Revision as of 07:14, 4 February 2015 editFlossumPossum (talk | contribs)109 edits →Power Rangers Dino charge/Yoshua Sudarso: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:19, 4 February 2015 edit undoHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,834 edits →IIPM: rNext edit → | ||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
I was surprised by the block of ]. While I've seen plenty of evidence of ]/] (who remains unblocked) and Wifione misusing sources, puffing IIPM and dissing IIPM's competitors, all I've seen Makrandjoshi doing is standing firm against IIPM's censorship of Misplaced Pages. I haven't looked at all of his edits, of course, but what I've seen has been to the benefit of this project, in the face of considerable harassment. (Apart from the death threats and threats of violence ], he was also threatened with police prosecution by .) Could you have made an error in this instance? --] (] · ] · ]) 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | I was surprised by the block of ]. While I've seen plenty of evidence of ]/] (who remains unblocked) and Wifione misusing sources, puffing IIPM and dissing IIPM's competitors, all I've seen Makrandjoshi doing is standing firm against IIPM's censorship of Misplaced Pages. I haven't looked at all of his edits, of course, but what I've seen has been to the benefit of this project, in the face of considerable harassment. (Apart from the death threats and threats of violence ], he was also threatened with police prosecution by .) Could you have made an error in this instance? --] (] · ] · ]) 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the link. It's interesting, and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who's reached the conclusion that these articles are a hotbed of unhelpful editing, but it doesn't prove much. There's not enough to conclusively tie Wifione to Mrinal Pandey/Empengent (who to this day remain unblocked, so even if you prove the connection it could be argued that it was clean start since they're not evading a block). But from what I've seen, the article has been infested with single-purpose accounts, and I don't see Makrandjoshi as being any different. I read the Wikipediocracy thread (I normally go elsewhere for comedy, but somebody told me I was mentioned), and the argument against the block appears to be that Makrandjoshi is a POV pusher but they're pushing a "good" POV so we should look the other way. That argument holds no more water for me than the argument that we should turn a blind eye to disruption caused by anti-gamergaters just because the people they were opposing were even worse. It's the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" fallacy. I've looked again, and Makrandjoshi's edits are almost exclusively focused on the IIPM—the IIPM article is their most-edited, for example, to which they have 20 times the number of edits to the second article on the list (which itself is the IIPM's founder). If I had to guess, I would say it's likely, given the article's history, that Makrandjoshi is connected with one of the IIPM's competitors. And to address the other argument being made on Wikipediocracy, the arbs are unlikely to appreciate some random admin wading in and blocking the main party to a case days before the proposed decision is due. ] | ] | |||
== Power Rangers Dino charge/Yoshua Sudarso == | == Power Rangers Dino charge/Yoshua Sudarso == |
Revision as of 14:19, 4 February 2015
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
Accusations of Ad Hom
Respectfully, I do not believe that my comment on AE was irrelevant. It may be considered ad hom, but was not intended to be absusive and arguments against the accusers character are implicitly allowed by several WP policies, including WP:Boomerang. It is my argument that the high amount of investment by this particular editor in the subject area has been causing an extreme battlefield mentality in the editor in question. He has personally been the reason I left the page, the way he edits is needlessly confrontational and he flaunts the line of civility which makes it hard to assume good faith for his edits. While these may be considered ad hom, and I would not completely disagree with you there, they are very relevant to a discussion when he brings cases for enforcement. Specifically, the two previous cases I cited are important because they show how the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. He is being confrontational and toeing the line of civility intentionally to frustrate who he views as opponents in order to immediately push for their topic bans if they misstep, instead of trying to find common ground with them.
I respectfully ask that you allow me to unhat my section. I will remove the portions about the banned editor. I apologize, I did not realize these issues had been previously litigated. I do not agree with your conclusion, I believe he is toeing the letter of the rule but violating the spirit with his conduct, but I will respectfully defer. Ries42 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to gather diffs that show Hipocrite misconducting himself (and yes, creating a hostile atmosphere is misconduct, and I have sanctioned editors for that before, but I don't see evidence of it in your comments) and file an enforcement request, please do. But your comments at AE boil down to the proxying for Ryulong (which has been discussed at length and the conclusion has been that it wasn't against policy; indeed, see my remarks a few sections up), an enforcement request against you which resulted in no action, and an enforcement request at AE which was essentially a request for an interaction ban but was closed as premature. None of that is evidence of misconduct, and I hatted it because none of it had anything to do with the matter at hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- My 0.02. I am concerned that sympathy for a banned editor receiving an "unjust" sanction is driving certain behavior. There should be no quarter given for editors acting in sympathy. The ban is what it is and proxying for that person should be construed as a violation of the ban. --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- But it isn't. Acting on behalf of a banned editor is not, in and of itself, in violation of any policy currently written. Besides, there's no way to tell the difference between sympathetic editors who have put a given article on their watchlist while its maintainer serves out his ban and editors who are acting on a direct requests from the banned editor. As I said above, if they're disruptive, follow the normal channels for disruptive editing; if somebody disagrees with them, follow the normal content dispute resolution procedures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is covered explicitly by policy in WP:MEAT
A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Misplaced Pages's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement.
A new user isn't new to wikipedia, rather, new to the topic as the policy states. It seems obvious on its face that editors that edit within the findings of fact for the banned or t-banned editor are by definition disruptive. It's the very definition of meat puppetry and sanctions should be equivalent (i.e. behavior of a banned editor is a ban, behavior of a t-ban editor is a t-ban). It's why ArbCom has findings of facts and remedies that go with them. Why do you the the WP:MEAT policy does not apply to editors acting on behalf of banned and t-banned editors when ArbCom has already ruled the behavior is disruptive? --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)- That bit of policy doesn't really apply to this situation—MEAT is about (usually brand new) editors recruited off-wiki, normally to give the impression that multiple independent voices share the same opinion—but even it doesn't prohibit making an edit on behalf of somebody else (even a banned somebody else). The bit of policy that does apply to the immediate situation is WP:PROXYING, which says Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Hipocrite has sated that he believes he has independent reasons for the edits and that he has independently verified their content, so there's certainly nothing I, as a single admin, can do. Unless of course the edits are disruptive in their own right, but nobody sees to be arguing that. The other option is to start an RfC and attempt to gain consensus to 'outlaw' (so to speak) this sort of thing in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Besides, there's no way to tell the difference between sympathetic editors who have put a given article on their watchlist while its maintainer serves out his ban and editors who are acting on a direct requests from the banned editor.
When you put User_talk:Ryulong under full protection, did you perchance read the exchange between him and Hipocrite? Requests likeMake a page with your watchlist that I can watch to figure out what I'm supposed to do while you're gone.
(emphasis mine) don't exactly connote independent acts motivated by "sympathy" to me. An editor who wanted to make contributions in good faith, and not simply proxy for the banned editor, would already know what to do.
- It is covered explicitly by policy in WP:MEAT
- But it isn't. Acting on behalf of a banned editor is not, in and of itself, in violation of any policy currently written. Besides, there's no way to tell the difference between sympathetic editors who have put a given article on their watchlist while its maintainer serves out his ban and editors who are acting on a direct requests from the banned editor. As I said above, if they're disruptive, follow the normal channels for disruptive editing; if somebody disagrees with them, follow the normal content dispute resolution procedures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
76.64.33.14 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- You're new here and so unfamiliar with some editors to whom the rules do not apply. Despite its billing as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" we edit only at their pleasure. HJ Mitchell is typically (and uncommonly) judicious but even he believes himself and Mr Hypocrite above the IP rabble. 166.137.252.124 (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take the "judicious" remark at face value and thank you for it, but I don't believe that registered editors are inherently superior to the "IP rabble". A study was done a while ago, it's a bit outdated now but it's still interesting, that although the vast majority of vandalism came from IPs, actually the vast majority of IP edits were helpful. Anyway, what this boils down to is that I don't think Hipocrite has actually violated any policy, and even if he has there doesn't seem to be any support for blocking him, so if I was to block him my action would promptly be overturned. So I would say that unless Hipocrite is behaving disruptively, his motives for any particular edit are academic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, is your talk page a free-fire zone where people can assume bad faith about me? When I asked for his watchlist and "figure out what I'm supposed to do," it was directly referring to his previous statement that he "update a bunch of episode lists." I note that previously I had written "Provide a list and I will guarantee coverage. I can do the formatting," responding to "All I do is update a bunch of episode lists because I put in too much of a complex formatting for anyone to possibly use on their own." The misrepresentation of my statement is abusive, and I'd ask for more than an "academic," clearance of my statements, I'd like a clear statement that I have actually done nothing wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently so. In my opinion as one admin, you've done nothing wrong. The consensus at AN also appeared to be that you've done nothing wrong. And as long as your edits are neutral and verifiable, I don't see that changing. That's as unequivocal as I can be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, is your talk page a free-fire zone where people can assume bad faith about me? When I asked for his watchlist and "figure out what I'm supposed to do," it was directly referring to his previous statement that he "update a bunch of episode lists." I note that previously I had written "Provide a list and I will guarantee coverage. I can do the formatting," responding to "All I do is update a bunch of episode lists because I put in too much of a complex formatting for anyone to possibly use on their own." The misrepresentation of my statement is abusive, and I'd ask for more than an "academic," clearance of my statements, I'd like a clear statement that I have actually done nothing wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take the "judicious" remark at face value and thank you for it, but I don't believe that registered editors are inherently superior to the "IP rabble". A study was done a while ago, it's a bit outdated now but it's still interesting, that although the vast majority of vandalism came from IPs, actually the vast majority of IP edits were helpful. Anyway, what this boils down to is that I don't think Hipocrite has actually violated any policy, and even if he has there doesn't seem to be any support for blocking him, so if I was to block him my action would promptly be overturned. So I would say that unless Hipocrite is behaving disruptively, his motives for any particular edit are academic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- You're new here and so unfamiliar with some editors to whom the rules do not apply. Despite its billing as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" we edit only at their pleasure. HJ Mitchell is typically (and uncommonly) judicious but even he believes himself and Mr Hypocrite above the IP rabble. 166.137.252.124 (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to be completely clear about this. When an editor is banned, and editors who have been idle for years come back to Misplaced Pages to edit pages that were on the banned editor's watchlist, this apparently is grounds for an indef (I've seen several instances of this lately), on the basis of circumstantial off-site evidence of some intention of "grave-dancing" - regardless of the content of edits? But an editor who explicitly co-ordinates on-site with the about-to-be-banned editor to follow some portion of that watchlist and edit those pages is doing nothing wrong ipso facto, but needs to be shown to be acting "at the direction of the banned editor" in a non-circumstantial way before action is taken? 76.64.33.14 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)WP:PROXYING is what you're describing and there's nothing wrong with it. If Ryulong emails me and says "Hey request a move of "List of Power Rangers Dino Charge" to "List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes", and I think yeah, that makes sense, it makes the encyclopaedia better. Then that's what I'm going to do. Even if it was against a rule, I'd still do it. The indef's that were handed out have been overturned on appeal whenever it's been brought up and if there are any that haven't been I'd suggest they do so. The consensus has been that it was an over-reaction. — Strongjam (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- While they may have been "overturned on appeal" the blocking admins' mission was accomplished: to dissuade editors from contributing content against the wishes of another editor who by rights should have no influence over the encyclopedia. How many of the blocked editors returned, 1 in 4? And how many of the blocking admin's have been sanctioned or even cautioned against discouraging future valid contributions? And by valid I mean following both the spirit and the letter of Misplaced Pages's rules and principles. You choose to follow the spirit or the letter based on whichever best achieves your desired outcome. That will never be a principled stance however you choose to justify it. 166.137.252.92 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Question
If an article contains misleading or probably false information about a wikipedian, is that a BLP violation? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedians are assumed to be alive, yes. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fair. HJ Mitchell can I special:mailuser you about this? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ban of Mark Bernstein
You're banning Bernstein for him participating in a user talk page which discussed a blog post by him? Andjam (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- No. He's not banned, he's blocked. And he's blocked because another admin imposed a topic ban on him, prohibiting from discussing GamerGate. He breached the topic ban (for the second time), so he got blocked. I just happened to be the first admin to see it. And all this happened before I even know he had a block. Personally think life is far too short to be petty or vindictive enough to go round blocking people in Misplaced Pages for saying things I only partially disagree with on their own blog. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong's talkpage acess
Why was Ryulong banned from his own talkpage, upon his siteban? Is this a new practice by Arbcom? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's normal for people sitebanned by ArbCom to have talk page access revoked for the duration of the ban (the rationale, I suppose, being that we don't want them to edit anywhere on Misplaced Pages, not even on their own talk page). But it wasn't my doing, @Callanecc: implemented the ban and removed talk page access at the same time. I fully protected the page a day or two later because people were gravedancing and posting other things that weren't helpful to the encyclopaedia, and to which Ryulong couldn't have responded anyway because he had no access to his talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is the question of edit ... you (HJ) going to revert that? NE Ent 16:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Me personally? No. It's not even on my watchlist. I have no intention of editing the page unless I need to interact with Ryulong if/when he's unbanned unless possibly Ryulong makes a reasonable request for something to be added or removed, in which case I'd at least consider it. I made the protection to prevent the immediate disruption; I don't see it as my place, as an individual admin, to revert another admin's edit through the protection. If that was appropriate, I would suggest that it would be better coming from an arbitrator or a clerk using the authority of that position (thus reducing the likelihood of an edit war and more drama). Or you could ask The Wordsmith to self-revert. Or I suppose you could start a noticeboard thread (I just worry that that would re-open wounds that are just beginning to close). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think asking The Wordsmith to self-revert may be a good idea - they may simply be unaware about the protection. It's certainly not worth going to ANI for though, because all that will happen is yet more mudslinging and drama over an issue that has had way too much of that already. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just wondering, as my talkpage privillages weren't revoked at the moment I was sitebanned on April 22, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting, though I see your talk page access was later revoked. It's above my pay grade, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie :) GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the clerk operation manual specifies that explicitly so it varies: I've asked them to standardize Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#site_banned_editors_blocking NE Ent 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting, though I see your talk page access was later revoked. It's above my pay grade, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bbb23 already started discussion User_talk:The_Wordsmith#Ryulong. NE Ent 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was hoping to wish him well and express my disagreement with the fact that his ban is set to last no less than one year. Kurtis 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then perhaps send him an email? He can't respond on his talk page anyway. I imagine he still has email enabled, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Email access does appear to be available to Ryulong, looking at his block log. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't disabled upon blocking, but he could have disable it in his preferences (even banned editors can still change their preferences). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose it doesn't really matter all that much. Here's hoping that Ryulong isn't turned away by this forever. Kurtis 22:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
You are doing outstanding work in defense of the encyclopedia these days. It is noticed and appreciated. Thanks. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC) |
- Thanks Jim. This talk page is finally quietening down, which hopefully means that sanity is beginning to prevail and I can get back to doing the things that go mostly unnoticed! I don't suppose you've considered picking up a mop of your own? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is a long term goal, Harry. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Research
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Time you ran for Arbcom - if of course you're prepared to give up what little private time you have left after everything else you do for Misplaced Pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ugh. No! I was seriously considering it back in November, but I don't have the stomach (or the patience) for the politics. And I'm more use at the coalface anyway. It took me the best part of a day to do that research and write it up in a way that was intelligible; I'd hate to have to do that on a regular basis, especially for 30-party cases, and then still have motions and clarification requests and private mailing lists to keep track of! We need people who can stomach that (and ArbCom needs to shed some of its workload for it to be sustainable, but never seems to be able to let go of anything), and I'm grateful to them for not letting the place turn into total anarchy. But even without anarchy, we still need people to block vandals, delete libel, and do all the other things that nobody notices until they're not done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that you should strongly consider running for arbitrator. I don't think the "politics" are any worse than on ANI or AE. We can discuss further around October if you wish. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, well with an endorsement from somebody who really understands ArbCom I guess I shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Maybe I'll consider it when the election cycle comes around again. But I still think I'm more use at the coalface, and I enjoy my front-line admin work more than I suspect I would ever enjoy arbitration. (I also think Kudpung would be much better at it, and is far wiser than I am!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that you should strongly consider running for arbitrator. I don't think the "politics" are any worse than on ANI or AE. We can discuss further around October if you wish. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll second Newyorkbrad and Kudpung. Honestly, I can't name anyone who I think would be a better candidate for ArbCom. You've proven yourself time and again as one of our most impartial administrators. The choice is yours, but it's just something that I think you should seriously consider. Kurtis 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Random categorization
Hi HJ, Can you take a look at User:Richard C. Stone? They appear to be a new user that has added 100+ categories to a variety of articles using HotCat. They all seem to be totally irrelevant. They seem to have finished for the day by adding themselves to various admin categories on their user page... Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. Just when you think you've seen it all! I can honestly say I've never seen that before. Since they seem to have finished for the moment, we should see what they do if/when they come back. They might have just been experimenting, in which case it's a bit of a nuisance but not long-term damage was done. It might be worth leaving a hand-written note on their talk page asking them nicely to, er, not do that. But if they come back and start again, I don't see much choice but to block them. If I'm not about, take it to AIV or ANI and explain the situation there (though the problem should quickly be apparent to any passing admin). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weird isn't it? Looks like a combination of random page and random category... Having discovered Twinkle I've reverted them all, but will leave a note on their talk page and keep an eye out. Robevans123 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Emma Sulkowicz
Hi, Immediately after you blocked User:09I500 for BLP violations on Emma Sulkowicz, an IP hopper (along with a sleeper account), has been tagging the article for deletion. This seems suspicious and disruptive. How should this be handled, is there a noticeboard to address this?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it's suspicious, but I'm not absolutely convinced it's related. Regardless, I've semi-protected the article for a fortnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
IIPM
Hi Harry. In case you haven't seen it, Peter Damian (mostly) put together this brief history of the IIPM saga which sheds some light on the Indian political and legal background. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised by the block of User:Makrandjoshi. While I've seen plenty of evidence of Mrinal Pandey/Empengent (who remains unblocked) and Wifione misusing sources, puffing IIPM and dissing IIPM's competitors, all I've seen Makrandjoshi doing is standing firm against IIPM's censorship of Misplaced Pages. I haven't looked at all of his edits, of course, but what I've seen has been to the benefit of this project, in the face of considerable harassment. (Apart from the death threats and threats of violence cited by Andreas, he was also threatened with police prosecution by an earlier incarnation of Mrinal.) Could you have made an error in this instance? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the link. It's interesting, and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who's reached the conclusion that these articles are a hotbed of unhelpful editing, but it doesn't prove much. There's not enough to conclusively tie Wifione to Mrinal Pandey/Empengent (who to this day remain unblocked, so even if you prove the connection it could be argued that it was clean start since they're not evading a block). But from what I've seen, the article has been infested with single-purpose accounts, and I don't see Makrandjoshi as being any different. I read the Wikipediocracy thread (I normally go elsewhere for comedy, but somebody told me I was mentioned), and the argument against the block appears to be that Makrandjoshi is a POV pusher but they're pushing a "good" POV so we should look the other way. That argument holds no more water for me than the argument that we should turn a blind eye to disruption caused by anti-gamergaters just because the people they were opposing were even worse. It's the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" fallacy. I've looked again, and Makrandjoshi's edits are almost exclusively focused on the IIPM—the IIPM article is their most-edited, for example, to which they have 20 times the number of edits to the second article on the list (which itself is the IIPM's founder). If I had to guess, I would say it's likely, given the article's history, that Makrandjoshi is connected with one of the IIPM's competitors. And to address the other argument being made on Wikipediocracy, the arbs are unlikely to appreciate some random admin wading in and blocking the main party to a case days before the proposed decision is due. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
Power Rangers Dino charge/Yoshua Sudarso
I noticed you checked the page out and made an edit making the actor page match the actor entry on the dino charge page. It made me notice that the actor page is actually incorrect and needs to be renamed to actually match the dino charge page. How do you do that? I'm pretty sure you can as an admin, but I'm not sure how to request a change. FlossumPossum (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)