is just another promo for his patent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin DRN suddenly closed, POV notice removed, edit approved

Sorry, how exactly does it happen that after such a long discussion, a sudden edit request is made and confirmed by a single party without reference to others' suggestions, and a dispute resolution case is closed? I refer to the sudden edit request. Allowing this to occur and closing the DRN is ridiculous mockery of any sort of fair process, and sidelines many contributions with points arguably far more relevant than those present in the (immediately effected, without discussion) changes proposed by a single party previously involved in the discussions. On this basis:

• I reject Amadscientist's sudden motion to close (and re-open!) this DRN, which is simply a waste of people's time. The discussion has not concluded.
• The proposals made should be discussed and integrated. Someone's new proposal, ignoring significant content resulting from extended discussions, should not have been suddenly approved by Mr. Stradivarius without discussion. Furthermore, the POV notice for the section should not have been removed without comment when this edit request was suddenly approved.

Sincerely, with a view toward integrating all of the excellent sources uncovered during the discussions. prat (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The edit was not made by a "single party". The draft was proposed by User:Smickles86 on 29 November, I responded 6 days later with a small change, it was agreed to on 4 November and then the edit request was put in, and the edit was made by an uninvolved administrator. I notified you of the discussion and you even commented about the discussion, stating that you "do not think starting a new section was a good idea", so it's not like you just weren't aware of the discussion and someone snuck up and threw up an edit request before anyone could respond, the edit request was done six days after the proposal was drafted, in a section that you acknowledged seeing. Did you try discussing this with a single person before bringing this here? This is a content dispute, and not only does it not belong here, I really don't think you should be complaining on ANI about a tag that you as an involved administator inserted without any discussion before or after into the fully-protected article, ignoring the request to revert it per WP:BRD. - SudoGhost 10:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Iranian weaponry article infobox image sizes

There seems to be a swath of IPs and single-purpose accounts intent on increasing infobox image size in Iranian weaponry articles from the standard 300px to 400-600px, blowing up the size of the infobox.

Users (that I know of) and example diffs:

• 114.108.196.217 (talk)
• 222.127.214.149 (talk)
• Thathgar (talk · contribs)
• Makoremusko (talk · contribs)
• Jkauhh (talk · contribs)
• Akarinahk (talk · contribs)
• Sakahalin (talk · contribs)
• Lkaria (talk · contribs)

Could an admin look into the matter? MKFI (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

1. "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.