Misplaced Pages

User:NeilN, as with your friend Skyring alias Pete, I am not wasting any more of my time playing your games any more, and I will not respond any further to your edits, "questions", and baiting. We're done here. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was a splendid example of "silly season" stuff - it used huge amounts of unneeded and irrelevant details, and a strange "timeline" which did not improve the article. As always, sufficient gist is left for the reader, but Misplaced Pages is a poor place for campaign pamphlets, at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

{ec}x many :Admins might also want to drop a word or two to HiLo48 about the repeated personal attacks on Pete. I've no horse in this race, but have just read through the talk page and no matter how frustrated one gets, flinging insults like this, this, this and this is pretty much beyond the pale. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You cited this, and Hilo48's reply there was hardly an insult; all HiLo48 did in the section you cited was to relocate the part I added. Look again at his(?) response - it is very civil, especially given the circumstances. As for what you called an 'insult', I call it as I saw it; lies are false statements knowingly made as statements of fact, and is defamation is the knowing dissemination of false information by person A to lower the opinion of person B in the opinion of another. Skyring repeatedly inserted both into the article and it was removed. I agree that what I wrote there wasn't a very nice way to put it - but it was done with the intent to quickly get administrator attention onto the article quickly, and in that, it succeeded in its aims. Your subsequent citations regarding HiLo48's previous responses were in response to baiting and edit-warring by Skyring. And, que surprize; here is Skyring baiting Hilo48 again, so poor little Pete is hardly an innocent party here. However, given this struck-through comment it's not surprising you're interpreting what's gone on in the way you are. I guess at least Skyring alias Pete or his friends NeilN and DDB will never complain about anything you edit, hey. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your point on that diff, must have selected the wrong one. Baiting aside, HiLo's rising to the bait is hardly the way to deal with things. My political POV is exactly the reason why I avoid editing in political articles. I would be vastly surprised if they could find anything to complain about in anything I write, since I solely focus on copy editing, but if they do my talk page is always open for criticisms and opinions. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like someone to address the behaviour from Pete that got me fired up. For a couple of days he followed an editing pattern of placing a comment on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article in line with his comment with his opinion, before anyone had responded on the Talk page. This behaviour continued despite repeated polite requests to stop. Ruder requests (yes, against Wiki rules) worked. He finally paid attention. I'm proud that I protected the article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, HiLo. Could you provide an example, please? Most of your "ruder" comments came during the time the big football game was on, and I suspect you didn't check previous discussion or follow the links provided at the time, being distracted by other things. --Pete (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I've said my piece here. And I suspect that we follow different football codes anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Baseball, and only very mildly - the last game I watched was the Reds whipping the Mets at Citifield, after a dinner at Mickey Mantles in 2009. But come on, you've raised my name here without the courtesy of informing me about it, do you have anything specific to say? --Pete (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was required to inform you that he mentioned you in this thread, considering you had already commented here and were presumably watching it. Doc talk 11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting fired up is one thing, but verbally abusing another editor is completely unacceptable. If this "affair" brings down the Australian Government, another will take its place. Nothing ever really changes regardless of who we vote for (yes, I'm Australian) and to be honest, Gillard is a joke, but that's neither here nor there. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Edit: Striking inflammatory remark. Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article looks solid to me. What's libelous or defamatory about it? Contrary to the article being POV or agenda laden, it seems like those fighting for it to be altered from a simple report of what is available in the media to a whitewashing have a POV agenda. Obotlig ☣ 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What's libelous or defamatory about it? Obotlig, do you mean before or after Collect expertly ran a broom through the article? Collect removed the nonsense, but the POV pushers are back at it again. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is important. Seriously, can we get an experienced admin onto this. The Craig Thomson or Health Services Union affair is a major and ongoing political controversy in Australia. It's been front page news since 2009, the nation's leading politicians are talking about the subject, and he's been getting all sorts of abuse and possibly death threats. His Twitter account is getting some worrying messages. A lot of working people hate him, after the release of the damning report by Fair Work Australia last month into financial irregularities involving union funds dating back to 2002. The affair has huge political significance, given that the minority government depends on his vote and would fall without it. I've been working on an article about the affair over the past month since the release of the report.
A few days ago a new SPA IP editor showed up and began making edits, strongly partisan edits in favour of the subject. A very distinctive pattern, indicating somebody who knew a lot about the controversy, but preferred to use political blogs rather than mainstream media sources. He was challenged about his identity, but gave an odd and evasive answer, saying he has no political affiliation and is not being paid to edit. As Craig Thomson himself is no longer a member of any political party, i wondered about this, and had a look at his IP address and other stuff.
I take no offence at any of the many personal attacks made against me, above and elsewhere. New editors don't know the rules and usually learn quickly enough, and while Misplaced Pages can be a harsh playground, there is a lot of help around for those who seek it. Could I ask someone to take a closer look at this user, hold his hand, give him some guidance, and maybe get him to feel more at home. I'm concerned about the level of tension and aggression exhibited by this person, and if he is indeed the subject of the "Craig Thomson affair", trying to edit articles concerning him, then he can run into a lot of rocks, as do many BLP subjects doing the same thing. In any case, whoever he is, this editor is a fellow human being and clearly under a lot of stress. --Pete (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem, and the reason for this users stress was the opinionated POV attack content you, User:Skyring had created and are still attempting to recreate and publish using en wikipedia in relation to a living subject of one of our articles - your contributions expose you as a clear conflicted partisan. Youreallycan 07:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've stuck to reliable sources, and refrained from pushing my own opinion. In discussing political matters, there are always people who have a contrary and strongly-held opinion and view the thing as a football match, where they cheer on their saints and take no criticism, while damning the opposing side as demons who can do no good at all. I stand by all my edits on this matter. Regardless of anything else, even Thomson admits that union funds were spent on prostitutes through his credit card number and never repaid. The Fair Work Australia report goes into forensic detail on this, repeated by every media outlet in Australia as a major story the next day. If we are to have an article - and we already have several in various places - dealing with the matter, it is incumbent on Misplaced Pages to present the facts, back them up with sources, and be as fair as we can, with regard to NPOV and BLP. If there are any of my edits which represent original research or personal opinion, please point them out. --Pete (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You, User:Skyring, are a biased partisan attack content creator in this instance - others have also pointed them out. I have also had to revert and NPOV some of them. - You are also a single purpose account in regards to this subject for the last five weeks. Your contributions to this topic have been commented as POV and undue and BLP violating by multiple experienced editors as you are well aware - your content addition has been removed as violating and undue in regards to Misplaced Pages policy - and so on and so on - Youreallycan 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow. There must be lots of offending diffs with my name on, then. Perhaps you could be more specific, perhaps list three of the ones you really hate? --Pete (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You will probably never recognise it, but quite possibly most of your edits are unacceptable. I have debated several with you (when you paused long enough for that to happen), and you never seemed to understand. I've encountered this before on Misplaced Pages, an editor who simply cannot comprehend what they're doing wrong. For the sake of the encyclopaedia, they usually still end up being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but all I'm seeing is opinion and no details. This is Misplaced Pages and we don't lose diffs. Pick three you say are bad and show how they violate wikipolicy. Please. --Pete (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's gaming. You know it's more complicated than that. The behaviour I first called you on (and subsequently many more times), was seeming to initiate discussion on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article before anyone had even responded. WP:Consensus means nothing to you, despite later writing an essay on how important it is. You did it many times. You really don't care what others think. (Unless they're barracking for you.) Such bad faith editing and hypocrisy is very confrontational and never helpful to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't provide anything to support your claims - which I reject - then you put yourself in an awkward position, where the only recourse is to be disruptive. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, provide diffs please. If you can't provide evidence of your claims, this will be closed as no action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NO! PLEASE READ MY POST JUST ABOVE AGAIN! (Although you give the distinct impression that you haven't read it once yet.) Diffs alone won't show you the problem with Pete/Skyring's behaviour. It's a serious problem, but you have to look at the timing pattern between Talk page posts and article updates to see it. This editor uses a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time. Diffs form one page won't show you that. If You close this just because simple Diffs won't show the problem, you're not doing an effective job. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's something like an aura, maybe? It don't show in diffs, it's something that you just feels in your water and you knows. The hairs on the back of your neck all rise up together and a wolf howls in the lonesome distance... --Pete (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A "where wolf", maybe? Doc talk 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing so sophisticated; just a plain rabid mongrel. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, if "diffs from one page won't show you that", then...show diffs from multiple pages. If you can't provide diffs of your accusations, then we have to assume that the refusal to provide evidence means that there is no evidence. It's not the admins' job to go digging - it's your job to back up your accusations with actionable evidence, which is something you have, so far, singularly failed to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you assume "that there is no evidence", it would be a stupid and very incorrect assumption. I have a life outside Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not HiLo48 (or Craig Thomson for that matter!) but now I know how, I'll do that if he doesn't. Give me a couple of hours. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Thomson_affair is a bit of a mess with strong "suggestions" of COI and socking being made which, IMO, do not belong in such a discussion. Might someone examine the excess verbiage? Collect (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across my name up there in the middle of that wall (just barely made the top 10! ), and thought I'd add a little clarity to the section that refers to me. My only contact with the IP was when he brought an extremely vague question to RSN, a template was posted by another editor asking for more info, and after some time he said something to the effect of "I see no one disagrees with me here", to which my response was this explaining that that would be an incorrect assumption, and tried to provide a little clarity on the issue he was having at RSN. That's pretty much it (he never responded)... *shrug*. I have now archived that section on RSN as I don't see any value in going down that road now that larger issues with that article appear to be in the forefront. -- Despayre   16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

....he brought an extremely vague question to RSN ...' I don't agree; after this happened my questions basically boiled down to

1. Can my.talk.com.au be used to source the JPG, since it is a Fairfax-owned and operated site; the JPG was used in a letter to the police; and the JPG was created by Fairfax in the first place; and

2. Can "Independent Australia" be considered as a 'reliable source'?

Those questions aren't rocket science. There wasn't any meaningful response, so I went back to state that, as there were no objections, I'd re-insert the material deleted. It wasn't until after I stated the foregoing that anyone meaningful responded.

After I'd experienced a certain recalcitrant who was willfully playing stupid while others and myself were trying to put NPOV balance in the article, it appeared to me as though I was encountering the same on RSN. I apologise if my perception of your response is mistaken, but the impression I got then was that you were playing the same sort of games. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't use political blogs as reliable sources. Not when the affair is front page news in every metropolitan daily and leading the evening news bulletins. We have many excellent sources to use on this, and they have a wide coverage. If one has to resort to a site run by one or two guys pushing their own partisan views - and the "Independent Australia" blog is about as balanced as the North Korea Daily Buggle - then one might ask, why are the big broadsheet papers not carrying the same fascinating and alarming stories? It's not just one particular outlet you scorn as a source, it's every daily newspaper in Australia! You also wanted to use an image that had been obviously tampered with and had no information as to provenance. I'm happy, more than happy, that you are participating in the Misplaced Pages project, and that you bring your own views and perspective, but you have to play by the rules. They aren't arbitrary policies and guidelines laid down from on high, they are procedures we have all developed together, often wrangled over and disputed, but they work, and given the amazing variety of people contributing, that is a miraculous and inspiring achievent. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RS/N has a well established and specific format for questions. Despite the page and edit window indicating this format to you, you failed to specify the required information. Despite requests for you to specify the required information, you failed to do so. Reconsider the collegiality of your editing in relation to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. RSN required 3 things to be identified: (1) the source(s) (they were); (2) the article (which was); (3) the content (which also was, pertaining to the JPG). There was no response until after I stated that "since there were no objections..."; nor was there any request to clarify my questions prior to me posting that. If someone had asked me "what is / clarify your question" before I made the "since there's no response" post, I never would have made the latter. Having never seen the RSN before, let alone used it, I had no experience or knowledge on how to ask; I was referred there and was trying to do the right thing in order to improve the article. Although I appreciate the need for processes, it seemed to me to be a lot of hoop-jumping just to get a very simple yes or no answer to two (what seemed to me to be simple) questions. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't indicate a source or proposed edit here, "2. With regards to 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/): if this can be considered by Misplaced Pages as a reliable source, I intend to link to certain documents from this source in the Craig Thomson affair. I am reluctant however to reference some articles from the site itself, as some articles are clearly opinion pieces and are thus not the neutral reportage of news. Question: can IA be considered as a reliable source?"

You don't indicate a source or claim supported here, "1. With regards to mytalk.com.au: That said, I will restore the JPG in order to provide a balance to the article which it currently lacks."

Author, date, title, publisher. It isn't that hard. Stating a claim to be supported. It isn't that hard. Next time you enter a forum you're unfamiliar with, do bother to determine the locals customs because your current attitude is fundamentally non-collegial. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I begin to see what you're getting at, however the JPG at issue was within this PDF file (http://media.mytalk.com.au/2ue/audio/Brandisletter.pdf) which I'd previously linked to, as "Annexure A". I take your point though; I should have linked to the JPG itself. With regards to using IA as a source, the question I was asking was along the lines of if it was considered to be as (a) blog or personal website, or (b) as a publisher in the same way that crikey.com.au or Washingtonpost.com are considered to be internet news publishers. Or, put another way: if I wanted to link to news articles from The Washington Post website and asked you, "would that site be considered to be a reliable source?" without nominating any particular article on the site, you would most likely reply in the affirmative. I was asking the same question with regards to IA. If the site in general could not be considered to be a RS - ie it's considered as a blog or personal website - then there would be no point in specifying particular articles from it or propose edits using that source as a reference. I don't know how I can make these points any clearer or phrase the issue any other way. With regards to your comments about working in a cooperative relationship with reasonable people, I am not opposed to that and in fact that is what I am trying to achieve. The article left in the state it was at that time was a defamatory attack article, and I was trying to restore some balance to it. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Entire RSN exchange is here, any reviewing editors may want to note that the exchange is chonologically dis-ordered as there were several conversations going on at once in there. I think it speaks for itself. If others have more questions somehow, please leave me a note on my talk page. -- Despayre   03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• From the onset, I believed that edits were being done to the Thomson articles in less than good faith and/or otherwise in violation of policy, and that there has been a conflict of interest at work in negatively slanting the POV of the article for the advantage of vested political interests,

After examining all of the above in detail (and other URLs which I have not mentioned above), it appears to me as though you have a clear WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issues at work here from a player who knows how to game the system. There is also an established history of similar behavior to that complained of now - why bother keeping a history if you're not going to learn by it. I note also that topic bans have been placed on editors before and that ought to be considered in this instance, but your own views may differ. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the material immediately above except to say that I hereby withdraw all contention that the IP editor is the biographical subject of the articles on which he is working. His research skills are way better! On that note, he or she should be encouraged to stick around and contribute in a positive manner. We need this passion. --Pete (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not so sure about that. I suspect that passion may sometimes get in the way of objective editing, for more than one player on this topic ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. You are very good to say so. Admitting a problem is the first step to overcoming it. Now, do you have any sober evidence to back up the emotionally intense claims made above? --Pete (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you even realise that I was talking about you (among others) in that post? There is masses of evidence, but your machine gun approach to editing makes it very hard to isolate for policemen who want it all present in point form on the back of an envelope. (Do you have any idea how many edits you have made to Craig Thomson related articles and Talk pages over the past two weeks?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered. Why not, if my edits are so outrageous, just pick three of the absolutely worstest? Admins are (hopefully) busy and committed dedicated people, and when they request your guidance, why not direct them exactly where you want them to go? --Pete (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered." this kind of language is not needed on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Skyring (Pete) topic ban

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

• Its not difficult for an administrator to have a historic read of - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Skyring and see the outcome, - banned for a year as a result of wiki stalking and violating edits in regards to governance of Australia and see the disruption being caused here and see whats going on. - his sockpuppet page Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Skyring although appears on first investigation historic is quite interesting reading also - As a user that has been previously banned for a year for disruption in the governance of Australia topic area and has returned to it and has created a policy violating WP:NPOV article, resulting in a WP:BLP violating and WP:UNDUE content and plenty of disruption. I suggest User:Skyring be topic banned from all articles and their talkpages and content additions or removals relating to the governance of Australia. Youreallycan 05:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as per above - Youreallycan 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for ongoing active disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages, given a history of disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT diff IDHT diff Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT PRIMARY diff Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 24th contribution to a AfD discussion, badgering Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) badgering Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is one of those more challenging problems. Skyring (Pete) is a user obsessed with Australian political dramas. He lives in the national capital, Canberra. That's far more significant than an American living in Washington DC. A high proportion of Canberra's citizens are political junkies. The difficulty is that I don't think he's aware of what's unacceptable about his approach to editing, no matter what others tell him. This makes it very difficult to discuss it with him. It's also worth noting that not discussing, while dramatically changing articles, is a standard approach of his. And I still object to the demand above to provide diffs. In this case it's like picking machine gun bullets, and their cases, scattered over several farm paddocks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of focus. Look closer at my contribution history. Most of my edits are on talk pages, the Australian political articles numbering maybe a dozen out of many hundreds on which I've contributed over the past year, most often making tiny changes, usually labelled as minor. I've put a lot of effort into Ugandan notables, a BBC radio presenter, a list of things named after the Queen, British merchant ships... It's all there, for anyone to see. I'm certainly interested in Commonwealth political drama, but hardly obsessed, and certainly not to the extent that my contributions here reflect any one focus. If there's any obsession, it's date formats. I like to organise and arrange things in their proper order, and I like to see errors identified and corrected. Misplaced Pages is a sweet playground for nerds like me. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am truly reluctant to respond at this location nowhere near the end of the thread, because it will further perpetuate the massively multi-threaded, scatter gun result of your efforts (which I again emphasise makes the simple listing of Diffs fairly pointless when discussing the real problem here) but my immediate thoughts were, if so many of your article changes elsewhere have been tiny and minor, the massive changes you have attempted to make to Craig Thomson related articles surely demonstrate some sort of obsession with the man, or what his elimination from the scene will do for perhaps your preferred direction for federal politics. (I'm still trying to guess at the real motivation for your huge interest in Thomson's world.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created an article on the notable topic when Fair Work Australia presented its report and thus provided a solid source. Apart from linking the Craig Thomson and Gillard Government articles to the new article, I didn't touch any other "Craig Thomson-related articles", let alone make massive changes. The article needed to be written, I begged for coöperation on the talk page, the BLP problems were raised at the BLP Noticeboard and

I'm a teacher. It's part of my job (and, I might say, a professional skill I possess) to try to work out the real reasons the behaviour of some people is a long way from the norm. It's not a personal attack. It's an attempt to better understand your true motivation so that I can work better with you. As for facts, despite your massive denials, you HAVE tried to make big and significant changes to Craig Thomson related articles. That you do this while claiming that most of your edits elsewhere are minor is a real puzzle. I'm still trying to figure you out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created Craig Thomson affair from scratch. That's a significant change, I guess. Kindly provide diffs that show I have made "massive" or "big and substantial" changes to any other Craig Thomson-related article, as per your repeated claims above. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nup. Not playing that game with you. Perhaps a better indicator would be a simple count of the total number of edits you have made to Thomson related articles and talk pages. That includes pages like this one. Have you any idea how many that would be? I don't, but it sure ain't small. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I like to think that I've learnt from my experience, years in the past. If my behaviour is a problem, where is the evidence? Where are the diffs? (ETA) And would it be too much trouble to ask that the wikipolicies I'm supposed to have breached be mentioned? Some of the diffs provided aren't mine, and those that are mine look okay to me. If the precise breaches could be pointed out, it will help whatever admins step up to work out if there has been any violation of wikipolicy. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• They are littered in the talkpage discussion and the content you created at the Craig Thomson affair - diff - see the removal of content you didn't like because it didn't attack Thompson and its removal by a policy experienced editor User:Collect and your replacement and the revert of your removal by an administrator User:Qwyrxian - there are so many similar situations it seems unnecessary to post more. Youreallycan 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the material because the source didn't support the statement. I began a discussion on the wording here where I explain why and suggest an alternate wording which is pretty much a direct quote from the source. The discussion becomes pretty choppy (as noted above) because the IP editor won't follow WP:INDENT guidelines for talk page procedure and takes it as a personal attack when indents are altered or comments moved to their correct place. But that's by the by. The statement in the article remains unsupported by the source and I'd like to fix it. As, I trust, would any editor reading both and spotting the error. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You had to be reverted twice, once by an experience policy compliant user and after you replaced the content by an administrator - Youreallycan 06:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement in our article remains unsupported by the source. I pointed out the problem and suggested a wording that kept the intent of the original statement but got the details correct. The discussion remains open and I invite you to comment there. --Pete (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Per request from The Bushranger (above in previous section), I hope this may assist to show the points which HiLo48 made there:

Skyring's original edits contained the section heading "Attempts to blame others"; that was a libelous innuendo removed by me (Revision as of 01:12, 7 June 2012 by me (article)).

With regards to points which may begin to illustrate HiLo48's point as originally posted (ie of "...us a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time.." please note the following:

1. . Hilo48 comments regarding Bolt (Revision as of 01:56, 8 June 2012 by Hilo48 (talk page));
2. . Skyring restores the libelous innuendo here (Revision as of 01:59, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article));

3. . then Skyring comes back to the talk page (Revision as of 02:05, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (talk));

4. . and then Skyring puts more garbage back into the article (Revision as of 02:08, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article).

5. . Later, Skyring made a dishonest edit summary in the opinion of Hilo48 (with which I agree); interestingly, Hilo48 restored a Fairfax opinion piece which Skyring originally wanted to use to further defame the article's subject, but Skyring didn't like the portrayal of that article in the NPOV version and so he then ripped it out.

6. . If there are any doubts remaining that Skyring intends this article to be an attack page and a coatrack, the following edits may be indicative pointers as to the agenda being pursued: a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, which is a dishonest edit summary given the source material.

There's other matters worthy of mention, for example lying about me outing an editor with a COI when that user had clearly and previously identified himself long ago on WP, lying about me when stating the need for page protection, and removing sourced material after the article page was protected. Skyring has also been baiting me edit-warring again here and here, although I admit that I screwed up when using the (undo) function and accidentally removing a comment he'd made in the interim. He's still bating me by moving my responses around and right here, he's at it again with another act of pure pedantry. I hope the point has been made that Skyring's behavior warrants attention again, and leave the matter in your hands. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: added the wrong diffs; struck-though and amended.

• - @User:Skyring - As for your NPOV content creations that resulted imo in undue violations that created BLP violating content, you created this content - and I WP:NPOV'ed it as per the citation you used, to this - Please see the difference - Youreallycan 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, thanks. Could you provide the diff, please? And what is the precise problem? Remember, you're asking admins to examine the evidence. They aren't mind readers. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um - Actually I am not asking admins anything - I am asking the community/experienced users (some of them may well be admins) to look at your history and your disruptive content creations and talkpage contributions and to support topic banning you as a simple resolution to this disruption and your content violations.- Youreallycan 06:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In these particular circumstances—where political matters in Australia are highly unstable—this does not seem appropriate. There seem to be more problems with the edits of the IP who does not appear to understand wikipedia policy properly (looking at the report on WP:RSN amongst other things). The IP also posted links to messages on an external blog and to another external message from 2005 posted by David Gerard, seven years ago. That kind of editing seems disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has never made a single content addition; never mind a policy violating one and has never been banned by arbitration from the project for similar related policy violations in the same topic area like User:Skyring has - Youreallycan 07:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has extensively edited Craig Thomson affair and its talk page. The IP has also suggested using dubious sources that fail WP:RS. Linking to external blogs and outdated messageboards was also not particularly helpful. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference in attempting to NPOV content and creating clear policy violating additions in regards to living people - I suggest if you support action about the IP that you open a separate thread about the user , this thread is an attempt to address and resolve the issuers created by User:Skyring -If you support User:Skyring;s contributions please make that clear. Youreallycan 07:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The thread about the IP user is on this page, above, and has been open for several days. This discussion is actually a subthread of that one. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Youreallycan. I am commenting on the IP, whose edits seem to be problematic. I don't personally know how any particularly objective article could be written on this particular political brouhaha, before matters are resolved (e.g. in a year's time). If Skyring had been reported or blocked for edit-warring since 2008, perhaps you might have a point. But that is not the case. A far more convincing case of disruption over a prolonged period would have to be presented to justify a topic ban on such a wide range of articles. Here only two articles are being discussed, the subject of the original report, whom I believe some newspapers refer to as a "disgraced politician". Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Australian head of state dispute, Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 3, Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government, and Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government for another Australia-related discussion, where unfortunately informal mediation only led to rehashing the same discussion points again. isaacl (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Pete appears to be unaware that WP:BLP is a very strong policy, and that his desire to use articles as some sort of weapon to make sure people know just how bad any "Satan" is, is not how Misplaced Pages operates. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that aligns with my view that Pete isn't really deliberately breaking the rules. He truly believes that he's editing within the rules, unless simple diffs can show otherwise, as he and his fans here frequently demand. But he DOES break the rules on NPOV and, when one looks at the sum of his Talk page and article updates in sequence, is very disruptive and confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given my participation and input into the recent Jim Hawkins affair, I reject the view that I'm unaware of BLP restrictions. Again, I ask for diffs that demonstrate the allegation made. This matter was raised at WP:BLPN, examined and rejected with no violation found. (See also this earlier mention, where an IP editor threatened legal action if we inserted sourced material.)

Collect, as you labelled the Craig Thomson affair, "classic silly season stuff", when in fact it's been ongoing for three years of front page news with intense public interest in Australia, and the ongoing notability is that it could cause a fall of government in the tightly-balanced parliament where Thomson has been removed from the governing party and now sometimes votes with the opposition, could I ask if you've read through some of the sources that demonstrate that this is not some passing scandal. It may sound like sleazy mud-slinging, but like the Profumo affair, it's been prostitutes in the headlines since day one. Just google "Craig Thomson" to see what I mean. There are reliable sources for all of my edits, and a government body has produced a report listing and detailing 150 findings made against Thomson. It took three years to gather the material, and over a thousand pages to put the case. Thomson was given the opportunity to refute the report in Parliament - in a speech which was carried live throughout Australia and put the Twitter hashtag #thomson into global number one trend for a time - but brought no evidence to counter the claims against him. His position was that he had been somehow set up by his enemies, who had gained control over his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone, hotel room phone and forged his signature. Repeatedly without his knowledge over several years while he continued to approve the credit card bills, sometimes for thousands of dollars at a time. All of this is supported by reliable sources from the leading Australian news agencies and the subject of keen public interest. This isn't a case of Misplaced Pages smearing a person out of all balance - what I produced was mild compared to the mainstream reports. Thomson sued the first publisher to break the story for defamation, but dropped the case two years later before it could be heard, and paid $240 000 in settlement. That newspaper - and every other within Australia - continues to publish the allegations against him and no apology or retraction was ever made. I invite you and others to examine our coverage at Gillard Government#Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, which has the same sourced story, occasioning no controversy on the discussion stage, and no input from me except to provide a link to the Craig Thomson affair main story. I invite review and criticism of my actions in writing an article on a notable matter, but I do ask that the sources be read, and my edits examined before making a hasty judgement. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for so spendidly showing the problem. It is, in fact, the fact that you edit with a specific intent which is so wondrously limned that this proposal has been made by others. The policy of WP:BLP requires articles to be conservatively written, which is not what your edits seem to have been intended to follow. Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Coffee, actually, in a 20oz "Americaware" mug I bought last year just outside St Louis at the Route 66 State Park. I'm onto my second Aeropress coffee maker, which I heartily recommend to all. Big mug of sweet coffee - makes working here a pleasure! Just out of curiosity, just what do you see as my "specific intent"? I would describe it as "summarising a major Australian political scandal for the benefit of Misplaced Pages's readers", and I invite you to start at the top of the Talk:Craig Thomson affair page for what is virtually a blog of my stated specific intentions and read on down. I copied across the relevant material from the Craig Thomson article and set to work on expanding it using the just-released 1 100 page Fair Work Australia report as an authoritative source. Three years in the making and a wealth of forensic detail. I urge you to at least thumb through it. But you have a different perception of my "specific intent", apparently. Do you have any diffs to illustrate your opinion? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In a period of just over an hour there, Pete made 17 separate edits to this page to create that content above. He has digressed all over the place, delving right into the nitty gritty of detailed content for the Craig Thomson affair article. He has completely missed the point of THIS discussion, clearly demonstrating his total obsession with Craig Thomson, and an inability to look more broadly at the issues under discussion HERE. A total lack of perspective. In the broader Misplaced Pages context, this editor simply does not know what he is doing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I make three points:

1. I have asked for diffs to be provided, demonstrating the claimed non-compliance with wikipolicy. After a day of discussion the evidence provided has been scanty, but I invite inspection by any admin. I stand by my edits.
2. This is a subthread of an ANI request launched against a recently-arrived SPA:IP editor. I invite examinations of the contributions of that editor, which are best described as relentlessly abusive against myself and any other editor opposing his or her view. I also note the behaviour of other users involved in the article referenced by the first sub-thread. User:HiLo48's contributions are also disruptive, containing frequent personal attacks. User:Collect, as outlined above, has in my opinion made a serious error, removing most of the material from Craig Thomson affair, which had already been advised and dismissed at WP:BLPN, especially the material contributed by other diverse editors which had been copied across from Craig Thomson and formed the starting material of the new article. If the material had survived two notifications on WP:BLPN and been worked over by many other editors, where is the BLP violation? Massive removal of reliably sourced material during collaborative editing is disruptive in the extreme. Any disruption to editing has been the product of more editors than one, I suggest.
3. It has been mentioned above that I was banned for a year. Yes, I was. I did not enjoy the experience, but I learnt from it, and my edits over the past few years have been productive, in accordance with wikipolicy, and polite and coöperative despite serious provocation.

I ask that any admin involving themselves here look at all the material. If this needs to be referred to ArbCom, I have no objection to my edits being scrutinised in a more formal manner. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. ALL the material. Especially Pete/Skyring's editing style, which is confrontational rather than consensus seeking, impossible to explain using standard Diffs, and involves a rapid fire, scattergun approach. And, you describe some editors as opposing your view. My opposition has nothing to do with what I think of Craig Thomson. It an opposition to his unhealthy trial by media and politicians, and now by Misplaced Pages, handled here with an unseemly haste. It's an opposition to keeping up with every scandalous tidbit obviously involved media and politicians release on a day to day basis. Misplaced Pages doesn't need this indecent haste. We could write a much better article in fifteen months time, when all the emotion and political ambition has gone. Maybe that's what we should be aiming for. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Skyring has a long history of treating Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for his political views, and making edits which are obviously motivated by his political leanings. Many editors (including myself) have asked him to stop this, but without success. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This can be sorted out by discussion. So little evidence is supplied here that a topic ban is not needed. Living in Canberra does not mean a propensity to be politically biased. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to very firmly disagree with you there. Discussion with Pete/Skyring is pointless. Rational discussion is almost impossible. He does not comprehend the problems his editing style creates here. He ignores what others say. So how can it be sorted out by discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been lots of discussion including Skyring, and I'm sorry to say that it generally makes things worse. Skyring has an unfortunate tendency to use article talk pages as a forum to discuss his political views rather than to propose concrete improvements to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you provide some diffs, please? --Pete (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's another bloody annoying habit of his. One presents a well explained, comprehensive explanation of the problem, then Pete/Skyring (and some of our Admins who want this to be simple) just ask for Diffs. As I've also explained many times, Diffs on their own will never tell the whole story here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me put it another way. Should this matter go to ArbCom, they'll be wanting evidence, not personal attacks or gripes. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples from Talk:Kevin Rudd: , , , , , , , . The common thread in most of these posts is that you make a vague suggestion about changing the article as part of a post which is mainly about your personal views on Rudd. There are lots more posts from you like this in the talk page's history, and it adds up to POV pushing and an attempt to include negative material in a BLP on the grounds that you don't like the guy. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite! It was his deputy Julia Gillard didn't like Rudd, moved against him and became Prime Minister without benefit of any ballot or election. For our readers looking at the article painting Kevin Rudd in a saintly glow, there was no explanation. In the eyes of Misplaced Pages, the guy was a hero! NPOV doesn't mean merely reprinting every media release out of someone's office. --Pete (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no need for an election for Gillard to replace Rudd. What happened was legal, and completely ethical in the Westminster system. The Libs have used the same process themselves. That you post this line pushed by the Liberal Party's tame shock jocks shows that either you are ignorant, are deliberately pushing a POV yourself, or are easily manipulated by others pushing a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I have used the word election there because Pete/Skyring used that word in the previous post. He has now changed his post to say ballot instead, perhaps because of my post. He hasn't explained, or apologised. I won't change my wording. It made sense before Pete/Skyring again abused and confused the discussion process. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Diff here shows the change was made well after HiLo48's response.One21dot216dot (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. See my apology below. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for any misunderstanding. By using the word "election", I meant to highlight that Gillard became Prime Minister without either the processes of a general election or an internal party ballot, both of them perfectly normal. She did, however, topple Rudd, and she said that "Rudd's government had lost its way" as her explanation for action. Our article did not provide any such reason, despite heavy media criticism since the Copenhagen thing. Barack Obama is supposed to have rung Rudd after news reached the White House and asked if there had been a coup! --Pete (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider Holt, Gorton, and McMahon and the lack of howls of illegitimacy about them. One21dot216dot (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Any primary investigation of your talkpage contributions supports the Admins comment - such as diff, diff - the second one is a clear verification of the Admins comment - Youreallycan 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these diffs may may also assist to illustrate the points more clearly which Youreallycan and Hilo48 have already clearly made wrt to the opposing admin, that discussion is not going to solve this issue. Skyring has an agenda at work; these diffs all relate to a simple statement which 3 different editors all agree is supported by the reliably-sourced reference: talkpage a; talkpage b; and talkpage c. The result on the article has been article a; article b; article c; article d; article e; and last I saw it, article f. People try to work with Skyring to achieve consensus but it's not happening because it conflicts with his POV and let the facts be damned. It seems to me as though Skyring wants to be left at liberty to bias the article the way he wants. Circular discussion seem to be one of the methods he uses to remove any balance and annoy other editors with this behavior so that they either inappropriately blow a gasket in frustration (as I must confess I have) or give up on the mess and walk away (as I nearly did). One21dot216dot (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You only provided one diff of mine, which looks perfectly reasonable. Your own contributions on that page don't show you in a good light, but it's tough sometimes being a raw editor, and I forgive you. You're learning fast. For the record, if anybody here wants to have a go at getting the statement discussed on the page to agree with the source, feel free. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's not all about just your posts. It about how your posts relate (or don't relate, as is more frequently the case) to what others say. So showing what others have said is important in showing your inability to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Still, I believe the diffs I showed above illustrate the point, and using the arrows back and forth can illustrate it further. Anyway, this appears to me to be a dishonest edit summary from our friend per WP:ME as the change seems a bit more than minor and involved more than an indent. But maybe I am being over-sensitive here given the history. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to my knowledge never directly interacted with this editor, but came across some of his edits at the Julia Gillard talk page when it was nominated at WP:GAN last year. I remember reading through the threads here and here and thinking that, although exceedingly polite, Skyrings comments were aimed more at expressing his personal opinion on the Government than any real meaningful improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the links - for which thanks - my comments there go to the question of balance in Australian politics articles. The opinions I expressed are those of established political commentators using reliable sources. The bad news for Gillard] keeps rolling in, but our article does not reflect the reality. How can our readers rely on Misplaced Pages when our political coverage is tilted? Looking at comparable USA articles, for example Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, they read more like balanced biographies than the choppy and incomplete pieces on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott which are the Australian counterparts. Misplaced Pages is best served by input by editors from all views, and seeking to exclude those with whom one disagrees through topic ban proposals is poor practice indeed. If the diffs supplied showed a pattern of abuse, of acting against consensus, of pushing views unsupported by reliable sources, then maybe. But where is it? Those most strident in their criticism of me are hardly shining examples of model wikihaviour and might look to their own hearts before stabbing mine. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, this post is a good example of the problems with the talk page posts you make in regards to these article. You tend to start posts with commentary on your views about recent political developments and then complain about articles not being up to scratch without offering concrete amendments to the text (with supporting reliable sources) for how to fix this. The political commentary turns people off right away, and the complaints without solutions are unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not my singular views, but those of the mainstream sources I quote, and have sprinkled liberally through discussion above. I'm sorry if some editors are upset at my highlighting the gap between our article and the reality, but as noted, political discussion attracts partisan editing behaviour, and Australian political articles are notorious for incivility and personal attacks, as may be seen in other comments in this set of threads. I'd like to improve the standard of our articles and discussion, and the first step in improvement is identifying the problem and accepting a need for change. What you are saying above is that I supply reliable sources, but not the content? --Pete (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've done it again! It would be great if you could provide reliable sources and NPOV wording. However, starting things off with discussions of your political views and vague allusions to significant problems with articles is exactly the wrong way to go about this. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing baiting and harassment from User:Skyring (Pete)

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

This user persists in moving my responses around to annoy and provoke, latest example of this is here; more available on request. He persists in this behavior after being asked to stop on several occasions. I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors. One21dot216dot (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your problem right there! More experienced editors know where to place and indent their comments correctly. For example here, where I respond directly to HiLo. Your subsequent response should have been placed below mine. You've been told about this a couple of times, at least once by me. When I move my contribution back to its original position, that's not intended as a personal insult, it's just the regular practice. My apologies if any offence was taken - none was intended! --Pete (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• He's done it again well after being asked to stop on numerous previous occasions. No one else except Skyring has had any issues with my indenting. Can an admin please respond to this? One21dot216dot (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: To support my comment of "I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors," please that Skyring didn't dare move HiLo48's comments around when the chronological order of edits was post a / post b / post c, but the order displayed is (a) / (c) / (b), as post (c) was HiLo48's response to The Bushranger - in other words, the threading follows a logical pattern. The same applies to the matters complained of. One21dot216dot (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One21dot216dot (previously the IP) seems to be trying to create drama here unnecessarily. In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary. Yet One21dot216dot not only interpets it otherwise but opens a whole new subthread. What possible administrative action does he expect? Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci writes, "In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary." There's more to it than that, so I will try and explain the issue more clearly. Please carefully examine the difference here between lines 371 (left diff) /372 (right diff) and lines 384 (left) / 387 (right); Skyring is moving not only his own contribution, he's also moving mine. Note how the diff as shown there omits 38 intermediate revisions by 11 users, but when the differences are displayed in the way I set the diffs up to appear, it clearly illustrates the point - that is, he is disruptively editing, and he's doing it intentionally. Why? Maybe in the hope that I'll revert his edits and so I'll run afoul of the 3-revert rule. Or he's doing it because I won't otherwise respond to him. Yes, I opened a new subthread; should I have started a completely new case, considering all of these matters are inter-related? I do not know; I am learning. Ditto insofar as what kind of administrative action can be taken. Considering Skyring has created a defamatory attack page to supplement kooky blog pages while having a clear conflict of interest, and has had numerous problems with other editors - some now, some long before I began editing, do you think some form of administrative action is required? As for your other comments, thank you for showing me another amazing display of WP:AGF. One21dot216dot (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) (PS - there was an edit conflict the first time I tried sending this.

The last change, however, did forget that the highest level of indent should not be moved to a position where the material to which it was a response is apparently changed - which is what Pete did. You need to count the colons, Mathsci! One's edit had more colons that did Pete's, so the move made it look like one response was to Pete's post and not to HiLo's post. Meanwhile. I think you should look at Pete's overal history with regard to Australian politics here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. He's still at it on the CTA talk page. I replied to you here, and it was moved again here. He is deliberately editing disruptively and I believe administrative intervention is now required to make him stop. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Collect is here, made (going by the page history) two and a half days before Onedot's post (which has my support, as noted there.) It is standard practice for second or subsequent responses to a comment to be placed below existing responses. Does this sort of stuff really need to be on AN/I? --Pete (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, I think I and several others have asked you this before, but would you please stop with personal attacks? I get that you might not see what you just posted as one, but plenty of people would see your offhand pithy sarcasm as a personal attack. Even if it's not, it does not help foster a collegial atmosphere, so reign it in, please. - Jorgath (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed seeing this personal attack completely - it was changed while I added a warning template to Skyring's Talk Page. Please note that Skyring reverted me again after the Level 3 template was added asking for this to stop]. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the part I was objecting to. In response to your edit summary, I do realize that you were commenting on behavior, not on the editor, but there are ways to do that more politely, as you did in your fixed version. - Jorgath (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. It's just that the neighbour's cat strolled past a few moments earlier, and my thoughts followed it! --Pete (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• • The disruptive behavior from Skyring continues.

(a) He has opened a frivolous matter at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which was closed as a waste of time.

(b) He has been cited for badgering other editors in relation to the AfD discussion of his WP:COATRACK attack page.

(c) Now he has opened another sub-thread here to make more frivolous, outrageous and false allegations. Where is Skyring mentioned at all in this edit? Likewise this edit, which was a response to Doc9871 who posted a video clip about werewolves from "Young Frankenstein" - which is clearly different from Skyring's own personal attack: "... Onedot's behaviour reminds me of my terrier dog, who spends a lot of her day watching through the window in case the neighbour's cat should saunter past, at which point she begins yapping in gleeful indignation.".

(d) Skyring points to my edit here and misrepresents it as "label as a member of an "extreme right wing racist hate group"...." This allegation is false; I have not labeled Skyring as any such thing, nor have I engaged in "...WP:OUTING behavior..." as alleged. While I have linked to "...external sources such as blogs and mail correspondence", these were all publicly available, and the blog I cited in the URL clearly admitted that the blogger was (quote) "...writing the "Craig Thomson Affair" on Misplaced Pages" (unquote) while further defaming the person who is the subject of the article. I posted to the URL to it since that blog showed clear evidence of WP:COATRACK behavior.

(e) It should also be noted that Skyring and his chum from the Liberal Party of Australia have accused me of being Craig Thomson on numerous occasions, of sock-puppetry, of having a partisan interest in the article, of "whitewashing" the living person being defamed, and of other nefarious and malicious activities. If a more specific statement is wanted as to who and what I am not, please respond. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Onedot appears to have been editing this page in an aggressive and disruptive way. Skyring can blank or modify his own edits, but Onedot could themselves be blocked if they insist on changing those edits. I have already said that Onedot's linking to external sites was problematic, because it is outside wikipedia policy. His continuation to do so, despite warnings, is not a good sign. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As a new editor, Onedot may not be aware of wikilawyering: ignoring the spirit of a rule or guideline in favour of pettifoggery. I quote from the nutshell, Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Misplaced Pages community. --Pete (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci appears to have be supporting Skyring's editing this page in an aggressive and disruptive way. Skyring has blanked and modify his own edits, but Mathsci does not appear to want Skyring blocked after Skyring insists on making disruptive edits. I have already said that linking to the external sites indicated clear problems with a conflict of interest and using the "Craig Thomson affair" attack page as a coatrack because all of it is outside wikipedia policy. His continuation of supporting Skyring's disruption, despite the evidence, is not a good sign. Skyring and his friend from the Liberal Party persisted in stating that I had a conflict of interest and was, in fact, Craig Thomson; this is untrue. I shall also now state categorically, for the record, that:

(i) I have never been a member of any political party, let alone a State Branch President of one;

(ii) I have never violated any position of trust in relation to my employment;

(iii) I have never abused the trust of my employer to deliver confidential internal documents to Senator Amanda Vanstone with the intent to aid her and her party's agenda;

(iv) I have never been arrested and charged with any crime, let alone by the Australian Federal Police with five counts of communicating Commonwealth Government information wrongfully obtained or convicted of any offences;

(v) I have never been in prison, and I know for a fact that on this day in 1995, I was not confined in Goulburn Correctional Centre;

(vi) No person has ever applied to a court at any time to take out an AVO or similar upon me; and

(vii) I have never been blocked from Misplaced Pages.

The above needed to be stated, just so it's perfectly clear who and what I am not. One21dot216dot (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Misinformed is what you are. Can I get someone to have a quiet word to this promising editor about how to contribute productively, please? --Pete (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, both of you need stop beating the dead horse and leave each other alone for a little while. This is not a battleground, or a game. Skyring, stop provoking OneDot - you're biting a newbie, and although you've stopped outright personal attacks, you're not exactly being civil. OneDot, stop letting Skyring get to you, since responding in kind is only going to get you in (more) trouble, too. The best way to deal with provokation is to take a deep breath and refuse to be baited. Both of you apologize - Skyring for provoking OneDot, OneDot for losing your cool - and leave it be for a while. - Jorgath (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise to Onedot for any offence caused. It was not intentional. I also forgive him any past behaviour, not as a newbie, but as a fellow human being. I do not believe I have made any personal attacks aimed at him - or anyone. Jorgath, I have done my best to help this editor along, but he is not listening. It is impossible to AGF, looking at some of his contributions, such as those which have had to be permanently removed, and I echo your comment that he is going to have trouble if he continues this way. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for losing my cool. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. Now if both of you can either be polite or leave each other alone in the future, and refrain from fighting fire with fire if the other one can't, I think this has been resolved. I hope it stays that way. - Jorgath (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hounding by Sitush

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

Yogesh Khandke's topic ban

1. I am suffering hounding by user:Sitush, I have tried to discuss the issue with him informally,
2. He has refused to discuss the same, deleting my edits with an edit summary "go away" One example of his hounding is the article Sudheendra Kulkarni, while I was attempting to discuss the issue with him, he reported me for edit warring and had me blocked, when I was the one who updated the article a BLP, which was hopelessly out of date.
3. His last edit before he set up the edit war (28 May 2012) was on 24 July, 2011. I have been trying to improve the Sudheendra Kulkarni article, and this time he alleges that I have violated my topic ban - "any edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history, widely construed." Kulkarni is a living person and not history.
4. I have not written about colonialism and Indian history, as far as I understand.
5. He even deleted my talk page edits at Sudheendra Kulkarni.
6. I have given him no encouragement, yet he hounds me, for example
   1. Gosha woman. an article I created, and he followed.
   2. Purdah, where he has no other edits.
   3. Intrudes into a discussion about Charles Dickens, he has made no contribution to the page
   4. He alleges that I am worse with him because he is a "Brit", do I seek him out for a duel? No. He is hounding me.
   5. Free Press Journal, I created, he followed, his last edit was on 4 March 2012, he never went back.
   6. S. Sadanand, I created he sparred, his last edit is on 3 April, 2012, he stopped editing after I left it alone because on of my topic ban.
   7. Free Press of India, I created it, he arrived to edit war, and then after I stopped editing he didn't go back to the article, last edit 2012-04-03
   8. The hounding isn't limited to the list above, if solicited I would be able to search more examples.
7. I request that admins ensure that user:Sitush stops hounding me, and allows me to enjoy my editing privileges. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• You violated your topic ban with your edits, and you were warned by a number of editors of this. Might want to duck that WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Could you explain which edits of mine to Sudheendra Kulkarni violate the topic ban? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A narrowly construed interpretation of Indian history might exclude contemporary politicians, but not a "widely construed" interpretation. Please find other areas to edit while your topic ban is in place.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a general statement, does any of my edit to Sudheendra Kulkarni cross the threshold? Would you SPhilbrick and Wildthing also look at the hounding? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to leave topics that could be considered infringing my ban alone, would you Sphilbrick help me with it, (once we are done with this hounding issue) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is 11.34 pm here. Got to go. GN. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The following edits were made by me to the article: (1)In 2008, a sting operation was carried out and later televised, called the cash-for-votes scandal, it involved Kulkarni and another BJP activist. It allegedly showed a bribe of Rupees one crore being allegedly offered on behalf of the Congress led UPA government, to each of three BJP MPs to seek their support in the July 2008 confidence vote in parliament. A parliamentary panel probed the operation and asked the Delhi police to investigate some of those alleged to be involved, including Kulkarni whom they said had "facilitated the giving of bribes to members (2)On 17 July 2011, two of those involved were taken into custody for questioning. Kulkarni, who had been questioned earlier by the Kishore Chandra Deo committee said that he had been interrogated by the police on the matter and that he was prepared for further interrogation by them (3)September 27, 2011. (4)He was released on bail on 17 November 2011, The Economic Times reports that "The high court - while grantig bail to Kulkarni and five other co-accused - had on Wednesday punctured the foundation of the 2008 cash-for-votes scam, arguing that had the BJP leaders wanted bribe, they would not have conducted the sting. Are they about Indian history? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comments that are presently unarchived at User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#Ducking_and_weaving_the_topic_ban, the comments here, here and here. I recall also seeing some recent mention by you regarding your creation of (IIRC) 17 new articles since your ban was put in place. That may have been mentioned in one of your many visits to this noticeboard but, regardless, I would be interested to know how many of those articles I have contributed to.

The stuff that you are talking about consists of articles that have long been on my watchlist and in most cases are there precisely because of events that culminated (after a surprisingly long period of tolerance by the community) in your topic ban. In the specific case that you are now becoming upset about, there were discussions and you participated in them. You cannot simply drift away, then return some weeks later and try to slip the same stuff through again when the discussion had petered out, and you had previously raised issues such as the "card-carrying" phrase in other complaints that you have made without ever receiving any support. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh, you're pushing your luck here. You have got to stop trying to game your topic ban, as I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yogesh, take my advice, take a break from editing India related articles for the time being, because it seems that your editing of those specific articles are causing problems between you and other editors. Conflict at the time being isn't your greatest area. (I've had a brief look at your contributions). Don't push the goodwill of any admins. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights- (1)I am aware of "Boomerang" and everyone has every right to discuss my edits along with my complaint of hounding, however when you allege that I am gaming the system , could would you share a few examples? (2) Last time you have exercised your discretion to block me for "edit warring" when user:Sitush has had initiated the edit war, and I was foolish enough to take the bait. (3)So I have every reason to believe that you would deliver on your promise: " I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. " Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mr. Wikipediania: (1)I was under the impression that constructive editing in non-ban areas, and not keeping away was the key to have the ban narrowed, or revoked some day. (2)I have done over 500 edits since my ban early April, 2012. (3)Most of them have been India related, (but none under the topic ban area (in my opinion). (4)I have created 18 articles, got a DYK for one, had to argue to prevent RfD for a couple, a few had been tagged for one reason or the other, however I've been able to partner with those editors, to improve the articles to their satisfaction. The only time I had problems since the ban is when user:Sitush showed himself up when I updated a badly out of date BLP - Sudheendra Kulkarni a few weeks back, I received a edit warring related block, when I took the bait thrown by user:Sitush. (5)Do you believe that hounding by user:Sitush is my fault, and my topic ban be widened from "colonialism and Indian history" to India? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23- I have clearly mentioned that I have been topic banned, yet you hanged the link like a shop sign, under the sub-title, isn't that a little strange? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush: Please explain "the stuff that you are talking about consists of articles that have long been on my watchlist and in most cases are there precisely because of events that culminated (after a surprisingly long period of tolerance by the community) in your topic ban." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yogesh, calm down. I can understand your frustration and I'm not interested in who's fault it is when this matter erupted. What is really concerning at the moment is the fact that you have gone into far too many scraps, and you should be careful about what you say, as your comments are not helping the Blade of the Northern Lights. Anyways, I have wasted time, and I've got to go. Good luck with the next person reviewing this. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler: In my experience, exceptionally tendentious editors, such as Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), don't reform when they are cut some slack in the form of a topic ban. They keep testing the limits of their gray zones, and of others' patience, until the inevitable realization, of the need of a permanent ban, dawns on others. I believe it is time to permanently ban Yogesh Khandke from Misplaced Pages. He has long outstayed his welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment:I feel that admins like The Blade of the Northern Lights should also be mentioned for saying something like I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. keep up what? keep up the good work of editing out of date articles? Is there any anti-YK group present which involves people like you?

Mr.Wikipediania this is how I want to interpret your advice, lets not get into conflict with few editors and lets not question their judgement as they are always right, so its better you stop editing. There are lot of India related topics which are not related to history why should YK stop editing those articles? because some editor doesn't like him(for reasons better known to him). Fowler welcome to the party, the last time when YK got his topic ban it was due to a content dispute, you are trying to do the same here. Hope no one takes you seriously. This is about Sitush hounding YK and not about YK's style of editing, if someone has a problem go report it somewhere else not here.sarvajna (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to generate a report similar to those used in SPIs, showing commonality of articles edited over a given period? I really do not see this hounding accusation as having any merit. Yes, our paths cross but there are long periods of nothing. This is not the first time that Yogesh has claimed that I have been hounding him, eg: he raised it in the topic ban discussion. Mind you, I have been looking at contributions made by him since he opened this thread, and I can see some selective pseudo-canvassing going on. Why tell AshLin, for example, that he is mentioned in a conversation that I linked to here, but not inform all the other participants in those conversation threads? Something is a little inequitable here. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

AshLin was accused of being YK's meatpuppet, 'he also could be dragged into this, fair enough for YK to warn him'. He had written "I'm the guilty party and not YK" sarvajna (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems a boomerang is in order here. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I know about WP:Boomerang, but what I wanted to say is that discussing about everything else but not about hounding would be unfair to YK.user:Saravask writes on Fowler's page '" If the FBI or MI5 or CBI instituted a program to track these users down in RL and euthanise them on the spot, let me just say that I wouldn't be phoning Amnesty International."', thank you Fowler, you don't want YK to be killed, you just want's him to be banned.sarvajna (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of hounding apart from this spurious AN/I complaint, that's why I'm suggesting a boomerang. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Fifelfoo: (1)I've given seven diffs of user:Sitush's alleged hounding, following me to articles I created (please see my statement above for diffs), Sudheendra Kulkarni is the 8th, he never bothered to go to those articles after, I stopped editing them, partly due to my topic ban. (2)He also has deleted an edit made by me on an article talk page. Do you consider that normal collegial behaviour? If he has a normal interest in those topics, why doesn't he edit them now? (3) Does he have the privilege of "stirring shit"] all around me? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I noted and read your diffs prior to offering my opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Smell bad blood huh Sarvajna? There is no anti-YK group, nor is there a pro-YK group because that would be considered canvassing, and by now you should have known that canvassing is unacceptable conduct on Misplaced Pages. My comments are not meant to deter YK from editing India related-articles, but to take a break from them because he tends to get into conflicts too often, and it's testing the patience of the community. I'd hate another editor getting blocked from a silly matter. From how I see it, there are disagreements on both sides, and that's natural for anyone to get into a dispute, even in real life. Rather than misinterpret my actions as an assumption of bad faith and take advantage of my goodwill, stop trying to game the system. Good luck to the next person seeing this. This is the last comment I shall put here. Good luck, and have a nice day. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 07:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo. Will you make a proposal Fifelfoo? We could start with a 3-month ban. If his behaviour upon return doesn't improve, the ban could be extended and lengthened. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Three months seems counter productive. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Articles edited by each user Since this section is titled "Hounding by Sitush", I have created a list of articles edited by Sitush and Yogesh Khandke in 2012. There are 19 articles edited by both users, 218 edited by Yogesh Khandke only, and 2620 edited by Sitush only. If wanted, I could show the other pages that each edited, but it's a long list because Sitush has been extremely active with over 23,000 edits in the last six months. While the two users have interacted on a number of pages, it looks like that is because Sitush does a lot of work on a lot of pages. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that, Johnuniq. In fairness to Yogesh, although I have not edited Charles Dickens (shown as unique to him) I certainly have commented about it. Of the 19 common articles, I'd hazard that it is fairly evenly split regarding "who got there first". In any event, even if Yogesh was first at all of those, 19 out of 218 does not seem to me to support a charge of hounding. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• My personal definition of hounding is that it occurs when editor A maliciously follows editor B around and makes mischievous edits to articles where editor B has been active. The purpose is disruption or revenge. In my view that is a different case to a situation where editor C notices poor editing behaviour in an edit made by editor D, and looks at editor D's contributions to see if this is a systemic problem. If it is, then in my view C is justified in repairing problems caused by D.

The actual actions (one editor checks another's watchlist, goes to articles there and edits them) are the same. The intent is different. Of course actions on WP are easy to spot; intent is not. Nevertheless I have seen enough of Sitush's edits to feel as though I can trust on his/her good faith and judgement and there's nothing here to make me doubt that. Kim Dent-Brown 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The instances of hounding that I have referred to here, are of articles created by me the "A and B example given by you". The evidence of his hounding is that he makes no other edits to the article after having warred with me. There are many other instances on talk pages such as the one I have provided regarding the above related to Charles Dickens. You write that "C is justified in repairing problems caused by D" can you provide examples of such a repair at the seven examples and Sudheendra Kulkarni I have provided. John's stats are great, now would you go into the details pl. Why would one invoke a history ban threat in relation to an article about a living person, and when all the edits are about contemporary events, like user:Sitush has done unless to make Misplaced Pages miserable for the other editor. Please don't rely on trust alone, peruse the evidence pl.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like Kim Dent-Brown to see this sub-Section regarding discussion related to Sudheendra Kulkarni, first Sitush argues that he didn't use the word "implicated" with reference to Kulkarni, then, when evidence is presented in for of a diff, he does a U-turn and justifies the use of "implicated", hardly amusing.. He also has made dozens of edits on my talk page (when lately I made one to his page, he deleted it, with an edit summary "go away"), using expressions like " there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry...", making false socking allegations and dragging me to ANI, taunting me about my interactions with Sue Gardner, "..A word in Sue Gardner's ear may not have gone amiss..." making baseless allegations "...Now, I understand that you are also proposing that the government block access to Misplaced Pages..." accusing me of being disruptive at Charles Dickens and Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar neither articles he ever edited,, taunting and heckling "Hi Yogesh, I notice that your nationalist stance is getting you into problems again on various articles, eg: at Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Charles Dickens. Is there any chance of you leaving out the Hindutva/anti-colonial style of POV and just sticking to the Misplaced Pages way of doing things? If not then perhaps it really is time for you to find another outlet for your opinions.", poisoning the mind of another editor about me "I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong.", luckily for me the concerned editor user:WickerGuy ignored him, and we collabrated into creating a new sub-page ], he commended for writing the section Reconciliation. Please see the evidence, if you want more, I will look it up, but don't just assume. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

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

That Yogesh Khandke be blocked for one week to prevent their disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles, and for breaches of their topic ban in relation to Indian history, broadly construed. One week is enough time to calm down from making six months stale claims from a period which resulted in their topic banning. More than one week is punative, rather than preventative. The elements of breach of ban are disturbing, but comparatively minor, and do not in my mind contribute to adding any time to a one week block; this block's period being solely BOOMERANG in relation to the disruption this plaint has and is causing; the breech of ban merely being noted in relation to the block. Yogesh Khandke should consider their editing style and alter it on their return, I really hope to never read their name here as an element of a report ever again, and in a years time to see an application for removal of the topic ban based on excellent editing on other Indian topics. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo and all: Oh my claims complaints are stale? I didn't go official because, I don't believe in puerile complaints at the drop of a hat. However user:Sitush reverted my edit at Sudheendra Kulkarni with an edit warning "breach of topic ban." That was the proverbial "last straw" for me. I have presented my edits above, do the edits reverted by user:Sitush constitute a topic ban? If so then I'm happy that this WP:BOOMERANGs on me as I deserve it. If not, I request that user:Sitush should be persuaded to stay away from me.

• Four edits I made to the article (in effect) reverted by user:Sitush with edit summary "breach of topic ban"

  (1)In 2008, a sting operation was carried out and later televised, called the cash-for-votes scandal, it involved Kulkarni and another BJP activist. It allegedly showed a bribe of Rupees one crore being allegedly offered on behalf of the Congress led UPA government, to each of three BJP MPs to seek their support in the July 2008 confidence vote in parliament. A parliamentary panel probed the operation and asked the Delhi police to investigate some of those alleged to be involved, including Kulkarni whom they said had "facilitated the giving of bribes to members (2)On 17 July 2011, two of those involved were taken into custody for questioning. Kulkarni, who had been questioned earlier by the Kishore Chandra Deo committee said that he had been interrogated by the police on the matter and that he was prepared for further interrogation by them (3)September 27, 2011. (4)He was released on bail on 17 November 2011, The Economic Times reports that "The high court - while grantig bail to Kulkarni and five other co-accused - had on Wednesday punctured the foundation of the 2008 cash-for-votes scam, arguing that had the BJP leaders wanted bribe, they would not have conducted the sting.

  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support week-long ban. YK has been violating the terms of his topic ban, for example, in this edit to Krishna Desai; following it up with bizarre punctuation, as in this edit, presumably as a way of inserting unencyclopedic material by way of quotes, adding meaningless, dated, and pejorative (to Communists) phrases such as "card carrying" in this edit on Sudheendra Kulkarni, and then edit warring over it. In addition to the Boomerang referred to by Fifelfoo, this is altogether too much disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment regarding Fowler's allegations of topic ban: (1) "Card-carrying" it means a full-fledged member of an organization (as a Communist party) (Merriam Webster), nothing pejorative about it. Moreover it was in the source cited "CPI(M) card holder" (2)Krishna Desai was murdered in 1970? Historical? (3)I appeal to the administrators to request Fowler&Fowler to excuse us, and leave this discussion as he has nothing constructive to share with us. Fowler has an axe to grind in my case, he on informal advice of administrators had apologised to me for incivility and for abuse of Hindu dieties I have always taken the informal route, unless left with no option. (3)Yet Fowler continues being abusive his edit summary at Sudheendra Kulkarni reads this is an encyclopedia; just because someone uses a hackneyed meaningless and pejorative phrase, doesn't mean you can quote it. removing garbage, isn't calling other editor's work garbage a personal attack? (4)More examples of personal attacks by F&F (edit summaries) (a)Talks about an Indian community disparagingly: "Sorry, but removing bogus history; the Mughals would have whupped the Jat butt with both hands tied and both eyes closed; Please no fantasy history" (b)Insulting comments on Hindu beliefs: "clan founder lived 4 billion years ago, when there was no life; was he the first life form, a fragment of RNA? Or a tube worm in a hydrothermal vent?". (c)Calls Hindu belief's garbage "what sort of garbage is this? All humans in India originally came from Africa; Never heard of an African clan leader named Ikshavaku..."]
• Comment - Sitush's disruption(1)Sitush is acting like the proverbial "dog in the manger" he is blind to this simple punctuation mistake, which he simply keeps on inserting, In 2011, Kulkarni was remanded in judicial custody for a period and In November of that year was released on bail. It seems all he wants to do is heckle and hound me and not be a constructive contributor at least in the case of Sudheendra Kulkarni. I really fail to understand why the administrative community is turning a "blind eye" to this disruption.
• @Fifelfoo: (1)You write One week is enough time to calm down from making six months stale claims from a period which resulted in their topic banning., I request you to check the diffs, those are of articles I created and Sitush followed, hounded and followed me there. How on the earth does he know that a new article was being created by me unless he was wp:STALKING me? (2) Would you kindly explain with examples your statement prevent their disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles (3) I must thank you for reading and understanding the nuances of my statement I was under the impression that constructive editing in non-ban areas, and not keeping away was the key to have the ban narrowed, or revoked some day, your positive response is reassuring. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanation solicited:user:Sitush seems to be referring to off-Wiki activities, "We all know that you will likely find it difficult to be neutral when it comes to writing about Communists etc, given the events late last year that were spattered all over the newspapers/YouTube etc, as well as mentioned on Jimbo's page and at ANI." Isn't bringing off-wiki activities such as You-Tube/ newspapers a serious transgression of Wiki rules? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would like user:Kim Dent-Brown/ All to (1) See the following sub-Section regarding discussion related to Sudheendra Kulkarni, first Sitush argues that he didn't use the word "implicated" with reference to Kulkarni, then, when evidence is presented in for of a diff, he does a U-turn and justifies the use of "implicated", hardly amusing.. (2) He has made dozens of edits on my talk page (when lately I made one to his page, he deleted it, with an edit summary "go away"), using expressions like (a) "...there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry...", (b) Making false socking allegations and dragging me to ANI, (c)taunting me about my interactions with Sue Gardner, "..A word in Sue Gardner's ear may not have gone amiss..." (d) Making baseless allegations "...Now, I understand that you are also proposing that the government block access to Misplaced Pages..." accusing me of being disruptive at Charles Dickens and Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar neither articles he ever edited,. (e) Taunting and heckling "Hi Yogesh, I notice that your nationalist stance is getting you into problems again on various articles, eg: at Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Charles Dickens. Is there any chance of you leaving out the Hindutva/anti-colonial style of POV and just sticking to the Misplaced Pages way of doing things? If not then perhaps it really is time for you to find another outlet for your opinions.". (f) Poisoning the mind of another editor about me "I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong.", luckily for me the concerned editor user:WickerGuy ignored him, and we collabrated into creating a new sub-page ], he commended me for writing the section Reconciliation. Please see the evidence, if you want more, I will look it up, but don't just assume. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's keep cutting Mr. Khandke more slack and he'll keep delivering his flailing many-splendored diatribes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Support I'm now for the week-long block. The ideas that I've given to him to stop coming around in conflicts doesn't seem to be working at all, and the persistent name calling and trying to seek support to make this point is showing that he isn't understanding. I find this edit summary here: () very uncivil. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Pl. see my interactions with user:Sitush, I've side-stepped all that was thrown at me by him, not a word in reply, it is a year's interaction, and continued attacks, that has made me bring this up. You are looking at the effect, look at the cause too. I have laboured to stay away from him, I've never sought him out, he has. I see a completely non-involved editor like you, feel the way you do, (one should not say hounded when one feels hounded, one should not say heckled when one feels heckled etc.,). I've to ignore even at an ANI when an editor who supports me at at a discussion is called my "cohort". It means that I don't understand the mechanisms here, which is my fault. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Fowler gives some diffs that do not justify that YK violated his topic ban.I would not like to agree with Fifelfoo that YK was responsible for any disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles and a lot of editors like Fowler are being very inventive in connecting everything to Indian History.sarvajna (talk) 2:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Like I said, compulsively tendentious editors, such as Mr. Khandke, will test the boundaries of a topic ban in order to remain in the limelight of controversy. Continue to engage him civilly here, and he (or his cohorts) will continue to post long, disjointed, incoherent posts, the additional boldfacing of which will add eye strain to the headache you already have. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, please don't be plainly disingenuous. In this edit about a political murder in 1970, in which, to boot, Mr. Khandke, managed to take a swipe at his usual punching bag, the Indian National Congress, he adds, "According to the Communists, the then Indian National Congress government had an interest in the weakening of the Communists, and so it 'supported the incident'." What the heck is that about if not Indian history? It is an incident of 42 years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fowler that depends on your definition of History, please note even yesterday is also history technically.When YK was banned it was due to the AIT/AMT which is not a 1970 incident. Do not stoop down to your old habit of making comments like he (or his cohorts) will continue to post long, disjointed, incoherent posts, the additional boldfacing of which will add eye strain to the headache you already have.(this time the fonts are not in bold, hope this will not cause more headache) you have an option, stop reading the commentssarvajna (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

His topic ban, Mr. Kulkarni, says, "Indian history widely construed." It doesn't say "Indian history before and up to 1969." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support a week off. I had been undecided about this ban, concerned in particular about it possibly being punitive. However, Fowler&fowler has spotted another problematic POV pushing contribution. Someone needs the time to trawl through YK's edits since the topic ban and fix the things, without being subjected to continued, repetitive arguments in the process. I am pretty close to suggesting that the topic ban be extended to Indian politics also. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Attempting to circumvent the ban and push a POV should be dealt with quickly. Not much point in topic bans otherwise. --regentspark (comment) 23:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

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

I would propose that Sitush and Fowler be banned from interacting with YK, a lot of time of everyone can be saved.sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And damage the encyclopedia in the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It would mean that YK could quite likely get away with point-y edits such as this. I spotted it in my review today and I know that YK is well aware of the Ganges/Ganga naming disputes and their outcomes. I have not reverted but I would hope that someone sees sense. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Another stretching of imagination: Is GangaxGanges about Indian History? Both are contemporary names of the river, both are English names, the dispute is which name should we use when we refer to her on Misplaced Pages, it is an issue of wp:COMMONNAME. Moreover user:Sitush in his disruptive edit on Sudheendra Kulkarni had described my four edits there betweeen 2012-06-19-15.57 and 2012-06-19-16.14 as violation of my topic banYogesh Khandke (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is best to not be obsessively tendentious, Mr. Khandke. The Ganges page has seen several unsuccessful page move attempts to Ganga. The consensus, thus far, has been overwhelmingly to keep the name Ganges. Having been on the losing side of the debate for your entire time on Misplaced Pages, you are well aware of the consensus. In spite of that, if you are casually changing "Ganges" to "Ganga," with unintelligible edit summary "gangesxganga," you are attempting to do in an everyday edit what you have been unable to do in the page move. This is not to place to redo all the arguments for that page move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

YK, I never said that it was a history issue. The alternate proposal is an interaction ban involving me & has nothing directly to do with your topic ban. Not wanting to blow my own trumpet etc, but if the iban happens then one of the more prolific editors of India-related content will likely be unable to draw attention to, comment on or revert any of your many POV-y/otherwise disruptive contributions. Given the seeming paucity of people with intelligence and a good command of English who choose to spend time on Indic subjects, and given the manner in which you are still choosing sometimes to contribute post-topic ban, that would likely be a pretty big net loss. I mean, just look at the sort of thing it descends to! - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deathlasersonline

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

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

Deathlasersonline (talk · contribs)

I honestly think that this user is here just to troll. To wit:

• A mass of improper G7's to various articles (such as Eleutherococcus gracilistylus), followed by a comment at User talk:LadyofShalott#Deletion which says, "So we got 2 ways of doin this-either you mass delete or I blank!"

• Creation of a Grawp-esque browswer crashing page at User:Deathlasersonline/revenge. Afterward, he submitted it to RFPP, where it got speedied per G3. After that, he claimed it was a test to see how much a page could hold (). He then said others were assuming bad faith.

• A comment like "Every-one thinks I am traitor!" suggests he knows he's disrupting the project.

While the user has created some seemingly viable articles such as Dark radiation, their behavior in the past 24 hours suggests that they're not here for seriousness. Some of their edits are borderline vandalism, trolling and gaming of the system. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I don't know what got over me over the past 24 hours. I was actually editing and revising maths in 2 tabs at once. I will immideatly take a wikibreak and promise not to repeat this type of behaviour again!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You obviously knew what you were doing from the get-go, and your actions seem far too deliberate. You also seem to know way too much for an ostensibly new editor. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I really was just testing the maximum amount of data you could put in a page. I was just curious-the canon picture was because it was 2.74MB which is the largest I temporarily found!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you call a browser-crashingly huge page "revenge", you are obviously pulling the same stunts that a certain banned editor used to do. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you name it "revenge", link to it in reply to a warning from Lady on your talk page, and request protection for it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to voice my support for the above claims. Deathlasersonline previously signed up for the WP:GOCE backlog elimination drive in May, and the WP:WikiProject Wikify backlog elimination drive in June. In both cases, his contributions were determined to be either non-existent or actually worsened the articles he edited. He then joined the just-started GAN backlog drive, and his reviews have been lacking. I have serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns, outside of the possibility that he is simply trolling. Another example of the latter is this bizzare conversation he had with a handful of other editors last week. I was shocked that no one else realized that the simplest explanation was that he was just trolling everyone and making things up about the supposed e-mails as he went along. I honestly haven't seen him do much that was productive, and have spent a lot of time behind the scenes cleaning up after him or watching others do the same. —Torchiest _edits 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Deathlasersonline, if this is the case, why would you write "User:Deathlasersonline/revenge" at that moment at time? Also, calling it "/revenge" seems to instantly go over the borderline. ⇒TAP 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But it was not a threat nevertheless, why do you all think I am making a threat. I was also trying to come first in Misplaced Pages:Database_reports/Users_by_bytes_uploaded.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The hell it wasn't. You titled it "revenge", obviously making a threat. You seem to know too much for an ostensibly new editor, as I said before. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If true, the above comment seems to fall into gaming territory anyway. —Torchiest _edits 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this user is young and perhaps quite immature and/or over-dramatic (no offense intended - just being blunt). I've spent some time offering this user guidance. This latest stunt, apparently intended as revenge towards LadyofShallot who has also spent a lot of time helping and offering advice to this user, is over the line. I'm not certain that they are Grawp/an experienced troll, but I wasn't convinced by several claims this user has made in regards to people emailing him. I have been assuming good faith, but the continuous questionable behaviour is really whittling away at my ability to AGF. Bunnies! Leave a message 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with OohBunnies here; I don't know that implications of sockpuppetry are warranted yet, but I think this is getting disruptive enough in its own right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I WAS NOT MAKING A THREAT, I CAME ON WIKIPEDIA FOR ATTENTION AND AWARDS, PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A THREAT!IT WAS NOT A THREAT, I TITLED IT REVENGE BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY THE THING THAT WOULD COME TO MY MIND AND INSERTED A LINK FOR A RED LINK SO THAT I COULD TEST HOW MUCH A PAGE COULD BE!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been told before not to "shout" (i.e use caps lock). Sorry, but we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to give you attention or awards. You can either help us build the encyclopedia or continue to cause drama in the community...the latter may earn you a block though. Bunnies! Leave a message 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The community has given Deathlasersonline the benefit of the doubt far more than most other editors, primarily because they have appeared to be making some positive contributions; however I believe that we have reached the point where their positive contributions to Misplaced Pages are outweighed by the negative contributions. It has been clear for some time that this editor has some Competence issues and even with a significant amount of help by several other editors, have been unable to address them. Deathlasersonline treats Misplaced Pages as a game/competition (and they aren't the only editor to do so) and it is becoming disruptive, this has also been accompanied with frequent dramatic bursts of anger/annoyance. I'm concerned that this editor may not be mature enough to edit Misplaced Pages at this time, the above comments suggest this is true. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am incredibly tempted to indef per WP:CIR. Anyone has a good reason why I shouldn't? Salvio 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• DO IT. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please, last chance.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sure hope you do not get any more chances to troll. This: " I was also trying to come first in Misplaced Pages:Database_reports/Users_by_bytes_uploaded" after all your previous nonsense leading up it, puts my troll-meter squarely into the red. Zad68 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Plus this: "I WAS NOT MAKING A THREAT, I CAME ON WIKIPEDIA FOR ATTENTION AND AWARDS" is just about as good as typing "I AM A TROLL" on your user page. Zad68 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 7) I have large concerns over Talk:Worthington Brewery/GA1 and Talk:Thessaloniki/GA1. I would suggest Deathlasersonline withdrawing those, so a proper review can be done. I also see copyright concerns in the Brewery GAN, the editor quoting the public domain tag. I later added {{pd-old-100}} to the image.. In the past I have been assuming good faith with deathlasersonline, but this is too much now. LadyofShallot has gave Deathlaser(sonline) great guidance in the past, which they seem to not be following. I had also assigned Deathlasersonline tasks to do, like fix the interwiki errors in some of their stubs. This was not done. As a stub creator myself, who has fixed over seven-hundred stubs in my time, I do not seem convinced that this editor has enough care about their articles than they should. I will recuse myself from the block, as I have interacted with this editor much. I also think that because the editor was reluctant to forward the email threat to ArbCom and the fact that the sory of it kept growing, I think that there is an issue here. However, the user has had many 'last chance'. Regards, ⇒TAP 18:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, after I come back from Wikibreak and troll again-block me! But not this time please.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deathlasersonline, with every issue you have, you always go on a wikibreak, then instantly come back after the dispute is over. ⇒TAP 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A wikibreak doesn't earn you any favours. So many editors have spent their free time offering you guidance and advice, including LadyofShallot - and your treatment of her is quite unacceptable, not to mention unfair and ungrateful. If you do get this "last chance" then bear in mind it really would be a last chance. You've been treated incredibly leniently. I do hope you realise this. Bunnies! Leave a message 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Quit going around in circles and block him. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I block-conflicted with Jac16888... Salvio 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocked for a year, hopefully a year from now they will be mature enough to edit--Jac16888 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppet of User:WOLfan112

Deathlasersonline/Deathlaser is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of WOLfan112 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked before for abusing sockpuppets. --MuZemike 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, honestly would not have called that. Talk about a 3rd act twist--Jac16888 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I will note that WOLfan112 is currently not blocked, presumably because nobody caught on until now. I will leave the sockmaster for the community to handle. --MuZemike 22:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Apart from being a sock, Deathlaser's behavior lately has been sufficiently disruptive that I'm not too pleased with the idea of the editor having an unblocked account under any name. As Deathlaser or as WOLfan112, this person needs that year off to mature. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Per the above, a minimum of a one year block is necessary. I think an indef block should be put in place. However we should refer to this person created the Deathlaser account one day after a one week block was put in place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Both have now been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Geez, I just loved being played for a fool. :( LadyofShalott 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Democracy112 (talk · contribs) was just confirmed as another sockpuppet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

WOLfan112 requested unblocking. I declined and think I fairly represented the consensus here, but I invite any other admin to review my decline. LadyofShalott 18:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No brainer to refuse here, I support your decision, and so would anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and a few minutes later he tried again, no luck. I'm debating taking away talk page access now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer to his question is, unfortunately, yes, we don't think they're competent enough or at the very least mature enough to be here. Maybe in a few years time. Blackmane (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered

Alan Liefting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently removing what appear to be all instances of File:Replace this image male.svg from articles using an automated tool. He uses the edit summary "rm image per discussion. See File:Replace this image male.svg", but I can find no discussion about this. He has not reacted to what I consider a reasonable request on his talk page to stop this until it is clear whether there is a consensus for the removal of these images. Because I believe our practice is to consider undiscussed and potentially controversial automated changes to hundreds of articles disruptive, I am considering blocking Alan Liefting until he agrees to (a) stop these removals and start a structured discussion, and (b) undo the removals he already made if there is no consensus in favor of them. What do others think about this?  Sandstein  06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. From my standpoint, this sort of behaviour is becoming a recurring pattern for User:Alan Liefting. (See here, here, here for examples.) I know he is able to productively discuss things when approached because I have seen it happen. It just seems that more often than not he prefers not to stop after an editor or editors ask him to stop. There are several Misplaced Pages users that I know of that have lost all patience with Alan and are hoping that some sort of action is taken. I don't know what the right solution is. I blocked him on 14 May 2012 for vandalism of a reporting page and some personal attacks after he kind of lost it after being reported on an administrator's noticeboard. Good Ol’factory 06:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A templated note on the male placeholder says:

    Note to Misplaced Pages editors:

    From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits.

    There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and this one. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation.

    66% seems quite significant to me, but then it's my opinion that the placeholders make us look totally amateur and should be deprecated. Why would 66% not be considered a consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this discussion is the one the remover refers to, and it's five years old; moreover it does not seem to have resulted in consensus for actually removing the files. I don't think that a discussion that old that has since not been acted upon is now a reasonable basis for an otherwise undiscussed mass removal.  Sandstein  06:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • According to the old discussion, 66% of participants were opposed to the use of those images, and if only a smaller percentage advocated immediate removal it was because they wished to first see a discussion about developing some alternative solution as a successor system. Since evidently no such successor system has been introduced in the four years since, I find it entirely reasonable to now take that as a justification for removal. My understanding has long been that these things were thoroughly deprecated and I'm astonished to see there were still so many of them around. Most seem to have been on minor, rarely-edited bios, where they probably were simply forgotten. Plus, in most of these cases the original introduction of the placeholder image was itself done through an undiscussed mass edit back in 2008, Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A discussion involving only around 50 editors from four years ago is not a community consensus to remove this image across thousands of articles. I strongly oppose this action. A new discussion about removal should be conducted and then Alan can do his removals. But he should stop immediately until such a discussion is concluded. Silverseren 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • And how many prompted the replacement by a useable image? Dru of Id (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Probably unknowable. Even if we had statistics about how many placeholders were replaced, we would still not know in how many cases the uploaders were prompted by the presence of the placeholder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to comment on behavioural issues and the state of consensus, but ditching this image is an improvement. Editors were always aware that bio articles without masthead images could benefit by having such an image added. There was no reason to make the pages look untidy for readers too by adding this boilerplate.

Mind you, if this image is to go, then isn't that a 'bot task? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support the removal of these amateurish images. Commend the editor who has done the work of removing them. They should never have been added in the first place, they look terrible, and our articles are the better for their removal. --John (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Number of times in my 6+ years here that I have seen an editor actually replace one of those 'replace this image' with a proper photo? Zero. They serve no real purpose and look grim. GiantSnowman 11:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good removals, no real consensus to implement it, and it is time that this is cleared. Sometimes it is good that someone takes initiative to clear out stuff, and I think it is very inappropriate that editors then directly start considering blocks - we are, clearly, not a bureaucracy where everything that is done needs a clear pre-established consensus (unless someone can show me significant opposition against removal that is ignored). --Dirk Beetstra 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support removals and trout slap those coming after him. How is an old consensus invalid? Unreal. Yes, consensus can change but if there's no new consensus that overrides it, it's still valid regardless of subjective ideas of "old". Plus, looking at this discussion, coming after him for not having a bot do the work? I'm getting rather disgusted with this new-think idea that a repetitive task must be done by a bot, else not be done, and therefore any editor doing a repetitive task is by default 'wrong'. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support removal Even if we decided that the removals were incorrect, a block would be completely punitive as long as he agreed to whatever consensus was established here, but it seems like consensus is moving in his direction. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support the removal, never been a fan of the File:Replace this image male.svg and File:Replace this image female.svg. If there is no photograph then there should be no image stating it, it is clear that no free-use photograph exists and there is no need to state the obvious by using File:Replace this image fe/male.svg! Bidgee (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support getting rid of those ugly and unprofessional things! Alan Liefting deserves our thanks for taking on this job. Threatening a block for this is ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and Sandstein should be admonished for starting off a discussion with a threat to block unless the party he is in dispute with complies with his demands. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• 20-Mule-Team Support: What the hell? Since when does consensus have a sell-by date? Hell, if Silver's bizarre contention that we can safely ignore any consensus that was reached too long ago holds true, I bet there are any number of policies and guidelines we can ignore, right? Has WP:N been currently ratified by the community? Ravenswing 17:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  The issue isn't so much how old the discussion is as the point that such a fundamental change to thousands of articles should have a Wiki-wide discussion before implementing. With a watchlist notice and the like. Silverseren 19:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Then this should be a non-issue. There was a wiki-wide discussion, and it was duly posted at WP:CD (). 2/3rds supported removal. No evidence has been provided by anyone that this consensus has been overridden by a new consensus. Given the amount of support Alan is getting here, it seems rather likely any new consensus would mirror the previous one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Plainly the age of the discussion is an issue - why else would you mention it? And, as Hammersoft points out, there WAS a notice and WAS a widespread discussion, and you know full well that a full fifty editors chiming in is quite a broad base by Misplaced Pages standards for such a technical discussion. If you didn't notice it at the time, that's scarcely Alan's fault, or our problem. That being said, come on: this is not a "fundamental" change. This is removing a placeholder few seem to like in favor of no image at all, a cosmetic alteration few Misplaced Pages users would even notice, let alone care about. If the impulse some folks have is "OMG we have to block him to STOP HIM!!!", that strikes me as much more trigger-happy than is fitting for an admin. Ravenswing 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fine. I never said I was opposed to the idea anyways, just Alan's mass removal with no context. So long as there is still support, it's fine. I just wish he had obtained this reaffirmed support before starting. It's better to do that than to act on years old consensuses for removal without warning. Silverseren 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's plenty of things around here that we apply that gained consensus years and years ago. Sheer age of a consensus does not make it invalid. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about consensuses like policies or things that have been already implemented, but consensus for things that would require mass removals and haven't been implemented for years afterwards. At that point, it should be reaffirmed or at least announced that the person will be undertaking this consensus, rather than just starting to remove all of them and confusing a large number of people. An announcement of the intent to do so on AN would be the best option. Silverseren 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• The removals have been done for years. It's not the case that consensus was achieved and nothing was done about it for four years. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• 40-Mule-Team Support removal: The evidence at the time was these were not bringing in usable pictures and articles that still have them four years on is further proof of that. The rules for allowable pics are so Byzantine that it is a mistake to encourage uploading of pics that will get deleted anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• No strong opinion on the images, but Alan needs to communicate when his editing is questioned on his talk page. He appears to have completely ignored the first message on his talk page and only decided to stop editing at the moment the ANI thread was started, 18 hours later. This is not collaborative or cooperative behavior. Also, these edits are being done at a high rate by a semi-automated process, and clearly they're not completely uncontroversial edits. Therefore, per WP:BOTASSIST, Alan should submit a BRFA for this task. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with what he is doing, being unresponsive during a huge run of automated or semi-automated edits (for which you don't have explicit approval) is equivalent to begging for an immediate block. -Scottywong| communicate _ 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• In light of my support for his actions, I do agree with Scottywong that his communication during this ordeal has been subpar. If an editor is going to make 1000's of edits and someone questions them, the editor should make sure the concern is completely addressed before continuing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I might suggest that we "beef up" WP:Fait accompli, which is a decision that came out of a ArbCom case (TTN's?) on the impact of doing a large number of similar changes. I don't think we need to make it policy or even a guideline, but I would suggest that if anyone is planning on doing a wide range of a common action in a short period of time via a non-bot mechanism (whether manual, semi-automated, or automated), that one should (but absolutely not required to) validate those actions, and more importantly, if such actions are contested while being acted on, the actions should stop immediately (and that's more a requirement than a suggestion) to allow discussion to continue. Again, I do not want to make it anywhere enforceable as problems with fait accompli can be handled through standard admin action like we're discussing here (and knowing how both the Beta and RichF. Arbcom cases closed out, what exactly is "wide range of common action in a short period of time" is a poor definition and will be so gamed by editors with grudges), but it's a piece of advice that I think we want editors to follow and that we can remind them of if they are acting in this fashion in the face of obvious resistance. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Alan did have validation for his actions. He responded promptly to queries about it as well. When the actions became contested via this thread on WP:AN/I, he stopped immediately. Alan's done nothing wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I 100% agree he's done nothing actionable by AN or most other metrics (during or currently), but the only reason I point this out is that if he said, say, over at VPP that he was about to act on this past consensus, we wouldn't be here right now at ANI about it. Hence why beefing up the essay to suggest that announcing large scale non-bot efforts is highly recommended to avoid being in the line of fire later. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• On 29 May 2012 Alan was approached about the removal on a particular article. Alan responded 13 minutes later. Alan was approached on 31 May 2012 about the removals. Just two minutes later he responded, pointing to the relevant centralized discussion that gave consensus to deprecate the use. How is that not cooperative? Because Fram, who was party to the 31 May 2012 discussion, asked him yesterday to stop and he didn't respond or stop? Alan had already responded to Fram previously. Kudos to Alan for stopping when another editor notified him of this thread. Alan's done nothing wrong here. His edits have consensus and the summary is accurate and provides a link for further understanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies for my earlier reply to Scottywong then, I didn't realize that Fram was part of the earlier discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I created the WP:IPH shortcut to the consensus decision supporting removal, and have suggested Alan include that shortcut in future edit summaries when he resumes removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Just in case it wasn't clear from my comment above, I support the removal of the placeholders (and generally do so myself when I come across then, which is quite infrequently these days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to allow Alan to finish

I propose that we allow Alan to finish making his improvements to the encyclopedia in relation to removing the placeholders. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I just hope he makes an announcement next time on AN or VPP before conducting something like this. There's been far too many ANI discussions regarding him in relation to his semi-automated edits that he really should announce things first at this point if he wants to avoid this stuff. Silverseren 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, I hope you do realise that we are 'again' here with Alan because Sandstein felt the necessity to immediately come to AN/I without talking to the editor first, where the editor was before already approached twice and already twice has shown that there was consensus for his tasks. I actually really wonder why Sandstein brought this thread here and not continued a discussion with the editor on their talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support of course. I think we already have done this above. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I felt like consensus was there, I just wanted to make it official. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until a consensus is obtained for an automated removal of the images. The discussion from 4 years ago seems to have resulted in a consensus that the images are ugly, and something should be done about them, but there was no discussion of having an automated tool remove all of them. For instance, perhaps it would be more useful to convert the image tags to something like Category:Biography articles needing images. A brief discussion at WP:VPP is not much to ask, and could result in a better outcome than blunt removal without discussion. In my opinion, a BRFA should be filed for a task of this magnitude. -Scottywong| speak _ 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Cat'ing bio pages without infobox images is easy to do via the infobox template, so it could be done post-facto. And since its not a bot, BRFA is inappropriate (but that's why I bring up the idea of non-bot automated/manual repeated tasks being announced prior to the fact. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We should not be setting a precedent that it's ok to silently set up AWB to make thousands of edits based on discussions with a weak consensus that took place many years ago, which never discussed the possibility of automated action. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Knowing how editors that are affected by this demand wikilawyering-levels of resolution, this is a very bad precedent ("Oh, I disagree with this long-standing clear consensus from X years ago because consensus can change! Stop that task at once!") Is it a smart idea to check for support for a task? Heck yes. Required? Heck no, as long as you the editor doing those changes accept that if they are contested, you'd better stop, and if later found to be undesirable, work to fix it up. Refusing to do either of these with any type of mass editor (manual, AWB or something in between) is cruisin' for a block. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The point is that there was no consensus for an automated tool to remove thousands of images. There was consensus that something needs to be done about the images, but no consensus that they all needed to be forcibly removed. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • There was no consensus against the use of automated tools either. If he was acting against that, then let's through the book at him. But we encourage bold actions when by good faith they are believed to improve the encyclopedia: he ran AWB on that assumption. I'd say we'd want to encourage giving fair warning or re-establishing consensus, but as long as there wasn't clear consensus against the action, being bold is nothing we should punish him form. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and also support the idea of creating a bot to do the work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  I would not try to do it by bot, many would go fine, but this is work that typically glitches for strange reasons. This needs to be done human-supervised with AWB, not automated. --Dirk Beetstra 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Plenty of websites use silhouette images in place of actual pictures. IMDB comes to mind immediately. Ancestry.com does too. The claim that they're "unprofessional" is funny, given the wretched quality of no small number of user-taken snapshots littering the bio's. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is the unintended consequence of the "no fair use images for living people" policy. But regardless of where they're used otherwise, the placeholders here, at least, are some kind of ugly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ha. I had this debate with someone here, a few years ago, and when I said our multitude of snapshot-quality photos made us look amateurish - and they said it's supposed to be that way. Regardless, those silhouettes don't look any uglier than red-links to non-existent articles. And they're supposed to serve somewhat the same purpose: To maybe encourage someone to look for a picture. However, it would help if it were consistent: Either all or none, not "if we happen to think about it." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Scottywong. Happy to start a more full RfC. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that I don't see consensus against having a call to contribute images - just against the former image in terms of style (and that was marginal). James F. (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support makes articles better. Nobody Ent 02:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a small piece of text in the image slot or at the bottom of the infobox that requested images, but the placeholders are (sorry Bugs) amateurish and ugly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the eye of the beholder, I guess. This doesn't seem at all ugly and amateurish to me. The worst I would say about it is that it's mundane. I don't think it looks any worse than what IMDB uses. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, a matter of opinion. The IMDB star thing is marginally better than our placeholder -- but also, we're an encyclopedia (albeit a popular one) not a commercial website owned by Amazon.com. I'm a great believer in being as visually interesting and informative as possible, but those placeholder images are like nails on a blackboard to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying that what it looks like is not really a strong reason to delete it. Much better reasons include (1) that they are not consistently used, but only on a whim; (2) that they don't really serve any purpose (the fact that there's no picture is fairly obvious); and (3) that they might unwittingly encourage editors to post non-free content. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • • I think it's fair to say that no one has any clue about whether they "work" or not, where "work" means "encourage people to upload legitimate free images". I guess what I'm saying, as someone who's focused a great deal on the visual aspects of WP articles, is that an article is better off with no image whatsoever rather than the placeholders, and that the lack of an image is as useful in nudging an editor to upload an image as the placeholders are. I also agree with the implications of your last remark: veteran WP editors will see either the lack of an image or a placeholder as an encouragement to look for a free image, while tyros will basically ignore the lack of an image, and will be encouraged by the placeholder to upload non-usable non-free images, because that's what are most easily available. (Finding free images is much more difficult, and the vast majority of people don't have personal snapshots of celebrities to contribute.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is tending towards opinion ("it's ugly/unprofessional" vs. "it isn't any uglier than empty space"), which doesn't take into account whether or not they actually work – the whole point. I'm wondering if (warning, about to sound like the WMF) we should try an A/B test to determine whether the placeholders actually encourage people to upload images. Remove all that are manually inserted, build a list of BLPs without an image, use some parser magic in infoboxes to give half of these articles a placeholder image and leave the other half empty, come back in some months, and see what percentage of articles gained a picture. Has anyone suggested this before? As Bugs said, the placeholders potentially encourage users to post non-free content that they wouldn't add otherwise. We can, of course, review what's uploaded and see if this is true. — The Earwig  04:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, Alan is doing fine with AWB (I actually see no reason why we are !voting to have Alan continue - there is no reason he should not). Alan, please continue the removals. --Dirk Beetstra 04:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• We are !voting because an admin – the otherwise esteemed and perceptive Sandstein – told Alan to stop. When someone of that repute says to do something, a community override -- if that's what is wanted -- is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think that spurring on Alan to continue in the midst of a discussion about what he's doing, that is not providing a clear consensus for him to continue, is not showing the best judgment here. -- Despayre  16:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Remove the last of these ill-considered and ugly place holders. It should have been done long ago. --John (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Semi-Support Not on the highly subjective grounds that they're "ugly", which I don't agree they are; but rather because they are at best useless and at worst might induce editors to post non-free photos. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Masem - it's a bad precedent to stop an editor from work that has consensus just because the consensus is old. There appears to be sufficient support for a removal here anyway. A short comment somewhere (e.g. VPP) by Alan before starting the work would have been better, but it is not required. – sgeureka 14:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like ScottyWong said there's no consensus to use automated tools to remove these images wholesale. I also second The Earwig's suggestion -- there hasn't been any proper study as to whether these placeholder images lead to eventual improvement of the encyclopædia. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until a BRFA has been approved for this semi-automated task. — madman 15:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The consensus was only that the current PHs shouldn't be used, not what was to happen to them (either replacement with others or deletion). Until consensus has been reached on that issue wholesale automated deletion seems counterproductive. It also looks like most editors who have voiced disapproval of PHs seems to have done so for aesthetical reasons, and that opens up the possibility that there could be a consensus to replace them with newly designed images. I also agree with the editors suggesting that we find out if the PHs are actually having any effect before deciding to remove them completely.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• What is the next step then? Do we start an RfC on the status of the images? Do we have an in depth research study performed on the images and their effects? If we did, questions would need to be answered as to how many of the placeholders prompted image placements and how many placeholders prompted image placements that were later deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per reasons given by The Earwig and Saddhiyama. -- Despayre   16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ScottyWong. I don't have any particular objection to the idea, but we need to follow the process. We have BRFA for a reason. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to remind folks that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Consensus is that the existing images are undesirable. Saying "don't remove them until we !vote" is, well, bureaucracy that isn't needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until automated edits are approved I guess I don't need to dig up the links to the two recent arbcom cases to demonstrate the problem: there are a significant number of good editors who are irritated by those who decide they know best and will use an automated tool to implement a change on thousands of articles. It looks like consensus is to remove the images, but there should be no precedent that getting bot approval can be skipped as too bureaucratic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  And there are a significant number of good editors who are irritated by those who decide they know best and will squelch anything that looks automated. Sorry, I stand corrected, of course when an Arbitrator himself does something like that, the thread gets squelched, those 7,500 actions (for which no previous consensus existed!!) were just allowed, and an AN(/I) thread is silenced within no time. That is exactly the precedent that bot approval can be skipped as too bureaucratic (or whatever reason why then bot approval can be skipped), it is the precedent that bot approval for such edits should be skipped. WP:AWB is for mass editing on a user account, just like HUGGLE has parts which are for doing mass edits on a users acount - and editors using AWB will almost by definition do edits on multiple pages. But this is to be expected, this is exactly the precedent that the Arbitration Committee is setting, and this is exactly why editors drop their tools and walk away and work does simply not get done.

  More seriously .. this has to be done supervised, now tell me, we have an editor doing edits had consensus, and who seem to still have consensus, using AWB, on his own account, or we introduce an extra step to ask for a BRFA to do exactly the same (although maybe on a separate account), and you think that is not bureaucratic. --Dirk Beetstra 05:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe the bot policy should formalize this if this is the bureaucracy that is needed for 'large scale tasks' - "Any editor wishing to perform similar actions which may involve more than 100 pages (e.g. using automated tools like WP:AWB, WP:HUGGLE or other scripts) must request for approval through a BRFA"? You are right, Johnuniq, there are two ArbCom cases which do set the precedent for that, and there are more discussions like this. That must mean that that is what the community wants. --Dirk Beetstra 06:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  My goodness, such cynical and pointy commentary! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra 07:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Criticism of automation is being used as a bludgeoning tool. That would be fine if it was used fairly, and equally in all cases where appropriate. That's very far removed from the case, and there is a huge disparity between all of us pigs, with some pigs being more equal than others. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There appears to be an impression among some that this thread is to garner consensus on whether to remove the images or not. That isn't the case. The prior consensus to remove the place holder images remains. If someone wants to see if consensus has changed on that point, please start an RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support ongoing removal. Endorsing the content objective. As for procedure, mass edits really ought to be vetted and approved beforehand lest we get into another Betacommand type situation. But in this case no harm was done. Here we are at AN/I, we can take care of this simply and informally, no need to run to RfC or the bot approval board. Best to continue, and a little more communication next time. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Another subheading added by Alan Liefting

I have decided to break my self-imposted stop in editing to respond to this whole sorry saga. I took it upon myself to carry out out the removal of the placeholder images to improve WP (yes I know, a subjective thing). It was a judgement call on my part that they are better out than in.

Replies to comments:

• Fram, it is true that there was no consensus for removal of the images, but why are you kicking up such a fuss over such a minor issue? Please look at The Big Picture.
• Sandstein, why did you threaten me with a block and start an ANI discussion without attempting to get my side of the story? I had chosen not to reply to Fram because from the gist of the comments it appeared to be impeding progress toward improving WP. That may sound like "I am right and Fram is wrong" but it is was a judgement call on my part. While I am all for discussion on contentious or difficult to fathom issues, something that is of little consequence or something that improves WP for The Reader should be able to be done without any sort of impediment. Lets not forget the alphabet soup of things that need work: NPP, POV issues, AFDs, maint backlogs, gaps in coverage etc. So here I am, hauled in for another wiki-timewaster ANI discussion.
• Andy Dingley, Scottywong, madman and others, sure a bot can do it but a human using AWB can do a better job. AWB gives prompts for work that needs doing that only a human can do (e.g. missing brackets, dead links, out of place sections etc). And it should of course be realised that if it can be done with a BFRA (more discussion!) then it automatically would be acceptable for an actual human to do it.
• Hammersoft, you are right about the removals. The male placeholder was used 38259 times in 2008. When I started removing them it was used only about 5000 times. I would be difficult to find data on how many were replace with an actual image rather than outright removal.
• The replacement of placeholders with actual proper images back in 2008 was less than one percent.
• A big thanks to all the editors who gave supportive comments. "40-Mule-Team Support removal"

A few more points:

• I regularly look at my past edits as a means of self-appraisal. Apart from the reverts by Mattlore as mentioned in the earlier thread on my talk page I have not seen any reverts to keep the placeholder.
• Why did the male placeholder have 5000 odd links and the female only has one?
• I have no intention of doing anything with the remaining 2000 odd articles using the placeholder that I have not checked until there is a clear consensus.

While I don't what to imply that there is the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy this discussion illustrates what I have often seen on WP - the war between the wiki-liberals and the wiki-conservatives. Over to you lot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fram, why are you kicking up such a fuss over such a minor issue?" I have responded to one thread on your user talk page about this issue, and have started a second one three weeks later. "Kicking up such a fuss" would at least involve threats of blocking, starting discussions at other venues, and so on. I did nothing of the sort, I didn't even participate in this ANI discussion until now. I have indicated at the discussion at your talk page that if it became clear from this ANI discussion that these removals are supported and that the 2008 consensus holds despite e.g. the 2009 opposition against it (on the talk page of the file), I have no problem with you continuing your removal of these. I have no objection to such tasks being done with AWB and without bot approval, by the way.

I have also asked you to make your edit summary better by linking directly to the discussion that supported your actions, since different people had difficulties finding it or seeing which discussion exactly was the one you meant. You have not replied to this request, and hadn't made this simple change.

Finally, I also asked you about anothet change you made while doing these removals, i.e. changing "references/" to "reflist". As far as I know, this isn't a standard AWB fix and doesn't have policy or guideline support (the general rule being that if two methods or styles are accepted, you shouldn't be changing one for the other). You haven't replied to this either. Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The lack of communication on Alan's part is as much of a problem as the semi-automated edits without consensus. Semi-automated and automated editors should not be consciously choosing to not respond to legitimate objections on their talk page. This issue would not be at ANI right now if other means of communication hadn't failed. Editors who use AWB or run bots need to be highly communicative and responsive. If that's not possible, then perhaps Alan's access to AWB should be reconsidered. -Scottywong| comment _ 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amply demonstrated in the section above that Alan has been perfectly communicative regarding his edits and that there is a long-standing consensus that these images should be removed. In these circumstances the onus would be on an editor challenging the consensus to start a new RfC, as Hammersoft says. --John (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with John. Alan was quite communicative, and very rapid in his responses. Further, it's been demonstrated several times now that he had consensus for the actions. Please stop repeating this error, now that you know it is an error. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting, thank you for your reply. I did not ask you before starting this thread because you did not reply to Fram's reasonable request. Your removals conflict with the policy WP:BOTASSIST: "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." Such clear consensus (in favor of an active, large-scale removal) is not apparent to me in either the 2008 discussion linked to on the file page, or in this thread. It is particularly important because the file is in widespread use in articles, and that use seems to be a controversial issue. I therefore advise you to start a proper 30-day RfC, to be summarized and closed by an uninvolved admin, or a WP:BOTAPPROVAL request, to obtain a clear consensus for the removals. I also strongly recommend that you revert the removals you already made until such consensus exists. Should you continue removing the image without obtaining consensus, you remain at risk of being blocked.  Sandstein  18:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sandstein, with respect, you are quite simply incorrect. Please look at the very first sentence underneath the heading at WP:IPH where it says "We also remove the placeholder images from articles where they are currently in place". That proposal achieved a 66% consensus for passing through a "proper RfC". As noted earlier in this sub-thread, the image had been removed more than 30 THOUSAND times based on that RfC's decision before Alan undertook the task of removing the remaining ~5000 uses. That RfC is not invalid, it is not unsupported, and it is not vacated due to age. There was and is absolutely clear consensus, and Alan did nothing out of line. If you wish to change that consensus, the burden is on those opposing the removals to seek such a change in consensus, not on those completing the decision (which is now about 95% complete, of which Alan did only about 8%). Threatening, once again, to block Alan is out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I can understand how one can interpret that discussion in this way, but I am not sure that the 66% in favor then constitute clear consensus. I can't find the place in the above discussion where it is established that the image has already been removed 30,000 times since then without opposition. If true, this would indeed be an argument in favor of an active consensus (as apposed to a five-year-old one) in favor of such action.  Sandstein  19:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I also note that Misplaced Pages:Image placeholders says "Use of these placeholders is deprecated". It seems very clear the project as a whole made a decision to stop using these placeholder images, and they have been for the most part removed from use. As to the 30,000+ removals, note above where it says "The male placeholder was used 38259 times in 2008". According to the top of this archive, as of April 2008 there were 50,789. This isn't the only placeholder that was widely used. File:Nocover.png now has only three uses. File:Image is needed female.svg has just one. Their use is deprecated, and many editors have been removing them for years now. I'll also re-iterate; the age of a consensus has nothing to do with its validity. The consensus to not allow album covers in discographies is extremely old. Is that invalid because it is old? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the difficulties that ArbCom had in trying to define how to qualify automated edits for both Beta and RichF in recent cases, it's very hard to apply BOTASSIST or the idea of fait accompli as anything but essay-level advice because the line between good and bad usage is incredibly broad and attempts to narrow become filled with red tape to define specific acctions. Again, to stress the points I made in the previous section, if you are going to use an automated but non-bot (read: something like AWB) to make edits to something, you (the generic editor) are the one that is taking all responsibility by assuming the actions have consensus, you take responsibility in stopping the actions if they receive complaints, and you take responsibility in cleaning up the mess if either of these previous points were found in the wrong. As soon soon as you refuse to response to any aspect of those three areas, you can expect to have the community respond in a prohibitive manner. This makes BOTASSIST great advice: you avoid the first 2 points and through that, would never have to worry about the last, if you assure consensus first. But that can't be a requirement because otherwise we're going to have editors finding the smallest possible automated task to be a problem and requiring any such small repetitive changes to be approved first, which goes against our BOLD/IAR policies. It's merely the responsibility of using those tools properly, which is why AWB had several warnings about things you shouldn't do before you can accept the use of the tool. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama - more weirdness

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

Continuing...

Hello? This IP continues their disruptive antics on the talk page. It's all very well to be amused by their absurdities, but could we please get a block as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dianna blocked the IP for 31 hours. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AJona1992's restrictions

As per my talk page notice I was told that after 6 months I can ask for a loosening of my restrictions. I had tried to do so in April 2012 though it was preferred that I get a mentor. I have tried to ask two users who were experts with image uploading and rules/guidelines however none were interested. What other options do I have now? Best, Jonayo! 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of possible mentors. Why stop at 2? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Those were the only ones who were recommended. I don't know any image mentors and I don't mind asking around if there were a place where I can find them? Best, Jonayo! 16:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• (AJona, do NOT take this as a suggestion to ignore your sanctions) I think somewhere there needs to be a principle that if a request is made to lift a community sanction, due notification is placed at appropriate places such that the community has a chance to respond, and there's no response from the community, the sanction is void. Otherwise, sanctions could exist in perpetuity. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the restrictions I was given. It's been more than 6 months so I want to be able to do things other can, in this situation, uploading files with appropriate non-free template. Best, Jonayo! 00:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Racist hate

See discussion above

In this edit an IP editor (who has since registered as User:One21dot216dot) apparently labels me as a member of an "extreme right wing racist hate group", as well as linking to external sources such as blogs and mail correspondence. This is wrong, defamatory, malicious, contrary to wikipolicy and I want these edits deleted entirely. Previously he had offered to email his allegations, and a look through his contributions reveals numerous comments that transgress any bounds of civil behaviour. Comments about rabid dogs being put down etc. have no place here, regardless of who they are aimed at. Bottom line, I want his WP:OUTING behaviour dealt with promptly. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC) deleted by Skyring here One21dot216dot (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you hadn't heard that the KKK supports same-sex marriage? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

lol. Instead of putting on a wedding dress - or donning jackboots, shaving my head, going out to bash Asians and gays, and trying to screw what little remains of the Aboriginal population out of what they have, for that matter - I'll reply to the latest nonsense up here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_baiting_and_harassment_from_User:Skyring_.28Pete.29 since this latest entry is more evidence of that, and not respond any further in this disruptive sub-thread. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I suggest you drop the stick. Those edits are over a week old and while One21dot216dot did get off to a rocky start, he seems to be focused on commenting on content now. I suggest you do the same. --NeilN 05:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Was a post deleted? This thread makes no sense. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Skyring went on a binge of deleting his own comments from here, rendering this all very bizarre. I believe he actually editwarred to remove the comments, but of course nobody did anything about that. → ROUX ₪ 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the comments that didn't have (a) legitimate potential outing concerns or (b) edit conflicts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The offending material has now been oversighted. --Pete (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping sockpuppetry accusations

User:FactStraight reverted an edit I made, and accused me in the edit summary of being a sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles. I went to his talk page to tell him that I'm not a sock, and that he shouldn't call me one, and noticed that the last message left on his talk page was over the exact same issue. I looked through his edit history, and ~50% of his edit summaries seem to be "reverting sock of louisphillipecharles". It looks like he's using this edit summary as shorthand for "reverted IP editor I disagree with", and to avoid giving any rationale for his edits. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FS has already apologized. Nobody Ent 09:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FS does use that term "sock" a great deal in his edit summaries. Pulling up his last 500 contribs shows the word used 226 times, which is an extraordinary number. Since being called a "sock" is a pretty strong charge, might this be a bit excessive? Or maybe obsessive? I wonder what his track record is, which isn't easy to just pull up without doing a lot of homework, but that the sheer percentage of summaries that use the term is worrisome at the least. It might be fine, but a closer look might be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I know he already apologised. This isn't about defending my personal honour against being called a sock, it's about the fact that he's accusing editors of being socks left right and centre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I decided to start by going to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive to review that history and FactStraight's involvement. LPC is indeed a major sockmaster who seems to edit in at least one of FS's areas of interest. Many of his block-evading socks have in fact been successfully reported by FS. The impression I'm getting is that FS is starting to get suspicious of any IP that edits in LPC's target area, especially IPs that begin with an 81, 85, 86, 89, or 90, and is seeing more ducks than there are. - Jorgath (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometime ago this guy was blanking entire articles to put redirects on them, and when I revert his edits he started accusing me of being a sock of LPC. It's incredible how someone can attack another's reputation and nothing's happen.-Ilhador- (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind providing at least one diff of each of those (a blank, your revert, and his accusation)? I'm curious to see what's going on with FS. - Jorgath (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's here and here , then when I posted a warning on his talk page he replied calling me a sock and made a formal accusation on that LPC thread.-Ilhador- (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering I can tell just by looking at your contribs that your primary area of interest is probably the Thirty Years War or the Protestant Reformation, not the House of Bourbon, I'd say my initial assessment is correct. FactStraight seems to be exhibiting a certain level of paranoia - they're accusing a lot of people who make edits in an area LPC might frequent, if that person makes an edit they disagree with. I think they need to take a step back, as their WP:DUCK senses are picking up geese, swans, and herons as well and calling them all ducks. My suggestion is that FS should be required to not accuse anyone of being an LPC sock, in or out of SPI, unless they first get a second opinion as to whether there's a reasonable DUCK suspicion. - Jorgath (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

4 of his 6 edits so far today have been summarised as "rv sock of indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles". That's is a bit ridulous. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanking and MFD tag removal

User:KO.2 (whose his user and talk pages are under WP:MFD, in which he refuted the 'propaganda' claim by nominator, although others insisted that the problem is WP:NOTWEBHOST) was caught blanking his user page and consecuently removing the MFD tag, which is prohibited. User:Armbrust re-added the MFD tag, but he quickly removed it again and I have re-added the MFD tag.

To prevent KO.2 from removing MFD tags again, I decided to bring the issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs)

I read through the page in the history and KO, who identifies as Taiwanese, has some very strong opinions about administrators on Chinese Wiki and the Chinese government, who he thinks of as Russian puppets. In fact, he goes as far as listing out puppet governemnts through the different eras around the world. As it is, it violates WP:POLEMIC, not to mention WP:OR and most likely WP:BLP as well. Blackmane (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Of note; this user appears to have another account at User:KO.7. Could be a friend though. Either way, within the userspace of these accounts we find

• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2008
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2009
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2010
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2011
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2012
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2010
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2008
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2009
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2011
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2012
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1988
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2000
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2004
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2008

all of which contain fictitious information, and some of which contain WP:NFCC #9 violations. There are also two additional pages which appear to be accurate, but given the presence of the other intentionally inaccurate pages, the existence of these pages is equally suspect:

• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1992 (1)
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1996 (1)

Also, please be aware of User:KO.2/傀儡政權. This is effectively a copy of the main userpage puppet regime content.

In reviewing the editor's other contributions, I'm seeing some seriously problematic issues. In particular, creating Cao Yu (Three Kingdoms) and claiming this person was the son of Cao Pi. In fact, Cao Yu was the son of Cao Cao. I'm seeing a number of attempts at what appear to be subtle vandalism. Further investigation is needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• This user is a LTA on Chinese wikipedia, see the LTA page and his block log (now permanently blocked).--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• And KO.7 is his sockpuppet, see zh:User:KO.7.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

File an SPI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary. This user has listed all the sockpuppet he used or is using (17 in total), see here on zhwiki.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's necessary to find WP:G4 mirrored content within user page English Misplaced Pages now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/KO.2. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I reckon that everytime their political rant is MFD'd they blank that page and move it on to a different sub page. Playing whack-a-mole with subpages is going to be tedious. Oh, and I guess I'll put their latest one onto MFD as well. Blackmane (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keeps removing MFD tag - User:KO.2 has removed the MfD tag from his/her user page three times. Any way (e.g., block) to keep that notification on that page for the duration of the MFD? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Their talk page now looks like a copy of their zh:wp talk page as there is a substantial amount of discussion, not to mention conspriacy theories and paranoia, present on that page all dating back to 08-09. That being said, Uzma, your rationale for the MfD of their talk page is not strictly correct as it's not a a promo. What would be the way to deal with a mirrored talk page from another language's wiki? Never mind me, I misread the mfd'd page160.44.248.164 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) <- this was me, forgot to log in Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I just had a read through of their LTA report on ZH:WP. K.O2 and all their socks were indef'd/banned for long term vandalism of various Taiwanese politician articles as well as other articles and pushing the POV that China is a Soviet puppet state. He also had a tendency to vandalise articles regarding the Qin dynasty and its various emperors generally comparing the modern PRC government with various acts that the Qin emperors committed during their reigns. He also has a tendency to personally attack other editors, generally with insults revolving around such and such an editor being a collaborator (PC way of saying it) with the PRC government. Has a major beef with an admin PhiLiP, most likely because said admin is pro-communist. Having had a re-read of the various MFD'd material, it looks like they're trying to shelter a preferred version of their target articles here on enwp. As each MFD is raised, they shift their material to another sub page by blanking and copy pasting. Affairs raised on another wiki do not translate onto this wiki, but nonetheless this user definitely needs to be monitored. (Of course, that would earn any of us the "collaborator" insult. Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've taken the page to CSD rather than leave it at MFD. Scrolling down the page, KO.2 has created a number of infobox entries for past and present Taiwanese presidents and vice presidents. That in itself wouldn't have been an issue, but he's associated all of these politicians with the World Taiwanese Congress, an organisation pushing for Taiwanese independence. This is a BLP violation as none of them would have openly associated themselves with a pro-independence group. Blackmane (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Right to vanish (for a while)

Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing#What vanishing is not says

"..When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning... If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked."

Does this qualify? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Qualify for what? There's nothing wrong with a previous editor deciding to come back after a hiatus. Nobody Ent 10:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the "right to vanish" article, that's not the case. You're confusing "right to vanish" with "clean start". And if the IP has come back and then gotten into an argument in an area they were previously arguing, then they've violated whichever rule they went-away under. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but (s)he's been involved in only a single article and its deletion. If (s)he starts editing more productively, it would be a good idea to unvanish them. VanIsaac_WS 10:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think this editor has previously "vanished" and not just abandoned an account, and is considering a fresh start? We have WP:CLEANSTART, WP:SOCK#LEGIT and so on - I'm not seeing the problem here. Worm(talk) 10:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning this IP has not edited in over a week... Worm(talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no right of return after invoking the right to vanish. It's a permanent state of affairs. Otherwise, it's just another noisy form of temper tantrum, and we have enough of those.—Kww(talk) 11:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that he may have misused the phrase as opposed to actually requesting and being granted a courtesy vanishing. If that's the case, no problem. If he was granted a courtesy vanishing, however, I see nothing in Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing that says that "stop editing forever" really means "stop editing (unless you don't edit too much) forever (just kidding!)" and I see nothing that says "When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning" really means "When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is OK to return as long as you don't overdo it." --Guy Macon (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. But it takes effort to research and investigate what the previous account was. If (s)he just came in once and isn't doing anything else, then there's really no community payoff to all that effort. So let's just keep an eye out and actually see if this is actually a reappearance in progress or just a proverbial loch ness monster sighting. VanIsaac_WS 11:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"I invoked the right to vanish a few years ago" seems pretty specific to me.—Kww(talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But the only "penalty" for not vanishing is putting your account back from the anonymous name to which it has been moved and linking your accounts. What is the old account name? What is the new account name? Without that information, does it matter? --Moonriddengirl 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, if the guy did invoke "right to vanish", then the IP so claiming should be blocked, regardless of what his previous username was. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? And, if it doesn't, why? :) "Right to vanish" does not necessarily indicate that the contributor left under a cloud. --Moonriddengirl 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, he has to have not left under a cloud. But according to the RTV article, he's not allowed to come back. If he has come back, he's violated RTV and should be blocked. And if he's lying about RTV and is actually a blocked or banned user, then he should be blocked. However, discussion with the user would be in order, to try to discern whether they misunderstood RTV, or didn't actually do RTV, or are actually an evading sock. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say he's not allowed to come back and that if he does he should be blocked? Can you please quote that? --Moonriddengirl 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't. I will say that in my experience every return from RTV has been problematic, and it would probably be best if we explicitly forbade it.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But that's a different issue entirely, and it's not currently our policy. There's nothing that says s/he should be blocked. Keilana| 13:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed." Nothing here about not being allowed to come back, just that the vanishing will probably be reversed if one does. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, it is in the policy: What vanishing is not "Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning... If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked." If they won't reveal who they were, blocking has been practice, because we can't link them back. And policy is written based on practice. It can be added to the policy if we really want to be sticklers for bureaucracy. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet another example pointing to the need for a comprehensive overhaul of our various related policies. Many "Vanished" accounts rethink that "forever" decision, sometimes within days.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who started the discussion on the IP editor's page I have a few comments.

1. My Comment to the user were motivated by them hauling be before the Drama Committee without any sort of contact. As the text indicates, I asked a question and suggested that they log in (or register an account) so as to pull away the veil of Anonymous IP editing. I decided to leave it at they didn't want to log in for one reason or another.
2. When I saw the IP attempt to nominate the article for deletion (but get tripped up in the intricate rules of AfD) I pro-forma nominated the article so they could make their case.

If editors want to open up something that has been done for over 10 days I really don't care. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If my reading and memory served me right, we do not block users if they exercised a Right To Vanish then come back, unless there is some type of abuse. They do so at the risk of having their old account linked to their new account. This may included having all their previously "vanished" edits reconnected to their old user name, which would take process and a Bureaucrat to implement. Unvanishing yourself isn't a violation of policy, but it is subject to reversing the good faith actions granted to you when you were allowed to vanish. Vanishing isn't a right, after all. I'm not sure SPI would be proper to link them unless there is some abuse involved. I'm not sure we are at the point that a discussion to unvanish someone is a good idea anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, figured I should just mention again that it was several years ago. You had a right to vanish back then, whereby you just left your old account behind, and could later create a new account. That's why I call it "Right To Vanish" and not "Courtesy Vanish" which has been created since I left. It has been about four years since then. The idea was that you could start over, and as long as you didn't cause any issues, it'd be all good. I didn't realize that I was no longer allowed to come back under a new name anymore. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As recently as August 1, 2011, the page (then still at Misplaced Pages:Right to vanish) stated: Of course the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind.  --Lambiam 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Under either reading, coming back isn't a violation of policy, you just risk being linked to your old account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• 70.15.136.149, I hope my question did not offend you. I was surprised when someone else brought up blocking. I was expecting either "it's OK, we need to change the wording that implies it isn't", or "It's not allowed, we will politely ask the user to not do it" or perhaps "you are misunderstanding the policy". From a policy standpoint, the interesting thing is the concept of someone who stops editing (whether by being allowed to courtesy vanish, by retiring, or even through a lifetime ban) and is at that time told that there are certain requirements concerning starting new accounts or IP editing, then later those requirements change. It would not be fair to criticize that editor for following the rules in good-faith that were in effect when he left. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So under the rules you left under, it was just a variant of RTV that was half vanish and half clean start? And we'd consider it a courtesy vanish these days? - Jorgath (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If you didn't have your talkpage deleted then you exercised what we would now call WP:Cleanstart. wp:RTV involves having your account renamed to something like vanished user ..... and usually the talkpage deleted. In any event, welcome back and glad to have you with us again. ϢereSpielChequers 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Four years? It's OK, we need to change the wording that implies it isn't. Or alternatively, appear non-bureaucratic common sense. Nobody Ent 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP should own up to what his previous user ID was, and that should allay any concerns. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not if what they're doing is just a misnamed cleanstart, they shouldn't publicly. Via e-mail to a trusted admin, perhaps? - Jorgath (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good option. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User Ronnie42 - Account used solely for disruptive editing

Ronnie42 (talk · contribs) I was really on the fence on whether to use this or just go straight to the incidents/vandalism noticeboard, but for the sake of discussion I'm bringing it here. Ronnie is an incredibly difficult user - he has a long history of editing against consensus and removing the same material from one article -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - before, during and after 1, 2,3,4 separate discussions to reach consensus. His methodology can be summed up by this edit; he'll do what he wants until someone proves him wrong. He's been told by numerous editors to read about various wikipedia policies and that his editing is disruptive but he dismissing all of this as trolling or vandalism (see this bewildering notice he left on one of the Noticeboards). In addition to this specific issue above, the vast majority of Ronnie's edits fall into two categories - Treating talk pages as forums (and this makes up the bulk of his usage, see his full edit history for a litany of examples; he's been cautioned and had edits reverted, only to be reverted back, several times by Ronnie) - and finally, outright vandalism, vandalism and more vandalism. In fact, his entire first year was used for nothing but. Lastly, and most importantly, I can't find a single constructive edit that Ronnie has made. For five years this user has popped up every few weeks or months to soapbox, vandalize and disrupt, and I can't see any reason why we'd keep him around. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Seems more a case for both WP:DRN and WP:WQA. His calling good faith edits as vandalism and throwing around the term "troll" is problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll give the a shot if you think I should, but given that he's been offered help, directed to Misplaced Pages policy pages, cautioned and warned throughout his Wiki career, only to completely ignore what anyone (and it's not just me) has to say, I don't expect a positive outcome. If you feel I should move this anyway, please let me know. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think once you have a consensus at DRN, it becomes easier to see when someone is being disruptive by reverting against that consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and sorry for the delay. The consensus was the result of several discussions on the articles talk page; should I bring that up, or just the reverting? Also, should I just copy and paste it there?--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are usually enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just posted it here... if you could take a look and let me know if it looks alright I'd be most appreciative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

French press

I recently became aware that the Canadian trade-mark "French press" is the subject of a large-scale trial in Federal Court in Vancouver that began some days ago; the trade-mark is impugned, it seems, although I don't have all the details. I note that an IP editor, 38.98.140.67, made a number of relevant edits to French press at about the time the trial began, with specific reference to this question, asserting something which is the subject matter of the trial, and I'm wondering what the propriety would be of reverting those edits. The judgment in the case will be some months away and may not be widely publicized. Before the IP's edits, the article stated that "In the United States and Canada, it is known as a french press" and I believe this is a more accurate statement, although evidence would not be easy to provide. My concern is that the outcome of the trial will not be reflected in the content of the article as assiduously as the respondent's side of the case has been represented in its current state. I'd appreciate an experienced editor or admin's guidance about what seems appropriate given this information. Ubelowme (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reference we should be using there is something from WP:Secondary sources discussing the trademark. The IP editor should not be trying to insert commentary based on the IPO registration page, a primary source. Too many trademarks are worthless or undefended or otherwise unimportant. The supposed "french press" trademark in Canada must be discussed in news items or similar. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and for reverting the material in question. I'll keep an eye on the article over the next while. Ubelowme (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

Customary report to ANI regarding AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs); making a personal attack in response to a final warning is one of the silliest things you could do. As one of the targets of Andy's personal attacks, I first asked him to retract his attacks which was met by a reversion. Seeing as he is incapable of contributing to discussions without resorting to personal attacks (I, for one, was having a civil discussion with Collect (talk · contribs) before he came in and resumed the attacks), he needs at least a cluebatting, maybe even a block; I've felt somewhat uncomfortable editing because of his constant personal attacks on me (see from last month: ). Sceptre 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this was in response to Sceptre attempting to continue his ridiculous campaign to involuntarily 're-gender' Bradley Manning on my talk page. I suggest that given Sceptre's contempt for WP:BLP policy, and for the rights of a vulnerable individual to make his own decisions on a personal matter without being used as a convenient puppet for some bizarre campaign, it is time that Sceptre be topic-banned from any article concerning Bradley Manning, any article concerning trans-gender/transsexual issues, and any biography of any individual where gender identity is of any significance. Sceptre is clearly abusing Misplaced Pages facilities in an attempt to 'right a wrong' - though the only 'wrong' that is apparent is Sceptre's wrong-headed and obnoxious refusal to acknowledge Bradley Manning as an appropriate person to comment on Bradley Manning's gender identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None of which excuses this attack in any shape or form. Is there any particular reason (apart from it being five hours old) why that shouldn't result in a block? Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None that I can see... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is true? There are gross double standards here - I am supposed to be 'civil' to Sceptre, while he is free to use Manning (who is of course in no position to respond) as the scapegoat in some bizarre and unfathomable exercise in sexual politics. No. This is wrong. It is obnoxious. It should not be allowed to continue. If Misplaced Pages prefers agenda-pushing trolls to editors who actually have respect for the persons we write about, go ahead block me, and continue on the downhill path to a low grade tabloid gossip blog that some seem to desire... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages prefers editors who have respect for the persons we write about. We also prefer editors who can follow Misplaced Pages's policies, and no matter what another editor, troll or not, has done, personal attacks are never acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that we should fight low-grade tabloid gossip, and I appreciate his willingness to do so, but it is entirely possible to fight to uphold BLP without saying things like "fuck of and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot". Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To claim it's scapegoating is to imply that being transgender is wrong. Besides, what stake do you have in this issue that you must make personal attacks to protect Manning? I'll admit that my own stake is that, as a feminist and a member of the LGBT community, it doesn't seem ethical to refer to Manning as we do in spite of our guidelines on gender identity and the sources given. Your behaviour does look quite similar to concern trolling seen elsewhere... Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's completely wrong and you know it. It doesn't matter if it's your belief that it's true - whatever Sceptre is doing, if you've got an issue with another editor then there are a range of places to take that problem. What you don't do is tell them to "fuck off and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot" which is utterly out of the range of mild incivility (which I think the other diffs were). Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that it would be highly punitive? A block isn't the answer in this case. You can look into interaction bans and various other options. ANI has become wickedly punitive recently. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is the only way to get someone's attention to prevent further invicivility, is it punitive? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe attention has been obtained. What is the expectation, that AndyTheGrump is going to start following Sceptre around dishing out personal attacks? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When somebody has a history of personal attacks, and then makes an explicitly blatant one, are we supposed to just shrug and hide behind "oh, we can't do anything, it'd be punitive"? If the answer is yes we might as well nominate Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the above diffs, he "started" doing that a while back. Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you accusing me of 'following Sceptre' to my own talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy, the diffs above are on at least four different other pages. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The diffs in question are six weeks old, and the result of Sceptre's blatant misrepresentations in pursuit of his bizarre agenda. If Sceptre didn't like it at the time, he could have complained then - but he didn't, presumably because he expected to be told to stop what he was doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I did. I was met with the boomerang because I made one personal attack compared to the dozen or so you made back. Sceptre 22:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy lives quite well up to his username. I should point out that I'm only one of the editors he's attacked; he's also been making attacks on BLP/N, probably against seasoned editors too. Re Ryan: yes. He did so on WT:LGBT six weeks ago, reverting a post I made there. Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that the blocking policy lists a "preventative block" as being (among others) one that "encourages a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Do I think that this will do that? No. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yikes,I got edit conflicted all over the place. My comment: Misplaced Pages:Don't fight fire with fire, Andy. That said, can I issue a strong request that the WP:BOOMERANG pay close scrutiny to Sceptre, too? - Jorgath (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free; I've been very careful this time around, as my last complaint about Andy's conduct got threatened with the boomerang. Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do expect you to get at least a trout for continuing this dispute (Andy probably deserves a bigger fish). Still, you've definitely gotten better than the last time. - Jorgath (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Am I to understand that Sceptre has self confirmed that he is the writer of this off-wiki blog? Doesn't that look like a conflict of interest?--JOJ 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes that is some COI, which explains the POV pushing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think what you will find if you examine both the dictionary and Sceptre's behaviour you'll find that Andy used an accurate description.

• Any discomfort felt as a result of reading Andy's remarks are pretty much the result of the reader continuing to refuse to address the issue of Sceptre's ongoing unacceptable behaviour. For 90% of the editors reading those remarks, they have themselves to blame for it, for the 'innocent' reader who happens upon them, the 90% who are refusing to address the Sceptre issue need to take responsibility for their own part in the mess created. This is a bit like wikileaks, don't stop people getting away with murder, just silence the paper-boy instead.

• Andy needs to get with he program and anaesthetise his intellect, so like the rest of us, he can drift through the project blissfully unaware of his surroundings, he has to turn a blind mind to what is going on, rather than be focused on reality and using appropriate words from the dictionary that threaten to burst our bubbles of delusion. I suggest he takes up lying himself, rather than calling lies 'lies' he should use soft agreeable words like 'unusual view of reality' so we can read right past it without waking up. Yeah, like that Andy,

• tell us some lies, we want to believe. Penyulap ☏ 22:02, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to believe that one can be both productive, accurate and civil is disheartening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't make any secrets that that's my blog, yes. It's no different from other Wikipedians blogging on other matters; if you'll notice, even on that blog post I deliberately backed myself up with Misplaced Pages policy. Re: Penyulap, I suggest you retract that comment. It's a personal attack by proxy. Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

allow me to apologise for any indirectness there Sceptre, allow me to say, from me to you, fuck off and troll elsewhere. Am I being clear and direct ? Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to get in trouble for personal attacks? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre does kind of need to drop the POV-pushing. I don't think Andy needs to be getting so grumpy, but slap the fish and move on. Bradley Manning doesn't need more negative POV stuff and I would venture to say it is more of a problem for people with personal agendas to push those into Misplaced Pages articles than a single immature blow up at another editor. Bradley Manning's life is not a plaything for us to decide controversial determinations of what gender someone ought to be addressed as. I can easily see how this has become very frustrating for some of the more involved editors, since they are having to push back constantly against what Sceptre sees as a personal crusade. While I can see a point of view that these underlying gender issues can inform the discussion about Bradley Manning, the sources aren't there to support Misplaced Pages being 'forward thinking' on this, and as such, the stick needs to be dropped because the horse is long dead. We are not here for people to push agendas, but to present articles in a thoughtful and neutral fashion. To make this person's gender choices front and center in the article is not a DUE presentation of the topic, which heavily is notable because of the Wikileaks connection (not for gender issues). -- Avanu (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• POV pushing COI users are the bane of the en project - defending living people against them is a difficult task - I do it and Andy does it too - the primary issue is with the COI POV pushing account - User:Sceptre needs topic banning from trans gender wiki content. Youreallycan 22:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - there are clearly two issues here. On the other hand, Andy seriously needs to tone down the attacks - as I said above, there are areas for dispute resolution (including POV and COI) and nothing is solved by swearing at people. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Andy lost it there and was overly attacking, agreed - he could easily say exactly the same thing without being rude and he should start doing that asap - Youreallycan 22:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • • BTW, when did referring to trans women as women -- a practice backed up by the medical, academic, and journalistic communities, not to mention our own Manual of Style -- become "COI POV pushing"? Sceptre 22:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in looking at the diffs presented by Sceptre, it is even more clear that Sceptre is approaching this the wrong way. Forum shopping the idea around that Bradley Manning should be addressed only as Sceptre says isn't the right approach. I agree there should be a style guide on this, but just as it is considered impolite to "out" gay people, it should probably be equally inappropriate to label someone without unequivocal evidence of their choice on the matter. If Sceptre wants to have a real discussion, then it should be about bringing sources, not just opinions. -- Avanu (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu: at risk of going off into a content dispute I'm basically agnostic on, since when did gender identity become "negative POV stuff"? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is about WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Among some people, Bradley Manning is reviled as a traitor already. While this might be a foreseeable consequence for leaking secret documents, it is the main reason that Bradley Manning has notability. Now comes Sceptre with the very relevant issues of gender identity. Such information is relevant because it provides the answer (in part) to why Bradley Manning might have felt isolated and willing to betray the trust of military superiors. However, to refactor the article where the gender choice of Bradley Manning becomes the central focus on the article simply is not cool UNLESS Bradley Manning makes it super super clear that this is his/her choice AND reliable sources back this up. Sceptre is continually pushing for a minority intrepretation against the greater consensus and while this is fine to a point, it could easily be perceived as disruptive if it is unceasing. I heard about this dispute several months ago and by the diffs presented above, it seems like Sceptre just isn't willing to let it be. Bradley Manning is a living person and there is no inherent disrespect or problematical editing by referring to him/her in the same manner as the preponderance of our sources. Choosing in a 'forward-thinking' way to push a POV about this person's gender, when it is not even the central theme of the article (which is about Wikileaks) just isn't good and encyclopedic editing. -- Avanu (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought that involuntary gender re-assignment was self-evidently 'negative'. Or am I missing something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Failing to sanction editors who engage personal attacks because (e.g.) "Andy is right" is a path towards altering WP:NPA so that it means "it's okay to attack someone as long as you think you're right". Is that where we're headed here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really outing by me if the content was in the article eight months before I edited it, even before Manning's Article 32 hearing which effectively "outed" her by using GID as part of her defence. All I've been arguing for for the past month is changing the pronouns to female ones. Sceptre 22:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

...Against Manning's express wishes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When has Manning said "please don't refer to me as a woman"? You seem to be adamant that Manning has said something like that, when all she said was "ehh, Bradley's fine". Having a male name doesn't make your gender male, you know. Sceptre 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You've read this:

First, we should bear in mind the basis upon which some have made suppositions about Manning’s preferred gender identity. By and large, we are dealing with evidence that has not been established as fact. We can look at some Google searches found in forensic evidence, a smattering of late-night private chat logs, and potential testimony from those in whom Manning may have privately confided.

If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun.

Clear as daylight - Manning has not asked to be identified as female, even in private. You have no right to act otherwise, in direct contradiction to his stated wishes. This is not only wrong, but obnoxious. I've no idea why you think this is appropriate anywhere, but it certainly isn't appropriate on Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to discuss sources on a talk page. Sceptre 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Referring to someone who has made it entirely clear that they wish to be identified as male as "she" is a BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is this ridiculous campaign to troll and harass Manning still going on; I though we'd blocked those responsible ages ago! --Errant 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It got reignited when an anon posted on Talk:Bradley Manning using my blog post as an argument. I went there to explain what I meant by it, Andy jumps in and starts the personal attacks again. Sceptre 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, well can you just drop the stick and leave Manning alone. Seems the most sensible resolution. --Errant 22:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Does that imply that if he doesn't "drop the stick" Andy can continue to call him a repulsive lying bigot? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Andy should stop calling Sceptre names. That's petty. Andy stop calling him names. If Sceptre doesn't drop the stick I'll just block him for BLP or something. --Errant 22:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not non sequitur in a thread that raises the issue of Andy's personal attacks. If Andy doesn't stop with the personal attacks, will you block him? If not, why not? Is violation of WP:NPA really "petty"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Errant 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to discuss sources on a talk page. Sceptre 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be. What is a BLP violation is a campaign to harass Manning over gender issues. You made your case, it was rejected on BLP grounds (and others). Continuing the pressure the matter is a BLP issue. --Errant 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's allowed and expected that, if your argument is used in a discussion, that you should be able to clarify the argument. I have blog analytics, you know. Sceptre 22:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you pushing this change or not? If you are simply explaining some comment, then Andy has no basis for his frustration. But if you are picking up the horse again and pushing strongly for this change then I can imagine the frustration. Please understand, I am not excusing Andy's 'seasoned' language, but I don't think that a person poking a bear should be held entirely blameless either. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I support the change, yes, but I deliberately avoided the article after the last dust-up. Either Andy has appointed himself Manning's protector-on-Misplaced Pages, or he's stalking my contribs, neither of which are desireable. Sceptre 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This is 'deliberately avoiding the article'? . Really?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Magog the Ogre one week block

• - User:Magog the Ogre has blocked Andy for a week - without joining the discussion at all - there is clearly no consensus for such a lengthy editing restriction here and I support a reduction to more like a day - Youreallycan 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that too. Kind of feel like Magog ought to have at least given a rationale on the TP first. Maybe it is forthcoming? -- Avanu (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

He probably does need the matter pressing on him eventually. --Errant 22:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of one week. Andy has been warned enough, by me and by others. BLP certainly does not give anyone the right to act uncivilly. Nor does being right. Period. And if you guys could just chill out for a second, then maybe you can get my explanation (which I have just provided above). And, because admins can be unblock happy when they see something they are emotionally invested in, I unfortunately must say this: please note that I will consider any unblock of Andy which is outside process to be wheel-warring per WP:BLOCK#Block reviews, and I will deal with any administrator performing an unblock without community consensus as having committed such an action by bringing the issue before the community or ArbCom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to why Penyulap wasn't blocked for similar attacks made (rather deliberately, one assumes) right here on this page. → ROUX ₪ 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I would have done so, but my phone doesn't appear to like the blocking page. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If the goal is to avoid disruption and drama, and return people to productive editing, a caution would suffice at this point, no? It's not an ongoing problem, is it? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No, it's preventative. Pointy deliberate attacks like that are not acceptable, blocked for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - the last time Andy was blocked for similar behavior was a 72 hour block. The general understanding is that blocks for the same behavior one has been blocked for before get lengthened. Therefore a week is warrented. Note that this does not in any way sustain any support for whatever POV pushing Spectre might be involved in or prejudice any action with regards to that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, that's a good point, and I had typed that, although it seems to have gotten lost in the 542 (or so) edit conflicts. Sceptre POV pushing is a serious issue and needs to be addressed, but it should be addressed separately from Andy's consistent violation of community norms through personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Andy really gave us no choice. Now ... Sceptre and their BLP-violations/WP:TE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Magog the Ogre - You didn't discuss it at all - and your attempting to gold plate your undiscussed action when there is clear opposition to it is undue indeed - Youreallycan 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see any 'clear opposition' to blocks being handed out for scathing personal attacks. Andy knew precisely what he was doing when he said what he did. → ROUX ₪ 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Another fine mess"
— Laurel Hardy

Clearly AndyTheGrump is an editor who understands encyclopedic policies and works hard at maintaining content integrity. On the other hand, he unnecessarily agressive; in addition to the above, he recently unnecessarily called a departing editor trying to put POV fringe science in an article a POV-pushing loon. (Given the "unworthiness" of the target, I saw little benefit to Misplaced Pages in pursuing the issue at the time.) He has been involved in WQA alerts many times. Good preventative block; the lack of meaningful sanctions for intentional repeated incivil behavior sends a signal to the community that, as long as you're correct on content and pick your "targets" well civil interaction isn't actually required. Nobody Ent 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. This level of incivility is, unfortunately, not something we haven't seen from Andy before. Talking to him hasn't helped, previous blocks have apparently failed to convince him that civility is important, and warning him didn't help earlier today - a block is the appropriate next step here. I would also strongly support a block of Penyulap for his "me too!"-style POINTy attack. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Fluffernutter - Can you please close the pending protection RFC rather than commenting here - Youreallycan 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

    We're essentially finished with it, and we finally got input from the other admin. Closing statement is just a day or two away, it looks like. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Ah - cool - thanks for the detail Northern Lights - Youreallycan 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 854000)@Youreallyan - unfortunately, I worded it very poorly, and it came across as harsh and self-serving. This is a function of the fact that I made the block before I typed my reasoning, so I rushed my wording and it didn't sound the way I wanted it to. I did not mean that no unblock can be made - no sirree bob - what I waa trying to avoid was the phenomenon wherein an admin sees his friend block and gets upset and undoes it because s/he feels it isn't right - despite the fact there is consensus to the opposite and/or without bothering to look into the original reason behind the block. Unfortunately, it came out as a threat from me about committing a legitimate unblock, when really it was an admonition against wheel-warring (which, if you frequent this board, you'll know is sadly common when admins become too involved). I've struck the unfortunate language. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Excessive in view of the background of the contretemps. Suggest that one day is a reasonable act as blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, and one week is clearly the latter. Collect (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that the last block he got for incivility was 72 hours. Repeated blocks for the same behavior are supposed to increase, not decrease. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - This story again? Oy! Whether the block is justified on its own or not, it's important to keep in mind that BLP violation is on the list of things that could get the WMF into legal trouble, and as such it trumps editors' petty squabbles and name-calling. This stuff about Manning "identifying as female" was not supported by valid sources the last time this subject came up, hence it was a BLP violation. Has anything changed since then? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Can't really make sense of all this except that AtG was definitely not polite. However, it does seem that there is an underlying important blp issue that needs to be addressed and I hope that the block does not mean that the issue itself will go unaddressed. --regentspark (comment) 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block - There's quite simply no reason to act like that (goes for Penyulap too). It's against policy, despite others calling it "small", "unimportant", or whatever. Either admins respect the policies here, or they don't. Picking and choosing, especially because "he started it" type of crap, is flat out wrong. Now deal with Sceptre's issue. -- Despayre   23:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I hate to do this but - Support Block I have worked with Andy on many engineering topics and get along well with him - I like the cut of his jib. I have on several occasions encouraged him to be more civil, and I have specifically told him that "the other fellow misbehaved worse, so it is OK for me to misbehave" is an unacceptable argument. I really hate writing this, but perhaps seeing one of his buddies supporting a limited one week ban will help convince him to be more civil. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• um, no Not that I support Andy's intemperate language, but this is basically a reward for all the POV warriors who can keep it together long enough to drive the testier people on the right side of the conflict to lose their tempers. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Better go nominate Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks for deletion then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, ignoring Andy's vituperation, he seems to be to be entirely accurate about Sceptre's POV-grinding on this article, just as he has been about other people in other articles where there has been conflict. I'm old enough to where I wouldn't use "troll" in the way anyone else here is likely to use it, but I agree with him entirely that the attempt to re-gender Manning should have been abandoned right away, or better still never have been initiated. Also, the blog post seems to make it clear that, again modulo the lack of civility, Andy's characterization of Sceptre's part in this has been basically accurate, so the accusation of POV-pushing is to my mind justified and not a personal attack. So if people want to penalize Andy, I cannot see doing do outside a package of greater discipline against a variety of people whose contributions actually affect the content of the text, which Andy's rudeness has not. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. From what I have seen, this is pretty much Andy's standard MO. Regardless of whether he is (or thinks he is) right regarding Sceptre's editing, his own editing is not acceptable and the harm that he does to the project himself via his attacks should not be trivialized because of it. Resolute 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Shite block but not surprising given who gave it out. Andy may be a bit over the top at times, but at least he is honest about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Sceptre

• • Anyone willing to brandish WP:BLPBAN and topic ban Sceptre from making edits relating to Manning? Salvio 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

110% support doing so ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I too would support this. Regardless of Andy going apeshit with his keyboard, Sceptre is way out of line here too. Best if he stays away from the Manning article. Basalisk ⁄_berate 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

With Andy already 'dealt with', I agree with some others above that Sceptre's behaviour also needs to be addressed. How do people feel about a topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed? I'd support such a ban. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yup. --Errant 23:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've refactored two concurrent ban discussions into a single location. Nobody Ent 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. My comment got edit-conflicted back about 10 minutes. This topic is a bit of an active one. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - without some indication from people here that they a) understand, and b) give a damn about transgender issues, and c) are able to therefore explain why exactly there is a problem with Sceptre's edits. → ROUX ₪ 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • • Was involved in transgender issues a long time ago, and am quite familiar with Benjamin Standards etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A long time ago that, as I mentioned on Andy's talk earlier, they haven't been known as that for several years. Sceptre 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • On GoogleScholar, 169 (70%) of 242 current results for "benjamin standards" refer to "harry benjamin standards". So flunking what? Since when did majority usage provide a special qualification to override WP:BLP principles protecting an individual's human rights? Support. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • But "WPATH Standards of Care", as they're now known, get 531 hits, despite that being the newer name for them. Sceptre 12:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • And the trans community still has many using that term (I suspect I am substantially older than Sceptre)- and referring to "dysphoria" and not "disorder" as you appear to prefer contrary to preferred usage. Cheers. BTW, most prefer to be referred to by the pronoun for the gender in which they present themselves at the time - which, in the case of Manning, absolutely is male in the present instance. Collect (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
              • "most prefer to be referred to by the pronoun for the gender in which they present themselves at the time" - patently untrue. → ROUX ₪ 15:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• See my statement below. I do give a damn, and this is something we shouldn't be putting on Misplaced Pages BLPs without solid sourcing. I fully support referring to by the gender assignment they align with, but not from something with as flimsy a source as this case. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support this is an ongoing problem to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fruit of the poisonous tree. An editor should be able to make a legit ANI posting regarding personal attacks. Nobody Ent 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Person A makes unacceptable POV edits, which are opposed by person B. Person A manages to goad Person B into a thermonuclear rage. Person B is blocked for personal attacks. Person A's edits are thereby condoned. Sorry, but that is a load of crap. See also WP:BOOMERANG. Reyk _YO! 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Person B is responsible for person's B actions. Not persons A, C, D, F or X. Nobody Ent 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Certainly, but when both people involved have behaved badly it's not appropriate to punish just one of them and reward the other for being first to come running to ANI. Reyk _YO! 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Reyk _YO! 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked deeply enough into this issue to be as 100% sure as I'd like to be, but my spidey senses are going regarding Sceptre's language. He is referring to Manning's alleged sexuality in a way which entirely ignores that, for right or wrong, many people would be offended to be named in the transgender group - just as many would be offended to be listed among other not-necessarily bad groups (e.g., religions, political preferences). I am very worried about the us vs. them type of thinking he's showing above, which is reminiscent of those with an agenda to uphold The Truth. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • First, this has nothing to do with Manning's sexuality; this is about Manning's gender identity, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Conflating the two indicates to me that you simply do not have the experience or information necessary to even comment on the issue (as I, for example, don't know enough about the difference between e.g. koalas and kangaroos to comment on marsupialism). Second, it is far more offensive to refer to a transgendered person by their biological gender than to 'offend' someone by including them in a non-offensive group. → ROUX ₪ 23:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What an odd statement to make for someone insisting that others be well-versed in transgender issues before commenting. That you would state with objective certainty that one action is universally 'more offensive' than another suggests to me that you're clearly not well-versed enough in the counterview to make a truly objective assessment of the situation. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Odd? Hardly. Manning has publicly indicated that GID is a factor. If Manning has chosen to identify as female, it is not only grossly insulting but also grossly depersonalizing to refer to Manning by any gender other than the one they prefer, in much the same way that if someone of African descent prefers the term African-American over black, it is grossly insulting to call them the latter. The difference that I think you don't understand here is that when someone has chosen to be identified in a certain way, referring to them by the opposite is a deliberate insult. → ROUX ₪ 00:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • If Manning had clearly chosen to identify as female, then you could potentially argue that the likelihood of offense being taken is high (not necessarily higher than the opposite). But based on all the sources I've read, he has made conflicting gender identifications. The mere fact that a biological male is experiencing GID and bouncing between identities doesn't mean the outcome will automatically be for him to settle on female identity. Manning hasn't settled on a particular gender identity yet, and it's not our place to decide for him. It's entirely possible he'll settle on male identity and then be embarrassed that he'd considered the alternative. The point is, we don't know yet what his actual choice of identity is, and until strong evidence appears to support one or the other, we have dominant usage in reliable sources in favour of male identification. – NULL ‹talk›
          ‹edits› 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for it, I'll voluntarily stay away. The only reason that I edited the talk page a few days ago in the first place was because I noticed it in my blog analytics. That said, I'm uncomfortable with how these discussions about the Manning article seem to have very few LGBT project editors, and those that do seem more willing to agree with my argument than those that don't. Perhaps because they agree that it's not me harassing Manning in any way; it's just ensuring that a living person (as Manning is) is referred to as people with gender identity disorder ethically should be. Roux seems to put it more succintly than I can. Sceptre 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support You don't need to demonstrate particular appreciation of transgender issue to determine that you cannot reinterpret someone's gender identity based on subjective interpretations highly equivocal cues. Misplaced Pages does not redefine someone's identity until reliable sources clearly indicate that that is warranted, and anyone who pushes an agenda to do so is a liability to the project and should be restricted. And for what its worth - I don't think sceptre has demonstrated any appreciation of the possible nuances of the situation either.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Gross BLP violation. Manning is notable solely for one thing, that being allegations of espionage. Unless the tabloid stuff somehow comes up at his trial, it's irrelevant and an invasion of privacy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just so you know, it did come up at the Article 32 hearing. . That's the angle that I've been discussing it from the past day or so. Sceptre 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Manning's gender identity has been widely reported on, and unless my memory is deceiving me, gender identity plays a role in Manning's publicized defence. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed that Manning's struggle with GID is relevant to the case and article, but I haven't seen any strong evidence indicating he has settled on either his male or female identity. There's a difference between mentioning GID in the article and recasting the article to female gender in the encyclopedic voice. In the absence of strong evidence, Misplaced Pages's standard behaviour is to fall back to usage in the majority of reliable sources, which at the moment is certainly male. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 23:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • • And those sources are, if Manning has self-identified as female, wrong in the way that mainstream media so often is. Thought experiment: if the preponderance of sources referred to Barack Obama as a nigger, would we be compelled to use the same nomenclature? Of course not, because it is inherently denigratory to do so. Just as it is inherently wrong to refer to someone by the gender they do not prefer to be known as. → ROUX ₪ 00:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, actually, although that's a pretty gross example, if Time and Newsweek routinely used that term instead of "African-American", and were considered valid sources, we might be kind of stuck. Regardless, it is not wikipedia's purpose to "right great wrongs". If the valid sources start referring to Manning routinely as "she", that will be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, it's a gross example. What you don't seem to understand is that for trans people, being referred to by their cis-gender is equally gross. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If there are valid sources that bring that subject up in connection with the trial, then that fact would be fair game. But if the preponderance of sources call the subject "he", then it is "he", and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose as unnecessary and appearing vindictive. Tit-for-tat administrative sanctions aren't cool, and a bad direction to take WP:BOOMERANG. There's no indication of any ongoing trouble from Sceptre. His (her? their?) nonconsensus edits to the article on May 5 2012 went beyond WP:BOLD, particularly edit warring the page move and regendering (to 1RR), but that was well over a month ago and Sceptre hasn't edited the article since. Starting a conversation on the talk page, as they did today, is what they're supposed to do when they have a content point. As far as I can tell their proposal has very little to no chance of success, but making perennial proposals only merits a topic ban in the most extreme circumstances where it becomes disruptive. Here the disruption was entirely caused by ATG, a better response to the proposal would be to simply say that this has been discussed before, there isn't enough sourcing for it, and there's very little chance of it being adopted, and then after a day or so proposing to close it as no reasonable likelihood of reaching consensus (assuming there is none). Regarding the accusations of COI and POV pushing for taking one side of a dispute regarding gender pronouns ("homosexual agenda", anyone?), if it is a POV to call Manning a she, then it must be POV to call Manning a he. In other words, if you see it as a POV issue and you're taking the other side, you're POV too. It's a lot more appropriate to simply note whatever our sourcing standards and manual of style have to say, and calmly decide whether or not that burden has been met. Sceptre has agreed to stay away at this point (which is unnecessary), and could easily be warned and blocked if they try to regender or move the page again without consensus. We're at least five steps premature from ordering Scepre not to bring it up again on the talk page, something we would do rarely as chilling discussion is not a good thing. Those steps would be to establish strong consensus, note it, summarily deal with further attempts to bring it up again, and finally, give authoritative warning not to bring it up again. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just to clarify a point: an anon used my argument to argue for it, and I replied to explain what I meant by the argument. I didn't seek to re-open the debate this soon; I was waiting for the full court-martial. Sceptre 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for the exact same length of time as AtG's block. -- Despayre   23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Two different issues. The BLP violations are seperate from the PAs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - Manning clearly prefers to identify as he by the sources, but it seems there hasn't been any recent actual pushing of 'she', has there? Just discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons Wikidemon has outlined: it's currently unnecessary. Sceptre has agreed to not edit the article voluntarily. Give them a chance to live to that. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly oppose. In my view Sceptre should have been topic banned when this whole thing exploded before, but to do it now on the basis of what recently happened seems unfair. I do think it would be wise of Sceptre to stay away from the Manning article and the Manning Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: really outrageous. This should never have happened. Sceptre didn't have the sources, didn't have consensus on talk, even had a COI, and wouldn't drop the stick. Andy was definitely out of line and rightly blocked, but can anyone honestly say that he wasn't baited... even a little bit? It appears Sceptre is so emotionally involved they can't help themself. Topic ban them and let's move on. – Lionel 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Egregious BLP violation and POV pushing, has no business editing in these fields. Heiro 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sceptre's been around the block enough times that he should know better by now. Jtrainor (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary currently. Sceptre has not edited the article since 5 May. Paul Erik 03:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Andy, which is indeed saying something. I've been observing the going-ons at the Bradley Manning article for a while now and it is quite clear that Sceptre cannot properly be involved in the subject, as he has far too strong of a POV in regards to the trans-gender issue. His actions in this regard have also been inexcusable and i'm quite surprised a topic ban wasn't enacted ages ago. Silverseren 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Editors should not be sanctioned for their personal POV but rather how this affects their editing. Sincere talk page discussions do not constitute disruptive editing, regardless of how objectionable a view is being expressed, and the article in question has not been touched for a while. Ankh.Morpork 11:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors can and will be sanctioned for disrupting wikipedia. Per WP:DISRUPT, edits at talk pages can be disruptive, particularly when there is a case of WP:IDHT. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment How about a (Voluntary?) topic ban on Manning and Gender narrowly construed, unless there are multiple high quality sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and there is agreement from an admin that this is the case) before bringing it to the talk page? The continual repeating discussion of the issue is a case of WP:IDHT and is disruptive though. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I'm not seeing any behavior that justifies a topic ban at this point. I don't agree that that we should be referring to B. Manning as a female at this time (most evidence of their preference points the opposite way at the moment from what I can tell), but I don't have a problem with someone civilly pushing for the change as it's not utterly unreasonable. If someone can provide diffs of Sceptre being over the top on this topic in the recent past, I'm willing to change. But I'm not seeing anything in my 10 minute search. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The issue is way more complicated than Sceptre makes it out to be. This is not about an article about a trans person who clearly identified as such. This is about a person who, in a private(!) chat, said they want to be identified as one gender, and then later through their lawyers said they want to be identified as another. This is a complicated issue, and saying that it is blindingly obvious one way or the other is what is the problem here. And that's what would warrant a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Sceptre's entire thrust is that we can infer Manning's gender from leaked private documents. That's just so far out of line with BLP, I'm shocked something hasn't been done yet. It is not our place to decide if Manning is transgender or not based on this one source. If Manning or their representative made a statement confirming this, we should add it. Until then, it's far too contentious to be in a BLP, much less a high profile one like this. Sceptre has shown a willingness to dig in and spend weeks to add this in, despite legitimate objections. A topic ban is the best way to let the discussion get back on-track, and let us wait for reliable sources one way or the other. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support That was some pretty ridiculous drama the editor caused and they clearly need a break, as do we all. --John (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A question for everyone involved in this discussion

Alternate proposal: Topic probation for Sceptre

All in all, it seems to me that Sceptre has not done anything recently to merit a topic ban. As User:Wikidemon said above, Sceptre's involvement since the previous AN/I dispute has been minimal until today. That said, when Sceptre has veen involved in this area, their involvement has been, overall, highly questionable. So place Sceptre on probation: if Sceptre's future behavior in the area of Bradley Manning, broadly construed, becomes inappropriate, they shall receive a topic ban. - Jorgath (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This probation idea seems to be one of the more reasonable suggestions. After all, any of us can get passionate about a topic and carry a crusade for a bit. Sceptre said that this was dropped and I will assume that is correct. On the idea of not being empathetic enough on the transgender issues, i.e. "give a damn about transgender issues", we don't need to know anything about an issue to know whether someone is following sources and provide a reasonable analysis of whether those sources are being faithful to their subject matter. Bradley Manning's reputation is already under attack for being an accused purveyor of secrets, it is irresponsible for Misplaced Pages to be forward-thinking ahead of sources to re-classify a person's gender, who could then be attacked for that as well. This may be personally important to Bradley Manning, but that has not been made unequivocally clear in our sources. To move forward on this without that clarity is irresponsible to the truth as well as a launch beyond where our sources take us. While it also may be a personal issue to many of our editors, we are responsible for creating articles that reflect our subjects in a manner that is faithful more to the sources and subject of our article, not something that reflects our personal sensibilities. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're on to it. He's too emotionally invested, and needs to stay miles away from that article for a lengthy period of time - during which, the issue might even be settled one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

request mass rv blocked sock IP

200.114.132.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Please mass-revert their edits. Now blocked as a sock. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

While typing here, I received this wiki-threat on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI sleeping? Where else to go for a quick response? -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all their edits have already been reverted? Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is in a kerfuffle in the thread above. WP:AIV and/or WP:SPA? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Disruptive edits: 23:11--23:27 (IP 200.x)

My ANI post here: 23:37

First reverts: ~23:53.

ANI response 1st: 23:57.

Indeed, then all work was done. Sorry I woke ANI up. Now for tomorrow morning: where do I go for a quick or urgent response? -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the next lot (201.235.248.84) were reverted in about a minute... Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, must be non-ANI then. My Q stays: where to go for quick or urgent reaction? -DePiep (talk)

AIV first, then here. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::::WP:AIV is new to me, as new as I am at WP, but thank you for the hint. Where would I be without it (I'd be away as an editor, most likely). Sure next time I will give this sock puppet warnings. And wait for WP:AIV to react. And there is always, always, always an ANI admin whio will fuck my request. Most likely a day late. -DePiep (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest & request early closing (me the OP). Again I say: no ANI admin will come to the rescue when needed. -DePiep (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What is an "ANI admin"? You do realize that admins are volunteers, don't you? They're not paid for their work and can do, or not do, a requested task as it interests them, and no admin is assigned to work in a particular place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

All this I know very well. My point is, that an admin here did not take action (and that cannot be an incident). But shurely they check the questioner out first (did you not? AGF not valid here, abuse prevails). My Q was: hey, a sock puppet, do something. And all you all ANI admins do is send me to another page. Great. (fact: someone else solved it yeah, someone not from this page). And so you do not get money? wow. must be horrible. I get payed, esp to troll you, you think? With or without money, an admin reading this ANI could act different. Same money. -DePiep (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep. In answer to your question:

• A standard way of getting the help of an admin is to put the {{adminhelp}} template on your talk page.
• If you want to actively seek out an admin, I've found that this works well. Go to Special:RecentChanges, then scroll until you see someone who has just performed an administrator action, like deleting or protecting a page or blocking a user, and contact them directly.

(And also: with Misplaced Pages generally, it pays to bear in mind what ha-Qoheleth said about knowledge.)

--Shirt58 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is yet another sock of Argentina-based AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has created at least a dozen sockpuppets this week.. His activity has led to several rangeblocks. RolandR (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The point that volunteer administrator availability outside of UK and US "awake" timezones is very low to appallingly low is a serious matter that should be taken to the non "incident" administrator's noticeboard. I've experienced this frustration previously in the quality of administrative intervention, both at AN/I and AIV. It is both a volunteer project problem and a systemic bias problem--we have failed to recruit high quality Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Malaysian, Singaporean, HK Chinese, Australiasian and Oceanian editors and administrators (ie: core non UK-US timezone English language speaking communities). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do have them, but they don't really come here all that much. Most of the Indian and Pakistani admins I know are busy in the eternal struggle to knock some sense into the articles in that topic area, which is draining enough without having to end up at ANI too often. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we manage to recruit an excess of, for example, US administrators above and beyond those required to deal with US pop-culture sports and politics bruhahas. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We're not going to overcome systemic bias any time soon. It's a broader problem than just "Why do we have lots of content on Playstation games but barely anything on Kurdish poetry?" In the meantime, we just have to chip away at the problem, and work around it, rather than standing back and complaining. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The effect of not having excellent Kurdish poetry articles is a problem of coverage, but the effect of having 8+ hours of administrative "downtime" is serious and disappointments editors who edit in the Fiji through Pakistan timezones, compounding our longer term systemic bias problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I stay up to odd hours sometimes, so I help then when I can, and I feel your frustration. It's also not fun for one or two of us to be striking out on our own trying to handle everything that comes up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, we can't force admins to be "on duty" at AN/I 24-7. It would be good to have folks here, but there's no way to enforce it and little way to encourage it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo could approve doubling their salaries. :D Dru of Id (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping possible indef blocked user

On the article Walam Olum, now up to 4 IPS (166.147.120.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.147.120.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.147.120.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 166.147.120.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) all in one range, all making an insertion similar to one made in the past by indef blocked user Marburg72 (talk · contribs). Heiro 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And now they are at their fifth revert with 166.147.120.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Heiro 01:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. Elockid 01:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess we'll see if they move on to one of their other usual targets before we request a rangeblock? Heiro 01:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Heironymous, don't worry, you did the write thing reporting this. Now can you give us a description on the perpetrator? You say it might be Marburg, but he has been blocked now for roughly 3 years 10 months and 14 days. What makes you think he's behind these shenanigans? 12.228.254.130 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because he is an idef blocked sock puppetter who has returned several times with IPs during that three years and made almost an identical edit.

See Talk:Walam Olum/Archive 3#/* The "Real" Indigenous Chronology */ and this IP 71.81.36.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), specifically this diff Heiro 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this up. It's clearly Marburg. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Cjdude12

A brand new user account tagging various articles with {{stub}} which are already categorized into appropriate stub categories and removing speedy deletion templates. I find it odd that a brand new user would begin his/her editing career thusly but the editing continues despite lots of chatter on talk page about bad editing. Would someone convince him/her to mend his/her ways or do the needful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you at least try to converse with the user before bringing this here? --MuZemike 05:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but at the bottom of the pages your create I see that Misplaced Pages says its a stub. I may have a new account, but that doesn't mean I'm not experienced. Before I created this account, I used an ip for a year. Now I don't use the ip anymore. Please seriously consider what your are starting here. Cjdude12 (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipeida says it's a stub because it's already tagged as such... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's was automated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdude12 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Cjdude12 - I've left a message on your talk page which I hope will explain the problem to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, Beyond My Ken. Cjdude12 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is "Yo Fuckbag" now a "civil" greeting

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

And I quote Yo Fuckbag, when trying to find a resolution I was advised to pursue WP:DR. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. Nobody Ent 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP in question has a history of repeated aggressive editing, which they invariably refuse to discuss on the relevant Talk pages, often going straight to spurious RFCs or other administrative measures. Either that, or they leave offensive messages such as the one to WCM (e.g. ). A check of the IP's Talk page history shows a pattern of vandalism warnings, which they immediately delete and issue counter-warnings. So much smoke, but no fire? About time their wings were clipped. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That IP's taking a week long break now. T. Canens (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No, actually, he doesn't seem to be, as you unblocked him an hour later. Unless I am misunderstanding something? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute was full protected. The other articles where this editor has presented similar issues are not, and that he is continuing to edit war on those articles. This issue is not resolved. Kahastok talk 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IP now reblocked for the original week following consideration of other instances of edit warring. Kahastok talk 18:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruption at Shenmue

• Trumancox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.22.168.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.183, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.118.204.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.188.111.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.52.32.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Urem2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Uwright2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over a year now, some guy using various IP's and throwaway accounts, has a thing against this particular sentence. He claims the different IP's are "friends" rather than himself, even though he constantly gets caught up in his own lies when he forgets what he said with which account. With 173.22.168.213 at 3RR, they've now created the Trumancox account to continue reverting. Someone please semi-protect or block the current IP and account, I don't care which. I'm pretty much done with the pointless discussion going on at Talk:Shenmue#Series' Developement status.--Atlan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. IP 172 blocked for edit-warring, Trumancox and the other two registered accounts blocked for socking. Consider filing an SPI. Drmies (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Well, the accounts are stale, except for Trumancox. Besides, it's a very obvious WP:DUCK case anyway.--Atlan (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For future reference, such things are useful even if just for formality's sake, but that's up to you. Drmies (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with Drmies, as someone who works at SPI, just call the oldest account the master, present the diffs, say they are already blocked and you want for the history and ask for a simple close. This way, if they come back and it gets reported to SPI, it makes it easier for us. CU can always choose to connect the dots on the name accounts now if they feel like it. Doing this isn't required, but may help in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Jannike Kruse Jåtog

Users Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) and Mentoz86 (talk · contribs) are campaigning against me. They put out rumors that my project is to get all of my relatives on Wiki, view Talk:Jannike Kruse Jåtog (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). User Mentoz86 praises the job of deleting Just Kruse, Erling O. Kruse, Astrid Kruse, Dag Kruse, Anine Kruse and Benedikte Kruse from Wiki, at discussions in Norwegian Wiki and gives warnings about me as a writer. I want this to come to an end! Knuand (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not going to look at no.Misplaced Pages, their comments here at AfD and Deletion review seem on-topic and other than noting the articles are related and have the same author, are about the content and en.Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please stop signing your edit summaries; signatures are for talk pages, and edit summaries are for text. Dru of Id (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the comments here, it appears the OP suspects that the cabal is attempting to "erase" his family, and has a distinct lack of good faith in the matter, alas, as this, this (a personal attack) and this demonstrate. Also he didn't notify anyone... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Emails from arbcom-banned user Glkanter

Having been banned and then indef blocked from editing, including his own talk page, Glkanter has decided to take his battle to email. I suspect that he is emailing a lot of people. See emails I posted at User talk:Glkanter#Recent Emails from Glkanter.

Let me know if this is the wrong place for this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reblocked with email disabled. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the advice I got at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Glkanter‎, I boldly blanked the page. We can only hope that Glkanter will have an easier time moving on with his life without having the page sitting there as a frozen monument to a bunch of year-old arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Presidents and List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan

Hi everyone! I have a problem which, hopefully, will be solved here. User:Plutonics try to edit List of Presidents of Pakistan and List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan by adding uncorrected data which, previously, wasn't part of these articles. He also delete right party color templates and put instead his "version" of party colors, which aren't correct. He also refuse to mark acting officeholders by their respective party and to put appropriate party color template, putting instead yellow color and marking them simply as "Caretaker". He even "treat" me that he'll report me if I don't stop working on these articles, and even accuse me of "attacking" them, although I didn't made any vandalizing act on them. I hope someone here can help to resolve this issue. Cheers!--Sundostund (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see his comment to you, but I don't see where you've atrempted to discuss this with them before bringing this here, and neither of you are routinely using edit summaries. Dru of Id (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought there's no point to engage in discussion with someone who is ready to make such drastic changes to an article, and then try to push them, although his changes are opposed (he's obliged, according to WP:BOLD, to stop with his edits if they're opposed). I decided to raise this issue here in order to avoid an edit war with him.--Sundostund (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you haven't notified him of this AfD, which is required; I have done so for you, but in the future please do so yourself. Secondly, the way you resolve an editing dispute on Misplaced Pages is not by coming directly to AN/I; you need to discuss the issue on the article talk page, and, failing that, at WP:DRN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I appreciate all of your advices and I'll try to implement them in the future. As I said, I decided to raise this issue here in order to avoid an edit war with Plutonics. I have no desire to engage in such activity. Now, I want to return this discussion to its essence:

1) Plutonics's adding of uncorrected data which, previously, wasn't part of these articles.

2) Plutonics's deletion of right party color templates and putting instead his "version" of party colors, which aren't correct.

3) His refusal to mark acting officeholders by their respective party and to put appropriate party color template, putting instead yellow color and marking them simply as "Caretaker".

So far, he showed no desire to correct this and I was sure its the right thing to do to come here instead of engaging in an edit war.--Sundostund (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Dolphin51

User:Dolphin51 and I had a rather negative interaction in February over a GAN (in which he insisted I insert OR into the article to satisfy his opinions). I disengaged and walked away. He apparently has not. After inviting himself to my talkpage in March, I thought I told him he was not welcome on my talk page in no uncertain terms. The obvious implication was for him take my talkpage off of his watchlist and walk away. Apparently I was incorrect. He has since inserted his nose where it does not belong, and seems to have no intention of leaving me alone. I have no idea why he is fixated on me, but I would like it to stop. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No editor, more particularly an Admin, should not be stating that another editor "inserted his nose where it does not belong", especially when referring to a post on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor is clearly stalking me. If the argument was that he regularly volunteered at the noticeboard, that would be different, but these are his first edits there. He had no way of finding the discussion apart from my talk page, which he apparently has watchlisted. He has repeatedly ignored requests that he stay away from me. This is not an unreasonable request. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy, you asked this user to stay off your talk page which they have done. this edit was not to your talk page and does not seem unreasonable - unlike your description of it as inserting his nose somewhere... Are you asking for an interaction ban, and on what grounds? I don't see what Dolphin51 is currently doing as harrassment, I must say. Kim Dent-Brown 16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, what I said was "I do not want any further interaction with you." Misplaced Pages is a big place; he doesn't need to be following me around. Instead, all I get is a glib response that might as well be "fuck you". I want him to take my talkpage off his watchlist. If an IBAN is what it will take to keep him away from me, fine. I want to be left alone. I don't understand why Dolphin finds this so hard to do. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those times where, for me, there are different rules for admins and others. I think as a class we need to grow thicker skins than other users and have a higher tolerance for nuisance. I don't regard what Dolphin is doing as particularly problematic in any case, and I'd expect you as an admin to be able to shrug this off. However, you clearly don't agree and I may be way off beam. I'll bow out here and let others chip in if they have a view. Kim Dent-Brown 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't feel like its harassment? Isn't that great. Shucks, that makes me feel all better now.

All I want is for him to go find some other part of the project to do whatever it is that he does, and leave me in peace. There is absolutely no reason why he ever has to insinuate himself in my business. It clearly is not productive. And he obviously is unwilling to heed the simple request that he spend his time elsewhere, hence the reason for this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of requests to stay away from talk pages, but I understand they are accepted. Howver, interaction bans requested unilaterally are not permitted. And even if a mutual interaction ban is accepted, it doesn't mean that someone can be told not to post potentially relevant information on a noticeboard. (I wrote this before seeing the post above, but I concur with the thought.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me why he has to post anything? There's a difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. That Misplaced Pages happens in public does not mean everything on the site is your business, or that you have a right to do whatever you want, regardless of other people. If his intentions were as pure as you seem to think they are, why can't he accept a simple request to leave me alone? Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur Dolphin51 should not be inserting themselves into Parsecboy's business. However, DRN and the Tirpitz article are not "Parsecboys" business, they're Misplaced Pages's business, and Dolphin51 is perfectly justified in commenting on them. Nobody Ent 19:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just said? Being allowed to do something does not mean you have to do it. I have made clear that I do not want to interact with Dolphin. Why is his harassing behavior perfectly acceptable to all of you? It's this kind of ridiculous bullshit that drives content creators away from this site. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Harassment

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

On June 20 I began receiving variations on the same message from User:Kensternation advising me to, among other things, get a life. If I deleted the message they simply reinserted it. I considered giving them a 3RR warning, but ultimately decided to leave their last message alone hoping that would end the issue. Today I deleted their message after User:68.239.177.235 began leaving similar posts on my Talk page. I believe the IP may be a sock and have launched an SPI. I would appreciate it if you could look into this and either take action to prevent them from speaking on my Talk page or advise as to what actions I should take to get them to knock it off.

Diffs-

Kensternation - ,,

IP - ,

Thank you for your assistance. Doniago (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If asking for a user to stop summarily deleting other people's works is harassment then so be it. I believe the CIVIL way of getting people to use sources is to ask for a source not simply deleting the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked both the IP editor and Kensternation for 31 hours. This is a rather clear-cut case of  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Salvio 14:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt assistance! Doniago (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on possible 4chan raid

See /b/res/407738030 (can't add full URL due to spam filter). Normal 4chan not safe for work caveats apply. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is when preliminary semi-protection is actually justified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I reckon we should just semi any article mentioned in the thread for a few hours. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This could be the possible target. Eyes on. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

request block review of WilliamJE

I have blocked WilliamJE (talk · contribs) for edit warring, violating the spirit of WP:3RR, and not resolving the dispute at {{Criminal due process‎‎}} in good faith. I welcome comments, insight, suggestions, and even other admins rescinding the block if it seems appropriate. —EncMstr (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)