Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 27 May 2010 (→User:Rokarudi and irredentism: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Onefortyone

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

Taking this to the experts: What's to be done, if anything, about the user Onefortyone? He's been registered for nearly five years, used IP's before that (and since - all having 141 as the second node), and his M.O. has to do with incessantly trying to post fringe theories about Elvis Presley into the singer's article and other related articles. He was already put on probabation once (4 years ago) for pushing the notion that Elvis was gay. His more recent topic has been an obsession with a claim from Elvis' ex-doctor (an obvious conflict of interest as sources go) that Elvis died from a shortage of Ex-Lax. So I wonder what the next step should be? Another request for probation? An RfC? An admin boldly indeffing this guy? The dilemma is my suspicion that he's sincere, actually a fan of Elvis, who just wants this fringe stuff in the article. (Others, on the Elvis talk page, are not so generous, calling him an out-and-out troll. The truth may be a bit of both.) I've notified the user about my intention to post this, and I also mentioned it at the Elvis talk page.
Thank yuh ver' much. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can direct him/her to wookiepedia or somewhere else on wikia to write the elvis article there? - Wikidemon (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question I take it that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone is no longer in effect? Admittedly it is quite old. SGGH 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article bans were lifted. TFOWR 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No longer in effect, for at least the last 2 1/2 years. What's remarkable to me is how old it is and how the user has somehow stayed (mostly) under the radar all this time. Most obsessive users like that would have been taken down by now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous bans are no longer in effect, but the ARBCOM decision is! Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the remedies is that additional article bans can be imposed. Would they need to be imposed by ARBCOM, or would one admin be able to do it (subject to review here, etc etc)? TFOWR 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests whether cases can have their penalties enforced after closure without re-opening. SGGH 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on "Toilet-related injuries and deaths"? Wow!

Yeah, and it's a really shitty way to die. (Booyah!) HalfShadow 16:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor does seem to have a very narrow area of focus - The King, and a small number of articles relating to His Grace. Could the editor be encouraged to work outside this area? I suspect a proposal like that, backed with sanctions for non-compliance, would quickly determine whether this editor is interested in building an encyclopaedia or pushing fringe theories. This proposal based on asking myself the question: "What Would Elvis Do?"

Cheers, TFOWR 11:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC) A lay preacher in the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine (UK).

It appears that a single admin could impose a new ban. Under 'Remedies' the Arbcom decision has this language: "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." Check the Log of Blocks and Bans to see that two different admins placed article bans on Onefortyeone in 2006 using their own discretion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

141 is liable to argue that it's not "poorly sourced", because it's verifiably Elvis' ex-doctor saying it. The real problem is that despite being told a hundred times that it's inappropriate to the article because of (1) no consensus; (2) undue weight; (3) fringe theory; (4) conflict of interest on the part of Elvis' ex-doctor; and (5) the doctor himself has had his medical license revoked; 141 keeps trying to add it to the article on the grounds of "balance". So it's garden variety disruption. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The diagnosis of 'garden-variety disruption' seems to apply. Onefortyone has continued to revert his eccentric theory about Elvis's death by constipation back into the article, and has chosen not to respond here. Since we have good documentation of his misbehavior on the Elvis Presley article going back to 2005, when Arbcom made their ruling, I think we've easily reached the threshold for an indefinite block. Hope of future reform (after five years) seems out of the question. Unless consensus here is against it, I'm planning to indefinitely block Onefortyone from editing Misplaced Pages. I will leave him a note about that, in case he has any response. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the (long) history: support indef. TFOWR 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections. If he thinks he's being treated unfairly, he can post an unblock request, but his 5-year history on this particular topic works against him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps topic ban from Elvis and toilet related topics? :) SGGH 17:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see your quip and raise you one "I agree" ;-) If 141 was prepared to a voluntary Elvis+Toilet ban, I'd be happy for the block to be flushed away. TFOWR 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In seriousness though, it would be a good idea I think. Seeing the one-topic nature of the users edits, a topic ban is as good as an indef block here. It will solve the issue, and may encourage the user to edit other areas more constructively, and it would also have the benefit of not being an indef ban, seeing as that is a last last resort ideally. SGGH 18:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a regular Elvis Presley editor, before this conversation is blown away by the voluminous response from Onefortyone that will doubtless soon follow. I think I probably speak on behalf of most or all other regular editors of that page when I say this: while the five-year history speaks for itself, meaning that any temporary Elvis restriction would be short-sighted, we would not wish a harsher disciplining of the editor than necessary to free the topic from the problem. I think a permanent topic ban will be welcomed by the editing community of that page, but perhaps that is sufficient; it would be my personal hope that the editor would indeed find a niche for an effective and well-received contribution elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If monitoring were later to show continuing problems, then wider sanctions could be judged appropriate at that point. PL290 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

" before this conversation is blown away by the voluminous response from Onefortyone that will doubtless soon follow" - Just gotta say you have quite the crystal ball there! Active Banana (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, too bad we didn't take bets on it. As for you, we must "a peal" to your good senses. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to get the discussion back on the topic of OneFortyOne's topic ban or block. There were a few comments above about this, but I don't think there are enough to say there's a consensus yet. As far as I can tell, OneFortyOne isn't happy with the idea of a topic ban (see below), and doesn't seem to indicate that they're aware of the issues that prompted this ANI discussion (or even, in my view, the prior ARBCOM cases). With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following: "OneFortyOne is indefinitely blocked. This block will be lifted if OneFortyOne consents to a topic ban covering those articles covered by OneFortyOne's current probation." Aye, nay, maybe? TFOWR 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That might work. I've concluded that either the user is a genuine troll, or else fits Hanlon's razor. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tangent

Just a question. For what specific reason should I be blocked or banned? Would you please tell me which of my recent edits has violated my probation? All of my contributions are well sourced and I am always discussing my contributions if some other users think that this is necessary. What should be wrong with this edit or this one or this one? The latter was added because another user detected a recently published new source and was of the opinion that it should be included in the article. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that the same few users who have requested this case are deeply involved in current content disputes and are frequently removing what I have written. They are now also manipulating the Elvis talk page (see below). Could it be that I am still the victim of harassment as in previous cases of a similar kind? As ARBCOM member Sam Blacketer who analyzed such a case said early last year about my edits: "his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority." Onefortyone (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Being sourced is not a free ticket to inclusion, it's simply one of the minimum requirements. You have been told, over and over, why your various attempts at posting this junk (over the last 5 years) are inappropriate, and you won't pay attention. Contentiousness, disruption, incompetence, you name it. That's the reason, if it comes to that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So it is only your personal opinion that my well-sourced contributions are "junk", and therefore you have opened this case. I see. Onefortyone (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Being sourced does not make them valid. As you have been told many times already. You're an endless-loop troll. And sooner or later, even your current buddy Main Engine Cut Off will figure that out. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would call this an unjustified personal attack by the user who opened this case. Onefortyone (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you should report it here. TFOWR 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Onefortyone

It is understandable that the administrators are not fully aware of the whole story. Here it is.

To my mind, there are some Wikipedians (who may be part of an Elvis fan group) who frequently remove my well-sourced contributions to Elvis Presley and some other articles, even if they are very short. See , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . I have a suspicion that there is a small circle of Wikipedians who frequently cooperate in editing and may know each other. See , , , , . They are deliberately harassing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions and attacking me on the talk pages, simply because my edits are not in line with their view of Elvis, although I am very carefully, and frequently, citing my sources, among them reputed Elvis biographies, books by people who knew the singer well (such as his personal physician), and critical university studies. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that in the past I have been more than once the victim of attacks by sockpuppets of Elvis fans. See .

Most of these Wikipedians use the same strategy as my old opponent Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW did in the past over and over again: personal attacks (accusing me of outright fabrication and insanity, calling me buddy, a liar or troll etc.), deliberately claiming things that are not true, and removing content they do not like. See, for instance, these absurd claims by User:PL290: . More important, however, are the frequent personal attacks by DocKino. See . In like manner, in an FA discussion DCGeist has called some of my critical remarks about the Elvis article, “dross”, although these remarks were supported by another user’s comment. See .

To my mind, DocKino is identical with DCGeist. Both users are situated in New York City, both are film experts and interested in the B-movie and Sex Pistols articles. Their editing styles/methods are similar (see , ) and their edit histories reveal that they must have the same sleeping time. Furthermore, as an editor not formerly involved both in contributions to, and content disputes concerning, the Presley article, DCGeist has an all too specific knowledge of Elvis-related details, as it could only be expected from DocKino. See . More problematic is that DocKino and DCGeist cooperate in achieving FA statuses arguing on the related discussion pages against other users as if they were two different Wikipedians. See also .

Moreover, Doc Kino and User:PL290 are often working hand in hand on the same Misplaced Pages articles, for instance, Elvis Presley and The Beatles, endeavouring to suppress all opinions not in line with their view. See their edit history and Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_23#There_are_no_critical_voices_to_be_heard. In working together, these editors are also happy to avoid the 3RR. PL290 even goes so far as to remove contributions criticizing his attitude from the Elvis talk page. See , although, on the other hand, he participates in personal attacks against me. The same Wikipedians also show evidence of misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view as they more than once removed a sourced alternative point of view. See diffs above.

Interestingly, even some old arbcom cases from 2005 are once again used in order to compromise me and my recent contribitions. It should be noted that it was Ted Wilkes alias multiple hard-banned User:DW who took me to arbitration simply because he didn’t like my contributions. In 2005, the arbcom unfortunately said, "Onefortyone ... may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." However, it was my opponent Wilkes who was later hardbanned. As far as I can see, I have not violated my probation since that time, as I am always citing many reliable sources (including published books, academic studies, articles in reputed periodicals, etc.) in order to support my edits. For a list of sources I am using, see . In a subsequent case the arbcom said that my former opponents "Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James Dean#Removal of "Rumors" section and Talk:Nick Adams#Rumors, gossip or speculation contravene official Misplaced Pages policy." Therefore, according to the arbcom, Ted Wilkes and Wyss were banned from making edits related to specific subjects, and they were both placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation. In 2006, there was this subsequent arbcom decision confirming that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was the person who was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." One year ago, there was another attempt by Rikstar and some Elvis fans to ban me from Misplaced Pages. It failed because the arbcom rejected the case. Arbcom member Sam Blacketer says about my edits: “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.”

Concerning the Elvis Presley article, I have been a regular contributor for several years, having added material to the sections on

• the singer's manager, Colonel Tom Parker (see , , , , , , , ),
• the world-wide Elvis industry (see , ),
• the Memphis Mafia (see ),
• Elvis's death (see , , , , , ),
• his consumption of drugs (see , , , , ),
• Priscilla Presley (see , , ),
• Elvis's close relationship with his mother (see , , , , , , , , , , ),
• his youth and early stardom (see , , , , ),
• the allegations of racism (see , , , ),
• Elvis's male friendships (see , , , , , , , , ),
• the FBI files on Presley (see , , , ),
• the singer's movies (see , , , , ),
• his musical career (see , , ),
• his final stages in Las Vegas (see ),
• theatrical plays and music by other musicians relating to Elvis (see , ),
• Presley and the Beatles (see ),
• the Elvis cult and its critics (see , , , ),
• Presley's political beliefs (see , ), etc. etc.

This endless list shows that I am not a troll as my opponents falsely claim and that I have added much material to all sections of the article and also written a critical section on the Elvis cult which has been totally deleted from the main article for inexplicable reasons and despite the fact that other users were of the opinion that it belonged in the article.

For a third opinion concerning the questionable attitudes of my opponents, see also this recent statement by user Meco, who says

my impression is that 141 certainly isn't the only problem around here. I would go on to contend that they aren't the biggest problem either. In fact, I'd even be open to the belief that they are right and that a vociferous pack of entrenched editors have assumed ownership of this article and are actively attempting to malign and shut this user out of the would-be consensus-building effort which article editing on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be.

So I do not understand why anybody who is aware of the whole story would earnestly propose an indefinite block on me. Onefortyone (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree to a topic ban of the form outlined above by SGGH? TFOWR 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In view of the frequent personal attacks on me by my opponents, I do not think that a ban against me is justified at all, especially since all of my contributions are well sourced and fully in line with Misplaced Pages policy. To my mind, there is only a content dispute about the inclusion of some additional information in the Elvis article. For a third opinion on what is actually going on, see Talk:Elvis_Presley#This_talk_page_is_poisoned. Onefortyone (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

141 reveals that he sees this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's worth pointing out that the squabble he had 5 years was over trying to promote some theory that Elvis was gay (which I'm sure would have come as a surprise to both Priscilla and their daughter). Now you've got this ex-doctor cooking up this theory to try and avoid the blame for himself having done to Elvis approximately what that one guy did to MJ last summer. The ex-doctor is a primary source about himself, so I don't see how that qualifies as a "reliable" source under wikipedia policy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record. You are right that the sources I have provided in support of the opinion that Elvis may have had a homosexual affair with his best friend Nick Adams (to be found, for instance, in Albert Goldman's Elvis biography, in a book by celebrity biographer David Bret and in a manuscript by Elvis's Stepmother, Dee Presley) caused some outrage in 2005 among Elvis fans such as Ted Wilkes whose contributions formerly dominated the Elvis article. However, Wilkes was banned from Misplaced Pages by arbcom decision and more recent publications by reputed Elvis biographers Alanna Nash and Kathleen Tracy seem to support the claim of bisexuality. Notwithstanding, this detail is not even mentioned in the present version of the article. And I still do not understand why a single sentence summarizing the opinion of Elvis's personal physician about the cause of the singer's death to be found in a recently published book should not be added to the article, especially in view of the fact that the theories by the other doctors are already included there and some other editors (among them the editor who first detected the source) were also of the opinion that the said detail should be added. Onefortyone (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Onefortyone calls it a content dispute; that is not new, or entirely untrue. However, the term masks the reality, which is non-collaborative editing, against consensus, for unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. This single editor has persisted, for a period of many years, in regular disruptive editing, dominating the Elvis Presley article talk page with voluminous posts which push the same minority fringe agenda over and over again, and repeatedly placing material into the article against consensus. This current conversation is already following the usual patterns of diverting the issue by arguing about specific sources, pointing the finger elsewhere, or innocently protesting inability to understand why others deem content inappropriate (a holow "innocence", given that during his domination of the two recent Elvis Presley Featured Article candidacies—when, tellingly, his arguments for inclusion of such content received no support whatsoever from the body of reviewers in either of the two candidacies—the editor, who calls those who disagree with him "Elvis fans" and his "opponents", acknowledged himself that he is in a minority). The fact remains, consensus is ultimately what demonstrates what content is appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia, and the consensus in question is well established on the article talk page, and involves numerous editors (some of whom have been discouraged from further contribution by Onefotyone's pattern of behaviour)—as can be seen by any who will look at the history. That same consensus was reaffirmed by the wider Misplaced Pages body during the two FA candidacies. We do not know why Onefortyone has demonstrated an obsession with the Elvis articles, forcing a fringe view, from a minority of one, against all the other involved editors. We have to accept the reality that a Misplaced Pages editor could be identical with Presley's discredited doctor, which would explain the vested interest; alternately, other reasons may apply which are out of the editor's control. Whether Onefortyone wishes to build an encyclopedia remains in doubt, given the narrow focus of contribution and the refusal to collaborate. These are the issues, and they are not addressed by turning once again to debating sources, when consensus has shown over and over that the material in question is not appropriate in a mainstream summary of the artist's entire life and career. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• (tl/dr) HalfShadow 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement from meco

I would suggest that the initial diatribe from Baseball Bugs is not taken on face value. A discerning reader will immediately recognize the tone and style of their post belying a less than honest intent on this editor whom I have just exposed as an ingenuous demagogue who will employ every simple rhetorical ploy in their little bag of dirty tricks to rid themselves of a vexing opposition, that is, short of actually addressing the grievance raised and material subject at hand. Ad hominem is the first and primary tool applied in discussion by this user, and if any individual editor ought to be censured in the debacle which I have witnessed, it is Baseball Bugs.

Everyone knows that most people aren't going to analyze years of edit history, dozens of lengthy sections filled with heated discussion and on such a basis make up their well-informed mind about the comprehensive truth of the situation. Most people are perhaps going to study the discussion on this page somewhat closely and sample some of the links that are selectively offered (unless they are too numerous) and basically make an intuitive choice about which of the editors that are personally involved in the conflict they are going to pay credence to. Let me therefore offer a small tool which I devised yesterday when analyzing one major section on the Elvis talk page, the most recent discussion about including Elvis' personal doctor's recent postulation that The King died from constipation (a section also containing two sub-sections): Talk:Elvis Presley#This talk page is poisoned.

Without considering the pre-history of the conflict I narrowmindedly focus on one discussion. I summarize the individual posts and comment on the tone, style and, as I am able to judge, intent of the poster. Suffice to say that unless what I uncover in my analysis is more or less diametrically misrepresentative of the corpus of that page (which I haven't assayed) then the description provided by Baseball Bugs at the top of this incident report should be apprehended with utmost skepticism.

What I basically find in my analysis is that the accused user, exclusively referred to as 141, presents themselves in an impeccable style, responds to all queries factually and politely, but more importantly never loses their composure in the face of blatant provocations and incivilities by several of the other editors.

I find furthermore that three editors in particular, PL290, DocKing and Baseball Bugs, act in concert to derail all attempts to focus on the material issue being raised. And I will point out that it was not 141 who started that thread about including the constipation information into the article. I did, never having visited this particular Wiki-community previously, but based on having read multiple news headlines in major mainstream newspapers on the issue. I dare characterize the conduct of these three editors in that section as pack behavior, plain and simple.

I notice that the initial discussion in the present section uncritically accepts the premises offered by Baseball Bugs and the only real discussion is what type of sanction is to be leveled at the "problem user". I think this is very unfortunate. I personally also strongly take issue with the notion asserted by multiple editors that a user focusing on a small number of topics over a long period of time is a problem to be corrected. We all have different modes of editing and we all have different motivations for coming to this project to contribute. Not being a generalist is not a reason for criticism, and certainly not for censure.

Has WP:AN/I really become this skewed and complacent that some level-headed administrator isn't going to enter the arena and call out the travesty kangaroo court that is currently being manufactured set up? __meco (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Meco, as I pointed out on the article talk page, as a recent arrival on the scene you have badly missed the point. Your assessment is fatally flawed because, by your own admission, you have only looked at very recent discussions. In view of that, it's amazing that you can dismiss ANI as "skewed" or "complacent" as you just did in your closing sentence. You may claim that "Everyone knows that most people aren't going to analyze years of edit history, dozens of lengthy sections filled with heated discussion and on such a basis make up their well-informed mind about the comprehensive truth of the situation", but that is in fact precisely what responsible admins who frequent this page will do (and have already done, now and at earlier times, in respect of this particular editor). Please stop jumping to conclusions based on your own very selective and recent observations, and you will see that the real story is very different. PL290 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is simply nonsense. Making such assays is time-consuming. I'm certainly not out-of-the-blue asserting that administrators and other interested editors won't study the matter in-depth as opposed to accepting cursory versions from the involved parties. It boils down to the following: If someone does make the extensive effort of doing their own investigation into the pre-history of such a case as this one, they are certainly not going to return to this discussion not mentioning that they have made a thorough probe and give representative examples of what they found. Or is your intimate knowledge of human behavior so shallow that you assert just that? No, it isn't, because you are both cunning and skillful at sophisticated manipulation of a discussion arena. Would someone who spends maybe forty-five minutes, maybe a couple of hours, or more, studying past discussions and conflict flare-ups return to this page with the only remark: "I agree that we should probably give this user an indefinite block since they have been engaging in this type of behavior for several hears." You, PL290, are in fact employing some very advanced manipulation techniques of your own, such as appealing to secret codes: "it's amazing that you can dismiss ANI as 'skewed' or 'complacent' as you just did in your closing sentence" – translation: "those who read this page are decent, honest and hard-working contributors to the project, I have trust in you, but meco doesn't. Are you really gonna take his side against mine?" Or: "that is in fact precisely what responsible admins who frequent this page will do" – translation: "those admins who haven't made a thorough investigation before giving their opinions are irresponsible. I assert that the admins involved in the current process are responsible! If anyone just felt a sting of bad conscience, I have now effectively preempted their coming out with it." But you are good PL290. You are one of the better ones. Too bad you don't use those skills in the service of good. __meco (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If Main Engine Cut Off had spent half the time looking at 141's history that he spent constructing that Martin Luther-sized megillah on the article talk page, he would maybe get the point that PL290 is making, above, that 141 has been pushing fringe theories about Elvis for 5 years and simply won't stop, despite arbcom rulings and blocks by others in the past. Persistent, disruptive defiance of consensus (as well as logic and reason) can result in being prohibited from editing a particular subject. That's standard procedure. It is not wikipedia's place to promote fringe theories. Along with his admitted selective reading of the 141 issue, Meco may have overlooked that I began this item with "What's to be done, if anything, about the user Onefortyone?" Maybe the answer is "nothing", but maybe it's "something", which is why I wanted the admins to look at it. And for the record, I got into this because Elvis happened to be one of the thousand or so items on my watch list. Despite any accusations 141 may have leveled, I am not now, nor have I ever been: afflicted with severe gastrointestinal ailments; any kind of homosexual; nor (gasp!) a member of any Elvis fan club. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not buying the whole "we don't know the whole story, a terrible injustice is being perpetuated" thing. ARBCOM looked at this; we know what they found; we can see that the issues that led to the original case are still ongoing. Everything else is irrelevant. Up above a solution has been proposed which would enable Onefortyone to continue editing (i.e. consent to a voluntary topic ban on Elvis-related articles). If Onefortyone isn't OK with that solution, the only other alternative would appear to be that the 2006 ARBCOM ruling is enforced, i.e. that Onefortyone is blocked. Cheers, TFOWR 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the personal attacks frequently made by the other users? See . I still do not think that a ban against me is justified at all. ARBCOM has carefully analyzed earlier cases of this kind, when small groups of editors took me to arbitration. In all these cases, the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles. The ARBCOM clearly said that my “editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” See . The fact remains that the Elvis article is currently dominated by, and debate is only among, a handful of editors, most of them part of a group that frequently removes my contributions and makes personal attacks against me on the talk page. That’s why I call these few editors my opponents. They often leave important alternative voices unheard – voices being supported by reliable sources. The problem is that only some Wikipedians are interested in Elvis Presley and that for several years I have been the target of attacks by lots of Elvis fans, simply because I have a more critical view of the singer. Therefore, it is very easy for this small group of editors who cooperate with each other to claim that my editing is against consensus, allegedly “for unwarranted promotion of fringe theories,” or that the “material in question is not appropriate,” although it is well sourced and to be found in many publications on Elvis. If there are third opinions by other users supporting my view, they are gagged. See also Talk:Elvis_Presley#Recent_Reverts, and this recent statement. My contributions are not fringe views shared only by a minority, as PL290 falsely claims, but in most cases opinions supported by mainstream biographies, university studies (among them social and gender studies), publications on the rock’n’roll era and books published by people who knew the singer well. As arbcom member Sam Blacketer said early last year about my edits: “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.” As can be seen by any who will look at the history, only one of my recent contributions to the Elvis article was not removed by my opponents. This one. However, the second sentence was later removed. More critical edits are frequently removed, although they are well sourced. As for PL290’s false claim above that my arguments for inclusion of additional content received no support whatsoever from the body of reviewers in either of the two FA candidacies, see these commentaries by other users: , , . When I took up SandyGeorgia’s point that there is little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the Misplaced Pages article (see ), DCGeist replied, “Ignoring the dross...” See . As for the disruptive editing dominating the Elvis Presley article talk page, it should be noted that on April 15, PL290 has removed one of my critical remarks from the talk page. User Sinneed said, “I agree that the above remark should not have been removed.” On May 11, 2010, user Meco said, “I don't see that you are addressing Onefortyone's argument in a rational manner.” Onefortyone (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate issue entirely. Create a new thread at the bottom of this page - or at a more appropriate venue - if you want to discuss other issues. This thread is discussing concerns over your conduct, and, in particular, your compliance with an ARBCOM decision. It would be too easy, otherwise, to get bogged down with lengthy rebuttals and counter-claims. TFOWR 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Remedies" section of the ARBCOM decision OneFortyOne refers to above is here: Onefortyone remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation. I'd suggest any topic ban should incorporate this, more recent, ARBCOM case and include all celebrities. TFOWR 14:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Could any administrator tell me which of my recent edits has violated my probation? I did not insert poorly sourced information or original research. To my mind, there was no consensus on the talk page that the additional information concerning Elvis's death (to be found in a recent book by Elvis's personal physician) should not be included in the article, as there were other editors (including the editor who has detected the specific source) supporting the inclusion. It should again be noted that ARBCOM has carefully analyzed earlier cases of this kind, when small groups of editors took me to arbitration. In all these cases, the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles. The ARBCOM clearly said that my “editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” See . This is still the case. And the frequent attacks I receive are certainly of much importance, as they clearly demonstrate my opponents' biased attitudes. Onefortyone (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For starters, there's your frequent attempts to re-insert the same nonsense despite the lack of any consensus to do so. And speaking of "personal attacks", where's your evidence that any of us are in an "Elvis fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So you call the view of Elvis's personal physician published in his recent book "nonsense". I see. As far as I can see, there was no consensus to omit this specific detail. Onefortyone (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not a doctor, and his claims are a conflict of interest. Not a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing arguments are those typically posed by fringe theorists who are trying to get their pet theories into wikipedia to lend them some artificial notability. That kind of thing is the reason we fight it. It's not appropriate to use wikipedia to give false credence to fringe and biased sources. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be your personal opinion, as you are deeply involved in the current content dispute. However, other editors are of a different opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. This ARBCOM case resulted solely in you being put on probation and being banned from certain articles. The article ban was subsequently lifted after one editor was found to have misbehaved. I'm concerned about your use of the word "opponents" above: Misplaced Pages is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Indeed, I would suggest - without prejudice to ARBCOM - that it is this attitude, historically and continuing - that has brought you to ARBCOM, has brought you to ANI. Selective reading of ARBCOM rulings only goes so far - sooner or later we all read them too. TFOWR 15:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I count at least a dozen places in this discussion where he refers to his "opponents", as if he thinks wikipedia is a video game or something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, TFOWR, you are only referring to the earliest arbcom case. Did you realize that, in 2005, a sockpuppet of a multiple hardbanned user took me to arbitration who was later banned from Misplaced Pages for one year and did not reappear? As for the later ban on me, the unjustified article bans were immediately lifted, due to abusive sockpuppetry on the articles by another editor, who requested these bans. To my mind, taking me to arbitration or asking for bans seems to be a usual game by my opponents in order to harass me. This was also the opinion of one of the arbcom members in a later case. Onefortyone (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You've used the term "opponents" a dozen times just in the above discussion, here on this page right now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's nearer my reading of the cases, yes. Would you care to strike out that part above where you suggested that the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles? Cheers, TFOWR 15:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument. As the subsequent arbcom cases concerning the same matter show, Ted Wilkes and Lochdale were clearly banned by arbcom decision from the related articles. Onefortyone (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hence your block was lifted. But aren't you still actively subject to the ArbCom restrictions? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've looked at the "remedies" sections of two separate ARBCOM cases: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis; the latter case did result in an article (Elvis Presley) ban for one editor. The former case did not. Both cases either placed you on probation or continued the probation, for articles involving celebrities. Above, however, you stated that "the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles". Ignoring the colourful use of the word "opponents", only one editor was "banned" - and it was a ban from one article. This kind of selective reading of ARBCOM cases neatly avoids the real remedy proposed:

Onefortyone is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

There seems to be a consensus here that you have disrupted an article and/or its talk page by attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. Rather than indefinitely block you from the encyclopaedia in its entirety, it's been proposed that we should first see if you are prepared to accept a ban on editing articles about Elvis. Are you?

Cheers, TFOWR 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a consensus here that I “have disrupted an article and/or its talk page by attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.” This is only the biased opinion of some of the participants in the recent content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley, as they apparently do not like the new material to be found in a recently published book by Elvis's personal physician. For a totally different view, see the third opinion by user meco above. As for the blocks or bans on my so-called opponents in the arbcom cases, see , , , , . I still do not think that I have violated my probation. However, in order to calm down the emotions and to show good faith, I would like to have a personal break from editing Misplaced Pages for about a month or so. Would this be acceptable? Onefortyone (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This was an even earlier ARBCOM case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone, relating to "homosexuality". Was that the one you meant to post?

A personal break is perfectly acceptable - no one can force you to edit here ;-)

When you return please do remember your probation and give serious thought to accepting a topic ban. It will be infinitely preferable to an outright block.

Cheers, TFOWR 16:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The case you have mentioned was a subsequent case, where ARBCOM member Redwolf24 requested "a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." This was a clear statement which shows that I have been the victim of harassment for a long period of time. And you may get the impression from this 2005 case and the personal attacks I am receiving now, that I am still the victim of harassment. The ARBCOM said,

“Following the decision attempts to edit by Onefortyone and his mentor FCYTravis were thwarted by reversions and edit warring by Ted Wilkes and Wyss.” “Onefortyone complained about the edit warring and Ted Wilkes and Wyss were warned. Ted Wilkes responded that he intended to continue with his behavior.” “Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality.” “Ted Wilkes is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Misplaced Pages, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year.”

As Wilkes violated his probation, he was banned for one year. See . It should further be noted that there was another subsequent case concerning the same matter. In this 2006 case the ARBCOM decided to ban Lochdale from the Elvis article. These are the facts. Onefortyone (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you seem to be active again, I'll reply:

The case you have mentioned was... No. This was the case you mentioned. I asked you to clarify that it was the case you meant to mention, as it appeared at first glance to be related to "homosexuality", not "celebrities" or "toilets". Prior to you mentioning it above I was unaware of it. I am still unclear as to how it relates to your later two cases, both of which resulted in or confirmed your probation on articles related to celebrities.

That other editors eventually were blocked or banned as a result of the first (?) ARBCOM case with which you involved (i.e. the "homosexuality" case) isn't hugely pertinent to your behaviour on celebrity articles, your probation on celebrity articles, or your recent conduct that resulted in your probation becoming widely known.

Cheers, TFOWR 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding. All these arbcom cases are related, as they are all subsequent to the original case of September 2005. The arbcom wasn't aware at the time of the first case that Wilkes was a sockpuppet of a hardbanned user and that he was harassing me. According to arbcom member Redwolf24, the so-called "homosexuality" case of December 2005 is a "merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him" (his words). See the case you have mentioned . Onefortyone (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved comment that was inserted part-way through an earlier comment. TFOWR 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So would you please tell me which of my recent edits has violated my probation? All of my edits are well sourced and I am always citing my sources (books and articles on Elvis, university studies etc.). What should be wrong with this edit or this one or this one? Onefortyone (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're arguing in this very thread about using Elvis' ex-physician as a source, despite the obvious conflict-of-interest concerns being explained to you. TFOWR 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the alleged conflict-of-interest, see my contribution on the Elvis talk page: . Onefortyone (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You see, that's my concern right there. You're on probation on that article - you simply shouldn't be pushing that at all. Cheers, TFOWR 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your argument. As far as I can see, I am not pushing the new theory about Elvis's death. Others were of the opinion that a short note should be included in the article, as the book is written by Elvis's main physician, and I included it. Yet it was immediately removed by the other users. I reincluded it because there were different opinions about it on the talk page, and it was again removed. Because of the current dispute, I have not reincluded the quote from the said book and I do not intend to reinclude it in order to calm down the emotions. However, the question remains, what is so difficult about adding the short quote to the article together with a well-sourced additional remark from a reliable source that there may be a conflict-of-interest. This would be in line with Misplaced Pages policy. However, the other users have not yet provided such a remark for inclusion in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're on probation for that article. You should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever your justification. There's a content dispute - obviously - which needs to be resolved, but it won't be resolved while an editor on probation ignores a revert, ignores the discussion which I would hope would follow. With respect, you do not seem to understand what probation means, and you do not seem to be able to abide by it. You do seem very good at throwing in tangents and red-herrings, however, as this thread demonstrates. TFOWR 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand your argument. Firstly, I am only on probation for having once or twice inserted poorly sourced information or original research in 2005. Since that time I am always citing the sources I am including in Misplaced Pages articles, as the arbcom has confirmed, and in the current case the source the other user has detected is a recently published book, which is certainly not poorly sourced information. Secondly, as the talk page shows, there were different opinions about the book by Elvis's physician. Thirdly, it has not yet been appropriately considered that I may be the victim of harassment by the person who has opened this case. Onefortyone (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, you are on probation.
  • You've stated here that you've added content, been reverted, then re-added similar content instead of discussing the issue. This is the concern.
• Secondly, what happens on the talk page is all well and good as part of a discussion about a content dispute. This is not that discussion. This is a discussion about an editor who appears not to understand the terms of their probation, and how we as a community act to prevent further disruption.
• Thirdly, I directed you to the approrpiate forum to discuss your complaint about that editor. Throwing it in during a discussion about you is inappropriate, a red-herring, a diversion. Please take it to the correct forum.
  • Personally, I would imagine that the editor in question is getting extremely weary repeating the same things over and over. I know I am.

Cheers, TFOWR 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right that I am on probation, but for having included poorly sourced information in 2005, not for re-including a well-sourced quote after intensively discussing the topic on the Elvis talk page. Interestingly, user Baseball Bugs, who opened this case, was part of this discussion and didn't accept my argument. Another user, Colonel Warden, did accept it. For the relevance of the source in question, see also Colonel Warden's opinion below. Onefortyone (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say why you on probation: the reasons can be read by anyone simply by clicking on the links I've peppered throughout this thread. The reasons are, in any event, completely irrelevant - another spectacular red-herring. The reasons are not important: what matters are that (a) you are on probation, and (b) what the terms of the probation are (i.e. that if you behave as you appear to have behaved recently (see my comment You've stated here that you've added content, been reverted, then re-added similar content instead of discussing the issue above), you can be topic banned). This thread is about whether you would accept a topic ban (and I gather you wouldn't) and, if not, what steps to take next: I advocate a block, as I think trying to explain your probation to you is most likely not going to be very successful. TFOWR 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

141, you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you really need to read up on the meaning of "probation." I'll quote the arbcom decision:

• Onefortyone is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

This does not mean "only stuff which you inserted when the probation was put in place." It means any poorly sourced information or WP:OR. Consensus is that what you're trying to include is poorly sourced. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. However, to my mind, I didn't include poorly sourced information in the current Elvis article, as some editors were of a different opinion, as the talk page shows. I also do not think that the reason why I am still on probation is irrelevant because I am on probation only because of the specific reason (and because a sockpuppet of a multiple hardbanned user who wanted to harass me took me to arbitration in 2005), and it is a fact that I have not violated this probation for several years. Furthermore, I have re-added similar content (a very short quote from Nichopoulos's book) to the current Elvis article only after intensively discussing the issue on the talk page. This is not unimportant. The question remains how the content dispute should be resolved. I have declared above that, in order to calm down emotions, I do not intend to re-include the Nichopoulos quote in the Elvis article, although I still think that I am a victim of harassment by some other users. As for the question if a topic ban or block is justified (I personally do not think so), what about asking some members of the 2005 and 2006 arbcom cases if they are of the opinion that I have violated my probation? It may also be a good idea to assign a mentor to me, for instance an expert in writing biographical Misplaced Pages articles not previously being involved in content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley, with whom I may discuss future contributions, if some editors have problems with my edits. Onefortyone (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to both suggestions, though I don't believe it's necessary to get an arb to make the call as to whether you've broken your probation. My reading of your probation is that an admin can make that call.

Incidentally, the key thing for me - the key thing that says you've broken (and do not understand how you've broken) your probation - is your comment about the content dispute. If there's a content dispute at all you should not add disputed content. I'm glad you say you won't now re-add until the content dispute is resolved; the problem is that you have already added content disputed text during a content dispute. It is precisely this that your probation prohibited.

Cheers, TFOWR 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So any user on probation should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever his/her justification? I didn't know that there is such a rule. Wouldn't this be carte blanche for every Wikipedian who has an axe to grind with the user on probation? Once a well-sourced contribution another user doesn't like has been removed from the Misplaced Pages article it cannot be re-included by the editor on probation. Is that really true? Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did you read what I said and infer "any user on probation"?

This was the remedy proposed during the Arbcom case that put you on probation: Onefortyone is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. You've acknowledged that you added content. You've acknowledged that you were reverted. You've acknowledged that you then re-added the disputed content. I struggling to see how you can't join the dots between what your probation says and how you have behaved. TFOWR 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You said above, "You should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever your justification." That's why I thought that this is a rule for "any user on probation". Am I right that your argument is that I have violated my probation because I have re-included a short quote from a published book written by Elvis's main physician in the Elvis article, which was disputed on the related talk page and that such things are not allowed for users on probation? Anyhow, the question remains, in doing so did I really "disrupt" the Elvis page "by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research"? I still don't think so because re-including a very short quote from a recently published book which includes comprehensive commentaries about the cause of Elvis's death is not the same thing as inserting poorly sourced information. I didn't even violate the 3RR. On the other hand, if other editors have immediately removed the said quote from the Elvis page when the dispute on the related talk page was still going on, then these users are right? Onefortyone (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"You" means "Onefortyone"; "Your probation" means "the probation Arbcom placed on Onefortyone"; "You should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever your justification" means "Onefortyone should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever Onefortyone's justification" I can't really make this any clearer. This thread is about your behaviour (i.e. Onefortyone's behaviour). TFOWR 10:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you haven't noticed this or merely are attempting to perpetuate the veneer of a material process still taking place here, but since two administrators visited these proceedings on the first date that Baseball Bugs opened this on May 22nd, none other have. I even went to the talk page of this noticeboard, partly in order to entice out some admins to take an active interest in this discussion, and my post engendered a new debate among admins there, however not about 141 or the problems at the Elvis Presely article. __meco (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A little from column "A", a little from column "B" ;-) I'm keen to keep this discussion focussed on the original complaint, and specifically how it relates to Arbcom (Arbcom trumping ANI and other WP:DRs etc), so I've avoided anything that deviates from that - but, to be honest, I hadn't seen your post at WT:ANI before now. Xeno suggests that RfC/U or mediation might be appropriate, or back to Arbcom. Onefortyone suggested contacting the original arbs for comment, and I'm open to that suggestion. We certainly need a resolution that makes absolutely clear what's expected of Onefortyone, with no room for mis-interpretation. Cheers, TFOWR 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Colonel Warden

• There seem to be widespread press reports of the Elvis-constipation theory. For example, here's a recent and reasonably well-informed commentary on the matter. Given the prominence of this material in the media, we should expect some discussion of our treatment in the relevant article(s). This occasion therefore does not seem adequate reason to pillory user Onefortyone. Accordingly, I oppose any extraordinary measures at this time. Interested editors should just place the relevant article(s) on their watch list and participate in any content discussions which may arise. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Blogs are not relevant sources. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • blogs that are blog in name only are reliable sources. Like when a newspaper makes a blog that has the editorial oversight the same as columns are reliable sources. It is self-published sources which are not reliable which is what most blogs on the internet are. If these blogs are published freely without editorial oversight, then they're not reliable unless the writer is a recognized expert in the field, if they are, they're just like any other column.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just an additional question. User:PL290 made massive changes on the Elvis talk page in order to support his personal opinion that Nichopoulos, Presley's main physician, is not a reliable source. See , , , . This means that important threads discussing the topic relating to the above request and including opinions by users Baseball Bugs, Onefortyone, meco and Colonel Warden are no longer part of Talk:Elvis Presley. I do not think that this is in line with Misplaced Pages policy. Onefortyone (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatant falsehood. PL290 grouped the various endless-loop discussions and collapsed them. They are still on the talk page, despite 141's and Meco's claims to the contrary. The collapsed stuff is endless-loop stuff. 141 may be sincere, but he's been told over and over that this single-biased-source-tabloid stuff does not belong in the article. He was told that 5 years ago in regard to the "Elvis-was-gay" kick that he was on at the time. Yet he's still beating that drum, as recently as yesterday. I don't know if it's trolling, or incompetence, or Hanlon's razor, or what, but he won't stop. He's been at this for 5 years already, and I guaran-darn-tee you, this will continue perpetually, until he's either topic-banned or blocked altogether. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a book written by Elvis Presley's personal physician is certainly a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages policy and not "tabloid stuff". User PL290 has added a "clarification" to Talk:Elvis Presley that falsely claims that there was a kind of "consensus … that the discredited doctor's opinions, such as those published in his 2010 book, and including his attempt to emphasize constipation as the likely cause of death, should not be propagated by Misplaced Pages." See . Other users who participated in the discussion such as 24.61.236.106 (who detected the said source), Onefortyone, Meco and Colonel Warden were of a different opinion. Furthermore, the threads including the discussion are no longer directly visible on this talk page and some links leading to the original threads do not work any more. I would call this manipulating the Elvis talk page in order to promote a personal agenda. According to Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." This is a very clear statement. As for the current dispute, at least two editors who have extensively contributed to the talk page, Onefortyone and Meco, object to the changes being made by user PL290. These are the facts. Onefortyone (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A book written by a guy whose license to practice medicine was suspended and then revoked, and who may himself have been the one who killed Elvis. No conflict-of-interest there, no sirree. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The points you make and that have been consistently made from the glances at this ongoing feud that I have seen are completely non-sequiturial. This doctor is an important and notable first-hand witness to the issues on which he makes his statements. This "Oh really, are we going to listen to a convicted felon?" type of rhetoric is completely lame. Whatever conflict of interest and self-serving purposes one may wish to attribute to him also does not disqualify his salient testimony. It simply calls for these possibly influencing factors to be brought to the attention of the reader. __meco (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1) This guy lost his license to practice medicine. That's one strike against his credibility. 2) He's the only source for this. That's two. 3) He has a distinct conflict of interest as Elvis' personal physician, and stands quite a bit to gain by continuing that association after Presley's death. That's three strikes, I'd say he's out as a reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Using refactoring to stifle criticism

There's a long-standing conflict ongoing at Talk:Elvis Presley. One recently reported incident still remains on WP:AN/I as I write this (#Onefortyone). In that discussion I make a reference to an analysis of conduct of various editors on the Elvis talk page (#Statement from meco). Now, go to that page and try and find it! Can't find it? It's there, just try a little harder.. Still can't find it? Well, about 4/5 down on that discussion page you will see a big yellow box and below it on the right side of the page it reads . That's how you get to see the information that used to be easiily accessible on that talk page. I request that appropriate censuring measures be applied towards the editor who "refactored" this information, basically into oblivion: PL290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This blatantly self-serving censoring (as my findings strongly pinpoints this particular user as one of the sources of the poisoned atmosphere on that talk page) is done in this edit, marked as minor, with the edit summary reading: "reorg to clarify for newcomers--too many misunderstandings already". __meco (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "long-standing conflict" is ONE TROLLING EDITOR (141) pushing tabloid junk about Elvis over the last 5 years or more. He's now being aided and abetted by this Meco guy, who despite being on wikipedia for also about 5 years, couldn't find the collapsed endless-loop stuff, in addition to arguing 141's case despite his apparent total ignorance of the guy's behavior over 5 years. I had to show him where the collapsed section was. We seem to have the troll leading the incompetent, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And I might point out that Baseball Bugs is also one of the users who would be particularly well served by having the section of analysis on the Elvis talk page kept well hidden. __meco (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would not be well-served either way. I'm neither an Elvis lover nor an Elvis hater. However, wikipedia would be better served by not having this tabloid garbage in the article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this, I support the collapsing of the thread. That section is so long as to be unreadable. Uncollapsed, it chokes the entire page. Consensus seems pretty clear on the topic, in any case, and I support it. I haven't read all of the above section here at ANI, but it seems that a small contingent of editors who support fringe viewpoints are flooding that page. More eyes on it would probably be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose meco would also consider the archiving of discussion to be "refactored... into oblivion"? The alternative to putting such a long discussion behind hidden tags is to move it off to its own archived page. Regardless, either way that discussion is over. Time to move on. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

However, the fact remains that some important threads relating to the topic of the Onefortyone case on this noticeboard and including much material in support of my view were made nearly invisible by a another user who is deeply involved in the content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley. This suggests that the changes weren't just made in good faith. Onefortyone (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Made nearly invisible" is a complete falsehood. It's right there, under a "Show" button, which is common practice with long (especially off-topic or circular) discussions. If nothing else, a diff can be given to the specific comment that's at issue. If it's not a specific comment, people can be pointed to the collapsed discussion. This is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism--yes, Roman

Is there anyone around with a good enough memory, going back a couple of months, who recalls edits being made similar to this one, removing the "Roman" from "Roman Catholicism"? There was an account, and then a couple of IPs, who made these kinds of edits. I'm going to plow through some of the articles edited by this IP, Special:Contributions/71.145.146.64, to see if there are any article where this happened before, but I'm suspecting puppetry of some sort. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have found another IP, Special:Contributions/71.145.168.215. User:MrCren has made similar edits in overlapping articles, but they choose their words differently. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The user I was thinking of was User talk:Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's frequent, and I try to clean it up when I see it. I don't know about sock-puppetry, though you never can tell. User:Sunray, User:MrCren, User:98.192.224.211, User: 71.200.152.165, User:71.145.168.134, User:71.145.150.136, User:71.145.146.48, User:71.145.140.146, User:67.177.95.127, User:76.205.126.35, User:65.33.17.157 have been involved, unless I've slipped in editing slightly. There are many more. The IP editors are not unlikely all the same, and it's not sock-puppetry to use different IPs when that's just what your ISP does. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Holy war (sort of). Tb (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, so I can leave this holy war to you? Keep the faith! Drmies (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, please help! Current disruptive IP is now also making specious "grammatical corrections" to avoid split verbs and such. Tb (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with a passing acquintance with the Roman Catholic Church talk page will know there's a lot more than just one person with very stong views on this one! I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As I say, "I don't know about sock-puppetry." In my opinion this comes up now and then, and needs diligence, but there is no policy that can be done. Where we had multiple users doing clearly the same edits, it was different IP editors at different times, likely explained not by sock-puppetry, but just by the same person not always being on the same address. Tb (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whether there are sockpuppets here or not, this is an old bone of contention. I remember quibbling over the point with some now-gone editor many years ago, who seemed to be unaware that there are many Christian sects -- even Protestant ones -- who arguably consider themselves "Catholic" because they use the Nicene Creed in their liturgy. The tribulations heresy & orthodoxy present us! -- llywrch (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change related RfC requiring closing

Is there an admin who has not edited any Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming article, of some little fortitude, who is willing to close the merger RfC at Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Straw poll? The poll is quite respectfully conducted, and should be fairly easy to determine. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Please? There are cakes and ale on offer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Heh, I was planning to ask for my cakes and ale, but now I read the hidden comment I see I should have checked the small print first... Peter 23:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned user disrupting wikipedia while record-breaking SPI is still open

Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs) is a disruptive nationalist editor who is almost without a doubt a sock of the banned Guildenrich (talk · contribs). On May 1st I filed an SPI , which, incredibly enough is still open. Though the DUCK evidence is overwhelming, he has managed to cover his tracks IP-wise and the investigation has now stalled. Meanwhile, he is extremely disruptive, falsifying sources, trolling, and revert-warring. Examples:

Example #1: A few days ago, he blanket reverted a number of perfectly harmless cpedits of mine without so much as an explanation. He only relented after I threatened to go nuclear disingenuously claiming to have made a mistake (and after mocking me to fix it myself ). He then continued trolling my talkpage . I do not for a second believe it was a mistake: He has never edited that article before, he evidently went through my contribs and saw a perfect opportunity to spite me.

Example #2: A few days ago, he rammed through some changes to Lunxhëri without bothering to consult anyone, and then he he created this as a way of mocking others. I mean, look at that. He basically took the old version of Lunxhëri and pasted it to that flea thing.

Example #3: A few days ago, he was trolling User:Alexikoua's talkpage. Take a look at these exchanges: regarding this dispute: . Apparently, it's perfectly ok for him to add a bunch of Albanian nobodies, but god forbid anyone add any notable Greeks: In that case, it is necessary for them to be found on Google Books , but for "his" notable people a raw google search turning up junk is more than sufficient . It's impossible to get a word through with the guy. Any attempt at engaging him is met with trolling and mockery: . This exchange here is also illuminating. He never answers a question posed to him. He just throws around cryptic non-answers and deliberately plays juvenile mind-games with anyone who tries to reason with him. Other users also find him extremely disruptive .

Example #4: After unsuccessfully trying to assert that Thanasis Vagias was Albanian using a 19th century source, exactly in the manner of User:Guildenrich, he then adds another source, but is careful to once again remove that Vagias was Greek, though without removing C.M. Woodhouse, the source that describes Vagias as Greek. When I bring it up on the talkpage , this is his response . Such games and deception are his bread and butter. It is impossible to discuss anything with this guy, it's instant evasion, obstruction and mockery at the first attempt.

If he wasn't so disruptive, I'd be willing to wait for the SPI. But the disruption is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping. Would someone please look at the evidence in the SPI and end this? I have never seen an SPI drag on for so long (24 days and counting). I know it's a long and messy SPI (partly because Stupidus and his allies have done a great job disrupting it), but the evidence is clearly presented, easy to follow, and overwhelming. Yesterday it was at the top of the list of cases needing administration, but today I noticed it fell to #5. Unless someone looks at it, it will never close. Meanwhile, Stupidus is on the rampage. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have told you, I am not Guildenrich. You have acused other users of sock:Guildenrich , and pretend to be an admin . You accuse me of falsify sources, give me proof. I apologized to the user Alexikoua Stupidus Maximus (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is wrong, after creating a mess in this article ], M. Stupidus apologized to me ], but without restoring the parts he previously removed without a reason. I've kindly advised him to do so ], but I was completely ignored.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

2(edit conflicts)Case found here. It was already declined by Tim Song because there was nothing J.delanoy could do. wiooiw 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The CU was declined, but the WP:DUCK evidence is pretty strong. All I ask is that someone take a long hard look at the behavioral evidence. Athenean (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was a duck, you would not need all the evidence above. Thats a few paragraphs long.wiooiw 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence above is to show that he is disruptive, it is not the evidence that he is a sock. That evidence is available at the SPI. Athenean (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think User:wiooiw's reasoning is specious. He seems to be saying that ducks don't generate that much evidence. Huh? The more evidence, the more likely a duck.

@alexikoua:No i didn ignore you, i just dont read to much your User talk:DragonflySixtyseven talk page ]. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean about disingenuous mockery? Stupidus is one of the top contributors to User talk:Alexikoua . Athenean (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua and you is also top contributer of my talk page. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you both getting at with who's is the top contributor on you talk pages? wiooiw 23:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I could have worked for an article, but Athenean takes my time with ANI.Stupidus Maximus (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, what do you mean "his allies"? wiooiw 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the SPI, it's all there. Athenean (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator is needed to check this spi (I'm sorry wiooiw this might be a tough situation for a newbie to handle), since his disruptive activity is very active.Alexikoua (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the SPI case has just been updated with a CU finding of "possible". That, together with substantial behavioral evidence, should really lead to a clear sock block, in my opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Although S.Maximus, knows that after the cu a ban is very likely he continues his activity, like ] using irrelevant edit summaries (a 'dyk nominated' article some weeks ago), or creating copy-vio issues ].Alexikoua (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) Blocked. W/r/t the delay, the best way to ensure that an admin will look at an SPI case promptly is to avoid making it 68kb long. Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cher article

Thread's dead, baby. Thread's dead. —Seems to be productive talk and editing at the article, though. Ya'll can have the last word.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited Cher article making changes in Infobox and external links and Wildhartlivie reverted it back so we started to revert each other. Then she posted to community about the edit war and they protected the page because of my dynamic IP and I think it's unfair. Then I remembered that I have account on Misplaced Pages so since now I will post from this name, but I think that she will revert my edits further. All my arguments about my edit at the bottom of Talk page. Please sorry for spelling. --Vt-88 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your making good faith edits but they have issues. I would not recommend war editing you will hit WP:3RR. Discuss it on the talk page, but I suspect you will learn that WP:CONSENSUS will be against you with good reason. Regards, SunCreator 00:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SunCreator. And yes, there is good reason to object to the edits, not to mention this editor failed to respond to the WP:3RR report. I don't know why you posted here, except to basically announce that you don't intend to stop, despite the myriad objections to your edits, VT-88. Your interpretation of what happened is flawed. The article was semi-protected because it wasn't possible to block you for edit warring when you have a dynamic IP. The semi-protect was placed because your edits were unacceptable. That you got around to registering an account doesn't remove your obligation to stop edit warring. The problems with your edits are the reason for the reverts and that doesn't change either. I will indeed revert your edits and again report you for edit warring if you persist in instituting the problems that you did. Don't do it. Registering an account doesn't relieve you of taking responsibility for the edits you make. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one would like to see more discussion and understanding instead of "you are wrong and you will be reverted". Perhaps having a real dialog and coming to consensus would be beneficial. Just as Vt-88 does not get to decide what is/isnt relevant to an article neither can Wildhartlivie unilaterally decide either. I'd like to see more editors get involved in the discussion and a true consensus, civilly, become established and politely explain the wiki-rational to Vt-88 on why he/she is wrong. And I do believe that editor is wrong, I'm just not happy about the method taken in showing them to be wrong. This can be used as a teaching example to make that editor a better contributor instead of slapping him on the nose with a newsaper because he peed on Wildhartlivie's rug.Camelbinky (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, but BITE and OWN are constant problems with this editor.—Chowbok ☠ 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard anything the above editor states. He is a notorious wikistalker of mine who pops up anywhere I edit to post tendentious and harassing posts that are designed to denigrate me and posts personal attacks against me. He once hosted an attack page about me that was eventually deleted and aligned himself with a now banned editor in perpetuating attacks on me. His persistent comments include accusations of ownership and bite. He's a nuisance editor who spends a large portion of his Misplaced Pages time following me around, launching arguments, inserting himself into discussions that did not previously involve him and making pointy edits that tend to highlight his biases. Of the 61 edits made in May 2010 up to the above edit, 19 of them were to me, about me, or in response to me or edits I have made. That includes this edit, where he is trying to encourage an editor to open a RfC/U on me, this one where he blatantly calls me a hypocrite, this little mess where his sole intention was to force me to explain why an incorrect edit was reverted, and He didn't bother to respond to a complaint made here about his conduct, but still shows up whenever I am involved in a discussion here to disparage me and also ignored it at WP:WQA. He once posted his wish that I burn out and eventually get banned. This is a bad faith editor who has a grudge he keeps nursing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Battleground much? Thanks for the reminder about an RFC/U; I think it an appropriate step and may undertake it myself. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, your comments cross into battleground themselves. And that you state clearly here after my post about Chowbok's antics that you might do that yourself basically endorses what Chowbok does. That is where the RfC/U belongs, not from someone who has made it his life's goal these days to harass me, a behavior that led to the requirement by ArbCom, that you have a mentor to contain your behavior toward another editor whose wiki-live you decided to make absolute hell. You have simply transferred your poor inter-editor behavior from that editor to me, and I have to wonder how ArbCom would view this transfer of spite to another editor. Maybe they should be pointed to your campaign against me, ya think? And you want to be an administrator. This sort of conduct isn't conducive to that goal. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WHL, I'm well known to the arbitration committee. I talk with a lot of them. I am one of the most scrutinized editors on this project. My past is well known and I rather expect you're missing most of it. You're not the first editor to try and use my history; you won't be the last. nb: it went quite against the last editor who tried it.

I've read what you say Chowbok does. I'm also seeing that he saying things here and elsewhere that I agree with. If he says or does something that I see and that I disagree with, I'm say so. Ok?

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to have missed was the many times I tried to explain why his edits were wrong and he'd even sort of agree, then revert back to the same or nearly the same version. I took the puppy outside, showed him where to pee besides my rug and he'd make motions like he'd pee in the yard and then come right back and pee again. Gave lip service to "yeah, I see your point" and then make the same edits. He refused to learn and would simply reinstate his errors. How do you "teach the peeing dog" when he won't stop peeing? Absent that, he will be reverted when he removes genres, associated acts and the other errors are returned. The other part that is missed here is that this editor has been present sporadically on Misplaced Pages since November 22, 2006 and is mostly a single purpose account, editing the Cher article or related ones since he arrived. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gave lip service to "yeah, I see your point" and then make the same edits."

No, it's not true. Everything's completely different. I agreed with you on one thing - Cher's child name in "Alias" section and I didn't touched it since then. On the talk page I give you explanation on your every single claim about my edit as full as I could, while you have less and less reasons with every next answer and keep reverting whole my edit.--Vt-88 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking that editors here have agreed that your edits are not appropriate and correct. It is true. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Both parties need to stop edit warring. I agree with the concerns above about Wildhartlivie's abuse of reversion; I've urged her towards less of this before. The IP edits I looked at certainly seem to be in good faith. The IP geolocates to Russia and the Vt-88 account is years old, pre-dates SUL, and is not unified. Further, the account has edited Cher and related articles before and does not seem to have gotten into any trouble with their other editing.

Vt-88, welcome to the English Misplaced Pages; I see you got a plate of cookies. This notice board is a pretty rough and tumble place and is where a lot of the project's WP:BATTLEGROUND problems are addressed. Well, sometimes. There are some issues, it seems, with parts of your edits the Cher article. I'll be glade to help with whatever errors there may be in the edits you're trying to make. I'm very good at editing here.

Wildhartlive, you revert too much. You need to listen to people when told that you bite newcomers, and have ownership issues with your articles.

I will look at this article in more detail and read the talk page. Much of the rest of this clash of views is about Cher being first and foremost a musician, but also have done significant acting; a wiki-project-war? I had those as a kid, but we used tree forts and threw crab apples ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with her music career vs. her acting career. It isn't a wiki-project-war. Not at all. It has to do with the editor, essentially a single purpose account, making incorrect edits and pressing forward even after explanations were given why his removals were not correct. You've made your comments ad nauseum about you view of my editing and I don't think you really have an idea of what goes into recent changes patrol, but it involves reverts of incorrect, poor edits or vandalism. It has nothing to do with ownership, it has to do with removing errors. I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop with that observation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the dozens of other editors who have also made that observation? Should they also stop? How many people have to tell you you have a problem before you will acknowledge that you might have a problem?—Chowbok ☠ 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you stop wikistalking me and posting tendentious comments and making personal attacks and pointy edits all over Misplaced Pages? Dozens, my ass. Please, anyone reading this, look above where I outlined the above editor's extremely poor behavior toward and about me. The problem with you, Chowbok, is that you have waged a very nasty assault against me wherever you possibly could, that led you to align yourself with SkagitRiverQueen, because I objected initially to your changing citation styles contrary to guidelines to garner consensus first. I'd think you would finally accept that your foul conduct regarding me is the makings of a RfC/U in itself. Please leave me the hell alone and stop wikistalking and stop waiting for and trying to push me into "burn out and get banned", as you said. There is nothing that you can possibly say at this point that has any weight as far as I'm concerned, it's content of derision that is totally and completely incivil. The bottom line here is that you show up to discussions on this and other pages and do your level best to hijack the discussion from the issue at hand to steer it toward your incivil and aggressive vendetta against me. I'd suggest you stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Vt-88, If I had seen those first edits while on recent changes patrol, I would have reverted with twinkle and given multiple level vandalism warnings on your talk page. I don't see a problem with Wildhartlivie regarding WP:OWN. On the contrary, the arts/entertainment articles would not be as good as they are if she were not on them. She's taught me and other editors a lot about what is relevant and how to avoid bloating an article. Wildhartlivie works very hard for Misplaced Pages. I can see where she attempted to get Vt-88 to see what needed to be done, but for some reason he/she didn't do it. You can't keep reverting when an editor legitimately points out you've made a mistake. Wildhartlivie is very easy to get along with and is amenable to teaching new editors. I think she deserves a lot more respect than she's getting here tonight. And Cher's page is one that gets hit with a lot of shall we say, 'unhelpful edits.' Vt-88's edits sure looked unhelpful to me.Malke2010 03:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that EdJohnston protected the page. He's a very reasonable fellow and an excellent admin. It's apparent he saw what the problem was. Plus, it appears that most, if not all, of the edits are just nonsense.Malke2010 04:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If I may address Jack Merridew, you mention above the following, "Wildhartlive, you revert too much. You need to listen to people when told that you bite newcomers, and have ownership issues with your articles." If - as you mention, they are Wildhartlivie's articles, then she "owns" them. I understand it is a mistake, but these types of errors occur with everyone. Perhaps a little less drama and mutual understanding that established editors, may have insight to what is more appropriate in an article, could be addressed in a co-operative spirit, rather than a disparaging one. But heh, I'm just the ten foot Gorilla on this page. Victor9876 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Enough of the garbage "ownership" accusations; it's so commonly tossed about, and is more really "trolling" than anything. Clog up more threads with this nonsense? Really? Drop it, fellas, why don't you? You're not getting WHL blocked or banned for "ownership" or "biting", so give it up already... Doc9871 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Really sorry to see you revert to form here, Doc. The concern about her ownership is commonly tossed about, and not just by me. You know this and yet here you are, inappropriately hitching your wagon. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Victor. That's not a mistake, it's a reference to our policy Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Chowbok referred to it, too, when he capped the word "OWN", as the usual shortcut to the policy is WP:OWN. Doc9871 is experienced enough here to know this and I'll throw his characterization of this as 'trolling' right back at him. He's acknowledged that he's trolled me before and recently promised to cut it out. It's sitting right on my talk page a few sections above your post there; see the tidy thread. It is certainly the case that established editors often have more insight than editors with less experience; that's really not the issue here. This is yet another instance of the oft-seen pattern of WHL dictating what shall be allowed. Rather than address specific issues with an edit or series of edits by whomever, she regularly reverts to the the last version that she edited. As she's a gang of enablers that support her, and Doc's one of them, she frequently wins these little edit wars with less experienced editors, such as Vt-88 and the IPs he was on. Vt-88 seems to have not returned to this discussion and may well amount to yet another victim of the toxic environment that is such a well known issue with this project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Jack, WHL and I did not always get along: witness my very first post to her page. While WHL may have her "gang" of supporters, she also has many enemies. That's natural - we all have friends and enemies (hopefully less of the latter). If her enemies can comment on her, so can her supporters comment on what could be construed (by some) as "trolling" by the same group of editors time and again. I really don't see how my commenting here is any different from you or Chowbok; none of us were involved in this particular incident. I haven't broken my promise, and I'm not trolling you here. RFC/U would be the place to deal with WP:OWN and WP:BITE issues for WHL, not here. Right? Cheers, Jack :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that 'retired' from WP:CRIME articles statement is about. Seems it might have been due to some push-back about her editing, but I'd have to look. I have noticed that she has a flock of enemies, SRQ being the obvious one. And note that I've not supported SRQ; I'm not impressed with what I've seen there, either. If a behavioral trait is an oft-repeated concern, an RFC/U is an appropriate step in WP:DR. I've said above that I am considering that route. It is one of the latter steps; talking is expected to be attempted first. She and her friends, such as yourself, are not much acknowledging this area of concern and this does serve to coax the RFC/U towards the top of the stack. RFC/U is about seeking outside input and hammering-out voluntary steps towards reducing concerns. It is frequently an expected prior step in DR before the acceptance of an arbitration request. A pattern of regular reversion of edits by others is always a cause for concern and a strong admonishment from some uninvolved bigun might be the best outcome of this incident. A 1-revert/day restriction could help, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do what you feel is appropriate. While I am friends with WHL, I don't condone every single thing she does; that would be absurd. We all mess up, and we must be held accountable for it when we do. I'll blindly follow no one, and if you have concerns about WHL's editing pattern, I'd recommend the proper channel. If you think 1RR is in order: move on it. I'm sure you'll hear from "friends" and "enemies" alike. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You should really re-think your polarization of things along friends/enemies lines. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, and it's not healthy; not for the project and not for individual editors. "Messing up" implies a one-off aspect which will typically amount to small-beer. Long-term patterns of messing up without listening to concerns are of much more concern. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Then file the RFC/U, please. I do find it odd that what started this was an editor with 49 total edits since November of 2006. Sleeper sock? Not yours, but someones... Doc9871 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an RFC/U to file. Not at this point, anyway. Calling Vt-88 a sleeper is pretty bad faith, methinks. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a SPA, then? Under 50 edits (7 deleted) in almost four years. Then dragging WHL to AN/I (with diffs). Clearly not a new editor - no? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Jack, you have screamed WP:OWN from the rooftops, even when I've made reverts on articles upon which I have never edited. Your dancing about comments that you are going file a RfC/U is essentially entertaining a threat, and that's become quite old, and it's compounded by the tendentious Chowbok pushing you on it. You've not availed yourself of dispute resolution steps besides popping in here to further your POV of my editing. I do recent changes patrol, that's all about vandalism, unsupported and unsourced edits, and what amounts to trash edits. Yet you kvetch that I "make too many reverts" - I don't see you bitching to other editors whose entire wiki-life is reverting nor did you note that the vandalism and content errors are legitimate reverts. You also are overlooking that. You have been tendentious toward me also, and that hasn't been missed by multiple editors. You pop in to revert a lot of edits I make, witness the RfC results on Al Pacino and the spin off of his filmography and the fact that you made reverts on those changes because I objected, and no other reason I can glean from that andd the RfC/U didn't support the spin out. You reverted it simply because I did it. That is the whole purpose of WP:POINT. There's evidence that you also wikistalk me and pick battles where there should be none. Why do you think some editors come in to support me, unless they find something wrong with things you and Chowbok are doing. You also seem to overlook the fact that this article was semi-protected which forced the editor to trot out an old account to continue the same behavior. The fact that you missed the bottom line on this particular issue is typical, as you try to make it about WP:ACTOR, when that has NOTHING to do with it, the acting work is not even involved. And being retired from crime articles or why I did that is frigging NONE OF YOUR CONCERN. It had nothing to do with anything except the stress from those articles on my health, an issue with which you are familiar, have commented on and have pushed the stress level on me at every opportunity. You also are overlooking that multiple editors here have stated clearly that they do not agree with the edits made by VT-88, and that when he came in today and undid my last edit that he basically returned the infobox content, mostly, to what was already there. Think that means he didn't listen here? I'm frankly tired of you and Chowbok turning up to try to cast a negative light on me whenever the opportunity arises. And here I was thinking that we'd found some, if not happy, at least some level of being that was a progressive step. Apparently that isn't possible with you unless Arbcom forces it. I fail to see how a 1RR could be justified when I've never been blocked for 3RR violations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit was a revert of WP:Vandalism; no question, as Mr DeVito is not known for being tall. Good revert. As to DR steps, I have tried talking with you and you'll have none of that. I didn't ask about that Retirement from CRIME — Doc brought that up and I didn't even bother looking at what you said in reply. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll bother - look no further. Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii misuse of IPs and edit warring

Mbhiii's IPs have crossed 3rr today at Tea Party movement:

• Continuing to force in an image over another
• Revert
  • Not 3rr since it was consecutive but another revert
• Revert
• Revert
  • Not 3rr since it was consecutive but another revert

The above is a violation of 3rr and and looks like it could be an attempted circumvention of 3rr. The IPs have also been used in a way that could be given an allusion of support (WP:ILLEGIT) at Talk:Tea bag (disambiguation) and the article in question.

It has been all but established that 74.242.231.200 (and similar IPs from the Raleigh area) and 12.7.202.2 are Mbhii. #12 was essentially admitted to here. In this diff, a similar IP to 74.242.231.200 which is close to #12 making contentious edits on the same page. Instead of listing everything, please see the archived sock puppet discussions.Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii/Archive and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight/Archive (please note that JustGettingItRight was not checked and is no longer accused)

I personally have been annoyed by the IPs continued reverting, refusal to allow for the IP notification shared IP template on his various IP talk pages, and violation of nonfree image policy so I am not the best editor to listen to when it comes to argument of his disruption. So please see the user's talk page where numerous editors have expressed concerns over a misuse of IPs and reverting over a period of more than a year: User talk:Mbhiii#3RR Warning, User talk:Mbhiii#Sock, etc., User talk:Mbhiii#September 2009, User talk:Mbhiii#Sockpuppets, User talk:Mbhiii#Edit war warning, User talk:Mbhiii#Edit warring is bad. - This is 3 warnings, and all are level 4 warnings., User talk:Mbhiii#Edit warring and IPs,User talk:Mbhiii#Your edits at War on Drugs have been reported at the 3RR noticeboard, and User talk:Mbhiii#Reverting. Again. Again.. Even the IPs have several warnings but they are always blanked.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notifications at User talk:12.7.202.2, User talk:74.242.231.200, User talk:74.162.153.141, and User talk:Mbhiii.Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Five reverts today on Tea Party movement from sock 12.7.202.2 (talk · contribs), w/ edit summaries:

• Undid revision 364124067 by 65.41.106.90 violates wp:npov

• Undid revision 364057180 by Boromir123 for whom "nice" trumps relevance

• Undid revision 364091022 by Cptnono per Talk

• Undid revision 364112560 by Arzel deciding, by himself, that a reporter's commentary on an academic study from a large university, constitutes proof that it is "flawed"

• You are, of course, correct, EXCEPT when presenting direct evidence of an ongoing corporate sponsorship of Tea Party activities. How better to show this?

†TE†Talk 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued misuse of socks and crossing 3rr at Hyperbole today:

• 19:41, 25 May 2010
• 21:41, 25 May 2010

And at Sunscreen controversy with a single IP (including removal of a copyvio template)

• 20:00, 25 May 2010
• 20:03, 25 May 2010
• 21:02, 25 May 2010
• 22:15, 25 May 2010

A few pages of massive reverting and violations of the sockpuppet policy. How long has this been going on?Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A complicated one. I've looked into the various links etc above and I agree that the three IPs are almost certainly the same editor. I've blocked each for 1 week per WP:DUCK. The Mbhiii account hasn't edited since the 13th March but I agree the edits are of a similar nature and the IPs are very much in the same range as those formerly used for socking, so I've also blocked that account for one week. Due to their apparent battleground mentality and long history of falling out with other editors, edit warring, and socking, I believe that if a subsequent block proves necessary it will likely be indefinite.

Additionally, due to the amount of recent edit warring I've protected Tea Party movement (fully, though thinking about it that should perhaps have been semi only - I'll go and change that in a sec). I don't think it's worth protecting the other articles yet, though obviously if socking resumes - which does seem likely - that's an option too. Hope this helps, EyeSerene 17:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking by an anon

I am begin wikistalked by an anon: , the top three edits are undoing or removing my work. Mitsube (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I left a followup for the IP on their talk page - this is suspicious but not serious so far. It would not be OK for it to continue that much longer, without a good explanation of why / what's going on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mitsube is an extremely problematic editor who asserts ownership of many articles related to reincarnation, refuses to allow skeptical sources, whitewashes facts relating to the point that there is no scientific evidence for reincarnation, and is a persistent forum shopper whenever he is resisted. His first response is always to revert and revert and revert and then when he baits others into edit warring with him, he reports them to the edit warring noticeboard. He is fishing for someone to block his enemies. Classic POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I decline to take admin action, as I tend to agree with SA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if Mitsube is a problematic editor, actually especially if he's a problematic editor, the particulars here actually make it worse, though. Because that means that the IP is likely one of his usual opponents, who's gotten frustrated with the acceptable range of responses to perceived problems Mitsube has committed and is now blatantly sockpuppeting to just revert him everywhere.

Which is not even vaguely ok.

Vigilantism against editors perceived to be annoying is against policy as much as any other random harassment is. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Perceived to be annoying" is incorrect. "Violating Misplaced Pages policies" is the way SA and I see it. "Adding misleading information in violation of WP:COI" (which is not policy) is what (one of the) IP(s) is saying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigating whether the IP is one of his regular opponents seems a reasonable sockpuppet investigation. (The IP is not me.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur. The IP is not me either. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I do not see Mitsube as a problematic editor. It's bad form to attack an editor who feels threatened and under attack. I realize you were trying to accuse Mitsube of hypocrisy in some way, but it sounded more like axe grinding. Ok, so you have had previous conflicts with the user. Why were you not able to resolve those disputes? I get the sense that it is more important for you to continue these conflicts than to do the hard work necessary go solve the problem. Have you tried talking to the user about your concerns in a civil manner without accusations and attacks? I find it a bit strange for you to be indirectly supporting the anon harassment of an editor with which you have had a past history of conflict. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

These are ongoing disputes that are all inter-related, Viriditas. Looking at the talk pages and the histories of the pages that Mitsube edits will give you a good idea for why his activity is problematic. Crying wolf and forum-shopping are tactics this user has used to get the upper-hand in disputes. He is very heavy-handed when it comes to claiming victimhood. You can either interpret this as an actual persecution or an attempt by Mitsube to strong-arm an ownership of articles. Claiming that three reverts is "harassment" is a real stretch. Mitsube has reverted me on a variety of articles far more than three times, but I'm not claiming he's harassing me. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kang Hyun Min

Kang Hyun Min (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also: His log/move (all these are wrong), Put Template:Block on my user page, Attack by edit summary.

This user makes wrong moves such as removing Dong and makes personal attacks. This user blocked in ko.wp by same reason(attacking other people, making wrong move permenantly, using sock puppetries to avoid his block). Ko.wp block log is here: (log of his sock puppetries). By this log, these users are his sock puppetries (I don't write if there isn't any contributions on en.wp).

• 141.223.171.51 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 141.223.171.52 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Ilovephos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cheongryang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 정준하뱃살 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 연화는 멋쟁이 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am tired to revert his wrong works(I am mainly in ko.wp, not here).

ps. Am I writing in right place? En.wp is too complicated. - Chugun (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:-) I have a slightly different problem at commons.wiki - it's so much simpler compared to en.wiki that I get really confused!

A block on ko.wiki won't carry over to en.wiki (each *.wiki has its own policies), however socking here is an issue. I'm concerned about this edit (the "block" you linked to above) and this edit is less than civil. You've clearly tried to communicate with them on their talk page (I suspect that was what made them "block" you) and I can't see any attempt by them to reply.

I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything other than ask Kang Hyun Min to communicate more and "block" less. It's entirely possible that my next suggestion isn't the best option (if so, I assume someone else will comment), but I'd suggest that the next step you take is to file a report about Kang Hyun Min at this place. It deals with civility issues by editors here at en.wiki, and I think they'd be good people to talk to Kang Hyun Min.

Good luck! TFOWR 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that blocks do not carry over automatically, but if a user blocked on another WMF wiki come here and engage in the same disruptive conduct, the block is highly probative evidence of the productiveness of attempts to get them to stop. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I have blocked all accounts indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel on talk page

User Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Genesis creation narrative has been removing sourced statements ( and ). On talk page, refusing to provide sources (, , , ), upon insistense to do so, assumption of bad faith and personal attack. DVdm (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

At least three other editors removed the same bit from the article after I did (yesterday) and it's a consensus issue. I am being singled out only because of what I'm saying on the talkpage, but I'm not edit warring on the article today, and I'm not going to leave the discussion page today much as some editors wish I would. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. You have been "singled out" because only you are disrupting the talk page and making personal attacks. All the best.Griswaldo (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• This boils down to: Til Eulenspiegel (a) disagrees with some other people and (b) is responding to their intemperate comments with equally intemperate comments. Everybody needs to chill. This is Misplaced Pages, nobody dies because a page temporarily reflects The Wrong Truth. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well my personal advice on the talk page has been to ignore discussions that are not based in policies and guidelines. I do not think it is fair to characterize the situation as simply two sides of an intemperate discussion. One side is frustrated by the fact that Til is consciously ignoring policy while that side produces sources in good faith to back up their position. But like I said I think its better to ignore the disruption this causes.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please stop this person from making his WP:POINT? See and . DVdm (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I might ask that you be summarily stifled too, but I don't think wikpedia works the way you imagine! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Til has explicitly stated his entire point on the Talk page is to "protest," I've reminded him that being WP:POINTy is something that can result in a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rahujapawan

Rahujapawan has made no useful edits. I reverted or marked for deletion all edits not already deleted. Acts like he is 6 years old. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Rahujapawan

Notified of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: not looked at all their edits (there aren't that many, maybe 10?) but this set look like someone who's not sure about copyright, rather than an out-and-out vandal. Is there a good "copyright 101" template or text I could either dump on their talk page or point them towards? TFOWR 16:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyright is a good place to start. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe {{Nothanks}} is a good one.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:COPYPASTE is another copyright specific one that's a little lighter reading than WP:C. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I went for WP:COPYPASTE with a suggestion that Misplaced Pages:Copyright was useful background reading. I'm liking {{Nothanks}}, but felt a less templatey post might be more helpful this time. Cheers, TFOWR 12:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A "terrorist" user

I have already filed a report at WP:UAA about User:DonkeySheepTerrorist and I have left a note on the users talk page. I wasn't sure how to report this but this user seems to have some kind of love for terrorism. The only edits are in fact on inappropriate pages this user has created about terrorism. I wasn't sure whether to bring it here or to WP:AIV but I think an admin should give some kind of opinion. Best, Treylander 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gone for a UAA violation, SPA and vandal only account, heavy POV and extreme lack of understanding on what Misplaced Pages is. Quite a resolute action to take, however given the content I feel necessary. The user is free to create a new account. SGGH 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as the user edits constructively, I have no problem with them being here :). Treylander 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He can request an unblock if he wishes, but hell have to demonstrate he has learned what Misplaced Pages is first. SGGH 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001 and Afterwriting to be disciplined

There were several non-registered users who expressed their opposition to the content of the . Their contributions to the article content quality discussion are deleted by these two users and the non-registered users marked as 'edit-warring sockpuppet trolls' , vandals', and other flavours of the street language

Here is a number of their talkpage content removals and personal attacks:
here: in principle to including any information added by such an offensive and edit-warring sockpuppet troll who constantly flaunts policies for his own ideological agenda.
here:removing rampant trolling and soapboxing
here: deleting soapboxing
here: Not only is this anonymous editor a persistent troll but he is also a persisent sockpuppet as a little research has demonstrated. I really don't understand why some editors are continuing to feed the troll - it's a waste of time and energy and only encourages his continuing abuse of policies and intimidation of other editors. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
here:96, per your past editing suggestions and constant soapboxing, we all know quite well that what you just said about your motivations is not even remotely true. You tried to get all positive wording, and all defense of the Church removed whole-sale from the article multiple times. Do you really expect us to believe that you actually want an accurate representation after moves like that? And to others who may be familiar with the user, does IP96/IP71 remind you of Giovanni33?Farsight001 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
here: cut the crap :Again, the phrase evidence vs propaganda is completely unacceptable in an encyclopedia (Actually here he removed well sourced addition to the section)

Such behavior of these two users is below any tolerance and Misplaced Pages guidelines.--71.163.237.120 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've attempted to request mediation on this matter with the Mediation Cabal whether that is the appropriate venue to solve this something I'm not totally sure about, but some sort of mediation for Catholic sex abuse cases would be good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment There is not several unregistered users. There is one IP hopper - the one who made this report. The editor, who has edited from the 71, 96, and perhaps 69 "regions", and behaves IDENTICALLY no matter which IP they're editing from. They are repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article, which we of course have to remove, and utterly refusing to discuss their changes to the article on the talk page except to mock us for disagreeing or accuse us of trying to whitewash the article, which I personally find interesting as I don't exactly see how one could whitewash an article of this nature. They also have an obvious familiarity with wikipedia, which makes me suspect that they are a logged out editor. Personally, the editing style reminds me of long time banned user Giovanni33, but that might just be me. Let me say, and I fully understand that this may make any sanction against me even more likely, I would whole-heartedly accept a block of my account if only this accursed WP:TROLL get blocked too. That way the rest of the editors can go back to editing productively instead of having to spend all their time on the IP hopper. I've never seen an editor warned so many times before without getting blocked, even an anon. (and if you're wondering where the warnings are, the IP hopper deletes them all from the IP's talk pages almost immediately after they are added.)Farsight001 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi protect the article so the IP can not disruptively edit. Ah, the article has been fully protected for two weeks. Difficult to block him, keep the article semi protected so that any hoppers can not edit the article and then if the user sticks to one address then use warnings and policy to deal with any disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The same street language used to escalate pointless accusations: 'repeatedly adding BLP violations' which is just a figment of imagination of this person based on his arbitrary interpretation of a Misplaced Pages rule; 'utterly refusing to discuss their changes' while this person removes my explanation of changes in its inception.'cut the crap', 'troll', 'soapboxing' 'puppet' - is it the way of 'go(ing) back to editing productively'? --71.163.237.120 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As you are an new user I just posted you a menu of links on your user page and suggested you familiarize yourself with a few before getting into edit conflicts and you simply deleted it, are you not interested in our guidelines and policies? The only article you have edited is now totally locked to editing for two weeks, perhaps you could take the time to get an understanding of how things work round here.Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am telling you that you do not see, or not wanting to see, what is the real problem here. Your comments are here and there (talkpage) are just continuation of the attacks on me and others I am complaining about here. Therefore, for being malicious, your comments on my talk page were deleted. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When I am in similar situations and can't see what the problem is I take myself off to the bathroom and take a good look in the mirror. It is in no way malicious to post a set of helpful links to our policies and guidelines to a new user that is getting into disputes, perhaps you are not interested but I suggest you take the time to read some of them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then do what you advise. A self-promoted advisor forgets the basic ethic rule - advise others only when you are asked to. As to this case, I restored the parts of the talkpage which are deleted by Farsight001 and you accused me for 'Talkpage revert of other editors comments. (TW)' Now you went even far: you (a self-promoted judge now) found me guilty as being a 'new user that is getting into disputes' and who is 'not interested' but 'I(i.e.you) suggest(ing) you(me) take the time to read some of them'. Tell us what you have seen in your mirror.--71.163.237.120 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is amazing and truly illuminating that you are jumping down the throats and accusing of incivility and attacks even the people who are just trying to help you out. (and no, I'm not talking about me. I originally was, but that is long past) Off2riorob was simply posting a list of helpful links to your profile because he got the impression that the problem was infamiliarity with wikipedia policies, which is nothing to be ashamed of, and you delete it, and call him blind and "malicious". As for a basic rule of ethics to advise others only when asked to - that is absolutely ridiculous. Should I advise my nurse regarding her almost giving meds to an allergic patient only if she asks for said advise? Because if I did keep my mouth shut unless she asked me to say something, we'd have more than a few dead patients here.Farsight001 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Response from Afterwriting: This complaint against me and Farsighting has no credibility. It is simply a continuation of the unacceptable behaviour of just one anonymous user who keeps changing IP addresses. This user has persistently ignored BLP and various other important editing and behaviour policies. Anyone reading the edit history should easily be able to tell by the edits themselves, the edit summary comments, the article's discussion page and the constant blanking of IP talk pages, that this is just one anonymous editor - not "several" at all. Unlike myself and Farsight, who try to be responsible editors who respect the BLP policies, this anonymous user instead chooses to blatantly ignore the BLP policies and persistently misuses the article to attack the Roman Catholic Church in general and to vilify the Pope and others in particular. His current complaint against both me and Farsight is just another part of his ongoing campaign to intimidate other editors and to impose his soapbox POVs on the article. Just going by his responses above it should not be too difficult for any reasonable person to detect that there are significant problems with this user's attitude and behaviour. Requests to have this persisent anonymous BLP policy abuser blocked have not been acted on. Had he been blocked weeks ago - as he clearly should have been - then we might have avoided the history of edit-warring. Just go and read the edits and comments of the anonymous editor in recent weeks ( using about four or five different IP addresses ) and it won't be difficult to see the problems that Farsight, myself and other responsible editors have been confronted with - just one anonymous editor who has been constantly seeking to intimidate other editors and impose his POV on the article. His false "complaint" against us is just another part of his personal campaign. Afterwriting (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please block User:152.98.218.27

Contributions mostly vandalism:

Just a note for the future: If you wish to report vandalism, users or IPs, then you can do it at WP:AIV. Treylander 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lloyd Bankes

For some reason that I don't understand, the Lloyd Banks article is being hit hard with BLP violations against John Corso/John Zandig. As far as I can tell, there is no connection between the two, but the Corso attacks are being made on the Banks article. Now, a new User, Lloyd Bankes (talk · contribs), has shown up, note the name, attacking the Zandig article. This guy needs to be perma-banned. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. If more socks emerge, a checkuser may need to look for a rangeblock. Thanks for calling this to our attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

SirFloyd

While working on the Tito article, I looked up the reliablity of an author named Bernard Meares and rediscovered this little gem. It is the article "Titoism and Totalitarianism" that user SirFloyd created on en.wiki earlier but was later deleted due to its POV content. This is apparently a wikiclone which user SirFloyd uses to, among other things, stalk users and "strategize" his moves for the real wiki. Among the findings are:

• A page dedicated to countering user DIREKTOR's edits "Misplaced Pages & Political Agendas".
  • In it is a section "Wiki Articles that are manipulated by Neo-Communists" which contains a list of articles that user DIREKTOR has edited at one point or another.
  • In another entitled "Propaganda Pushing Editors" editors DIREKTOR, Ivan Stambuk, AlasdairGreen27, myself, BokicaK, and Zocky are listed alongside nationality and are apparently identified by SirFloyd as a clique.
• Another page "Nationalistic Editing on Misplaced Pages" discusses the "House of Bona" article which DIREKTOR and SirFloyd were engaged in. While he is careful to not mention names it is obvious at whom such quotes are directed at: "Misplaced Pages with its current group of editors is participating in that process ."
  • Attempt at canvassing for the "House of Bona" article .

Taking this evidence into consideration, it is, in my opinion, that SirFloyd's intentions on Misplaced Pages are far from good faith. His actions are in violation of numerous policies including: WP:COI, WP:HOUND (stalking DIREKTOR), WP:NPOV (creating the POV fork "Tito and Totalitarianism" after his failure at the original article), WP:OWN (using a wikiclone to evade deletion and own an article), and WP:CANVAS. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Floyds intentions and contributions here have been very beneficial to the project. His contribution was deleted here and he is able to post it wherever he likes. He is perhaps in opposition to your group but that is good , we don't want everything from a single perspective do we. I also note that in those links you provide there is no mention at all of any specific people. I don't see anything requiring any Administration action.Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Director Croatian, Ivan Stambuk (Croatian), AlasdairGreen27 (Croatian), Producer (Bosnian), BokicaK (Serbian), Zocky (Slovenia) Misplaced Pages Administrator" ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:Off2riorob.

• 1) being in opposition to someone is fine, its a way to ensure against POV, mine included. However, User:Sir Floyd is not reported here for being opposed to someone.
• 2) You are, as you say, a "close friend" of User:Sir Floyd. It comes as no surprise that you would support him even after this was uncovered, and its certainly not a surprise that you would judge his "lobbying" as beneficial to the encyclopedia.
• 3) Finally User:Off2riorob, I cannot believe you are being honest when you say you "don't see any mention at all of any specific people". Have you noticed this link? You see, it lists all users who dared oppose Sir Floyd as "communist propaganda pushers". Add to this that User:Sir Floyd has been attempting to WP:OUT users on this project and I think you'll find this is not only actionable, its indeff block material.

Finally, I don't think anyone here is prepared to pretend he/she is stupid. It is perfectly obvious that User:Sir Floyd has been stalking editors, following them around, and marking their edits (as well as themselves!) for the attentions of his buddies. This explains much of the suspicious coordinated MEAT that's been going on in this Wiki. The purpose of all this evidently seems to be outnumbering editors with meatpuppets and bypassing proper discussion. --DIREKTOR 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

--DIREKTOR 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are mentioned there as a POV pushing editor, I did not search all the pages. I know and respect Sir Floyds contributions here. He was in dispute with user direktor when I met him and helped him to become a good contributor here. I still don't see any issues worthy of Misplaced Pages Administrator action. There is nothing to assert any meat issues at all with Sir Floyd. I don't see any stalking. As I said, we don't just want one side of the story do we. So you present a six month old ANI archived thread with no action at all as a claim to Sir Floyd outing, nothing happened then, never mind now and a wikibiz article http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:Ockham/Wikipedia_&_Political_Agendas#Propaganda_Pushing_Editors complaining about POV editing on wikipedia, not very startling is it. Perhaps you could try dispute resolution, or we could topic ban you both from Yugoslavian articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh lol Off2riorob... We're not in any conflicts at all. I think you've conclusively demonstrated your "neutrality", not to mention a serious need to familiarize yourself with policy (WP:MEAT, WP:STALK, WP:OUT, WP:CANVASS etc.). I for one admire such dedication. Leave it for the guys here to read and decide, lets not clutter the thread up. --DIREKTOR 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had one brief encounter with SirFloyd and after that it was clear to me that his motives are not good. If this does not convince others, then I don't know what will. -- Bojan  Talk  05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The GFDL says that any content of Misplaced Pages can be copied and distributed everywhere. If this content will be deleted the content distributed must not be deleted. Please give me the part of GFDL where the license says that the distributed content must be deleted and I will accept your position. I would invite all persons, most of all administrators, to understand the principles of GFDL in detail. Do you need that also the old dumps of database will be corrected? In this action I can only see a "programmatic" action of a group and surely I will start to open an investigation about this group. --Ilario (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, GFDL was abandoned in favor of Creative Commons few years ago. But this is not the question. The question is that what Direktor stated above. -- Bojan  Talk  08:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've only encountered SirFloyd on the Tito article. IMO, he does have a bit of a point - some of the ex-Yugoslav users do wear extra-rosy-tinted glasses when looking on their former country. However, in my experience, SirFloyd wasn't doing anything to counter that productively. His modus operandi consisted of pushing his (IMO rather extreme) POV by listing out-of-context quotes, often from extremist and/or amateur authors. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem, because it can be countered with other quotes and sources. But, he also incessantly engaged in accusing other editors of having sinister agendas, which sort of kills any sort of productive discussion.

All that said, I don't care much about what he writes on other websites. If there are good reasons to believe that his activities on Misplaced Pages as a whole are a net loss for the encyclopedia, we should probably do something about it. If not, water under the bridge. Zocky | picture popups 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In hereby calling for action on this and similar situations, I would remind readers of the WP:ARBMAC ruling, which all of us are beholden to apply. What requires action here is that s/he is displaying the most grotesque bad faith imaginable, and the most extreme Balkan nationalist aggressive POV. I would like to work on articles with editors who think I can contribute something. We can work together well. In what way is it possible to work collaboratively in the true spirit of Misplaced Pages with someone who derides the whole idea(l) of Misplaced Pages, who describes and derides good faith editors as communists, who describes our articles as communist propaganda and so on. The Balkan Wiki area is overpopulated with POV monsters as it is. If Sir Floyd is allowed to demonstrate such POV and total bad faith and continue to edit regardless, then we might as well ring fence all of our Balkan articles as POV garbage that no-one with a sane mind should read. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio question

This edit, where the user removed the copyvio tag, may very well be legit. But I'm not sure. How can I know? — Timneu22 · talk 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As a starting point, you might try leaving a note on the editor's talkpage and ask him or her for some backup information. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well their edit summary says they've emailed the OTRS permissions address, so I'd say keep an eye on it and if nothing happens after a few days, re-tag it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The instructions at the copyright area (which may not be entirely clear) is to use {{subst:copyvio}} in cases like this so that the pages are blanked pending verification of usable permission (and follow the steps on the resulting blanked page to notify the user and list the page at the appropriate daily WP:CP page). I have done that for this page. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link

This editor is apparently a "big" fan of You Can't Do That on Television. He has created several articles for cast members that violate WP:BLP with their only "source" being a fansite for the series that is neither a reliable source nor appropriate for linking due to its distribution of copyrighted materials, violating WP:COPYRIGHT. I CSDde and BLP Prodded several of such articles created for the series, I also gave the series article a massive clean up to remove a ton of unsourced, fany info, BLP violations, copyvio issues, etc. When one such article, Chris Bickford, was deleted, the user left a note on my talk page asking why I deleted it. I explained I was not an admin and why it was tagged. An admin seconded my response. Jrfoldes responded by claiming there were "sufficient" references (link to the fansite noted), and claiming I was going after his articles (as a side note, my attention to these articles came while checking the contribs of User:ChipmunkRaccoon who made some copyright violating articles). I replied explaining the errors he was making, but he is either not reading it or ignoring it. He also has ignored the various warnings and notes on his talk pages. He is just reverting everything, repeatedly, despite the multiple warnings about the links violating WP:COPYRIGHT and not being acceptable. He has now done six reverts to restore these links (and yes, I am over 3RR as well, but this is a copyright violating issue, and I feel it falls under the exemptions for 3RR).

He also continues to restore Vanessa Lindores, which was redirected to the main series article per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Lindores less than a month ago, and tried removing several BLP prods while restoring, again, the copyright violating link. and making bad faith accusations.

In pulling together this report, I noticed he filed an WP:ER request, however from said post he clearly is continuing to ignore the warnings and the discussion on my talk page, and my edit summaries which also clearly point out the issues. From a note on his own talk page and another editor's page, he clearly has read at least some of the messages left for him, but either doesn't understand them or just doesn't care to actually listen. His responses indicate some serious ownership issues withe these articles. As I have noted above, due to his continued restoration of these copyright violating links, I am now also over 3RR. I had filed an AIV, but at this point I'm thinking it is beyond that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fully-protected both articles for three days. —Jeremy 01:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Chris Bickford was deleted by User:UtherSRG per CSD. This deletion was endorsed by a second admin on my talk page. User:Tcncv just restored the page in response to Jrfoldes's "Editor assistance" request. I have now sent it to AfD. User:GB fan also removed the BLP prod on Amyas Godfrey in response to the ER, which was against the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:BLPPROD#Objecting which requires a reliable source, but we talked about it on his talk page and he has now redirected it the same as the Bickford article mentioned below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC); updated 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In light of the BLP content of the AfD and the article, I've deleted the Chris Bickford article, made it into a protected redirect, and will be courtesy blanking the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't GB fan and Tcncv be notified of this discussion? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Both are aware of it. If someone feels a more formal "ani notice" template is needed, will add it, but both were just notices of updates to the articles Jrfoldes' mentioned in his edit request. I've also reworded my note above, as GB fan was acting in good faith and my original wording unintentionally made it sound otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, this is spectacularly lame, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pernicious vandal

For the love of all that is good, someone please block 216.26.213.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Warned up to the limit and reported on AIV but it's taking forever for someone to review the report. Take a look at the history of Brigadier general for an idea of how annoying this is getting, even for vandalfighters. — e. ripley\ 02:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone did it. Thanks. — e. ripley\ 02:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is serial vandal Swamilive. I have in turn rangeblocked 216.26.192.0/19 for 2 weeks and semi'd some of their most targeted pages. If any administrator feels this is too excessive or too soft, please feel free to unblock or extend the block. Elockid 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Langenstein's edits on Waddell and Reed

Langenstein looks like an SPA whose sole purpose is to remove negative information from the article Waddell and Reed, and has added promotional links to the article. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Langenstein, you will see that this user removes all negative information that has been added whether it was unsourced and needed to be deleted or was sourced and should have stayed, even the information about Reuters' accusation that Waddell & Reed accidentally triggered the recent flash crash by selling enough E-mini contracts into a market nobody knew was illiquid before the sale. I restored and sourced the accusation and also added information about it denying the accusation. Langenstein then removed all of that. I have done a bit of removal myself, though it was links I felt were spam. Later, I discovered that Langenstein was responsible for the apparent spam links. I left a {{Welcomespam}} message on this user's talk page, but he or she continued anyways with the deletion after I properly sourced the accusation and denial.

Could someone else here come in and help me with this situation? I do not know how to continue without starting an edit war. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides templating the user, did you make any effort to engage them in meaningful dialogue? The text of that template reads like a formletter and is easy to ignore. He may be unaware that what he is doing is wrong, and also may be unaware of how to edit Misplaced Pages the right way. Before admins act, what effort has been made on your part to see that he has been given the opportunity to learn how to do it the right way? --Jayron32 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick. I left the Welcomespam notice because I am not good with words on social matters thanks to my Asperger syndrome, and am challenged to try to come up with something more suitable than that. I am much better with words when dealing with technical matters than when I am stuck with a social matter like this. I also left a notice that he or she was being discussed here on the user's talk page. This is why I asked for help. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I added the citations and the denial, I felt that I could not consider myself an impartial third party qualified to try to deal with the conflict. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine. I've added the article to my watchlist. — e. ripley\ 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP against Awickert

Sorry to bother you folks on AN/I, but...

An IP user who alternatively is 75.166.179.110 or 69.171.160.130 has:

1. Accused a bunch of established WP editors of being BP employees because of his/her disagreements with them regarding the recent oil spill; see:
   • Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Vote_Rigging.3F
   • Talk:Tony Hayward
   • OhanaUnited's talk
   • 2/0's talk
   • Talk:BP
2. When I removed the Talk:BP stuff per WP:NOTFORUM and its generally looking like a not-so-helpful rant, the IP made a legal threat against me on my user talk page, among some other stuff. See the fourth changed paragraph on this diff for the threat itself, and the whole section at User talk:Awickert#Are You Employed Directly by an Oil Company or Indirectly as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor by an Oil Company for the whole shebang. I decided to drop the issue at this point, but the fact that the IP is continuing to make accusations (see above bullets) makes me think that dropping it was a bad idea and that they should not be allowed to continue to poison the atmosphere. Awickert (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   The way I read that is not as a legal threat to sue, but as an imprecation to tell the truth else one could be legally liable for not doing so. Leaving aside the tenuous legal rationale, I don't see the "legal threat" as actionable at this point per WP:NLT, but I don't have a particularly good feeling about this contributor, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   Allrighty, though I'm no lawyer, the words made me very uncomfortable. In any case, it is total WP:ABF. Maybe I shouldn't have gone through the trouble to bring this up: the IP has now gotten mad at me again (see my talk). In any case, I don't think that folks should be running around here pointing "COI" fingers at everyone who happens to disagree with them. Awickert (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah, foolish. I've got to your talk page Awickert (apologies, I could see no other common ground) and told the IP to grow up. He's just chucking CABAListic theories around, and it's disruptive and annoying. SGGH 10:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems a clear case of harassment and attempted coercion using legal threats (borderline or not). Continuing such activity should result in a block. And yes, I have a geological background and did work for an oil company some 35 years ago. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As Jclemens commented here: "The way I read that is not as a legal threat to sue, but as an imprecation to tell the truth else one could be legally liable for not doing so."

So was my intention. I was doing exactly this, as he described.

Two more questions--

Question 1) Is this page (here)-- the same place where I would ask Admins to make a judgement as to whether or not, based on his statements on his own Talk Page, Awikert has a conflict of interest that would preclude him from editing an oil company-related article?

And Question 2) If you take a look at the "Deepwater Horizons" Misplaced Pages page ("Deepwater Horizons" is the Misplaced Pages page about the "Gulf of Mexico Oil Rig Disaster")--

There is a question that I placed (in the Discussion area), trying to determine how to ask for a Misplaced Pages investigation into whether or not various "User Page" identities might be working for BP (and attempting to spin the two "Gulf Oil Disaster" related Misplaced Pages articles in BP's favor).

I asked there if Misplaced Pages had a policy for investigating editorial conflict of interest, and if so, how could I make such a request?

Reasons why I ask these questions (Specific area of concern related to my call for a Misplaced Pages investigation)-- (This would be in reference to both the "Deepwater Horizons" article, and the "BP oil" corporate Misplaced Pages articles)--

A) Both articles constantly have title change reverts if there is any attempt to change the current article title (or the article section, in the case of the BP page) from the obscure and hard-to-search "Deepwater Horizons" to the readily recognizable "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster".

B) I am concerned that "Deepwater Horizons" would not be recognized by most people as actually being the current "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" and that it's very odd that both articles keep getting title reverts back to "Deepwater Horizons"

So here is my question--

How does one formally ask Misplaced Pages to investigate possible editorial conflict of interest related to this? Is there a way for Misplaced Pages to investigate whether or not people doing these aggressive reverts might actually have oil company connections?

Is this (page) the place where I would request such an investigation, and if so, how would I proceed?

Please note:

• • I am not just calling for a look to be taken at Awikert, but also other Users who also appear to be aggressively hiding or burying the "Gulf Oil Disaster" titles as well.

Thanks for any info on where and how I would proceed with this.

• • Discussion page on "Deepwater Horizons" (the strangely labeled Misplaced Pages article about the Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster) has more details.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• According to you it seems that the world is divided neatly into two: those who support your edits in every detail, and oil company shills. You are this: wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Guy. The right place to be wrong is nowhere, but the least wrong place to be wrong about this issue is Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Be advised that people there will probably laugh you out of town with your current claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• (e/c) Answer to Q1: Independent admin opinion: Awickert does not have a COI to edit that article. Answer to Q2: There is actually a noticeboard for this kind of concern, but rather than point you to it, I will save you, and everyone else, some time. There is no conspiracy of BP sleeper accounts editing the article; thus the article talk page is a fine place to discuss this (as, evidently, it has already been). I note that typing "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" (or almost any other permutation you can think of) into the search box seamlessly redirects you to the correct article, so I don't see what your problem with the current name is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no way for me to know who might be editing the articles on behalf of BP Public relations and who is just a personal user.

That's why I want to know how to ask Misplaced Pages to investigate this.

What is the procedure? How does one ask for such an investigation?

Again it seems very odd to me that these article and section titles keep getting changed from "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" to "Deepwater Horizon" (which most people would not recognize and would be harder to search on the Internet).

Why do these reverts keep happening? I'd like Misplaced Pages to investigate. How do I make such a request?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no such process. If a clear and obvious COI is determined, requests can be made to the user to restrict their edits to the talk page. That does go both ways. <humor>Hmmm, why don't we also demand who might be editing the article on behalf of radical environmental groups and who is just a personal editor? </humor>

If you truly feel there's a problem, see the dispute resolution page for various options. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You just did. The answer to such a vague inquiry is "no." You would have to first identify a specific editor or editors you believe to be acting in a conflict of interest, and provide evidence of such. If you have no evidence, only vague suspicions, you won't get anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that User:Awickert has been editing since 2008, and the vast majority of his edits are unrelated to BP, but I don't feed conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter if you search for either subject, because you will get redirect to the same article, no matter what the title is. There are several redirects:

1. Gulf of Mexico oil platform explosion (redirect page) (links)
2. 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig (redirect page) (links)
3. 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion (redirect page) (links)
4. 2010 Deepwater rig explosion (redirect page) (links)
5. 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill (redirect page) (links)
6. Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion (redirect page) (links)
7. Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill (redirect page) (links)
8. Gulf of Mexico-Transocean Drilling Incident (redirect page) (links)
9. BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill (redirect page) (links)
10. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (redirect page) (links)

Stop flogging this nonsense. SGGH 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours. SGGH 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

IP:79.72.164.88 putting wrong information on "Isang Lakas" Page

im requesting to block IP Address 79.72.164.88 because he/she continues reverting my reversion, he continues to put wrong not-yet sure characters on the page for example. captain barbell, dyesebel, darna. which are still license to the other rival station (GMA7). captain barbell for example, the rival station(GMA7) will do a remake again of its other version also on GMA 7. 2 versions are with the same station/channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsGanda (talk • contribs) 05:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• You want WP:RFPP. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as my back is turned...

Possible Account Hijack

I'm not sure if this violates any policy but I think I ought to bring it to the admins attention. This User:Oking613 made an edit to Flag of England here which didn't fit in with the page description. That edit then was reverted by the same user here but seemingly telling himself off not to add it here in the edit summary in a manner that looks as if someone else has hijacked the account and may defame this user's reputation. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps they meant (by the edit summary) " read the discussion. understand..." – B.hotep •talk• 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Syrthiss (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have made a blooper there by placing the wrong edit, this I believe is the right one. Anyway the tone seems to say, "You, read this. Now do you get why this is not in, comprende?" The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it like that at all. In any case, you could have queried it with them first. – B.hotep •talk• 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

By Occam's razor, B.hotep's interpretation is far more likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see this as a hijack. The word read can be both "Read this now!" and "I have read this". English is a fun language... Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Red, read, read, reed, bread, breed... no, my account hasn't been hijacked. :) – B.hotep •talk• 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The C of E

While we're here I'd like to ask about The C of E's name and sig. Misplaced Pages's user policy doesn't allow promotional usernames, and "The C of E" seems designed to advocate for the Church of England. ("C of E" being a well-known colloquial expression in the UK.) Also, signing with "God Save the Queen" seems inappropriate, as a partisan expression. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's so not a problem, any more than Hello Control (talk · contribs) should be disciplined for promoting A Bit of Fry and Laurie. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm familiar with the program, but don't recall the expression – but in any case the program is not an existing and ongoing social institution of tremendous reach and influence, so I don't think the analogy is all that good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is one of ten sketches in which it was used, but that's not the point. The point is, I don't think that the username is promotional (for all we know, it could be ironic!) and I certainly don't think it's in any way harmful. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I disagree. The sig is harmful in that it's a partisan expression, which, by its very nature, is exclusionary. I don't believe we'd allow a sig that said "Obama is the best" or "God bless the Pope" or "Allahu Akbar". (The Queen being both Head of State of the UK and other countries and the head of the Church of England, both political and religious examples are appropriate.) The atmosphere here is supposed to be collegial, and such expressions do not appear to me to promote collegiality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@"ironic" - Yes, that occured to me as well, but, unfortunately, without a typeface or special symbol to indicate irony, there's no way to tell from the name itself, so its impact is going to be on the basis of what can be seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you notified C of E about this? Tbhotch 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, since this is a thread The C of E started, I assumed he or she would be watching it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've notified them now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, but he's not "promoting" the Church of England. He started editing since August 2008, and some rules has changed since then. "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Misplaced Pages.", Yes maybe, but are you sure that "C of E" doesn't means for him another thing? Tbhotch 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your point about the rules changing over the years is a good one, and I did take into consideration that he or she has been editing for a while without, apparently, the name being brought out as a problem. Nonetheless, I do think the name itself is clearly promoting an organization, regardless of whether The C of E's editing has been promoting it, a claim that I am not making. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, just drop it. Nobody is going to convert to Protestantism just because of his username. You seriously need to stop seeking controversy: not one other person in this discussion agrees with you, so 'CofE' clearly isn't that dreadful a moniker. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 18:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. It's really a bit early for "stick" warnings, I just posted the comment a half-hour 45 minutes ago, there's still time to hear from The C of E and get some other opinions – after all, only 4 people have expressed opinions. I'm afraid I also take exception to your accusation that the purpose of my comment was to stir up controversy, and I'd appreciate it if you would strike it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I count five people who believe that the username is not disruptive, and one who believes that it is. This suggests a certain imbalance, which I somehow doubt will tip in your favour after hearing the "other opinions" you are awaiting. Hence the WP:STICK suggestion (not warning). I will strike no part of my comment, and stand by it entirely. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I find your "suggestion" untimely and unconvincing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd bet good money that within 24hrs, the ratio of inappropriate:appropriate opinions on the username will be no greater than 1:3. So we'll see what's untimely and unconvincing. "Thanks" – ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right, but at that point, the results would no longer be "unconvincing" and suggestions to drop the stick would no longer be "untimely", would they? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing about The C of E's name that runs afoul of WP:U. His sig... *shrug* I think you'd have to be looking to be offended to actually object to it; it's a common phrase. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many "common phrases" which would not be allowed in sigs. I don't think I need to enumerate any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(@ Beyond my Ken) Did you bring up your concern with them before bringing this matter to ANI? Syrthiss (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not, and I can indeed be faulted for that. I simply reacted to the name (which I've never come across before) when I saw it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You can always create an entry at WP:RFC/U where users experienced in this kind of area dwell. I don't believe anyone would begrudge such an entry - I certainly wouldn't. Although I would propose that the signature is acceptable, I can understand the objection to it. SGGH 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that option, but I'm afraid I'm not a great believer in the efficacy of RfC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My name is not intended to be promotional I just picked it at random really. God save the queen is really only pledging my alleigence to my head of state. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It's simply the British national anthem. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I know that -- it is, really, entirely the point. Such expressions have no place in a signature, since they are, by their very nature, partisan, and partisan expressions help to divide up rather than bring us together as a community. I have no objection whatsoever to your love of country (how could I?), but it doesn't seem necessary to express it in a signature, the sole purpose of which is to identify you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So you'd object to Stars and stripes (talk · contribs) and Union jakk (talk · contribs) and Ghana (talk · contribs) and England (talk · contribs) then, would you? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, for various reasons. With a practically infinite number of possible names, there's absolutely no reason for names such as those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never read anything so ridiculous in my life, and I've read this – you are simply being over-the-top objectionable for no good reason. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Freedom of Speech and all that. But anyway, I'm afraid i'm sorry I didn't notice that my username had suddenly become a problem after 2 years of having it (1 with GSTQ) and th\t i'm supposed to be on a Semi-Wikibreak due to exams so i'm not contunuously patrolling or online. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're name's fine, just ignore him. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I only brought it up about an hour ago, so you didn't really miss anything. Also, let me apologize for not bringing it up on your talk page first -- but since we're here: if the name was picked more or less at random, would you be adverse to a change? I know you've had it for almost 2 years, and have probably grown attached to it in the meantime, but maybe you're also bored of it? I dunno, seems worth asking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for Heaven's sake, Ken. Why on Earth are you trying to browbeat this user into changing their bloody username? It's absolutely fine; you are the only person who has had an issue with it in over two years!! Just leave them alone. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@TT - You're really not being very helpful. I understand your opinion, as I'm sure everyone else does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are surely not describing your activities in this thread as "helpful"?! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A woman went to watch her son, Kenneth, play in goal for the local youth football team. He eventually let in a goal which, really, he should have easily caught. One of the other mothers said, "Why on earth didn't he get that?!", to which Kenneth's mother replied, "Well... it's beyond my Ken." – names are what you make of them. And... I'll get my coat... :) – B.hotep •talk• 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I have to decline as I just like it too much. And since i've used it for 2 years and I have a working reputation with Wikiproject:Lists so if I changed it people at first glance wouldn't recognise me and i'd have to start all over again building my working relationships. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable. Do you think you could see your way clear to changing your sig? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE – please, please leave it, Ken. There is no reason for him to change his sig. Nobody cares except you. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 18:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fail really to see why I should, as EVula said, you'd have to be looking to be offended by it for it to actually be offensive. I've dealt with people who oppose my views and they've never had a problem with it. And as TT said, it's fine as consensus seems here to reflect that opinion. So, i'm sorry, again. Thanks for the offer but I have to decline. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, since I have no inclination to take this any farther, I think that is that. I'm sorry you don't see my point, but that's OK, thank you for considering it. Treasury Tag: your behavior in this thread has been perfectly childish, go to your room, please - and no dessert tonight! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well-crafted. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)When I see the phrase "God Save The Queen" it doesn't trigger a wave of patriotic fervour so much as a brief burst of guitar followed by the phrase "we mean it, man". Just saying... this doesn't necessarily have to be taken as partisan, and usernames with some cultural significance are okay. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it followed by "A fascist regime / Made you a moron / A total H-bomb"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Angie Y. - community ban time?

For at least the past 3 years, people have been telling Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to add uncited personal opinion to articles. I ran across her recently when her editing on Willy Wonka-related articles was brought to ANI. Just about every time I trimmed something of hers out of an article, she would restore it with no discussion, even in the edit summary. Today she reminded us that her editing style isn't restricted to fiction: she edited the Priceline article, adding the text "One of Shatner's early commercials for the company had him sitting in a spaceship's captain's chair, in loving tribute to his famous Star Trek role." The existence of the commercial is uncited. Its position as "early" is uncited "Loving tribute" is opinion. "Famous" is WP:PEACOCKish.

As she has been told that this sort of thing is not acceptable for so long by so many people, I am forced to conclude that she is unwilling or unable to work within our community norms, and suggest that she be community-banned for at least a year.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem... but I see a lack of blocks to tell her that this is a problem. I see only one from a couple years ago.. Surely a series of escalating blocks should be attempted before an outright ban, right? Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, she tends to skirt right under the edge of blockability for any one incident. It's the long-term pattern I'm looking at here, and that's harder for a single admin to act on without this kind of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

She does seem to have a lot of warnings over the past few years telling her not to insert her POV into articles. Not sure what to do about it. Possibly assign her a mentor? Basket of Puppies 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like mentoring was tried, pursuant to her second RFC, but didn't go anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose editor is no doubt a pain but lack of long block log suggests lesser sanctions are not exhausted. Or you could have Willy feed her a candy bar that turns her into a huge helium balloon and the Oompa Loompas can sing as she floats away. Ooompa Loompa loopa de do ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree it is a seriously issue that needs to be dealt with. Also wondering at the lack of previous blocks beyond the one, when her user page also shows a lot off issues with incivility, ignoring or harassing other editors when they try to correct her, constant lack of edit summaries and just reverting when people undo her OR/opinions. Also curious as to whether there has been any recurrence of the meat puppet issues which caused her one block. Her response to your warning about the OR of "Ah yeah" however also strongly shows that you are correct in that she seemingly doesn't care. Looking at her contribs, she pretty much ignores her own talk pages and rarely tries discussing anything with others on other user talks, while her contribs to article talks seems mostly to ask random questions. I also worry how much truth there is in her edits to fictional topics, when she is fond of injecting her own opinion into topics, and if any of her edits are being checked in those areas? Not an admin, so I don't know the rules on blocking, but I do think some kind of block and an editing restriction, at the minimum, would be a good start. Any violations to the restriction gets escalating blocks, until she exhausts the usual set, then go for a ban. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor's behaviour has been discussed here several times previously. TFOWR 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Forgot to mention her RFCs above.
  • 5 July 2007
  • 11 December 2007
• Granted, it's been a while since the last one... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for a while. No evidence she works around them, so going for a ban isn't necessary. But (as one who has warned and reverted her many times) she's royally painful to pin down. Pushes right to the edge of a block, then backs off either by moving away from the target-page of the moment, or by saying she will change her ways. Again and again. With some good edits too IIRC. Taken together, the Park Service needs to give this forest a block even if each ranger doesn't think any one tree is irredeemable. Enough community time-wasting. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for at least a week. This person seems adept at gaming the system here, and as I see it the record cited shows that. Too early for a ban, but count me in with those wanting accountability. User should be encouraged to discuss this issue here at ANI. Jusdafax 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user was once a pusher of birther arguments, pushing fringe sources at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Berg v. Obama and at the main article. Old edits, yes, but this is clearly not a user that plays well with others. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't think that's really relevant to her current editing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse blocking for around a week or two perhaps. With increasing durations for further problems. This may very well end up a ban, but I'd rather see us get there in a few steps than just one. Friday (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Issue stern final warning, then block I feel that she needs to be put on last notice, and that any further infractions will result in an immediate block. The stern final warning will be indefinite for duration- meaning that in 6 months if she makes an infraction she will still be blocked. No one is irredeemable but some need special circumstances due to the length of disruption. Basket of Puppies 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help in any way I can. Angie Y. (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Angie, is that the ways you try to help tend to make more work for everyone else. Even though many people have told you to add references to your edits, and not to put your personal opinions into articles, you keep doing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block now clear lack of competence, three years is generally enough time to determine if someone is capable of or willing to learn. Time sink, net detriment to the project on a review of the edits. Make it indefinite. If they cogently explain what they've been doing wrong and promise to never do it again, maybe unblock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have imposed an indefinite block; there isn't really an established community block process here, but reviewing many edits going back several years, plus her talk page history, convinces me that the concerns raised here are valid. I believe that she is editing in good faith, but the net result of editing in good faith but with poor understanding of project goals and policies, the difference between encyclopedic factual content and personal opinion, is disruptive. If she comes to understand the policies and issues and seems likely to comply going forwards, any administrator can unblock her without consulting me, though given the community input above I think that bringing it back to ANI for discussion would be wise (at least a notification afterwards). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment —I've encountered Angie in the past (circa 2+ years ago, I think) and tried to gently nudge her in the right direction. I've not seen the recent issues other people have concerns over. If there is further discussion of this, I'll root through history and the more recent events, and offer an opinion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• ... and I have declined her first unblock request with a couple of questions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough and unapproved bot jobs (again)

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

On May 10, I brought a thread to ANI about Rich Farmbrough's use of AWB to run large-scale, unapproved bot jobs from his main account (archived thread). Today Rich is running the same job again, despite the comments on the ANI thread that he should avoid this. Seriously. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for anything there. Why is what Rich is doing a problem? I don't mean on the macro scale of "He can't DO that", I mean are the edits improving the project or arent' they?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He's breaking the bot policy in numerous ways, remember the bot policy is there for a reason, not just because we like red tape. For example, to name just two parts of the policy he has seemingly ignored, tasks like this should be run on a separate account (so as to be marked with the bot flag, and so as to not clog up a user's contributions page), they should be approved by BAG, and have some time at BRfA for community input (like the rest of Misplaced Pages, everything should be collaborative, this helps weed out errors, and provides extra ideas, Rich has been making a number of mistakes in his unapproved tasks, which I believe is largely due to him skipping this stage). - Kingpin (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask, what are examples of some errors that he has made? --Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, he erroneously removes see also links . That diff is from the last time he ran this task without approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are linked to in the previous threads, just in the one thread linked to by CBM, there is this error. Also, in a thread created by Xeno somewhere it was pointed out that Rich was making three edits to each page in a row, where the same job could have been accomplished with one. Just things like these, I expect there are more, and even if there are not, the reason that BRfA is there is to check these things, because of the potential damage a bot completing 10 edits per minute can cause. Even if the bot hasn't made any errors in the past (which is not even true in this case) it stills needs to go through BRfA, since BRfA is a preliminary measure - Kingpin (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Who knows – the term "general clean" is so vague that nobody can tell what these edits are actually supposed to do. The point here is that large-scale changes (this one is over 500 edits in the last 2 hours or so) need to be clearly described and agreed-upon, which is what the bot approval process ensures.

In the last ANI thread, Rich received feedback such as

• "I'd like to propose that something be done to assure that he can't run bot tasks without approval again. ..." Equazcion 00:52, 2010-5-10 (UTC)
• "Rich has been running bot tasks, both approved and not, sometimes insignificant, from his main account for some time. I've approached him several times with the suggestion that he move it onto an actual flagged bot to no avail. ... " –xenotalk 00:56, 2010-5-10 (UTC)

It's hard to reconcile these with the same task being run, in the same way, a second time. If you were a bot operator, would you view those as supportive? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If he's allowed to run bots without approval so long as they are improving the project, does that mean everyone can run bots without approval so long as they improve the project? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

'fraid not ;), and he's not allowed to. - Kingpin (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, despite being aware of this thread for a half hour ( ), Rich has continued the bot job without responding here in any way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have slowed down a bit, but still manages to make mistakes which then require reverting and redoing, which could be avoided if he examined the edits properly before submitting them. - Kingpin (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should go to WP:RFC/U. I stand ready to certify. –xeno 16:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A BRfA has also now been created (but not yet transcluded), but he's continuing to make these edits. - Kingpin (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course that's not nearly good enough, since bot approval requests are to determine whether or not you should be running it at all to begin with. Seems like a token gesture so all the complainers might be appeased. No, though. I'd like to see an RFC/U too. Equazcion 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, maybe RFC/U is the way to go from here. - Kingpin (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm deeplly, deeply unimpressed to see someone who's supposed to be setting an example behaving in such an un-collegial fashion. I would also like to see an RfC/U. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is the assumption that it is a bot doing the edits. It's not a bot, but rather normal user edits with an automation tool; therefore a bot approval is not required. Confusingly Rich Farmbrough does have a bot User:SmackBot, but it may make communication considerably more difficult because if you talk to Richard about bot edits he will naturally be thinking his bot User:SmackBot. Regards, SunCreator 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Much of the time it seems that he sets it to auto-save (he has apparently modified the AWB code), so it is automatic rather than semi-automatic. A bot by any other name... –xeno 17:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

'it seems', 'apparently modified' ... is that speculation or has Richard actually modified the software? The Contributions are slow, a bot would be much faster imho. Regards, SunCreator 17:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I mentioned above Rich slowed down since this thread was created, previously he was doing around an edit every 6 seconds. Also, if you take a peek at the previous ANI threads about this, you'll see Rich as good as admits it is automated, also the normal AWB would stop when he gets messages on his talk page, which this doesn't seem to do, it's also rather unlikely he really sits in front of AWB for hours at a time just pressing save, as well as this he seems to make a large number of mistakes, which he then reverts manually (similar to the way you'd fix a bot's mistake, whereas if it was semi-automated he'd be able to prevent the edit even happening), - Kingpin (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that he is sitting at his computer for hours-long stretches (including Christmas Day) pressing "save" at times reaching speeds close to 30 edits per minute , but I subscribe to occam's razor. He has also never denied modifying AWB, despite the numerous times I have suggested he has done so. –xeno 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, an explanation of this is required. Regards, SunCreator 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As to bot tasks I just had Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXIX approved and that is now running, and will be moving on to Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXX shortly.

Meanwhile there is much other work that need to be done, just for this one fairly small piece - tidying up the {{Portal}} templates which have like most of WP grown organically and need a refactor. Inevitably some percentage of this will be more effectively done with AWB than Firefox - I already have 127 tabs open in one window on one PC, but it would be possible to use FF.

Most of these edits are trivial to check - which doesn't mean error free of course, and it is useful to do as many as possible in order to pick up any unusual situations.

Ok taking the dog for a walk, back soon. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC).

Rich, it's not okay for you to "approve" trial of your own tasks (or to run unapproved/prior to approval), neither is it okay for you to run bot tasks on your main account. If these edits are so trivial to check, why do you keep missing mistakes? Making so many edits at that rate actually makes it very difficult to check them properly. Maybe you could clarify as to whether or not you are actually checking these edits properly before they are made? - Kingpin (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find Rich is not running a bot but doing it manually on his main account with AWB because that is what the Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXIX says to do. However, I would agree, Rich needs to explain himself considerably. Regards, SunCreator 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also glanced at the BOT requests above and noticed that there is a mention of other minor edits. This bothers me a bit and I think that those minor edits should be clarified. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Space Shuttle orbiter

An(other) IP editor has added a factual error to this article. (I have corrected) See . They said it was a "rocket explosion", which is wrong according to the NASA report. (not even an explosion, that was such anothers error, also fixed) They seem to be ignoring messages on their talk page. I welcomed them and requested edit summaries with little to no reaction, certainly no written reply.

Full details on their talk page HERE. I AGF but they are making a lot of changes (Contributions) to a few articles and not talking. I am concerned about other possible errors. Can someone get their attention? Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a bit premature, to be honest. An editor made a mistake, you've corrected it and left a note on their talk page. If they repeat the mistake, and make no effort to communicate, then you should definitely look at dispute resolution. Incidentally, you posted on their talk page half an hour ago - I'd leave it a wee bit longer before deciding that they are ignoring you ;-) Cheers, TFOWR 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, but did you actually look at my several messages to them? as I am also worried I am a bit over the top, but a mistake like this is worrying. I think that all this editors edits may need to be looked at. It is ≈4:20am (local) down here in Oz and I will likely not be able to do it(and sleep too!). It's not really a dispute, they are just not communicating. (maybe a leetle 5 minute block to get their attention?) Though they seem to have stopped editing now. (Darn it!) Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't thin a block is appropriate. I'm not sure that your message about the Orbiter article implies that a reply is needed, and certainly the minor edit marker before doesn't need replying to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the user hasn't reinserted the same material after being messaged, has he? That could be taken to mean that they have read it, and unless they are inserting obvious factual errors into the other edits, there is little reason to assume they mean ill. Unless, of course, I have missed something. SGGH 18:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. You welcomed them (nice one, by the way!), you reminded them about using edit summaries, you reminded them again, then you alerted them to the error you'd fixed. I'd strongly disagree with a block - even a short one - in a situation like this. All of us make mistakes from time to time, and this mistake was made once and hasn't been repeated. I agree it would be better if the other IP was responding to talk page messages, but many editors don't. That's not normally a problem, and I believe it's not a problem here either. It can become a problem - if the editor repeatedly made the same mistake - but it isn't yet. Cheers, TFOWR 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact you, I presume accidentally, removed your first warn about citations here. Other than that, which they may not have seen, the only message that may have needed a reply is the most recent one, and even then it doesn't need a reply. SGGH 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@ SGGH, no they have not made any attempt to re-insert it. My only other point, until I 'snoop' around more, is they were IMHO overlinking the lead paragraphs. As for the Cite warning, I thought it was too much at the time, (my POV is slightly different now!) so I replaced it with an edit summary request. I concur with your other points.

@ TFOWR Thanks, (But it was only a template welcome! ie { {subst:welcome4} } ) I also concur with your other points.

Thanks both of you for your swift attention! I will advise if I find anything 'sus'. See what happens tomorrow. Happy editing all!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A welcome's still a welcome! I'm reasonably sure every "welcome" I've given has been a template ;-) TFOWR 19:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kushsinghmd

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

Key problem: Persistent and prolonged reverting activities that remove citations. In some case up to nine (9) citations were removed. , ], , ,

Further details: Kushsinghmd has recently begun to make contributions on en.wikipedia ; almost all contributions have been confined to one article. The initial edits were reverted by a number of different users: e.g. or ; these edits by Kushsinghmd primarily removed references and were partially identified as vandalism. Kushsinghmd's reverts activities on the aforementioned article were preceded by a number of IP edits (originated from a range of IPs in Canada owned by McGill University and Bell Canada) which had culminated in a 30 min revert session involving two other users. E.g. or These IPs were also subsequently involved in continuing revert activities throughout Kushsinghmd's activities. One of the aforementioned IPs made minor correction and clarification edits on the article's talk page and a user talk page to posting made by Kushsinghmd. , , , It its suspected that these wholesale revert activities that removed citations --in addition to Kushsinghmd's activities -- were carried out by the same person operating Kushsinghmd's user account. Mootros (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion to the substance of the argument that you and the other user have been edit warring over but the citations that are being removed are inappropriate. None of the sources, which are all links to details of specific fellowships at various institutions, support the statement that "the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as PhD" - using these sources as such is synthesis. Links to the French, German, English, Italian and Chinese Wikipedias wouldn't be appropriate to support the (untrue) statement that "normally a single language edition of Misplaced Pages has over 500,000 articles". Guest9999 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I take this as resolved here and may pursue this via an arbitration process elsewhere. For the record, I will refrain from inappropriate edit warnings and revert activities. Also for the record, I have struck out the use of condescending and harassing language deployed by Kushsinghmd on the article's talk page Mootros (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrator: as it is clear from the discussion page of Research Fellow, that other users have been approving the recent changes that I made to the article, while on the other hands they found user Motroos very Hard headed person, up to the point that another user quited the discussion because of the insistence of user Motroos on providing wrong information and his persistent work to undermine MD degree and even trying to excluded it from the article. Anyways , regarding the yesterdays edits that user Motroos is reporting here , these were done because of the acts of user Motroos where he disregarded the whole discussion board specially yesterdays' discussion about the position of MD and PhD and ignored all the presented information, and failing to respond appropriately to the presented objections, so he insisted on changing the order of degrees and switiching positions in yesterdays edit (which led to edit war), and when asked why he is changing positions , he failed to answer. So I reverted all these actions which I consider very unethical, and unappropriate edits and labeled them as vandalism since they affect the integrity of the article. Yet after a period of lock, he went back again and removed the MD degree totally from the article taking only his opinion into consideration and disregarding all the other opinions. And now, he coming to report the incident with complete dishonesty, without telling you the whole truth that he switched positions deliberatly after failing to to provide evidence for his claims, and also hided that he today deleted the degree complelety , changing the article to what he originally wanted before all these discussions happened. thanks 22:20, 26 May 2010 Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article got full protection for one hour, after I had reported activities at the WP:AIV that I –at the time had perceived– as vandalism. Mootros (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

False accusations of harassment

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) started this thread accusing me of harassment a few days ago, in which there was an overwhelming consensus that I had acted appropriately. I am still on perfectly good terms with FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs), who was in the minority believing that I had crossed the line; I am really not a vindictive preson.

But I cannot accept Richard Norton still maintaining that I was targetting him, which – I'm sure I need not point out – is related to WP:HA#NOT, which notes that "unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."

He just will not drop the stick. While he is not following me around (I must admit this, to be fair to him; he was anyway a particpant in the discussion I'm about to link to...), he is just being excessively unpleasant and since the view is that I was not harassing him in the first place, please can he be asked to drop this?

I am actually beginning to feel quite intimidated by this, and would welcome community views on whether the diff I just provided is in any way acceptable, partly due to its fairly random insertion in the discussion, and partly due to the consensus that my actions were proper. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but yes, I'd agree that the AfD comment was uncalled for. It's not egregiously out of line, however, and I'd suggest that you ignore it. AfDs can be rather contentious, and this exchange doesn't seem to be beyond the pale. Deor (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that unless someone explains to Richard Norton that it was out of line and not to be repeated, he will trot around and keep making such remarks, which is hurtful to me and just unacceptable generally... ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a warning similar to the one I left you. Behavior in these bilateral AfDs has gotten out of hand. I for one am not willing to tolerate more of this sort of unproductive sniping at each other. Shimeru (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru's comment on RAN's talk page was all I would have done, too. I moved some of the off-topic stuff to the AFD talk page. The sooner you two learn how to ignore each other the better.--Chaser (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

block of User:Breein1007

According to WP:ARBPIA, sanctions by uninvolved admins may be placed on editors only after these editors have been warned by an administrator and notified of the ARBPIA case: "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here." (Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement.) A non-admin who has been desysoped for abuse of his admin privileges has been going around issuing these non-effective notices to a number of editors. User:Breein1007 first asked him to stop, then removed his non-effective notices from the editors' Take pages. User:Georgewilliamherbert, who is apparently a friend of ChrisO, and who has some past history of false accusations against Breein the blocked Breein for disruption. I can't see how Breein's actions were disruptive. If anyone needs to be sanctioned their disruptive editing it is ChrisO, who is issuing notices while not an admin. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's sockpuppet is this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong accusation to make, without any supporting evidence. Are you looking for a block yourself? Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. I suspect this is a sock of User:NoCal100. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that away. Please be ready with solid evidence, and I suggest getting your apology in order, as I am not a sock, of User:NoCal100 or anyone else. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The notification has been provided in the past by other non-admins (Jaakobou comes to mind). Frankly, I don't know why the template language says that the notification must be given by an admin; the ARBPIA decision doesn't say so.

Having said that, I'm indifferent on the subject of Breein's block. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has put a note on the Arb page requesting a reword. I suggest that neither he nor this reporter edit the template again until someone answers that. SGGH 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Link: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Modification to notification template. Comments would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the block itself...

I have warned Breein1007 repeatedly not to take administrative actions themselves, as they have consistently managed to get policy wrong and to take a decidedly non-neutral approach to administrative stuff. They are singularly unsuited to be taking actions themselves in issues like this. It's entirely appropriate for them to be notifying an uninvolved admin or a noticeboard, which is what I told them to do before repeatedly.

The wording on the ARBPIA warning/notification template does contain a phrase that it needs to be left by an administrator, which has not been enforced consistently before and which as is noted does not appear in the arbcom findings themselves. Pointing out that a non-admin made a notification and that there might be a problem with that, and the template, was entirely reasonable - there's some ambiguity there. Simply bluntly reverting said warnings is not OK. It's particularly bad for an editor who's been sanctioned for ARBPIA violations and who has been blocked for disruption and who has been individually warned not to do administrative like stuff themselves, as they keep making a hash of it.

Breein1007 has been skirting along the line of disruptive to the point of longer term sanctions on and off for months now. I am hopeful that a short 24 hr block here will divert them away from crossing the line. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 is not an admin, so obviously he was not undertaking any " administrative actions themselves". If "It's entirely appropriate for them to be notifying an uninvolved admin or a noticeboard, which is what I told them to do before repeatedly." , then that goes double for CHrisO. Template:Unsigned8 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I might add that Breein1007 was not one of the users whom I notified, but he still took it on himself to twice delete the notifications from the log and to advise each of the notified editors that the notification was invalid and could be ignored. That was unhelpful, to say the least. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Breein has now posted a reasonable unblock request. It would be good if an uninvolved admin could take a look. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Spun883 and IP sock editing disruptively

Spun883 (talk · contribs) 70.52.202.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user has been POV-pushing on several truck articles, asserting that they aren't pickup trucks. He offered no evidence to support his claim yet insists for the rest of us to provide a source to disprove his opinion. The IP was previously blocked for edit-warring to insert false information on HSV Maloo and other articles that directly contradicted the cited source, the user account was blocked shortly thereafter for evading the block.

The current disruptive editing regards edits made to Ford Explorer Sport Trac and Chevrolet Avalanche saying that they are not pickup trucks, and removing content] from Pickup truck because he doesn't think they should be there.

While there are no references (at this time) either way, our own article on pickup trucks defines them as a vehicle with a cab and an open bed, which includes the ones this user seems to think otherwise on.

I gave the IP a level-3 warning, and the user account a level-4 warning after he logged in to avoid detection. The account later posted a message to my talk page, playing dumb and pretending not to know what I was talking about, then removed my warning from his talk page, calling it "harassment".

The IP vandalized the article again, conveniently at the exact same time as the user account was editing. This should warrant a block since it occurred after the level-4 warning and I made it clear the warning applied to the account and the IP. --Sable232 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to his old tricks...

User:Stars4change has been repeatedly warned and blocked because he/she refuses to stop using talk pages as forums. Stars has once again returned to his/her old tricks: , , , . I'm not sure what else can be done to communicate to this user considering he/she has had two blocks and almost all of his or her talkpage is dedicated to warning about posting inappropriate content and soapbox violations. Soxwon (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk has been deleted, I have left an final warning. If I am not mistaken the last example is May 19th? Would this make a block punitive? SGGH 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are right, they are current - however when I went to block someone else got in and blocked it as a sock. SGGH 23:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a her, actually, Sundiiiaaa (talk · contribs · count) (and later, Sundiii (talk · contribs · count)). Blocked long ago for the same thing (inappropriate See alsos, forum crap in Child Labor, Wage Labor, drivel about maglevs and tower cities). Blocked again indef. If you see similar behavior crop up on any of these topics, let me know and I'll indef block again. OhNoitsJamie 23:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User Athenean

User:Athenean is becoming very disruptive, and deleting the arguments of my defence. He treats W:SPI as his personal page. Here and . I think someone should take action. He also pretends to be an admin here, and warned I think an admin should block him temporarily, so i can work for my defence. I am not sure, but he was blocked before. Stupidus Maximus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re #299, he created a separate, bizarro "Corfu Channel Incident" section in an attempt to make a chaotic SPI even more chaotic SPI. Re #300, I have no idea what he is on about, nor have I ever pretended to be an administrator, this is crazy. I would be delighted if any administrators would be willing to look at the SPI itself, which has been dragging on for almost a month now. The publicity for it that this report generates is welcome. Athenean (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if you want publicity, you have it now. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi and irredentism

There is a certain user with whom I have a history that keeps making ethnic-based edits. His latest such contribution towards the betterment of Misplaced Pages is a little more unusual because it openly promotes irredentism.

More specifically, the User:Rokarudi has added a map illustrating a territorial administrative division which ceased to exist almost 150 years ago and which is at this moment is used for depicting the territorial autonomy initiative of the Szekely minority in Romania, has added this map on articles describing settlements which used to belong to that unit almost 150 years ago. Edit samples: , , .

My arguments against his edits are the following :

• "Szekely land" ceased to exist almost 150 years ago and has no official recognition in any way, neither in Romania nor the European Union.
• It is not a geographical region per se, and the User:Rokarudi has used it in the lead, which is innapropriate and promotes irredentism.
• "Szekely land" is listed as one of the irredentism movements in Europe : under Europe/Hungarian. Note: "Szekely land" is a Hungarian claimed region in Transylvania, Romania.
• Also WP:PROMOTION (that deals with nationalistic promotions)

Using in the lead, "Szekely land" has clear irredentism conotations. Like I said, there is an initiative, spearheaded by an ethnic Hungarian party UDMR which would make the Szekler Land concept an official one. As of today they have not managed to achieve this, yet the User:Rokarudi claims this is a "reality" , .

To sum it up, the User:Rokarudi openly promotes Hungarian irredentism by adding the mentioned map in various articles about settlements, mentioning the respective settlement as still belonging to the "Szekely land".

This user has previously tried to make other ethnic-based edits that have no place on an encyclopedia and failed after mediation was initiated ( , ], ). I have to mention that I tried talking about the issue, but the user blindly reverts, avoids any conversation to reach a consensus, offers no valid arguments for changes, except nationalistic ones and I believe he just enjoys edit warring. My attempts to talk about this problem have been called "harassment" .

The user always attacks my reputation and does not attempt to provide a reasonable explanation for his edits. I am currently under 2RR and this is the main reason he enjoys edit warring with me, hoping that I might repeat the mistake that lead to my 2RR temporary restriction. iadrian (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone looks at my talk page, he/she can see and judge the nature of this dispute. Might be, it is the fault of others, but Iadrian yu attracts edit conflicts wherever he goes. Previous block record here: . Dahn correctly summed up the nature of the reporter's activity with respect to me as harassment at section "Mures river 2. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, the nature of this dispute and your POV are easily seen at your talk/user page.
• Regarding edit warring, this is your biased opinion. The matter of fact is you have not managed to offer any reasonable arguments to sustain the changes you pursued (, , ).
• About user Dahn and what he said can be easily checked, if necessary, and the conclusion of that discussion is a little different than what you are saying.

Most importantly this is your n-th time of clearly avoiding a discussion and attacking me personally (some would call this harassment) without offering a single argument about the issue at hand. iadrian (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards