Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:16, 13 April 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Improper move by admin

The move of Nico Hülkenberg → Nico Hulkenberg was discussed at Talk:Nico Hülkenberg#Requested move and was correctly closed. This close followed a discussion of 3 administrators who all agreed that the arguments supported the move and that the discussion is not a vote so despite there being a larger number of editors opposing the move, the better arguments were sufficient to do the move. Note that this section of the talk page expanded significantly after the move. However after the move, UtherSRG moved it back here with no additional discussion. This was done making no effort to contact the administrator who did the move or the other two administrators who agreed that the page should be moved. So the effect at this point is that a single administrator has been allowed to override the opinion of 3 administrators. This seems very wrong. WP:WHEEL appears to prevent those involved with doing anything to correct this, so it needs to be here for resolution.

Since the move a follow on discussion was started raising the issue of how do we really handle contested closings. This discussion also questions why the unilateral reversion of the opinions of 3 administrators by one administrator has been allowed to remain in place.

After the move, a point was raised that Hulkenberg may in fact not be a correct spelling, but that does not need to be resolved here, and can be addressed by the normal WP:RM process.

I'll note that since this mess erupted, there has been a significant drop in closing of WP:RM discussions. I can't say that this was the cause for all of these discussions remaining open. But it has kept some administrators away at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see there was also an effort to resolve this on his talk page, with no success. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is a little disingenuous to describe the initial move as "unanimous" in a discussion of 3 admins but the revert as "unilateral." It is true that at the time of the move, about 24 hours after the discussion opened, there were 3 admins who agreed with the move, and none opposed. But less than 24 hours later, at the time of the revert, there were 3 admins who disagreed with move, and no more admin supporters (and more non-admin opposers than supporters). Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• . I mainly edit on BDPs (i.e. dead people) so am no expert on BLP policy. However I was asked yesterday what improvement should be made to BLP policy, and it occurs to me that a significant amount of grief (like seeing two very good admins in an unfortunate situation like this) could be saved all across en.wp by making it a simple BLP rule that BLPs should be at the spelling on the BLP's current nationality passport for Latin alphabet names. That would be it. Have a RfC that adopts this as a rule to BLP and the remaining 30-40 Czech ice hockey players and 20-30 tennis players who are out of synch with the 10,000s of other BLPs on en.wp fall into line (painlessly, according to WP:RS already in the egregious less than 100 BLPs footnotes) and this issue effectively disappears with no more damage to admins or en.wp. Finish, end, no more fighting. (or almost none since few fight over BDPs). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

... except that we don't get to see their passport, so we can't verify it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• confused. This thread starts out pointing out that 3 admins discussed the matter. Question 1: Is that to suggest that an admin's views should hold any more weight than a non-admin's posts in a discussion? My understanding was that while admin's may have a couple extra buttons, ALL views should be considered equally. In looking at the original move discussion, I get the impression that roughly 10 people opposed the move, while roughly 3 people supported the move. The discussion was closed in support of the move. Is that correct? (note: I am fully aware that it's !vote, rather than a counting of numbers.) My thought here is that both sides pointed to various policy and guideline links in this case. I was a bit unclear on the how or why the view with 3 supports achieved the decision. While I can fully understand when things are in a 55/44 or even a 60/40 range; 10 opposes (with policy/guideline links) vs. 3 support (with policy/guideline links) seem to be a rather strong view to me. I'm not familiar with the full situation I'm sure, so I'm just looking for clarification rather than trying to find fault with any one editor. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  14:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussions are suppose to be closed based on the consensus in the discussion and not counting opinions. What matters is the strength of the arguments. This is not something that you can convert into a cookbook. So to avoid problems, it is becoming more common to have several administrators provide their opinions on consensus for a difficult close to see if we do have a consensus in the discussion. This would determine how the discussion was closed. It is not that their opinions carry more weight just that you don't rely on one persons analysis to determine if there is consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I collapsed the sidebar discussion about the whole diacritics issue above, since that's actually fairly irrelevant to the topic here (although it does provide background and insight into the motivation(s) causing this dispute, of course). If anyone feels strongly about collapsing that discussion being "wrong", feel free to remove the collapse templates (obviously I've stated my opinion in that section...).
  As for the issue at hand, what I see as being framed up here for discussion is this: Administrator A closes a discussion and uses his tools to enact the result. Administrator B comes along a short time later and uses his tools to revert the action of admin A. In response, Admin A has come here to ask for input.
  The way that I see it, administrator A (who happens to be User:Vegaswikian) did everything right here. I don't think that Administrator B (User:UtherSRG in this case) should be severely sanctioned or anything, but it would be nice if another administrator (hopefully an uninvolved one) would revert UtherSRG and point to this discussion as a rational. The actual Requested move process can easily be redone in this case, by anyone, without involving tools at all. It's the tool use here that is ultimately problematic, from my perspective.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see that anyone did anything wrong. Admin A judged consensus of a contentious move discussion one way and asked for advice on the noticeboard. The first two admins who happened to join the discussion happened to agree, and so Admin A did the move. But the next several admins who joined disagreed that Admin A judged the consensus correctly, and one of them, Admin B, reverted the move. Ideally, Admin B would have discussed with Admin A first, although both were already participating in the discussion about the close on the RM noticeboard, and so a separate discussion would not necessary have added anything. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  From what I see, the "next several admins who joined" part isn't actually true though, as there weren't "several" at all (although I think that's a very marginal point). Here's the thing though: swap "move" with "delete". Hypothetical situation where admin A deletes page, then admin B comes along and summarily undeletes it. If you think that's acceptable behavior then fine, but my take on things is that the community frowns on that sort of behavior, currently. There's no "Deletion review" for move requests, but if this were an incident which involved deleting the page then that's where this section would (or at least should) be being discussed, don't you think?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• As someone until the last three weeks watching the sports BLPs soap opera from RM sidelines I'm not sure the sidebar discussion is totally irrelevant, since the underlying cause of two very good admins having been needlessly sucked into a minor bicycle crash like this is the underlying (and disruptive?) tension between the sports-sources and encyclopaedic-style editors on BLPs. As far as I can judge the situation both admins were trying very hard to do the right thing and got entangled. For those that are concerned about handing out slaps rather than barnstars to two hard working and little thanked admins, by all means carry on, but looking forward it might be more productive to preemptively and slowly tighten/clarify BLP guidelines (e.g. at WT:BLP) in the days/weeks between now and the next Czech ice hockey stub induced incident. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're seriously all arguing over whether an article title should have an umlaut or not? Do any of you ever go outside, at all? Jesus christ, people, two dots are not worth this much angry text. Jtrainor (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Angry text? Clearly you haven't been around for previous brouhahahas between diacritics. As for me, I take the McManus position: I've never seen a semicolon that could be trusted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really about umlauts though, it's more about admin conduct (in my opinion, at least).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say there's any misconduct. I wouldn't have closed the original RfC as such - but it seems to me to be a very good example of BRD in action. To that point I say "well done" to all involved. Now, as far as the umlaut goes I'll go ahead and voice my thoughts. My personal preference would be to name the article without it (as I am an American w/o such a keystroke); BUT, when looking at things like the language we use when dealing with British topics vs. American topics (that's to say we use the flavor of English in that particular venue dependent upon the location of the article topic) - then I would say the WITH the umlaut is more consistent with our standards. Either way, not something I'd spend much time arguing; perhaps other than to say that a redirect should be in place so that EITHER way it's typed in, it gets you to the article you're looking for. Isn't that the whole idea anyway? So why NOT defer to the subject's own spelling? Just saying. — Ched :  ?  02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "w/o such a keystroke": That's what we have redirects for ;) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that I didn't actually say "misconduct". As for the rest, there are plenty of places to discuss it, including a collapsed discussion above. I guess that it's impossible for people to separate the two, which is kinda sad. The only thing that I worry about is that we're encouraging edit warring... and if you don't believe that's true then take a look though some of the Wikiproject Poland archives, among other places.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisdomtenacityfocus accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying

Since a while user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) (signing as WTF) has been constantly accusing me of vandalism.

Background

WTF would like to organise the template Template#Frank Zappa and the article Frank Zappa discography in a different way than it was up to when he started working on it. As this reorganisation is problematic in some ways, the edits were discussed on Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template by WTF, myself and a number of other users: Sexually Aroused Gas Mask (talk · contribs), Mystery Roach (talk · contribs), Friginator (talk · contribs), Aerosmith366 (talk · contribs), FunkMonk (talk · contribs) and some IP's 68.0.118.130 (talk · contribs), 113.117.201.52 (talk · contribs).

The content was ultimately restored to its original format. After some edit-warring (in which I took care not to take place) and a 5th revert, I reported WTF at edit the warring notice board wp:ANEW — see the entire case here.

Immediately thereafter WTF stopped edit-warring and opened a case at wp:DRN (see opening statement).

The DRN was closed against WTF's viewpoint (see closing note and entire case here).

Without being closed or commented upon, the ANEW case was archived without result, presumably rightfully so, as WTF had indeed stopped editing or commenting after the DRN closure.

Meanwhile WTF started editing again and has made two RFC's about the matter (), ).

Accusations

Against the above background, user WTF has been accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying:

• After several accusations at Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template I put a final warning on his talk page (text and diffs: )

• : "...this guy rolled over me because he thinks he owns the article'""
• : "You removed massive chunks of the discography...", "You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism"
• : "... stop enabling DVdm's vandalism"

This warning was seen and removed

• A new request to stop: about "Also, you falsely accused me of edit-warring. I merely stated what you actually did."

This warning was seen and removed

• On my talk page I explicitly listed (User talk:DVdm#Content dispute) all my contributions to the article and template and asked WTF to explain how these edits could be vandalism or to retract the accusations.

No reply on that.

• Another request to stop: and (text and diffs: )

This warning was seen and removed with edit summary "DVdm lies again".

• Finally, on my talk page: "I'm not accusing you of something you haven't done. I'm stating what you have done. It is misleading and blatantly false to deny what you have done"

Comments

Could someone please look into this and perhaps explain in clear terms to WTF that his allegations and accusations are unfounded, and somehow intervene to make this stop? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User notified: - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about you stop vandalizing, trying to own articles, edit warring, lying and making the list and template I brought up issues with unreadable? This is not a "incident" if everything I've said is true. Please own up to what you've done and stop bothering people with something YOU started purely to spite me? --WTF (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I could put your buddy on here for telling me to "shut hole" and falsely stating that I'm "on the noticeboard for edit warring", when, in reality, he was reported by me for edit warring. I'm really getting tired of this nonsense. Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do. My actions are should be rewarded, not disparaged. --WTF (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been proven to you numerous times that DVdm never reverted your edits on the pages in question and wasn't involved in the change of the template and discography page. You have continuously ignored this fact and accused him of things he already showed he didn't do. You indeed were on the noticeboard for edit warring, just like Friginator claimed. DVdm even linked to it here. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Having been over this before, I'd just like to say that I would gladly testify under oath in a court of law that to my knowledge, DVdm has not recently vandalized an article or template (according to this and/or any Misplaced Pages policy I've ever read), assumed ownership over one (according to this and/or any Misplaced Pages policy I've ever read), engaged in an edit war (according to this and/or any Misplaced Pages policy I've ever read), or lied to anyone about anything that I know of. However, Wisdomtenacityfocus had, in fact, prior to this thread accused the other user of vandalism, claiming ownership and lying on such occasions as, but not necessarily limited to, here, here and here. Also, he pretty much made all four accusations three paragraphs above this one anyway. Friginator (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding WTF's above remark ("Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do."): I pointed to many guidelines and policies about consensus on the thread Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template. According to the closing note WTF's DRN case, it was "apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting...".

Regarding WTF's edit summary of the removal of the ANI notification at his talk page, and regarding the above comment with yet again the same false accusations: dear administrator(s), could someone, independently of what I think for WTF is a content dispute of great importance, please make this user somehow stop doing this? I most certainly did not start something here to "spite" this user. Rather I started something to somehow stop these blatantly false accusations. A little warning on WTF's talk page might help. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Outside Observation This seem to be already covered in a number of places, linked above. That said, WTF seems to suffer from both civility and hearing problems, per his edits summaries and comments after being informed that he improperly made changes to a template , per User:TransporterMan's closing note:" It now being apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting, above, of 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC). If WTF wishes to build consensus for his/her preferred version, I would recommend the use of a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan...14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)". Claiming other people's actions are vandalism plus and taking a generally combative tone and too many others to list. He also has problems understanding policy regarding 3RR, when it applies to others. While disagreements can be a little heated at times (by all parties), and a degree of terse comments can be overlooked, Wisdomtenacityfocus (aka:WTF) seems to be going out of his way to go against clearly established consensus in his edits and claim other's contributions are vandalism, to the point of being quite disruptive. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, did you miss where these editors are reverting WITHOUT discussing and one of them DIRECTLY ATTACKED ME (the words "shut your hole" were directed at me), and there is NO CONSENSUS for the edits being made by DVdm and others? I POSTED THE GUIDELINES, I posted ground where it is handled better on other lists and templates, and these editors ignored it, reverted, attacked me and dismissed valid points. I am not being uncivil, the editors that have chosen to harass me because they can't get what they want ARE being uncivil. Not to mention, DVdm FALSELY accused me of personal attacks, ignoring the actual personal attacks that were directed at me. Clearly you think that I am stupid, Dennis Brown, and I don't appreciate the complete lack of regard and respect toward me. --WTF (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are claiming that DVdm reverted any of your edits. It has been pointed out to you numerous times that this is not true, but you persistently ignore it as if nobody ever said it. I am also not aware of any guidelines you claim to have posted, but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong. You did post counterexamples of lists and templates that are handled like you want the Zappa discography to be handled, but this alone doesn't make you right. Neither were your points ignored, the editors in question civilly disagreed and made counterpoints. None of this has anything to do with thinking you're stupid or lack of respect towards you. You are quite simply ignoring facts and this is not acceptable. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Another personal atack: "DVdm has proven nothing other than that he has no respect or regard for the people around him" and "FALSELY, by a vandal"- DVdm (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So are any admins going to comment, or are we just going to keep pointing out that User:Wisdomtenacityfocus doesn't appear to understand Misplaced Pages policy or the people around him? Because it seems like that's what this boils down to, and that's what needs to change. Friginator (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment. WTF, per WP:NPA, accusations lacking justification are personal attacks. Please note that vandalism has a narrow definition on Misplaced Pages and necessitates that an editor is intentionally trying to harm Misplaced Pages with their actions. Accusing someone of that is pretty extreme and requires evidence. I haven't seen anything from you here that justifies your accusations. Therefore I'm giving you an official warning to either provide justification for your warnings, or to stop making them. Continuing to harass other editors can and will lead to you being blocked. You've made over 6,000 edits over the course of more than a year without being blocked, don't start now. Thank you. -- Atama頭 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Atama, Dennis, Mystery and Friginator, thanks for your comments. The attacks seem to have stopped now, so I assume that user WTF has seen and understood the message. Let's move on. Cheers all. - DVdm (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

possible paid editing for Jill Kenton

Jill Kenton hired an Elance contractor for her Misplaced Pages article here. The job was awarded to user "Misplaced Pages Expert." The same day an editor added some citations, made revisions and then removed a prod and COI tag.LawrenceDuncan (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I created an account and the job offer is from elance user jillkenton and the job detail states "I have a wiki page which is not conformed to wiki guidelines and I need it tidied ASAP or it will be deleted. Text is there just needs tidying by wednesday 11april. Need some one with wiki experience to sort out issues .""" Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor in question notified here: JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Article in question, for the lazy: Jill Kenton. Now that I look again, her company, Rigby & Peller, seems to have a clearer case for notability than she does. Rather than deletion, perhaps we should consider making an article on it and possibly merging some of her content there? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Any company that makes the Queen's knickers deserves an article. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be an opportunity to identify "WikipediaExpert", and figure whether they are a 10,000 edit user as claimed - because that user has 300 edits, and if their claim is true then they are socking inappropriately. Any friendly checkusers about? --Errant 22:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, now, hang on here. How would this be a violation of WP:SOCK? Creating/improving articles for hire is not, in fact, prohibited, either under COI or under SOCK. If this person is misleading outsiders about his or her experience or credentials on Misplaced Pages, that's a fraud issue outside our purview. If this person is using a sock to avoid his or her principal account from being stigmatized as a hired gun? Whatever our ethical objections, what Misplaced Pages policies does that actually violate? Ravenswing 06:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He's not disclosing any COI when editing those articles. And is using a secondary account to avoid scrutiny. I'd have no problems with someone doing this sort of editing, but not as a sock. --Errant 09:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there's no actual requirement to disclose a WP:COI (although it's strongly encouraged) so your first point isn't actually a violation of anything. However I do agree using an unlinked secondary account can be seen as trying to avoid scrutiny which is forbidden by WP:Sock. One possible issue is that it can be argued an unlinked secondary account may be needed for privacy reasons since the identity of the person who responded to the ad will have to be known at least to the advertiser if not others. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly one explanation. I want a whole lot more to see a block/ban of an editor issued that the assumption that there might be more than one account and that possibly that's the case so a putatively main account will duck scrutiny. There aren't any facts here; simply premises. Ravenswing 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For clarification I wasn't suggesting that's definitely what actually happened here. I don't think anyone else was either. Nor do I think anyone was suggesting an immediate block. In fact the only suggestion seems to be for a CU, and in their first message ErrantX clearly said 'if their claim is true' (in other words clearly acknowledging we have no idea). However you questioned how it would be a violation of WP:SOCK, and people therefore further explained why there were concerns about a possible violation (and why therefore it may be worth looking in to.) To put it different way, if we go back to ErrantX's first message and we consider the possibility (which is what ErrantX was doing) the editor is indeed the person on the external site claiming to have 10k edits we have two possible scenarios. Either they are lying on the external site (which isn't much of our concern on wikipedia) or they indeed have 10k edits but these edits are mostly under a different account or under IPs. In the later scenario there are immediate concerns about a possible violation of WP:Sock which seemed to be the main thrust of ErrantX's comment. (Remember that while multiple accounts is not banned, I think it's clear from the history of WP:Sock cases that any scenario where an editor uses one account for one set of edits and another unconnected account for another set this causes immediate concerns. If the editor gives a WP:Sock supported reason for needing to do so, we generally accepted that but otherwise, it tends to be seen as problematic whatever the alleged reasons for doing so.) Even if there is insufficient evidence for a CU, it doesn't mean that scenario doesn't exist but your initial post didn't seem to appreciate it. Personally I have no view on whether there's enough evidence for a CU or further scrutiny, I simply wanted to offer clarification to avoid further confusion as I felt I understood ErrantX's concerns from the beginning of the thread but it seemed to me you did not. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This came up recently at BLPN. Dru of Id (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here. I have never been called to the Administration Noticeboard bevfore. I seemed to have stepped into a hornets nest when decided to help on this biography. I think people have me confused with somebody else. I am not a sock puppet, its just me. I simply tried to improve a biography by taking sources that were in the External links section and were being ignored and made them into citations. Plus I searched Google books and found some more sources. The deletion notice said that if the biography was cleaned up and third party sources were found the notice could be removed. So I did all that thinking I was helping. But it turns out I don't seem to be welcome there. I have spent a lot of time studying the Misplaced Pages rules and have tried to follow them. I've looked at notability and I felt that this bio had the sources to be notable. Some new rules have been mentioned here. I'll look at those too.--LarEvee (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be slightly more to this than meets the eye, as I've discovered another possible link between paid editing anad LarEvee. The same contractor from Elance, "Misplaced Pages Expert," was hired for a job on Elance on March 25 with a description of "Wikièpedia programmer expert who is will proof read and the right content on the site. This is about a fashion designer best possible context." The next day, LarEvee began editing Porscia Yeganeh, an article about a fashion designer that had not been edited at all for over 4 months. Over the course of several dozen edits, LarEvee improved the article (the diff included shows from LarEvee's first edit to the most recent edit). It seems to be a mighty unlikely coincidence that LarEvee would show up on two different articles that were listed on Elance within 24 hours of the jobs being accepted by "Misplaced Pages Expert."

I have no problem with paid editing, even undisclosed paid editing, but I do have an issue with the potential of socking so that an editor does not have to associate paid editing with their primary account. My findings re:Porscia Yeganeh are slightly more circumstantial because the Elance job listing doesn't explicitly state the target article to be improved. However, when what I found ("Misplaced Pages Expert" and Porscia Yeganeh combined with LarEvee's contrib history) is combined with what LawrenceDuncan found ("Misplaced Pages Expert" and Jill Kenton combined with LarEvee's contrib history), it begins to strain the probability of this being a coincidence. Chillllls (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)edited Chillllls (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have no problem with paid editing that conforms to all guidelines, in fact I think it's a fantastic way to build quality content by taking advantage of experienced writers. I do have a problem with lying about something that's obvious. LarEvee, please come clean now, otherwise it's very likely you will be blocked and a sockpuppet investigation begun. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, is it possible that an individual calling themselves a "Misplaced Pages expert" outside of the walls of Wiki does not mean it in the "10k+ edits" meaning, but more in the "I consider myself an expert, and therefore I'm an expert" sense? I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean there's a Sock at work, right? Or, did I miss something here? Did he specifically say "I've made 10K+ edits"?JoelWhy (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What someone says on a freelance board doesn't mean much. People pump up their qualifications all the time to get work, think of it as "polishing" your resume. It doesn't mean this person is using accounts in a way that constitutes abusive sockpuppetry. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time making good contributions to this encyclopedia. I have improved the sentences and organized paragraphs. I have added new information and taken a lot of time to create citations just the way Misplaced Pages likes them. As far as I can see no one has any complaints about my editing just a lot of speculation about who I might be and what I might be doing. Not a very good welcome. LarEvee (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My final word on this is that it's pretty clear from the evidence that I've seen that LarEvee and "Misplaced Pages Expert" on Elance are the same person. The problem is not that LarEvee's contributions are bad; in fact, just the opposite is true. The problem is that "Misplaced Pages Expert" on Elance claims to have years of experience on Misplaced Pages and tens of thousands of edits. LarEvee has been here for 11 months and has 407. That suggests two possibilities to me: either Misplaced Pages Expert/LarEvee is significantly "polishing" their Elance description or Misplaced Pages Expert/LarEvee has (an)other account(s) that they use for more paid editing or regular unpaid editing. That's something that, in my estimation, is a violation of WP:SOCK, specifically WP:SCRUTINY. Does the community think that editors who are participating in paid editing should be allowed to have several unlinked accounts so that they can divide their contrib history?

My gut feeling here is that no Checkuser will be willing to step in here because all of the evidence that could possibly suggest the abuse of multiple accounts is circumstantial. LarEvee, if you don't have any other accounts on Misplaced Pages, I'm very sorry about this. Most of your edits have improved the encyclopedia. I think there are still deep fundamental issues yet to be resolved in how en.wikipedia.org handles the concept of paid editing. Chillllls (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have yourself to blame for that, LarEvee. We're not stupid and don't like it when people treat us as such. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No kidding. If you want to improve Misplaced Pages for your own financial benefit go ahead, you don't have to lie about it. -- œ 07:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the term "sock puppet" might be misused here-- this appears more like abuse of an "alternate account" or "single purpose account" . There's a legitimate concern that LarEvee is a secondary account to "avoid detection," exclusively making use of this one for paid content creation. It's clear from edit history, LarEvee is creating/editing unrelated biographies that have only one thing in common: they are for lesser-known individuals who might like to have their name on Misplaced Pages. For example: Allegra Versace, Julie Ann Amos, Jeffrey_Brotman and this article. The idea of editing-for-pay isn't what is at issue, but that there multiple, unconnected accounts being used by a single individual. Incidentally, "Misplaced Pages Expert" is not the username on eLance for the individual in question. The actual one is "Mister Reliable" (AKA "William"). See: . --HidariMigi (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Gizgalasi COI

Unarchived--see below. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I brought User:Gizgalasi to this board before in January (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Conflict of interest---block requested, and there wasn't much interest, with only a few comments either way. After that discussion, the editor decreased xyr frequency of editing, but has since resumed xyr unbalanced COI editing. This revolves around a cluster of articles on Ali and Nino: A Love Story and its author, Kurban Said. The name "Said" is a psuedonym, and the author's real identity is not known for certain. Gizgalasi is associated with Azerbaijan International, a cultural/literary magazine, which published a very extensive analysis of the question, and arrived at a specific answer. That's fine and good, but Gizgalasi has repeatedly attempted to highlight AI's analysis to the exclusion of all others.

The best recent examples can be found in this series of edits, which culminated in Gizgalasi removing the NPOV and COI tags in the this edit. The article is not even close to neutral; for example, see my edit, which attempts to just start fixing an extremely obvious POV point (the article was asserting that one theory was wrong in Misplaced Pages's voice).

Another example is this series of edits to Lev Nussimbaum which attribute to another author (the one whose theories AI reject) an opinion he never held.

Gizgalasi is a perfect example of the reason why we have the COI policy. Gizgalasi is too closely connected to AI, and is unable to see that xyr edits are not, in fact neutral. I don't know what else to do other than to block this editor until such time as they agree to stop editing the articles directly. They could either use "edit request" templates on the talk page or try Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help‎. Outside of WP, Gizgalasi's commitment to a specific academic position is a good thing; here, it prevents xyr from editing per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While I actually enjoy conversations about gender and language (and even grant creeedance to Ohms laws' concerns), and I know that bringing an issue to ANI means one opens up one's own behavior to scrutiny, is there any chance that anyone is interested in actually looking at the articles/editor in question? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who are able to contribute to Misplaced Pages successfully while writing about subjects they are personally close to, but G. is clearly not one of them. He obvious subscribes to an "us vs. them" attitude, where "us" is Azerbaijan International and other Azerbaijan-related topics, and "them" is anyone who disputes his take on things. I do not believe he is able to edit with a neutral point of view and is the poster child for the precautions prescribed in the WP:COI policy. I would suggest that an admin review the situation, and put G. on notice that he must follow the guidelines prescribed in the COI policy, which are not to edit those articles directly, but to make editing suggestion on the articles' talk pages to be put into effect by other, neutral editors. (And one of the problems here is that G. thinks that anyone who disputes his edits is not neutral, and editing per policy, but is instead "against" the magazine, or Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis in general.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For an example of G.'s sensibility, see this comment on his talk page, where he implies that Q. and I are the same person because we agree with each other, a totally ludicrous conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've unarchived this. I really, desperately want someone(s) uninvolved to take a look at this issue. Please note that this isn't just a random set of problems...the issue surrounding these topics (Lev Nussimbaum, Kurban Said, Ali and Nino: A Love Story, etc.) were previously so serious that The Guardian wrote up an article about problems with their Misplaced Pages articles: . Now, I don't think that Gizgalasi was the one who caused those earlier problems, but the problems that (I and Beyond my Ken believe) are being caused by Gizgalasi are still quite serious: this cluster of articles currently treats the research done by Azerbaijan International as fact, not as one theory among several. If this were just a regular content dispute, I'd take it to the content boards, but this is the case of an editor who is a researcher for that magazine trying to promote the magazine's theories to the exclusion of all others; of reference bombing these various articles such that the AI references outweigh others by a massive factor; and now, as Beyond My Ken states, is accusing the only 2 of us to have been trying for neutrality to be the same person. If I'm wrong, and this is all reasonable editing (or "just a content issue"), please, someone tell me. Trout me, even. Without the assistance of other admins, I simply cannot see any constructive way to proceed other than simply allowing Gizgalasi to write whatever s/he wants, since s/he is 100% convinced of his/her own neutrality (because s/he is 100% convinced that the AI analysis of this topic is completely right, so it is, by definition, neutral). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have absolutely zero experience or, frankly, interest in this; however, I can sense your frustration here, and I think that my little OT commentary above added to it (I honestly thought that a dozen or so others would pipe in here right after my comment...), so I feel compelled to say something. Assuming that everything you're presenting here is accurate (which I do, but, you know... I've got to make it clear that I'm assuming here), then this sounds like a good case to impose a topic ban on Gizgalasi.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  Only a little bothered. It was more the lack of interest after 2 separate times bringing this to ANI. If no one else is interested, I'll just have to assume that I and Beyond My Ken are somehow wrong, and give up on the articles completely. I believe in working with COI editors (I'm an irregular member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help; but I also believe that COI editors who don't follow the rules and don't understand that their POV is not the same thing as NPOV need to be stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  With the amount of interest that perceived conflicts of interest and paid editing stuff typically generates, I'm a bit mystified at the lack of interest in this myself...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that in order to determine if a COI exists, the determining editor has to actually be familiar with the corpus of research that has been done on the topic - in the case of your previous request, the Ali and Nino scholarship question. If Gizgalasi is presenting neutral facts (broadly agreed upon in the realm of RSes or otherwise properly attributed) then there may be no problem. If he's hacking out portions of contrary research to replace them with AI's research or if he's stating opinion as fact then he's clearly acting in violation of COI. There is quite obviously at least the potential for a COI here. The number of edits Gizgalasi's made to the "Azerbaijan International" article is something that warrants a close look, but from my cursory examination I don't see anything too terrible. Usually the insertion of superlative of promotional expressions as in this edit is a violation of NPOV and thus COI but it's hardly a breathtaking example. I'd say keep your eye on the situation for now. You've warned Gizgalasi about COI and you can now assume he's aware of it. The mere potential for impropriety doesn't seem like enough to impose sanctions on. -Thibbs (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I only skimmed his edits so if there are any particular diffs I missed where COI is unambiguous even to a layman like I who knows nothing of Azerbaijani literature then please link it and I'll change my recommendation accordingly. -Thibbs (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggested in the old discussion that the self-citation was excessive. I still think so. This editor has had nearly 2,000 edits, my question is whether or not those edits have been productive and if they've had the sole purpose of advancing an agenda that promotes the AI publication. If this person is only here to promote a magazine, whatever the nature of that magazine, they shouldn't be here. I remember the last time I looked at this person's edits (back in January) they didn't seem to be adding anything of substance, their edits were primarily promotional and/or pushed a POV shared by the publication. If this is the case, I think we're letting the COI question sidetrack us and should just be treating this editor like any other spammer (block them since they've continued despite numerous warnings). -- Atama頭 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thibbs, you raise a fair concern; let me see if I can drag up a few diffs/discussions. Note that I know literally nothing about this subject other than what I have read in connection to writing these articles.

• • • Take a look at the article in Kurban Said this revision. In the next edit, Gizgalasi removed the POV tag saying, "Article shows all points of view - Kurban Said from point of view - Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli, Lev Nussimbaum and Bello Vacca. Article is so thorough - does not deserve statement that information is under question". This is so obviously and ridiculously false that it shows that Gizgalasi doesn't understand what neutrality means on Misplaced Pages. As a quick example of why, take a look at my next change in this diff. Prior to my change, the article stated as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice that one commentators theory was wrong, based entirely upon the analysis on the AI article; I rewrote it to clarify that no, it's not a "fact" that Vacca is wrong, merely the opinion of AI.
    • For a good explanation of how Gizgalasi doesn't understand COI and POV, see User Talk:Gizgalasi#COIN. Note that there (and throughout every interaction I've had with G), the assertion is not that one theory is more widely accepted than another, but merely that the AI theory is correct because "No one has done deeper research into this issue that the staff of Azerbaijan International. Nearly 60 people were involved with the research and translations." This is no different than any pusher of any POV who asserts, "If you just look at the quality of our work/research/company, you'll see that this is obviously the best/most extensive/most accurate work, and therefore our conclusions are what Misplaced Pages should say."
    • One more: See this sequence of edits on Lev Nussimbaum (the bottom part about Nussimbaum's death). Basically Reiss (an author with a book about this topic dating to before the AI special edition) argues that Nussimbaum died of one disease, while AI argues that Reiss was wrong because that specific diseases tends to effect females more often than males. As a result of this, AI concludes he died of a different disease. Of course, our article should state both of these theories. Gizgalasi, instead, makes the article support AI's theory over Reiss's; worse, the edit implies that Reiss was somehow aware of the opinions of AI--that is, it misrepresents the Reiss source. Why? Because Gizgalasi is certain that AI's POV is correct because they did better research.

A final note to tThibbs: you say that I have no warned G, and I should keep an eye on their edits. That isn't going to happen. I've raised this issue at WP:COIN, and this is the second time I've brought it here. If I get no support on the issue this time, I can only assume my analysis is wrong, there is not COI/POV issue. If there is no action, I'm taking all of these articles off my watchlist. Every time I warn Gizgalasi and no action is taken, the warnings simply lose power. I'm not going to keep edit warring if my view is not community supported, and I'm not going to tear my hair out in frustration because a set of articles on books I've never read seem to be being controlled by an involved party. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. I actually noted that you had warned Gizgalasi and that now you could consider him to have had fair warning (i.e. so if he does anything clearly on the wrong side of COI then it's fair to give him a block without further ado). But anyway thanks for the further evidence. It does seem like he is showing signs of COI. I had focused more on his edits to the AI article which seem to have at least the color of neutrality. I still say that if it's just a matter of correcting the record and it's done neutrally then there's no problem with an "involved" editor making the edit, but the edits you've shown most recently just above are indeed somewhat more concerning. It would help in recognizing COI if I knew more about the underlying topics... -Thibbs (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I decided to have a quick look at the diffs that Qwyrxian posted and one thing that popped out was that the sheer level of referencing to AI does rise to the level of spam to the point that that the articles are skewed. Anything that Gizgalasi has substantially contributed to should have a NPOV tag slapped on it asap, if it hasn't already done so. The Kurban Said article is almost solely sourced to AI. I remember the WP:COIN report that Qwyrxian raised (re-read it as a refresher) and agree that Gizgalasi has a COI. Rather than letting them edit unconditionally, the usual COI restrictions should be placed on Gizgalasi, i.e. proposals for edits on the article talk page and discussion re the suitability of their references which other editors should then add rather than they themselves doing it willy-nilly. Blackmane (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat (Did you miss us yet?) :)

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

I would request that someone look at the recent behaviour of Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per the header on the Prem Rawat talk page, the article is under probation and sanctions may be applied by an uninvolved admin. While the atmosphere on that talk page is usually somewhat adversarial with some editors, I feel that a line has been crossed. In the last 24 hours, Rumiton has referred to my posting on the RS/N board as "extremely stupid", twice. & . The second time was several hours after I suggested he may want to remove the first instance from the talk page, at the end of this diff . He says he feels my posting to RS/N will lead to escalation, and within hours, Momento joins in with attacking me, suggesting I may be deliberately lying. The RS/N statement is here, and as you can see, Rumiton seems quite upset that I have not explained his position correctly, and again calls my actions "extremely stupid". He further goes on to chastise me for using {{sic}} in my quote of him, calling it "condescending", as well as referring to my RS/N question as "jeering, insulting and deliberately downputting, the opposite of civil, the apotheosis of NOT assuming good faith". I find that kind of attitude extremely disruptive, beyond the usual silliness that I know this article often has to deal with. I have been working on this article for about 4 years, and I believe this is the first time I have ever sought any kind of administrative action (although I have been party to 1 or 2 arbcom cases in the past, I have never started any).

This all spins around the point that Rumiton wants to add a completely unnecessary phrase to the article, "with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice". This is only relevant if he is an expert in the field, otherwise the comment has no business in the article on source grounds, and is misleading. Even if he is an expert, it's completely undue weight for the article, as the entire description of Rawat's Peace for Prisoners program only takes up a sentence or two on an-already-too-long article (imho of course).

This seems to have been a continual effort recently on Rumiton's part to push very hard for his POV to add more text into the article (since his previous ban from the article he had been relatively easy to work with, until recently). The entire conversation about this expert is here, as well, you can see in the previous section where Rumiton argues that a youtube video uploaded by a follower of Prem Rawat is a reliable source, starting with this diff in that section. This is after he'd had a completely different opinion earlier this year: "Youtube is absolutely unacceptable as a source..." () 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In previous sections in the last 30 days, you can see various other aggressive behaviours that an editor with so much editing experience should know better than to attempt. Here he agrees with Momento's suggestion to reduce an extremely well sourced, and even more vigourously discussed edit, that was negative towards Prem Rawat. He agrees that it should be reduced from 143 words down to 31 words (a reduction of 79%!), even though we've already spent thousands of words discussing that exact phrase, and had been very careful to source everything extremely well.

Here is a diff where Rumiton says he has material to add (which he had mentioned several times previously, and since), and that we should not waste time saying these are press releases, they are valid, and they show Rawat "clearly was there at these events". When I went to look at them, I found that they are listed on a Prem Rawat fansite, on a page called "Press Releases", and all they show are crowds with an inset picture of Prem Rawat, at no point does it show him in *any* crowd. I'm not suggesting Rawat was or was not there, I'm suggesting that Rumiton's statement seems to be misleading based on the facts. In an effort to avoid some kind of mini-war breaking out on the article talk page, I decided to try and talk to Rumiton on his talk page, out of the spotlight so to speak, in an effort to point out why these articles might be problematic. I think I achieved a limited success at best, entire exchange is here

It's not like I have an thin skin when it comes to this article, I don't run out and find an admin every time I'm called a name, get insulted, or have assumptions of non-AGF cast on me, but I feel things have devolved a little too much. I don't appreciate anything I do being called "extremely stupid" and what I consider to be belligerence seems to be growing.

I will stipulate to the fact that in some arguments I probably don't help defuse the situation either, but I think the constant effort of trying to maintain an NPOV article there (or at least keep a non-blatantly obvious POV article) sometimes exceeds my patience level. Thank-you for looking into this. -- Maelefique 16:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've examined the situation, and I really don't see how keeping Rumiton editing the talkpage is going to help things. The discretionary sanctions allow uninvolved admins to ban editors from Prem Rawat and related articles, and unless I hear very strong objections from other admins I'll do just that in the next 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother waiting that long, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest you read the talk page in its entirety before you jump to conclusions. And particularly the comments of Pat W that Maelefique clearly considers acceptable since he hasn't been reported by Maelefique. Rumiton is a saint in comparison.Momento (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing here; I'm afraid it's you who has jumped to conclusions. I've reviewed everyone involved, and what I can make of it is that Pat W is frustrated at Rumiton's refusal to listen. It doesn't entirely excuse it, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle it, but I think Rumiton's absence will help prevent similar outbursts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As Maelefique says "I will stipulate to the fact that in some arguments I probably don't help defuse the situation either". But he goes out of his way to protect and excuse PatW who calls editors "clowns" and even goes so far as to delete PatW saying ":Just how dumb are you? I know you can't read so here it is again... Now I suggest you just go and cry to Jossi and give all these poor souls their lives back". in case he gets into trouble but when it comes to Rumiton, he doesn't warn, excuse or delete he comes here. And you want to remove Rumiton to protect PatW??Momento (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe PatW has said anything in the sections of the talk page I referred to (or even anything at all since March 31st, so I don't see how he's directly relevant to this complaint), but in reference to what I consider "clearly acceptable", you seem to have missed where I asked PatW to stop making comments like those, in his talk page, just as I did when I had a problem with what Rumiton was saying. Diff is here. After deleting PatW's outburst that I thought was *also* not "clearly acceptable", I immediately made a note on the talk page saying I had deleted some of his text, and if anyone thought that was wrong, they could, or I would, restore that text immediately. Diff here. It seems a little dificult to make you happy when you get upset because I do *OR* don't do anything about PatW's comments, you've claimed both things above. -- Maelefique 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The point about PatW is that you didn't report PatW for referring to an editor with "Just how dumb are you? I know you can't read so here it is again" but you did report Rumiton for saying your actions are "extremely stupid". Why the difference? What is it about Rumiton that makes you seek to block him and what is it about PatW that makes you want to clean up after him? I don't think you should be using this page to selectively try to block or ban an editor you disagree with, it's called "Gaming the system".Momento (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that PatW's comments weren't directed towards me, if you felt he should have been reported for saying those things to you, that's something you should have taken care of, I'm not your mother (despite the fact that I did take the actions already listed above against PatW's behaviour). Rumiton's comments were directed toward me, I addressed them in what I felt was an appropriate manner, gave him an opportunity to remove the comment, instead he stated it again elsewhere (the second time he actually bolded the text even), so I took action. Pretty straightforward I think. I'd add that diff of you accusing me of WP:gaming to those above if I thought there was a point, yet another example of the lack of AGF displayed by some editors on that article towards me. -- Maelefique 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't push your luck; you've had a rather troubled history in the topic area yourself (only coming off a year-long ban, reset once, in February). I'm more than happy to give out more sanctions if I see they're warranted; please read WP:BUTT before proceeding on this path. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a couple of look ins there - they are all conflicted involved and none of them are able to edit from NPOV - this ani report is nothing more than - please get rid of my opponent - wikipedia would benefit from topic banning them all (or none at all, please don't block only one side) and locking the article, its not like it needs constant discussion and updating by involved users - WP:SHAME on that article. Youreallycan 14:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor has only ever participated on the Prem Rawat talk page in one discussion, during which he swore profusely, and was quite obviously aligned to a Pro-Prem Rawat point of view, I'm not sure why when I look up his contributions they are all stricken, and I cannot access the diff, located here but either that revision, or one shortly after it that I also cannot access (looks to have been deleted) contains the entire exchange between Youreallycan, PatW and Rumiton and Momento (note, I was not at all involved in this discussion). I do recall the excessive use of profanity that was the last thing Youreallycan said in the exchange though, very similar in tone to his comment "And there it is a resume of why the en wikipedia ia a f**ked up place with f***ed up content that is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless and total example of why quality contributors flee in droves. Youreallycan 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)" from here. He has never added anything else in the talk page (or article) before, or since, that I am aware of. I think it's notable that Rumiton hasn't spoken in almost 2 days, after suggesting things will escalate, and yet 2 other editors have a lot to say for him. Especially considering his vigorous defense of his position until I filed this complaint. Up until this point, he has had multiple edits every single day since March 23rd, which is the only day in March he did not have multiple edits (on march 20th there is only 1 actually), since the first of the month. And I'm the one being accused of playing games here? In response to Youreallycan's suggestion that we lock the article, I would politely point him to WP:Protect for reading, despite his opinion that this article is "done". -- Maelefique 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict.) One day, Maelefique, not 2. I think you are going a little overboard on this. I have not contacted anybody about this subject, and your statements here are becoming way ad hominem.

(To youreallycan) There is some merit in what you say; we have no neutral editors. If you know one, please send him/her along. But in my defense against Maelefique's comments above...I would not use the word "lying", but I was falsely represented at the RS/N. My suggested edit was not that Dr Gilbert be described as an expert on Restorative Justice, just that it was a strong professional interest of his. I believe I demonstrated that, though the question posted has attracted no opinions as yet. I still feel this aspect of his career is relevant to his comments on Prem Rawat's "Peace Education Program."

Regarding the length of the article, I agree it is too long, but it is stretched out by 35-year-old trivia, such as arrangements he made early-70s with the Los Angeles Fire Brigade and damage incurred to his property in a brush fire. This is not at all "negative towards Prem Rawat" as Maelefique claims; it is just trivial. The claim that it was extensively discussed and is sourced could be applied to every sentence in the article. In comparison, though, we have the bald statement: In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million. It seems to me a problem of applying due weight, not of excluding negativity.

I did not intend to describe Maelefique himself as "extremely stupid" but I was taken aback by what I saw as an attempt to get around the discussion taking place by posting a question on RS/N without a discussion as to its wording. And I certainly did find the question slanted towards the outcome Maelefique wanted to obtain, and therefore likely to make the situation on the talk page worse.

Then Maelefique seems to be implying editor collusion or tag-teaming, as Momento jumped in after my comment on likely escalation. Maelefique reacts with apparent horror to most of Momento's posts, even the one made after Maelefique asked for feedback. I guess he meant "positive" feedback.

Regarding YouTube, my understanding is that videos produced by individuals for YouTube are not acceptable, but that when someone reposts a video made by a reputable news outlet, the vehicle (YouTube) becomes irrelevant, and the news outlet is the source. Am I wrong in this?

The Indian news coverage of major events Prem Rawat has conducted in that country over the last few years have proven difficult to verify. I agreed with Maelefique (tacitly, I admit) that the photos I provided are not definite proof of their occurring, but I have had difficulty getting an acceptable translation from Hindi of the text that accompanied them. I explained this several times, and asked for patience. Where are these Hindi sources from? And what are they regarding? -- Maelefique(talk) 06:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) They were sent to me without comment, and are all in Hindi. They appear to be front pages from major Delhi newspapers and show pics of Prem Rawat addressing huge groups of people in Delhi. They are all from 2009, but now that I have some idea how to Google in foreign scripts we should be able to get more. I want to get them translated to make sure they are what they appear to be before I post them anywhere. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC) As I said, getting good translations has proved more difficult than I thought. And while the URL atop the page is "press releases" I think this particular group of articles is not, but I won't know for sure until I find a better translator.

So there it is. Make of it what you will. Rumiton (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

More than 1.5 days, I rounded up and said "almost 2", not "2", but thank you for finally responding anyway.

A few small points, the text I was referring to that was negative that you wanted removed had to do with Prem Rawat being arrested in India, nothing to do with the helicopter pad.

As I've said, if Dr. Gilbert's not an expert, the addition is completely without value (see my sandwich reference on the talk page). Further, my original statement was to ask RSN if he was an expert, and you agreed that was a good idea.

The fact is you did say "extremely stupid" twice, once hours later, after I had asked you to remove it, on another board outside of the talk page.

Please provide a diff instead of an accusation, I don't recall any recent post of Momento's that has caused me horror (also, this conversation isn't about Momento's behaviour, or mine).

As I think you know, the only time a youtube video could be used as a source like that is if the news outlet itself (assuming it's a RS!) uploaded the video, I posted you the link and text showing that it was uploaded by a Prem Rawat follower, so that doesn't wash for me.

Now you're saying you think they're not press releases, but you're not sure. And yet, you were definitively convinced until I questioned it.

Had you removed your comment, instead of re-iterating it on a more "public" noticeboard, I don't think any of this would have been necessary. I am a little torn at suggesting an apology on the talk page and the noticeboard might suffice instead of sanctions, but I don't see any indication here that you feel you did anything wrong. Oh yes, and again, the comment "we have no neutral editors" is another AGF slight against me. -- Maelefique 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, whatever the issues you see with the editor who brought this here, I still see merit to his case. I will finish reviewing the conduct of others later today, but pointing at other people won't help your case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you are "reviewing my conduct"? Since when does a specific complaint about one editor entitle you to make an uninvited review about another without informing them?Momento (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the AN/I board was created. There is no rule that says only the initial complaint must be discussed. (And since you were involved in this discussion, a reasonable person would assume you'd be checking up and thus aware of it.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It would seem a little bit silly if the "facts" of anyone making claims here weren't checked up on independently by the admins. It makes sense to me that anyone inserting themselves (other than uninvolved admins) into this discussion should have the same standard applied to them as well. Certainly the article prohibitions regarding civility et al do not include anything that says "but only if someone complains about them". I, of course since I brought this action here, have no objection to my conduct being reviewed. -- Maelefique 04:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is all moot since the instructions for this page are "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page", you did not.Momento (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From the Prem Rawat talk page, "Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty". That's a policy. What you've posted above is a suggestion. Policy doesn't start with "Please". -- Maelefique 06:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually that isn't a policy but I'll let "The Blade of the Northern Lights" decide whether they are going to allow you to ignore the request that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". Momento (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To Maelefique: It was the "smuggling" arrest you meant? My comment would be about the same as for the brush fire sentences. In a long and interesting career they are both long ago and trivial, and neither is negative towards Prem Rawat. The Indian Government was the party that had to apologise, so if anyone, I think they are the ones painted in a rather poor light.

I take your point that establishing Dr Gilbert's expertise may be key to judging the relevance of the sentence I wanted (and still want) to add. I don't think you made that point quite so clearly at the time.

Re "extremely stupid" I do regret writing that, and am happy to say so. I put my own head in a noose when I did that. I have known a small number of extremely stupid editors in my 5 years of editing Misplaced Pages, and you are not among them. For the most part, I have enjoyed our interactions, though I do think you at least slightly over-rate your neutrality. I can also now see that, at least from your side, your question to RS/N may have seemed neutral and fair, rather than contrived and self-serving, as I took it to be. Though I will still hate "managed to find", I can also see that the word sic when you quoted me may have been a useful grammatical device rather than the supercilious aspersion upon my spelling that I took it for.

Re taking issues to noticeboards: There may be a cultural factor. I am an Australian of a certain age and grew up being told that differences should be settled in the schoolyard, rather than running to a teacher. "Nobody likes a snitch." It's an Irish thing as well. The idea (which I still feel has merit) is that if things are not settled between people, then getting authorities involved will probably make them worse.

Yes, you did ask RS/N if Gilbert was an expert, but you also told them I wanted the article to say that, which was not so. C'mon, 'fess up on this one.

The response to Momento I was talking about was your "Ah yes, right on cue!" when you asked for feedback, then didn't like what he said. You seemed to be implying it was something to do with me.

I think you have the videos and the press reports mixed up. I understood that if a news organisation reported on something, then it didn't matter which conduit was used, the report was usable. I have re-asked this question above, but without answer yet. The articles I am unsure about are the clippings from the Indian newspapers. And, yes, I had no reason to think they were press releases until you questioned them. Now I am not sure, and the text translations I have received are not satisfactory. The word "lakh" for example, which I happen to know is 100,000 is translated as "a million." I have asked for clarification from the people who sent them to me, and for a better translation. That is what discussion is about. Rumiton (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To Momento; at AE, where I do a lot of work, everyone's behavior is examined. I've sanctioned people at AE who weren't the subjects of a complaint; given AE is more or less what's being requested here, I'm following the protocols there. To everyone; I think an indefinite topic ban of Rumiton is warranted, with indefinite obviously meaning open-ended, not permanent, and with an opportunity to appeal after 6 months. Should Pat W return to the topic area, further outbursts will lead to the same. Momento, as I said above you have a very troubled history there, and continuation of the behavior that got you banned will lead to another ban as well. And finally, frivolous requests (which this was not) will boomerang and bring sanctions on the reporter. I won't be able to finalize anything until later today, so I welcome input before then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the altered tone that Rumiton's last post here has taken, he didn't actually apologize, nor has he apologized on either of the pages where he actually made the offence. And while it's possible I might "slightly over-rate my neutrality", I feel it gets dismissed entirely by Rumiton and others when I don't agree with them (which, admittedly, is often, but that doesn't make me *not* neutral), this probably makes it much easier to "get mad" at me, since if I'm not on their team, and I'm not neutral (in their mind), I must be playing against them on the other team. I understand that. Despite the fact that I am definitely not ok with how Rumiton caused or handled this situation, I think 6 months seems like a long ban for this offense (maybe I'm wrong, I don't have much experience in the "enforcement" area). It's clear to me that you (The Blade of the Northern Lights) have much more knowledge in this area than I do , however if it makes any difference, I would be ok with maybe a 2 week or a month ban, and "parole" for the remainder (meaning something like he would be on a "shorter leash" in terms of incivility outbursts?), I don't know if that's possible, or even feasible, but I would be ok with that. I would also agree that the same standards should apply to PatW for similar offenses that are reported in the future. -- Maelefique 15:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify "The Blade of the Northern Lights" I don't have a "very troubled history here". What you see is a systematic failure by Admins and ARBCOM to take seriously my warnings about an Admin and his cronies who harassed me and others over a period of years but has now been found out and indefinitely banned. Secondly, AE requires that the party being complained about can defend their position, not sanctioned in absentia by any passing Admin. Thirdly, I will not be banned even if I continue with my with long term behaviour because I should never have been banned in the first place. ARBCOM has learnt a very overdue lesson that some Admins use their powers and influence to harass and sanction people they don't agree with and if my name pops up again they will listen to me very carefully before taking someone else's word for it. And lastly do you think an insult that calls into question someone's sexuality is frivolous? My view is that a sexist insult is far more serious than saying someones actions are "extremely stupid". A 24 hour topic ban is all Rumiton deserves. Momento (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Point 62 comes to mind here; I can't say I disagree with any of the sanctions you were given, and I suspect few others would either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Read on.Momento (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How is that pertinent to the matter at hand? Neither of our usernames are mentioned there, nor does it have to do with Prem Rawat. My assertion above stands with regards to your previous sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with this matter, it's a response to your comment about "my troubling history" and your opinion of my sanctions, which also has nothing to do with this matter. But if you think my harassment is all in my imagination, you should read up on it.Momento (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I like point 62, brief, to the point, and has that ring of truthiness to it. Having been there when the events happened, I would definitely have to say I strongly disagree with Momento's description of the events, I am more than a little concerned with his attitude that he thinks he will "not be banned even if I continue with my with long term behaviour" for obvious reasons. However, despite all his flag waving to distract ppl, just a reminder, I didn't bring this complaint here about Momento. -- Maelefique 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Darnit, I got curious... ok, I'll bite, who questioned who's sexuality? -- Maelefique 02:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

#90, anonymous user and pervasive genre changer, part II

Sorry to start a thread about this again, but I truly believe this issue I brought up here needs administrative attention. This person did some more genre warring since I made that report, this time under the IP of 90.218.174.86; through this IP, album pages related to the band Paradise Lost, and the band page for Tiamat were affected. As you can see by the report I previously issued and by the sockpuppet investigation I submitted back in 2010 (this person has been around even longer than that), this individual has used so many IPs to do the petty genre warring, and does not use edit summaries or relevant talk pages at all. The only way this person has communicated their thoughts is through invisible text: either by manipulating an existing message or changing the message altogether. He or she has added sources before, but the sources presented are rarely reliable. I can't emphasize enough how detrimental this person's activity is to Misplaced Pages. (S)he has been warned a mind-numbing number of times against this, but nothing seems to be working. The genre warring and IP hopping from the range of, approximately, 90.213.xxx.xxx to 90.218.xxx.xxx has gone on since at least January 17, 2009 (see sockpuppet investigation for info about that editing), and to say I'm sick of dealing with the regular edits is an understatement. This person has been genre warring for way too long without discipline and without care for criticism, and is just making it harder for me and others to edit and maintain the area of Misplaced Pages which (s)he affects. I am thinking about submitting the affected album pages of Faith Divides Us - Death Unites Us, Icon, and In Requiem for semi-protection because of this, but I don't know if there's been enough activity on those pages for semi-protection to apply. I really hope something can be done about this, because this person has caused so much trouble on some of the pages I watch, just to display his or her opinion on what genres some music belongs to. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For more information on the recently used IP, see the following: 90.218.174.86 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

Just like last time this was brought up, I support a range-block, as the IP's abuse has been long-term, and is not receptive to changing their ways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, is a block of the range of 90.213.xxx.xxx to 90.218.xxx.xxx possible? If so, it would be quite effective in curtailing this genre warrior's activity. Also, after I submitted the post on 00:50 11 April, I realized that #90 responded to two of the messages I had sent him/her; however, these responses were on his/her own talk pages, and so I was not able to realize them until much later. With that said, communication coming from these IPs are quite limited, and I still stand by what I have posted on this noticeboard. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another edit has been performed on the Tiamat (band) page by the #90 user (link). I'm telling you, this is a serious issue. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tiamat (band) page is now semi-protected for three months as a result of the activity; that, at least, is a positive development. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 07:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP range from Wichita spamming Talk pages with illogical barnstars and creating other vandalism.

66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2 and 23 other IP addresses in the same range, apparently the same person, has, since March 30, been anonymously spamming user Talk pages with barnstars for no apparent logical accurate reason. Examples particularly include barnstars for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when the edit counter was broken for numerous days so no one knew how many edits anyone had made. My Talk page, for instance, received two of these spam barnstars in the space of 10 days (still there, if you want to check). I contacted the admin Materialscientist, who said, "It is a busy range with lots of vandalism/trolling. Technical solution is easy: rangeblock of 66.87.0.0/16 for a few weeks, and the edits are here , but in this case, I would prefer to have some consensus reached, e.g. at WP:ANI."

I really think something should be done to stop this trolling behavior. I hope something can therefore come of this ANI. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, an anon-only rangeblock of this address range for 2-3 weeks seems appropriate. Whatever they're up to, it doesn't seem to be beneficial to Misplaced Pages. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is escalating to a disruptive level, then a limited time block is probably in order. I recently received a 'Smile!' myself, which wasn't unpleasant on its own. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added Comment as nominator: I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason. The IP doesn't even have a substantive record of good-faith edits. Seems to clearly be trolling behavior. Perhaps a block should include an encouragement to create an account if the multiple-identity person wants to actually spread some Wiki-love (which seems obviously not the case here). Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with nominator - there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions. My concern is that a block may result in far more destructive vandalism, when the block expires, or they use an IP out of the blocked range. Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally can't see how anything can make the whole barnstar schtick less random and valueless than it already is/ Bearing in mind the fact that my previous post to this one was dishing out a barnstar maybe I should shut my trap?. :-) Spartaz 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them. That's not how their value is measured. Like any token gift, it's always worth exactly as much as the thought behind it. If you got a barnstar for nothing, it's worth nothing. But that has no effect on the worth of others. --Escape Orbit 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a flower put on my page, then taken off, then put on again. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm really not getting this thread.

Is it maybe possible that the IP is just eccentric and harmless?

Seems like you can call anyone anything you like and threaten to burn their house down and all you get is a no consensus discussion about it. But if you go round putting flowers and smiles on people's talkpages, that's when you cross a line. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC

You also need to consider the effect on the person who received one of these anonymous barnstars. Chances are they smiled, said "that's nice" and moved on. Then if the barnstar gets REMOVED from their talk page without explanation, as happened to me, that's puzzling. Now that I know why, and realize that it was random and meaningless, I will go back and delete it again,. But IMO it really doesn't hurt anything to have someone going around distributing random attaboys. I agree with FormerIP that the practice seems eccentric and harmless. Block any further such spamming, if you like, but removing them seems unnecessary and a bit of a downer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I got a sun flower for reason I am still looking for. But yeah it felt nice.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• <<<This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them.>>> You haven't clearly read the thread or investigated the situation. The IP range is giving totally random people barnstars and telling them they are "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when they clearly aren't. This is not only spam, it's fraud. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that this is disruptive (the 5% claim is flat out wrong, though I don't think I'd call it fraud). Unfortunately, though, looking at the contributions on that range you gave, I see a fairly large number of good faith contributions unrelated to this problem. At least for me, I think we need to whack the individual addresses for now and see if they get bored. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:RBMA

Please look at Special:Contributions/RBMA. --SupernovaExplosion 14:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I saw one his edits earlier and didn't think anything of it, but now it looks like he is on a mission to promote his website, which now makes his username a likely violation as well. I don't have a mop, but I think an indef and mass revert is likely in order. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• I notified the user about this ANI, as SupernovaExplosion had, ahem, forgotten to do that. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted his addition of EL spam. --SupernovaExplosion 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since we are already here, no need to go to WP:UAA, I'm guessing someone will mop up shortly. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for getting back to me regarding this issue. And yes, indeed, I'm on a mission to update all linked wiki content to our rbma website since it's been redesigned and most of the URL's which are linking there are no longer active. I assure, I'm updating and adding appropiate content to our former lecturers and I definitely don't intend to advertise or misuse your page. Sorry if there's any misunderstanding. (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is the very definition of spamlinking and is not permitted. Please stop.--ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for coming here and addressing the issue. Please read WP:COI, the guideline for 'conflict of interest' before editing. There are some steps you should consider that are covered there. Additionally, your username appears to stand for Red Bull Music Academy, which is likely a violation of the username policy as being promotional. It looks like you are removing links from one website, and replacing them with links to your own website. It also appears that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to promote your own interests. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  As for the username issue... it's not as though he registered User:Red Bull Music Academy. Choosing to use an innocuous acronym like "RBMA" is exactly the sort of thing that we want people to do, I'd think!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• ok, i understand. sorry for this whole issue. my main intention is to exchange any url's to our old website since they're not working anymore. the very same content is still existing and moved to a likewise url (but just not the same as before). that means that there are quite many dead links on wikipedia existing, that i just wanted to correct. obviously this is a violation to your terms. and yes rbma means redbullmusicacademy and this account was only created to update those links. RBMA (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hang on a second here, guys. You may be correct, but I just glanced at a couple of his contributions. It appears as though most of the edits that User:RBMA is making are to change existing links. Combine that with his explanation above, that he's updating links to the site (which I'm guessing that he administers), and this doesn't look like "spamming" at all. Well, it doesn't look like inappropriate spamming, at least (unless we want a bunch of broken links, for some reason?). Dragging the guy to AN/I and throwing accusations about conflicts of interest at his isn't very constructive. You guys didn't even try to talk to him before bringing this up here!
  I can understand checking up on this user, and I think that they bear continued watching. Their interest is obvious though (updating mostly existing links after a sight update), and that interest isn't completely at odds with Misplaced Pages's goals. There's no need to create dramaz and angst, especially with users who we can work with (Short version: Don't bite the newbies!. (and now it looks as though you guys have run him out of town. Great. Now who's going to update all of the links that will probably be broken soon?)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, well after going through your argument, I've self-reverted. But the user should have used edit summary. --SupernovaExplosion 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  The guy is communicative (he replied here and on his talk page), so... talk to him! He's probably not even aware that edit summaries are important. I did notice one or two badly formed links as well, so his edits bear watching. It needs to be explained to him that he's responsible for his edits, and that the addition of links to pages that do not currently have then needs to be approved by someone.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I only looked briefly at the two domains and at first glance it didn't look like it was the same company, but a closer look would be in order. Only one of his edits were in my watch list. And assuming his edits are pure good faith, he still would benefit from reading WP:COI to prevent this confusion in the future. At first glance, and second for that mattter, it looked like textbook spamming. His contribs have disappeared so it is hard to compare the two websites "contact us" page to verify that it is the same company. Admin assistance on that would be helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

    It's weird though, because some of his edits were decidedly spammy looking, while others are exactly the kind of thing we need. For example, great looking change: Not so great looking change: . I kinda wonder what made Bootsy Collins a target here, outside of the potential fact that User:RBMA is working off of some sort of list of performers who are "alumni", or something similar. Not that we want thousands of links added (that sort of thing should be thouroughly discussed), but again we definitely want existing links updated as needed.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• And anytime I see someone new and they have around 15 contribs, and every contrib is to add pages from the same domain as external link, and there are NO other edits....yeah, the Spidey sense starts to tingle. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohms law speaks from my heart. Imagine my name were say Brian Bradley Conway and I was a television expert, and registered a clever pun on my initials, how would I be treated on arrival here? Also, Red Bull Music Academy links on producer articles are in fact highly likely to meet the EL policy. - filelakeshoe 12:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you tried to use the user name User:BBC, you would clearly be asked to change your name or be blocked, per WP:USERNAME. This case is more borderline and based mainly on his actions. It isn't an obvious violation, I guess now that I look at it again, but it is saying that he is officially from that company, which uses RBMA themselves as an identifier, per the article itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP and apparent phishing

An IP which was recently blocked has returned, he added a "you have new messages banner" to the top of my talk page which links to "en-wikipedia-org-title-pakistan-curid.tk/" and a link to to the same in a section on my talk page. He is also adding an {{shared IP}} to his talk page, his IP is not a shared IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also according to this it is a confirmed proxy server. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week by Salvio giuliano, and I've added the URL to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 15:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I got nosy and poked around a little, the fake login site is now gone and redirects to a site which has malware, is it possible to revdel those links from mine and JCAla's talk page history's in case someone follows them? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Very much appreciated if you'd do it on my talk also. :) Thx. JCAla (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

i am thewolfchild

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) has been grinding an axe against Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) over a minor tiff in December. TWC has since jumped into a dispute at hunting, where Rwenonah (talk · contribs) had been blocked for edit-warring (again) and agenda-pushing, in a matter in which I and BH were involved. I warned TWC that their intervention on Rwenonah's talkpage was inappropriate and unlikely to help out Rwenonah. TWC has since escalated into obvious personal attacks and harassment against Berean Hunter and baiting, who isn't entirely blameless (BH claims socking and has unwisely reverted TWC's comments on Rwenonah's talkpage), but to a much lesser degree. TWC has a habit of cross-posting that makes sorting out diffs rather confusing. I've issued a warning to TWC . Based on their response I doubt any actions on my part would resolve the matter cleanly (we passed the Godwin's Law point a while back), so I bring it here. Most of the issue can be discerned on my talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

("Are you finished? Well then allow me to retort"...)

Your ANI

- Yes, Acro, I read it and I must say I am somewhat disappointed with you. Your account of the 'incident' is not entirely accurate now, is it? You are missing a few facts and you have 'bent' a few others. You have shown that you cannot be neutral. You have repeatedly demonstrated a clear bias in favour BH and against Rwen and myself. It is my opinion that you have a conflict here and that you should step aside and request another party review this matter, in it's entirety.

I would suggest a panel of 3 admins. They should have absolutely no history or involvement with with you, BH, Rwen, myself, or any of the admins that were involved in previous blocks on Rwen. They should also have no prior involvement with Hunting, Zodiac, or any of our talk pages.

They should review the incidents where you claim Rwen has made repeated edit violations, as well as any administrative and/or punitive action that has been taken in response to these claims.

They should review the "minor tiff" that BH and I had in December, as well as all of BH's subsequent comments, edits and deletions. They should also review any other issues BH may have had with other users, including edit wars and personal conflicts.

There should then be a thorough review of the incidents surrounding the Hunting page, including the edit war between BH and Rwen, the subsequent actions (and inaction) on your part as well as any other admins that were involved.

Following that, they could review any comments I made as well as any and all comments made by yourself and BH.

Then, perhaps a more clear picture of what has transpired here will be revealed, and some pressing questions can be answered;

- Have you, Acroterion, conducted yourself appropriately in your position as an admin?

- Was Rwen treated failrly and with respect?

- Were his queries regarding his disposition as an editor handled promptly and properly?

- Were his previous "infractions" adjudicated fairly?

- Was/is the Hunting page up to Misplaced Pages standards? Or is it in need of revision? (by a neutral source)

- Were Rwen's (initial) edits in complete violation of Misplaced Pages policy?

- Was there a better way you could have handled Rwen's concern's about the content of the Hunting page?

- Was BH justified in arbitrarily removing Rwen's edits?

- Was BH justified in subsequently engaging in an edit war?

- Was BH's conduct and attitude towards other users in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy? (in both the Zodiac page incident and the Hunting page incident)

- Was BH justified in removing content from someone else's talk page? (ie: Rwen)

- Was BH justified in posting comments that contain unfounded accusations, falsehoods and personal insults?

OF course, IF this proposed review were to take place, it would have to be conducted by 3 honest, intelligent and unbiased admins.

Following that, I would hope that the Hunting page could be revised as a better document. I would hope that Rwen, with a better understanding of wiki editorial policies, would be able to continue as a contributor.

I would expect that the incident that occurred last December, between BH and I on the Zodiac page would be seen for exactly what it was; BH a little too quick to jump in, criticize and correct people and equally as quick to initiate reverts and warnings. That's perhaps why her attitude towards other users can be stand-offish and even condescending at times. That these actions on her part are from a lack of patience, which also leads to a quick temper, resulting in edit wars, complaints, personal attacks and insults, like "You're a troll!", "You're a sock puppet!", "You crawled out from under a rock!", "You're ignorant!", etc, etc. I would further expect that BH's actions during the Hunting page incident and subsequent dialogues on talk pages would also show a need for her conduct to be addressed. I believe that BH can be a positive and effective contributor to Misplaced Pages, and that only a minimal amount of correction and/or guidance would be required to set her on the right path. I'm certainly willing to let 'by-gones be by-gones'.

I would expect that it would likely be determined that you Acro, could have administered the situation better. Beginning with your treatment of Rwen, you're handling of the Hunter page edit war incident, your unwillingness to address any of the misconduct on the part of BH and fianlly, the continued back-and-forth you have in engaged in with myself, where you have continually manipulated the dialogue to purposefully create discord. There was no "baiting" or "disruption" on my part, just simply my response to your response to my response, and so on and so on. I did not call Misplaced Pages a "regime" - I said I hope it doesn't become one. I did not insult any admins, including yourself - I simply said that I hoped that admins here, in general, can refrain from certain kinds of actions that would be deterimental to this site. AND, I certainly did not call anyone here a "Nazi", nor did I refer to anyone here as "Hitler". The place the 'Godwin Line' was crossed, was in your imagination. This is an accusation that you should really consider taking back. Nothing I said was deserving of such a comment.

In fact, if my conduct were to be reviewed, I believe it would be 'on the margins' sometimes, but still 'on-side'. I freely admit that I use rhetorical sarcasm as part of my debates. Any comments I make are usually gauged in response to the comments made towards me. I believe it would be shown that the December incident went down just as I said it did. Following that, I noted that another user was having similar difficulties with BH that I had. I found this on BH's talk page and decided to post a simple comment, based on my experience with BH, to let Rwen know that this was not a unique situation. BH removed that - and that's her right, but when I re-posted my comments on Rwen's talk page (for the benefit of Rwen), BH went in and removed them - That was wrong. Following that, BH and I have a a couple of exchanges that at least I can admit were not in keeping with the best of ideals. Unfortunately, hostility sometimes breeds hostility. I have since disengaged from BH. However, that is where I had looked to you, Acro, to try and direct the whole affair towards somekind of resolution. But you failed. Ultimately, I believe that any review would determine that you are a good admin, and should continue as such. You may still have a little to learn, but I believe you have alot to offer.

In closing, I'm glad that you have brought this to ANI. Whether or not the review I proposed is conducted, I believe that this entire affair bears some kind of looking into. Questions do need to be answered. Policies do need to be reviewed. Changes do need to be made. This can only benefit Misplaced Pages and all it's users.

If the are any questions I need to answer, or anything I need to answer for, you all know where to find me. This will all but conclude my involvement with this. I don't see any reason for any of our paths to cross again, so I will wish all of you the best, in your endeavours.

Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC) - (Love those Big Kahuna Burgers...)

My initial concern was that Thewolfchild was using Rwenonah's block for edit-warring to continue a vendetta of Thewolfchild's against Berean Hunter. Nothing above changes my mind. TWC was warned for direct personal attacks against Berean Hunter: they haven't repeated that since my warning. It does (not very concisely) illustrate TWC's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to WP, and is using Rwenonah's problems at hunting as a proxy to serve TWC's own ends. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Godwin's Law was passed with "admins who would treat it like a regime, with their self-serving, egotistical, condescending, fascist attitudes" . Apparently I'm not one of those, which ought to be true in this case, since I've taken no administrative actions where Rwenonah and Thewolfchild are concerned. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion handled this very well indeed, especially considering some of the weird accusations you've made. But leaving that aside -- TWC, you say, within your giant wall of text -- "I have since disengaged from BH" -- do that. I reviewed the situation and it is clear you are wikistalking BH, so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation on transsexuals' articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Pillarsofsalt has been removing the birth names of transsexuals on various BLP articles. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, reverted. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so I understand... how is removing a name from an article considered a WP:BLP violation? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggested it's a BLP violation, but rather that it's vandalism on articles that are Biographies of Living Persons. - Nunh-huh 16:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'd call it vandalism either; they did offer an explanation for what they're doing. 28bytes (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a note that the editor Pillarsofsalt was not informed of this discussion, and the IP made no attempt that I can see to discuss this with the editor before bringing it here. It is not obviously vandalism, though I don't see the need to remove birth names either. Syrthiss (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Am I correct that no one warned Pillarsofsalt, even once, before this indef block was placed? This is not vandalism; if it continued after attempts to discuss it with them, it might be disruptive editing, but it appears to be in good faith, and an instablock is not a great reaction. If someone hasn't already done so, I'm going to unblock and leave a note for them on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the editor's contributions, and I saw a user whose only purpose was to remove information (often sourced information) from various BLP's in quick succession, and I thought that stopping that editor ASAP would be a good idea. I'm ok with an unblock if you believe that's the right course of action. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not good, young admin master. You must learn the ways of the wikiforce; don't succumb to the dark (blocking) side of adminship so soon... Nobody Ent 17:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that policy, I was generally acting on the statement, "...users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." Call me crazy, but I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret this as vandalism. He was removing sourced information about people's real names from many articles in quick succession. *shrug* Again, I have no problem with the unblock and the interest in discussing this with the editor. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Please read WP:NOTVAND. Those edits were misguided but there is no evidence of deliberate bad faith editing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At least one article subject (Gwen Araujo) was murdered in 2002 and is not currently a living person :(. 67.117.147.20 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi! I undid one of the edits (at Jennell Jaquays) before I checked Pillarofsalt's contribs and noticed it was just one of a series of edits of the same sort, and noticed that Scottywong had reverted most of the remaining edits. Before I came here and noticed that the status of these edits as vandalism was under dispute, I reverted a similar earlier edit by the same user at Silvia Rivera following suit after Scottywong's.

Now I have no strong opinions (nor have done much research) as to whether those edits should be considered vandalism, but in the case of the edit to Jennell Jaquays, the edit was certainly a highly disruptive one: the subject of the article produced a large number of products under her birth name. In such a case, it is inappropriate to remove the name the subject originally became noteworthy for. I imagine that a number of the other edits Pillarofsalt performed could be equally disruptive. To engage in such indiscriminate editing without regard to context or impact on the article certainly seems to be disruptive behavior to me. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please add me to the Unblock and discuss group here. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note to uninvolved passing editor. .. as the user has since been unblocked - you could likely "tag-and-bag" this thread as closed and resolved. — Ched :  ?  02:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Calabe1992 02:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson unblock request

There's an unblock request at User talk:Chrisjnelson, but because of the editor's extensive block log, I don't feel I can make the decision myself. He sounds contrite now, but that block log goes back a long way, and he was still making personal attacks not that long ago - Aug 2011, and was being abusive on his Talk page Sep 2011. Personally. I'd be minded to give him another chance, but what does the community say? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If he can avoid edits like this one from Feb 2011, sure.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, laughing out loud Youreallycan 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• (copied from Talk page... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for posting at ANI. I can't excuse anything I've done in the past and I realize the block log is extensive. But I would ask that I not receive a lifetime ban after all my contributions to the encyclopedia, but rather just get one more chance to show I can be a positive member of the community, not just in contributions but also in interactions with other members. If this is indeed not intended to be a permanent ban, then I'm saying now that I am ready for that chance to return and prove that I can avoid the sort of behavior that got be blocked in the past. I just want to keep football rosters up to date and help shape player article--not fight with others or be abusive. Thanks for listening.►Chris Nelson 17:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OFFER - see how he behaves on another project, ideally. If he can behave himself for six months, sure, let him come back--on the crystal-clear understanding that any fuckup and he is permabanned. → ROUX ₪ 18:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to be applying a higher standard to Chris than you apply to yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  If only I gave a fuck about what you think. → ROUX ₪ 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think you just proved my point. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  If only I gave a fuck about what you think. → ROUX ₪ 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• He's been blocked for 8 months, as far as we know he hasn't socked for at least 7 months. I would be ok with giving him one last chance, as long as he acknowledges and understands that the next block will absolutely be permanent. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Why would you take an extreme position like that? He's be smirked at above by someone with a longer block log than Chris's. Obviously we all would hope there are lessons learned and understand that further stupidity will be dealt with harshly, but there's nothing death penalty worthy that I'm aware of... Fabricating sources? Engaging in wanton sneaky vandalism like date changing? Engaging in systematic and concealed copyright violation? THAT'S death penalty worthy. Calling somebody names or trying unsuccessfully to sneak around a block are transgressions of a far lesser magnitude. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's a good point. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Being uncivil and calling someone names is one thing. Being uncivil and calling people names enough to get blocked two dozen times is something else. We don't have to endure people forever when they repeatedly demonstrate that they're incapable of following some very basic rules of engagement. Of course, a truly permanent block is technically unenforceable, but the suggestion of it certainly would motivate him to behave. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 19:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's only been four months since he last socked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  True, I missed that one. Although I think this single edit isn't quite enough to change my opinion. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fabricating sources? Engaging in wanton sneaky vandalism like date changing? Engaging in systematic and concealed copyright violation?" Diffs, please. If all that is true, this guy should never be unblocked. Deor (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If I may, I believe those are a list of the sort of 'crimes' that this user did not commit. The point being that these are the types of things that would deserve an eternal block, as opposed to that CN actually did.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess I misread the comment. Deor (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Before I consent to this (I have no objection to the principle) I'd like to hear Chris Nelson say something specific on his user page about a certain email, sent September 02, 2011 11:41 PM. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Doesn't "I can't excuse anything I've done in the past" cover it? Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hmmm yes, I guess it does--but he could try. Anyway, my current un-consent doesn't mean I will oppose. I'm hoping for a Sir Gawain moment, I guess. (And I agree with your agreeing with Carrite.) Drmies (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Of course he should be unblocked, as per Scottywong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock - THIS is a fine indicator of an active content-writer. More than six months gone + penance for having messed up seems adequate. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I know of Chris from another site, and I have to say that I'm a bit shocked that he was blocked in the first place. Maybe he deserved it, I don't really know (we don't talk regularly, and I wasn't around for any of the past incidents), although id the diff above is the worst of things then I really wonder. It strikes me as rather thin skinned to be upset enough to block an editor because he said "pussy"... Regardless, from what I know of Chris, he's the kind of editor that we really need on Misplaced Pages. I hope that an unblock of Chris would be OK here, based on SW's observation that he's paid his penance for 8 months.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock I see no reason to require groveling from him. He says he won't cause problems. Just unblock him and if he resumes being disruptive then block him again. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock I'm taking at face value the that what's been said earlier that it's been 7 4+ months with no socking. It also looks like all the issues are the 'working well with others' type not harm to the content of the encyclopedia. If he's willing to come back knowing what's expected, give it a go. For the record, the zero tolerence one mistake and you're eternally blocked is unrealistic. I'd suggest a more general 'if significant violations continue to occur the indef block will be reinstated'.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock. He seems to have sorted things out since, and 8 months is a good long time to put things in the past. The block's served its purpose. Keilana| 20:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock per many reasons stated above. People have emotions, sometimes they come out in the posts - not a reason to sentence them to a life in Siberia. — Ched :  ?  21:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock if he hasn't committed sock-puppetry during his block. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• He has, which is why his block was changed (by me) to indefinite. See Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Chrisjnelson. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Once a sock-master, always a sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to sneak in edits as an IP isn't exactly Massive Sock Incursion Syndrome. Just a dumb decision. Carrite (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, this line of reasoning is a little over the top. I suspect that there's something going on between Chrisjnelson and Eagles247, actually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock: As has been correctly cited, there are editors participating in this conversation - more than one, as to that - with block logs as extensive. If he offends again, we can slam him down again. Ravenswing 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support giving the guy another chance. In response to GoodDay, while his socks were of teh stupid, there's a difference to my mind between attempting to edit anonymously while blocked, and spawning socks to disrupt the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Assuming good faith, I am willing to give this user the benefit of the doubt. Reyk _YO! 03:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I've tangled with him in the past, but given the amount of time that has passed and his sheer amount of content contributions, on balance, I think it's worth giving him another chance. Kansan (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose When I declined Chris's previous two-sentence unblock request I said that he'd need to provide a detailed explanation of the serious issues which led to his previous blocks (many of which were for harassment of other editors), how he'd avoid this behaviour in the future and what he wanted to work on. In my view his most recent unblock request does none of those things. Given the serious problems with his previous conduct, I don't see any reason to take it on good faith that he won't harass other editors again, especially given his failure to post a serious unblock request here. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Harassment"? I'm totally ignorant of the history of this user, but harassment is a hefty claim, so could you explain further please? Or were you just referring to the boilerplate use of the "personal attacks or harassment" verbiage in some of the block logs? There's an "or" there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Strong oppose"? How is that different from an ordinary oppose?Nobody Ent 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It's stronger ;) In all seriousness, this unblock request is seriously lacking given the extent of Chris' problems and as a result I'm not confident that the problems won't reoccur. I'm obviously in the minority here though. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock the guy already Forcing editors to grovel is childish -- he could have been unblocked, pooched it up, and indef'd in the amount of time we've already spent discussing this. Nobody Ent 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unblocked. There seems to be a clear consensus here, and the blocking admin's specific issue seems to have been addressed, so I've unblocked - thanks folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support of those that gave it and the time of all who participated in the discussion. While some of you understandably remain skeptical, time will show that I will earn this new chance. Thanks again!►Chris Nelson 15:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User Zloyvolsheb threats and disruptive behavior

Zloyvolsheb have threatened me on my own talkpage that if he does not get to keep his WP:OR edits he will revert all my edits and report me here , he keeps edit warring over the soviet union article about the insertion of "federal" into the main lede , be will probably edit this message to pretend that i said wrong stuff , please help someone , am not sure where to say this but this needs to be somehow resolved Ocnerosti (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Ocnerosti. It seems that this is an unresolved content dispute where no clear consensus has been established. I have fully protected the page for a few days and suggest that further discussion is pursued on the article's talk page. Looking at the talk page, there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way, so discussing this with others involved would be a better course of action than reverting back and forth. If talk page discussion yields nothing, try using the dispute resolution noticeboard. I would also warn all involved that edit warring is discouraged and users who persist to edit war may be blocked. ItsZippy 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference, this dispute is Soviet Union. ItsZippy 20:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Zippy, please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaosname and User:Zloyvolsheb/Evidence to see what the real disruption here is about. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone has a moment...

...could they swing by Adam Ant Is the Blueblack Hussar in Marrying the Gunner's Daughter‎ and address Adamantdotnet (talk · contribs)? They seem to be related to the person and claim that he wants the page removed. It looks as though they have tried to start a malformed AfD. Thanks. Calabe1992 21:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• They put an AfD template on the article without going through the rest of the steps. I'm inclined to block the account (given the name) and remove the template, since it'll go the way of SNOW KEEP (given the references). Drmies (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An IP address already removed the AfD (I would have done so myself as it's an obvious snow keep). I have blocked the user indefinitely for the improper user name and attempting to assert ownership over that article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn Qwyrxian. I'll see at our SPI, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mikemikev

One open proxy from China currently in use by this banned user has been blocked.118.112.185.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) The other two (currently at SPI) have not. Please could this be done a.s.a.p? Here are the other two 118.112.185.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 118.112.185.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Here he is in full flood, , Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elockid. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

A suspected ip sock User:74.101.6.158] of indef blocked User:Hershebar is violating 3RR over at Louise Vyent (well if they ARE an indef sock, they shouldn't be editing in the first place). Can a block be placed on this user as well as protect the page? Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like either of you have violated 3RR yet, but both of you are about to. Also, what makes you think the IP is a sockof Hershebar? Hershebar has never edited Louise Vyent. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Related to this case, looks like Hershebar and all the others may be related to KYNY (talk · contribs) and the others associated with it. Weakfoot (talk · contribs), who was a sock of KYNY, has history at this article. This all appears to be coming together. Calabe1992 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the ip has made 4 reverts on 4/12 already. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations are now "content disputes"?

I refer you to this. Consperanza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as 188.221.0.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made a series of BLP violating edits to Ian Bone, such as this, with virtually the same unsourced negative commentary being repeated in this edit and this edit. Yet not one but two admins have called this a "content dispute". So exactly when did the unsourced addition of "thereby perpetuating the observation that he is not an anarchist but rather an attention-seeker with a self-regard vastly out of proportion with his miniscule influence" and "strongly suggests that he has not developed either politically, intellectually or emotionally since Class War described peace campaigners as "wankers" in the 1980s" cease being a BLP violation and become a content dispute? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 23:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with K303. That final paragraph added in the first two edits Consperanza made are BLP violations. I have also just reverted their edits to Anarchism, where they had added commentary/analysis. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem was really in reporting it to WP:AIV. The responders there were half correct, in that BLP violations are not vandalism; however, you are correct that it's not a content dispute. In the future, it's best to bring the issue here if it's urgent, or to WP:BLPN if its a matter of judgment and needs to be discussed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who took it to AIV originally. I'm not seeing which bit of WP:NOTVAND you're referring to, since the only mention of BLP there is "Some material—sometimes even factually correct material—does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and removing it is not vandalism" and the issue was with material the editor was adding, there's no free pass in WP:NOTVAND for saying BLP violations aren't vandalism. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of whether or not this falls into the category of vandalism, the guys at AIV were clearly asleep at the mop when they dismissed this out of hand as a content dispute. AN/I is probably the best place to deal with these things, though I see no reason why an admin at AIV could not step in in such a situation—if not as an AIV responder, then as a plain old admin. At the very least, they should recognise that this is clearly not some "content dispute". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP gets a warning at Ian Bone, immediately the account starts to reinsert the same edits. Obvious sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring the semi-protection to clear the playing field of vandal IPs. I propose that a next act of vandalism is met with a block; we'll see what happens afterward. If it continues, I see blocks and a possible SPI in my crystal ball. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The accusation there is vandalism. I'm not familiar with the topic, but that doesn't look like vandalism to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Quest, look at the last paragraph in this edit. That's vandalism. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We have edit-warring, sock puppetry and now editing after the editor was asked to reply here and my comments on their talk page. Do we really need anything else to block? Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, pull the trigger if you like, but I won't block on the basis of this alone. They haven't reinserted the paragraph I referred to above, which is the clearest example of vandalism, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the bit about "Tory scum; Fuck off back to Eton"? Apparently, he really does have such a video. Look, I'm not saying that these are good edis or aren't BLP violations. If this account is edit-warring to include questionable BLP material, I think it's well within an admin's descretion to issue a block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the mention of the video, but the commentary after it: "...strongly suggests that he has not developed either politically, intellectually or emotionally since Class War described peace campaigners as "wankers" in the 1980s." Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarksmom

Clarksmom (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

As can easily be seen from her Talk page, this user has a history of disruptive editing, including many warnings and at least one block. She has already been blocked with respect to the article Crowbar (tool). Yet, even after the block expired, she insists on reinserting the same inappropriate material. Even when editors revert her, she generally reverts right back. She adds material with sources (although improperly formatted) that don't support the material at all (). There, too, she often restores the material even after it's been removed by other editors. One editor attacked me in his edit summary () for an edit summary I used in reverting Clarksmom (). However, I refuse to accept good faith editors who, in my view, are generally disruptive - they cause unnecessary work for all of us, and they contribute nothing or very little to the project.

A block is warranted, if only for her editing of the crowbar article, but, in addition, a stern warning would be productive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And you didn't block them why? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• He doesn't have the mop. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I know. It was rhetorical. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• They were already blocked for disruptive edits on crowbar, then they went right back to it a few weeks later, several more times, adding a distasteful "joke" (if you can call it that) over and over. They added it 9 times by my count. I don't think adding another template warning them, or another 12 hour block, is going to get the point across. Their talk history also shows a lack of understanding of how to work with others. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter required

An IP has been adding three- four lines of Hindi text to language and india related articles for about two years now. He uses a dynamic IP (minimum /19 range) and adds lines about "importance of mother tongue education" every few days/weeks. This was discussed earlier in ANI a few months back and the opinion of those commented was that an edit filter was required. (couldnt find the link now). Can someone take a look at the diffs and write an edit filter?. Some of his edits have survived for months now - usually cluebot gets some of them, but by sheer persistence he manages to slip a lot of them through.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to write edit filters but just wanted to note you can also take advantage of Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Requested. -- œ 07:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:LeeMcLoughlin1975

This user is disruptively editing various atheism related entries and refusing to discuss, instead just reverting to his preferred versions of them. For instance at atheism he's insisting on including all people who answered the Eurobarometer question about belief as "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" as atheists. That's flat out wrong. But it isn't a content dispute that brings me here. It's the fact that he refuses to discuss, and just reverts instead, and now it appears that he's created a sockpuppet, User:James Dover 2009 to back him up in one of the disputes - at Template:Atheism Sidebar. I realize that he is a new user but something needs to be done about this.Griswaldo (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Best to take the matter of the sockpuppet to WP:SPI if you're fairly sure of it. Basalisk ⁄_berate 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a checkuser really needed? I think it's pretty obvious. The second account is created in the same peculiar fashion of the first ... a name with a date, and then a bolded name only on the user page. I'll take it to SPI if I have to but do I?Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Griswaldo is editing Atheism articles according to his own religious agenda and does not take a neutral stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMcLoughlin1975 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Really and what "religious" agenda is that? I'm not religious. Lee when you alter an article and someone reverts you, you really need to take it to the talk page, where I might add a discussion has already been started - one you have not joined. You also should not create second accounts to make it look like someone else agrees with you. That's a violation of Misplaced Pages:SOCK.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And here is a third account of yours User:Lee McLoughlin Leicester. Please review the sockpuppetry rules.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked User:Lee McLoughlin Leicester (the oldest account) for a week and the the two others indefinitely. The quacking was too loud to be ignored. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:George_Ho

George_Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Meet George Ho. This user has recently been moving pages to their incorrect titles. He's moved normal redirects to Disambiguation Pages, meaning the first page became a double redirect, creating double redirects. He's also spammed up WP:RFPP with possibly as many templates he can think of, mostly due to the fact that they are used in about "4000 pages" or they "pop up" now and then. The user has also been blocked before. I do not know what action may need to be taken. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What's all this? Can you give me examples of double redirecting? --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Geller -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you redirected Do You Love Me? correctly to a page, but left the talk page redirecting somewhere else... Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added Do You Love Me? (disambiguation). By the way, Do You Love Me? has no talk page at this time. How is this harmful? Would this get me blocked? --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, see the article link above that Finlay posted. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

First EastEnders, now this? I don't get what you mean about "Jack Geller", now that it is fixed. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Had we not notified you of that, it would not have been fixed. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards