Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 8 September 2013

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 29 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 27 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 96 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 75 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 66 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 50 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 11 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 108 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 74 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 45 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Administrator Nick-D, editor EyeTruth, former editor Blablaaa and the battle over the Battle of Kursk page

I raise this complaint regarding administrator Nick-D over his handling of the disputes over the Battle of Kursk article. I believe the actions of this otherwise sound administrator were inconsistent and were the result of manipulation on the part of a rather elusive and argumentative editor currently editing by the name of EyeTruth. Though the actions of Nick D may appear as favoritism, I believe they were actually done in good conscience and represent an honest mistake.

The administrator became involved following a conversation on the administrator’s talk page between editor EyeTruth who had a lengthy history of contention and edit warring on the page. I was one of a number of editors that opposed a change in the wording to the article. I was not a party to the conversation on the administrators talk page, nor did I receive a knock regarding it.

Editor EyeTruth has been persistently arguing for a change in the wording of the page to include the term "blitzkrieg" in reference to describing the German plans for the battle. This had been contested by a number of editors over the past three months, and had resulted in warnings and blocks being administered (see collapsable below). Nick D came in on request of user EyeTruth as an administrator to help resolve the dispute. Soon after Nick's involvement a discussion was started on the talk page to resolve this issue. While the discussion was underway editor EyeTruth inserted the term again here on 17 August at 17:45. This disrupted the ongoing discussion by short-cutting it. No action was taken by Nick-D against EyeTruth for changing the page.

EyeTruth then immediately went to Nick D's talk page, saying:

Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Twenty minutes later I returned the phrasing to as it was before, with admonition to EyeTruth “You were asked by the administrator not to change the article until the weekend had passed. You are not in position to decide what is or is not equal weight. EyeTruth, you need to participate in the talk page and await a consensus.” It should be pointed out that two other well experienced, sober editors, Sturmvogel 66 and Binksternet, had reverted earlier attempts by EyeTruth to insert his preferred phrasing (see collapsible below).

Shortly after this, Nick D issued a block against myself here, not just from the article in question, but from all of Misplaced Pages. I responded with an explanatory statement on my talk page, which was the only option available to me, but no response was offered from Nick-D, which is his right.

An hour later administrator Nick-D blocked the article’s page from any further editing for the duration of one week here.

Given the above, it seems curious that no block was placed upon editor EyeTruth when he inserted the contentious material on 20 August at 06:03. It would seem inconsistent to then block editor Gunbirddriver for simply returning the wording to the consensus opinion, especially in light of the fact that an ongoing discussion was underway on the talk page which had promise for reaching a conclusion that was workable for both sides. What role did EyeTruth’s comments on Nick D's talk page play, seen here at 07:34:

“Ok, Gunbirddriver has reverted it. His edit summary is the most striking thing about this action. The way he bends words is very scary.”

Is such influence appropriate? His comments on the talk page are responded to within thirty minutes with this response by Nick D: here:

Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter.

Is it right for editors to be essentially requesting blocks from administrators on their talk page? If the administrator felt it necessary to fully protect the article for a week, why was it also necessary to first block editor Gunbirddriver, an otherwise steady and reasonable contributor?

As to the talk page discussions, the tone on the talk page had been marred by harsh language from EyeTruth for some time, and I believe the discussion would have been well served if Nick-D had noted the contentious manner in which EyeTruth was conducting himself and encouraged him to keep a civil tone. The repeated calling me out as delusional, a liar and as an editor attempting to insert original research into the article needed to be restrained (see collapsible discussion below). Here is a sample of some of the fair:

It is only in your delusion.

followed by

I never called you delusional; instead, that particular claim of yours is the delusion. Aren't you tired of flashing the "I've-been-insulted-card"?

"Trying to insult you"? You're funny. Insulting you, or any other person, is not worth my time. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS!

This particular phrasing with all caps was repeated over and over again on the talk page.

A sample exchange:

Phrases like "Hahaha", "LOL" and "OMFG" are completely inappropriate and they need to stop. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmn, interesting opinion. OK, this is now way too hypocritical. How about "hmmmn" and "BTW" and "hehehe". Oh wait, how about "cowboy"? Hahahaha! I won't even bother wasting anymore words on this one lol. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Or this on the Wkipedia Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do.

Or here:

I finally took a much closer look at what you did in this article. THE END: a more compact article. THE MEANS: merciless butchery. Reading the lead, I saw an outstanding job but as I went down...! I think we need to bring in other editors on these recent cleanup of yours to save us both an unnecessarily deadlock. You're refusing to comprehend simple explanation and at the same time insisting on the credibility of your original research. EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think this sounds like he is not in full possession of his senses. Why would I be out to contend every step taken by EyeTruth? My editing amounts to merciless butchery? I have made over two hundred edits to the page.

Throughout EyeTruth has displayed an array of deceptive and manipulative practices. On the administrators' talk pages he is very servile and feigns ignorance, when in reality he is a very experienced editor and is well versed in wikipedia administrative policies. He has moved warnings and blocks off his talk page over to his archive section seen here on 5 July and here on 20 August.

He has also been threatening:

User:Gunbirddriver, you can heed my advice on the article's talkpage or be blocked. And this won't be a block based on biased, false information, like you did. It will be real and stick to your account for good. So heed my advice and the advice of many other editors and admin. EyeTruth (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor has an extensive past history editing on Misplaced Pages that we are unaware of because he has hidden his identity by creating a new user name. He has misled and manipulated two administrators through deceptive practices. He has removed content of warnings to an archive record, feigned ignorance, and perpetrated lies of omission and half-truths, while routinely mis-characterizating the positions of others, and their motives for taking their positions (see Collapsible space):

I have strong reason to suspect that User:EyeTruth is former User:Blablaaa. User:Blablaaa received a block of indefinite duration in August of 2010. User:EyeTruth began editing about seven months ago and has a rather limited track record of working upon Misplaced Pages. Despite this apparent lack of experience, both editors are extremely well versed in more advanced editing techniques, and are well experienced in the Misplaced Pages administrative processes of attempting to resolve conflicts and its methods for dealing with disruptive behavior. Both editors are aggressive in argument and assume bad faith on the part of their dissenters. Both editors are willing to pour a tremendous amount of time and energy into their arguments. Both are not native English speakers, though EyeTruth shows significantly expanded use of the language over Blablaaa. Most striking is the history of highly contentious arguments both editors have been involved in over seemingly minor points. In undertaking these arguments both editors tend to insult the intelligence and integrity of the editors they are in argument with, frequently make accusations of lying, improper citations and original research, and they both undertake convoluted arguments that not infrequently assert contradictory positions. Both make use of internet acronyms such as lol, OMG, :¬), @, will place sections of text in green to highlight a section, and in their comments will use bold and all caps frequently when attempting to drive a point home. Both have a fair amount of knowledge in military history, and both will sometimes take peculiar positions which though reflect some truth, tend to distort the record in some manner. Both lean heavily on David Glantz as a secondary source of information and insist upon what they would consider to be proper citations for any entry made. Both have received unequivocal support from User:Caden. Both have a tendency to forum shop until they achieve their desired outcome. Both were involved with the articles of Battle of Kursk and Battle of Prokhorovka. In addition to making edits on the English Wiki page, User:Blablaaa made edits to the Deutsch Wiki page on the Battle of Kursk article. There is no corresponding German page for the Battle of Prokhorovka. User:EyeTruth has stated that he has been speaking English since the age of three. User:Blablaaa had edited under a number of other identities prior to the series of blocks that constrained his editing in 2010. User:Blablaaa announced he was leaving Misplaced Pages in late 2010.

As to administrator Nick-D, I believe he was taken advantage of and ill used by User:EyeTruth. In the past I have taken note of his work and admired it. I think he is a fine administrator of sound judgment, and I have no issue whatsoever either working with or taking direction from him.

I apologize for the length of this statement. I have notified both individuals. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search?search=EyeTruth&prefix=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2F3RRArchive&fulltext=Search

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_95#General_Question

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Blablaaa

Before, I suspected you enjoyed trolling, but now you've proved it for real. This is too fukin funny XD. EyeTruth (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Any admin that will look at this report should please consult with other admins that have been involved with this issue. Gunbirddriver has a solid history of reporting very warped version of this dispute. The above report is so twisted, it almost amount to a lie. The admins that have dealt with this before are: User:EdJohnston, User:Mark Arsten, User:BBb23 and User:Nick-D. EyeTruth (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Trivia: Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute. Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). Well, Gunbirddriver continued edit warring as usual and thus was blocked, so he has come back with a vengeance. His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me. Please talk to the other admins that have been involved, or dig into all the links he posted and look through their respective contexts. EyeTruth (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's going to bother. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 03:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wall of text is it, Vanisaac? Well, let me try to clarify the issues:

1) Editor EyeTruth is an editor with an unknown history. Under the current identifying name, his history goes back 6 months, but he admits below that he has edited on Misplaced Pages for well over five years. I have edited on Misplaced Pages for almost three years, starting in October of 2010, and all my previous edits can be found, and all administrative actions can be seen as well. This is not the case with EyeTruth. We do not know his history, as he has chosen not to disclose it.

2) Editor EyeTruth has a history of deception with administrators. The deceptions include mischaracterizing talk page discussions, mischaracterizing other editors, moving warnings from his talk page to an archive, failing to disclose the move to editors involved in discipline measures, asking that the block administered by reduced under false pretext, and then mischaracterizing the whole event in an attempt to again attack my character. I do not find this to be a helpful manner for an editor to be conducting oneself. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to confess to not having read all of the above lengthy post in detail, but I'd like to address a couple of points on my actions:

1. I warned EyeTruth after he made this edit on 16 August: . I didn't think that a block was appropriate as the edit added material and was made in good faith as part of a strategy in which EyeTruth was inviting Gunbirddriver to edit and add to this material - it struck me as being an honest mistake rather than deliberate edit warring. EyeTruth's subsequent editing was better as it included attempts to acknowledge both sides of the dispute, and so wasn't edit warring given that it represented a shift in their earlier approach. The article history shows fairly productive too-and-fro editing between EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver over the next few days, so there was no reason to block anyone or (I thought) fully protect the article. I blocked Gunbirddriver as their edit on 20 August removed material which was under discussion on the talk page (where it had a reasonable amount of support), and seemed to have been a bad faith recurrence of the edit warring (especially given the misleading edit summary - I had suggested that both editors walk away from the article for a while several days before). I then fully protected the article to prevent any further edit warring - in retrospect I should have done this several days earlier, but I'm always reluctant to fully protect high-profile articles.
2. I was the main admin involved in responding to Blablaaa (talk · contribs) and I don't see any similarities between them and EyeTruth.

I'm not sure why this post has been made now - I instituted the block and protection over a week ago, and have deliberately taken a 'hands off' approach to the discussion on the talk page, which seems to now be well on track to resolving the content dispute - I've commented a few times to suggest ways to resolve the dispute, and I think that the resultant discussion is going well. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The post is made now because I had been away for a week following the block, and then it did take a bit of time to try to pull together the various threads. The talk page discussion is not at issue. For the record, I would not mind the term "blitzkrieg" being used in the article, but I believe it would be better to place it in a discussion section at the end of the article rather than in the section attempting to describe the German plans. The main reason for this is because the term is vague and there are multiple understandings of its meanings. EyeTruth himself is forever telling the other editors that the problem is they do not have the right understanding of the term, thus making my case. In addition, the German’s never used the term, and German officers writing about the battle after the war who were well aware of the term did not use it in reference to this battle, when they did use it in reference to other battles.

Leaving EyeTruth aside for the time being, I believe the events that occurred and the order they occurred in were not good.

To review, Nick-D made a statement on Mark Arsten’s talk page here which ultimately would support EyeTruth’s position, i.e. insertion of the phrase into the article. EyeTruth then arrives at the talk page of Nick-D to request his assistance in resolving a dispute here, already knowing that he supporedt his preferred action.

EyeTruth then adds the same version back in, which Nick pointed out was not likely to help the situation here.

Your edit appears to belie what you've written above: you have re-inserted your preferred claim that "the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg" without noting alternate viewpoints.

Precisely so. What EyeTruth claims on administrator talk pages is not at all consistent with his interactions with other editors.

EyeTruth then inserts the phrase in again with a call to Nick D to watch the page. I remove the phrase, as we still are in discussion on the talk page. EyeTruth goes to Nick’s talk page again, Nick blocks me.

It does not seem right for an editor to be calling for an administrator to block another editor. I also do not understand why when moderating the talk page no time or attention has been given to curbing Eye Truth’s poor behavior. I do not understand why he is allowed to attack my character on an administrator's talk page with no effort made to check him, or to contact me so I have a chance to respond. I find it offensive for him to call me a liar, which he does over and over again. I also find it offensive when he accuses me of original research, yet no effort has been made by any administrator to curb his language.

For administrators to maintain the moral authority required to command respect, they must act in a manner that is even handed. They must avoid acting in an arbitrary manner. Blocks placed must not reflect favoritism. EyeTruth inserted the same term into the article in the midst of a discussion. He could have offered a version of rewording on the talk page, but he did not. He circumvented the process and added to the conflict. Reinserting the term where he did and how he did did not move the process forward. There is no explanation for Nick-D allowing EyeTruth to change the phrasing in the article to what he preferred and then block myself when I attempted to maintain the phrasing until the discussion had concluded on the talk page. This is not even handed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything was going so bloody well. GBD the non usage of blitzkrieg argument is still viable. The vote is 6 to 3 with over a week to go. I must say I feel some responsibility for proposing the vote, I did not realise you could not contribute at the time. It took 48 hrs to sink in that your silence was enforced. I really apologise for that. But. They are not the same person! Its bloody obvious. Look at the style of language, the radically different approaches. This baaabaa or whatever is not the same person. Ive looked at the language, style of argumentation, even the attempt to reach consensus is radically different. I sense you are pissed off because the recent block stopped you from contributing for a few days. Dont let it blind you. Please drop the stick. Drop it now. Its not too late. And EyeTruth, do not retaliate. I have tried to be a bridge in my modest way in the short period ive worked with you two. You may not have even noticed. I dont care. I have respect for you both as good eds. its only WP :) Irondome (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything is still going fine in terms of the discussion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The block stopped him from contributing for just a day and that was before the poll was even conceived. I do respect GDB's point of view. Irondome, you probably have noticed that I fully understand you guys' perspective on this issue, and even agree to its factualness to an extent, but I'm just working with WP's idea of notability. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion Why dont we reset the vote, so you GBD can submit your own propsals? Its doable. And I am sure EyeTruth would agree. Wouldnt you Eyetruth? Thats a good way of proving you are not baabaa or whatever BTW, behaviourally. Lets just strike all this through. Hopefully not many eds have seen this yet, so we will all be saved from a show-up. can we do that Nick? Lets just get out this place. Cheers Irondome (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Naah. There is nothing to retaliate. There is also no need to reset the vote. This dispute has unnecessarily gone on for way too long. Adding another month to it is not palatable, at all. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A separate issue is the past history of EyeTruth. Whether or not he was previously the editor Blablaaa, he clearly has hidden his past, whatever it was. EyeTruth has reflected upon his personal history of previous editing of Misplaced Pages:

P.S. It was all subjective 5 years ago, and although the guidelines has tightened up since then, they are still open to the user's discernment. However, since the editors' consensus for this article is one wikilink per article, then I'll submit to it. (Anyways, I've been following the consensus ever since the last discussion). EyeTruth (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is Sturmvogel 66 being surprised to learn that EyeTruth was well familiar with Wiki editing techniques:

I beg your pardon, most editors with barely over 100 edits don't fully understand how to consolidate refs.

So clearly EyeTruth has a history of editing Misplaced Pages of at least five years duration, but the account name he currently is using only goes back to 19 February 2013, some six months. That should cause some pause.

In addition, there is clearly a history of deceptive behavior when dealing with administrators, as can be seen in his movement of warnings from his talk page to an archive, which subsequently convinced administrator Bbb23 that his block had been administered in error, when in fact as can be seen above in the collapsable section, it was not administered in error. Further, EyeTruth knew it had not been an error and did nothing to inform Bbb23 of that fact. A lie of omission is still a lie, and the earlier movement of the warnings onto his archive was most likely done for the purpose. He then went on to mischaracterize the event on Mark Arsten’s talk page here, portraying himself as some sort of victim. This behavior should not be given a pass. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You are becoming too funny Gunbirddriver. FYI, my history with WP goes back far more than 5 years, so I do feel thoroughly underrated when you say it is just 5 years. And if you really didn't know about WP, or how to do very basic edits in it, five years ago... then I'm speechless! Also Bbb23 is not stupid. Stop thinking that your are the greatest genius that can comprehend anybody's mind. I gave Bbb23 links to every single thing related to this drama and he dug into it and came to his own conclusion. Your words are full of so much %#$@%&#%, I really don't want to give anymore comments. (BTW the censored text is nothing vulgar and it is not the four-letter word shit as some may insinuate). EyeTruth (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay EyeTruth, to clarify the deception seen in the sequence of events on the block issue, they were as follows:

Editor EyeTruth is warned by Administrator Ed Johnston on 3 July here, with warning

To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.

The warning was removed from the EyeTruth talk page by user EyeTruth on 7 July and placed in an archive here. EyeTruth was warned a second time by administrator Mark Arsten on 3 August here. After ignoring the previous warnings, EyeTruth was blocked by administrator Bbb23 on 5 August here.

When EyeTruth protested the block, Bbb23 appeared to become confused, commenting here:

I've reviewed what happened again, and I believe my block was misplaced, although not for any of the reasons you've mentioned here or in the unblock request on your talk page. The tipping reason for the block was your alleged failure to heed a warning from another administrator. However, now that I've reviewed the events, your last revert on the article was before the warning, not after. And the other administrator had declined to block either you or the other editor when evaluating the first report.

Here Bbb23 is clearly referring to Mark Arsten as the first administrator, who in response to EyeTruth’s complaint warned both EyeTruth and myself, though he declined to block either of us. In reality this was the second administrator warning EyeTruth. An earlier warning had been issued to EyeTruth on 3 July by EdJohnston here and here, where EdJohnston had said:

Currently you seem to have no support from other editors in your desire to use the word 'blitzkrieg' in this article. To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus. Thank you.

If EdJohnston’s warning had remained on EyeTruth’s talk page Bbb23 would not have been confused. If the move had just been an incidental transfer of information from his talk page to an archive, EyeTruth had the opportunity to correct the misunderstanding in the mind of Bbb23, but instead responded thus:

It just felt so partial, and I was wondering if it was some planned and calculated move to help the other editor. I was just really curious. But it turned out to be a honest mistake. Apology accepted. Nothing else needed.

Later, he went on to mischaracterize the whole event:

Do you know that Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute? Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me.

Indeed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

First off thanks Gunbirddriver for not telling me about this thread. Since you took the time to mention my name the least you could of done was let me know. Secondly, EyeTruth is not User:Blablaaa. I do agree with EyeTruth that the term should be used in the article and I've said so on the talk page. Things were being discussed and it was going well so I'm not sure why it was brought here. As for admin Nick-D I do agree with you Gun that Nick tends to favor certain editors with favortism. I've had my share of problems with Nick in the past and he was never fair to me and never fair to Blablaaa. If you feel your block was wrong then try to do something about it. In the past Nick was questioned over whether some of his blocks were correct. Caden 13:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well that’s helpful, Caden. This complaint is not directed specifically at the discussion on the Battle of Kursk talk page, but is a more general complaint. I filed it when I did because I had gone away for a week, and upon returning it took some time to attempt to pull the threads together. I do not believe EyeTruth has been forthcoming in his interactions with administrators. In addition, during the discussion on the talk page it was clear that EyeTruth had extensive experience on Misplaced Pages, much more than his six month history would support. I do not believe the discussions he has been a party to have been conducted in an open and honest manner, and I believe this to be counterproductive to cooperative editing. I have been attempting to determine the prior identity of this editor. I take your word for it that he is not Blablaaa. That means then that we have yet to learn the prior identity or identities.Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gun. When I first posted here, I didnt take enough time to look at your evidence. I have since read all of your posts here and I checked all of the links you provided. I believe you may have a case. I'm not so sure anymore about EyeTruth. After reading all of your links it's possible that he could be Blablaaa. Or he could be another banned editor. I'm really not sure. One thing I'm sure of is that his behavior towards you was far from civil and I'm surprised no admin did anything about that. Another thing that must be looked at is how Nick-D handled things. He didnt handle it well. The block Nick gave you was a bad one. He blocks you but lets EyeTruth off the hook? Makes no sense and looks like favoritism. Caden 06:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"In the past Nick was questioned over whether some of his blocks were correct". Actually, only one of my blocks has been overturned as being a bad call, and that was the indefinite duration block I imposed on Blablaaa. He or she was later blocked for an indefinite period for basically the same reasons I blocked them. As the note on the top of my talk page says, I don't have any delusions of perfection as an admin (far from it in fact), but what you're trying to allude to here isn't correct. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes one of your bad blocks was correctly overturned by an admin that called you out on it but you were also questioned over others that were said to be also bad blocks. Blablaaa was NOT blocked for the reason you claim and you very well know he was male and not female. Come on Nick you should know better than that. Caden 11:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

According to their block log, Blablaaa was blocked for an indefinite period with the reason of "Disruptive editing" as a result of this entirely damning RfC into their conduct. This disruptive conduct was the same reason I blocked them several months earlier. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver would have easily avoided a block if he hadn't rushed into editing right after Nick-D suggested that all editing should temporarily pause for some days. Also, summarily reverting an edit that had incorporated new points from the discussion and characterizing that action with a very misleading edit summary is what ticked off Nick-D (See Nick's post above). Normally, it would have ticked me off as well, but I'm already used to stuff like that from Gunbirddriver. Caden, you should see that edit summary. One of the most blatant lie I've seen in a while. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The block was instituted after you essentially drew a red flag on Nick-D's talk page. The back and forth on the talk page seemed inappropritate to me. How can an administrator be impartial if he is allowing an editor to carry on an ongoing chat, and then essentially take direction from him? The edit summary I offered was accuarte, and the admonition was one you should have heeded. If a term or phrase had proved to be contentious, as it had over the previous three months, what made you think adding it back in had suddenly become acceptable? Further, if you were certain, as you claim, that the edit would be acceptable, why the heads up note on Nick's talk page at the time of the edit that you were changing the text again, followed by a second note telling him that darn Gunbirddriver had reverted it back? You clearly anticipated being reverted. That being so it would seem paramount to run the phrasing by the other editors engaged in the discussion before inserting what you claimed to be a neutral compromise back into the text. Would it not have been better just to propose the change to the other editors, and leave Nick-D out of it? As it was played out it appears to me as a heavy handed version of dispute resolution. I did not have an editor that I was using to back me up, and I do not think it would have been appropriate if I had. As to what "ticked Nick off", you do not know that Nick was ticked off. I would say he was not, but simply attempting to help resolve the conflict on the page. It was the manner in which the information about what was going on was conveyed to him and the obvious plea for administrative action that I find objectionable. The lion's share of responsibility falls upon EyeTruth. Nick's share was in allowing himself to be used in this fashion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So what part of the "back and forth on the talk page" seemed inappropriate? The edit summary you offered is terribly misleading. And yes it ticked Nick off because he just explained above that it did tick him off. I gave Nick heads up because at that time you were the only editor that was still actively hell bent on not accepting a balanced solution: Sturmvogel, Binksternet, and every other person from the DRN (except Hasteur) already agreed to go with the balanced solution. And I NEVER pleaded for an administrative action from Nick-D. Show me where I pleaded for such. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"So what part of the "back and forth on the talk page" seemed inappropriate"

All of it. You went to the administrator not to resolve conflict but to push your opinion. The mischaracterizations and feigned naivete was all a part of it. It was just another means to an end. This strikes me as inapporpriate. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not at all "ticked off": this was a routine block made for continued edit warrig, and this article doesn't excite me all that much. I watchlisted the article after I agreed to help cool things down, and would have spotted this edit warring and responded without EyeTruth's note on my talk page. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but with EyeTruth commenting there and you responding it gives an appearance of impropriety which should be avoided. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic at all, especially as my post was simply "Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter". I also posted on the article was protected on its talk page. Admins who don't explain their actions aren't doing their job properly IMO, and it would have been bad form to have not responded to a post on my talk page by stating what the actions I'd taken were. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness to Gunbirddriver, he didnt see Nick's edit until after it was to late. As for Nick being ticked off, that's just not acceptable. He's an admin so he's expected to do far better than that. I do believe Gunbirddriver was and is trying to do a good job as an editor on the Battle of Kursk. I dont agree with the block Nick gave him though. Caden 15:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't tell when he saw it, but the fact that he attempted to use a very misleading edit summary to miscolor the situation was pretty bad, but that alone may not warrant a block. And I do agree Gunbirddriver is trying to do a good job, but he also has a few lapses in his good job. I'm not against his block, neither do I support it, nor did I wish for it. EyeTruth (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Convienence section break

Eyetruth, please start making positive assertions showing the misstatements by Gunbirddriver instead of just saying "You are becoming too funny" as a euphamism for "You're full of ****". Also consider disengaging from this thread other administrators will look over the thread and ask questions of you if necessary. At this time, all I see is a very large boomerang that is in transit. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, I already spent so much "making positive assertions showing the misstatements by Gunbirddriver". Sorry, but I'm not wasting it again. I explicitly pointed out Ed Johnston's verdict to both Mark Arsten and Bbb23. They both know fully well about it. You should also look at the full verdict in WP:ANI. It was fully binding on how the DRN turns out, of which you clearly knew how it turned out as unresolved with a slight majority in favour of a "compromise". This drama has gone on for too many months, but this time around I just don't have enough spare-time to keep dragging myself through this quagmire anymore. Frankly, really don't. (Oh BTW, pls don't even start by insinuating that I said "You're full of ****". I didn't censor a four-letter word. So no, I didn't say "you're full of shit" nor was I even remotely implying that.) EyeTruth (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not just let us know what user names you used in your prior editing on Misplaced Pages?Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a link titled "user contribution". EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to see Gunbirddriver in action then see the Battle of Kursk talkpage and see our discussion on his talkpages. I would start posting them all here one by one if I still had that much time on my hand as before. You see stuff like "cover your mouth because it is disgusting when your food is flying out" or "kid now grow up" (maybe not exact wordings). And almost half of our convo is nothing but his attempts to twist the hell out my post, and me trying to figure out what the heck is going on. For example, I once stated that Dianna had pulled out from the drama and later Gunbirdriver came around and wrote that I claimed or suggested that Dianna conceded to the argument. Stuff like this just kept happening over and over again. Even in the essay he posted above certain things are presented out of the chronological order just to miscolor the whole situation. For example, while he is talking of stuff that happened in August, he throws that Sturmvogel and Binksternet also reverted my edits (which actually happened in early June) but he conveniently forgets to mention that both editors are now in support of a balanced solution to the dispute and have now advocated the inclusion of the term in carefully worded passage. The above essay he wrote has so many stuff like this, and I've shown his misstatements time and again in different venues over the past four months. But doing that all over again now is simply beyond the capacity of my schedule, as I don't have 2 or 3 days of constant editing to spare anytime soon. So before you digest just one side of the story take some time to look deeper or talk to others who have gotten closer to this drama. The only thing anyone could prematurely hold against me is my sometimes harsh language to Gunbirddriver; but the guy have sometimes used language harsher than anything I've used for him as well. BTW, "harsh language" doesn't include when I call him out on violating WP:V or WP:OR. Even Sturmvogel, Irondome and Howicus have very politely called him out on it. (But those mistakes were most likely made in good faith). EyeTruth (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly I would be fine with any administrator reading through the discussion on the talk page. I think I was fairly constrained. In contrast, I would not expect creating section titles such as Blunders in the article and The real discussion would be the best way to go about reaching out to the other editors and create a consensus. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion by chance; I should have been notified immediately that my name was mentioned. Eyetruth, you need to notify everyone above that you mentioned by name. You can use the template provided at the top of the page to do so. The reason I left the Battle of Kursk page was remarks by EyeTruth such as "Diannaa, this better be a mistake instead of being some twisted attempt to spite me loool..." (directed at me) and "that was before I realized you had zero regards for accuracy or adherence to sources, and absolutely no squirms throwing in original research" (directed at Gunbirddriver). These are examples of the toxic environment and time-wasting discord I encountered when I edited the page again briefly in June (I have edited/watchlisted on and off for over three years). During the period I was on the page, EyeTruth was at the root of the discord, in my opinion, not Gunbirddriver. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not notifying you. I only mentioned your name incidentally in an example. BTW Diannaa, your actions back then did look very sketchy. You kept claiming that the sources didn't say what was being attributed to them, even though that clearly wasn't true. Till today you still haven't clarified whether your claims were mistakes or intentional. Also, GBD did mess with WP:OR, or at least with WP:V, but of course those were likely done in good faith. EyeTruth (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

See, this is a good example of why I departed from the Battle of Kursk article. It's disheartening to be expected to defend my integrity every time I post an edit. Insinuating that I would falsify sources in an attempt to win an edit war is a personal attack, and I refused to stick around to be insulted in that manner. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa, don't expect a dude that can't even see or hear you to know what's in your mind. You need to clarify whether it was a mistake or intentional, else I won't know what to make of your actions back then. If you really expect me to just assume that you're a righteous angel, then I see nothing but arrogance. You shouldn't feel insulted if your claims were made in error. EyeTruth (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. We have a policy, you have no choice in the manner, you are to assume good faith unless you have explicit evidence to the contrary of which you need to lay out here. I suggest you learn the policy quickly.--v/r - TP 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I do have something that could amount to explicit evidence, but whatever. I will assume all she did was 100% in good faith, and I will let bygones be bygones. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa. I notified User:EdJohnston, User:Mark Arsten, and User:Bbb23. Caden 09:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have consistently supported GBD in terms of the present blitzkrieg discussion in terms of content. Till now I have not had any doubts as to the impartiality of involved eds. I did not look until recently at the long and often nasty discussions before I began to participate. ET, you obviously have loads of experience on WP. Your smooth navigation from procedures to technical skills admit that. I do not think you are baablaa, but you are a former ed. Lets just cklear the air here. It may wipe the slate so we can all move together constructively. GBDs theories have slightly poisoned the well, so clarity would be good. No way taking sides here. Just like to know where I stand re other eds. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

GBD is actually older than me on here as far as serious editing goes, so he should be proficient with "technical skills" and "smooth navigation" as well. Is it collapsible tables? Sturmvogel had to only use it once for me to learn it. Is it referencing and intext citing? WP has done all the explanation you would ever need such that you can never mess any of it up. If all fails, the sandbox is also there to practice. So I really don't see why he wouldn't know as much as I do on here. That is why what he's been saying lately actually makes me laugh out loud. I have edited on and off as ip as far as I can remember, at least for past 6 years and have even had tenminutemail accounts; one or two or three, I can't remember. I really usually don't keep track of online accounts unless I take the thing seriously, which I started for WP early this year and may be dropping it soon as I'm slowly getting too busy for it. EyeTruth (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question of editing skills. It is a question of operating on a level playing field. My past activity is known. Yours is not. You should provide the previous user names and IPs. Then we can approach the discussion from an equal level of transparency. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You should provide all the IPs you've used on Misplaced Pages before in your entire life, then we can have an equal ground here. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I have only edited as Gunbirddriver. Oh, and Gunbirddriver2 for images. Your turn. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we drop it and close this down. It may be that ET has a long IP stalking, or whatever. I just do not think it is this baablaa person. I see discussion has resumed on our subject talk page. I think work done there would be far more profitable to everyone. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it was a bad block, insomuch as it done with (quite appropriate) page protection. Since Gunbirddriver couldn't edit the protected page, it's hard to see the block as other than punitive. Since the standard for admin behavior is not perfect I'll simply suggest Nick-D not do that again. Folks concerned about the unfairness of the admin action: please see no justice.
• Gunbirddriver and EyeTruth are being given an implicit message here which I'll make explicit: You've been going back and forth at each other for a week and not getting much response from the admin community -- while the community values ya'll spending your time contributing it's expected you figure out how to get along or use the available content dispute resolution mechanisms. (WP:DRR) There's just not going to be much interest in sorting through accusations ya'll throw at each other to declare a winner and a loser. The pattern I've observed in similar situations in the past is the eventually folks lose patience and both participations get sanctioned. NE Ent 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Is it appropriate to request an interaction ban with Crisco 1492. To my recollection, I have been banned blocked three times on WP. Two are in the last month in heated discussions with Crisco 1492. He has MFDed three of my pages last month, each garnering 2/3rds suppport keeps or more. He ANed and ANIed me three times in the last month. We just don't seem to be able to get along. I think most folks around here are aware of the issues, but I'll provide diffs if necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think you mean blocked? I'll be back later with an opinion.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought there was a such thing as an interaction ban. I am making inquiries. Is that a possible request here. I have seen such outcomes in the WP:POST reports. I don't know if I can seek one here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You are still required to notify. There is such thing as an interaction ban, I was referring to your "banned 3 times" - you were blocked, not banned, as banning cannot be done by a single editor.--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Tony, despite at least two red-letter warnings on this page, you failed to notify Crisco of this discussion. I've done so here. Also, still awaiting that apology for libeling me. Cdtew (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Where were the red-letter warnings? People now get autopinged when you link their ID. Are direct notifications still required?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Libel? Maybe we shouldn't interact either.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Have you ALREADY forgotten about your unfounded accusations of racism directed at Cdtew that basically are libel @TonyTheTiger:?

• @TonyTheTiger: Yes, there is a red-letter warning at the top of this page, and a warning in orange at the top of the edit page. They both say "you must notify", not "the editor will automatically be notified". As for libel, you stated five times I was a racist with no basis for that statement beyond your own malice. The textbook definition of defamation per se - putting it in writing makes it libel per se. Cdtew (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I fail to see the motivation here. If Crisco 1492 is successfully identifying things you have created that you shouldn't have, why should we discourage him from continuing to do so?—Kww(talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I meant each one has 2/3rds support for keeping.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• I fail to see how asking for an interaction ban is warranted when both times you've been blocked for something you really shouldn't have been doing anyways (edit warring and implying that other editors were racists without proof). I'm still waiting for an apology after you implied that I and others who disagreed with you are racists, but given your previous behaviour I know that's an uphill battle that's going to take over a month. Now, if you want me to stay out of your user space, I don't mind, and only ask that you return the favour (with the obvious exception of notifying each other when required, such as with ANI postings) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• For those who don't know the background, the first ANI thread that led to Tony being blocked (started by The_ed17, actually) and the current one. I also brought Tony to ANI here, but he did not get blocked after that excursion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I-ban which looks to me like an attempt to prevent Crisco 1492 from making legitimate complaints about TTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • How can you oppose a ban I am just inquiring about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I-ban - this appears, to me, to be yet another symptom of Tony's habit of not listening because clearly the problem is everyone else and not him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • How can you oppose a ban I am just inquiring about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you can read that as "No, it isn't appropriate". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• No, it is inappropriate to ask for an interaction ban in this case since there can really only be one objective: to shut Crisco up. Bad faith question--if the editor is interested in improving matters here he could listen to what others have to say, on the off-chance that they may have a point. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

STRONG oppose - This is just TTT's latest attempt to say "I am right, the rest of the universe is wrong!". PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as an inappropriate attempt at censoring valid criticism. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We all know what Tony the Tiger is like..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban between TTT and Khazar2 (close requested)

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

• Request I-ban for me - I withdrew my earlier request for this, but if Tony's volunteering for interaction bans, I'll have one of those with fries. He's not only posted about me around 200 times this month, but also followed me to another, unrelated project to pick a new fight. Several direct, explicit requests for him to leave me in peace have been unsuccessful. Details and diffs here. I'm going on Wiki-break to get away from the madness, but would love to have a Tony-break on my return. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support requested i-ban. 200 postings of this (an implicit swipe at Khazar2) without a single apology, then further ABF everywhere Tony mentions Khazar2? No thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - Khazer doesn't have a truck in this (or a toy truck, even), yet he's getting insulted around the entire site. Definitely time for an interaction ban. Ed  23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose-obviously an almost baseless sanction request.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You may feel my RFC notification was inappropriate, but what is wrong with giving advice to a person starting up an award? What have we fought about at an unrelated project?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Have you read Khazar's post? Let me copy it out in full (diff still as given above): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I need a break from Tony. As a quick recap, I started a brief RfC at WT:FOUR after voting against Crisco's proposal for deletion and a failed attempt to get Tony to moderate his own draft RfC. Like Cdtew, I thought I was something of a neutral outside party on this--I'm not involved with MILHIST and have never won the award--but both us of quickly learned that anyone who's not 100% behind Tony gets on the enemies list in a big way. I believe Tony's now approaching 200 posts on more than 150 pages accusing me of bad-faith rigging of the RfC.

Ranging from:

• "In case you are wondering why both of these RFC questions are getting unanimous support, you have masterfully conflated two issues with each one making impossible for anyone to give you anything but the meaningless answer you seek.

to this a few hours ago:

• "*I continue to feel that this is one of the most disingenuous processes I have been involved in on RFC... this sneaky process seems to have been used to make statements about having any leadership without any discussion of the rest of the organization of the project. There seems to be no interest in discussing the organization of the project other than to use an RFC about one role of the leadership to make statements about the overall leadership of the project. This all seems to be an attempt to throw the project to admins who have never expressed an interest in the project"

Or see the 150+ posts he made between 6:00 and 8:00 on 20 August, all copies of his claim that I had deliberately crafted my RfC "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions".

Simultaneously, he's shown up at another project I'm initiating; he's already made about 15 posts critiquing it at WT:GAN, going so far as to spend hours creating a massive dataset in his user space to prove his points. Finally another user had to tell him to lay off there, too.

Despite direct and explicit requests from me that we not interact with each other for a while, Tony's pinged me back into the debate ("All along, I have said that Khazar2 either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience"), continues to post at the Million Award page, and continues to post his accusations at WT:FOUR.

I've turned the other cheek on most of this--I voted against the last proposal to topic-ban TTT, for example, and I've voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion at WT:FOUR--but now that we're approaching hundreds of posts, his persistence is starting to wear me down. Is it possible for me to request here that Tony leaves me in peace for just a few weeks, or is the best solution to simply take a break from Misplaced Pages until this blows over? As a third alternative, is it allowed for me to simply withdraw my RfC? Frankly, the FOUR debate strikes me as a fundamentally trivial issue, and it's not worth this level of harassment. If there's no administrative will to police something like this, I'm prepared to just say he wins, take a break, and then get back to regular editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30 am, Today (UTC+7)

• • • Looks fairly convincing to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am not sure what behavior you are trying to curb. Advice on an award is not problematic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• I was stating my continued displeasure with an RFC, it was nothing personal about you.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Since I wrote the RfC, and you've stated so many times that I did so from manipulative, masterful, sneaky, dishonest, etc. motives, it rather obviously is personal. Tony, I hope we'll work together again in the future without hard feelings, but for now I want a break from your ongoing drama, and I've said that to you over and over again without result. Since you're asking for mutual bans for people you can't get along with, I'm simply asking you to add me to your list. We can make it short-term--a few months or so--but you need to leave off for a bit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - If there is one less editor for TTT to hurl baseless libel at then it can only benefit the encyclopedia. @TonyTheTiger: Before you start attacking me; Khazar2 is not making valid criticisms of you while Crisco is and as such your attempt to I-ban him is attempting to stop legitimate criticism while this one is to stop YOU from throwing around BASELESS LIBEL at another editor as though it was candy! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Since TTT seems good with being I-Banned, here's one that makes sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What behavior toward Khazar is this attempting to curb. Commenting at WP:GAN at a discussion about a formative award, WP:FOUR on a RFC that I have always disagreed with.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • He's repeatedly asked you to leave him alone temporarily, and instead of doing that, you seem to be following him about. Did you know he is working very hard to bring some articles on core topics to GA? For example, he and I just finished bringing Auschwitz concentration camp to GA. Not everyone is capable of working on these articles, it's not easy material to work on. So I definitely don't want to risk losing this valuable contributor, so when he asks you to leave him alone for a while, I do so wish you would do that, rather than the opposite. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • • Thanks! Don't worry, though, I'm not going anywhere--will be back in October chugging away regardless of outcome here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - This puts an end to the hounding, and the horrendously false allegations. Not that I have much confidence in Tony abiding by an IBAN, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • At the very least an IBAN provides the grounds for formal sanctions if Tony is unable to abide by it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Which was also something at the forefront of my mind, and what my second sentence leads on to. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support temporary interaction ban of three to six months duration. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC) This would include making reference to or commenting on each other's activities anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly; commenting about or posting at the talk pages of initiatives being worked by the two editors such as the Four Award or the Million Award; posting on one another's talk pages, except to give official notices; and undoing one another's edits in article space. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What counts as an official notice? Every 3 months, as the director of WP:CHICAGO, I thank all editors who have produced a new WP:GA or WP:FA for the project. This is sort of an official capacity, but not something policy mandated. I consider it as official as a quarterly project newsletter.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think notices on behalf of a wikiproject could be counted as "official notices"; it's just a boilerplate message, right? what do other people think? --- Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure it counts as boilerplate because from quarter to quarter I usually phrase it differently, but they usually look something like this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Why would you thank Khazar when specifically asked not to interact with them? If the purpose of the message is to thank the contributor, and therefore encourage them to continue contributing to Chicago related articles, why would you want to jeopardise further contributions with a message they clearly don't want? Unless something like this is automated, I'm confused why you'd even ask whether it is permitted, rather than just avoid it (which seems an easy thing to do). - Shudde 12:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Tony, I specifically and explicitly told you just two weeks ago that I didn't want any more of these. I appreciate your efforts to thank other users, but to apply for special permission to keep "thanking" me is disingenuous and obnoxious. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Okay, that's a pretty strong consensus that wikiproject notes are not welcome and would be included in the ban. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support Per Dianaa. Why not just make it an indefinite one? My spider sense tells me that this would just rear its head again in 6 months. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per Diannaa. I would also recommend an indefinite ban (Indefinite =/= infinite), simply because I know that Khazar would feel free to request that it be lifted if circumstances required it (i.e. if there were some potential collaboration with Tony in the offing). I don't see any reason to sunset the ban in 6 months and risk disruption once it expires. Tony's comments in this thread smack of WP:IDHT, and that cemented the case for me. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• This logic makes sense to me. Thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Tony can be an incredibly fussy editor, I'm sure this is perfectly valid request.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a legitimate and indeed necessary request. Intothatdarkness 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since discussion has slowed to a halt over the past few days, I think an uninvolved admin should make the proper closure here. It is, I think, a fairly self-evident one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Since TTT came here asking about an interaction ban (if I understand what TTT is referring to correctly, partially because he ended up being blocked for false accusations of racism based on an apparent long running lack of understanding of what racism even is). Then started complaining when people said no to the interaction ban, because he hadn't actually asked for an interaction ban just asked if it was appropriate (which while nominally true is clearly missing the point). And since TTT's explaination for why he doesn't want an interaction ban in this particular case doesn't really seem particularly convincing, but Khazar2's reasons for the request are. I give my wholehearted support. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Second close request - It's been a week, and discussion has slowed to a trickle; is it possible to close? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support. The IBAN should be enforced ASAP. Khazar has had enough of it already. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I be nuked?

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

Today I've (contributions) moved and edited quite some pages of Kiev related articles from Kyiv to Kiev as per our use English title policy, but now I doubt my actions as the English official sites of these entities do (deliberately) use "Kyiv" which may justify the usage of this non-English name of the place. "Kiev" on the other hand is not welcomed by Ukrainian users because it is transliterated from Russian language of the name. But in order to avoid unnecessary controversies with Ukrainian users, please nuke my edits to previous versions since 6 September 2013. Sorry for all the troubles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NUKE. Unfortunately, we have no way to do a mass-undo of your edits; we'll have to do them manually. Regarding your request — are you simply asking that we undo every action (except for your request here, of course) that you took on 6 September? I don't want to revert something that shouldn't be reverted. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my request was just undo my Kiev/Kyiv-related edits on 6/9/2013 (sorry for my silly rhetoric). Some action (article move and deletion of new category) requires admin privilege. I made the Kyiv-Kiev edits halfway through today but I realized that some of those might not be justifiable so I would rather undo them until we have a better clarification on this specific matter. The Kiev-Kyiv issue is increasingly more complicated because the Ukrainian/Kiev Governments and media insist on the renaming in English media. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Do the edits violate a policy? If so, then WP:MRbk could be used. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

They don't, and mass rollback would revert other legitimate edits as well. Ansh666 07:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sameboat, please check your contributions. I've moved back all the pages that I saw, but I probably missed something. I really have to disagree with this move, because as User:Taivo says at Talk:Kiev/naming, "The most common name in English is the name of the article and Kiev is, by a factor of ten, the most common name for Kiev in English" — not to mention the fact that the article is at Kiev, so it seems confusing for related articles to use a different transliteration. Finally, Ansh/64.40.54.22/Sameboat, we can't use rollback on pagemoves; it only works for normal edits to pages. Meanwhile, this would be a common-sense exception to the rollback policy's prohibition of using it on non-disruptive edits: you're always allowed to use rollback on your own edits, so there's nothing wrong with asking someone else to do it for you if you think that you mangled a bunch of pages. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx. The reason I made this request despite mixed opinion on the matter is that I don't want to get involved in the debate which I am in no position to partcipate. I did the moves and edits because I thought they were clean cut cases but it turns out not that simple as the English official sites of those entities use Kyiv instead of Kiev. One thing I must stress that this request and admin's response to this request do not instantly translate as WIkipedia now prefers Kyiv over Kiev. Anyone can perform the same move again. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Very slow but long-term disruption

I don't really know how best to handle this, but some admin action (or edit filters or other solutions) seems necessary. I first noticed this when deleting Siamese Twin Mental Disorder, written by User:J341933. It contained BLP violations against a person I'll not name (to avoid the intended purpose of coupling his name to diseases or other negative aspects on search engines). Looking at other pages created and deleted by the same editor, and looking at other instances of that BLP being named on Misplaced Pages, I noticed that this seems to be a case of on-wiki harassment of a BLP (and other BLPs related to his family) that has started at least as early as 2005.

J341933 created this page, which was first created in 2006 by User:Yairhaim. That first version was about the same family as the Siamese twins article deleted today, and contained nonsensical BLP violations like " Shortly later she gave birth to two sets of twins in 1968 but Mr. and Mrs. X only kept one child." J341933 also created Achael Drorim, which is about the same person as the Siamese article and about the same family X.

Another article, with this variant title, was created by an IP address in 2005. This seems likely to be the same person as User:Yairhaim, who created this page in 2006, about the same family as the Siamese twins article deleted today, and contained nonsensical BLP violations like " Shortly later she gave birth to two sets of twins in 1968 but Mr. and Mrs. X only kept one child." That page was recreated by J341933 as well.

The 2010 edits by User:X1041261m and User:027441205ha are also about the same issue, e.g. this page (created by both), where the second instance again has ridiculous "twin" assertions: see e.g. also this edit, and yet another variation of the same title. User:Yotvata is yet "another" editor from the same period involved in this (see his deleted contributions or something like this).

Perhaps this article, a thrice deleted article that was recently kept at AfD with no consensus, should get wome extra scrutiny witth this report in mind as well, but it may be that it turns out to be perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps someone here remembers the circumstances surrounding this user, who is clearly related to this mess and has already some sockpuppets, e.g. this cat and this cat. One of these created yet another variation of the same title, this one, which was deleted 6 times before being salted... This leads us to other users, like User:Wachovia, from 2005, but also to very new ones like User:Bitachonalim.

Sorry for the lengthy report, but I wanted to show the number of accounts involved, the long term abuse (it is too persistent and negative to be a prank IMO), and the number of articles they have created over the years (plus a fair number of other articles that were vandalized).

Any suggestions for the most efficient way to minimize their potential for further disruption? (Note: I have only notified the current user, all others have either been blocked or haven't edited here in years). Fram (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This user left some rather strange shit on my talk page. I can't tell if they're intentionally trolling or incompetent, but they are most definitely not here to contribute positively. Ishdarian 22:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ishdarian, that diff was blatantly disturbing. I'm pretty sure it's a troll. 173.58.96.144 (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

What is the correct procedure if a discussion is being swayed by off-wiki means? At Talk:Paris#Changing_the_photo_at_the_start_of_article, the !vote after being slightly against changing the infobox photo has suddenly gained another 5 !votes for it, explained by Talk:Paris#.27Parachute.27_revisionists..--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've poked in that page the odd time, and it might be helpful if someone with a lot of patience were to help mediate the overall dispute. There definitely are factions pushing for control of various aspects of the article, which certainly is unfair to Dr. Blofeld's efforts to bring it to GA status. Resolute 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No need for patience, really - This complaint isn't about the article content itself, but the WP:MEAT tactic used to 'force' certain POV's; it doesn't matter whose POV's they are. There is no call to discuss article content at all. THEPROMENADER 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

. All non editors, most with new accounts all turn up within a few hours to try to sway an argument. Isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway? Not that those "votes" have an ounce of credibility anyway, but it is very concerning that Der Statistiker has no respect for other editors and seems intent on pushing his opinions whatever the cost. And yes, I've heard little but whining and sniping about my edits to the article which passed it as a GA. At one point they were proposing to revert back to the April version, which if you compare it to now it sums up what I've had to deal with.. I think if Der Statistiker continues to cause disruption and making derogatory remarks then a topic ban from Paris related articles might be the best thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Note: Following comment moved from separate section below. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A long and heated discussion over which picture to use to represent Paris has taken place. Some want to show famous Parisian sights, others want to show skyscrapers outside the city. Both arguments have merits. Unfortunately the discussion has turned ugly. Minato ku suggested that those who don't share his opinion want to show a city where "everybody is white" . Completely beside the point, and a thinly disguised attempt at calling other users racists. Then, when the consensus seemed to go against his preferences for skyscrapers, the same user decided to go on a WP:MEAT-campaign. At the website skyscrapercity.com (hardly a neutral place), the user repeatedly encouraged members to go to English Misplaced Pages to comment and vote in favor of Minato Ku's preferred picture , , . He even went on to instruct them how they should modify their profiles to appear more credible , .
His meatpuppetry did have the desired effects, a number of new users turned up, their only edits consisted of being in favor of Minato Ku's desired photo change , , , .Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned above, Misplaced Pages:An#Off-wiki_canvassing. Might want to merge the sections so that all the discussion is in the same place... Ansh666 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Scott • talk 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why was this archived? (Perhaps the 'done' in the message above triggered the bot) THEPROMENADER 04:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is set to archive 2 days after the last comment. The only thing that changes that is a fake date stamp to manually delay archiving. Monty₈₄₅ 04:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Or {{subst:DNAU}}. Be sure to remove it once the thread is closed so it can be archived. I have added it above. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Much thanks - will do. THEPROMENADER 08:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A 'two-cents' second thought about this episode: Minato ku has been making (a few) edits to Paris-based articles since 2007, so should have known better than to rouse the off-wiki campaign as he did, but one question is bothering me: How is it that his first edit since a year and a half is a vote for the 'La Défense' image on the Paris talk page? It seems evident that someone involved in that debate before the vote 'put out the call' to draw that contributor here, so I (for one) would feel badly if he alone took the blame if he was not alone in organizing the drive. If this is the case, it would be kind (to Minato ku and all contributors involved in this) if that 'someone' came forward. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd put good money on it being one particular editor, who opposes any Dr. Blofield-initiated edit with an apparent disregard for whether it's an improvement or not, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not because I am not active that I don't read Misplaced Pages. The Paris article was quite calm until a few months ago, I had no reason to participate here if nothing happened. In the few previous months, I was too busy and I didn't go in Misplaced Pages. When I decided to go again in Misplaced Pages page, I have seen big changes and debates, I had to put my opinion.

ThePromenader seems to think that my interventions is only based on la Défense (I don't know what he has against La Défense). This is not true, my interventions are mostly based on a bad impression that I notice in many media and here. I have the impression that everything is done reduce to the minimum facts that are not according to the homogeneous, touristy, old and quaint stereotypes of Paris. I was even accused of calling people 'racist' when I have given this bad feeling about what is happening here.

I hope I am wrong but many of the talks seem to confirm this fear rather than the opposite.

I only put my two cents in the talk section, I didn't edit the article, I didn't bring people here for a vote that did not not even exist at this time. I have rebuked those who came and insulted some editors because of me (I am sorry for that).

I find some reactions to be quite exaggerated here, as if it was a problem or suspicious thing to have people who don't agree with them. Minato ku (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, your first intervention (after a year and a half) was two months earlier than any vote. Just goes to show that off-wiki maniplation can give everything a 'suspect' angle it shouldn't have. THEPROMENADER 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: personally I don't care about 'sanctions' (I didn't begin this thread - but it doesn't look as though anything is going to happen anyways), I just don't want to see anything of the sort happening again. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review

Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here.  Roger Davies 07:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this.

Template edit protection

Can we stop with this fucking bullshit fully edit protecting every template out there with more than about, I don't know, 500 transclusions? {{Iw-ref}} has been doing fine with semi since 2009. Why did it need to be sysop'ed now? — Lfdder (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog