Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:13, 14 May 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to talk page

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

A discussion regarding SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to this talk page was started today by User:Raeky who is not generally active on that talk page. The rationale was that although the topic ban from February 2013 on user:SuzanneOlsson allowed access to that talk page, no benefit from it can be detected, and it may in fact need to be viewed in the liability column given the cyclic nature of the discussion. I agreed with that assessment, and another user observed on that thread that since the ban Ms Olsson has not "supplied a single useful piece of information which would improve the article". And I agree with that statement too. In fact, as I stated there, we have not seen one WP:RS source from Ms Olsson. Not one. All we continue to get are statements like:

• Promotion of the movie trailer for her book

• Continued defense of original research as a strategy when blogs are questioned as sources

• Repeated source free discussion of the same inscriptions

And I again had to joke today that I was tempted to suggest a reading of WP:RS. I said that because as stated on the ban discussion before, back in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and was told to only use reliable sources by User:Paul Barlow and told about self-published items by user:Dougweller, etc. Now, it is just too ironic for me to weigh if I should suggest a reading of WP:RS again. We have all recommended that more times than I can remember.

The situation in February was this:

• The ban was put in place due to her clear conflict of interest on the page because she has self-published a book on it and it was agreed that she is just too close to the topic and treats it with a personal element.
• The idea of allowing talk page access was to obtain the benefit of information she may have which would help that page of the encyclopedia.

As user:In ictu oculi stated on the talk there, we have seen no benefit at all from anything Ms Olsson has typed since February, and none seems likely. Not "one piece of information" that can be used has been provided. Not one.

And I have come to see her closeness to the topic as a reflection of the fact that she believes the article is about her "private family tomb", as I mentioned on the talk there. I think Ms Olsson genuinely believes that she is the 59th descendant of Jesus of Nazareth, and according to The Times of India has even attempted to excavate his body in India to compare its DNA with her own to prove it. So it would be an understatement to say that she is too attached to the topic.

I think User:Raeky's suggestion that the topic ban should extend to the few related talk pages is a good idea. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Full topic ban extended to all pages including user space. — raekyt 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with this. It's hardly ever good to leave article talkpages as the only outlet for the energies of a topic banned SPA. If those energies are considerable, we're likely to get what we have here: the user owns the talkpage through insistence, repetitiousness, and passive resistance to Misplaced Pages's rules and principles. And, I'm sorry to be blunt, but please let's do it right this time, so the editor's agenda doesn't resurface at, say, Talk: Unknown years of Jesus and we have to open another thread about that in a month. This kind of attrition is very bad for talkpages and for productive editors. So, I support a topic ban from Roza Bal, related articles, and related talkpages. (Not sure about user space, though. Why, really? Have there been problems in user space?) Bishonen | talk 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

I am not aware of any issues in user space. I agree with your characterization, and wording of the ban extension. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support The editor needs to gain experience with other areas on Misplaced Pages to understand that relentless POV pushing on any page is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Bishonen is always very friendly, but I fail to see why leaving any wiggle room would be desirable, unless user space blogging on the topic is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• She does only one thing here. What's the point of keeping her around? Why is she not simply banned for self promotion, disruption, not getting the point, et cetera? Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - It's no secret that I've had some fairly in-depth discussions with Ms Olsson over a lengthy period of time and was jointly responsible for publishing her BLP at Suzanne M. Olsson. I know she has certainly been frustrated with the terms of her topic ban (having begrudgingly agreed to them in the first place) but has, as far as I can tell, complied with those conditions entirely. She has not edited the Roza Bal article directly, nor has she edited her own biography directly since it was moved to article space (though she has posted what is effectively an edit request on another user's talk page and on her own talk page). In both cases she has attempted to clarify why she made the claims she did and what she was attempting to do by making them. She has been given some advice about providing sources to balance the claims. It would be unfair, I think, to ignore her multiple clarifications and continue to claim that she "genuinely believes" something she has clearly disputed. I would urge editors to assume good faith and acknowledge that while her talk page contributions might not be particularly valuable, the editor in question is complying with the conditions of her topic bans and is contributing material that she believes is worthwhile. I think it would also be worth noting that during the period outlined above, Ms Olsson struggled with some major personal events that she fully disclosed to editors here. I've worked with History2007 in a number of contexts and I have faith that he wouldn't have brought this here except as a final resort. I totally understand his frustration and I'm certainly not suggesting this be swept under the carpet, so to speak. I only ask that editors and admins tread lightly and be conscious of past history. Stalwart111 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe she even remotely meets WP:GNG, and although she's kept to her topic ban, shes been nothing but disruptive to the Roza Bal talk page with 70 edits to it since the ban and nothing helpful or aimed at improving the article to our standards. — raekyt 02:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The question of her meeting WP:GNG was briefly discussed when the draft article was put up for deletion. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, GNG hasn't really be questioned with any depth. I've been keeping an eye on Talk:Roza Bal and while I can certainly see content there that would be frustrating, there are a number of editors making all sorts of claims and providing all sorts of commentary, balanced out by the ever-calm clarifications of a few. Certainly I would agree that the talk page has somewhat strayed from its primary purpose of improving the article rather than discussing the subject. But those extensive discussions, useful or not, have produced a fairly balanced and well-written article that deals fairly analytically with a subject about which a good many people get very emotional. Given she is obviously not contributing directly to the article (per her topic ban), would it not be a better option to simply ignore her posts/threads and deal with those from others that you believe to be worth your time? If there's "nothing helpful" in her suggests/requests/comments why not ignore them? Change the timing/counter on the archive bot and if nobody responds within a few days, the thread will disappear. Stalwart111 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The AFD was for a non-article space page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson, and therefore was a XfD, so not nearly as well looked at as an AfD would of. The sources stem from a single event as best I can tell, where she got herself thrown out of a country for trying to dig up some tomb to prove it was Jesus or something, hardly "in depth" coverage that meets WP:GNG. Theres a reason why we don't let people continuously disrupt talk pages see: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:HERE, WP:COMPETENCE, etc... — raekyt 02:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, as I say, it was briefly discussed, but certainly not in depth. The articles are a bit broader than just that one event and cover a number of visits, to different countries and at different times, and some are more about her books, from memory. Anyway, that's not really the point of this discussion but I'm more than happy to have that discussion with you elsewhere. As I said, I can certainly agree that the talk page has strayed from its purpose, but I don't think it is entirely the fault of one person and I'm not convinced that good faith attempts (even misguided or mistaken ones) should be considered disruptive. Stalwart111 03:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the BLP issues about Ms Olsson's own Wiki-page Suzanne M. Olsson have no impact on this ANI thread. A user may meet WP:GNG and not be active on Misplaced Pages, or not meet GNG and be active. So I think the GNG issues are probably not part of this thread which discusses the Misplaced Pages editor as an editor not as the subject of an article. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed; a bit of a side-track from my commentary in response to your thread but I don't think that was User:Raeky's intention in raising it. I've had my say about the issues raised here and am more than happy to discuss the other stuff somewhere else. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, but regarding the statement that she genuinely believes she is the 59th descendant of Jesus, I read her last response from today on the Roza Bal talk page now, and in one place she admits that she wrote a letter to claim that she was the descendant of Jesus in order to get into the tomb, then that she recanted it later. Is that really so? If it is, then it will look even more confusing if that turns out to be a fake claim admission. Or is it the recant that should not be believed now? Pretty confusing overall, I should say... History2007 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, confusing perhaps, but I think that is exactly what she has said in a number of places. She made certain claims in the past to gain access to a site she believed was under threat. Those claims were published in reliable sources and so have been mentioned in her BLP here. She has since suggested that such claims were only made to gain access to the site and to give her efforts to protect it some legitimacy. I know she is working on publishing a full account somewhere to correct the record and has, in the meantime, attempted to explain it for the benefit of fellow WP editors and has apparently given a partial account in her most recent book (which I have not read). Stalwart111 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, now the situation is that the claim was made up, and she has now retracted it. Between you and me "the end does not justify the means" in my book, but that is another story. And this whole real/fake claim issue may be beside the point here anyway, and may relate to her BLP not this thread. The way I see it is that user:Drmies summarized the situation pretty well in just 2 lines above here. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, I understand that. I suppose my original point was in response to the suggestions (including the one you highlighted) that this was a matter of WP:COI/WP:PROMO rather than WP:NOBLECAUSE/WP:GREATWRONGS. That doesn't justify anything, but I think that Ms Olsson genuinely believes she is contributing productively and her contributions come from a place of good faith and misunderstanding rather than disruption and malice. The community still needs to deal with everything as it sees fit, I'm only asking that they take some of the context into account. We're talking about someone who retired 20+ years ago and who (despite lengthy discussions) still doesn't understand how WP works. Her responses to this thread in various places should be proof-positive of that. Competence is required and a lack of it is very frustrating. But let's please deal with it in that context, rather than suggesting a overly passionate retiree is here to break WP. Stalwart111 03:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think we agree on the "someone who despite lengthy discussions still doesn't understand how WP works" part. The long and short of it is that this editor provides no benefit to the encyclopedia, as user:Drmies summarized. She just repeats the same source-free statements again and again and again. This editor still thinks "she is the source". How can anyone deal with an editor who after 5 years still thinks they are the source? The only way to deal with that is a ban. That is all. History2007 (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Response - I am deeply saddened to see that all this is the direct result of harassment by History007. He has followed me relentlessly, always making negative comments to or about me or anything I contribute... and he undermines every contribution to Roza Bal page because apparently this is not in accordance with his personal religious beliefs. Just recently he is editing at least 14 pages on Christianity, a topic which he seems to regard himself as an "expert" whose opinion must prevail. Further, in his long rant above, he refers to my belief that "I am 59th descendant from Jesus"- knowing full well that I explained this in careful detail- why I made the statement in kashmir, and why I retracted it as soon as I left Kashmir... In other words,,,he is misleading all of you and not including all information. About my not contributing "anything valuable" on the Roza Bal page, that too is untrue..as seen by the comments from other editors. I have made several attempts to contribute valuable info, much of which History 2007 shoots down...I dont see this from any of the other editors there...I submit that History2007 has an agenda...a personal dislike of me that makes it impossible for him to be fair or impartial. Please ignore him. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 2:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Please ignore him"? Judging from some of the above comments, it doesn't seem like a simple one-sided attempt at smearing you. Doc talk 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When I was in Kashmir seeking the DNA, it took many months of planning and meeting with many officials. The final permission came after I had four meetings in the Cheif Minister's office, Farooq Abdullah. It was nothing we approached lightly or carelessly. Great thought and careful planning went into every phase. It was only due to the indidscetion of one local chowkidar who thought he was left out of backsheesh that the negative versions started being fed to the newspapers by him and him alone. He can also be seen in various documentary films bashing me, bashing Ahmadaddis..and generally ranting for fundamentalism to prevail. That was the time the letter was written to try and regain the tomb from his influence...however he had a lot of local relatives, young males who would then back him up and threaten anyone who approached the tomb. This is the same man who was selling off tomb artifacts to Pakistani agents. Holger Kersten bought a piece of carved wood relic from this same man..who began regarding Roza Bal as his own personal ATM machine. .had there been no intervention, the entire tomb would be destroyed by now. There's a big difference in the way these events are portrayed here through ignorance, and what the truth is. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well at least thank you for not suggesting that I am the person in Kashmir who asked for undue amounts of backsheesh. But I did not know that your claim to be the 59h descendant of Jesus was fake. If it was fake, my apologies for assuming it was genuine. But in any case, as you can see on the talk page there I did not start the thread that suggested the ban extension and I was not the only person to say that we have not seen one piece of useable information. And as can be seen from the lengthy new discussions there which started after this ANI post and have taken place without my participation, other users are still asking you for sources. Given that after these 5 years of discussion on sourcing in Misplaced Pages your last response today starts with "I am the source" when you are asked about a source, I will have to leave it at that. I do not really see the point in asking for a reading of WP:RS again. History2007 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for action due to lack of opposition It seems that the suggestion for ban extension is not getting any opposition to speak of. From what I see, myself, Raeky, Bishonen, Johnuniq and Drmies are in favor of extending the ban and no one (excluding the user in question) has actually opposed it. Stalwart111 has been sympathetic about her intentions, but even he agrees that after 5 years of policy explanations, Ms Olsson still does not know how WP:RS works. This became clear again today, after all this, when we had to explain that Misplaced Pages "needs sources" and we can not operate by emailing people to ask their opinions. After 5 years of explanations, and repeated discussions, we have had to explain WP:RS again today, more than once. I hope this will be the last time I have to suggest a reading of WP:RS in this case. The fact that this is user is far too close to this topic to be involved in it, and the lack of familiarity with basic policies such as WP:V and WP:RS after 5 years is obvious. I suggest action should be taken to extend the ban as suggested, given that there is no opposition to it to speak of after 2 days on the noticeboard. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support extension of topic ban to all pages per Bishonen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ...excepting her own talk page is OK with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but leave access to Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson and own Talk page - with regret Suzanne just doesn't seem capable of relating to the most basic concepts of sourcing, though it's the libelous attacks on an Indian government official that are a more immediate concern. Any utility Suzanne might early have had in identifying (I use the term very loosely) leads and clues has been made redundant by the appearance of a capable Urdu-speaking Ahmadi believer User:Dr Ali on the article talk pages. However I believe Suzanne should retain access to her own talk page because of the BLP. And yes the BLP passes GNG, just as Suzanne's German and Spanish esoterist equivalents do... ironically more GNG than the sober German and Swedish academics pouring scorn on the wild misuse of Arabic and Persian sources. But that's how GNG works. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Weak oppose, but with an understanding of the frustration felt by supporters of the extension. She is frustrating, absolutely, and you only have to go back and read some of my earlier conversations with her to see that I, too, have been incredibly frustrated with her at times. I supported the original topic ban, but I'm a bit at a loss as to what it is we're trying to prevent here, given the point of sanctions is to prevent damage to WP, not to simply punish those we're frustrated with. I get it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway, H2007 and I had a good chat about it above and I think people know where I'm coming from, so I'll leave it at that. Stalwart111 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that other editors such as myself get so frustrated with having to deal with "policy free" and "source free" discussions for ever that they just say: "Forget it. Just forget it. This website is too frustrating to use, there is no point in wasting my life here when policy means nothing, sources mean nothing and the value of time means nothing. Let me move on." Then the web site will be inherited by those who do not understand, or follow policy. That is the problem. History2007 (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I'm not quite convinced that the semi-religious ranting of a retiree that most people have ignored anyway, will be enough to drive good editors away from WP, but hey... And as much as those discussions might have been "policy free" and "source free", the article those discussions have produced is pretty good, well-sourced and policy-compliant. So that long and frustrating road has arrived at a productive destination. But as I said, I get where you're coming from, it's just not my first-choice course of action. Stalwart111 09:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my view/note above. I wasn't excited about extending a topic ban to protect a talk page or quell the frustrations of a few experienced editors. But the edit-warring in article space is a step too far, even for me. Stalwart111 21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support extension of topic ban to main space talk pages - as the Admin who first implemented the topic ban back in February 2013. I thought that allowing talk page access would be constructive - I was wrong. GiantSnowman 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support extended ban. The diffs show substantial problems, GiantSnowman's demonstrating the failure of a previous effort, and Suzanne has turned into Randy in Boise apparently, judging by History2007's statement. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per Nyttend and the picture on the right. The last thing we need is more WP: RANDYs trying to insert this kind of problematic material. Herr Kommisar 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a problem with extending the topic ban for Roza Bal and related articles, but I just wanted to clarify that this should not include the Suzanne M. Olsson, should it remain. It was raised at WP:BLPN that this topic ban would extend to commenting on the BLP about here, including at the noticeboard . This is something I'd strongly oppose, as banning a subject from raising concerns about an article about them on-wiki, especially at appropriate noticeboards, isn't something we should make the mistake of doing. That said, I don't have any issue with extending the topic ban in other areas. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case, and as I stated on the Afd for that page, WP:ABOUTSELF maybe her best avenue for pointing out things about her own entry. So it would make sense for the extended ban to include all Roza Bal related topic and talk pages, but allow for comments about her own bio on her talk page. History2007 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support extension of topic ban to all of wikipedia Someone said: "Suzanne just doesn't seem capable of relating to the most basic concepts of sourcing", so why just the topic ban exactly? It looks like this editor is a completely time sink, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, the initial topic ban was just on the topic partly because no one expected the user to work on anything else anyway, and it seems unlikely that the user is going to go and work on the article on the Louvre anytime soon, so it has the same effect from a pragmatic standpoint. History2007 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

She's now starting to edit war over blanking her biography page because there's reliable sources that don't portray her in a positive light. So... either extend a topic ban to also include a page on her, or blocking may be in order.. She really doesn't get sourcing. — raekyt 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you just had to yet explain WP:RS again in response to the "wrong is wrong" comment suggests that the extended ban plus some block may be called for. The user is told that she has breached the ban, and that the source is WP:RS and still says "wrong is wrong". In the original ban discussion, user:KillerChihuahua said that the ban was all about WP:GREATWRONGS and I think she was pretty observant early on. There is no hope for a remedy or rehabilitation here. However, given that this proposal was for an extended ban, I think it is better to keep it as such, for it will have the same effect as an indef, but will have been done through a community decision by consensus. And consensus is uniform and unopposed now that Stalwart111 changed his vote. So I suggest a closure with an extended ban based on consensus now to cut back on drama. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Should also point out that she in the past used User:Kashmir2 to edit from 31 December 2005 to 5 July 2010, she created User:SuzanneOlsson on 21 May 2008 and made her first edit then too, so she effectively broke WP:SOCK and was contributing to the same articles at the same time with two separate accounts. — raekyt 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In fairness that was before she knew what sockpuppets are, and had other accounts it seems - NewYork-something. But that is old news. But let us face it, there is clear consensus for an extended ban here. So that is the easiest way to end the drama that has now erupted on her talk page and own article. This is just eating up life... And we all know where it is going to go. History2007 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea some more info at: User_talk:Katchu2. Just saying, I found it when I was digging up the old AFD's for her bio page to add to the talk page list. — raekyt 22:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To add that discussion was in 2008, she continued editing on both accounts until 2010, even though in 2008 she was warned about sock puppets..... just to point out that slight discrepancy there with "not knowing" — raekyt 23:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right... There seem to be more skeletons buried there than I realized... pun intended... But then no recent sock puppet activity has taken place. And I told her about WP:MEAT sometime in the recent past, so I think that aspect may not be as prominent as the need for the extended ban (including talk pages) else the drama on her own bio talk page will persist as long as that Times of India article is mentioned anywhere. And I think she may not yet know that the same link exists as item 7 in the lede of the Roza Bal page. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this was all raised previously - I remember there being a discussion. WP:COIN I think, but I'm trying to find it. The claim, I think, was that one of the accounts was registered by her grand-daughter, then taken over by her when the grand-daughter stopped editing, then she started her own. So one of them was a joint account then it was explained that shared accounts was a no-no and she has stuck to her named account since. But yeah, pointless drama years after the fact. Time for someone to close this. Stalwart111 23:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, except I do not know why you need to spend effort digging up her old accounts. Unless you want DNA of course... But I agree that this aspect is not important now and it is time for the whole thread to close with an extended topic ban based on the clear consensus. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha. I don't think anyone is digging, just that Raeky found something that had previously been raised. I'm just looking for the discussion to recall what people had to say about it at the time. But there's probably not much point. Stalwart111 23:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. Interesting to see how your minds work when making decisions. History2007, You made misleading and untrue statements above- to persuade others to join you in this ban. Example one: You said I did not use sources and you reprimanded me for emails as a source. You made that accusation on the Roza Bal page, knowing full well that I sent an email to Joe Cribbs asking where the published sources were for use of the word Asaph. It was highly relevant to that discussion. But you preferred to blow it off and demean me again. There are other examples, but is this about getting to the truth or about supporting your own POV? Yes, I am the source. How dumb is it to write a page about me yet say that I cannot be the source? I told you the man who contributed to TOI was not being truthful. You say the TOI takes precedence over the truth- knowing full well that newspaper articles are only as good as the source. I am not the source of that information. Mr. Amin is. You damage not only me, but those who would come in the future to Roza Bal for research and perhaps for DNA. That's why I fight so hard and risk so much. It's not about me, nor my book. Is Wiki about the truth? I haven't seen much of that when History2007 comments about me- follows me around Wiki to make disparaging remarks no matter what I say or do. History2007, You have not portrayed the facts honestly, nor even the conversations between us. You have belittled me and discredited me at every opportunity. I have placed this issue up for resolution at one of Wiki's resources for Biographies- I trust we can expect their response soon.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised how long some of these threads on this board stay open without any admin action being taken, this one should have been dealt with a day or more ago as it just keeps getting worse. Ms Olsson has now used her user talk page to call someone named in the Times of India article about herself "a liar and a thief". There needs to be some admin intervention!Smeat75 (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And now she is making apparent legal threats "if I am blocked from correcting it or commenting on the talk pages then I will pursue this further'.Smeat75 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea that's clearly a legal threat... — raekyt 03:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ms Olsson is leaving messages in various places begging, demanding that the article about herself, Suzanne M. Olsson, be deleted immediately. I put an "admin assistance needed" template on her talk page for her, as she was not sure how to, but I do not know if that will actually get an admin to pay any attention to this. I do think an admin should try to deal with this situation.Smeat75 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's only a legal threat if she intends to pursue it through legal means. That is not a legal threat if she intends to use OTRS or another, similar, avenue. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that she hasn't taken the time to learn the basics of how wikipedia works from her own statements, it's HIGHLY unlikely she meant OTRS... but still.. it's a vague legal threat, but still can easily be construed as one. — raekyt 04:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And unless this entire thread is concluded soon, there is a serious chance that the person buried at Roza Bal (whoever he may be) is going to dig himself out, walk to the WMF chapter office in Delhi and make demands of his own... History2007 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked on AN for an admin to take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, and also think a decision here is due. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure based on consensus

This thread started on May 6, 2013, i.e. one week ago and has seen no activity to speak of in the past 2 days. The 12 users who have expressed opinions have clear consensus, with no opposition now. Admin action for the conclusion of this thread based on user consensus will be appreciated. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Constantly being reverted by article owner

I uploaded an image for the Chloë Grace Moretz infobox photographed this year, and was instantly reverted by Oz Steps for this reason: "Photo changes should be dicussed first on the talk". I understand this situation on, maybe, a featured article, but on a C-class article, where the lead image was already heavily damaged by oversharpening and is not that flattering of an image, I see no problem in doing what most editors do on Misplaced Pages: improve the article, move the article forward, keep it updated. He did start a discussion on the talk page, which is great: but my image should have remained in the infobox which would have helped (possibly) draw people to the discussion on which image is more suited as lead image. There is absolutely no rush in removing my image since it doesn't break any BLP protocol. I responded to the discussion on the talk page and waited a day. No one else participated in the discussion; so I re-added my image to the lead, someone else came along and moved images around which goes to show (to me, at any rate) that the lead image was not problematic and not even worthy of discussing on the talk page as controversial. Oz Steps returns today and reverts my edit. Ok, if I was vandalizing a page, then I would understand this constant harassment. Why am I using that word? Because this is not the first time. In the last example, I took my allowances of up to two reverts (I was not going to push three). But this user is hindering my editing; it's crampin' my style. I want it to stop and I am now convinced that a third image I am waiting to upload would be reverted yet again by Oz Steps. So I'm simply not going to add it at this time. Please note that on Oz Steps's talk page, User_talk:Oz_Steps#Dakota, a user named User:Mareklug basically agreed that Oz Steps is owning articles. I have no idea what to do; I'm coming here for advice. Both Oz Steps and Mareklug will be notified of this discussion (Mareklug only because he or she was mentioned; they do not need to participate in this discussion). – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 03:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mareklug is a happy he, as in Marek Lugowski. :) I confirm and reaffirm what talk:Keraunoscopia is complaining about. Furthermore, I had exactly this run-in with Oz Steps on Liv Tyler, see talk:Liv Tyler#New Image for more substantive assessment; I care not to repeat myself. Naturally, I, too, will notify Oz Steps of this discussion independently of Keraunoscopia's notification, to fulfill notification requirements. --Mareklug 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This certainly seems endemic with the user, who I note does this so often that he frequently copy-pastes his revert summary ("Undid revision 552671906 by XXXX (talk), This picture since YYYY, please, do not change infobox image, before opening a discuss on talk page"). I'm also, well, sceptical regarding the babelbox on Oz Steps's user page where he claims to be a native English speaker right across from an assertion that he frequently "retrieves vandalism" from pages. This is well-intentioned, but he really shouldn't ever be re-reverting after someone has engaged him on the talk page. I'll wait to see if he responds here; otherwise I'll leave him a note to that effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I only brought up two examples (or "run-ins") in my opening discussion, but this has happened three times—I'm including this so to prove I'm not jumping the gun too much. The very first time, on 22 April, was on Rachel McAdams's article here. This time, I was the one who started the discussion on the talk page and someone even spoke up saying the newer image should be in the infobox, but I didn't know Oz Steps at the time or his habitual pattern. The McAdams article is GA and I was very willing to back-down in this case. I noticed his userbox about being a native speaker of English and it's more than obvious this is not the case, but I didn't think it important to mention. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 16:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from some talk page edits, it seems as if the vast majority of this user's edits are reverts. Jauerback/_dude. 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm sorry for what happened here, My interests here in Misplaced Pages, Is the appearance images Infobox in article, I am not alone in doing for this, there are many users do this. Like what is written here next to the picture, Written: DO NOT CHANGE IMAGE WITHOUT A WP:CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE; POLICY FORBIDS CHANGING IT WITHOUT ONE.

And My interests also retrieve vandalism in article, There are a lot of anonymous users, they are vandalism in article, such as what happened here. And I've retrieves it. Thank you for this talk. I'm sorry again. --Oz Steps (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Oz Steps to the best of my knowledge there is no policy that mandates consensus prior to replacing/updating an image or information in an article see Be Bold and WP:DRNC (while not a policy it is a great essay in the subject) --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This no policy, was used from others users, before I register in Misplaced Pages. Well then, I'll just add free image from Wikimedia Commons to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for this information. --Oz Steps (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That was added rather recently, in fact. Total fabrication of "policy", apparently meant to scare off younger editors who wouldn't know any better; and in this case, the misinformation spread. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 02:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oz steps assistance is often useful. Even necessary with photo issues caused by IPs. Though other edits do not make sense, like this one which removed her father from the parents section of the infobox. Which is correct and was cited and this removal was done by manual editing. This photo matter is a concern. Even bad pictures were replaced with likely more controversial ones as seen here. Or this matter. Though this all caps attempt to control the images are not alone as the same text was inserted at Dwayne Johnson page. But I think a pressing concern to inform the user of proper vandalism reverts are necessary as it took 3 edits to undo this simple mess. Even personally re-adding vandalism back in before undoing the rest of the changes. First undo, second. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if it is consensus across the WP:BLP space, but it is certainly common practice that new images must be discussed before changing them in the infobox. It is fine to add images elsewhere in the article, but the infobox demands a consistency and high quality that can only be maintained if people are courteous enough to establish consensus for a new image before it is changed. The old image represents existing consensus. A revert shows that you do not have consensus. Per WP:BRD then you are bound to bring up your issue on the talk page thereafter and establish that you have a right to your revision. This demand for discussion is simply a courteous way to head off WP:BRD's need for a B-R cycle first. What I see in my work on BLPs is that frequently a redlinked or IP user will come in and change the image to one that is either a blatant copyvio, or very poor quality, or both, or even some kind of malformed link to a random web image, and they get reverted. Sometimes, the submitter is a regular, who has taken the image legitimately, and wants the vanity points of having "HIS" image in the infobox. It may be good quality or it may not. It seems that courtesy of an advance discussion would enable other users to evaluate the image for copyright status, quality, and appropriateness for the infobox. If this procedure is not already consensus, then it should be. But we should not be having this conversation here, because it is essentially a content dispute. Perhaps it is time to bring it up on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or something, for a centralized discussion to build consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome to bring up this topic as a general discussion on the BLP/Notceboard, but please don't hijack this thread: We are here to gently though firmly influence the user in question to cease owning infobox pictures in every article he touches, especially in the name of chucking the best ones we have for the latest ones chronologically. Failing that, we are here to have him blocked indefinitely as a disruptive editor. Yes, it is that serious, and there is no improvement as of this writing. --Mareklug 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Side question. Oz says xhe "retrieves vandalism". Does that mean xhe "rescues vandalism", or, as I suspect, "reverts vandalism".--Auric talk 20:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The user is obviously not a native English speaker, and his usage is downright broken English. Yet his babel infobox insists he is en-n. This, too, needs addressing. --Mareklug 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The harmful speech of Norden1990

I want to inform the admins about the uncivil speech and dubious agressive POVs of User:Norden1990 according to WP Conduct policy WP:NPA. What is considered to be a personal attack? 1) Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. He recently called me in edit summary a "chauvinist user" , called my behaviour as "hysteria" and named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist . When I complained about this behavior on another thread , Norden1900 was not sorry at all, but on the contrary: he replied that "I reserve the indicatives about you" + he wrote "I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's." which is in fact similar to banned User:Stubes99 edits. He also called the insertion of referenced text "vandalism". User:Norden1990 also used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor on my Talk page . This looks like a some form of ongoing harassment. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia) from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) . User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. Some unconstructive discussion with this user. User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person he wrote: "Slovaks had not yet existed." which is obviously an attack + also deleted info, Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár (Note: see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica..., it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity) or another nationality was not relevant... edits: ... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." and here deleted name Oradea or . Indeed quality of the article first. Or his contradictory edits >. In the past he also had this kind of unfriendly speech:

• "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak." .
• "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration"
• "It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself"
• "typical product of Romanian chauvinism"
• "So you can go to hell together with your threatening."

.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not civil behavior, but I don't think there is much that can be done at this time other then DRN. The edit of Rightful ruler which placed a false banner on the page and was possibly the worst offense here. It would have to go to WP:SPI, but Norden's edit warring has resulted in locking of a page before and this problem has existed for months. While not terribly disruptive, these are minor personal attacks and a warning about personal attacks should have been issued first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Norden1990 needs a NPA warning, and probably a block. There are some absolutely inappropriate statements there, regardless of whatever the OP has said in the discussions. I'm not inclined to look deeper into it, and would leave that to an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can see the most recent act of Omen's crusade against me. Dear Omen, do you think, the article of Upper Hungary is also a racist and pejorative anti-Slovak article, because it contains the word "Felvidék"? Felvidék is a Hungarian word, which means "Upper Hungary". This phrase marks the area, hich is today's Slovakia and which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 9th century to 1920. "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century" - historical fact, They were nobles (natio Hungarica) and serfs, the modern national consciousness evolved in the early 19th century.

The other issues that you brought up again has already been discussed. I would like to ask the honorable court-martial that compare the edits of Omen and me. I hope you will see the difference. Since Omen is editing, there is only problem with him. Edit wars, POV edits, unsourced and malicious edits, there is need only look at his discussion page. I can only repeat myself about Omen's attitude and behaviour. Bye --Norden1990 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen's conduct doesn't excuse your own. Nationalist debates require cool heads to resolve, and calling other editors names is not conducive to that. If you keep a lid on your own behaviour it makes it that much easier to report the misdeeds of others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You used again provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor (me) on my Talk page or in this discussion . It was not in the article Talk page about "Upper Hungary". Nevertheless, also in the main article is: Any use of the word Felvidék to denote all of modern Slovakia is considered offensive by Slovaks.

I also dont understand your dubious POVs, you wrote : "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit" and then here you edited article with this term + deleted Austrian Empire. It looks like some form of poor provocation.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My conscience is clear. I always strived for NPOV in my edits, and it is not my fault that Misplaced Pages is unable to filtering out nationalist editors, who call into question academic publications and historiographical works. I already created almost 900 articles (true, some of them are stubs), contributed in development of much, I do not think that I'd be in such a troubled editor. In contrast Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources, get involved in edit wars, and probably is not a coincidence that he was banned already at few times. I do not see a fault with my behavior. I think (and obviously I only proclaim my own opinion) Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult. It looks like that is enough to accuse someone and the person in question is banned forever. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've searched the archives and I noticed that is not the first time when Norden1990's name appears on this noticeboard. Four months ago the administrator User:Sandstein raised the possibility of a topic ban / other sanction for Norden1990: 181.48.15.98 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi (note: a sockpuppet), first login and after that we can discuss, and if you see this incident, I was found not guilty. Omen reported me several times, but that does not mean that they should be taken as a precedent for continue this witch-hunt. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always strived for NPOV in my edits... > this is only based on your personal thoughts, but your edits say something quite different.

I already created almost 900 articles... > And what is point? Some users created 10.000 articles..., but absolutely this does not excuse your behavior.

User:Norden1990 post is another absurd false dubious personal views/attacks with no evidence (Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources...).

I do not see a fault with my behavior. > Norden1990 continue with personal attacks even on this noticeboard, in the front of the admins: "Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult". Accusing the proxy ip 181.48.15.98 of being Iasi is also a personal attack, because your allegation was not officially confirmed, it is only your supposition which must be kept for yourself in the lack of a SPI investigation.

He also bringing here false information (that I was "banned already at few times").

He also involved in edit wars, and not only with me (so in fact Norden1990's another false information...) - here his opponnent was the user Inhakito. The result is that the User:Norden1990 is highly unreliable and only his dubious POVs are acceptable (for him naturally)...--Omen1229 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not instruct me on right behaviour. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen, you were "topic-banned from all edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history for a period of 6 months, due to a persistent history of ethnic battleground editing" . You were also sanctioned for "nationalist editing" . It seems that the six months was not enough for you. For the case of Cabello: there were conflicting news after the death of Hugo Chávez. You can see the talk page, a cooperation evolved between the editors and I also took part in the discussion.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote here at first false information that I was "banned already at few times". In fact Fut.Perf. banned Samofi and me after few minutes of investigation but in last 17 months he had not find a time to look on "opponents" as he promised. And here is topic-banned the reporting editor'. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that misconduct related to Eastern Europe is subject to discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision WP:ARBEE. Without examining this in detail, it appears there is sufficient evidence for recent problematic editing by Norden1990 (notably, personal attacks by commenting about contributors rather than content, and mislabeling content disagreements as vandalism) to warrant a warning about discretionary sanctions, which I am now issuing. If this problematic editing continues, it can be reported to WP:AE for sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want. I suggest you first should look at Omen's activity here. If the style that he uses is permitted, then there's nothing more to talk about. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Norden1990's comment. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Said User:Fakirbakir who for example declared this statement: "the modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state"--Omen1229 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When he wrote that the neo-fascist anti-Hungarian and anti-Roma Slovak National Party (SNS) was member party of the Slovak coalition government. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'm taking a quick look. Now, Norden1990 has clearly acted in an inappropriate manner all too often, but Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes not. Both users edit-war across a whole range of articles, over some of the most ridiculous things (categories seem to crop up fairly often) - Omen removing a category with a frankly inexplicable reason, based on the article here: , and is part of a particularly pointless edit war from both sides being examples of both users reverting each other, pretty much based on the fact that their opponent (so to speak) made the edit. This can either be fixed by an indefinite interaction ban (which is almost certain to fail as both edit in the same area), or a 6 month/year long topic ban on editing any WP:ARBEE-applicable articles, broadly construed for both parties, for frequent, careless and pointless edit warring in those areas, based on nationalistic motives. The latter is by far the more likely to work, and I suggest that's what is applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990 > here are some my last edits and please look at who started: and here is additional Norden1990's provocation > he declared: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit".

edit 105 > the article is about Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár, also User:FactStraight reverted Norden1990's similar edits. As I wrote above about this Slovak nobleman: > see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica..., it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity. Natio Hungarica does not mean Hungarian nobility, but it is Nobility in the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in the Kingdom of Hungary etc... Being a citizen of the multilingual, multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary is not the same with being an ethnic Hungarian.

edit 106 > I don't understand what is "inexplicable" about my reason ("no source for this info"). The edit summary is clear and it reflects the reality: the information is unreferenced. The same idea is supported by another user (Koertefa) on the article talk page: "I do not see the relevance whether "Mercurius"/"Merkúr" is an original Hungarian name. Even if it was, it would not prove for sure that he was ethnic Hungarian --Omen1229 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not evaluating whether the reversions are valid or not, but I can see multiple instances of you turning up at articles that you've never edited before, just to undo his changes. And Norden1990 has done the same, but less frequently. You're both edit warring in ARBEE areas, which is justification for a topic ban and/or a block, regardless of if your edit is right or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that his edit is not right. Omen. Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit. That's right, what is your problem? There were separate administrative units, like Transyvania, Croatia or Fiume, but not Upper Hungary (or Felvidék, which lit. means "Upland"). Slovak nobility never existed, as was only one nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary (Natio Hungarica, as you wrote correctly). You are trying to force modern national consciousness into old situation. Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary is might be misleading, as there are also Hungarian nobles today. But they were born when the kingdom was already abolished. By the way, there is standardization: I couldn't find Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Poland or Kingdom of Portugal etc. etc. . Aaron Samuel ben Moses Shalom of Kremnitz was a Jew and lived in today's Slovakia (then Hungary) in the 17th century. Mere speculation and anachronism to inserted him into the category of "Slovak Jews". Slovakia established in 1993, centuries later. You usually use POV edits and personal attacks () where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated", however article already contained Hungarian names (correctly, as apperanace only today's name version is illogical and misleading, according to my knowledge, Slovak language was never used in public administration). "however this is only a biography article of Štúr" - illogical and poor argument, according to your perception, we should write that "Ho Chi Minh City was capital of South Vietnam in 1945". Absurd. These towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts. The term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography, which denies all connection and contiunity between the historical and modern Hungary. Then, Omen, now you just have to tell, who were the "Uhors"? Maybe Hungarians? I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Misplaced Pages, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. 100,000 results? Yeah... Jesenský is a common Slav name, but this family was a Hungarian noble house of Slav origin, as you can see the sources that I proved. "poor nationalistic dubious POV", typical behaviour of Omen. Like this POV pushing . You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources . when you run out of nationalist arguments, you always try to bring the matter to personal attack, as you did here , , , , . --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You usually use POV edits and personal attacks (131) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated" > Well, so let's tell you more details about the etymology. Slovak person Ľudovít Štúr 28 October 1815 - 12 January 1856, Uhrovec - the version "Zayugróc" was fabricated in the 19th century (1863) in the period of Magyarization. You also wrote that "these towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts." I will stay only in the etymology of the town "Modor". You probably think the Slovak city Modra. So according to Štúr biography 1815 - 1856, the official names valid and used in 1808 - 1863: Modra, Modorinum, Modern, Modor. In the 1863 in the period of Magyarization until 1913 was valid only one name - Modor, other variants have been banned. So according to these etymological facts, your edits here edits look like bad faith.

the term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography > please write me more details with some source, because I do not understand you, I used here only term Kingdom of Hungary, if you want I can use latin term Regnum Hungariae or Kaisertum Osterreiach for Austrian Empire. In fact only you used in this discussion the term Felvidek and other dubious POVs...

I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Misplaced Pages, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. > ? Where do you see these names in this discussion?

Like this POV pushing . You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources > Sources about what? Please first read the full discussion . Where do you see "Upper Hungary"? You also declared that Upper Hungary has never had a separate territorial unit. So according to these evidence, your edits here edits look again like bad faith.

edit Giglovce > User:Norden1990 wrote: "Yes, but formerly known as Giglóc (until 1920)." In fact in the 1863 until 1913 was valid only one name - Giglóc, other variants have been banned. User:Norden1990 used in the article only one variant from this period - Magyarization. There are no members of Magyar ethnicity in the village - 0,00%. According to the 2011 census, the municipality had 153 inhabitants. 148 of inhabitants were Slovaks and 5 others and unspecified. There are also other names, for example: Giglowce, Gyglowce, Gyglowcze etc., but unfortunately this user used only one... User:Norden1990 also declared: "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." and here deleted name Oradea or .

Note: I will continue in this edit, but now I'm bored of this unconstructive discussion with highly unreliable editor who have strong dubious POVs.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the above "I'm right, it's the other guy who is POV-pushing" type responses sum up exactly why I believe an ARBEE topic ban is in order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for who? I do not get it. Please compare Norden1990's contributions to Omen1229's editing. Their contributions are as different as chalk and cheese. Norden1990 is an excellent wiki editor. He deserves praise instead of scorn.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors. Regardless of whether their edits are correct or not, both have violated ARBEE by frequently edit-warring over the nationality of a hell of a lot of articles, and that is a simply unacceptable fact. There have been some very solid edits by both editors, but the fact of the matter is that good edits don't justify editors staging all-out war on other editors. Both are constantly accusing each other of being POV-pushers and both abuse each other quite frequently in other ways, which complicates matters. People should never be praised for constant edit-warring (unless that edit-warring is to removal obviously hateful content and keep it out, which this doesn't classify as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

I proposed the article on Amiram Goldblum for deletion because there is substantial evidence to prove that the article is an autobiography. The user who created the article has been accused of sockpuppetry. It seems like mostly very partisan people edit the article. I'd like to hear the opinion of experienced users. If I'm wrong in proposing the article, I would like to know why. Thank you very much. Nataev (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was created by Soosim; I have heard no suggestion that s/he is a sockpuppet. Please remove that unfounded allegation. Further, the creation of an autobiographical article, or editing of an article about oneself, is not forbidden, and is certainly not grounds for deletion of an article edited by many editors about a prominent individual. And if you think that "partisan" people should not be editing the article, I presume that you will also be recusing yourself from it. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

At best, Nataev was not wrong in prodding the article once -- but he was certainly wrong in restoring the prod once it had been removed and in trying to insist that only an admin could determine its outcome. Not hard to see how this ANI section will turn out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would also suggest that this edit summary is a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, OK, he is a "prominent person"! I'm not willing to spend any more time discussing the article on this "prominent" juvenile who wrote an article about himself. Best, Nataev (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Juvenile"?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's a rather odd characterisation. According to the article, the person is in his 60s. That's not an age considered juvenile in probably 99.99% of the world. If the OP is calling the person 'juvenile' for reasons other than age, that's likely a BLP violation and/or a personal attack. Or does the OP not know what 'juvenile' means or did the OP either fail to read the article they kept trying to PROD? Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article subject and other editors

The edit summary linked above , shows Nataev referring to Golblum as an "idiot". There is now an edit on the talk page where Nataev refers to Goldblum as a "pseudo-scientist". In addition Nataev is attacking other editors, calling one of them "pathetic" and "a joke" . I don't think this editor should be editing in this particular topic area and in fact should spend a brief period not editing at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nataev thinks he is entitled to his own opinion. He is pretty sure that only an idiot would write an article about himself on Misplaced Pages. He is not interested in "this particular topic" at all. He is just amused by Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Nataev called Goldbum himself "pathetic" and "a joke." Let's not forget that it is Goldbum himself who has written the article on Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

...and calling the subject of the article names would be a WP:BLP violation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Nataev didn't know that! You see, he is a new user! Well, not really, he is just kidding. But he is making progress. Goldbum has taught him to talk about himself in the third person. Nataev (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So, talking about yourself in 3rd person is ridiculous; calling an editor names is a violation of WP:NPA; calling the subject of an article names is a WP:BLP violation; creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb ... between the lot of you, you all need to go away and fix things. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with this: "creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb." So, a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb. That's my whole point! Seriously though, I don't want to spend any more time on this stupid matter. Nataev (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong and warped logic. Very smart people (PhD's for example) do stupid things all the time (like drive while drunk). To say "a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb" is, well, dumb. On Misplaced Pages we comment on edits, NEVER on the contributor - period. Nor do we ascribe traits the way you're trying to, because that's just plain dumb (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you for sharing with us your ingenious philosophy. You're indeed very smart. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Goldbum taught me new words like "lier", "vandalizer" and many others. You taught me to use the apostrophe when forming the plurals of capital letters used as nouns. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• This post by Nataev (which was deleted by a subsequent edit to ANI) and the others in this section do not suggest that Nataev intends to stop making personal attacks or to edit I/P related articles (particularly BLPs) with the appropriate attitude. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In that edit I clarified what I had written before. I have no idea why Robert McClenon deleted it. It's fine if with me if the Goldbum article is kept. It's not the end of the world. Goldbum is such a trivial person that not that many people read about him anyway. Nomoskedasticity, I have far more interesting and important things to do than discuss an article about some (personal attack again removed) scholar. Nataev (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So apparently it's not enough that Nataev wants to post personal attacks on BLP subjects on ANI itself. Someone else removed the phrase "obscure, semi-literate scholar" from the post immediately above (consistent with WP:TPO -- and Nataev then restored it. Again I suggest that there's no sign of improvement here, rather the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators: Please note Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Administrator_instructions which helps you leave templates on users pages. If they ignore you evidently you can advance to tougher sanctions. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update. Black Kite blocked Nataev for two days and I have indefinitely topic banned him from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum under WP:BLPBAN. Salvio 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops guess I spoke too soon, for the record I support both actions mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice regarding handling offensive user page

Please see the user page of St.HocusPocus (talk · contribs). I'm pretty certain that it is both offensive and out of line, but I wanted to ask for advice on how to handle this, what to cite, etc, as I haven't really addressed an issue like this before.

(I know ANI prerequisites are usually notifying the user, and trying to work it out beforehand, but I haven't done this because I figured this topic was more about me wanting advice on policy and enforcing it rather than needing actual intervention. I plan on handling it myself, outside of ANI, once I know what to say. If this is wrong, I'll gladly notify him though. Thanks!) Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to notify. Whether or not it was okay to come here before a direct approach, you have to notify the user now that you've started a discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing anything particularly actionable here. Can you point at which section of WP:UP#NOT you think it meets and why you think it needs "immdediate" intervention by a Administrator? It's relatively tame compared to some of the "It makes the eyes bleed" user pages I've seen. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think it was especially appropriate to be calling a group of people "self-righteous racists". It kind of goes against the entire second paragraph of what you just linked to, if you ask me. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:UP#POLEMIC. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, compared to some of the of the truly polemic comments and content and referring to it in such an oblique manner I personally (even though I'm not an admin) don't see anything actionable. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur. Compared to what I've seen pop up at MfD at times, this page is particularly meh... If you feel strongly that it should go, my advice would be to talk to the guy or nominate it for deletion. Salvio 21:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I guess I haven't seen any bad ones in my time here then. It stuck me as rather offensive, and not conducive to creating an encyclopedia. This certainly isn't my area of Admin expertise though. My approach probably would have been something along the lines of "Hey, people find this offensive, and its frowned upon per WP:UP#POLEMIC, so I was wondering if you would remove it." but it looks like thus far that's not in fact people's reaction to it, so I suppose I won't bother, unless someone says otherwise. At least I know what to cite for the future. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You find it offensive that I took offense at being called a "hilljack”? Really now, I'm 'out of line' for calling a 'goth' a racist for using a racist slur? But calling someone a ‘hilljack’ for liking a genre of music a ‘goth’ doesn’t like isn’t out of line?

Your views are warped, mate.

To clarify this, the term ‘hilljack’ didn’t offend me on a personal level, as I am not a southerner in any way shape or form. If I must clarify further, for the sake of this explanation, I am a white collar northerner who happens to be extremely liberal and socially progressive. What I found offensive was the self-righteous attitude of most self proclaimed ‘goths’ that I’ve had the displeasure of communicating with whether online or in real life…that they are somehow superior do to their taste in music and their taste in clothing.

The person in question who originally tossed the ‘hilljack’ term at me, was someone with a limited understanding of music, who was under the impression that the band “HIM” is a metal band, and who views anyone who listens to “metal” as a redneck, and because I added the band “HIM” to the “List of gothic rock bands” page (with a wealth of reliable sources to back it up) he/she got upset and couldn’t see past his/her self-perceived social superiority and called me a hilljack for it.

That was the issue. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't believe I've ever heard of the term "hilljack" before. It must not be something people say where I come from. I had no idea it was such an offensive word; without knowing the background, that sounded like it had all of the offensive edge of calling someone a "jerk face" or something. That being said, the point still stands. Its not like "two wrongs make a right". Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something? Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So you find my finding of somebody’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive? You’re not making sense. - What ‘still stands’? For one, this is really none of your business, though you’ve taken the liberty to make it yours, and unrightfully so.

“Its not like "two wrongs make a right".

This isn’t a moral objectivity lecture. Refer to the above paragraph. I am in no way, shape, or form ‘in the wrong’ for taking outspoken issue with stupidity.

“Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something?”

You can’t be serious. I don’t need a defense because there is nothing to defend. Do you honestly think you are putting me on the spot here by questioning my moral compass in an issue you have nothing to do with?

Again, refer to the first paragraph. You seriously take offense to my taking offense to someone’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive?

Your main goal here seems to be to make a mountain out of a molehill. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My problem is that your wording gives a blanket accusation for an entire group/subsection of people as racist. Your userpage says What wonderful people those “Goths” are, huh? Sad to say my real life encounters with these self-righteous racists haven’t been much different. Why you've chosen this to define your identity here is beyond me, but regardless, my problem is that you've chosen to label "Goths" as a whole as racist. (Full disclosure: I'm not a goth, don't know any, dont especially like goth music. I just figured that policies like Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and no personal attacks would apply in situations like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:UConnSam and Wayne Worcester

In fall of 2012, User:UConnSam added significant misinformation into the Misplaced Pages article on Wayne Worcester as did an IP editor who is possibly the same person. See and for diffs. According to Worcester complained about the misinformation during his ceremonial retirement lecture. I fixed the info, but should anything else be done? Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to notify UConnSam (talk · contribs) of this discussion, I have done so for you here --Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Um... if it was an edit from 2012, don't you think it's just a teensy bit stale? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it was just reported a couple days ago that this article was wrong. And the professor voiced complaints himself. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I apologize for being snarky above, but the point still stands. Fair enough for correcting it, but if the edit was that long ago, no action can be taken. Discuss it with the user if they're still around. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat on Help Desk

See . Not sure of best response here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is already blocked indef. 3 months ----Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Specific legal threat from IP claiming to be subject

• Susan J. Elliott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 108.6.182.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

She claims that since the article was created by a couple of her fans, and she and her publicist are just "improving" it by smarming it up with lots of glurge about her charitable work and fluff about appearing on TV, there is no COI and she is not committing autobiography. She makes much of the fact that she's a lawyer. Oooohh, I'm so scared! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The thread above this is actually about the same user... Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a minute. The IP makes a legal threat against Orangemike, so Orangemike blocks for 3 months? Is this even remotely appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure but For someone who says they are not threatening legal action they sure use the words libel and legal action a lot. Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is ok, it's not like his actions were against policy they line up with "No legal threats" Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that a legal threat was made. I'm not disputing that a block might be appropriate (though I personally think it might have been better to try and calm the situation down a little first). I am however suggesting that since Orangemike was the recipient of the threats, he shouldn't have done the blocking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The not making legal threats thing wasn't aimed at you it was a reference to the ip's talk page (they keep saying they aren't threatening legal action but then define the legal definition of libel) sorry! But I do agree perhaps a different admin should have done the block but his actions weren't erroneous so I'm gonna AGF --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:INVOLVED ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP specifically mentioned Orangemike in the legal threat. How much more involved could he get? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to abide by the community's consensus in cases like this. I thought the basic WP:DOLT more than outweighed any trivial violation of the letter of WP:INVOLVED; but if most other editors agree with Andy (who's not as much of a grump as he pretends), I will follow your collective judgement in the future. (And if somebody really wants to remove my lblock and substitute one of their own, I won't consider myself wronged in the slightest.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Being the target of threats doesn't make you involved, in the Misplaced Pages sense. If it did, anyone could challenge any block by threatening the blocking admin. I could see why OrangeMike's actions here might be a bit questionable...he edited the article in a non-admin capacity prior to semi-protecting it and blocking the IP. But I wouldn't overturn the block if I had the capability to do so. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's generally inadvisable to do the block unless it's clearly and unambiguously a legal threat. "I will sue you" type obvious IRWolfie- (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I think this is such a case, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to state, all the major IP contributors to the article are NY based IP's... which her IP is one too... User:68.197.57.102 , User:216.223.171.102, User:216.6.129.115... might throw a kink into her not autobiography story if indeed all those was her too. — raekyt 19:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering she is based in that area, it's not inconceivable that her fans are in that area. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone with some experience at handling issues with BLP subjects in a tactful fashion—perhaps someone with OTRS access—please intervene here and help to defuse this situation? Unfortunately, I can't do much myself right now as I'll be offline for much of the weekend. The subject's references to legal action are obviously inappropriate, but the way this has been handled on our end is clearly suboptimal and is not doing much to deescalate or resolve the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we can work anything out with a person who is screaming threats of legal action and then screaming that they didn't just make a legal threat. I don't know what was done different here than in every other case of WP:NLT, blocking unless and until they retract the threat, which says "PLEASE REMOVE THE PAGE OR ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT IT IS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL OR I WILL TAKE LEGAL ACTION." It is long established that standard operating procedure in any case of a unambiguous legal threat like that we block. Why they now are trying to act like they never said that when we have diffs showing it is not our problem to solve, if they refuse to retract the legal threat or even admit that they made one then they are going to have to remain blocked. It's not as if it would require some great effort on their part to switch from lying to just saying "I will not take legal action". Nobody wants or expects an apology and a boquet of flowers, just a retraction of the threat. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It has come to my attention, not to mention much of Great Britain, that OrangeMike also reverted another person removing a flagrant BLP-violating statement from her own article (his reversion ). This reversion was utterly out of line; nobody has to ask permission to remove an uncited negative claim from their biography. Period. It seems to me that OrangeMike needs to rein in his instincts to defend against autobiographical editing, lest he see his name in the Daily Mail again. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If the editor requests that the words "OR I WILL ..." are deleted, (no need to repeat them) that should be sufficient, and hopefully the advice to make suggestions on their article talk page instead of editing the article directly (other than obvious typos) will be taken, and they are of course welcome and encouraged to edit other articles than their own. I do agree that we have inflamed rather than defused the situation, but hopefully the flames and the shouting are over. Apteva (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Vague Legal Threat by TheRealJKO

A post to Misplaced Pages:Help Desk by User:TheRealJKO accuses User:Demiurge1000 of threats and in turn contains a legal threat. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WHY WILL NOBODY DO SOMETHING TO HELP? WHY DO YOU ALLOW THIS ABUSE TO CONTINUE AND KEEP THREATENING THE PERSON BEING ABUSED? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS SITE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a chill pill dude. What's going on? This is a board where you can discuss this and get a bit of help but SHOUTING will only harm you. If you have made a legal threat as per WP:NLT please withdraw it and maybe we can solve the issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do something to help Dude. Continuing to insult me isn't helping. I have sent emails to all the places wiki instructs you to send them and while they are being ignored, the threats and insults continue. Pickette has now added defammation. Stop the comments and nobody will feel the need to take any legal action. It's quite simple. And perhaps before jumping in with a sarcastic comment, dude, it would be better if you acquainted yourself with the facts and then commented. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok the problem there is that if you don't discuss it here civilly, it won't get solved. Right now you are on the short side of stick by making a legal threat. You may be riled but nothing in what I said was sarcastic dude. The thread here was created specifically for the legal threat but if there is issue behind it we can tackle that WP:BOOMERANG style. It happens quite a bit, your choice though you can briefly summarize and get helped or in the end be blocked for a legal threat. Only trying to help ya bro. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Then go back and read my original posting. Dude. Then read the replies and remarks. Dude. Then when you're educated on my original comment and the post I made, feel free to comment. Dude. Until then, it appears you know nothing about the subject and thus have nothing to contribute. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The posting shows you asking what is wrong with the site and the people on it. I was asking for you to give your side. You see the way wikipedia works and especially on this board works is you link the people to the issue you are having. This only benefits you dude, if more people can see the problem you are having without having to play Sherlock Holmes you will have a much better result. If you want the help meet us halfway bro. Like I said your choice but it's clear that you have made a legal threat and unless it is retracted will likely be blocked until that is complete, it's a lot cheaper to take a few minutes and write out what you are saying is defamatory. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify "You see the way wikipedia works and especially on this board works is you link the people to the issue you are having." is literally only because you're newer to the site. Don't take offense cause none is needed but this is a callaboritve process and I can and will help you if take a minute to tell me what's happening. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013#John Kennedy O'Connor as San Marino commentator Heiro 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wrote a really long response, but it did not post. I really don't think I have the energy to write it again. I asked for a debate to be removed. It wasn't. As a result of trying to resolve it, I have been threatened, abused and defamed. I have had enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by that conversation I linked to above, you have not been threatened, abused or defamed. Someone was trying to clarify a reference per our policies on WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. You do not get to blank discussion you do not like. And you had better withdraw any and all suggestions of legal action per WP:No legal threats or you will be blocked by an admin until you do or until all legal actions are concluded. This is not a threat, it is policy here. Heiro 16:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not think that what Pickette has written is defamatory and that another user described me as "claiming" to be who I am, then you have misread the situation entirely. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have had some involvement via the discussion thread that Heiro has highlighted. From what I gather, User:TheRealJKO deleted an entire thread because they stated the thread was an "insulting debate" against him. The user also states that he is John Kennedy O'Connor, although I'm not disputing whether that fact is true or false. The discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013, was regarding sources that were vague on whether Mr Kennedy O'Conner was providing live commentary for San Marino at next week's Eurovision Song Contest. It was pointed out during the discussion that neither of the sources used verified this fact, and thus we agreed any details about JKO being a commentator should be omitted from the article until we could verify this with a reliable source. However, TheRealJKO appears to have taken some upset and distress at what has been written, and I can see partially why one would be distressed when they are being discussed about openly. Although in my opinion, it may appear that the wrong end of the stick has been grasped here. There have been a few people trying to advise these points to The RealJKO in a civil manner, but it baffles me as to why things have blown way out of control. Wesley♦ 16:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifically how were you defamed? You are no longer dead, the article shows that but I'm not understanding where anyone has defamed you? we do have policies that relate to the biographies of living people but right now frmo the outside I don't see anyone insulting you or otherwise defaming. I do show that the commentator stuff was removed due to lack of verified sources but that can be rectified when it is reported for the news or in a news article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this: "I think that the TheRealJKO account and their previous unregistered IP edits on this page are related to a banned account (TVArchivistUK) because the IP address used to add similar information to the 2012 contest article has since been blocked for sockpuppetry of this account. The tone this user employs in discussions is very similar to all of exchanges this user has had and is currently having with this account and their other unregistered IP accounts. Here is the edit from the 2012 page. Pickette (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)" I don't even know what this person is talking about. To acuse me in this manner is defamatory and potentially libellous. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you also missed this: "In a related issue TheRealJKO (talk · contribs) removed this entire talk page section, after claiming to actually be O'Connor. I have since warned this user and restored the text. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)" Someone bragging about making threats. In their own words. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That does not give you the right to remove talk page discussions whether you disagree or not. WP:TPO --] 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

But you apparently have the right to say anything you like in a discussion about a living person and refute that persons request for it to cease? I think you've just summed up wikimedia perfectly.TheRealJKO (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing that is wrong with discussing a living person, which millions of people do everyday, you simply have put information into the article without a reliable source, which was the main reason for the discussion on the ESC 2013 talk page was started. --] 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok but those aren't defamation or slander. We do routinely have problems with users who are blocked and banned and make another account and we call those sockpuppets. That's not libel, leaving wikipedia warnings are not libel. Have you admitted your real life identity? If you have not and they can not come up with a diff showing that you did then they are guilty of WP:OUTING. That is a serious issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It states "TheRealJKO account and their previous unregistered IP edits on this page are related to a banned account". I have not made any other edits. I removed an edit with said I was dead and I asked for a debate to be removed that was a slanging match about my professional roles, which was ignored. So whether I "had the right" to so or not, the threats and the above slander are not valid responses. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused here, as I cannot see anything in the discussion that that would indicate any form of slanging match whatsoever. What I have noticed are editors defending the professional work of John Kennedy O'Conner, by discussing whether you will be providing live commentary via San Marino Television for the Sanmarinese viewers. An IP user (not yourself of course) had added falsified and inaccurate evidence in regards to this, and all the editors who took part in the debate were trying to establish whether or not you would be providing commentary. As neither editor could find any evidence to verify these facts, but they did agree that news reports had confirmed you would be reading out the votes on behalf of San Marino. And so it was agreed that such details regarding commentary should not be included into the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 article, so that we were avoiding the publication of incorrect details - which I sincerely appreciate that any living person would appreciate to have correct information written about them, rather than something which may be incorrect. I can wholeheartedly understand if parts of the debate may have been misinterpreted, but in all admiration to Mr Kenndy O'Conner, the editors involved in the peaceful debate were only doing there best to respect your work and only detail 100% accurate information in terms of your role at the Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Wesley♦ 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have indeffed TheRealJKO for making a legal threat. I don't believe the edit to the Help desk rose to the level of a legal threat (). (Whatever happened to diffs when coming to ANI?) However, this comment at WP:DRN did (" I have said I will pursue this legally if it is not"). There is no outing here. The editor has said who he is. Nor has anyone said he was dead as he claims. The article just used the past tense for his occupation (the birth year with no death date was/is in the article). Finally, his claim that he is being slandered because he is accused of sock puppetry is silly. Arguably, it is a personal attack, but it is hardly defamatory. If he really had a legitimate beef, I might not have acted, but his claims and edits are purely disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Death date in article. Nick (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A death date was added and then deleted in an earlier revision also. --] 17:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous now. Bbb23 has already warned the user that they will revoke talk page access if they continue posting accusations, and yet they still continue to do so. Also one the diffs that Bbb23 has provided in which the user states they sent emails to everyone on the talk page. I have just checked my inbox, and no email from TheRealJKO has been received. Wesley♦ 17:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, HIAB also pointed this out on my talk page. It was the first edit by TheRealJKO back in November 2012. Then there were no edits until May 2013. I didn't notice the date of that first edit. I also looked at the diff and all I saw was the change from "was" to "is". The death date itself, as AxG states, was added by a vandal and then removed by another editor. TheRealJKO completed the clean-up by changing was back to is. It doesn't change my opinion about the block, but I appreciate the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The editor also appeared to take objection (here) to being addressed as "dude". (Disliking this form of address is not unusual, for example Salvatore Rivieri disapproved of it.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the "threats" about which this user was complaining were warnings that he could be blocked for disruptive editing, which consisted of deleting a large amount of talk page content that he disliked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The entry of a death date for a living person was a severe violation of policy on living persons but appears to have been done six months ago. Is a late warning appropriate? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The user who added the death date has made only two edits to Misplaced Pages, that one and one other in January 2013, which I don't believe was vandalism. It would be pointless, in my view, to warn the editor of a 6-month-old edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and I have done so, with extra big red triangle for emphasis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The legal threat should be withdrawn for sure, I just think we have someone who doesn't understand policy here. I think that they aren't being disruptive for the sake of disruption it's because they don't understand the way the encyclopedia is ran. Sock puppetry accusations mean zilch here other then if you get caught you get blocked. I think the death thing is what set this off, it caused a sore tooth and then otherwise regular edits to the encyclopedia are looked at wholly negative. A little WP:AGF in this by all sides would help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: ticket:2013051110005682 if anyone's interested. I make no comment either way. ~ Matthewrbowker 05:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Editor's Possibly Threatening Others over AfD

I have started a few AfD's on some non-notable pages. One of the editors of the page, who is the subject of the article himself took to one of the AfD discussions and issues at minimum a somewhat untoward remark and at most a threat. You can read the discussion here. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Undertow Music, specifically, "your attempted deletion is motivated by personal vendetta. looking forward to seeing your next show at bentley's" (Bentley's is a local establishment in Champaign). I thought admins should be aware that the discussion of that AfD has gotten heated due to the subject of the article being involved. Other related AfD's are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bob Andrews (artist manager) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard. Jamminjimmy (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no threat issued or implied against Jamminjimmy. I found out he is a local musician who plays somewhat regularly in my town. i enjoy music. It was nothing more than a friendly gesture hoping to diffuse the situation. But this user does not tell the whole story on why he is choosing to target these articles for AfD. User fails to mention that he has personal and legal issues with the subject of one of his AfD requests. He joined wiki the same day he lost a court case against the subject of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard and began editing and then requested speedy deletion of that article. I disagreed and undid some of his previous edits. He then turned his attentions towards me and issued AfD request on the other two articles mentioned above. One of which I am the subject, the other is the record label where I work. He also opened a sockpuppet investigation against me that was closed after finding no abuse on my part. And now he is complaining about me here in this section. He's trying to harm my reputation because I disagreed with his edits. His only Wiki contribs are issuing these AfDs, the unfounded sockpuppet investigation against me and now the complaint here. Is vendetta the wrong word? Revenge? I'm not sure what else to call what he is doing here? If there's a better word or phrase for his actions I'd be happy to revise my comments. I don't know this person in real life. I never heard of him until all this wiki nonsense started and then I read about him on the local newspaper website. That's how I found out about the court case and his legal issues with the original subject of his wiki attentions. Should i post a link to that news story for context? i'm not sure of the policy on that. If you look at his contribs you'll find this user is clearly abusing wikipidea and using resources here to seek revenge. He should be banned or at least be blocked from editing the articles mentioned here. I would like no further contact or interactions with him. Please look at my wiki history going back to 2009. I have no previous conflicts or controversy until this user began harassing me a few days ago. Thanks for taking the time and I'm sorry you have to deal with stuff like this. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What you're looking for is conflict of interest. I'd be more interested in how a 5 day old account knows the meaning of speedy deletions, PRODs, SPIs, let alone raise them. Blackmane (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Something else he should be checking out is WP:OUTING. How many pages does Bob get to identify Jamminjimmy on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what is interesting is that the only "bothering" of Bob I can see here is asking for his page and company page for deletion via AfD as WP:AUTOBIO. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

i didn't know what WP:OUTING was until i just read that link. i'm not that familiar with how wiki works on stuff like that. any sort of conflict like this is new to me. i'm not trying to make an excuse. thanks for pointing that out. now i know. i'd be happy to edit whatever i posted that's considered outing. i'm not trying to break the rules or cause this user harm. i just want this person to stop bothering me. It should be noted that his username is also the name he's known by around town. which leads me to believe he wants the people he's hassling to know it's him. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by user HiLo48 after several requests to stop. Requesting action

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

I don't have much experience in admin processes, but I've decided to give it a shot because I am having difficulty dealing with User HiLo48. This user seems more interested in attacking and mocking than discussing improvements to the article. See comments here: and here in particular, though I could present other cases. I warned the user - the request and the reply can be seem here. I am suggesting an WP:IBAN to prevent HiLo48 from interacting with me. I fully intend to ignore anything this user writes in the future (except for dealing with any future personal attacks made against me), which will be much easier if they can no longer interact with me. If I don't ignore this user in the future, I'll accept an IBAN against me without argument. Thanks for considering my request. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I almost sent this same user to ANI after his conduct at the April Fools' Day RFC. He was continuing to be disruptive and combat virtually all oppose votes for his proposal. TCN7JM 02:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree when Hilo is accused of civility violations but I am not seeing it in this case, a diff would help since maybe I just missed it. But either way I think he is right wrt to WP:BLP and attribution in that first link. Sædon 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Can this please become some sort of WP:BOOMERANG? User:Legacypac doesn't like what I post. That's because I believe that WP:BLP and "Innocent until proven guilty" actually mean something. Almost every time I have interacted with him it's been to point out that his attitude to those two principles is simply wrong. He pretty much ignores them. And if anyone has been abusive, and threatening, and destructive to the article, it's him. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Innocent until proven guilty" is the best argument you could be making. It's certainly something I believe in but it's less relevant than, at least according to what I've read, the argument that we cannot possibly *know* what happened because it's based on eyewitness accounts (viz. the victim). This isn't like science when you can say point to a scientific consensus and thus feel comfortable in calling evolution a fact - this is unverifiable by any of us and possibly anyone else. But I don't think it's a boomerang so much as a misunderstanding .Sædon 03:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, isn't "innocent until proven guilty" a guideline on Misplaced Pages? I remember reading about it on a policy or guideline page a few weeks ago. YuMaNuMa 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If User:Legacypac misunderstands WP:BLP, it's not my fault. Several of us have been persistently correcting his breaches of that policy, and copping abuse and rather silly responses in return. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I see a lot of back-and-forth, unhelpful bickering which needs to stop from all sides in all of these disputes, but I don't see any name-calling or insults or other forms of personal attacks. Doesn't mean that anyone is in the right here. In fact, I see that no one is behaving in a way that they should. No one wins. You should all be happy with that. --Jayron32 03:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• HiLo has an established record and this report, unfortunately, comes as no surprise. The only surprise is that it comes from Legacypac, who is not a very courteous editor, to put it mildly. In other words, pot and kettle. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if you paid a little attention to "Innocent until proven guilty" too. That post says "I don't like HiLo, and I assume he is in the wrong." Not nice, nor helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Note that I didn't say anything about your edits, in this case or elsewhere, and don't see any reason yet for any kind of action toward you. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

While discussing HiLo48's contributions on Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio, it would be entirely remiss to not also look at the way Legacypac has routinely violated WP:BLP policy there. This sort of thing seems to be the norm for Legacypac, who utterly refuses to even pretend to abide by 'innocent until proven guilty' norms, and instead proclaims the suspect's guilt at every opportunity - I'll not bother with more diffs, the talk page is littered with Legacypac's WP:BLP violations. Note too that Legacypac's response to having the obligations of WP:BLP policy pointed out is to accuse those referring to at as making 'personal attacks': See the posts at Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio#Daughter's age and Unborn Victims following the initial one I link (from 06:13, 11 May 2013). I can see very little reason why someone who shows such contempt for core Misplaced Pages policy should be permitted to edit any BLP-related article at all, and am seriously considering proposing that Legacypac be topic-banned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, take a look at AndytheGrump's and HiLo48's posts on this sectionstarting with Support for this is irrelevant before putting too much stock in their assessment of my alleged incorrect understanding of BLP policy and their alleged expertise in it. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to post in this discussion any more unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Misplaced Pages's discipline processes are a disaster, allowing anyone with a beef to write anything they like about an accused, with no chance that that person can defend themselves effectively. We already have User:Drmies and User:Saedon dragging up alleged (and obviously completely irrelevant even if they did happen to be true) sins of mine from the past. Never a helpful approach. So, I retire for now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to retire. Stop acting like a diva. You may choose to ignore your past (and how others perceive you), but retiring "for now"? Come on. Doc talk 04:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, Given the context, I think by retiring he means he's going to stop posting in this discussion for now. YuMaNuMa 04:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Doc9871 has misread HiLo48's statement. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not misread the first post on HILo's user page. YMMV... Doc talk 04:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That was added a month and a half ago so I don't see how it proves that mentioning retiring in this instance meant leaving Misplaced Pages.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Look: I understand that "retiring" means different things in our common language that separates us. "Pissed" means "drunk" everywhere in the English-speaking world except America, where it means "angry". I apologize for my mistake. A month and a half is not exactly "ancient history". I know HiLo better than I do you, so we'll just continue on with the premise that I simply misread what he said. Doc talk 04:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• And HiLo completely misread what I wrote, but that's by-the-by. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• No personal attack None of the supplied diffs shows anything like a PA, but one of them points to Daughter's age and Unborn Victims where Legacypac states "HiLo48 kindly stop with the personal attacks". Yet in that section all we see is that Legacypac is misguided about how an article on a crime should be written, and declines all advice offered. It is almost certain that a known person will be found guilty of severe crimes, yet articles still need to be written in the correct manner, and Misplaced Pages's voice should not be used to say things like "X imprisoned Y" until that is a finding in a court. If the same lack of clue is evident in other BLPs, AndyTheGrump's suggestion that Legacypac should be restricted with a topic ban is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, Legacypac is a serious disruptor in BLP cases with only a limited grasp of what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. This became clear to me on the talk page of the Boston Marathon bombing article, where they were constantly present, didn't give a **** about the BLP (and I doubt they had even read it at the time), and were among those who are the Misplaced Pages equivalent of rubberneckers and want to stick every single thing in an article, without consideration for relevance or BLP applicability. Moreover, they were routinely badgering their opponents (not just me) and gave evidence of some serious battleground mentality, which is why I've been avoiding them. So if HiLo defends the BLP guidelines or a BLP in heated language toward this editor, I understand, and Legacypac running to ANI is par for the course. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• From what I can see, no personal attack was made; and HiLo48 is quite right about the presumption innocence until proven guilty. Extra care should be exercised when editing articles on legal cases that are currently still being disputed in court. Incorrect or bias information here can have significant real world effects, which can result in mistrials in court, depending on the severity of the bias. YuMaNuMa 04:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I think Legacypac's attitude towards BLP absolutely needs to be taken into account when considering HiLo48's alleged personal attacks. (They've both been a bit uncivil, but "personal attack" is a stretch.) HiLo48's interactions with Legacypac on the talk page in question have, in large part, been to address BLP violations and to attempt to help Legacypac understand BLP; it's easy to see how said violations and continued misunderstanding of BLP could make it difficult to interact with Legacypac while maintaining complete civility. (That's not to excuse incivility, but I'd rather see slightly uncivil behavior than see BLP issues go ignored.)

Even after the lengthy BLP discussion at Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio#BLP disaster again, Legacypac continues to misunderstand BLP ( for example, and that's just since the long talk page discussion.) Frankly, I don't blame HiLo48 for being a bit uncivil when another editor continues to create BLP issues even after repeated discussion. Both editors could stand to be a bit more civil, but Legacypac's misunderstanding of BLP is greatly contributing to incivility towards himself/herself. (Edit: To clarify, I refer to incivility in the mildest of terms; nothing that rises to the level of needing to be on AN/I itself. But BLP contributing to it is what concerns me.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not start this thread to debate who understands BLP better. I started it because I got tired of having uncivil things said about me and an WP:IBAN seems to me an appropriate way to help the other editor away from focusing on criticizing me and my understanding of policy and back to improving articles. At the beginning I also said I will be essentially self imposing an IBAN vs them to keep things on track. If Admin's determine that an IBAN is not appropriate - no problem. I'm a big boy and I'll deal with the situation in other ways to avoid further conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Well, we need to discuss the entirety of the situation...and what I see as repeated failure to understand BLP certainly seems to be a factor here. The long "BLP disaster" thread and related discussions would not have led to this AN/I thread if that was not the case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Even in this discussion HiLo48 is all over attacking me and my understanding of policy instead of addressing the validity of an IBAN. I do find it ironic that in allegedly defending BLP an editor proceeds to make bold negative assertions about another editor (a real living person just trying to contribute to WP). If there is a specific concern about a specific edit concerning a BLP let's talk about that in the appropriate talk page. Consider this section starting with Support for this is irrelevant before judging who may grasp BLP correctly - a whole line up of editors are saying that AndytheGrump and HiLo48 are incorrectly interpreting BLP and this unusual interpretation of BLP applied to other parts of the article is the source of some of my comments in other sections. Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"If I don't ignore this user in the future, I'll accept an IBAN against me without argument." Are you asking for a temporary one-way IBAN in the meantime? They don't generally get approved. An IBAN means you both cease and desist the bickering and mentioning each other equally, period. Doc talk 07:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, Legacypac is on extremely thin ice after receiving a last warning from me for restoring poorly-sourced material onto a BLP after one warning. I don't want to be heavy-handed here but I encourage any admin to block if he fails to acquire a clue pretty soon while continuing to work on highly controversial and visible articles. --John (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet another questionable BLP edit by Legacypac

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

In , a sentence is changed so it is unclear whether the rape was reported as part of the allegation, or whether the rape is an independent fact used to clarify the first part of the sentence. The sentence can be read either way in the modified version due to the use of "despite". Legacypac's rationale and my response are here: . I think this needs to be addressed, given the above discussion and previous warning. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just banned Legacypac from making any edits about living people for a year under WP:BLPBAN. Salvio 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac has just made another edit to 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Before taking this hasty did you look at the discussion here where the edit was clearly explained. The line as it stood could be BLP violation against DeJesus (and it just read wrong). I was not trying to make the rape a fact, only that it is a fact she said she was raped, not she said she was allegedly raped. The diff pointed too is not the whole story. I request that another Admin look at this too. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't believe anyone thinks you were trying to make it a fact; but that doesn't excuse you from inadvertently doing so, which is the actual problem. That edit alone would normally be trivial, something to be further copyedited without note. But I brought it up on AN/I since the matter of you violating BLP was already an open issue here in respect to the discussion above. You can ask Salvio to clarify his rationale for the ban; but the fact is, you were warned about being careful in respect to BLP, yet made several more questionable BLP edits after that warning, so I imagine the decision was made on that overall basis, not because of any single edit. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban, with regret. Even now the editor is justifying themselves rather than learning and improving their edits. BLP on high-profile articles is too important to leave to those with scant understanding of what constitutes acceptable sourcing or where to draw the line between reporting a crime v. an alleged crime. --John (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

John's warning was based only on his disapproval of a source (the Daily Mail). Others restored the information into the article using other sources, and the lines he did not like are still in the article last I looked. It seems unreasonable to suggest that I can't present evidence to oppose a 1 year topic ban. Perhaps innocent until proven guilty and assume good faith do not apply to WP. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the warning isn't even relevant. What seems more important was that even after lengthy talk page discussion, you continued to violate BLP several times, including an egregious violation on the talk page itself (which I just removed; I am not certain you have fully read WP:BLP to realize it applies to talk pages too.) In the talk page and WP:AN/I discussions, you replied not by trying to understand why basically everyone was insisting you were violating BLP and wrong about the policy, but by insisting you must be correct with no reasonable justification for such. You need to read WP:BLP more carefully, and understand why these were BLP violations. You may have luck with an unblock request if you can explain why your BLP violations were such, to show that you understand the policy. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First it was not "everyone". Second, the reason for the warning is relevant if it is a reason for further action. Third the section you just removed on the talk page was very clearly a discussion about how to improve the article and 100% couched as opinion about how the case might proceed and how we should reflect the sources. I don't care if it is there or not.

The alleged edit that you called a BLP issue was to a sentence that can be read several ways as per the talk discussion. Your reading essentially said it stated that with my edit, a rape occurred (maybe a BPL violation against Castro). Once you explained how you read it, I can only concur that it is possible to read it that way. My reading was it misquoted DeJesus by saying she said she was "allegedly raped". (maybe a BPL violation against DeJesus) The answer is to clarify the sentence, not to run to get me banned for an alleged BPL violation. If my edit was a BPL violation, than so is your edit. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly weren't banned for a single edit. If you wish the ban to be lifted, you'd do a lot better to provide evidence that you understand WP:BLP policy and are willing to abide by it, rather than quibbling over details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't see a problem with your last sentence in that diff? (The only part I removed. ) Vocally stating as fact that a suspect is guilty of a crime, and that no possible sentence will be sufficient? If you cannot see the problem with such statements, you do not understand WP:BLP. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly weren't banned for a single edit. Indeed. I topic banned you because you have repeatedly violated BLP both in mainspace and on talk pages; you were informed, counselled and warned that your edits violated policy and yet you persevered. So, now, you are restricted from making edits about living people across all namespaces, until you show you have a full grasp of BLP. Salvio 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban, I've seen Legacypac get away with these sorts of things far too often. They should consider themselves lucky it's not a lengthy block, to be honest. And the irony of their above comment is astounding. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And than we have this interesting Talk page contribution Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• This thread is not about HiLo48. HiLo48 had not even contributed to this thread at that point. Although their comment is not exactly appropriate, it has absolutely no relevance to this thread and bringing it up here is also completely inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• support the topic ban (non admin). Legacypac undid edits that had been made on BLP issues, and were being discussed on the talk page, and broke the 3RR to do this. When I gave Legacypac a 3RR warning about this, he said he was replacing { cn} notes. Legacypac does not seem willing to discuss matters like this, and has claimed other editors are making personal attacks, whilst using similar language about other editors himself/herself.Martin451 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• I too support the topic ban. I don't recall any interaction with Legacypac before the Cleaveland article, but he has repeatedly violated BLP there and repeatedly failed to understand why his actions were violations. That imho is the core of the issue, he doesn't deliberately set out to violate BLP he just has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the policy is and why it is important. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• It's worse than that. He has been repeatedly told by many editors what the policy is and why it is important. He either doesn't like it and thus chooses to ignore it, or is displaying incompetence. And when he reports other editors here for doing the telling, he is really disrupting the project. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and refusal to come to the talk page by 75.74.143.185

Please see the talk page for Kaitlyn Maher at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kaitlyn_Maher&action=edit&section=4. I will be once again placing my edit into the article thereby reverting theirs. I will also be giving notice today on their talk page.1archie99 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring has ceased. Apteva (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Viriditas

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

Literally this user has been reverting every single edit that I've made on Misplaced Pages. And that's not including the fact that the user is lacking basic civility, such as labelling my edits as, "not an improvement." and unfounded and unproven accusation of sockpuppetry...would be great if any administrator on Misplaced Pages would be willing to look into this. Gobbleygook (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The report filed by Viriditas at WP:ANEW was declined by User:King of Hearts pending the report filed by Viriditas at WP:SPI. I see no point in continuing this counter-report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Bbb23. If the SPI closes as "Not guilty", then this thread may have a place. Until then, it doesn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then you might as well block me now, because I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the user is a sock, and the results of the SPI won't change my mind one way or the other. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• You heard it from the user and I'll leave it up to the admin's to take care of this. :)Gobbleygook (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do we have a templated warning for abuse of the word "literally"? Drmies (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

STEFF1995S/Innano1

WP:INVOLVED is certainly applicable enough here that I'm not going to proceed with a block without consensus. When I opened Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013, I thought I was dealing with a routine case of a good-faith editor using a bad source.

As I have dug into it, though, I have found that Innano1 is actually evading one of my old blocks. He admits at User:Innano1 that he is a resurrection of STEF1995S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I blocked 28 Dec 2010. Innano1 simply picked up four days later. His use of bad charts has been better, with one notable exception: he has started a blog at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro/ (see http://www.blogger.com/profile/02260736934288394777 for the details of the blog owner: clearly the same person) where he creates his own version of a defunct chart and then uses it as a source in Misplaced Pages articles.

I'm inclined to reinstate his indefinite block, but am concerned that other might see that as vindictiveness on my part. Thus, I invite someone else to do the honors.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to invoke WP:SILENCE to say that no one finds this a case where my level of involvement would interfere. I'll give it a few hours, but if no one comments, I will proceed.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would be a good block. User admits to being a block-evading sock, has deliberately manipulated external links to try and keep their dodgy edits in place, and I don't see how WP:INVOLVED should stop you from blocking someone who is this clearly evading an existing indef (and has done so for two and a half years) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing by user:Casprings

user:Casprings Is canvassing editors in an RFC/U against me. While the audience is not completely biased, the tone of the message clearly is.

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U.Casprings (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings writes the messages in a very negative tone against me and in a manner that I should be topic banned. I believe this to be in retaliation to my objections to a FA submission of theirs. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings has been notified. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CANVASS is explicit that the wording must be absolutely neutral. I agree that this absolute requirement was not met in the many posts made, including non-neutral posts on ArbCom pages. In addition, the behavioural guideline states: More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. Collect (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Collect's excellent comments. This is, without question, a canvassing violation by Casprings. Ironically, Caspring's failed in his apparently clever attempt to word his message in a way that would prevent a canvassing complaint. Because here we are. Please take note of how he said, "You are invited to endorse this..." but did not invite the editors to oppose. Not to mention of course his preface of "There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban". Overall, his invitation - to about 20 editors, no less (see his May 12 contributions log between about 18:00 and 18:20) - was not even close to neutral and I feel that a sanction of some type is certainly warranted. For the record, I do not know Arzel or Casprings at all; I have never crossed paths with either of them in any articles or discussions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree that it is blatant canvassing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I directed a single statement to every person that was involved in the discussion on user:Arzel, which took place here. My audience was not picked by me and was the audience that took part in the discussion. The message is simply a summery of the events and the course of action of the arbitration committee.Casprings (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there some argument that the words "clear consensus" do not fully describe the results of the discussion on user:arzel? The number of editors involved that voted for a topic ban and the arguments provided, do provide a clear consensus of the opinion of those who took part in the discussion. Providing what is a fact is not non neutral. Casprings (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• For starters, you are drawing a conclusion and using it to persuade others to your point of view in your notification. That is a no-no for neutrality. " There was a clear community consensus..." etc. Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok. Notifications should only be saying what is taking place and where, not why you think it is needed, or how you interpreted the previous discussion. Save that for the RFC/U itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that this note about an RFCU violates the principle of neutrality, both the focus on a (supposedly) already established consensus for a topic ban and the invitation to endorse the filing. When I first saw the note on a user's talk page, I thought it was put there because Casprings wanted that particular user as a co-endorser (which I think would have been totally fine), but the note didn't appear neutral in any way, and shouldn't have been sent en masse to potential commenters. Iselilja (talk)
• Everything Dennis Brown said is right on the money. His comment, "Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok", was precisely what I thought when I read the message. Doing that would've resulted in this neutral version: "You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here." All the obvious attempts at persusasion in between were highly inappropriate. By doing that, Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started. Also, sending it to 20 editors is a separate problem. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• What Dennis Brown said. It's not your job to draw any conclusion. That act alone violates the neutrality requirement. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You all make good points and I accept that I could have worded that better. My apologies to user:Arzel. I should have took more effort in wording my statement. Casprings (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if that poisoned the well or not. It wasn't the worse violation by any means but it was a violation, and I can accept that it was a good faith mistake, but even good faith mistakes can have negative consequences. Not sure what the fix is here. While sanctions aren't necessary, there is some potential damage, and I'm assuming those notices are still on those talk pages. At the very least, I would expect you to go fix them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Same as the above with an extra emphasis on one point. An wp:an or wp:ani on a vague/general behavioral claim is just a place where anyone who is willing to do mob violence and who wants the person gone or on reduced editing can show up and deceive/mislead with immunity. The result is not by any stretch of the imagination "community consensus", doubly so when someone is overreaching and giving their personal view on the result. North8000 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Dennis... Casprings can try to reduce any potential damage by going back to the 20 editors he canvassed and either (1) edit the message for neutrality (as shown above), or (2) simply remove the message if it hasn't been replied to (or striking and explaining it, if it has). IMO, that would show his sincerity in fixing this problem and, as a result, put an end to this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have started, and will continue to work on it. Casprings (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Each message was either deleted or struck. Without any objection, I am going to post the following message on all the talk pages:

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.

That is a neutral statement that informs all parties of the WP:RFC/U. Any thoughts? Casprings (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I commend Casprings for accepting responsibility for his error and working hard to correct it as best he can. I see that he has gone back to the talk pages of all the editors he contacted and removed or struck, as needed. As far as Caspring's intention to go back and message all those editors again, I think it's a very bad idea. After everything we've been through with this issue, it's the last thing he should do. My suggestion is that he simply drop the issue and move on. He's done a great job of cleaning up the mess and I think he should just leave well enough alone. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to post as long as it is done to everyone who participated. Once out, it is hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube so the solution is always going to be less than optimal. All you can do is the best you can and learn from the mistake, just as all we can do is assume good faith based on your actions and willingness here. I appreciate the timely action with this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It sounds like a number of people are trying to derail an RFC/U where there would appear to be substantial content on which to comment based on an asserted violation of a peripheral procedural aspect to the filing.

It should be noted that out of 19 votes on the AN/I, 14 supported a topic ban with 5 opposed. So the metaphors about "poison" are just diversionary rhetoric.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your claim of diversion is bad faith and wrong. I didn't participate in that RFC and have nothing to gain. But I can see the blatant canvassing violation and the effect it has. Not only does the notice draw conclusions, it actually invites people to endorse his RFC/U. The implication is that if you aren't going to endorse it, you're not welcome. As I mentioned, I didn't participate in that RFC. I see other editors here that didn't, yet see the violation. You, on the other hand, did participate and voted against Arzel, then were quick to jump into the new RFC as well. Is it really a diversion, or do you just not like it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all, the suggestion relating to the RFC was made by Arbitrators during the ongoing TPm case. Since my interaction with Arzel is limited to the TPm, it might be objected that my endorsement based on that limited interaction is somewhat out of the scope of the suggestions relating to starting an RFC. The only issue with the notification by Caspring has been addressed by Dennis Brown in this thread, so the repeated cries of "poison" seem to represent a type of IDIDN'THEARTHAT and diverting attention from the main issue at hand of the RFC.

Most of us have been waiting for the decision of the Arbcom case before assessing what might be necessary subsequently, but in light of Casprings taking up the more widespread issues relating to Arzel's editing conduct in response to AGK's comment, it does not seem too far afield to pursue the RFC, which has generated a fair amount o interest already.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure most of those editors hadn't even seen the message yet. I really feel that it would be better to let this matter rest now that Casprings has done such a good job of handling the problem. Why reignite the fire? But I'll defer to Dennis' judgement and experience if he disagrees. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and post the neutral message. I did learn that I must watch the neutral nature of these statements, not just post it to all that is involved. Again, thanks for bring the issues to my attention and doing so in such a logical manner. I appreciate everyone's input. Casprings (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Casprings, can you please wait to allow time for other editors to comment? It was only 40 minutes ago that you posted about your intent to re-message every editor. I don't see any need to rush. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I see that it's too late. Casprings posted here at 2:51 and then started his re-messaging blitz at 2:52. Ugh. I don't understand why you asked "Any thoughts?" if weren't going to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to respond. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry. Didn't see your message. That said, each editor now has a neutral message.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Will I saw that Dennis saw no issue and you deferred to his message. The other reason is that a WP:RFC/U has 48 hours until it closes, unless other users join. I made a mistake about sending it in an un-neatral manner, but those involved in the discussion needed the message ASAP. Casprings (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Going back and lining through it doesn't unring the bell. You got too over-eager to make your case and screwed up. Needed it ASAP? You mean you wanted it now, right? Those results you refer to sat for months inactive, why the hurry now? Wonderful that you accept that, but the better thing to do is stop pursuing this and, if it's as big an issue as you claim, someone else will start one and hopefully not poison the well the way you did. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Casrpings... yes, I agreed to defer to Dennis and was waiting for his reply. But he hasn't replied since I said that. And of course it didn't mean that other editors would have deferred to Dennis. And you started the RFC/U only 10 hrs ago, so there was absolutely no urgency. I honestly can't believe you re-messaged all those editors less than an hour after asking "Any thoughts?" here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Niteshift36. It's best to withdraw the RfC/U. You can't unring a bell. The ANI Casprings refers to became the current ArbCom case. But Casprings didn't comment at the ArbCom when he had the opportunity. Why bring this action now? And the canvassing has poisoned the well, as Niteshift36 has noted. Arzel would not get a fair hearing on this. It should be administratively closed. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• We now have two editors who agree with me that Casprings should drop the issue and move on. As I first said here about eight hours ago, "Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started." 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who received the original solicitation, I disagree that its content was sufficiently beguiling to warrant withdrawal of the associated request. Conversely, the tone of this very discussion is eerily reminiscent of those which have prompted such intervention in the first place.   — C M B J   08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removing them won't really help. I don't know about you, but I actually read edits made to my talk page. Even if you removed it, I'd still see it and the poison tree still exists. As for whatever this conversation reminds you of, I wasn't involved in any of those, so I'll presume you aren't making some blanket statement that includes me. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to work to make the RFC/U's opening statements as neutral as possible. Despite my admitted mistake of not watching the wording of my first statement, it still went to a controlled audience, the members who took part in the first discussion. Since those members already have some degree of knowledge of this, I disagree that the "bell cannot be unrung" and so forth. If there was damage done, it was relatively minor. I made a good faith error, which I am sorry about. However, I see no argument that my message, either first or second, will change the mind or taint the views of the audience it was sent to. I would argue that the RFC/U should be allowed to continue. There are issues there, at least in my view and the view of others, and those issues should be allowed to be explored. RFC/U is the best tool to explore the possible problems and shutting down the RFC/U only concerns to ignore the concerns of 14 editors who saw a problem. Casprings (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over NPOV tag on Narendra Modi

This article has been subject to aggressive editing by tenacious editors over the past few months. At this point of time, there is an ongoing edit-war over whether the article should continue to retain a {{POV}} template on the top of the page. The discussion over the use of template on the article page, which is only supposed to be used as a measure of last resort, can be found here. This probably needs attention of an uninvolved party due to hostile revert-warring by an editor with biased views. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus has gone ahead and posted notification messages on several discussion pages (regardless of their relevance) soliciting comments on a half-baked RfC that they have initiated on Talk:Narendra Modi. Obviously, the tone of their messaging amounts to canvassing, specially after their post on the Wikiproject on Pakistani politics discussion page. A list of these pages and the textual content is available below:

RFC on Nautrality at Narendra Modi
"Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral."

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics (Not sure why this is relevant for this article?)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Indian politics
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gujarat
• Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a current thread about this article at BLP/N, which is where it should be discussed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread is mainly about aggressive behaviour of an established user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan is presumably relevant because this relates to a Hindu-Muslim issue. comments made by Modi regarding Afzal Guru, Modi being a Hindu nationalist and so forth. I probably would not have mentioned it there but, hey, more eyes for a RfC is surely not a bad thing? It is mentioned at WT:INB also, after all, by the same person. You, NHN, have accused me of ganging-up but your focus here appears to be Maunus. Feel free to add me to your list of "tenacious editors". Good luck with that: I have been trying to develop the article, including via initiation of numerous threads at Talk:Narendra Modi. I'm not always right, of course, but any article about any high-profile politician, especially one in India or Pakistan, is almost certain to attract POV. My interactions with Maunus are minimal, as they are with others who tend to get involved in modern-day issues of this sort, yet you suspect "ganging up" and "aggression" even when an issue is still shown as unarchived at WP:BLPN and there is a recent prior thread on the talk page.

I am not suggesting that you have a bias but I do think that you have taken your eye of the ball. I've done that and, hey, it happens but in the interval while you claim to have been watching there have been massive removals of arguably non-favourable content - mostly by Yogesh Khandke - that went undiscussed, was often reinstated by others (not me), and there was not a peep out of you. So, how long has your eye been off this particular ball? The RfC is A Good Thing. Maunus suggested it and I agreed. Later, much later, you said the same thing today. So what is your problem here? - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to make the point, and with no knowledge of NHN's real life or other contributions to Misplaced Pages, this series of edits took place on 18 April. NHN's last prior edit was 10 April and their next subsequent contribution was 12 May. A fair amount of what was removed in that block was reinstated in one form or another and I can't recall that I did any of that. Yet I am accused of ganging up? There is clearly a lot of contention here and, alas, I've never yet seen an opening statement for a RfC that I felt comfortably covered all of the bases. This one is no different but, hopefully, all will come out in the wash. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I applaud taking the issue to ANI, hopefully this can draw attention to the page from other editors than the clique of pro-Modi editors who have clearly had control of the page for a long time since I accidentally stumbled on it about a month ago. In contrast to editors like Headless Nick, and his companions at the talkpage I do not have a history of editing indian political topics, but simply stumbled on a biographic article that was so blatantly hagiographic that I started looking up the literature to provide some counterbalance. This page and others on hindu nationalist politics need acute attention from as many experienced editors as possible which is why I started the RfC and why I advertised it as widely as possible (which is clearly not canvassing under any definition of the term, and which is also not nonneutrally worded). As soon as other editors start chipping in I am fully content to leave that topic area, and let other editors form a consensus. But as long as it is maintained by a group of editors who appears to act as an extension of Modis own Public relations team, then someone will have to provide some balance. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

While I have in the past seen massive edit warring over obscure facts, this is the first time I'm seeing it happen due to a tag. Reinstating the tag by Maunus seems a bit childish to me, a lot like trolling. Clear consensus must first be established on this matter before we put up the tag. As I stated last night, the tag is being misused. Just because the tag exists, and several sections of the article are allegedly tilted for or against the subject, there is no reason why tag exists. Seems more like a case of 'The tag exists and there therefore must be inserted into the article'. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Puting the notices on the notice boards, especially the way it was worded Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral was to sensationalise the whole thing. Sitush, note that Afzal Guru was an Indian citizen, puting the tag on the pakistan politics notice board especially with such wording is clear mischief .-sarvajna (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages guideline on canvassing explicitly states that the wording of the messaging should be neutral. Maunus, a former administrator who recently resigned "under a cloud", does not appear to care for such trivial guidelines on the encyclopedia and employs aggressive tactics into dominating and bullying other users. This effectively poisons the atmosphere and rules out any chance for productive discussions and dispute resolution. The behavioural guideline further states: "More importantly, recruiting too many editors for dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember, the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it." Maunus's bad faith editing is laid bare by their employment of biased wording and posting of messages canvassing involvement in the dispute on pages such as Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics which is not relevant for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording is neutral and this is not canvass. If you repeat the accusation of canvassing then I hope you will back up the accustation with action so that a real admin can come a long and tell you what is and isnt canvassing. Also your accusations of bad faithy are becoming pretty intolerable. From my very first edit to Modis article which you reverted (using twinkle! with no edit summary) you have been casting aspersions about my motives.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The evidence has been documented above. You will also need to read WP:TALK to understand why it's not polite to double indent the comments you post. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps. As I said, I would likely not have mentioned the RfC at the Pakistan project & I've never yet seen a well-formed RfC, although Afzal Guru was convicted and executed by India as a collaborator of Pakistani jihadists. I cannot read the mind of Maunus and was merely speculating as to why they did what they did. Perhaps I should not but when I am seemingly among those being accused of ganging-up by an admin who even after coming here seems note to have read recent discussions, well, ... some attempt to balance things out seems reasonable. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How is Narendra Modi connected with Afzal Guru? Because he made some comments on the Congress government in relation to his treatment? Would that mean that everytime Manmohan Singh says something about an Indian national who has Russian collaborators, every dispute on his biography must be referred to the Wikiproject on Russian politics? Stop wikilawyering and read up WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have made unfounded accusations against me. You certainly have not been following the article development and talk page particularly well. That is your problem and it just happens that the manner in which you have failed to do this is working out to be favourable to Modi and his extremely effective PR machine (not my POV: his effectiveness as a political communicator is well-documented). I doubt that it is deliberate on your part but while I would not have done things in the way that Maunus has, I can understand the frustration that might arise in this situation and I note that the terms that Maunus used are ones that are commonly applied to Modi. Running here crying "foul" when you are clearly not completely au fait with what has been going on - the open BLPN thread, for example - might be ok in strict policy terms but the fault may not all be on one side here. You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV and hassling at least one person (ie: me) who has been working hard to improve things in an almost peer-review manner while generally sitting on the fence when it comes to the issues surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots and how we depict Modi's cult of personality or whatever it is perceived to be. I, too, sometimes fail to handle things well but at least I acknowledge it. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you have changed the thread of the discussion from Afzal Guru/Pakistani politics Wikiproject to Narendra Modi's PR machinery. How is the chatter about his PR machinery relevant here? Your actions and words denote that you seem to be holding some strong opinions about the individual, which in by itself is not wrong, however to keep bringing up the same subject out of context over and over again and claiming that the person is so controversial that his article shall remain controversial forever does not really help the encyclopedia or contribute to the further development of the aticle. In the past month you have labelled the subject of the article as an "arch-manipulator", while also claiming that most other politicians are as well. How in the world is that even relevant for discussion on an article talk page? By extension of your logic, shouldn't the PR machinery of these other unnamed politicians be working against the subject of the article? More importantly, please drop the passive-aggressive attitude by trying to sideline discussions on the actual problem with behaviour of users on the article. Only recently you accused another editor of making "Modi-apparatchik type of edits". Are you trying to claim that the other editor is a paid agent of the Gujarat government? Do you think similar accusations can be made against you given your previous comments on Narendra Modi?

Frankly, this discussion has been rather exasperating and I am going to take a step back and do my own research on the article. You are welcome to do the same. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything against you on the ANI, I wonder who is making accusations against whom, let us not getting into how effective one's PR machine is neither ANI nor wikipedia should be bothered about that.You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV Are you saying that the edit-waring of Maunus should be ignored? You seems to be more interested in protecting Maunus here, I agree that recently you have not gone into content disputes and the other clean up work that you are doing is surerly appreciated. There are more than one editor and many were not involved in the article like me since past felt that the tag was not required but Maunus seems to think other way. Do not consider yourself a sole torch bearer of NPOV. -sarvajna (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have provided links to the various accusations above. The timing and the wording obviously relate to me as much as to Maunus. Someone has not done their homework here before spraying around accusations of tenacious editing, POV and ganging-up. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Given the substantial amount of accusations leveled against me here from editwarring to canvassing, "ganging up" and "mischief", I would like to ask what administrative action is being sought in this thread?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• If someone adds a neutrality tag and provides evidence on the talk page, then you need consensus for its removal. I see an RfC in progress so we should just let that run and close this discussion before somebody says something they're going to regret later. I'd do it myself but .... --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have really cared to see the RFC does not give any reason or evidence about why the article is not neutral, rather it asks a question "is the article neutral" so we are not sure. Having NPOV tag and giving the current RfC as the reason is meaningless.-sarvajna (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Aryanism and other drivel redux

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

Correctionperson (talk · contribs) (not a very promising username to begin with) is at it again. Can I get some help, please? Evanh2008  22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as diffs go, just scroll through the contribs and click one at random. Evanh2008  22:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you specifically point out the problematic diffs? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Like he said, all of them. Anyway I think it's all been reverted now, though honestly, accounts like that should just be indeffed (and what's up with so many of these showing up lately?) Volunteer Marek 23:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing in the recent edits that warranted a block. It appears to be a content dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There was plenty.Volunteer Marek 23:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Plenty worthy of an immediate indef. If it was worthy of a 48-hour block 49 hours ago, it deserves an indef now. And now we're all scum. Should I really have to break out Robert's Rules and deliver an address to parliament to have this dealt with? Evanh2008  00:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely after the personal attack here (which has already been removed). --Kinu /_c 00:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kinu, I was about to do the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And here I didn't even know I had power to abuse! Thanks, guys. Evanh2008  01:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who planets vandalized

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

Can some admin look at the above article? The page has been replaced by the text (can post screenshot if needed): <trolling redacted> Other Doctor Who related articles may also be worth checking. Thanks. 50.148.126.15 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, {{Doctor Who}} was vandalized. The vandalism has been reverted, the accounts responsible have been blocked, and the template has been protected. Thanks for letting us know! ~ Matthewrbowker 06:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User claiming to be the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party wanting to remove article.

User:Kehlstein, who in an edit summary claims to be Stephen Goodson, the leader of the party, is repeatedly removing sourced controversial/negative material from the article, and requesting/demanding that it be removed. To me the material seems properly sourced but I would appreciate if an administrator took a look at it, and also decided what to do to Kehlstein/Goodson. "User:Kehlstein" is a single-purpose account that has only ever edited Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party and Stephen Goodson, meaning that there's a COI too, and has been given a final warning for repeatedly deleting the material. Thomas.W (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, they've been given a final warning and haven't blanked since. Shirt58, operating under the alias "Peter", has left them a note; let's see how that goes. If they return to Goodson, that article should probably be tagged; if they return to that party article and edit like they did before, they should be blocked indefinitely. Also, good luck to you, South Africa. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dananmohammad

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

User:Dananmohammad has for some time been engaged in edit-waring at the article Muhammad in the Bible. There have been repeated attempts to engage him in discussion at his talk page, at the article talk page, and at the fringe theories board page (Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Muhammad_in_the_Bible_redux). Danamohammad simply interprets every objection to his unreadable version of the article as evidence of anti-Islamic bias. Yesterday I attempted to change tack by demonstrating that we can create a workable NPOV article on this topic using legitimate sources. I hoped this would show him that we were not just attempting to suppress the "facts" he claims to be presenting, and would stop him edit-warring. User:Stenen Bijl and I created a new version of the article incorporating useable aspects of Dananmohammad's version. It had no effect. He just plonked his old version on top of the new text yet again. On his talk page, he added another long rant culminating in a legal threat aimed at User:Mangoe: "I remind you are responsible of your actions and I could sue you even if u are in the north pole." . He also appears to be saying he will continue to edit war indefinitely . It has proven impossible to engage this user in useful discussion, despite continued efforts, so action is, I think, now required. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally have done little editing to the article, other than rendering one passage in a more neutral voice and reverting another addition which didn't make a whole lot of sense in context. I also, however, reverted him wholesale once. I'm not that strong on scholarly work on Islam, so I have warned Dananmohammad several times that his straight-from-scripture exegesis wasn't going to be acceptable, and pleaded with him to find scholarly sources. His response to this has been to state that the primary sources are scholarly and various other statements indicating that he is utterly unwilling, for whatever reason, to replace his analyses with secondary research. Statements on his talk page indicate (I'm afraid I have to be blunt about this) utter incompetence in working with the biblical materials; for example one edit was justified with a claim that ancient Greek lacked vowels. Various people tried ignoring his useless version and laboriously pieced together something fit for an encyclopedia, but he has simply overwritten this with his own version eleven times, by my count. I don't care about his childish legal threat, but his absolute lack of cooperation and his apparent inability to do the kind of work needed for this have been given far more toleration than he ever deserved. We still need an Islamic expert to help on this article, but he surely is not that person, and he needs to be prevented from editing that article. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just ran across this - I blocked Dananmohammad several hours ago, for the aforementioned edit warring and legal threats (which I stumbled over independently). It's an indef until he retracts the legal threat, after that, I'm happy for any other admin to reduce it to the usual 24-hour edit warring block, or do away with it altogether if they see fit. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Montessori education

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

There is some edit-warring going on at Montessori education.

I have tried to get Rrvishewar to discuss the change that he/she wants to make to the article but my post on the article talk page has been ignored and my post on the user talk page has been reverted. Other messages on the user talk page have also been reverted.

The latest revert by Rrvishewar has undone some unrelated changes by other users.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Too late! I went to {{subst:ANI-notice}} the user talk page and found the user has now been blocked. Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also blocked the recent obvious sock User:Edupreschool. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

173.160.102.113

173.160.102.113 (talk · contribs) already has a uw-vandalism4 on his talk page, and has vandalized Some Like It Hot here: . I haven't done this before, but since uw-vandalism4 is a "last warning," does that mean a block is next? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The "last warning" was two months ago, and there is no reason to expect that this is the same editor. Apteva (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, even a week ago a proper change was done with the reason given in the edit summary. It appears dynamic so I see little since in doing anything other then re-warning for the current edit and moving on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"sense". Apteva (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Pacific (TV miniseries) edit war

The situation at The Pacific (TV miniseries) is getting out of control, and requires the intervention of other editors and administrators. As I am involved in the dispute, I will try to give as complete an accounting of what has happened as possible, acknowledging that I am, in part, to blame for the edit war.

Niemti made a series of bold changes to the article, but offered no edit summaries or explanation for the changes he made. I reverted, stating in my edit summary: "Such an extensive rewrite and rearrangement of the article requires an explanation; discuss on talk." I then posted on the talk page, stating that I did not find the edits helpful and hoping that we could discuss the matter.

Niemti did not respond until the next day, posting a series of messages, in which, instead of showing a willingness to discuss the issues, he stated that they "totally obvious for anyone who has edited Misplaced Pages for a while" and questioning if I understood the meaning of the word "synopsis". He then reverted to his preferred version of the article. I responded to his talk page post, stating that his attitude was not helpful, and citing WP:BRD, I reverted his changes again.

Fearing the situation was getting out of control, I posted a message on PresN's talk page, asking him to keep an eye on the discussion. PresN never responded, but Niemti did, posting a series of messages in which, frankly, the sarcasm and attitude get even worse, and in which he admits to canvassing to get an uninvolved editor --- "I just informed JTBX (who had such problems with this user before) about this discussion, so he can tell more, hopefully leading to some action regarding this problem (it's about time)." --- to join in the fight.

Today, he reverted again and I reverted back, which I think puts us both at WP:3RR.

What I would like to see happen here is for other editors to join in the discussion, for Niemti to curb his attitude, and for us to move forward in improving the article. The latter may only be able to happen if Niemti and I stay on the sidelines. The atmosphere now is so combative, I am not sure we can work together at all. But, the situation cannot be allowed to continue. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is a bold choice for Niemti, who has just narrowly avoided being banned more than once due to civility and OWN issues. He's on extremely this ice and is well aware. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite is owning basically every article he's watching, reverting any kind of edits (I wasn't even inseting literally anything, all of it was just basic copyedit of a badly written article) unless the edits are explained to him for a reviev and accepted by him, which he calls "consensus", in a violation of Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. He does completely unilaterally, without explaining his problems (at all, instead simply claiming that "none of those changes seemed necessary or helpful" without elaborating) and he does also even in violation of 3 reverts rule (). This need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're not following WP:BRD? Or waiting until there's a consensus on the talk page before reinstating your information? Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" with what, with whom? Do you call "consensus" a supposed necessity for getting an approval for performing even a simple copyedit work from someone who thinks he owns articles (plural, as in multiple articles, LOTS of them) on Misplaced Pages, and so he needs to review everything before any change can happen? copyedited literally thousands of articles, I don't remember having problems with aquiring "consensus" for that from anyone else. --Niemti (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, with sources or consensus, if someone is challenging it, then your answer is yes, it is necessary. (Excluding bad faith trolling type stuff, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Consensus for having a badly written article? Consensus for my edits being in fact "necessary or helpful", while it wasn't even said why he thought they were not (and all of them)? That's ownership and demands for edits to be explained, reviewed by him and then (maybe) approved, which is discussed in Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles (and which needs to be stopped). And once again - its's not just about me or this article. --Niemti (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for your proposed changes. Quite frankly, upon looking further, both of you are acting unreasonable. One of you demands and explanation for the changes, without stating why he needs it, (Jacobite) while the other refuses to give an explanation, when it would just be easier to explain why you made the actual changes (Niemti). Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it's not just about this article or me, it's about his ownership of multiple articles and behaving like that in regards to other editors as well. Also, as for "and OWN issues" - it was regarding the user who is now banned precisely for literally screwing up articles (I was right about him all the time), a completely different situation as you see. --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but part of it is about this article, and you avoiding a real response on that is exactly what I'm talking about here. Neither one of you are discussing the heart of the problem, you're both just barking out vague questions to the other one, and then just responding with more questions. One asks "Why no edit summary?" and the other just asks "Why do I need one?". If you guys would start answering each others questions maybe you'd get somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries are optional, while ownership of articles (and it's not about just this one) is not allowed and is the real problem here. It's hard to say how much damage he did with indiscriminately/whimisicaly reverting people's edits like that, apparently for a long time (years?). --Niemti (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point, edit summaries were just an example. My point is that one of you asks "Why did you do that?" while the other just asks back "Why did you do that?" Both of you need to explain your edits to one another on the talk page. You're both too busy cooking up another "zinger" to discuss anything of substance. Beyond that, you haven't given any proof of this huge, multi-year/article spanning OWN conspiracy you keep referring to. You gave a single dif showing one other time you disagreed with him. You're going to need more proof before people start listening to that, otherwise there's not much to discuss yet there... Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's because I know this guy, and I decided to not play his game (someone got to make a stand, and I'm glad it went here). Okay. Happy now? Now, the "OWN conspiracy" (at least 215 reverts out of 500 last edits). --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I need to run out the door, but two quick points- 1, I would not describe a back-and-forth with 1 revert on one side and two on the other as an "edit war", and 2, the canvass accusation is a bit rich seeing as it was quite clear that you only contacted me vs any other admin because you thought I would take the not-Niemti side in any argument. --PresN 16:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

2 reverts on my side (plus edits), 3 on his. --Niemti (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Although Niemti does have a fairly abrasive approach to people sometimes and that has gotten him into a lot of hot water. In this case, his edits did indeed expand the article. Sure, edit summaries would have helped but aren't required and wholesale reverting the, what I think are, constructive changes to the article was not the way to go about it. Quite frankly, the article should be reverted back to the version post-Niemti's changes and a discussion kicked off on the talk page rather than going the classical BRD route since there was nothing untoward in Niemti's edits. Blackmane (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not enough. He needs to cease ownership on ALL articles. As I said, that many, many articles where he constantly blocks attempts by other editors to improve them, demanding "consensus" with him, and calling his versions "the stable version" ("stable", because he reverts back to it). I don't think I even have to say how harmful this is, and it needs to stop right now. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you show some difs for this? Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

and the discussion above it (JTBX can tell you more about it). Also notice how he never even responded (and so his "stable versions" remains). Apparently, Gareth Griffith-Jones is also in it. I'm pretty sure just glancing over their edit history might reveal lots of it. (I can also recall his semi-automatic revert of my cleanup-rewrite of one of Clint Eastwood-starring spaghetti westerns.) --Niemti (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that their names have been mentioned, I've left a notification on JTBX and Gareth Griffith Jones. Blackmane (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This film was A Fistful of Dollars (Sargecross wanted me to find it, so I did). --Niemti (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Some other examples of untold damage done by The Old Jacobite to Misplaced Pages:

• The writing is horrible. Portions of sentences like "tries more and more drastically" give the appearance that this was written by a middle school student on lunch break. RepublicanJacobite, from the edit history and talk page, you seem to have longstanding WP:OWNership issues with this article. That wouldn't be so bad if the writing weren't quite so dreadful. My edits improve the quality of the writing. BRD is an essay, not a policy, and not an excuse to block people from improving your favorite articles or changing them from your preferred version. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that this artice is in need of clean up, however, any edits done to improve the article are being reverted and at many times without cause. For example, any edits explcitly stating that William Wallace did not have an affair with Isabella of France are often reverted along with any edits that explicitly state that Edward III was not the son of Wallace. Instead, the article has a vague passage that Isabella was 3 years old at the time leaving the reader to infer that that an affair could not have happened without clear indication that the two were never involved even later in life. There is no reason for such a run around. This , , and are just a few examples of this. In fact, even adding the fact this was historically inaccurate was a point of tension with the first mention of it being reverted without good cause despite its factual accuracy as seen . Additionally, this article contains certain statements which seem bold to state without any reliable sources to back them up. An example is that the article makes the connection that the Stone of Destiny was returned to Scotland as a result of this film. A citation is going to be needed for this claim. Additionally, for some reason Anglophobia has its own section despite it's light content and even though there a cultural effects section where it could be merged into. I'm afraid it looks like two editors have taken strict ownership of this article based on edit history and WP:DR will be the next step if such reverts continue without valid explanations. TheLou75 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) (the other self-proclaimed owner in question: Erik)

• Mr. T.O.J., I tend to disagree with what your saying. This particular article is not a "collaborative project". If it were, you would allow me to edit without reverting my changes giving no plausible explanation. Aside from one section, the Awards section, you haven't compromised on any of my changes. You constantly ignore everything I've been saying. If anything, I've been the only one making compromises so far accomodating a portion of your selected complaints. Your also not making any effort to review the content that I put forth. It doesn't take that long to view a few small sections of improvement. I'm not asking to you to review a novel. You are exhibiting clear ownership qualities in relation to this page. A portion of what your saying is also incorrect. There hasn't been "multiple editors" who disagree with my changes. Its been entirely you and another editor who neither seem to have their facts straight after being proven wrong. I've been more than patient waiting for your response to the improvements. You have yet to do so. Do you have anything helpful to add or say to the points and issues above that I mentioned? Or do you want to keep on ignoring what I have to say, and continue doing nothing? Your not cooperating. Moovi (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And so on. --Niemti (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, while we understand you feel strongly about these matters, some recent issues have given plenty of editors reason to drag you to ANI and other places for slight or moderate civility concerns. I endorse bringing any content disputes to DRN in the future for the simple reason of opening it up to new eyes and documenting cases in which can prove your patience and dedication in future problems. Niemti, you do acknowledge your short temper, but it would be in everyone's best interest to get a centralized mediation on any issues concerning your editing for the time being. We want to help, but if you are not being calm and remaining civil then the community is going to ostracize you and you will be perpetually skating on thin ice. You do good work, but I think you need to remove yourself from conflicts and substitute in other editors when your changes are contested. I frequent DRN now and it is a smooth if albeit slow process. In order to prevent yourself from being blocked over your questionable and sometimes hostile responses, I think a little 'editor incubation' needs to occur and your arguments and defense of those edits need to be made by proxy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a condition of participation in Misplaced Pages that editors be willing to discuss edits and collaborate in a constructive manner on improvements and changes and fixes.

BOTH EDITORS here need to remember this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Both"? Like it's only about me? How many more examples of "Mr. T.O.J." owning various film/series articles and blocking other editors' work do you want me to provide? Because I can do it. --Niemti (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't, "Mr. T.O.J." did. I use this occasion to highlight the enormous damage that he did to a large number of Misplaced Pages film-related articles (blocking many people from working on and improving the articles). --Niemti (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright then!

• Well, I beg to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's assertion of article ownership with mass reverts. He didn't think someone would one day challenge his monopoly-type authority. He basically came in there, sort of did a whole bunch of mass reverts, giving unplausible reasons for doing so, and being proved wrong on virtually every count. He's attempted to use false reasoning as a poor excuse for being opinionated. The DVD version of the film can be used as a reference as has been done so in FA nominated articles like American Beauty. The overuse of images is complete nonsense. He was upset that an image for example, appeared in the Plot section. There's no Film Project rule that says you can't have a photo in that section to illustrate a character relationship. Other FA articles have had them in the past. All the photos include complete usage rationales. As an example, a similar photo/rationale is present on the Avatar film page: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg Yet it wasn't deleted. User Erik has decided to jump on Republican's bandwagon and sort of give an unplausible explanation for removing the pics saying they were not "compelling enough" reasons. User Erik is simply giving a double standard. I've placed the correct rationales: low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. I'm considering reverting that edit. Its completely unjustified. The friendship piece with Glenn and Costner details a character development relationship that occured during the filming of Silverado. It needs an expansion. Does that mean that this particular piece should be deleted in the meantime? I mentioned already the issue of the Blu-ray/DVD info regarding Amazon on the talk page. The reference is not being used for reasons of spam. It was used for one precise point: to note a particular release date. Websites like Amazon or Barnes & Noble are not user edited. Again, I don't believe there is a Film Project rule that asserts you can't use an ecommerce site just to simply reference a release date. And if I might add, Alien vs. Predator, another FA article does reference Amazon for a piece of content too. Cite number 39. DeWaine (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly, I am surprised, Andy, that you did not trot out your old "article ownership" accusation, as you seem to do every single time we have any interaction. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) (Andy = Andy Dingley, another user who was repeatedly being blocked by "Mr. T.O.J.", back then posting as RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive)

That's seven different users (me, JTBX, Balph Eubank, TheLou75, Moovi, DeWaine, Andy Dingley) in at least eight different articles, but the very some problem. Enough already for admins to stop ignoring it, or talking about us "both"? Or how many more examples I need to give you to get up and act, after this has continued for a long time? (I wonder, how many people got their edits summarily reverted and didn't even know?) --Niemti (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why RFC/U exists. Your tone and conduct show little civility and a clear frustration with the user, but responding in kind is liable to get you punished because most of us are more familiar with your actions then Jacobite's at this point. When deciding between two wrongs, who do you think is going to get off easier? No one? The quiet one or the loud one? I don't know, but you should seriously consider your tone in your responses. Even now it sounds like you are blaming admins for not being proactive with a situation that were unaware of. 7 editors having a problem with Jacobite's alleged OWN is exactly what RFC/U is for. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, one can be a nearly complete asshole on Misplaced Pages for many, many years before anything is done about it. The keyword here is nearly and it translates as extreme rudeness but avoiding extreme incivility. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sol1

I've just blocked new account User:Sol1, and I'd be happy for my action to be checked here - and for some other eyes on the issue, as I need to head off shortly. Sol1 has been making rapid-fire changes to Misplaced Pages's use of the names of well-known scientists etc. I first saw changes of the use of Galileo's name to use either his full name of "Galileo Galilei" or just the surname "Galilei" - , and more. On further checking, I saw Sol1 is rapidly changing lots of uses of famous scientists historical figures' names to use their full names - "Goethe" to "Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" - , Kepler, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger to full names - etc. And there are lots more - see Special:Contributions/Sol1 I left a couple of messages pointing out that we use common names and that he needs to talk if he wishes to make such wide-ranging changes, but I got no response and he was continuing at a fast pace. So I've issued a block to stop him and get his attention. So, can I please request the following?

• Check my actions and see if you think they were reasonable
• Have a look over Sol1's contributions and help revert if you think they are unreasonable
• See if you think there is anything suspicious about a brand new user making such rapid-fire large-scale changes?

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Good block. User is also misusing the minor edit flag. --John (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI the minor flag is automatically added for page moves. None of these were, and I really see nothing wrong with deciding that is better to remove a redirect, and that is certainly a minor edit – reverting this edit, done by above user, was absurd. Galileo has been a redirect to the scientist's full name since 12 September 2011‎. Goethe has been a redirect to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe since 9 September 2008. I would suggest unblocking, with an apology. Apteva (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note. The first diff that was reverted was I think changing Galileo to Galilei, which was correctly reverted, except that removing the second link should have been left. So some of the edits were questionable, but most of them just seem to be removing redirects. They used Galileo instead of Galilei for the pipe in the diff which I cited, but Galilei earlier. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not have to check to see if our article is at Einstein or Albert Einstein. Apteva (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are admins and are making edits like this one? Apteva (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We actually have a guideline that discourages "fixing" redirects as Sol1 has been doing; WP:R#NOTBROKEN. John's reverts were perfectly valid, since they restored the status quo links. As regards the block, yes, seems fine to me - whilst discussion is obviously preferable sometimes the only way to get someone to stop is to actually stop them, and that seems to have been the case here. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that redirects do not need to be fixed, and that edits are very expensive, but that does not excuse reverting a perfectly valid fix, thus creating yet another edit that needs to be fixed yet again when something else warrants the expense of an edit. Best just to leave the edits that have been done, and only fix the ones that actually need fixing, like changing Galileo to Galilei. The editor was inconsistent with that one, sometimes using one, sometimes the other. But if someone has already removed the redirect at Einstein, there is no excuse for putting it back in without piping it instead. The article is at Albert Einstein, Sol1 changes the link from Einstein to Albert Einstein, the correction is not to put it back to Einstein, but if the article actually reads better using Einstein instead of Albert Einstein, change it to Albert Einstein|Einstein, instead of back to Einstein. A restore does not "undo" an edit, it is a new edit and is just as expensive as any other edit. Talk about biting the newcomers though, but it is pretty uncommon for a newcomer to do 500 edits the first day. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding brand new user: it seems they're quite experienced at dewiki. But that makes it even more worrying that they didn't discuss first, and didn't respond to talk page messages. — HHHIPPO 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And judging by the edit history he/she makes the exact same kind of edits there, including moving articles without previous discussion and marking virtually everything as a minor edit, whether it was one or not. So it's surprising that he's only been blocked once on de-wiki, for edit-warring in 2008. Thomas.W (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, maybe that explains why they have not given any indication of having seen the user talk page message (never mind the fact that the orange bar is gone). Maybe they understand little to no English, but do know how to click on "what links here" from a redirect, and how to cut and paste the article name in and hit save. That also explains why they likely did not know that in English, Galileo is commonly known by their first name, not their last name. Germans tend to like things well ordered and it is possible that redirects are frowned on more widely at de. I do know there are vast differences between the two wiki's. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. We'll have to wait and see if they are interested in a discussion on their talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Unblanking by Warned IP Address 201.76.115.245

Administrator User:Bongwarrior blocked User:Marcos Infeliz as a vandalism-only account and blanked his talk page. IP address 201.76.115.245, who had been given a final warning for vandalism, unblanked the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Marcos_Infeliz&curid=39371177&diff=554937550&oldid=554936164 Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP is blocked. It's clearly the same user, and probably one of a recent string of them you can find by following the edits. I've just been considering whether it's an open proxy or not, probably methinks. No matter, he gone now. Not much else to do. -- zzuuzz 20:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

I think the RfC notification bot is currently editing while logged out; see ]. Is that an error, or am I misunderstanding something? If I understand the instructions on that User talk:2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8, I'm supposed to softblock it to force the bot to log in. But I don't want to mess something up by doing so, so I thought I should ask here first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anomie has softblocked 2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:0/124 which covers that individual IP. Legoktm (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I am certainly learning about what is considered proper behavior here and what is not. In the future I will never be engaging in debate about other people’s views, only making suggestions for better wording. I abhor a culture where attacking others is acceptable and refuse to ever fall into becoming part of that culture again.

For offending other editors, I am truly sorry. This should be a collaborative effort not a battleground. My intention in coming to ANI was to find a way to reduce conflict, not create additional conflict.

My reading of BLP seems to be at odds with that of some other editors on Misplaced Pages, but some of the editors most vocal about my understanding have been roundly criticized for their explanations of their understanding of BLP: . I believe strongly that in all places (not just WP) people should not have negative things written about them unless it can be very well sourced and couched in appropriate language and that all people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We also need to be very careful to accurately reflect subject's views and what they say. Misrepresenting a person's views (in an article, or those of another editor) is never a good idea. To the extent that I have not followed BLP as understood by most Wikipedians, I apologize.

For my further education, does anyone want to opinion on this edit and this edit . Is this how we improve articles? Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Those both appear to be the same edits, but it is never appropriate to discuss another editor on an article talk page, no matter what they might have done. That is what user talk pages are for, the article talk page is solely and only for discussing improvements to the article. Apteva (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch Apteva, thanks. I just updated my post with the correct link (1st one) in the chronological order.Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Same problem. On Commons it is absolutely forbidden to name an editor in a section heading. That entire section should be deleted, as it was, six minutes later. Apteva (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And to which I made no objection. Thought I was providing a community service. Didn't know about that rule. Now I do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Our Talk page guidelines do not say enough about the subject. They leave too much to expectation. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, user talk pages are for discussing user conduct and any content issues that are peculiar to that editor, like above. Basically there are two methods of group decision making, parliamentary and consensus. Neither allow directing comments to or about participants. Parliamentary directs all comments to the moderator/clerk/chair. Consensus directs all comments, even disciplinary comments, to the group, unless the subject is disciplining one participant, such as here. Why is it done that way? Because it works. All of us are participants and all comments are equally important to all of us. Apteva (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that parliamentary procedure does not allow comments on participants. The UK Parliament certainly does, as does the Australian one. They occasionally require a degree of circumlocution (so that I might not be allowed to call Apteva a liar but could quote Winston Churchill and say that I suspect him/her of a "terminological inexactitude") and do require remarks to be addressed to the Speaker or chair, but this didn't bar Margaret Thatcher from describing her opponents as "Frit! Frit!", nor Geoffrey Howe from bringing her down with his resignation speech, nor Julia Gillard from her blistering yet thoroughly parliamentary criticism of Tony Abbott. I'm also not sure that Misplaced Pages would benefit from requiring me to use phrases such as "I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that" when I could just write "Why do you think that". NebY (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for a DUCK block of User:Jayakrishnan.ks101

Can we get a quick DUCK block of

• Jayakrishnan.ks101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

as a sock of blocked

• Gogdygody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards