Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:57, 29 November 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Continuation of HOUNDing 12 days after last warning

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

Belchfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has resumed the WP:HOUNDing of Roscelese. He was warned to stop his hounding 12 days ago on his talk page by Roscelese, but today he followed her to two articles he has never appeared at before, and edited against her work: here and here. She warned him again but I think this continuation is past warning—it's time for action.

12 days ago I added my weight and perspective to the warning on Belchfire's page:

Hounding may include "actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them", which exactly describes Belchfire's sudden interjections at articles that have been recently edited by Roscelese or myself. There was "no overriding reason" for Belchfire to suddenly appear for the first time at False flag to revert me, or to suddenly appear at A Scandal in Belgravia, A Study in Pink and The Reichenbach Fall to revert Roscelese here, here and here. Each of these appearances was Belchfire's first time showing up at these articles, and in each case it was directly counter to the target editor. It's a clear case of HOUNDing, and if it continues he's apt to earn time out."

It is clear that he has not taken any of this to heart, that he does not consider his actions harmful. I think it is now time for "time out" for this disruptive and contentious editor. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas -- I looked, and did not see the blatant hounding two editors who are both active on WoW etc. assert. BF and Binksternet overlap on 34 articles - all of which fall into the same general category of politics, and none of which appear to be outside reasonable bounds for both to be interested in. BF and Roscelese overlap on a grand total of 54 articles -- also all within the same general area. Roscelese and Binksternet overlap on 169 articles -- which is a huge overlap, indeed. Covering a broad range of topics they both are coincidentally interested in. And if anyone were stalking them, they would surely hit some of those other articles. I have similar intersection numbers - and out of my 3K articles, I assure you that I do not "hound" anyone. In short - accept that articles in the same general sphere being edited by two editors does not indicate "hounding" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of the two diffs you cite above, the second does not appear to be an "edit against her work", but a rewording of a couple of sentences that, as far as I can tell, she had nothing to do with; she just restored the material removed by another editor. Isn't Belchfire interested in LGBT articles? Is there something wrong with Belchfire's edits other than they are on the same articles as Roscelese's, who, btw, is also interested in LGBT articles? Hounding is a tough charge to sustain without hard evidence that the edits by the alleged hounder are actually unreasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The key point is that Belchfire had never touched the articles in the links until he noticed that his hounding target went to that article. In the hate crimes link he did not revert Roscelese directly but he edited the exact same paragraph that she had edited, and it was his first appearance there. I see his actions falling into the pattern of "actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them" which is part of our hounding guideline. I feel that Belchfire has identified Roscelese as an editor who should be made to feel as uncomfortable as possible. This is hounding. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the editing overlap goes beyond merely a shared interest in subject matter. When using one of the Toolserver tools, I discovered the number of pages on which Roscelese is being followed by Belchfire and the amount of time between edits, during the month of November 2012: link. Compare that with my overlap with Binksternet, with whom I share several interests, and who I see quite frequently: link. There's a big difference in the number of pages and the type of pages, and a big difference in the time interval as well. In my opinion this backs up the premise that Belchfire has been following Roscelese around. -- Dianna (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, have you checked any of the articles to see what Belchfire does with respect to Roscelese's edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no control group. To assign meaning to the interaction report, we'd need to see the total list of distinct articles Belchfire edited in November. Additionally, the report is sensitive to the date range selected; selecting a different period can show a different apparent picture. See and . NE Ent 01:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23: what kind of edits Belchfire does is immaterial; he could just show up a few minutes after Roscelese edits and do a productive edit. Do that enough times, and people start to think it's not a coincidence. @Ent: I didn't want to put up a lot of examples and then have to notify a bunch of uninvolved people that they were mentioned here. But suffice to say that I did do several other comparisons. But you know what they say about statistics; I could be misinterpreting what I'm seeing. I think we should wait for Belchfire to comment -- Dianna (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hey. Thanks Binksternet for bringing this here. Anyway, as the following links will show, Belchfire demonstrates (at least of late, I'm not looking back further at the moment) a pattern of editing that is clearly a) following me to articles, b) undoing my edits for c) no productive purpose.

Reverts my removal of a redundant category from some Sherlock articles (they're all in the "Sherlock episodes" category already). Has never edited the articles before, it's nowhere near his topic area, clearly got there from my edit history, the edit is counterproductive in that it adds an unnecessary category that impedes proper navigation.

Reverts my restoration of reliably sourced material removed by a vandal. Only prior edit to the article was a minor copyedit in August. (and later popped up again, once again for the sole purpose of removing reliably sourced material which I had been the most recent user to add)

Reverts my edit in order to restore content that is not in the source and that makes no sense (the four-letter abbreviation "LGBT" contains the letter "I" for intersex? has reading changed since I learned it as a child?). Has never edited the article; it's theoretically possible that he got there through the project watchlist, but combined with the other instances of his hounding me to articles in order to pointlessly revert me, it's clearly not coincidental.

It seems clear to me that Belchfire is sulking about being called out on his persistent edit-warring at War on Women and choosing to take it out on users he perceives as foiling his personal political agenda, but that, unfortunately for him, is not what Misplaced Pages is here for. He has twice blown off warnings about his behavior and thereafter continued said behavior, so it is likewise clear that further warnings will not be enough to get him to edit collaboratively with, rather than vindictively against, other users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the edits Roscelese points to. They are pretty damming. Belchfire should get at least a stern talking to, if not more. FurrySings (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an admin should give a final "cease and desist" warning to Belchfire. If he continues a block and/or one-way interaction ban should be imposed. This does not bode well. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The messages diff'ed above-- which including allegations of "sulking," "spite" and demands for the editor to "grow up," are as much escalatory attacks as anything. NE Ent 13:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that my response to Belchfire's harassment retroactively justifies the harassment? I would suggest that you re-think that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If the edits are productive, they clearly do not appear to be in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work which means they do not fit the definition of "hound" on Misplaced Pages. The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing. Also not apparently present in the "case" at hand. Again - there appear to be as many cases where each editor "edited first" which means this is all an absurd exercise worthy of Becket (Samuel). Collect (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"If the edits are productive" is a big if, since, as I've demonstrated, they're all destructive edits that appear to have been thought through no further than the degree to which they would inconvenience productive users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When problem editors present themselves, it is perfectly acceptable to monitor their contributions from time to time. When the last "warning" was issued about 2 weeks ago I examined the Sherlock Holmes related article and thought that BF's revert of your edit was perfectly reasonable. In fact I raised this question on BF's talk page. Not until you posted on this thread did I understand your perfectly reasonable explanation. Your claim that BF's edits were destructive and were done out of malice flies in the face of reason. Such behavior and boorish communication skills does not rise to the level of AGF.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what behavior of mine you feel justifies the harassment, and why you believe the appropriate action in response is harassment instead of the usual WP processes? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you feel harrased does not mean mean a perfectly innocuous edit constitutes harrassment. That is something for the community to determine via this thread. I dont think it's unlikely that BF is the first editor to look at anothers contributions and made subsequent improvements to articles outside of their normal scope.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

All that has been demonstrated is Belchfire has edited content that other editors agreed can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will.NE Ent 13:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that the response you give when someone blanks an article and replaces it with "penis"? When someone makes the same revert six times in two hours? Of course not. The fact that Misplaced Pages content can be edited at will is never an excuse for bad behavior. Please don't give such poorly thought out excuses for him, this is a serious discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been no evidence Belchfire has done either behavior -- if they have, please provide diffs. NE Ent 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It seemed obvious to me that these were examples chosen to point out that your comment did not contribute to this discussion. Vandalism is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will; edit-warring (such as Belchfire's at War on Women) is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will; harassment of other users is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire has declined to participate in this discussion: Diff of User talk:Belchfire -- Dianna (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If I thought there was a valid, credible complaint to address here, I would have done so. There isn't. Prior to Roscelese's last attempt to smear me, it seemed to me that Collect and Bbb23 were doing a fine job of diffusing the nonsense. But that was before this: "Is that the response you give when someone blanks an article and replaces it with "penis"? When someone makes the same revert six times in two hours?" And with that, I think it should be easy enough to see what's really going on here - this is a naked failure of AGF on the part of Roscelese and Binksternet. (Note the lack of diffs to go along with that pair of bombshell accusations.)

As I specified in the edit summary that Diana brought forward, yes, these two editors are simply paranoid. Both spend a huge proportion of their time here working on LGBT-related articles (or in Roscelese's case, articles related to feminism), and both have a solid track record of ownership behavior and/or taking things personally when others do not agree with their worldviews. (Roscelese, for her part, is not above outright censorship when she sees something that she doesn't like. )

What we have here is (1) a content dispute, rather than a behavioral issue; and (2) an attempt by political-activist editors to silence their opposition . Neither of these add-up to a matter for ANI action, other than a potential boomerang. For further explanation, and for your continued edification, I direct your attention to this essay covering the editor behavior on display here. Belchfire-TALK 00:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a great example of how you follow policy in the LGBT topic area and I do not. My removal of the Prop 8 protests from your synthesized article on gay terrorism! Well chosen. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on this board so apologies if I don't get the protocol quite right. It does appear that a lot of the complaints about Belchfire's behaviour focus on Binksternet's opinions of the motives behind the edits rather than the edits themselves. It therefore seems that there is a failure to AGF by Binksternet. I would also suggest that Roscelese either strikes the "penis" comment or provides diffs. Love and peace. Tigerboy1966  01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The argument that Belchfire might have only good motives would be more convincing if he hadn't continued the behavior after being warned on two separate occasions that it constituted harassment and was against Misplaced Pages policy. Generally, if one is misbehaving with good intentions, one ceases the misbehavior upon finding out that it is such, but instead, Belchfire removed the warnings with edit summaries consisting of personal attacks, and continued harassing me. Also see my response above to NE Ent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That he was warned that he was harassing means squat really. Maybe warn him to stop beating his wife as well. Has an uninvolved admin warned him? Maybe I missed that, and if I did, I apologize. --Malerooster (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Sorry, it looks like user:Diannaa is taking your side here. Has she warned him before? --Malerooster (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966, after many, many examples to the contrary I stopped thinking that Belchfire's edits are made in good faith. This is not a conclusion I have arrived at lightly! No, it is serious business, hinging upon what is good or bad for Misplaced Pages. The administrator Swatjester looked into the problem and gave Belchfire a very strong warning, showing an extensive string of Belchfire diffs to prove that there was a pattern of bad behavior. The same Swatjester list was brought to ANI by Justdafax in the Belchfire topic ban proposal, but neither of these efforts appear to have helped Belchfire change his ways. What I'm pointing to here is not a small problem! It is a small part of an extended problem: Belchfire's tendentious editing behavior. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

After having looked at just the diffs presented here, the conclusion that this is harassment is completely obvious to me, as someone who has never before looked at the problem (and hasn't significantly interacted with either party as best as memory serves). Each edit, taken individually, seems trivial. But some are so obviously wrong (particularly those presented by Roscelese), that it simply stretches the bounds of credulity to think that Belchfire was just randomly improving articles of interest to him. This is the exact equivalent of hostile workplace tactics, wherein the harasser doesn't do anything abhorrent, but instead takes small actions over a period of time designed to make the other person feel unwelcome. Here, the simple fact that Belchfire is showing up and reverting edits which are required per policy (I'm thinking here, for example, of the re-addition of parent categories in the Sherlock examples) is a way of saying "Hey, Roscelese, I'm here. Did you want to edit? No, I don't know if you can handle that." Roscelese is then placed in a position of having to be perfect every time, or then expect to see Belchfire come in and revert the edit; and, again, in the Sherlock case, even when perfect, is compelled to get involved in a dispute for something that isn't by our rules disputable. To be honest, I think that, at the bare minimum, Belchfire should be forbidden from reverting Roscelese or from re-working those things which Roscelese has recently done. If Roscelese does make a legitimate "error", there are thousands of other editors who can fix it. Should such a commitment not be forthcoming from Belchfire, blocking seems like the next step. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Qwyrxian. It's a vio of WP:HOUND in my view. Jusdafax 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire interaction ban

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

I propose that Belchfire be restricted from interacting with Roscelese per WP:IBAN. Roscelese would be encouraged not to interact with Belchfire, to reduce friction, but she would not be saddled with a corollary interaction ban. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per Binksternet and Qwyrxian. We either uphold Misplaced Pages's rules or we don't. Jusdafax 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Qwyrxian's explanation of the events seems to be accurate. Sædon 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Assuming my !vote as an involved user is admissible, I obviously support such a ban, since less following me around and reverting my productive edits is better both for my comfort as an editor and for Misplaced Pages's content and policy enforcement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I hate more rules, but I would prefer that both editors follow the rules laid out at IBAN. It seems that would difuse things greatly. --Malerooster (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose One way interaction bans are problematic at best - and in the case at hand, it certainly appears the problems were not only in that one direction. Make it two way or none at all and let Misplaced Pages processes work normally. I commend editors to read the ArbCom discussions thereon, and see how poorly the "one way bans" work in general. And I suggest that Binksternet be included as well, as it is clear that Binksternet is part and parcel of this particular conflict. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Qwyrxian's sound analysis. Cavarrone (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, I can see why Binksternet and Roscelese think that there has been hounding, but I don't feel that the case has been proved. I think everyone involved should stop using edit summaries inappropriately.  Tigerboy1966  22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if it's not imposed in all directions, as per Collect's comment above. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  How is it even possible for you to interact with someone who is banned from interacting with you. I guess the proposer wishes to make it clear who is the culprit and who is the victim, but is it really necessary? How could Roscelese even interact with Belchfire without Belchfire interacting with Roscelese? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Precisely. The one editor could freely post on the other editor's page, and the other editor would be breaking the ban by responding to it. Nope, it's both ways or no ways. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Reality check: Roscelese doesn't WANT to interact with Belchfire. Perhaps you've forgotten it's the reason she brought this action in the first place. Congrats on falling for a phony false-equivalency argument. -- Calton | Talk 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that, an interaction ban on Rosce should be no problem for anyone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that you don't seem to understand the point -- perhaps you should look up the word "fair"? -- maybe you shouldn't ask ridiculous questions. And here's one for you: who in this situation is thee one with the self-control problm that needs disciplining? Hint: the name doesn't begin with "R". --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is you that doesn't understand. You can't impose a one-way interaction ban. If you want to ban Fire from the topic, that's a different argument. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If there's going to be an interaction ban, it must be bidirectional. That then assumes that Roscelese is to be sanctioned as well as Belchfire, which doesn't make much sense given the evidence presented. To the extent there is a consensus that Belchfire has been hounding Roscelese (I expressed an early opinion to the contrary, but I haven't looked at all the diffs subsequent to that opinion), then Qwyrxian's idea of blocking IF Belchfire persists makes much more sense to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you are saying that Belchfire should be blocked if he reverts Roscelese again, I should think we have already arrived there. He was warned two weeks ago by Roscelese and myself but he picked up his hounding of her 12 days later. Will we warn him again and again with never any action? Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Qwyrxian. The hounding needs to end now, and it is coming from Belchfire. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Collect. NE Ent 23:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Collect, given how nonsensical his comments were. ---Calton | Talk 01:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, Collect opposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• He's saying he's voting opposite of whichever way Collect votes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're so much more clever than I am, BB, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes I'm so smart it almost frightens me. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Don't pat yourslf on the back just yet: He's saying he's voting opposite of whichever way Collect votes is not what I said. Hint: your "whichever" is imaginary. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the square root of negative one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, not as smart as you think, then. Stick to recycling Borscht Belt jokes. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'm obviously a lot dumber than you are, so you'll need to explain this to us: Under what circumstances would Rosco ever need to interact with BurpFlame, or whatever its name is? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support with just the way Blinksternet proposed. On principle, we cannot tell the victim that they must avoid the harasser, but it is well-understood that if the victim is the one to initiate interaction, the harasser isn't suddenly required to run. That is, when you get a restraining order against someone, you can't then follow them around, forcing them to run they required number of meters away. So if Roscelese for some reason tried to take advantage of this in articles where the two have an existing history, that would be grounds to extend it to a bidirectional ban, but absent some evidence that that would occur, the thing that matters is to make the harassment stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • From what you're saying, Rosco will be effectively banned from interacting with Fire anyway, so you might as well make it official. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be saying Roscelese was at fault, which she was not. She didn't follow Belchfire to articles about road racing, and revert him. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, IBANS are two-way by default. That's just how it is.

And by the way, using your own logic and standards of conduct, YOU should draw an IBAN for this edit: Belchfire-TALK 02:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Get over yourself, Belchfire: the reason she brought this up in the first place is precisely BECAUSE she doesn't want to interact with you. Sorry, but she's just not that into you, and your and Collect's false equivalency attempt to slap the Scarlet Letter that rightfully belongs to you alone is dishonest. ---Calton | Talk 02:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, Rosco can't be allowed to address or refer to Fire in any way, shape, or form, as it would be unfair - Fire could not respond, as it would violate his interaction ban. So it has to be bidirectional. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Has to be"? Pay attention: who's got the self-control problem? Hint: the name begins with "B". --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• We can't know that every current and future admin will share Qwyrian's interpretation of a one-way ban. In fact, a recent arbcom request shows they can be quite contentious. Given documented overlap in Roscelese's and Belchfire's editing interests, interpretation of a ban would be problematic. Would mean a topic ban for Belchfire for any article Roscelese has ever edited? NE Ent 12:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• An interaction ban cannot be one-sided. By definition. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can, because "interaction ban" doesn't mean only "cannot interact". It also means "you cannot interact. If you do interact, then we'll have to block you from editing Misplaced Pages entirely, because we have no technical means to enforce an interaction ban." Placing an interaction ban on Belchfire imposes a strong burden on him to ensure that he does not step in and edit in places where Roscelese is also editing. If Belchfire errs (either out of poor judgment or out of a simple mistake), there are consequences. By not placing the interaction ban similarly on Roscelese, she holds no such responsibility. Again, when you get a restraining order against someone, that does not bind your own activities, with the only caveat being that if you seem to be deliberately flaunting or inciting the harasser (like, say, showing up outside his place of work every day), someone might successfully argue that you don't really want to be restrained. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The "inter" in inter action requires two acting entities. Always. One entity alone can never cause "inter". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears your beef is with the name "interaction ban" rather than with the proposal that Belchfire stop following Roscelese around. Would you agree with that assessment? Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, WP:IBAN is poorly written. The first part of it is all in the plural, e.g., " they are banned from interacting with each other in any way." However, the example given is only from the point of one editor. Not particularly helpful, putting aside the practical issues of a one-way ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seb az86556: that's pretty far-fetched semantic squabbling. But it's poor semantics. "Interaction", by definition, involves two people, but it doesn't entail shared causation. If A addresses B, then even without B's actively doing anything, by definition, A and B have interacted. A single person can force interaction on another, e.g. by engaging in unsollicited postings on the other person's talkpage or by entering a discussion in which the other person was previously involved. If a single person can do it, then a single person can also be told to not do it, and that's exactly what a non-mutual interaction ban does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a deeper issue here. An IBAN is an extreme measure, and when it gets to that level, it's time to analyze it more objectively. No one's to blame, mind you. Of all the nastiest disagreements I've had in my years here, an IBAN was never even on the table. We talked it out. Maybe I'm just lucky. Doc talk 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because this isn't a disagreement—it's harassment. You can't talk those kind of matters out, because it's a fundamentally inappropriate set of behaviors by one party. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree completely. Haven't dissected this case (yet)... Doc talk 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If people are unwilling to make a one-way interaction ban (terrible idea as they are easily gamed) and others dont want a two-way as they dont want to 'punish' Rosce, what options are left? Topic ban Belchfire from Rosce's areas of editing? If the goal is to keep one away from the other without punishing the victim, thats the only way outside of an IB to do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not quite true. If the basis for the IBAN is because of WP:HOUND, that says, " If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." So, assuming one agrees that Belchfire meets those conditions, they could be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't get Collect's response, Rosce isn't at fault here, and a two way ban punishes an editor who is not problematic. There is only one way forward, and that's a one way interaction ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I was on the fence until I saw that Belchfire's first ever edit to the Homophobia article was the very next edit after an edit by Roscelese. There is sufficient evidence to support the proposed interaction ban of Belchfire based on WP:HOUND. If Roscelese starts stalking BelchFire, then that will be a discussion for a different day.

I am concerned, however, that an interaction ban may not be sufficient to have any lasting impact on Belchfire's willingness to participate in the collaborative, civil editing environment that we are trying to maintain. He has had numerous warnings and a few blocks, so there has been ample opportunity for self-correction. I'm very hopeful that Belchfire will turn the corner soon, and learn to play well with others, but if not, I would imagine that an indef block might be in his future. - MrX 21:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per collect & from WP:HOUND (emphasis added)

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason

Not to wiki-laywer, but dif BF jump into the talk pages on these articles? Perhaps the policy wording needs to be tweaked. But ignoring whether or not that BF did not engage Rosecelese on talk pages is germane to the intent of WP:HOUND BF's edits to articles like A Scandal in Belgravia were perfectly reasonable edits. The paucity of diffs provided does not rise to the "creepiness" factor yet needed for me to support sanctions.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why I was opposed, but you have expressed it much more effectively. There's also a slight sense of "let's skip the verdict and get onto the sentencing" about all this.  Tigerboy1966  09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Qwyrxian.--В и к и T 09:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the dude do whatever he wants, man. He's just editing some stuff. Everyone needs to chillaxulate a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.29.68 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Collect, Baseball Bugs, and Bbb23. One-way interaction bans are both oxymoronic and simply moronic. I will support a two-way ban. Horologium (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  Why, exactly, should we sanction people who are hounded? Has Roscelese responded to the hounding with similar actions (following him around, letting him know that she's "watching" etc.)? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that one-way interaction bans are an effective way of dealing with the issue. While I recognize that the issue currently appears to be one-way, setting it up so that that editor no longer can respond at all will cause issues should the behavior of the other editor change. Judging from the entrenched positions from a number of editors on both sides of the issue (particularly these two), I don't think that the one-way ban is a good idea. I wouldn't be averse to noting in the Editing restrictions log that the interaction ban is not a sanction against Roscelese, but I don't like the idea of one-way interaction bans, especially because of ideological opposition over a wide range of articles. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The case for a bidirectional interaction ban as proposed by several users has not been made. Judging from the diffs presented, the hounding is coming from Belchfire, not Roscelese. The suggestion that the hounding victim deserved or provoked the hounding doesn't convince me (to put it mildly). Belchfire needs to adjust his behavior and stop hounding Roscelese. Warnings didn't help, perhaps an interaction ban will. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, regardless of the fact that it would be a "one-way" interaction ban. There is a real issue with blaming the target even in clear hounding cases. In this case, the edits clearly show one editor following a good faith editor around the project. The end result is disruptive and the fact that we allow these cases to escalate all too often has a very poisonous effect on the project. jæs (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The complaints that a One-way iBan is not symmetric and opens the door to gaming are hogwash. It has already been demonstrated that Roscelese does not want to interact with Belchfire. It logically makes sense that Roscelese has self imposed a interaction ban on themselves, therefore the only thing the community needs to do is to involuntarily clap the irons on Belchfire. If Roscelese begins using the sanctions to eject Belchfire out of the topic in a form of WP:OWN we can revisit the sanctions at that time. Throwing the Baby out with the bath water is not the solution. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• This shouldn't even have gotten this far. If I'd seen this blatant hounding prior to it getting to ANI (where the response has been absolutely predictable, especially who is showing up to oppose any action) I'd have issued a block. Frankly, there is no need for a "one-way interaction ban" here: we just need to start enforcing our existing rules on hounding. Let's just call this Belchfire's final warning, with a week off the next time he finds his way to a random page off his usual beaten track to revert or otherwise get in Roscelese's face. That's what the ban would be in effect anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I think the mechanics of one-way interaction bans would be improved if there were an explicit condition that if the one who was allowed to chose to initiate contact, the other would be allowed to respond in kind (which is most likely moot in this particular case as Roscelese clearly wants nothing to do with Belchfire). That way, we wouldn't be getting bogged down on something like this when it is clear sanctions of some sort ought to be implemented. Kansan (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• IBAN policy: For those who are questioning whether Misplaced Pages allows single-person interaction bans, I have started a discussion thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy#Single-person interaction bans. Feel free to surf over there and voice your concerns. Note that the current IBAN wording alternates between singular and plural, which is why I concluded that a unilateral IBAN is possible; an alternate to dual IBANs. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• General comment: I haven't reviewed the specifics of this dispute, but in my experience, a one-way interaction ban is sometimes justified. See for example Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian, a decision that I wrote. In that case, the alternative to a one-way interaction ban would not have been a two-way interaction ban, but an outright site-ban for the party at fault. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Brad. It's not unusual to include as an unblock condition, for example, a requirement that the unblocked editor leave another editor alone. There's no reason we as a community can't simply say "Person A, stop bothering Person B." That's all a one-way interaction ban really is. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Need help with an impending religious POV dispute

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

I hope this isn't too pre-emptive for ANI, but User:Nickidewbear has made some edits to Messianic Judaism that unquestionably violate both WP:POV and WP:OR. I despise ANI and drama in all its forms but, based on my past interactions with this user (which unfortunately entailed edit warring and personal attacks on his/her part), I can say with complete certainty that this isn't going to be resolved by any means short of admin intervention. Thanks. Evanh2008  08:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The edits: and , and a revert: . Evanh2008  08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article had clear Anti-Messianic bias, accusing Messianic Jews (of which I am one) who share their faith (per 1 Corinthians 3:5-7 and Romans 10:17) of proselytizing--which, per 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, Messianic Jews do not do. According to Webster's, proselytizing is " to induce someone to convert to one's faith". Messianic Jews believe that conversion is between the individual and God and do not force anyone to convert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to find external sources that support that. Quoting from dictionaries and the Bible does not qualify. It would need to come from some reliable source commenting on this sect. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nickidwbear. Please note that you cannot edit Misplaced Pages based upon what you "know" to be true. You must cite reliable sources that explicitly verify your claims. Evanh2008, jumping immediately to ANI was very inappropriate; don't forget that most new users have never heard of WP:V and our other similar policies. Before I became a regular WP editor, it would have seemed "obvious" to me that I could add information that I "knew" to be true. Let's try to educate new users before automatically assuming, after just two edits, that administrative action is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been around for nearly 4 years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, like I said, previous interaction with this user is what led me to come here so soon. I and others have gone over the relevant policies with him/her repeatedly over the course of more than two years. Evanh2008  08:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to Evanh2008--I was commenting here while doing something else, and didn't adequately examine the history, and misread your comment. I've struck part of my comment above, and will refrain from further commenting until I can give this more attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Gtwfan52 has already reverted and posted a talk page comment explaining the issue, and what needs to be done in order to address the concerns. Basically, he has already done our job here, and I suggest everyone involved just move the discussion over there. As he points out, Nick* might be completely right but it needs proper sourcing. As the edits were made in good faith, and it was reverted in good faith, we just follow WP:BRD by taking it there and closing this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, Nickidewbear has refused to engage in any discussion, and has proceeded to create the exact same types of disruption at two other articles. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Also see conversations and warnings on her talk page and conversation on my talk. Add this, and the edit summaries showing a total lack of clue, to the history of blocks for exactly the same behavior, and you have an editor that needs serious re-education. Sadly, I would like to see a block extended until the editor shows an understanding of the problems associated with her edits, or possibly a topic ban on articles relating to Judaism, broadly interperted to include anti-Semantic organizations such as Nazi Party. Will notify user as soon as this is saved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Another example of lack of clue: 9. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To accuse me of being an Anti-Semitic Nazi who needs a re-education is obnoxious, to say the least. First of all, the Nazis were National Socialists (not rightist at all). Second, I am a Messianic Jew. Thirdly, I get that your Far-Left, Anti-Messianic viewpoint can't handle what I just mentioned or that "Levitsky"s, "Kogon"s, etc. are Jewish even when they don't fit your mold. Also, you won't let me cite Nehemia Gordon as a legitimate critic of the Talmud--that's obnoxious of you.Nickidewbear (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet another. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

An ancillary dialogue can be found here. Evanh2008  09:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My last comment on this issue tonight is simply a request to whichever admin happens to come across this first. I ask that Nickidewbear not be indefinitely blocked at the moment, as I do believe he/she will be able to be reasoned with after a cool-down period of several days. I've dealt with Nazis before, and this ain't one. G'night, all. Evanh2008  09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See for a further example of this editors mind-set. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I have the greatest respect for Evan's work on the project, I disagree. Considering the long term pattern of obstructive and uncollaborative editing this editor has engaged in, I think a block that stays until he/she can show an understanding of the problem is completely appropriate. As I have to be in a real courtroom to argue real life issues in about 10 hours, I too am going to call it a night. Thanks to all the participants here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerim

Over the past few days, User:Bluerim returned from about a 20 day break from Misplaced Pages and reverted changes that I made to the article (List of God of War characters and reversion history) that were based on a discussion asking for outside opinions on what to do (as these issues have been going on for the past few months and I've had two RFCs and Third Opinions requested but none helped because Bluerim couldn't accept what they had to say). I had also corrected some sources on the page which he reverted and has done in every revert (for which he said "Sources can be corrected" but keeps reverting them). He claims he's making corrections or improvements but he's doing the same revert, with maybe small differences if there are any. There's been a discussion on the Talk page (titled Outside comments/opinions) for about a month. Bluerim's changes and reversions are contradicting some of the things brought up. Another editor (User:Sjones23) reverted him for the same reason I have: the discussion post. I today added a new section to the article (which has been long overdue) and added information to the lead because of it. Bluerim reverted back to his version before Sjone's revert (although he retained the new section) and hid his reversion by only claiming that he made corrections to the lead, the new section, and added "one word" to another section. I feel that Bluerim's reversions are disruptive and are making it hard to improve the article. There's a discussion on the Talk page but he either doesn't post or he leaves short comments and doesn't answer questions or doesn't fully explain himself which can be seen in his most recent post there. This is also not the first time I've had to report this user for similar conduct. --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk page I'm not seeing inappropriate behavior by Bluerim. There's nothing wrong with short comments -- we actually have an essay Be concise encouraging them. NE Ent 12:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much for the short comments, it's the fact he avoided answering my posts, and his short comments don't really say much. If you see here, I left comments that I would have liked to have had answers to. Instead of answering or responding, Bluerim made this reversion to the article (which is what I was referring to about hiding his other revert) and made this post on the Talk page which did not answer any of my questions, nor did it provide or help with anything to solve the issues. Also, did you check the reversion history of the article itself? That's really where the disruption is. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And he's reverted the page again, claiming I'm the only one who has issues, despite the fact another editor reverted him for the same reasons I have. The biggest problem with this user is that he is very hard to work with for consensus building because he keeps reverting and resists community input (as noted by the RFCs and Third Opinions on the Talk page, where practically all of the outside editors agreed with my points but Bluerim challenged their opinion which is why we're still having these issues). This has been an ongoing issue with this user for months and it's really ridiculous. As mentioned before, I've had to report this user for similar conduct as seen here which links the three previous reports prior to that one. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should contact an administrator about this matter, since edit warring can make things worse, which is why it is not tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, to take a look at this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring is not acceptable. However, a failure to accurately read the situation is also not good. Bluerim (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As per edit warring comment, then why did you keep reverting when you knew there was a discussion on those issues? As per other comment, that's why there are links provided. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The link JDC808 provides above as a "revert" is actually an edit. NE Ent 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This link. By the way, as Bbb23 does not have enough time to review this thread, I've asked another uninvolved administrator, PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to give his thoughts on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was that one? If you look at the last three changes, I made a revert at 10:04 November 25th, then Bluerim reverted that at 12:01 November 26th, which is what you just linked (notice mine is +2,841 and his is -2,841). I believe NE Ent was talking about this one. It actually is a revert (technically a revert with an added edit). Look at the differences between this revert and this one (the one I believe NE Ent was referring). They're identical reversions with the exception of in the latter, Bluerim reverted my additions to the lead (which made the lead the same as the first reversion) and he made two minor edits to the new section. And so it's clear, there are three intermediate edits between those two: your first revert of Bluerim, me adding the new section, and then me editing the lead because I added new section. And okay about the admin. --JDC808 ♫ 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then, I apologize for my comment about the link above. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just making sure everything's clear. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, then. While we are still waiting for the administrator to respond, based on the relevant differences provided above, I think that Bluerim refuses to get the point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am not going to have time to review this thread today. So, either another admin will have to, or given that this appears to be principally about edit-warring, the report could be taken to WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I "get the point" - my latest edits to the article do incorporate some suggestions. There are, however, some weaknesses with the other additions. In short, the article reads less like a piece of prose and more like a fan entry. The issue I have here is that one over-committed editor can't see the compromise, which was possibly not helped by another editor who may not have the experience to see the process. Yet another editor had no issue with my recent post on the Talk page, and stated brevity was fine. I can elaborate, but hope for some more flexibility. JD means well, but his writing does need work and he just needs to haul back a tad (a la the string of attempted complaints and comments on my Talk Page, such as "being left not choice"). Let's work together without melodrama. It can be done.

Bluerim (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, JDC808 is not overcommitted (I feel that this is unfounded) and the problem here is that you were edit warring while discussion was taking place, and please do not make unfounded assumptions about JDC808. Since your edits created controversy, a discussion was necessary according to the rules and common sense. Unfortunately, you also seem to have ignored good faith community concerns and consensus as relevant on the talk page of the God of War characters article. As visible in Talk:List of God of War characters, there are discussions such as an RFC, which led to community consensus amongst uninvolved editors. I also feel that Bluerim is being a little disruptive, which according to this policy, is valid, fulfilling 3 out of the 6 criteria that defines disruptive editing. Also, we should consider listen to outside opinions of others who have commented on the talk page and take these into account. I would like to quote the definition of WP:IDHT:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

I am still waiting for administrator input about this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean well, and I applaud your efforts for peace, but you did err in reverting back to some inferior material. JD means well but many of his edits have needed tweaking. I have compromised on several points, but look for the same in him. Bluerim (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As per "inferior material," please see my most recent post(s) at the Talk page. --JDC808 ♫ 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, as has been said before, this is a content dispute and belongs in discussion on the article talkpage or in WP:DR processes? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried. I've tried requesting opinions from outside editors. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've briefly looked at the history of the article. The only issue that would call for administrator intervention is edit-warring. As I see it, both Blue Rim and JDC808 have been edit-warring. However, the last edit to the article by Sjones (who has not been edit-warring) was over a day ago, so at least the edit-warring has calmed down for the moment. If I had looked at this earlier, I would have either blocked both Blue Rim and JDC808 or I would have locked the article. Hopefully, all of those things can be avoided if the involved editors behave and restrict their dispute (amicably) to the talk page. If they don't, then sanctions may be appropriate. And be careful about declaring consensus. I've too often seen one of the disputants say "Consensus has been reached" and then proceed to implement the alleged consensus. Best to have a clear consensus and an ininvolved editor implement it. As BWilkins said, there are dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving seemingly intractable content disputes. I'll leave this topic open for a bit in case anyone wants to say anything further.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to say I wasn't wrong when I made my reverts. To get to the point, the most problematic thing is that Bluerim does not understand consensus. This has been a big and ongoing issue with him. That's probably the root of this entire issue. I'm not just saying this because I think it's true, other uninvolved editors have pointed this out to him. As Sjones made aware, there's been discussions on the Talk page where I've requested RFCs and Third Opinions. Practically all uninvolved editors were in agreeance with my points (which is about 5 or 6 uninvolved editors), but Bluerim challenged their opinion (even questioned their writing abilities at one point) and to put it bluntly, he pretty much said they're wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you're well into WP:RFC/U territory. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:Escarlati

I have a dicussion with User talk:Enric Naval here and here.

User talk:Enric Naval calls for "support" of User:Escarlati here.

User:Escarlati, in spanish, make a personal attack over me, and say that he do not wants to talk by reason of language limitation here. Then User:Escarlati reverts all my editions (whatever article). I try to talk with he, here, but he not say nothing, and whatever article he say in diff 'statu quo ante' and only reverts my editions. He reverts me in many articles:

--Santos30 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disruptive editor is Santos30. Santos30 being carried out in several articles and editions massive edit wars to defend a non-neutral POVwarrior, editions which was blocked in Spanish Misplaced Pages. Now move your warrior Pov this by cross-wiki wikipedia. I request for measures against Santos30 for these actions disruptive and undermine the statu quo ante and viewpoint neutral. I'm sorry my English is not good, because I use a translator. Escarlati (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No. This is totally false and another personal attack.--Santos30 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The logs tell us that you have a SUL account and that as Santos30 (talk · contribs) you are indeed blocked indefinitely, for abuse of multiple accounts where the master account is Domenico (talk · contribs), on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• My mistake, the case is here, I was a retired User and I not inform of changes in my nick User. But what User:Escarlati say is false and is another personal attack, never I was blocked for " massive edit wars" or "POV warrior". User:Escarlati came here to make personal attacks and reverts me (User:Escarlati not talk and not give bibliography) as you can see in the diffs. User:Escarlati say that he can not talk in english, but quickly he came here to try to silence me with administrative actions similar as censure in Misplaced Pages spanish (you can read it in spanish).

If User:Escarlati does not want to talk or give bibliography, then he should not reverts me here in wikipedia english ( anything or whatever says or do in wikipedia español, wrong or right ). I do not want an administrative action for no user, I want to be free to make editions or talk in discussion.--Santos30 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User Santos30 is engaging in a reversion-war and trying to impose his point of view. He just placed a non-neutrality template in the article on the Crown of Aragón which should be removed because he is the only one claiming that it is not neutral. --Maragm (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

False. The imposed point of view is in the last edition of User:Escarlati . He delete my bibliography and not gives any other reference. Template is placed 24 hours after I explain in the talk my reason of the template here. Nobody answer the talk. No bibliography to clarify in the article. --Santos30 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, after this talk User:Eric Naval answer here. I keep waiting for User:Escarlati here--Santos30 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30, you were given many sources at Spanish wikipedia and then here at English wikipedia. All users at Spanish wikipedia agreed to use the Cross of Burgundy for the Spanish Empire and its colonies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had hopes that Santos30 was a reasonable editor. But his last edits and POV-pushing in talk pages have exhausted my patience. Santos30 is not here to write an encyclopedia, he is here to glorify Castile and remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy. He keeps modifying related articles to support his POV, which makes it even more difficult to detect the problems. He is a pseudohistoric troll, and he needs to be blocked and reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You should see first for articles that must to be clarified. Why you not look for the missing bibliography here and stop your personal attacks and stop looking for my punishment?. Im not here to "glorify Castile" and "remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy". Im here understand and share my knowledge of Latin American independence. But I see those articles of colonial viceroyalty with mistaken or confused or POV information and I try to clarify.--Santos30 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We achieved some understanding in Treaty of Villafáfila and Council of Castile. Probably because there are sources that explicitly cite exact dates with meridian clarity. Which means that you can't push your preferred dates. But as soon as there is some ambiguity, or a way to twist sources into saying things that they don't say, we get lockdowns, edit warring and tendentious picking and interpretation of sources. I am not willing to spend hours and hours collecting sources and quotes, only to have you cherrypick a few sources that don't really support your changes, followed by a return to your original position and edit-warring to restore bad sources and remove good ones.

Some examples:

• this revert was specially annoying because it removed a couple of hours of solid work for no good reason.

• this revert introduced wholly incorrect flag and coat. He already edit-warred the similar changes in Spanish wikipedia as his alter ego Domenico . Needless to say, the changes didn't stick. In the Spanish wikipedia he was less sophisticated and it's easier to see that one of his main motivations is the glorification of Castile (the other one is his hate towards the Cross of Burgundy flag)

• . He replaces 2 contemporary books with a 1835 biased political pamphlet. In the talk page he refuses to acknowledge the problems with the source. He had already editwarred over those dates with an IP, causing the protection of the article. In a last attempt to compromise, I started a RfC, I expect a tsunami of wikilawyering over it. He demands an arbitrarily high sourcing standard for the date he doesn't like, refuses to compromise, refuses to acknowledge the flagrant logic flaws in his position, refuses to acknowledge all the sources that give a different date, etc. He neglected to mention that his attempts to put the same date in the Spanish wikidia were all reverted and that he failed to provide any source that supported his position, and that he didn't address any of the obvious flaws with that position.

• Changes Cross of Burgundy to push back the usage of the flag a few centuries and claim that it only had military usages. When I tried to fix it he tried to restore his POV with "clarifications". In Spanish wikipedia he removed historical references because they made clear that his POV was incorrect, this change stuck during months.

• Repeated attempts to remove the historical relevance of the Cross of Burgundy in Flag of Florida. Now he has returned to his original position using a compilation of sources that don't really support his position, in Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag. Of course, he ignores the sources that directly and clearly contradict his position, which were given to him months ago.

• Flag of Mexico was given an incorrect flag in order to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy. Another manipulation that went unnoticed for months.

Santos30 started in Talk:Spanish_Empire, when I tried to fix his POV pushing it propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Castile#abolishment_date, Talk:New_Spain#flag_was_the_.22estandarte_virreinal.22, Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag and Cross of Burgundy, and now it's propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Aragon#Sovereignty_and_Independence. It also affects the flags and coats of arms in Spanish_Empire, Flag_of_Spain#Cross_of_Burgundy and several articles in Category:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire.

Santos30 opened this thread because his latest wave of tendentiously-sourced POV-pushing was reverted. Again. He already tried to make many of these changes in the Spanish wikipedia, where he failed to convince anyone and refused to acknowledge an expert opinion that he asked for himself. He doesn't want to be blocked for edit-warring for WP:3RR, so he comes to ANI to cry foul. I have a small hope that a good WP:BOOMERANG happens here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Escarlati says another time in my discussion that he does not want to talk about article.--Santos30 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• False: I say that I don't speak english and I explained he all in spanish wikipedia before. Escarlati (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• However your fingers are speaking in english. And suppose you are the expert, your "explained he all" in spanish was poor or null, without references, not one citation, no book. Nothing. Enric Naval cannot muzzle Wiki-enlish with omissions, WP:NPOV and mistakes decided by Wiki-español. And you Escarlati cannot came here to be a gunman of "status quo".--Santos30 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Edward321. This user follow my editions 28 and 29 november ] and I believe that reversals are not explained. I want to ask if he is administrator, or what is the reason of their behavior, because I explain my editions:

• here
• here,
• here
• here.

--Santos30 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Mormonism and polygamy

There is an edit war in progress at Mormonism and polygamy regarding the wording of the opening sentence of the article. An IP editor made a change, which was reverted twice; the material was subsequently reinstated by a logged-in editor. I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to review the matter. Thanks. — Richwales 05:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor replaced a citation from a historical encyclopedia article published by a university with a statement about a reality TV series here. 72Dino (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears as though 'the historical encyclopedia article published by a university' confirms what the IP address is trying to change the article to say: that Mormons still practice Polygamy. http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/p/POLYGAMY.html The original link does not lead directly to this page. A reader has to click through to find the cited entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbnails72 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the reference, it depends on your definition of "Mormon". If you mean a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then no, they have not practiced polygamy for over 100 years. If you mean a fundamentalist group, then yes, some of those do still practice it. The wording was changed, but the original reference was removed. There was no reason to remove a reliable source citation and replace it with "as witnessed in the popular reality television show Sister Wives". 72Dino (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I read the above-linked Utah History Encyclopedia page, it says that (1) some plurally married husbands and wives, originally married before 1904, continued to live together until the 1950s; and (2) various fundamentalist groups have continued to practise polygamy, breaking with and excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the church commonly known as the "Mormon" or "LDS" Church). I don't see anything in this source which would suggest that polygamy continues today amongst members in good standing of the LDS Church. Amongst "fundamentalist groups", yes, but as 72Dino pointed out, these are not part of the LDS Church — the latter strongly disassociates itself from them and their members. — Richwales 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This particular edit warring incident appears, for the moment, to have subsided. There is, of course, always the possibility that something will pop up again, either on this or related articles. Looking toward the future, I would encourage some uninvolved admins to get more involved with watching this page and related pages (such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mormon fundamentalism, and anything else that strikes their fancy). — Richwales 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

He/she has apparently had a Misplaced Pages account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.)

The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.

He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources, and I reverted back . This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.

He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.

Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese. The user agreed to this, but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before. I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.

Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there. One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.

Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article. I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms and Haiga, where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Misplaced Pages. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN. In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist. The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here, and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Misplaced Pages articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ( was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.

It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.

I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.

I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.

While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.

Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bishonen

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

Bishonen (talk · contribs) is calling other IP editors "anonymous cowards" in violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Should I expect at least a polite warning against Bishonen not to do things like that? Or should I expect to be flogged just for editing unregistered, like the other IP? --213.168.72.45 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't "for no other reason than them editing unregistered", my brave fellow. It was for somebody (who obviously knew too much about Misplaced Pages to have edited only as an IP with 18 edits) choosing make a controversial post logged out. Your own list of contributions is quite interesting, too. What's your main account? Bishonen | talk 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

my brave fellow -- I didn't expect you would stoop to repeating your ABF personal attack. More importantly however, there is a huge difference between e.g. politely noting that given the context of AC elections, IP comments may be assigned less weight by some -- and simply assuming a bad faith contribution and calling IP editors "anonymous cowards".

It was for somebody (who obviously knew too much about Misplaced Pages to have edited only as an IP with 18 edits) -- I take it you have never heard of dynamically assigned IP addresses. I do not have an account, but thanks for repeating your blanket ABF against IP editors a third consecutive time. --213.168.72.45 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you asking for here? What are you asking administrators to do? I can't see a darn thing that would be worth doing here, except to tell you to get over it. A slightly snarky comment was made to someone who is very knowledgeable about Arbcom for an anon with 18 edits, drawing the obvious conclusion. If Bish was mistaken, she was mistaken. You have now told her of her error, if that is what it was. There is nothing more to do here. KillerChihuahua 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Or should I expect to be flogged just for editing unregistered, like the other IP? -- Guess I have my answer.

What should be done here? A warning should be issued to Bishonen against assuming bad faith and against making personal attacks. "Slightly snarky" is your own personal assessment which I do not share.

someone who is very knowledgeable about Arbcom for an anon with 18 edits, drawing the obvious conclusion -- Again, dynamically assigned IPs. That's the "obvious conclusion" for anyone assuming good faith.

If Bish was mistaken, she was mistaken. -- Like I pointed out, Bishonen could and should have worded that comment much more considerately. Saying something like "Just in case you are a registered user editing logged out right now, please log in and sign your comment because under the circumstances of an AC election, IP comments will be given less credence and weight by many established users." -- That would have been perfectly fine, and it would account for the possibility that the IP is not acting in bad faith. What Bishonen wrote doesn't. Bishonen simply assumed that the IP is a logged out registered user. Bishonen vigorously excluded the possibility that the IP was just maybe acting in good faith.

And finally, KC, you are a wikifriend of "Bish". Shouldn't you openly declare that conflict of interest before jumping to your friend's defense, pretending like you're all neutral on this issue? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right... as a friend, I should warn her - something like "Hey Bish, don't make slightly snarky comments to trolls, they'll eat up ANI and annoy us all" should do nicely. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is all those years I've spent at Slashdot, but I don't see the phrase "Anonymous Coward" as a personal attack. (if you don't know, this usage would be 100% consistent with how it is used there and in other places, a non-logged in user). It isn't the most polite thing to say, but this is certainly below any threshold that would require swift action with the block button. This is the other side of civility that requires we all overlook such little things, simple opinions of others, as focusing on them only distracts from the issue at hand. I will say that any question regarding socking should be directed to WP:SPI rather than here or on the talk page of editors, but again, I don't see anything that demands swift and decisive action here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IP editor is unable to post with their account because it was indeffed some time ago for abuse of editing privileges (including good hand/bad hand and logging out to disrupt) by Elen of the Roads. Risker (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Coincidence: Oddly, I've been seeing another editor use the same green text to highlight words today. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alex Jones (radio host). I'm not motivated enough to see if there is overlap though. Maybe someone else will check. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Why am I not surprised? Troll, indeed. KillerChihuahua 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• (1) Shouldn't the IP be blocked for block evasion. (2) Recently blocked disruptive troll User:Shaz0t also used green highlighting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• People, the {{xt}} template and its friends have numerous users, and observing that two people use it on two noticeboards is about as diagnostic as noticing that two editors in this very discussion both know how to use <small>. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, Uncle G is absolutely right. Using green text for quotes is especially common. Or alternatively it's highly significant… because once I used green text and was attacked for doing it as a way of getting at a user with "Green" in their username. My enraged opponent called it a "billion-to-one-coincidence". :-) Similarly, two people both using green text has no significance at all. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

• I said it was a coincidence and freely admitted I hadn't checked for overlap. Not sure where you got the impression there was analysis done. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that this particular troll who appears to hail from Central Europe claims dynamic IPs that are actually assigned as static IPs - for example. Someone who actually has had to make the effort to change IP address (as in this case) is the last person we should be allowing to criticise the use of "anonymous coward" in describing them. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Risker, the IP's account is indeffed. Therefore, the IP should be barred for block evasion. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Blessed be the boomerang! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IPs still not blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He also admits to being the same user as 87.78.52.199 (talk · contribs), while trying to mess with an ANI archive. Both IP's geolocate to the same German city. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking a user

I am writing request that user Mary Cummins be blocked from editing the page Bat World Sanctuary - .

I recently won a 6.1 Million dollar judgement for harassment and defamation, and she is now targeting me and my non-profit on Misplaced Pages. I have sent several emails to your admin requesting our page be deleted entirely to prevent her from adding false and defamatory statements (including accusing me of 'sock puppeting," whatever that is). Please tell me how I can either have my nonprofits page entirely deleted or have her blocked from editing our page. More information on our lawsuit can be viewed here:

Thank you,

Amanda Lollar Bat World Sanctuary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batworld (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd think it be best if both of you stay away from that article, since you're both connected to it and both have a WP:COI. Have you notified Mary Cummins about this thread? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed Mary Cummins. Glrx (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would ask Batworld to sign their posts with four ~ things, and would suggest that they read WP:OWN. I would point out that I am acting as a neutral party in this matter as regards the off-wiki dispute, and have just declined a speedy deletion request (not posted by Batworld) on the Batworld Sanctuary page, as being made with an inappropriate criterion. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

Batworld is an inappropriate username and should be changed. A comment about the uname was made on Batworld's talk page, but has been deleted.

Links given above show a judgment against Cummins and a court order to remove material from specific websites. WP is not mentioned in that order. General injunction appears to only cover posts about episiotomy at other websites (such as WP).

Both parties have a COI re editing the page.

Cummins has removed sourced material from BWS that puts BWS in a good light.

Cummins has edited the article to state that the judgment is being appealed. The source is prweb. Generally, prweb would not qualify as an independent source, but it would pass for a simple statements that a judgment is being appealed.

Cummins edited the article so that it admits the judgment but emphasizes her side. (For example, "Cummins stated 'Everything I stated about Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary is 100% the truth backed up with facts and physical evidence.'") Fails NPOV.

Cummins has edited the article to mention a defamation lawsuit by Cummins against Lollar. The source is also prweb. The post is inappropriate news. WP has no secondary source that the lawsuit is significant / due.

Caution both sides about WP:NPOV.

Glrx (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a topic ban on both sides, and someone neutral (no, not me...) to clean up the article to a neutral position. Someone's got to say it. I'm not advocating censorship of the article - but things referenced to PR sites should go ASAP or be referenced properly. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Both have a legal COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually nominated the article for deletion because the two of them had managed to remove all of the information that actually demonstrates notability (and I couldn't find any myself...I think Google News isn't looking at archives as conveniently as it used to). I've rolled it back to the April 2011 version, which was right after the last AfD, and withdrawn my nomination. The lawsuit, as far as I can tell, has not been covered in the press, and so should not be mentioned in the article at all. Both of these people obviously are way way too involved to be editing the article directly. Both either misunderstand Misplaced Pages policies or don't care about them. They both absolutely need to be topic banned. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just notified of this discussion about me by Wiki. I did not post anything defamatory on the Bat World Sanctuary page. I corrected incorrect items about Bat World and their lawsuit against me. FTR I'm appealing the decision. Appeals Court already over turned the Judge's last order. She sued me for defamation in retaliation for me reporting her to authorities for animal cruelty, neglect and violations of the health code. I am also suing her for defamation in California. Notice that user Bat World Sanctuary has same IP as the other main editor to the page. Here are legal docs from my lawsuit against her

I only corrected incorrect items on the page. For instance they were legally formed in 2010, not 1994. They are not the biggest bat rescue. They only have 350 bats. The Guiness world record for a bat rescue is 1.8 - 2.5 million bats. Amanda Lollar did not go past the ninth grade. She is not a scientist or a scholar as she claimed. Her bat sanctuary is her home in Mineral Wells, Texas. The City and government agencies were complaining about her for over 18 years. I posted all of the reports. She finally sold one of her buildings because of the complaints last January. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The legal documents are not reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. The lawsuits have never been reported on in the press, and thus cannot be discussed here. The changes you have made are not verified by reliable sources, which is a requirement on Misplaced Pages. You have your own blog, and "correct" the story based upon what you believe to be the truth there. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized this: both editors are parties to ongoing litigation. WP:NLT says that you can't edit at the same time that litigation is pending. By that rule, both must be either blocked or absolutely topic banned. I've started editing the article, so I'm involved now and will have to ask another admin to do the honors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Check your sources for info on Bat World. Amanda Lollar who runs Bat World lies to the press. She told the press she graduated from high school. In deposition it turns out she didn't go past the ninth grade. Most items in the press are things she told the press herself. They are not accurate. I feel that the Bat World Sanctuary page should not include anything about the ongoing litigation by either party. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will block both users until they can assure us they will not edit the article in question while the case and any appeal is ongoing. Kim Dent-Brown 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Both blocks enacted. If either gives a convincing assurance that they will not further edit the article while litigation is ongoing, any admin should please feel free to unblock without reference to me. I would support a topic ban should either/both be unblocked but it seemed most prudent to enact the block immediately to stop any further to-ing and fro-ing on the article. Kim Dent-Brown 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done. The post just above by Mary Cummins illustrates well why we have NLT and BLP. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban is also in order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone revdel a few diffs on the talk page? Outing information, eg   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same, but Batworld outs herself at start of this post, so issue is moot. Glrx (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No offence to Kim Dent-Brown, but could someone who is not the blocking administrator respond to the unblock request by Mary Cummins? The blocking policy says it should be handled by an uninvolved administrator. Also as she was blocked for 'No Legal Threats' technically policy only requires that they make a commitment to not make further threats and retract the ones they have - not that they have to stay away from topic/talk pages. (No matter if it is ultimately a good idea.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

None taken. I'd be happy for any admin who sees this differently to unblock, setting whatever conditions they think necessary. Kim Dent-Brown 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cummins has made another unblock request and as it says everything we wanted I have unblocked. I could have waited for another admin to see this but I presume she will not complain at the unblock and thought she would rather have it come sooner from me than later from someone else. Kim Dent-Brown 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I said "No" to her talk page request about posting at the Bat World Sanctuary AfD. diff Glrx (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors

Not really an "incident", but more of a notice.

Over the long US holiday weekend there was a situation where a report on WP:E sat without response for a good number of hours. It appears that the WP:E regulars (myself one of them) were mostly offline, enjoying the holiday.

So the issue has come up of, what should be the preferred next step for someone bringing up an issue to WP:E when it sits for too long without response? The discussion started on WP:E itself, but has now been moved to the WP:E talk page. I'm mentioning this here since one of the logical routes to direct people when WP:E is not generating a response is to encourage them to come here to AN/I. So getting AN/I regulars involved in the discussion would be helpful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if several more active administrators would watchlist the Errors page. I have done so for sometime, but wasn't active for much of the holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Try the IRC channels...? - Penwhale | 04:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone has easy IRC access (I don't). Asking people to go off-wiki for on-wiki assistance just does not seem right to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we need more non-American administrators. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm non-American. It's just not a task I was even aware of, believe it or not. I'd expect that's pretty common (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am an America, but was online off-and-on much of the weekend. I simply hadn't been aware of WP:E. It's on my watchlist now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion on the talk page of WP:E, we have two separate issues. One is getting more admins to watch WP:E itself regularly. (WP:E requires admins, as it is all about requests for edits to content directly visible on the Main Page, and all such content is normally fully protected.) I'm thinking that regular notices to WP:AN (one every 2-3 months) would help in this respect. The second is a route of appeal when an issue is not handled promptly. Based on the discussion, directing people to WP:AN or WP:AN/I in these cases should work. If this "appeal" route is abused, it can be reevaluated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page

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

Diff: User:Doncram deleted my rather lengthy comments on a WikiProject talk page discussion about the use of images in a variety of articles. He made a long statement on his reasons for removing my comments; the salient point there seems to be that he "perceive the wp:POINTY point to be an assertion of that editor's "right" to follow edits and complicate". I don't believe that User:Doncram owns the WikiProject (of which I am also a listed member); he certainly does not have the right to bar me from engaging in a discussion of editing questions. I am way past being tired of his personal attacks on me -- and his insistence that I am engaged in wikihounding. I have not restored my comments to the page nor replied to Doncram. I think it best for someone else to intervene. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done User:Nyttend has responded to this incident. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

But not because I'd read this thread; I'm here only because I saw it while looking at ANI. Someone else pointed me to the discussion in question, and it was quite obvious that he'd removed something you said, so I restored it. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In response to pressure from other editors, Orlady ceased following and contending against my edits for a welcome respite of several months. I resent the return of this. Orlady has an outstanding completely bogus AFD open against an article that I created, and now has twice edited at my Talk page in direct defiance of my wishes. The editor has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors, and has been deeply uncivil over many years. I just want the editor to stop stalking me. It serves no good purpose for wikipedia that this editor follow and contend, in this case by causing complication. As I note at the Talk page, I did remove the comment, and said that i would not remove it again if anyone else restored it, though I wish no one will condone the behavior. I suggest that ANI frequentors leave it to local NRHP editors to make that choice. Nothing to do here. And I am sorry i cannot engage in extended discussion, may not be able to reply further. --doncram 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm starting to think that Doncram and Orlady and a host of other people aren't even interested in improving the encyclopedia in general, or the NRHP articles in particular, for the end user who might actually read these articles. It's just a game of protecting personal interests these days. --Elkman 23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Crying out loud, indeed. I am well aware that Doncram doesn't like it when I post on his talk page, but where else was there for me to post to inform him when I started the AFD on this article and when I started this ANI discussion? --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This again? Time for the nuclear option of starting some sort of discretionary sanctions for NRHP. This comes up several times a year and always the same names. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How about doncram stop removing people's comments on pages that arn't his talk page, to start with? Orlady acted appropriately by coming here, doncram should've done so earlier if he felt there was hounding. Close this with a trout for Doncram for removing comments that arn't his and lets move on.--v/r - TP 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Post on their talk page. When a user says "don't post on my talk page" that means you don't initiate any unnecessary posts or warnings or the like on their page. However, if a notification is required, an editor post one, preferably using a standardized template message if one exists. e.g. {{subst:ANI-notice}} NE Ent 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I suggested Orlady on their talk page to get me involved next time they would need to communicate directly to Doncram, this could hopefully help.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When I AFD an article, it automagically notifies the creator. If I was Orlady, I certainly would not start manually AFDing articles just to avoid notifying someone...if that happened, doncram would be back here in 2 seconds saying she was nominating his articles without notifying him. Ridiculous, really (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • If Doncram insists that even boilerplate notifications count as harassment, then that makes sense. As to the deletion of comments, Doncram should by this point be aware that his personal interpretation of what to do when he feels that a user is harassing him (i.e. whatever he wants) only leads to more drama (such as this). It's getting rather late in the day to be pointing this out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased posting of Fram in my COI request concerning my own article talk page Frederic Bourdin

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

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#Legal threat
• User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 13#IP
• prior discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Frederic Bourdin
• User talk:Francophonie&Androphilie#Frederic Bourdin
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Francparler/Archive
• Talk:Frédéric Bourdin#COI edit request

Hello. I know now that it is discouraged to edit an article which is about yourself, but before I knew this, along with many other things I edited the article about me Frederic Bourdin. And I did that honestly, always with the true. Until that day that I got in conflict concerning an edit of my article with the user Bbb23 . At the time because I was mad and it was unfair in my opinion, I got myself blocked for making legal threats and then socking. I, then, asked help to Jimmy Wales, Jimbo talk page as to how to get out of this mess, he showed me the path and now I'm not blocked anymore. He also advised me (Jimbo) to make a COI request to edit my article and that's what I did. But there is a problem, this user Fram who is not neutral because of his involvement with Bbb23 concerning me ( Bbb23 ) asked him his help concerning the problem he had with me), is trying to make my COI request fail with biased speech on my article talk page. I have asked him to refrain from discussing my COI request since he is personally involved but he refuse to do so. He claims that all my reliable sources supporting my COI request should be ignored because, basically, I'm me Frederic Bourdin Can someone help me with this ? --Francparler (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the duplicate report at WP:AN. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, can you also help me to notify the user Fram, I really don't understand how to do it ?--Francparler (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already notified Fram (talk · contribs) and Bbb23 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir.--Francparler (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

People get to have opinions, and you will have to live with the fact that others disagree with you. You need to discuss the matter on the talk page and build consensus. If that can't be achieved, you must use the dispute resolution process; administrators will not drive off dissenters for you. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto - this does not require any administrator intervention. You should continue to use the talk page, and then take any further disagreement to dispute resolution if that fails to work out. GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you correctly read what I have posted you might understand that I have nothing against others opinions but against BIASED opinions. I don't think it's fair for me when you have someone involved in a dispute to actually comment on the COI request that I have made, especially when the request is concerning directly what the dispute was in the first place. Did I make myself clear enough for you ?--Francparler (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes you believe Fram is biased against you in any way? GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just because you state your COI, doesn't absolve you from it. You remain 100% required to use Misplaced Pages's policies regarding source: for example, YOU are not a reliable source. People who are the subject of an article may remove non-WP:BLP-conforming information on sight from an article, but it is extremely highly recommended that other than removing vandalism, all other changes should be proposed and discussed on the article talkpage in order to a) verify the sourcing, and b) obtain consensus. If you follow these recommendations, there's no need to drag you to WP:COIN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This: User talk:Francparler#Unblocked see HIS last comment and this User talk:Fram#Bourdin and then watch everything that he wrote on my COI request. It's clear to me, he's doing everything he can to make my COI fail if you are not convinced by all this then explain me why he always follow up on everything I'm trying to do here (which is not much). I don't care about people disagreeing with me as long that they are neutral.--Francparler (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Again, that has nothing to do with why I am complaining here. I am willing to discuss why the editing of the page should be made but I am not willing to discuss it (since it's impossible) with biased users. And I think that concerning Misplaced Pages's rules, I can ask for neutral users to review with me my COI request and not being harassed by biased users on the talk pages.--Francparler (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And I would simply hope that "how many friends you have in Misplaced Pages" doesn't decide which edit is good and which edit isn't ! My edit is true and relevant, I can prove it, so I don't even start to understand why I am stopped from editing it.--Francparler (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Francparler, none of the things that Fram said to you, nor their conversation with Bbb23, suggest anything that Fram is aiming to make your COI request fail. Both Fram and Bbb23 are administrators and as such their actions have been above board in their dealings regarding you. Bbb23 asked for an extra admin to look over the situation and approached Fram because they've previously done so. This is entirely appropriate. As an administrator, Fram could have declined your request, however, but chose not to but instead participated in the discussion by offering an opinion as an editor not an adminstrator. Any experienced editor would likely have posed the same questions that were asked. Fram is entirely free to post at the edit request on the article talk page and unfortunately for you, you have no say about whether they can or cannot post there. An uninvolved admin, Kim Dent Brown, has already responded and he will make the appropriate judgements based on his view of the matter. This should be closed forthwith and Kim Dent-Brown left to deal with it. Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I was tempted to just close this, but let me try to explain instead. COI editing is allowed, but you have to follow the same rules as everyone else. The problem with COI editing is that it almost impossible for you to be objective and resist the urge to remove information that you think is wrong, even if it is sourced. Or to add information that you absolutely know is true, but can't be sourced. You have no choice but to talk with biased editors. YOU are a biased editor. We all have biases of one kind or another, so what is expected is for us to rise above them then editing. The problem you have raised is about editing, so there is nothing we lowly admin can do for you. Editors decide content of the articles, not admin. You need to accept that you are one voice, and one voice only, and being that person doesn't give you special voting power. Most importantly, our goal at Misplaced Pages is not The Truth™, it is to publish facts that we can verify in reliable sources. This means that we sometimes sacrifice accuracy in favor of verification. This is not a flaw, it is a deliberate decision. Those are the breaks. If you can't live with this, then you should not edit the article. Right now, your time would be best spent learning what is and isn't a reliable source, and learning how to incorporate the information you want incorporated within our guidelines. Asking for help is often more fruitful than dragging people to WP:AN and WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me just put this then, Jimmy Wales own written words:

This is an unfortunate and I fear typical tale. It is a good example of why we advise people that it is unwise to directly edit their own biographies - it can end in an unfortunate and needless conflict. Here's the most important thing: the changes being suggested by Mr. Bourdin (or whoever he is, if we aren't sure) should be considered thoughtfully and without prejudice as to what the history of this conflict is. There is nothing more important than Misplaced Pages being correct. Beyond that, what I'd like to see is a path forward for Mr. Bourdin to "come in from the cold". Perhaps he could identify to the Foundation and promise to use only one account and not make legal threats and not edit his own biography directly, and then we can all regard this as an unfortunate misunderstanding and move past it with dignity. But even if that doesn't happen, we need to make sure that Misplaced Pages is correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If I can read correctly he wrote: "...we need to make sure that Misplaced Pages is correct...". And even if you don't like it Mister Brown, I will use Misplaced Pages's rules to help me, defending myself against biased users. And I will do what I feel I have to do within Misplaced Pages's rules in order to show that I am right. What's strange about this it's that it's always users that have a good relationship with Bbb23, like Fram or you Mister Brown that are expressing themselves here about a matter that in my opinion you shouldn't interfere with. But then again don't expect me to do what you say. As long as I respect Misplaced Pages's rules I can complaint, and trust me I will not let that matter drop. Thank you--Francparler (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Franc, may I offer a suggestion? The people above, including Fram, are offering you advice. No one is trying to make anything fail here, no one is against you. I strongly recommend you try to do more listening than proving here. Arguing and proving led you down the path to a block last time. Try to hear and understand what others are trying to say.--v/r - TP 15:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

{

I'll chime in here too, as being not involved, and can only second what Tparis said above: no one is against you, all I can see is a big will to offer you advice. Vous devriez écouter, et pas prendre chaque chose dite à propos de ce sujet comme attaque (You should listen, and not take everything said concerning the subject as an attack). Lectonar (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Blackmane but what I mean is I will use Misplaced Pages rules the way Misplaced Pages rules indicate me as to how and when to use them. I believe I can do that right ? If I'm wrong and that you can block me then please do it, if not then refrain from threatening me, directly or indirectly as I believe it violate some rules in Misplaced Pages too. I'm done here. Thank you to those few who did not judge me and know how to read a simple request.--Francparler (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Francparler, the reason I inject myself is that you brought the issue to an administrative board and I'm an admin and you linked a discussion on my talk page, and I've had to act due to your behavior before. Even then, as an IP, I tried to keep you from getting blocked for a legal threat but you refused to listen. You might not like what I have to say, but my intention is to help you and reduce the odds that this ends badly. If it continues in forum after forum, it could end in a disruption block, as TParis has pointed out. I agree that it is best handled by Kim Dent-Brown on the talk page over there, who is arguably one of the most patient and level headed admin we have at Misplaced Pages. This place, ANI has earned the reputation "the drama board" for a reason. This is the last resort, the final call for resolution on editor behavior, not content. I'm not questioning the material you want to add/delete (that is outside the scope of this board). I'm saying that this is the wrong place to solve your problems.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox women

I created the Template:Infobox women to show, among other things, the Gender Inequality Index for every country in the series of articles 'women in…'. As can be seen in Women in Yemen and in the article about the GII itself, there are 146 countries ranked on the list. Another editor keeps on insisting that the template should only rank 145 countries instead, based on a number stated in some pages of the source document http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf, which I believe is a simple mistake however. Any opinion that will help get to the bottom of this rather silly issue is most welcome.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see where it refers to 145 about a half dozen times, but I can't see where you are getting 146. Can you point to the page? All of the charts appear to me to have 187 countries. What's going on?--v/r - TP 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The human development index has been calculated for 187 countries. Either 145 (according to text) or 146 (according to table 4) of them also had their GII calculated. I'd have the template report "out of 146" because you're basing it on the table data, not the explanatory text, and saying Yemen ranked "146 out of 145" is visibly wrong. also, why do you need an admin to resolve this content dispute? Kilopi (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

50.13.78.123

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

IP User 50.13.78.123 has been engaging in slow motion vandalism - vandalized Misplaced Pages 19 times over the last year.

"Aoirthoir" appears to refer to Aoirthoir An Broc, founder of the International Association of Masculinists, which this IP editor has attempted to linkspam twice. (Also see: )

User warnings:

List of all non-vandalism contributions:

In my opinion, this user is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Given the slow motion vandalism, a short block is unlikely to be effective. I suggest an administrator warning, followed by an indefinite block if the vandalism continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, those are brilliant additions to Misplaced Pages and greatly improved the character and interest of your site.

Slow motion vandalism is a funny. name. Please please dont ban me! You will deprive the world of my brilliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.78.123 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Next plc

I am concerned about the edits of User:Matt smith987 to the article on Next plc. He is insisting on refering to a profit forcast of around £630 million for the financial year 2012. I suspect he is an employee of the company. The company's latest official profit forecast as disclosed in the Telegraph of 1 August 2012 suggests profits of "between £575m and £620m". My concerns are:

• Wiki is an encyclopedia - its articles should be factual not predictions of financial performance
• If this new higher forecast is genuine insider information then its disclosure through wiki rather than through the London Stock Exchange is an offence
• If on the other hand the forecast is not genuine, then the comment is creating a false market in the company's shares which is also illegal

I have reverted the inclusion of the profit forecast and at least one other editor has done the same. I think the article needs some sort of protection. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see significant enough disruption that is not already being contained. The only type of "protection" for the article would be full-protect, which would prohibit everyone but admins from editing (by the way, page protection is usually done in this other location. Properly cited material wins - and that's according to WP:CONSENSUS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I agree that properly cited material wins but the forecast of £630m is not cited - and its disclosure may be an offence. Dormskirk (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe that the edit in question constitutes a criminal offence then the appropriate party to contact is the local constabulary, not the administrators' noticeboard. In the absence of legal counsel, we typically do not assume that the editing of any information on Misplaced Pages to add or alter figures without an appropriate citation violates the law. To do so would be utterly impractical. There are certainly issues with Matt smith987's contributions to said article, but they should be pursued on the talk page first. Thus far, there is nothing on the article talk and only boilerplate warnings on the user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for information, this third quarter interim management statement contains Next's most recent profit guidance, and it says "We now expect Group profit before tax to be in the range £590m to £620m". Since then, analysts have been forecasting between £605m and £618m. So the "£630m" claim looks unsourceable to me, and if it keeps being added without a good source then some admin action might be needed - but I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page should be the next port of call, stating what sources actually say. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, what really didn't help was people reverting all of his additions when it was only the profit forecast that was problematic - it was easy enough to just take that bit out, as someone has now done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Boring sock User:Rezibalas

Hi. Please kill this sock. User:Rezibalas -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Must say, the sockmaster is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger

AnthonyMark00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AnthonyMark00 has done nothing but made combative posts, making bad-faith accusations ("your actions are malevolent!") about editors ("Or you can go sabo his page as well!") (even going as far as to imply that everyone involved in an article he just came across was a corporate shill) and sources ("none of them are Christian!"), ignoring any refutation of his arguments, and insulting other editors. He's also made patently false accusations about users. He's also screaming "LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE!" way too early in discussions, and "NOW I AM WATCHING YOU!".

He has been trying to push a pro-Chick Publications POV, as can be seen at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger.

When one of his edits to an article was reverted, instead of even trying to consider my reasons, he posted a bad-faith vandal report in an article (more than once), refusing to acknowledge that the report and it's placement were wrong.

He often treats his ignorance as to the existence of something as definitive proof that something does not exist.

WP:AGF and WP:NPA were pointed out to him repeatedly. WP:NPOV and WP:RS were explained repeatedly. He has no excuse for his behavior.

My initial treatment was civil though stern, but as his combative arrogance continued, I have not been able to react calmly. I don't care if I get a few day's block for my most recent reaction, as long as it it is made perfectly clear to him that his behavior is inappropriate.

I have contributed to this site for several years. I created Debtera, I overhauled Aetherius Society and Dybbuk, I have caught many of the sockpuppets of Josh24B, CentristFiasco, and Krizpo; I have contributed a fair amount to discussions at Talk:Asherah, Talk:Jesus, Talk:Indigo Children, and Talk:Number of the Beast; and I have removed plenty of vandalism at List of people claimed to be Jesus and Seven Princes of Hell.

He has contributed nothing positive, only grief and annoyance.

I cannot see how this can be allowed to continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that is a completly one sided view. And I imagine from the last few messages Ian sent to me he must have felt he needed to get this in first! But I find it quite sad especially the facts that he is leaving out, what ACTUALLY happened yesterday. Like people not bothering to leave the reason for revisions on the talk page and what I thought was people just ignoring obvious errors that had been made setting up the article. And refusing to even respond to me (which I'm sure he did) because I am new to the site.

Yes I got angry! And wrote some passionate things! But at no time was I disrespectful to anyone personally (until AFTER I was personally attacked). And I certainly did not use any foul language or Charracter assasinations. The previous disagreements can be found on the relevant pages. Which I will also point out is where you will find the resolution that was put in place by an administrator.

I respect this site.. But I respect myself more! So I am not going to allow this to be turned on me. Your decision is of course your own. But as you have noticed I had abided by the rules (dispite after the warnings they were being broken by others) And then today when I was working on a completly seperate article when I noticed some feedback left by him in regards to the changes I was suggesting.

I responded to him civily, to which he replied a direct statement on my charracter (assasination) by refferring to a passage in the bible. So I defended myself in the same manner! Which seemed to upset him. Until it eventually came to the point where I had to tell him I would refuse to respond as I felt he was targeting me regardless of whatever I do or write.

And the evidence of this is that he can be found attacking me for the edit I suggested on the John todd article, but elsewhere he can be found saying to others that he has no problem with the changes!?!

So not only has he started the SAME argument we were BOTH warned against yesterday, but because we know that it's not down to the content of my work, that then makes it a campaign of harassment!

Thank you AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to provide any evidence? Just go to Special:Contributions/Ian.thomson, click "diff" next to my revisions, copy the link and place it between . Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt know how to do that right now. I would tell you whats mine there. But I'm sure you will understand why I wont! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving all my descriptions of you. I explained how to provide diffs, you ignored my explanation, allowing you to pretend you've got an excuse to refuse to provide evidence for your accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And I think the fact you are now hunting down my edits, speaks for itself! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That there's anything to hunt down doesn't speak louder? Presenting diffs of the editor's post in question is the standard means of presenting evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean? Not even here can you leave me alone! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Making accusations without evidence against the person that reported you here is not likely to win you any support. The case against you has been made with diffs that appear to support the claims being made. I very strongly suggest you reconsider your refusal to provide diffs to support your side of the argument. In addition, if I may comment on the substance of the dispute, you really should read and understand Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy and also the policy on verifiability. The sources you appear to be using are not likely to meet these requirements, IMHO. Instead of hurling abuse around at those you disagree with, you would be better advised to chill out and try to remember that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort. Continuing to abuse other editors here is likely to earn you a block. - Nick Thorne 04:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, you need to stop. Period. Leave Ian (and Sean Hoyland, for that matter) alone. Leave those two articles alone. Go work on something else that's totally unlike those subjects. Better yet, go read some of the various policies that have been linked to you. The two Nick Thorne have linked would be a great start. I don't think you understand how Misplaced Pages works; a lot of what's gone wrong here is because of that, and that's okay. But now, you need to stop editing until you do understand. I also don't think you're able to edit neutrally on this subject, and I think that continuing to try will only get you in deeper trouble. You started out this whole thing by claiming that there's some sort of corporate conspiracy at work, and things only went downhill from there. Ian got a little too heated in some of his replies with you, but nowhere, nowhere, has he made the kind of statements you're saying he did. He's not stalking you, either. You need to take a step back and look at what you're doing; right now, you're not seeing straight. If you can't stop, then blocks are the next step. (Indeed, I'd consider a block now, but I'm not gonna do it myself; I've entangled myself in this more than enough already, I think.)

Ian, FWIW, I think you might benefit from a break from these topics for a day or two; you seem to have gotten a bit emotionally invested in them. But that's totally up to you; I wouldn't consider anything like an official "reprimand" or whatever. I personally think your behavior has not been outstanding: probably should have left well enough alone at ANEW, for example, and calling people (NOT AnthonyMark, but the subject of the article) "charlatan" and "rapist" is not a good way to make your point, even though both those labels are supported by the article and the points you're trying to make are valid. But, I'd say you haven't behaved horribly either, given the vitriol. You started out a bit too snarky, perhaps (cf. the charlatan diff), and you lost your cool a bit at the end there, but it's understandable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Writ

Were back here again, same place we were yesterday! So nothing has changed for me! So again I will agree with you.

But below is the reply I just spent a couple of houts putting together. So you can ignore that and we can take it from here.

So my ability to defend myself is based on my technical capability to use the site? What I mean is everything I have mentioned can be found on ("this") page & the ("Gail Riplinger") page. And so if what I said is true, Would your not be interested unless I link to it correctly?

And what sources Nick? As stated this has actually been resolved. All this is about is if Ian is allowed to continue to harass me or not!, which I think has been more than established here.

Also this does not demonstrate my point if you look ("Here"). It does not show you what I was talking about. As before this point people were undoing the changes to the article and not putting that information on the talk page. But my own page.. which somehow got deleted.

But ("Here") is where I realised I hadnt been actually reading their responses.. But by that time things were already said and heated.

And then after that ("I realised what was going on!") But something is missing there as you can see Writ was responding to me. It was along the lines of "oh".. As I did read the guidlines but I thought as they are the sole printers & have been for over 10 years & that her book is also their biggest seller made it an obvious exception (that is also included in the guidelines).

Looking over everything I see now it was the way I dealt with it & that I didnt try to reach any kind of understanding. But at that point I had found comments he was writing about me. Which only made things worse.

And I should also point out because I had not seen the responses just the work being undone I was upset as it seemed to me the rules say you have to make the notes in the talk page right? It seemed like no one was even bothering with that & just changing it back. I was writing why I'm changing it, then they were changing it back again without a word.

But you can see some people where responding to me on the talk page about YouTube videos?! When I was only talking about a YouTube video of a recording of JT affirming his faith. And how that is the last instance of him speaking in public about his faith which (and I was proven right) the evidence for is wrong!

Look I know about the Good faith guidelines. But Wiki is meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it! Which is why I am here! You guys cant expect everyone to agree with you.. Although I realise it must be a team effort.

But everything is ("here")

You can see that I had no problem with people treating me respectfully! And that should have been the end of it. But as you can see even when Writ asked him to stop he did not! Then I got a personal message that lead me too me to his page, with him saying all manner of things about me.

I didnt realise it's like facebook & that people can write whatever they liked about others on their page, is that right? (I can see he has now deleted it)And what made it worse was that I had been told if I was to respond to the abuse I was getting then I would be blocked. So I was in the twisted situation (as you can see where he was writing personal abuse towards me, and I was instructed to take it?!)

But even after that (and some ("advice")I left & walked away.

And now today, if you look under ("Sources") I find some very negative feedback from him on the changes I suggested about the main title of the article being still unchanged. I decided I would be best to inform him that I had already discussed this with someone, then I realised that he ("himself")had already agreed to the changes!

At that point I was confused & hoping that this had not turned to a personal vendetta. But you can see that after my very reasonable responses(which he and others had already agreed to). He made a passing comment on the article and then implied I was a ("bad Christian").. And as you would have seen by now it is not the first time.

After that I realised what was going on and tried again to ("end the conversation.") Until I had to refuse to respond to him.

And we have the twisted situation where having suffered abuse, it is ME defending myself. Against something that I have defended myself from already!?

Now I was looking for this as he is right something should be done. As you can see from the comments even on this thread! Whith him (asking nicley) what my changes are only to then reveal the true line of his questioning.

Now having written all of this I will say that looking back though the notes I admit I was a hard ass. But also that I did not come here with a preconception of bad faith in you all. But it was down to what I thought was people ignoring me and being egotistical, and the fact I was spending time to do research just to see it get taken down without a word to me that got me angry. As I explained before I felt that was unfair.. Which I already admitted was down to my own ignorance.

And after writing this essay I'm ready to finish with the site. So my life will go on. But what has happened since then & the way Ian has acted & disregarded direct instructions more than once.. Has been disgraceful!

If you allow him to act like this. After repeated warnings, flagrantly saying things like "I dont care if I get in trouble". Then you will letting yourselves down & literally lowering the website to the standards that you claim to be far away from! Such as sites like Twitter & YouTube! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE As stated im done with this! I accept whatever judgement! Now it's 7am and I have to go to work :( And yes Wiki was worth it.. But I NEVER want to go through this again!

AnthonyMark00 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is highly disrespectful of other editors' time to expect them to wade through a lengthy discussion to try and work out just what statement(s) you are complaining about. The onus is on you to be clear and concise. This last post reads like a rambling rant and it is very hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say. Those who are experienced here have seen these types of replies to allegations before and that experience has shown that often the ones who indulge in such tactics do have a case to answer, regardless of what others may or may not have done or said. The best advice to you is, if you have a valid case to put, use diffs (instructions for this are at the top of this page) and be short and to the point. Oh, and recognise and admit the errors in your own conduct first.

BTW, you appear to be under some serious misaprehensions about how Misplaced Pages works. It is not "meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it". What we are meant to be doing is writing an encyclopaedia. That means that we are not conducting original research, what we "know" is irrelevant. What matters is what the reliable sources say and there are very strict rules about sources, especially in controversial topics or on biographies of living people. You really do need to take a step back and understand the principles here before you continue, otherwise you may find yourself on the receiving end of an enforced holiday from editing Misplaced Pages.

You will never have to go through this again if you simply follow the rules and be civil to to other editors, no matter what provocation you perceive. - Nick Thorne 07:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Nick on basically every point he makes. Personal beliefs are addressed at WP:POV, which I suggest Anthony read. We are primarily an encyclopedia, which is supposed to present information in accord with encyclopedic standards. It is possible that Jack Chick's works are considered reliable sources as per WP:RS by some Christian groups, and I think I have even, on admittedly rare occasions, even seen some of their statements endorsed by other Christians. However, even in those instances, there are certainly better sources to express the opinions of those groups, and as per wikipedia policies and guidelines those are the better sources to use.

I have to agree with Nick that the best thing for Anthony to do is to make a fairly thorough review of policies and guidelines, perhaps particularly WP:RS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:POV, WP:TPG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE before engaging in any further edits of this type. Speaking as one of the most obviously "Christian" editors around here, I have to say that however thoroughly any of us are convinced of our own views regarding subjects, our own views are simply our own views. We are all human beings, and it is clear at least some of us are wrong regarding matters of personal beliefs, giving how thoroughly and completely these beliefs can sometimes contradict each other. It is for that reason that we tend to rely primarily on independent sources which meet WP:RS standards, and most favor those which have been, in some way, peer reviewed. I urge him to thoroughly read the pages linked to above, and if he has any questions raise them on the talk pages of those pages, and conduct himself in accord with them, before engaging in conduct of this type again. I think if he does so he will be much more likely to be succeed. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiredbee

I received UTRS #5010 from Wiredbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in which he states that he is not a sockpuppet of RobertRosen. Looking through his contributions and the corresponding SPI for RobertRosen, I am inclined to believe this claim based on the fact that there was no IP match and considering his UTRS statement, and would have unblocked him if not for the fact that he has engaged in socking himself, with alternate accounts Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and FriendOfMorpheus. However, in our conversation in UTRS, he has agreed to use only one account. Please review this matter. (Note: I have modified his block specifically to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• The CU linked them to User:Wiredbee in the investigation. . The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities. Even if this is completely true and he is "only" linked to these other accounts, there is overlap in accounts and there is abuse in multiple articles. Friend of Morpheus was just blocked. Normally the shortest block I would have given at SPI would be two weeks, so I would recommend against unblock before then regardless, but not convinced there isn't linkage. As User:Reaper Eternal made the blocks, I've notified him of this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I made the blocks. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would also add that there may be two sockmasters, yet meatpuppetry going on between them, further justifying scrutiny here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Guys, please go ahead and do the investigations. Just make sure that you do your investigation with enough reasoning and patience. I've said before that I have no acquaintance with RobertRosen and I repeat the same. It was a mere co-incidence that we shared the same point of view and expressed it strongly. I'm in no hurry to get my account unblocked. If you need 2 weeks to complete your investigations, please take 2 weeks. Wiredbee (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

i would oppose any unblock until the user can convincingly display that they understand and are willing to follow our WP:BLP policy. One of the many socks before they were blocked left a long tirade vowing to bring Bunker Roy down. I cannot find which one now to determine whether it was from the Wiredbee sock collection or the RobertRosen sock collection, but since even if they are not sock puppets they have been MEAT puppets, the BLP / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns are the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was expecting TheRedPenOfDoom to come to this forum and oppose the unblocking of my Misplaced Pages account. I haven't seen all contributions by TheRedPenOfDoom but looking at the earliest archive on his talk page, I can see that he has been contributing to Misplaced Pages since 2009. I'm sure TheRedPenOfDoom has contributed selflessly towards making Misplaced Pages as the greatest knowledge repository in the history of mankind. Compared to TheRedPenOfDoom, I have contributed nothing to Misplaced Pages. I have contributed to Misplaced Pages in donation, but what I have received from Misplaced Pages (knowledge) is priceless. In the current situation, I'm piqued with the Misplaced Pages team in general and TheRedPenOfDoom in particular because you've chosen to take a hardline stance against my genuine position. I have two points to contest and if we're unable to reach a consensus on these two points, then I would suggest that you keep my account locked forever. I will continue to use Misplaced Pages, I will continue to donate money to Misplaced Pages and I will also contribute to Misplaced Pages with my writing skills. However, I will never look at the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy wiki pages again, nor will I bad mouth Misplaced Pages. But I will certainly tell the world that Misplaced Pages is not telling the truth about Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. And people will believe me because I've worked in Barefoot College for 3 years.
  

My first point is that the reference to the Time magazine post by Greg Mortenson should not be used at all in the wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. There is no basis to include the data written by Greg Mortenson and this rationale has been logically explained by BlackMansBurden at the Barefoot_College talk page. If you ignore any other misdemeanors of BlackMansBurden and focus only on the issue about the Time magazine post, you will see my point. As BlackMansBurden has also explained in the talk page, Time is a reputed magazine but the writer Greg Mortenson is under a cloud for telling lies in order to achieve personal glory. Greg Mortenson's lies have been compiled into a book by Jon Krakauer. Recently Greg Mortenson was asked by the Montana state attorney general to step down from his own charity and return US$1 million in charity funds.

My second point is that TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be playing the Devil's Advocate by taking the spotlight away from a controversy in which Barefoot College / Bunker Roy were proved as plagiarists. It is responsibility of Misplaced Pages to provide links to reliable sources which explain the controversy in full detail. Although TheRedPenOfDoom has created a section "Returned Awards" that describes the controversy in brief, he deliberately chooses a source that only describes the controversy in passing. The Hindu newspaper and the Frontline magazine are published by the same publication house. Therefore, if source #1 is reliable, then source #2 is also reliable. It should not matter that because source #1 was published earlier, it alone should be used as a reference. Either we should use both the sources or we should use source #2. In addition, source #3 should also be given as reference. Also the section "Returned Awards" should be rephrased as "Controversy".

That is all I have to say. I will not make any further comments on this topic any more. Wiredbee (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

the above post does nothing but bolster my concern that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather continue to pursue a POV campaign and is not above using this ANI board to continue BLP attacks rather than present evidence that they are going to be a productive member of the editing community. oppose unblock.

I will leave it to another party to redact any inappropriate BLP content from Wiredbee's screed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In terms of contributions Wiredbee and the three other sock accounts were editing the same two articles disruptively and indistinguishably to BlackMansBurden. In particular Wiredbee's objections to Time magazine as a source and his forum shopping concerning TRPOD are no different from the edits of BlackMansBurden. Whether these are the same person or just two closely coordinated users is irrelevant, since there are just too many common abnormal features in their editing. Wiredbee has given no reasonable explanation of his three other sockpuppet accounts, all editing with the same common purpose. The three accounts were discovered accidentally by a checkuser and, given Wiredbee's outburst above, should probably remain blocked. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, I wasn't the blocking admin. I just tagged them and restored talkpage access for the socks, since Uncle G (talk · contribs) had blocked them without talkpage access.)

The lack of an IP match is meaningless given that RobertRosen freely admits to block evasion using tor and related anonymizing networks.

That said, however, I believe that this is sockpuppetry or blatant meatpuppetry. Both groups are obsessed with adding large amounts of negative material to the Barefoot college and Bunker Roy articles. For example:

• Wiredbee originally adds a "criticism" section.
• Northerncreek revises and expands that negative material with further poorly-sourced content.
• Norwichlass further appends to that section.
• Northerncreek expands the references.
• Wiredbee adds material accusing Barefoot College of plagiarism.
• Northerncreek adds more negative material
• Wiredbee expands the references.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts this massive addition, and Wiredbee restores it.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts it and adds a listing of an award received by the Barefoot College, but BlackMansBurden removes positive sourced content.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts.
• BlackMansBurden makes an edit that indicates the potential use of a misconfigured proxy. (Note the conversion of a pipe character to the HTML encoding.)
• BlackMansBurden reverts TheRedPenOfDoom again, removing positive content. (A revert war then ensues until I block BlackMansBurden indefinitely for sockpuppetry.) TheRedPenOfDoom and Annette46 then expand the article.
• Wiredbee returns and reverts the addition of a large amount of positive content, so Annette46 reverts Wiredbee's edits as vandalism.
• Northerncreek replaces a reference with www.architexturez.net, and is reverted.
• Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and Wiredbee are blocked by Uncle G for sockpuppetry.

On Bunker Roy:

• Northerncreek, Wiredbee, and Norwichlass insert a large amount of negative content over several months.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and Wiredbee revert this material back and forth.
• HotPepperSpray removes positive content and adds negative content. Again, note the conversion of characters to HTML encoding which indicates a misconfigured proxy.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and HotPepperSpray revert back and forth until Courcelles (talk · contribs) blocks HotPepperSpray with {{checkuserblock-account}}.
• Wiredbee randomly deletes a reference and is reverted by Qworty.
• BlackMansBurden accuses Bunker Roy of plagiarism, and is reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom. They then revert back and forth a couple times until I block BlackMansBurden.
• Wiredbee adds numerous tags, something BlackMansBurden oldid=524134275 also does.

Furthermore, both groups add ANI complaints about TheRedPenOfDoom citing WP:NPOV and WP:NPA respectively (Northerncreek and BlackMansBurden) Even if they ultimately are not the same person, they are obviously colluding and both are socking to put down Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nice presentation. I found much of this when investigating last night, entirely too much overlap to be a coincidence and I completely agree with Reaper Eternal's conclusions. The blocks should stay, and the User:Wiredbee reblocked for an indef period for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: regarding The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities, please do not read that much into an  Inconclusive result — at least, as far as I'm concerned. When I close an investigation as "inconclusive", it means that the technical data I got do not allow me to make a determination one way or the other. If I believe that there is the possibility that two accounts are operated by the same person, then I usually close as  Possible. In this case, I could confirm that Wiredbee was operating three other accounts, but, as far as their connection to RobertRosen is concerned, it's something that will have to be determined based upon behavioural evidence, as I said earlier. Salvio 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, thanks for compiling a detailed dossier of the events leading to my blocking. While everything in the event listing is true, it is also true that BlackMansBurden and me (Wiredbee) are not known to each other. If you check the Barefoot College revision history from Nov-17 onwards, you will find that I did not attempt to revert most of the critical material that I had written. I only challenged the Barefoot College claim of training 3 million people to be architects, engineers, doctors etc. and the x-reference to the Aga Khan Awards controversy. It was just a coincidence that BlackMansBurden and I (Wiredbee) stuck to this position. So while you may continue to block my account indefinitely, you should at least ask 3-4 other Misplaced Pages editors to review the material on Barefoot College's wiki page and take a decision. These editors should be known to be unbiased and preferably familiar with the workings of charitable organizations / NGOs in India and other developing countries. Wiredbee (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

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

Without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has gone over 7 days and now requires closure. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Close as keep or close as delete? Plenty of good arguments in there for both.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 35 AfDs open from the same day, they will slowly be closed or relisted (not this one). No need to bring AfDs here which have only such a small delay and arepart of the normal backlog. If AfDs are forgotten somehow, or are really problematic (not just by being evenly split, but because of sockpuppetry, canvassing, speedy deletion aspects, ...), they can be brought here, but routine delays like this one are not an "incident". Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up AfD specific comments

• The AfD was started 03:42 UTC, 20 November 2012.
• ‎The standard 7 day period expired 03:42 UTC, 27 November 2012.
• I boldly re-listed the AfD at 08:02 UTC, 28 November 2012.
• Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy.

As for the merits or otherwise of the article in question, I've said my piece at the AfD --Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken throwing a tantrum

Just read his recent edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Any reason you are edit warring over image sizes, instead of having a discussion? WP:BRD and all that... Fram (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram: To answer your quite reasonable question: yes, there is a reason, but you might have to be inside my skin to understand it. I've been the victim of Yworo's campaigns before, and in the past I eventually decided to be a good Wikipedian and retreat without making a fuss. He went away after that, and I thought it was over, but he appeared again recently, coming across a formatting edit of mine that he disagreed with, and then went back through my recent contribs, deleting formatting changes in about a dozen articles. Even then, I held back, but I decided last night that I wasn't going to take his b.s. anymore, that it wasn't right for him to walk all over me, that I had to take a stand against his bullying. In reponse, I probably over-reacted, I'm sure -- it's hard to know exactly when to stop, once you get going -- and I'm sorry if I went too far, but I don't apologize for fighting back against an unimaginative and authoritarian bully, who, if he isn't stopped, is bound to do it again to other editors less able to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any traces (AN/ANI discussions, RfCs, ...) about these earlier campaigns, or is this the first time that it has lead to the dramah boards? Fram (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the discussions took place on my talk page (I can look back through the history if you like) - I don't recall it coming here, but I could be mistaken (my middle-aged brain being what it is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Visual disabilities. The Image Use Policy is quite clear that images should be manually sized only if there is a good reason to do so. Manually sizing the images prevents the visually disabled from adjusting image sizes as needed using their preferences. I've had the discussion with many editors over many years. I had it with BMK in 2010. He is the only editor who, even after understanding the issue, refuses to allow anyone to change "his" articles from "his" personal preferred image style. Yworo (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Yworo, Forum shop much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Yworo (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To quote the relevant part of the policy: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference unless you use upright with a scaling factor, so the use of upright is preferred wherever sensible." Yworo (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Then start an RfC or similar venue for dispute resolution, don't edit war on multiple articles. Things like don't look good on either of you, and the fact that you are specifically targetting articles by Beyond My Ken for this treatment is worrying. Remember that 3RR is not a right, you can be blocked for edit warring without ever crossing 3RR. Fram (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to note that I stopped mostly after one revert, then tagged the articles. BMK reverted both the change and the tag and has two or three reverts on each article, as well as multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It worthwhile to note that only people with accounts can set their thumbnail size in preferences. That means that everyone that Yworo pretends to be concerned about who does not have an account -- i.e. the majority of the world -- only sees what is in the article. What that means (and what Yworo seems not to understand -- although he only brought up the accessibility issue recently, he's been doing the same thing without regard to that for quite a while -- is that the question of accessibility for the visually impaired is a browser issue and not a Misplaced Pages one. We set up the articles so they look good, and specialized browsers are responsible for making them accessible for the visually impaired. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And we have a policy that is a compromise taking into account the visually impaired and the many types of devices, phones, tablets, etc. which our readers use. We take into account that the residents of the third world don't have 1920 x 1200 monitors: if they are lucky enough to have access to a computer, it is likely 800 x 480. Our policy and default thumbnail sizes are the way they are for multiple reasons, and you have been willfully ignoring this for years. If you think the defaults should be changed, the proper place to go about it is on the talk pages of the policies concerned, not in article space and through edit warring. Yworo (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Edit summaries like "you're soo special", "kicks the legally blind into the gutter"? Oh wait, those are yours. Yworo, you are trying to blame this on Beyond My Ken, but as far as I can tell, this is a typical situation where both parties should step back and change their approach. Stop reverting, stop tagging, and go for outside opinions on the actual dispute, not on behavioral aspects, which look bad for both of you. Fram (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram: (Sorry, I had a response to you, but I had to revert when Yworo took my response to your earlier comment and moved it down here) Yes, I will step back immediately. I would ask that Yworo stop culling my contributions for things to delete. I may not be the epitome of the perfect Wikipedian, but I've contributed a fair amount in my time, and I would appreciate receiving that consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Looking at what lies behing this section, the image size debate, it seems that the policy is way out of line with what actually happens in our articles, and Beyond My Ken isn't the exception with his fixed sizes at all. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 2012:

• Fixed size for (at least some of) the files: Folding@home, Singapore strategy, Kingdom of Mysore, Gabriel Fauré, Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot), Abuwtiyuw, William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896, ...
• No fixed size for files: Carlson's patrol, Banksia ilicifolia, William Warelwast, History of Sesame Street, Edmund Sharpe, ...

This seems to be one of those policies that is not really in line with what actually happens in our articles, even in the best of them. Singling out one editor and focusing on his articles (articles he made a lot of edits in, and where you had no prior or other involvement in most cases) seems to be an unproductive way of enforcing a policy most people don't care about anyway. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks a lot like a WP:HOUNDING case here. Is Yworo crawling through BMK's articles to find problems? I can't imagine he stumbles on BMKs randomly.--v/r - TP 15:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If an editor persistently edits in a manner which reduces the quality of our articles in a particular manner, then it does not constitute hounding to periodically use said editor's contributions list as a guide to remedying that, especially if the user has had it patiently explained to him why he is in the wrong. I've done the same in the past with BMK's (thankfully now historical) insistence in inserting superfluous whitespace above and below article bodies. As for the thumbnail policy itself, I'd say it's nearly universally respected these days, and that a small sample of FAs is hardly indicative (two seconds' examination of Folding@Home, for instance, shows that its images are almost all charts or screenshots which may be difficult to read if arbitrarily scaled, and that it is therefore a valid exception). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say edit summaries like "kicks the legally blind into the gutter" takes it out of the realm of engaging a problematic user on failing to address policy and into the realm of a personal vendetta. Just my personal opinion. Yworo should have asked someone else to engage with BMK sooner.--v/r - TP 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is unacceptable, but so is spreading a diatribe against another editor across 18 edit summaries attached to edits on different articles. (Some of the edits, like this one, are mildly negative, but the edit summaries are worse.) Kanguole 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've not said anything excusing BMK.--v/r - TP 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_Yworo_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29

I've protected the page. as I noted in the link above, I chose protection over blocking in the hopes that you two will talk this out instead of continuing edit warring. But if it continues, further sanction may occur as necessary. - jc37 08:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not. Fourth revert on another article. Yworo (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One wonders who User:Westeastis here, an account created just today, really is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer: troll sock, now CU-blocked by Salvio. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we ec'd as I was reporting that. Glad that's cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Even without an account, I'm annoyed by explicit sizing and I sometimes remove the explicit sizes when I come across them, but these days a lot of them are in protected templates so are impervious to normal editing. The default sizes presented to me as an unenrolled user are usually preferable to (smaller than) the big sizes people set manually because they want to sell more of whatever the image depicts. I'm not a believer in the manual of style controlling anyone's editing, though in this case I agree that what it says is right for the encyclopedia and also conflicts with observed (unfortunate) practice. One of these days I'll get it together to install my own personal snapshot of Misplaced Pages on my home computer, so I can (among other things) set the defaults the way I like them. At that point the manually set sizes will be even more annoying. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hasty WP:NAC

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

I've just carried out a non-admin closure of what looks like a fairly uncontroversial AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Earl Grey of Chimay. The article had already been CSD'd by an admin, so I was trying to help. I've then realised that I was kind of WP:INVOLVED, since I had previously !voted in the AfD. I don't think this is the biggest cock-up in the world, but could someone tell me the correct course of action here before I really cock things up trying to revert myself? Thanks. — sparklism 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's already been speedy deleted by G7 at the request of the author, I see nothing contentious and no problem with your closure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is generally acceptable for participants in an AfD to close it if: 1) the article has already been deleted by an administrator, or 2) the nominator has withdrawn the AfD, and there are no outstanding "delete" !votes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I occasionally non-admin close AfDs that have been CSDed or where the author has explicitly requested closure against a unanimous keep (example of mine here). I see no problem with what you've done. --Ritchie333 12:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I was just concerned that I had clearly contravened WP:NAC's point about inappropriate closures, but I'll stop worrying now. Thanks guys. — sparklism 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely why bots are used to close some discussions at FFD — many images get speedy deleted by admins who don't close the discussions, and nobody's ever going to object to closure in such a case. They might object to the speedy deletion, but that's not a problem for the person who closed it. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NACD: "If a page is speedy deleted, but the deleting administrator does not close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion." I imagine that line was written specifically for cases like this. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Urgent attention required - personal details posted

After an ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/House of du Souich, User:Matt 800 posted a comment noting that an RFC had been started (here - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sue Rangell). Matt 800 posted the same information in both but his commentary included another editor's full name, supposed private address and supposed IP address. This is clearly WP:HARASSMENT. Not being an admin, I can't remove the RFC so I have also not removed the corresponding comment from the AFD.

Could an admin remove both please? I have warned Matt 800 on his talk page but the whole lot really should be removed properly. Thanks, Stalwart111 12:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is a request for Oversight, which is handled at a more senior level than here. Please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight and follow the instructions there. --Ritchie333 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've deleted the RFC and rev-deleted the outing in the AfD as a stopgap, but it also needs to go for Oversight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Am on my iPad rather than PC, so am a bit limited. Thought attention here would be better than none at all. Suggestions? Stalwart111 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When you edit this page, the edit notice says:

;Oversight & Revision Deletion If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime.

Posting details here places it on one of the most looked at pages in the project - not the best way to deal with privacy concerns, really, but it happens fairly regularly. (just saying...) How do we stop this happening? Begoon  12:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, as I said above - on my iPad rather than PC. No email and that form doesn't work for non-emailed account. It was either post it here or not at all. Given the content, I thought it best to ask here rather than not at all. But thanks for your advice. Stalwart111 12:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I thought you hadn't seen the notice. It wasn't advice, it was a request for ideas about how to get the point across better. I didn't realise you'd done it despite the notice. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. I was also battling edit-conflicts - as you'll see in the history, and didn't see your "Suggestions?" question, although I should have done, sorry - so I'm asking the same question as you, really Begoon  12:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All good Begoon, no problem. Agree it might need to be looked at. For non-email-enabled accounts from tablets, phones, etc the option just isn't there. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I already upset the wife today, so I'd rather not upset people here too... Your experience says there also needs to be a way to do this when the options on offer are no good. Posting on an admin's talk page isn't much better, even if you know they are online you still need to make sure they see it, or find another admin if they don't. So if we're really serious about privacy we need better options, and a better way to let people know what they are - but I can't think of any offhand - hence the question. Begoon  13:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, one of those days! Ha ha. Yes, the question (perhaps under less urgent circumstances) is well worth discussing in detail. Maybe something for WP:VPP at some stage. Stalwart111 13:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not adopt a convention that the any person reading it here can delete the post, then post a notice to the OP letting them know how it should be handled. That would cut down the number of people who see it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't work well -- removals jump out as red negative numbers on the history which attract more attention than regular edits. I do think it would be appropriate for an admin to revdel (with an explanatory edit summary, of course -- something like refer to OTRS). NE Ent 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. My watch list has a sea of red, so a red entry doesn't jump out at me. (Plus, the problem exists because editors are ignoring the big red message, so I'm not convinced a small red number will be more obvious, and if it is, change the edit notice to a small red negative number) If you use an edit summary of "archiving" which is sort of accurate, I don't think it would bring as much attention as actually remaining. There may be better solutions, but I'm not looking for a perfect looking, I'm proposing an easy change which might help. Let me turn it around - it is generally considered bad form to remove someone else's post. Would anyone object to an exception for cases where someone has posted in violation of a request to handle it differently?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Side note - Matt 800 removed Boing!'s redact note at the AFD and replaced it with a new version of his commentary which still includes an IP and geo-locate details (state only). That seems borderline at best. The intention still seems to be to out the other editor in some way or at least draw attention to the editor's private details. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - Well its not outing to list what an IP editor has done or where their IP geolocates to. They have provided that info by editing as an IP. Whats not on is accusing an editor here with a username from being that IP. Of course if an editor here is actually silly enough to start deleting stuff on fr-wp (in order to bolster an 'its not on fr so its not notable to the French' argument) as an IP, its got to be looked at somewhere/how. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. Stalwart111 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/France2007, as evidence (particularly this edit) suggests Matt 800 is an alternate account of France2007. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Article deleted and AFD closed per user request. I am tempted to block the editor for socking in the AFD as an IP. They admit here to being the IP and they !voted here as France2007 and here 30 minutes later as the IP. But I've just let it go because I'm pretty sure France2007 gets the idea that he has done wrong.--v/r - TP 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That doesn't look like socking. Misplaced Pages's crap servers lose session data pretty often. As result people find themselves posting while logged out unless they are very careful. There is no attempt there by France2007 to appear as two different editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Posting two seperate keep !votes doesn't look like an intentional effort was made? I've never had a problem with losing session data. Two keep !votes, in succession, within 30 minutes of each other, by the same user and coincidently the mystical lose of session data that I've never seen pops up? Sorry, pretty lame excuse you have there.--v/r - TP 18:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It happened to me dozens if not hundreds of times. It was even the Signpost at some point . Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • You pointed to a 6 month old signpost that said it was fixed.--v/r - TP 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
          • It happened to me today and most of this week as well. I've seen other claims of stuff being fixed on Misplaced Pages, but it wasn't really. . Tijfo098 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm still not buying it. Let's figure for a moment that you're right and I just have been unconventially lucky (might go buy a loto ticket tonight), how does it explain the user's deliberate action of leaving a second keep !vote?--v/r - TP 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
              • If you don't buy it, then block him. You're an admin. I for one am more interested in seeing how the SPI France2007 vs. Matt 800 tuns out. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
                • I already said, I think he gets the point and a block at this point wouldn't be preventative. His last edit to the AfD seems to show he is starting to understand.--v/r - TP 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • Just as an update, I've blocked France2007 (and a couple of IPs) for a month and indef blocked Matt 800 for sockpuppetry. They have also tag teamed on the fr.wikipedia.org, plus other technical details link these two as the same. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/France2007 Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleopatra Stratan

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

User 188.131.64.120 has removed all content from http://en.wikipedia.org/Cleopatra_Stratan, replacing it instead with a Romanian-language "article" on Caisîn Alexandru (the identity of this character is unknown, and might be the vandal himself) and how good a student he is. I have written to them, but I highly doubt they will see the message in their talk page. Still, if you are unable to block him/her for that act of vandalism, please at least change the article back to its original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.93.5 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TheShadowCrow

The user was blocked for a month for edit-warring and indefinitely from the topics of Armenian-Azeri and related ethnic conflicts.

Today, the block expired, and they immediately started a dispute on Talk:Arsen Galstyan, which, I believe, demonstrates that they misunderstand WP:Verifiability (they make a statement that Galstyan is an Armenian citizen, which is equivalent to the statement that he breaks the law, and insist that I should prove he is not).

I request the administrators to estimate (i) whether this is a topic ban violation (I am not 100% sure this is a related dispute - this is clearly a topic which is Armenian, but not Armenian-Azeri);; (ii) whether this is a proper application of WP:Verifiability. If I am wrong on both counts, I will treat it as a usual content dispute and proceed via usual avenues. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:CTCooper says it's ok to edit sports articles with no political controversy. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're continuing an Armenian-Azeri conflict, only moving it to sports articles. As such, it falls under the same rules ... obviously nationaility has possible political controversy, and you know that already (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Bwilkins. If you had been updating points or neutral facts, that would be one thing, but you instantly went in and started arguing Armenian ethnicity issues, which is certainly in violation of the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. There was no political controversy in that article until you started participating. That is the entire reason the ban was enacted, to prevent this type of disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was Editing articles of people which happen to be Armenian or Azerbaijani is tolerable if there is no ethnic/nationalistic related content, which covers a lot of sports' BLPs, but anything beyond that is not. This is clearly an ethnic issue, and I therefore believe it to be in violation of the ban. TheShadowCrow has also been warned multiple times that editing on the edges of a topic ban is frowned upon, so my sympathy is limited here. It is also difficult to ignore the same pattern of behaviour here when it comes to learning and respecting policy. That said, I would be opposed to a block in this instance unless TheShadowCrow refuses to disengage. CT Cooper · talk 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

AIV

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

AIV is backlogged. Would deal with it myself, but have to run to work. Danger! 17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Not by me, but it's not backlogged anymore. --Jayron32 18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal Threat

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

Looks like | this is a legal threat. Perhaps a short break is needed ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive, aggravating and pointless. He's been asked not to do it for years now. My preferred solution would be a week-long block on the next occasion, doubled for every future infraction. Unfortunately BMK will always have interference run for him by the sort of well-meaning but naive enablers evident above. In the end, BMK is but one man, and so ultimately his idiosyncrasies will be ironed out of articles despite his efforts. In the meantime, editors should simply revert his more common problematic edits on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards