Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:53, 17 October 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Request topic ban of User:Novaseminary for persistent disruptive editing at Douglas Tait (stuntman)

User:Novaseminary has tried unsuccessfully to get the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP deleted twice before. Here, and here. But having failed at deletion twice, for two years now, Novaseminary has also failed at WP:LETITGO. He persistently challenges the BLP's notability and threatens to start a 3rd deletion attempt. He also regularly violates WP:DE. He edit wars and disruptively edits almost on a daily basis, pushes POV, attacks other articles because they are mentioned in the BLP, creates suspect disambig stubs, insists on irrelevant or dated edits, violates OR, uses citation tags to edit war, like here, here, here and here, removes sourced quotes and attacks and fights to include and spreads unflattering and irrelevant material about the BLP's subject over several editor's objections.

But Novaseminary is also knowledgeable of WP rules. So knowledgeable that he uses WP to argue & defend his indefensible actions, even as he ignores all the WP rules & policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --Ritchie333 10:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it's more than a content issue. It's a persistent, long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. So per WP:DDE, ANI "may be the best first step." 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• The article would probably benefit from both these editors leaving it alone. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Fact is, unless admins enforce it, don't count on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to come here. I've suggested several times that Novaseminary just take a Wikibreak from the article. He refused. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this at WP:RFPP and have spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking through it all. 3RR violations from dynampic IPs are really disruptive, but similarly I think we can do without Noveseminary's bizarre obsession with this person. I'm going to give Novaseminary time to respond, but I strongly lean towards a topic ban for both users. – Steel 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• You know what? I'll accept that. If Novaseminary is topic banned, I'll voluntarily self-ban. My only request is that the last edit before the ban is monitored/reviewed by uninvolved 3rd party/parties to insure no Novaseminary POV. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've never violated a single guideline or policy at this article. The IP seems to care more about how this person is presented favorably than about the nietrality of WP, but it tough to know what else if anything this IP has edited. This article was one of several resume-like PR/POV articles i've come across over the years. I, and others, tried to make it neutral and then kept it on my watchlist. Almost everything i've done i've discussed at talk. I have only even edited this over the last few weeks because an IP came along and removed well sourced text without discussion until posted at a NB. Novaseminary (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would also point out, I only nominated this article for deletion once, with no consensus. I actually came across it at the first successful AfD nom made, not by me, but another editor. The IP seems to think I have had it out for this person, but I have been only one of several editors to do things the IP apparently disapproves of, but that I think comply with policy. (At one point the article cited several non-RS articles written by a single publicist, for instance.) Novaseminary (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Our IP user has agreed to a self-ban from this article providing you do the same. From your comments above that the IP's edits are the only reason you've even been editing the page recently, this should be an acceptable resolution for you too. Right? – Steel 15:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Novaseminary? I do agree that you have an all-too strong interest in that article. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that I haven't touched the article since Drmies came along and restored some sanity to it. Even though we still disagree on an issue, and even after the temp-protect was denied. But even as a dynamic IP, I've respected all these dispute resolution processes. I should also point out the same can't be said for Novaseminary. Just today: 1, 2 and 3. Drmies has already attacked my intentions and falsely accused me of COI - after working on the article for just a few weeks. By the way, I found nothing that supports Novaseminary's "single publicist" theory. But what I did find, is that Novaseminary has been at this article for almost 2 years, much of it for months at a time as it's as the sole editor! Just look at the period from March to May of this year, folks. And please let's not forget Novaseminary's "Douglas Tait obsession" goes well beyond just the article. The creation of his weird disambiguation. The fact that he slapped up a Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub that was so non-notable, that months later, it's still just a stub. He also slaps up citation tags on any article even mentioned in the BLP, as I noted originally. And just today, his obsession with 1 article on Tait about him getting kicked off his HS basketball team was revealed again! (Which by the way, a subsequent article that he never includes noted was a 1 day suspension!) But for your convenience, and possibly entertainment, I pulled just how many times and places I could find where he (or his meatpuppet who did it twice), have fought to include that one article - over the objection of far more editors than just me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and just TODAY - you guessed it: 32!

• But that tally also excludes these, found on the article on Tait's high school, Bishop Alemany High School : 33, 34, 35, and 36!

• By the way, he has also attacked that article, presumably because the school and/or team dared to admit Tait: 1, and 2.

• So it should be clear by now folks, that the problem isn't me. But is exactly as Steel said: Novaseminary has some "bizarre obsession with this person." Geez, Novaseminary can't even stay off an article when he's being ANI'd over it! Now I know, to Drmies, I'm just some lowly SPA with a dynamic IP and some as alleged, yet unexplained, COI. But I just happened upon this deal a few weeks ago, and you've got a real problem on your hands that's been persistent long before me. So you can either do something about it, or you can continue to let Novaseminary's wackadoodle freak flag fly. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:CC27:F942:1C73:3E49 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think that is true that the IP has left the article alone since Drmies restored sanity to it. IP seems to have edit warred with the Dr since the Dr made his edits. That is why the Dr asked for the article to be partially protected. In fact, the Dr reverted IP most recently. And I just restored to the version IP said he agreed with (and others did, too) on talk, but then s/he changed. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I have edited the page at all since this iteration was created is because it was recreated after deletion at AfD and, at that time, was quite promotional. To be clear, I do not think this individual satisfies N (the only indepth coverage were several articles since disclaimed by the newspaper and removed from the article and one more article that striked me as a non-RS). But if there is to be an article, it should not be a promo piece, or even a non-promotional piece that neglects widely covered aspects of this individual because somebody doesn't want that covered. And it is not just the current variable IPv6. Various other IPs at other times have inserted unsourced or promotional material. So has at least one regular editor who was blocked, X4n6 (whose arguments and edit history seem to me quite similar to our IPv6 editor). I have always tried to achieve consensus at talk and adide by it, and except for disagreements from IP or other editors who have actually broken WP guidelines and policies and been blocked for it (X4n6 and one of the recent IPv6 identities blocked here), I and the other editors have succeeded in reaching consensus (including the current version of this article). We did so despite being up against at least one individual who, in my opinion, did not have WP's best interests at heart or even any stated or apparent interest in WP for WP's sake at all. I think it would be strange and detrimental to WP to topic ban an editor who has never been blocked, has followed all guielines and policies on the article in question, seeks and abides by consensus at the article in question, and has only had run-ins at the article with tenacious editors who have been blocked for their violations of various guidelines and policies (including the IP requesting this action who certainly has before and does even in the post above with the "wackadoodle freak flag fly" comment and unsupported claim I have a meatpuppet). I hope we don't allow editors whose edits indicate that they are more interested in positive coverage of a particular subject have veto power of a good faith editor who edits to keep WP from being misused for the sake of WP. Novaseminary (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that 2602.304 is a disruptive presence on the page. But it takes two, and the edit history for September and October is just crazy. There is more than one person here who thinks that both of you should just chill and give it a rest for a little while. The Wiki is bigger than this one article, and if it's true that you've only been editing the article because of 2602.304, then this will have zero effect on your editing. There are still other users who can look after the page. So unless any other uninvolved users want to chime in, I think we can consider the dual article ban done. – Steel 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, instead of an article ban let's make it a topic ban on anything related to Tait, that way Bishop Alemany High School, and any other page that this might spill over to, is included as well. – Steel 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's been a very long time since I've read such a steaming pile of desperate, self-serving, "everybody did bad but me, daddy!" fiction that it was actually embarrassing to read. Novaseminary's "defense?" Everyone ganged up on poor him, while all he did was wear angel wings - while he alone protected the very existence of WP from the mortal threat posed by this one minor article with limited traffic. Ridiculous, and not a string of truth anywhere!

1) Here, his edit-warring with Drmies: Here and here and of course, his all-time favorite, here.

2) To Novaseminary's claim that the restored article was the same as the deleted one, was originally made back on March 3. Here's the response. But that wasn't good enough for him. Obviously. So much for collaborative editing. Equally obvious, Novaseminary's 2nd AfD also failed. In fact, while he says there was no consensus, there originally was consensus - to keep. Once again, Novaseminary fought it and an admin changed it, despite an !vote itself of 4 to 2 to Keep, to no consensus.

3) To his claim that the article was promotional? Here's the first entry. Remarkable how it contains much of the same material and sources, even after Novaseminary had months of editing it, several alone, to supposedly scrub it of anything "promotional."

4) Novaseminary also routinely challenges the notability of anything remotely related to Tait's N. Like here, here and here. The apparent offense of these festivals? They screened Tait's film. But this isn't the first time he's been called out for going after sources simply because they establish Tait's notability.

5) Novaseminary also attempted to make hay over the fact that an editor who challenged his edits, (pretty vocally too), was blocked. Well here's a portion of Novaseminary's own record. He misrepresented his own history on Noticeboards. Seems this isn't his first rodeo. There may have been more incidents in his history, but this was so well-detailed, I didn't see the need to look for any more.

6) Just as he misrepresented the current version of the article. Which I have now restored to reflect the actual consensus.

7) By the way, this is meatpuppetry: 1, 2, 3, 4. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I resent the claims of the IP (by that, I mean the person who has been posting using IP v6 Addresses in the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF) that my actions have been meatpuppetry (and consequently that I am a meatpuppet). The IP should have brought this section to my attention, and neglected to do so. I have warned the IP for making a personal attack in this edit. The IP has never answered my question "What are your goals in editing this talk page?" about Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman) in this edit. The IP has consistently refused to login or to create an account, to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using" (asked in the same edit), and to "Kindly provide a single user talk page on which to discuss your conduct", and has instead deflected such queries as "inappropriate". Given WP:BOOMERANG, I wish to discuss the IP's conduct here.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• The complete extent of Jeff G. ツ's contributions here, here, here, and here, was: "Yes per Novaseminary.", "I agree wholeheartedly with Novaseminary's position on this issue." and to twice repost a link that Novaseminary reposted over 35 times on a least 2 articles. A link that has been rejected by more than a dozen other editors. So he's free to resent the meatpuppetry conclusion. The log is the log. Although there was also his repeated attacks aimed at me while complaining of my attack on Novaseminary. As he himself, illustrated, 3 times I had to ask him to focus on the RfC topic instead of me. Three times he was unable to do so.

• Regarding his other issues, not surprisingly - again all focused on me and not the topic: a) I'm not required to create an acct, nor do I choose to do so. "Misplaced Pages is for everyone". b) Nor do I need to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using", mein Herr. c) My dynamic IP meant that I never saw his IP talk page post, but I called his attack on me "inappropriate" in an RfC forum, because I actually took a line from Novaseminary, who had said earlier: "Okay, but this is not the place to discuss blocking me or to dicsuss me at all." Interesting that he only found it troublesome when I said it, but not when Novaseminary did. Ironic, huh? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not to speak for him, but you never had discussed at talk why you continued to remove the Los Angeles Times article about Tait when he reverted you. You only discussed after I requested page protection. And what more than dozen editors is IP talkign about? IP removing without discussion over a dozen times, against the only discussion at talk, is not the same as over a dozen editors removing it. IP has seen fit to document and complain of my 35 edits here at ANI (miscontrueing and including among them POV edits such as (31 above, as of this edit, and the very offensive 13 above). Where are the more than dozen editors that have removed anything I have added at that article? And if this is not the place to discuss IP, it is also not the place to discuss me. Novaseminary (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• There was no reason to rehash his question, since I had already thoroughly discussed it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Douglas Tait (stuntman) - 2nd Review Request where he had participated. By the way, the full extent of his utility there was this to you: "That's a great compromise, thanks!" Obviously, I also should have included that as well. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But his emotional appeal was also instructive for what it didn't defend or explain. Like:

• a) His bizarre disambiguation.

• b) His abandoned and non-notable Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub.

• c) His wikistalking & original research of Talk's personal cell number.

• d) His attacks on other articles mentioned in Tait's article: 1, and 2.

• e) His attacks-by-citation tags on other articles because they were mentioned in Tait's article. Like here, here and here.

• f) His recent redlinking of the article, which he only withdrew when I showed him the notes against excessive redlinking, esp. if he never planned on writing those articles.

• g) His obsession with 1 article about Tait's high school basketball suspension. He posted it over 35 times, on two articles! I've also removed it from here - where it's also not only irrelevant, but inconsistent with all the other notable alumns. NONE of whom need citations - and many of whom also have their own BLPs.

• h) His insistence in renaming the article "Douglas Tait (stuntman). Tait's infobox mentions actor twice, stuntman and filmmaker. If it weren't for his orphaned stub of , which should probably be deleted for N, Tait wouldn't need to be listed as a "stuntman", since that ignores the entire body of his acting credits and other work as a filmmaker.

• i) And finally why, if Novaseminary's only interest in the article was to keep it from becoming promotional, couldn't/didn't he accomplish that in the 2 months when only he was regularly editing the article, from March to May of this year. Either that was not his intention at all, as he's claimed. Or he's just a really incompetent (CIR) editor. Something else is going on with his obsession over Tait. That much is obvious.

Finally, in response to his admittedly well-crafted rhetorical appeal - which he always seems to display whenever he needs it on Noticeboards - but is rarely in evidence in his contentious edits and stubborn failure to edit collaboratively. I say, save the rhetoric. His duplicitous and conniving edit pattern, contrived speechifying and transparent agenda, speak for him. A review of his edit log clearly shows he forfeited any AGF a long time ago. It also makes a strong argument that he has damaged the very WP, and regularly violating the very WP rules & guidelines, that he now claims he protected. His last disciplinary action, just a few months ago, proves the Tait article isn't just a lone exception in the way he operates here. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Steel, I'd like it noted, that I must have posted my last response at the same time that you did. And while we disagree that I have been disruptive - esp. given the time it obviously takes to research and craft responses that I hope have been useful, I understand your need to be Solomonic here and split the baby to protect your own. Fine. But yes, the topic ban was my original request, so enormous thanks for that. I also see you've protected the page as well. Again, no problem. I'll keep my part of the bargain. But, and I really hope this won't be misconstrued as "disruptive", but I'll look it over in a day or so and leave any final thoughts/comments/requests on your talk page. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not agree to a topic ban. The IP continues to insure his/her POV remains with edits, of course, right before the lock. This is a content dispute with a disruptive IP, nothing more. This is not the appropriate DR location for this discussion anyway. On the other hand, if the article is reverted to the pre-IP state, I would happily stand down. Or even if the non-RSs (and corresponding facts) were removed and the discussion of his basketball career that notes he didn't play much in the season before he was supposedly casted as a basketball player because of his play. Either way, if others (other than disruptive IP) want to discuss that version and change it, I bet there would be little to no disagreement in the future. A partial protection would probably take care of everthing. Novaseminary (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• • That Novaseminary disagrees with the topic ban shouldn't surprise anyone. Nor should his argument that only his POV should remain there. It's also all everyone needs to read before they argue that any voluntary ban would ever work. It wouldn't. He could never be trusted to follow it. He still points blame at everyone else, but himself. Especially the "disruptive IP". He has never once accepted any responsibility for his own actions or ever even acknowledged that he did anything wrong. So if we're being honest, call that what it is: textbook psychopathy. Cavarrone nailed it below: "I see him too involved in the topic, and some of his edits (see the relevant talk page, with - often original, and in somewhat manner weird - researches about Tout's private life, cellular number, activity as wedding videographer, a basketball team suspension during school years and so on) seems to reveal a little (negative) obsession about the subject." So let's all stop the "blame the disruptive IP game" once and for all, and see Novaseminary's transparent playing of the "Help me, it's us members of the community vs. the disruptive IP" card, for what it is. Novaseminary - and Novaseminary alone - brought all of this on himself. By himself. The End. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:71D1:9226:27E0:22AA (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• OMG, I've never seen such.....er...passion regarding such a non-noteworthy individual before. I remember when this page was first created and there was a lot of disagreemen over whether he was even notable (I was not one that thought he was). I do NOT think that there should be a topic ban for either, as then we'd have no one even editing this page. LOL. In all seriousness, I think a temporary topic ban would be acceptable. For instance, just keep the page fully protected for say 1 or 2 weeks and let everyone cool down. There is nothing on the page that is negative or requires immediate removal at the moment and the time away from the topic could do everyone good. I think there are a lot of egos on both sides being tested here and time apart is appropriate, IMO. I am NOT for any permanent bans or blocks. I think this has to do with editors that want the best but are going at it from 2 different sides of the equation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable on this particular situation, but I have had an IMMENSE amount of interaction with Novaseminary which started with this: and thankfully 98% ended with this Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior I certain that I'm the Wikipedian that knows them best. They do launch into obsessive battling behavior against individuals, including following them around and even creepier privacy related stuff that I don't care to get into. And they have "skated" by being expert at mis-using and mis-quoting policies and guidelines and clever wording that disguises such warfare as not being such. If you really want to do something really huge for Misplaced Pages, take a close look at what has happened at this article with this framework in mind, and 1 or preferably more folks should warn them to reduce the type of behavior exhibited. I believe that they would be very influence-able by that type of input, and with that course correction would be a good editor, as they also do much good work, aside from the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think Novaseminary's response - and reaction - finally exposed the real him. This is about policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --

Just clarifying one point, it's my guess that they would be influenced by well-written on-target warnings. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's best if Novaseminary simply stays away from the article. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't respond to IP's "report card" because it is not worthy of a response. My only concern at this article is that WP not be used for promotional purposes or be exploited to only show the good about a particular subject leaving out articles in national newspapers covering the subject in a less flattering way. That is my true color. You might disagree with how I have tried to do that, but seeing as I would prefer the article not exist (not that it highlight unflattering material about Tait, and certainly not that it be a resume, linked, as it was, from his facebook page), what else would have caused my alleged POV? If we allow an IP to inhibit strict reliance on RS and V and NPOV, especially in a BLP, the project will be worse off. I would love to tone it down. IP does not seem to have the same interest. And going straight to a ban, even though no other blocks have been made (against, me, of course; the requestor has been blocked before), and no earlier steps in editor-related DR has been undertaken, seems to violate WP:BAN. I would also note and agree with JeffG's interspersed edit above (under IP's #7 above). No meatpuppetry. This also weighs against a topic ban (for me) at least. I tried to use DR and talk. Novaseminary (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• You didn't respond, because after having your own disruptive edit log laid bare in front of you, even you have no response. Frankly, your responses only remind people why no temporary or voluntary solution requiring your compliance would ever work. I'm not entirely convinced that you shouldn't be banned altogether for abusing this project and distorting it to make it your own personal plaything. But that's for others to eventually decide. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the topic ban for both the editors, and, as the IP appears to accept this solution, I would be glad to see Novaseminary voluntarily accepting it. I see him too involved in the topic, and some of his edits (see the relevant talk page, with - often original, and in somewhat manner weird - researches about Tout's private life, cellular number, activity as wedding videographer, a basketball team suspension during school years and so on) seems to reveal a little (negative) obsession about the subject. At any rate, this endless war is of no use to the project. Cavarrone (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• A topic ban for both editors might be a good idea, I feel that the amount of time both editors have wasted on what seems like an insignificant article is becoming excessive, not to mention RFCs and BLP/N discussions that didn't really go anywhere. At this point, both editors seem to be too involved to be dispassionate and balanced in their actions on article. Also, given some of the personal attacks that have gone down on Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman), I think an interaction ban between the two might be helpful as well, though I don't know how that would work with a variable IP editor like 2602.304. Jonathanfu (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree to some extent with a topic ban for NovaSeminary. I don't know that it would matter to the IP since I don't think WikiPedia can effectively ban an entire internet provider, but if something can be done, maybe. I'm not sure being "too involved" is grounds for a ban, else much of WP would be banned. I might be more inclined to agree if the IP seemed to be editing in good faith and not breaking the rules. I think all of this is foolishness, though. As I (non)voted at the original AfD the second AfD after the deleted article was recreated (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Tait), this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. I don't see many/any editors disagreeing with that here, and in one productive thing NovaSeminary did by noting a few of the in-depth sources are disavowed, the article is less notable than it appeared during the AfD. Why not delete the article and be done with the dispute? Hoppingalong (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mmmmm I don't think your personal view about the subject's notability is so much related with the problem we are discussing. I'm pretty sure that NovaSeminary is convinced, in absolute good faith, that the subject is unnotable, but this could not be a justification to engage in an endless war with other users who wish to improve the article after that the deletion request NovaSeminary promoted has not been approved. Side Note: NovaSeminary shows some research skills, it's a shame that they are wasted, for months, in a similar article and in a few others related to this subject. Cavarrone (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• The only editor I have more than passingly disagreed with since the spring on this article was the IPv6 who unabashedly violated 3RR repeatedly. I never violated 3RR, in letter or spirit. I repeatedly engaged at Talk (and RfC and elsehwere) and tried to incorporate elements of what the IP seemed to want to do so far as policies and guidelines allowed (even if I thought it was not good, a la the overwrought discussion of Tait's scoring). I tried to arrive at consensus, and did several times with editors who did not put their view of this particular article above the goals of the project as a whole. I compromised many times. It is a fair point that this unnotable article was not worth those efforts on its own, but I do think that the principle that WP not devolve into a series of promotional articles, especially on minor articles that don't get much traffic, is worth considerable effort. There are still facts in the article sourced only to non-RSs and which don't seem to be supported by any RS. Regardless, I was not the only editor who repeatedly reverted the IP. The IP was the only editor who was battling for the positions s/he took, by and large. But Hoppingalong and Cavarrone are correct. I certainly do not think this subject meets N and that the article should be deleted. Hoppingalong makes a good point: There would be no reason to consider topic banning me or the IP if the article is deleted (though the IP's repeated violations of 3RR and other policies might justify a another block, but the first and only had no effect, so it wouldn't be worth the trouble with no evidence this IP is editing elsewhere). Novaseminary (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Folks may not be understanding a major component of this, and how something significantly good may come out of this. You might want to re-read my post above. I think that a little advice to Novaseminary would go a long way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to have my integrity questioned and my edits reverted because I am an ip?

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

As 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out. If you do not already have an account, it is easy to make one (although as I said it is surprising that your very first edit on Misplaced Pages was to the Manual of Style). If you already have a registered account and are editing while logged out, that is tolerated to some extent, but of course it editors may not find it very respectable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Carl. Could you answer my question? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that link that appears to be any sort of question regarding your integrity because you're an IP editor. Perhaps you provided the wrong link or I missed something? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you missed the edit summary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Carl answered your question in his first word. – Richard BB 13:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe he answered a different question in his first word. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I question the integrity of IP editors and revert their edits frequently. Neither is strictly because the user in question is an IP, but rather than the bulk of IP edits are utter crap, and their reasons for editing as an IP are steeped in bad-faith and deception. Hopefully that answers the question. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you not feel it would be better to revert edits solely on their merits? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It would, but editors are human and make mistakes, which is especially easy when so many IPs do nothing but vandalise and troll. If you only want to edit WP as an IP, you have to accept that sort of discrimination will just happen, and handle it. --Ritchie333 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ on that one, Richie. I don't believe that ips should have to accept discrimination from admins or anyone else, and I don't believe it's possible to discriminate by "mistake". 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who appears to be a new user can have their integrity questioned, IP or otherwise, as long as everyone is civil, doesn't bite the (supposed) newbie and follows the correct policy and guidelines. If you happen to be on an IP that gets recycled, then, well sorry but we've got no way of knowing your previous contributions, and you can't easily prove another IP was you. --Ritchie333 13:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind I would like to keep this discussion open for further input. It has hardly been open 5 minutes. I disagree with the notion that it is reasonable to question the integrity of an editor simply because he is an ip, and I would like to hear further input. My main concern, which nobody has addressed, is that I was reverted twice: as above, and also , simply because I'm an ip. Is that reasonable? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I contest the premise, namely, that it was "solely" or "simply" because the edits were from an IP. There appear to be several other factors at play, which Carl captured nicely in his original response. JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Without looking into the matter too deeply, it appears to be an edit-warring issue more than an IP issue? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Noetica's edit summaries seem to be valid enough for the RfC to be closed; a competent and experienced editor closed an RfC that yielded no consensus. You undid it (your first edits were to the MoA article as a whole, which seems suspicious), and Kwamikagami rightfully commented that you may be a logged-out user. So, yes, Carl did answer your question. – Richard BB 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that an RfC was by an uninvolved editor. There was nothing at all wrong with the closure. Noetica reverted the closure, demanding that it be closed by an Admin. Discussion ensued on the talk page, and the overwhelming consensus was that Noetica had no right to demand closure by an Admin. Therefore, the original closure should stand. This morning K the RfC with a different decision to the original. If that second closure is allowed to stand, then we are opening the floodgates for any involved editor to undo an RfC closure which he dislikes, and demand it be closed by someone else. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you remove the word "anonymous" from the edit summary (and it took me about 30 seconds to find out you're in the UK, and you're a Plusnet broadband customer, so you're perhaps not as anonymous as you might think), the premise for the revert is just as valid. Another editor disagreed with your edit and gave a legitimate reason for reverting it. Take it to the talk page if you disagree. --Ritchie333 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely aware that as an ip I am not anonymous, whereas those of you who are signed in are. Thanks very much for posting my details to ani. You don't seem to have noticed that the edits we're discussing are on the talk page. 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question is disingenuous, 146.90. You weren't questioned simply because you are editing as an IP. You were questioned because your only contributions on this IP relate to a contentious MOS debate and you show a far greater understanding of Misplaced Pages than a new editor would - including running straight to ANI. In truth, if you had registered a SPA sock instead of simply editing logged out you would have faced the exact same questions. Resolute 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This snarky comment: "(Undid revision 517379871 Undoing a revert founded entirely on ad hominem. Welcome to WP! We can't allow editors to continue reverting a valid RfC closure until they have a result they like.)" seems provocative enough to result in this response: "(Undid revision 517388417 by 146.90.43.8 (talk) why do we have anon. IPs edit warring over this? at least have the integrity to sign in.)" Neither would be acceptable as habitual behavior. I would simply write this off as an unfortunate incident. I realize someone could have been editing here for many years without creating an account, but making substantive comments based on long experience requires using your registered account in order that they may be seen in context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have written "Welcome to WP", but I absolutely stand by the Ad Hominem remark. Noetica has successfully overturned an entirely legitimate RfC based simply on the non-admin status of the closing editor. He is now removing my edits based on my status as an ip. That is not he way WP is supposed to work. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To 146.90, I have no strong feeling over whether or not it was OK to revert you on the grounds of the content of your edit. Your edit summary was unnecessarily snarky and might have invited a knee-jerk reversion just fot that. I do think that the answer to the narrower question of "should my edits be reverted just because I'm an IP" is a definite NO. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not require that anyone creates an account to do so. merely strongly encourages it. However if you make potentially controversial edits with snarky edit summaries, I'm afraid your IP status probably is going to be a factor in another editor's decisoin to revert or not. The deciding factor will be the quality of your edit however, not your status. Kim Dent-Brown 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Kim, I accept that the remark seems to have come across as snarky, and so I shouldn't have made it. But as I mentioned above I was actually trying to make a point with that remark. An RfC has been overturned based on editor status. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• No it's not reasonable; the edit summary comment is contrary to longstanding policy that registration is not required to edit. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking them not to do that in the future (unfortunately, current software does not allow edit summary comments to be edited).Nobody Ent 17:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeing evidence the reversion was inappropriate. Nobody Ent 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The situation here seems relatively clear that this is an experienced editor using an IP address as a sockpuppet, not a novice IP editor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • A Misplaced Pages:WikiSpeak#sockpuppet? Not clear to me. Policy says if you suspect a puppet file a WP:SPI, not to declare the editor non grata. Nobody Ent 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • As a longtime editor here, you should know full well that SPI's involving IP's are always rejected. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Why? I'm a longterm editor here (AN & ANI), not there (SPI). So if someone suspects an IP editor is returning editor but can't id the regular account, it's simply guilty as suspected? Nobody Ent 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Checkusers will never comment on IP's. It's against the rules. However, if the IP here would level with us instead of jerking us around, he could regain the good faith that he's destroyed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Nobody, the reason I feel that the revert was inappropriate is that I asked here that Kwamikagami explain why the initial RfC should not stand. Kwamikagami ignored that request completely, citing as the reason for his revert only my status as an ip. The RfC had already been closed here . If Kwamikagami is not going to allow that initial closure to stand, then I believe it is incumbent upon him to explain why. If he can't explain why, then the initial closure should stand. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the timeline:

1. Nathan Johnson closes the RfC as consensus in favour.
2. Noetica, who was deeply involved throught the RfC, reverts, claiming that the RfC should be closed by an admin.
3. Discussion ensues on the talk page. The overhwelming consensus is that Noetica had no right to require that the RfC be close by an admin.
4. I make the changes to MoS based on Nathan's closure, and am reverted by editors who !voted against the change.
5. Kwamikagami re-closes the RfC as no-consenus.
6. I revert Kwamikagami asking him to explain why Nathan's closure should not stand.
7. Noetica reverts me because I am an inexperienced ip, and Kwamikagami is an experienced editor.
8. I revert Noetica because my status as an ip is irrelevant.
9. Kwamikagami reverts me because I am an ip.

I would like that Nathan's original closure to stand. It was a perfectly valid closure, reverted by a heavily involved editor. If it doesn't stand, then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Allowing that will result in chaos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No you didn't ask Kwamikagami anything, you made an unenforceable demand in an edit summary. If you wish to ask a Misplaced Pages something, use their talk page. Nobody Ent 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I said "This RfC has already been closed. If you feel the previous closure was invalid, please explain why, and say how your closure rectifies the faults in the last one.". Whether that counts as asking or demanding, is it not a reasonable request? Kwamikagami was overriding the previous closure. Does it not merit a response that is not simply a reference to my status as an ip? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Isn't that what you did in steps 6 and 8 of your timeline above? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No it absolutely is not. If Kwamikagami had been closing the initial RfC, then I wouldn't have dreamt of reverting him. Seriously. All of my reversions are attempting to back to the initial, valid, closure. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole "because I'm an IP" sounds a bit like "Is it cos I iz black?" As Nobody Ent said, use the talk page. --Ritchie333 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I'm bothered about the ip thing is that it is being used as a means to avoid accountability. Instead of responding to very valid questions about why he has ignored a perfectly legitimate RfC closure, Kwamikagami has simply told me to go away because I'm an ip. I couldn't care less about the condescending remarks and the impugning of my integrity per se. What I do care about is him using them to push through an against-consensus change into the Mos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

146, if the RFC was closed and the changes were made by you and you were reverted, it appears there was no consensus. So, closing it as "no consensus" seems appropriate. By reverting those closures, which go against changes you had made to the MoS, your argument seems to float into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Go to the talk page and start another discussion. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. There was whole RfC which ran for several weeks and involved umpteen editors. That's were the consensus was decided. The editors reverting me are a small subset of all of those involved in the RfC. The argument that you're using is the very same one that they are using. Three or four editors who opposed the change have decided that there is not consensus between themselves to accept the result of the RfC, and are reverting the changes that it brought about. If they're allowed to get away with it, then they've just invented a new way for a small group of editors, unhappy with the result of an RfC in which they participated, to sabotage it. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the number of editors who raise the issue, but the validity of the argument. You seem to view that your side "won" and that discussion should be closed marking your victory. I recommend you either request specific administrative action to be carried out by an admin against an offending party, or you return to the talk page and open or continue discussion about this topic. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, listen to the wise IP dangerouspanda 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Nobody is saying that it's the number of editors that count. What I am saying is that after the RfC is over, a small number of those editors who participated in it should not be allowed to prevent the changes brought about by the RfC from being put in to effect. What I want to establish is whether we should allow an involved editor to revert the legitimate closure of RfC an by an uninvolved editor. I say that we shouldn't, and if we do we're undermining the entire RfC process. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

192.76.82.90, would you mind saying whether or not you have participated in the process that we are discussing? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out." That's an unreasonable accusation as well as innacurate. There was an RFC. IPs may participate. They may make edits to the manual of Style based on the closing as any editor may do. If you feel an editor is Sockpuppeting then make the accusation properly and show the diffs and whatever evidence you have. It is no more reasonable to accuse an IP of misbehavior than a registered user without proof.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(od) Since my 'reasonable' close of this discussion was undone.An IP editor whose edits are almost exclusively to MOS should expect to have his/her integrity questioned, without prejudice of course. Do note that no one, not even kwami, is questioning the right of IP editors to edit without registering an account. All that the edit summary was saying was that this one IP editor is likely to be a registered editor hiding behind an IP. --regentspark (comment) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

He used the edit summary to talk about me, conveniently avoiding using it for its proper purpose, which is to explain his edit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to be clear about your complaint. If you want to know whether his assumption was reasonable, it is fairly clear that the community believes it was reasonable. I note that you're also using this thread as a forum for reverting the RfC close. That's better done on the appropriate talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always feel a little bad when I disagree with you RP as I have agreat deal of respect for your work. However, as I understand it, using the edit summary to make an unfounded accusation such as this is not appropriate and could lead to sanctions. Is it possible that the IP is a registered user, not logged in? Perhaps? But as I understand, there needs to be evidence of the sort and using the edit summary to make a claim as such goes against WP:REVTALK, which states: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." Per a recent discussion with Dennis Brown: "Being logged out and editing isn't a violation of socking. Using that as an advantage is. This means voting twice in a poll like RfC or AfD, or using it to bypass 3RR, or in some other way that would make it looks you were two people when you are really one, like in a simple article talk page discussion about content."--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

146, WP:STICK. WP:POINT. Nothing will come by arguing here. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You might well be right, but I hope not. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you are discussing a content dispute. If your contributions were excluded and you feel this was done in an improper manner the best venue would be DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question... When an editor's very first edit is something like this, it is right and proper to be suspicious of the editor - be it an IP or a redlink or whatever. It practically screams "wikipedia abuser". And griping about it reinforces that suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, exactly what is so suspicious? I am suspicious of a number of editors. So what? It is only when you express suspicions in an innappropriate manner that an issue arises. What in the edit or edit summary was incorrect....or is it that it WASN'T incorrect that gives editors pause? The editor was correct. RFCs do not require an admin closing. If the RFC has become contentious and a request for admin closing was made, then I could understand the problem. Did this have an request for admin closing?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Years of experience indicate that when someone shows up from nowhere, and their first edits are complaints about something on a WP page, that practically screams "Sockpuppet!" However, if the OP reveals some of the other user ID's and/or IP's he's edited under, he could gain some credibility. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you'd have bothered to read the discussion that you're commenting on, you'd have seen that I self-identified as a different ip address who had commented on the RfC. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? I'm not seeing it, but I might be blind. Post the diff here, please. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Recap

I'm sorry but I've re-opened this for further input. Nobody closed it with " Opinions vary on questioning the integrity of the IP but there's a clear consensus this is not the place to argue about the RFC close." Well, if you search through the discussion you will see that almost nobody has commented on the RfC closure. There certainly isn't a consensus. Ip 192.76.82.90 had very strong opinions on the matter, but he disappeared when asked whether or not he was an involved party. Sorry for beating the drum, but either we have an RfC procedure or we don't. We shouldn't let an involved editor overturn a valid RfC closure. To re-iterate:

My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The concept of non-admin closes is that non-admins should not close controversial issues, nor those where WP:CONSENSUS is not 100% obvious. The first close by a non-admin on a contentious topic was not valid, and as such, nothing from their close should have been considered as implementable. The valid close - and at first glance from a first reading of the entire RFC - shows that the admin close of no-consensus was correct. So, this has nothing to do with you as an IP, it has to do with someone closing an RFC improperly, and setting inappropriate expectations for other editors such as yourself dangerouspanda 10:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're right about that, then I'll drop the stick, because as you say, the initial closure was invalid. There was a long discussion on the talk page about whether or not it is permissible to demand that an admin close an RfC. The discussion included editors and several admins. The overwhelming consensus was that it is not permissible, any uninvolved editor may close any RfC. Any RfC can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding that the essay in the link you provided refers to closures of deletion debates. It was agreed in the MoS discussion that it is permissible to ask for admin closures in deletion debates, but not in RfCs, as the RfC page makes explicit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the scope of the non-admin closes essay is Afd so it is not relevant to this discussion. The RFC policy clearly does not require an admin to close: it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. Nobody Ent 13:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. And as it was formally closed here by an uninvolved editor, that closure should stand. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAC is about controversial Afds. Other wording extends NAC restrictions to controversial moves. Neither can be closed by non-admins. Contested RFCs can be closed by non-admins. However, all closures (except for a delete in an Afd or a move of a move-protected page) can be reverted boldly. If the revert is undone, the editor should go to the talk page, per BRD; the IP edit-warred instead. Granted, practically the same thing happened with a non-IP on the first closure, but editors can't use another's behavior to justify their own. I am not sure why this is on ANI; we can't enforce consensus through warnings, censures, locks and blocks, so I am not sure what you are asking an admin to do. Churn and change (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RfCs are started when BRD hasn't worked. To accept BRD on the result of RfCs would make a nonsense of the whole process. Where would it end? RfCs are there to draw a line under the discussion 146.90.43.8 (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I'm looking at this completely incorrectly (and I've read the ANI thread as well as the RFC, but I don't think I am), Nathan Johnson (not an administrator) closed the RFC with one result, and was reverted twice because of their non-adminship status. However, in this edit, Kwamikagami (also not an admin) re-closed it with a different result, but this has been allowed to stand? If the RFC is contentious enough to require administrative closure, then fair enough, but no double standards please. Can someone who is actually an administrator review the RFC and determine the result? Steven Zhang 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are right that it was closed by an uninvolved non-admin, reverted by one of the most heavily involved editors, then closed with a different result by another non-admin. But I don't agree that an admin should make the final call. The original closure was perfectly fine. Nobody has given any valid reason why it should not stand. The original closure should be reinstated. Doing otherwise would mean that any disgruntled, involved, editor could undo a closure he didn't like, and demand someone else close it. That would undermine the whole system. RfCs by their very nature are contentious. There will always be editors who disagree with the result. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• An admin (Jayron32) has already commented on the closure, to wit: "Goodness gracious. There's a lot of people here who keep insisting that admins have special privileges in closing RFCs. Quite simply, and with all due respect, this idea is total and complete bullshit ..." The RFC policy clearly does not require an admin to close: it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. Nobody Ent 11:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement about whether admins have special magical powers to close discussions. Perhaps there should be an RfC about that. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

IP 192.76.82.90 "disappeared" because I left work and didn't feel like repeating the same spiel over-and-over again. But if you're so suspicious of my participating in this discussion because I'm an IP, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your initial question. 68.200.150.22 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Two editors (I wasn't involved) reverted you. We shouldn't discuss the merits of the edits, content-wise, on this forum. They didn't revert you just because you were an IP. But while the comment you may actually be a registered editor was uncalled for and unpolitic, I agree with its truth. An IP dropped out of the Internet sky, went like an arrow to the talk page of a Misplaced Pages Project page (WP:MOS), and waded into a long-running, lengthy, arcane dispute, displaying a grasp of the discussion even most of the few who post on that page were unlikely to have. It was reasonable to assume you had participated in the debate as a registered user. And why bring this here? What do you want? Sanctions or warnings against those who reverted you? I would oppose it; being not as polite as people should be isn't grounds for censure, especially of one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific contributors, on the complaint of an edit-warring IP. If you are asking for the edit itself to be reinstated, I oppose that since there was no consensus (or any support) for your edit war on that page. Churn and change (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are one of a goup of 3 or 4 editors who are not prepared to let the result of the RfC stand. The RfC was widely advertised, lasted for weeks and involved many editors. An uninvolved editor assesed the RfC and decided that there was consensus in favour of change. A heavily involved editor didn't like the result, so reverted. You and two or three others continue to revert in order to prevent the changes agreed in the RfC from being implemented.

What I would like to know is whether there is a consensus on ani that that initial closure was perfectly proper, and should stand. I'm not asking ani to decide whether the assessment of consensus was correct--that's up to the closing editor. I'm simply asking whether the procedure was correct. Was there any valid reason to revert it?

Those of you who are unhappy with the legitimate result of the first RfC can start another, if you like. In the meantime, the result of the first RfC should be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not so. I never took part in the debate on whether to include the material; nor did I endorse the overturning of Nathan's closure. I never reverted you on that page; check the logs. Nor did I ever edit supporting the overturning of Nathan's closure; I just said others seem to be contesting it. Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding, and cannot be enforced by admin action, so an ANI consensus doesn't really apply. You could discuss this on the MOS talk page, or at dispute resolution, but I notice this has strayed from your first question. Churn and change (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding...". There will always be editors opposed to a closure. I always assumed that RfC closures are binding. If not, what's the point in having them? When participating in an RfC editors of opposing views state their case, and agree to independent assessment. They don't then decide not abide by the independent assessment if they're not happy with it. Don't you agree with that? Don't you agree that it is within the spirit of WP to abide by an RfC in which you have participated, even if you don't like the result, or disagree with the closing editor?

I was reverted twice because I'm an ip. If there is confundsensus here that the first closure was valid, and should be implemented, then I would hope that those reverting me would desist. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, RFC closures aren't binding. I think the idea is to add an uninvolved editor's voice to the debate, summarizing the issue and that way granting some gravitas to specific conclusions. If those conclusions are still not acceptable, I guess the dispute needs to go to other dispute-resolution forums such as DR. You argue the first closure was a valid NAC; I agree. However, there is nothing procedurally wrong with reverting a procedurally valid closure. I have participated only in the meta discussion of whether there is consensus or no consensus and what the two possibilities imply; I don't have a position on the merits of the material, which is fundamentally the spirit of the issue. I do have a problem with appealing to admins to settle the debate; it is ironic you opposed the other editor's appeal for an admin closure, rightly so then. I forget whether it was you or a sysop who pointed out the admin symbol is a mop and a bucket. Churn and change (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is anything "procedurally wrong" with the revert or not. If there isn't then I think we should look at adding something to the RfC page that prohibits involved editors from reverting an RfC they have just participated in. If you feel Noetica's reverts have been within the spirit of WP, then there is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between us. I am very uncomfortable coming here for help, but it seemed clear to me that those editors who are reverting are intent on having their own way, regardless of policy or WP ethos, so I felt I had no choice 146.90.43.8 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding that I am emphatically not appealing to admins to settle the debate. I am asking for admin input on the validity of the first close, and whether or not it is acceptable to revert an editor's edits based on his status as an ip. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for changes to WP:RFC, an essay and neither a policy nor a guideline, but as it stands, it doesn't consider an RFC closure as binding. The page starts with the "informal" nature of an RFC. No, I didn't say the first revert was within the spirit of WP. But you started a separate discussion on that, and again found multiple editors opposing the closure. The "spirit of WP" isn't practically very useful in convincing objectors in any debate. You realize asking for "admin input on the validity of the first close" is essentially endorsing one of the objections, a wrong one, to the first closure—that it was a NAC? I see your argument is getting more admins involved (proposer of original RFC was an admin) would help drive the issue to a consensus. I have a problem with admins taking up the role of guiding others, motivated and propelled by "the spirit of WP." The community vetted and voted for them to use their tools in mop-and-bucket fashion, not to be considered guides on content. I think I am quoting you here, though I might have mixed up the comments with those of a sysop's on that talk page. This is somewhat orthogonal to your issue (whether to include the material), but matters in the larger scheme of things. Churn and change (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we're getting away from adding anything meaningful to this subsection, so perhaps we better take it to talk if you want to continue. I'll make one more reply here. I agree absolutely that admins should not be used for matters relating to content. It was me who mentioned the icon.

I was trying to implement the result of the RfC, which had been legitimately closed. I was tag-team reverted. The reverters made no realistic attempt to justify their actions, instead dismissing my edits because I am an ip. I was in two minds: should I post to the talk pages of everyone who participated in the RfC, explaining what was happening, and inviting further input, or should I come here. Posting to all the talk pages seemed almost equivalent to re-opening the RfC, which really should not have been necessary. It seemed to me that the way I was reverted might well be a policy issue, so I came here. Similarly with the RfC page, it seems to be a grey area. It's not marked as policy and it's certainly not marked as an essay. Regardless of how it is marked, I suggest that most editors respect it in the same way that respect policy.146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please endorse or overturn the RfC closure?

The dispute above is about an RfC that was held from September 1 to October 4 on WT:MOS. The RfC was about the sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." The dispute is about the words "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." They were removed last year (I believe without discussion). The question is whether to endorse the removal or to restore those words.

A request for closure was made on AN/RFC, and it was closed on October 4 by User:Nathan Johnson. His closure is here. He decided there was consensus to restore the words. Noetica, who is strongly opposed to those words, reverted Nathan's closure twice, arguing that an admin had to close it, and that the closure was premature.

I therefore requested an admin closure on AN/RFC on October 8. Yesterday, Kwamikagami – who is a supporter of cross-article style consistency, a supporter of Noetica's, and who I believe was desysopped recently for misusing the tools in MoS disputes – arrived to overturn Nathan's closure. He cannot be regarded as uninvolved here.

It would be very much appreciated if an uninvolved admin would examine Nathan's closure and decide whether it is valid or not, and if not, what the next step should be. SlimVirgin 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I looked at the history of the request on AN and the actual close by Nathan Johnson and see nothing wrong with his/her closing it. This is not an endorsement of anything other than the procedural validity of that close. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And now Noetica has reverted RegentsPark's endorsement on a technicality, because the RFC bot had already removed the tag when Nathan closed the RfC. Now we need to have a 100.000 word discussion to tell Noetica that RfCs don't become magically unclosable when the RfC bot removes the tag after 30 days. This is the sort of bureaucratic stonewalling that keeps disrupting consensus formation at WT:MOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(od) For the record. I've reverted Neotarf's revert of Enric Naval's revert of Noetica's revert of my endorsed closure. If that string of reverts doesn't tell us its time to put this behind us, then nothing will. Either way, my work is done. Imo, further reverts can only be construed as disruptive but it probably isn't appropriate for me to do anything about that so I'll leave this to others to deal with. --regentspark (comment) 01:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the top text of the closed area refers to kwami's decision rather than Nathan's. They came to opposite conclusions about whether or not to reinsert the text. For the moment, I'm assuming that this is an oversight, and I've reinserted the contested text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, found it. Churn, not RegentsPark, did the hatting and happened to list Kwami's decision up top rather than Nathan's. It's fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand now it's reverted in what Beeblebrox thinks is at least the opening stages of an edit war. RegentsPark, I hope this doesn't put you off touching the MoS, but HELP! Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As Darkfrog24 notes later, this was a misunderstanding on the editor's part; I never reverted anything. I will be staying out of this discussion, since none of my edits (technical ones which were not reverts and have not been reverted by anyone) have anything to do with this. Churn and change (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Break

Seriously folks, there's no admin action required anywhere. Just drop it and move on. --Ritchie333 19:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point there has been a request for a non-involved admin to reveiw the closings. Whether this discussion belongs here or not I could see there being good points, but lets at least deal with the issue of the request and let an admin decide what to do from here...if they feel so inclined.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good idea. If every time someone doesn't like a non-admin RFC close they can come to ANI to get it reviewed, what's the point of having NAC in the first place? Given there are backlogs of tasks that require admins, it's not the best use of a limited resource. Nobody Ent 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Closure of this thread with a summary that there is consensus on ani that the original RfC closure was valid, and should not have been overturned for being a NAC, would be my preferred solution. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I agree too. But Noetica has twice reverted the non-admin closure. So in the interests of avoiding further reverting, I'm asking that an admin decide whether to endorse or overturn Nathan's closure. Otherwise we have spent a month holding an RfC with no outcome. SlimVirgin 20:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. So an uninvolved admin should review Noetica's behavior and see if there was any justification for reverting Nathan's closure. Got it. That's reasonable. Nobody Ent 20:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it fine for an admin or a cluster of admins to judge this. That is not part of their role. RFC closures can be reverted. That is continuation, ill-advised perhaps, of a content dispute. WP:Administrators is policy, and it lists their role as arbitrators: they adjudicate discussions such as deletions. Assessing WP:CONSENSUS in closure of RFCs or reversion of closures is not listed there because WP:RFC makes it clear that is an informal process involving editors. I oppose extending convention to lend admins more powers by creating a new tradition. Not because I think admins are not to be trusted, but because it moves farther from the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. I don't have a position on the material itself; so if somebody just puts it in, or undoes the original discussion to some previous stage, I won't revert. Churn and change (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You've made that point several times, Churn, but with nothing to back it up. Yes, RfCs can be overturned if there is something wrong with the closure (e.g. it was closed prematurely or by someone involved). But otherwise closures should generally be respected. If any involved party can overturn an RfC that was open for 33 days, where it was closed by an editor that no one could argue was involved, then there is no point in holding RfCs in the first place.

I've changed Ritchie's header, by the way, because it was provocative and implied that the request for closure is not a reasonable one. SlimVirgin 21:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to show RFCs are something special and not just a glorified form of a talk-page consensus. They aren't policy; they aren't guidelines; so when you say NAC RFC closures "should generally be respected", isn't that just like saying "the view of multiple editors on a talk page should generally be respected"? How can we ask for admin help to enforce that respect? I realize that is the last thing people who have spent time and effort debating points on an RFC want to hear, especially from somebody who has been debating just the meta aspects of the discussion, but the alternative of asking admins to judge I find troublesome in the longer run. Churn and change (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Rfc#Ending_RfC Nobody Ent 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that RFC's should carry a tiny bit more weight than a talk page discussion. Typically have a bit more input, (gauge the level of that for the particular case) and some type of a closing process based on wikepedian principles. And an Admin close should carry a tiny bit more weight than a non-admin close. True, an admin can be just a kid who got the tools by working the system, but on average, they are more vetted than an average editor. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is that its throws its net far and wide. It brings many editors into a discussion who wouldn't ordinarily be involved in that discussion. When an editor participates in an RfC he does so in the expectation that it will be closed in accordance with the accepted procedures. Many of those editors then move on. What has happened here is that a kernel of heavily involved editors have hung around after everyone has left and are refusing to allow the results of the RfC to be implemented. If that becomes standard practice, then RfC, one of the few mechanisms on WP that does usually end in a result which all parties accept, will disappear. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica did not revert this user because he or she is anonymous. Noetica reverted this user because he or she disagreed with him. 146, just register and get a username. Then people will have to find other excuses to revert your actions. The problem is easily fixed. 146, Carl answered your question right away. You've used that issue as an excuse to bring the original RfC to the attention of these editors. It's a bit disingenuous. Find an appropriate forum and ask the question, "Is it okay to revert a closure of an arguably ongoing RfC for the sole reason that the person who closed it is not an admin?" if that's what you really want to know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Objection to serious and continuing irregularities: set the RFC aside as completely irregular

I should have been notified of the discussion above, since all sorts of statements are being made about me. Some are misrepresentations; some are lies. The discussion here was closed (how about that?). It was then re-opened by an IP who is clearly a very adept operator and is evading the consequences of his or her actions, by posting on weighty matters in a partisan fashion but without revealing a Wikipedian identity. I have attempted to revert the irregular closure of the RFC by an admin. Note: I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs; I called for one to sort it out, since the RFC had been set up misleadingly and non-neutrally from the start by admin SlimVirgin. It is extremely difficult to counter such behaviour from a well-connected and politically astute admin who is prepared to twist the truth to restore old wording she had inserted years ago in WP:MOS, and which had been removed in favour of a more consensual and more accurate lead over a year ago (with 4,000 words of discussion).

In good faith I do my bit to protect WP:MOS from arbitrary subversion by powerful operators, some cloaked in anonymity. I make myself extremely vulnerable in doing so. But some of us are indeed ready to stand up and work against such abuses.

My current intention is to request an ArbCom case to sort out the very worrying course of this affair. I request now that the RFC be set aside as hopelessly compromised from the very beginning, as a reasonable interim step in the restoration of stability and good order.

Noetica 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, you should not call other people liars and then say, "I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs."

Please note the words, "controversial RFCs should be closed by admins" in this change: They might be telling the truth, and they might be lying, but they also might have forgotten or made a mistake, just like you might have forgotten that you said this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I did not call anyone a liar. Read and report with care, please. And when you quote, do not suppress relevant context. My complete edit summary: "(Revert closure of RFC by User:Nathan Johnson; controversial RFCs should be closed by admins; this was premature: actions had been asked for and were pending; failed to distinguish points about consistency 1. where choices were allowed and 2. generally)". There is a difference between a need (as a matter of policy, or established procedure) and an optimal state of affairs (a should, such as some admins in the discussion above have agreed applies in the present case). I reverted Nathan's attempt at closure because it was premature and incompetent (and as I later stressed, the RFC had lapsed according to one of the ways WP:RFC provides for: it was delisted by the bot). Since then, people have lied about what I did and my reasons for doing so. In any case, you endorsed my reversion of Nathan's closure, and called for discussion to continue. When I found the time, I made an extensive summation of the RFC, labelling it as Noetica's RFC summation (now hidden in the RFC's extended content). I invite people here to read that. It was set aside and not considered by Regentspark, though I spent considerable time preparing it when you, I, and others agreed that discussion should continue.

I regret that real life intrudes, and I am now unable to participate fully as any further developments unfold. I'll try to deal with anything that people want me to, when I can justify spending more time on this fiasco. Meanwhile, I again urge people to see how the RFC was tainted and mismanaged from the start (as I am on record as fearing that it would be, before it began).

Noetica 02:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Noetica, if you say "People are saying things about me. Those things are lies," that counts as calling those people liars.

I did think that the RfC should not have been closed, but not for the same reasons that you gave. I believed it should remain because the discussion was, at that time, ongoing, and it still seemed likely that people would present evidence in favor of their positions. It's been a while now, and that has yet to happen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And this is what he's been doing all along. He's reverting the closure simply because he doesn't like the way it turned out, and burying that simple truth in a mountain of verbiage. He reverted the fist closure because it was made by a non-admin . Another non-admin then closed it the way he wanted, so he reverted to keep that closure in place. An admin has now reinstated the first closure, with the backing of ani, and he's still reverting. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Still distorting the history, from behind a protective veil of secrecy? No, an admin has not now considered the RFC afresh and closed it. An admin has stepped in on your one-sided advice and affirmed an earlier "closure" that took place after the RFC had ended. According to WP:RFC – whose provisions you appeal to but only when it suits your implacable desire to secure a plainly non-consensual result – that is one of the ways an RFC comes to an end.
Regentspark did not consider what I submit here in this discussion. How could he? Although you have to admit that I am a major participant in all this, I was not advised of this discussion till after Regentspark's action. Deliberations continued by common consent at WT:MOS after Nathan's "closure" interrupted it; but perhaps unsettled by the revelations I made of irregularity and confusion (with clear documentation and evidence), you and SlimVirgin preferred to disqualify those further deliberations and cling to the flawed "closure" rather than risk defeat. Yes, defeat. Such is the battleground mentality promoted by covert and dishonest actions.

The bottom line: can anyone keep a straight face and claim that there is consensus for resurrecting SlimVirgin's cherished wording, after it had been superseded consensually a year ago? Has the RFC achieved that? Ridiculous to think so.

Discard the fatally flawed RFC here, or ArbCom is the logical next step.

Distinguish short-term victories for bullying, lying, and subterfuge on the one hand, and robust consensus on the other. My record shows that I work hard to assist development of robust consensus at WP:MOS. But what does your record show, 146.90.43.8? We are entitled to know.

Noetica 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There you go again. A mountain of words to disguise the simple fact that you didn't like the closure of the RfC by an uninvolved editor, so you've repeatedly reverted to get your own way. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And you continue to edit war in order to do so. RegentsPark's edit after the discussion here: . Your edit warring: 1 2 3. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, RegentsPark is not obliged to follow a protocol that exists only in your brain to your complete satisfaction for his or her decisions to be valid. Your personal ideas of how things should work are not rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

The policy page in question is under discretionary sanctions (Article titles and capitalisation). Per policy admins are supposed to receive input when applying sanctions. Would there be any objections if I placed Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style and it's talk page under a one revert per 24 hour period restriction for 3 months? --Guerillero | My Talk 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what is needed instead is a change to the culture at WP:MOS. The quote, WT:MOS is not for the faint at heart at the best of times (I am quoting from memory) indicates a huge change is needed. That type of lack of incivility it connotes is completely unacceptable, in my opinion. I would like to make sure that discussion remains on the wording of the MOS, not on the application of the MOS. I think that the culture that has grown up is that changing the MOS changes articles. No, changing articles changes the MOS. There was almost infinite discussion over whether Mexican American War was spelled with an endash or an hyphen when a check of any dictionary or book with the term reveals the answer. The article was no help as it had been moved a half a dozen times from 2006 to 2011. The MOS is never the place to decide that answer. The article talk page is. Apteva (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, I doubt that Guerillero was asking for a manifesto. I will not comment here on the content of yours, nor on your conduct at WT:MOS and elsewhere in the last couple of weeks.
I believe the question is focused on the most recent upheavals and instability at WP:MOS and its talkpage. As a major participant in the development of that page, passionately committed to its orderly and consensual development, I have no problem at all with Guerillero's suggestion. Possibly just one month would do? But anyway:
Support.
Noetica 07:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Guerillero, do you mean each editor would be under 1RR, or the page as a whole (i.e. just one revert per 24 hours from anyone)? The problems at that page are being caused by Noetica. He will revert no matter the consensus against him, and is willing to revert on the talk page too, even inserting "corrections" into other people's comments. I don't often post at the MoS talk page so this is my first real exposure to it, but looking through the archives I see it is a long-term problem.

  The recent RfC was conducted in a perfectly standard fashion (not counting his efforts to disrupt it), left open for 33 days, closed by an uninvolved editor, which he objected to, and then the closure was endorsed by an uninvolved admin. He reverted both closures multiple times, then reverted Darkfrog who tried to implement the RfC's conclusion.

  If the page is under ArbCom sanctions, the most helpful thing would be to place the person who is causing the disruption under a revert restriction, or even to ask him not to post there for a while. I think the latter would be in Noetica's interests too, to be frank. SlimVirgin 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The restriction would say something to the effect of, "One revert per 24 hour period per person on either WP:MOS or WT:MOS ending three months from the day that the restriction was set in place." If people engage in slow motion edit warring still, they can be blocked or topic banned under WP:EW or WP:DS (depending what the admin who is handing the request thinks is best). I think this would be fairer and has more of a bright line than if I used the active discretionary sanctions to topic ban people based on what I see as bad past behavior. I am going to be optimistic that this could be a reason for all people to talk and acknowledge consensus, which ever way that seems to go. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • How about you use the AE powers (which you have already thanks to ArbCom) to block the edit warrior(s) right now? The sophistry about only "technically" breaking 3RR occurring elsewhere in this thread is really amusing (as if edit warring were an entitlement as long as you don't break 3RR). Tijfo098 (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Noetica has already indulged in enough edit warring and stonewalling to deserve a topic ban or a block. is behaviour is not recent, he was already edit warring and stonewalling during the December 2011 recognizability RfC, which was followed by an interpretation of the RfC. One of the options had overwhelming support but Noetica kept reverting and insisting that RfCs have to be formally closed to have any effect. His editwarring caused the wikibreak of User_talk:Kotniski, who still hasn't returned. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. The problems are being caused by Noetica. His recent 3RR violation over the RfC closure (22:06, 13 October, 01:40, 14 October, 03:05, 14 October, 03:27, 14 October), for example, was ignored. When challenged about it, he called it a "technical violation" and said he was normally careful to avoid 3RR. This is revealing, because it suggests that he is counting his reverts. In addition, while reverting on the talk page, he reverted (03:15, 14 October) Darkfrog's attempt to add the RfC's consensus to the MoS. That's not to mention the personal attacks and the wikilawyering. Just to give one example, he claimed of the recent RfC that it could not be closed by an uninvolved editor, because the bot had already removed the RfC tag. Without the tag, the RfC had no formal existence. With no formal existence, it could not be closed. Therefore, Nathan's closure was invalid. These arguments are repeated many times at great length, sometimes in bold, and they are really impossible to deal with. If you ignore him, he keeps on reverting. If you respond, any uninvolved person looking at the exchange thinks everyone is equally to blame for engaging in a pointless discussion. SlimVirgin 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to spoil the party, but 0RR would be more appropriate for the MOS. Why are undiscussed changes being introduced? Why are they immediately edit warred? Apteva (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Bad example - wrong article. Apteva (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Guerillero, a suggestion. If you're reluctant to take action against Noetica for whatever reason, perhaps you would consider simply asking him to take the page off his watchlist for a while. I'm normally not in favour of topic bans as a first option, when a quiet word from an uninvolved party might be enough. Perhaps you would also consider reminding everyone on the talk page that discretionary sanctions apply, and warn against making personal attacks or reverting too much. I see editors there regularly being called ignorant, uneducated and accused of lying. It all contributes to a very poor atmosphere. SlimVirgin 18:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would oppose asking Noetica to take the pages (there are 71 of them) off of their watchlist. Apteva (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Guer--I support your suggestion, at the top of this string, as a way to slow down the fuss as this is sorted out, and thereby temper matters.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• No objections, seems like a reasonable use of the discretionary sanctions. The edit warring makes any sort of real progress impossible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your replies. I will implement the sanctions. Please note that slow motion edit warring is still edit warring. If you engage in it you risk being blocked or topic banned. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Technical breach of WP:3RR

I thank User:Nathan Johnson for pointing out that I was technically in breach of WP:3RR. See details in this section at my talkpage. I am normally extremely careful about 3RR, and had no intention of doing such a thing in what I clearly signalled as perceived errors made by another editor at WT:MOS (as the record clearly shows). In fact, the editor whose editing Darkfrog altered agrees with me: it was a misunderstanding on Darkfrog's part. I am away from my usual facilities, and sometimes editing on handheld devices; so it is hard to keep track of the extraordinary developments at WP:MOS and its talkpage recently. In sum, I submit that my beach was inadvertent, well-motivated, excusable under WP:IAR for the circumstances (fixing an error), and something I have not done before and have an abhorrence of.
I will now paste a link to this explanation at the talkpages of editors who may be considered involved.
Noetica 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If I might point out, "fixing an error" is why almost all edit wars take place. In one editors mind it is clearly an error, in another's the error is an error, and instead of discussion to find out which is the most commonly used or the best to use, the edit war ensues. Removing profanity from a BLP that is not a direct quote from a politician (see there are always exceptions) is not 3RR. Fixing an "error" is. Removing profanity from a direct quote from a politician just before the election by the campaign staff is 3RR. From 3RR: "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Apteva (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing that I misunderstood was who put the misleading wording in place; it wasn't Churn. So if you're talking about Churn, then no, the editor who's work I corrected does not agree with you. I stand by the change itself. RegentsPark said "I have restored Nathan Johnson's close," so the text at the top of the closed section should repeat Nathan Johnson's decision, not Kwami's. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Shut this down now please!

I'm coming into this conversation as an uninvolved observer of this humunguous mess (to put it mildly). I'd like to propose that this discussion and the related one at WT:Manual of Style#RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles be shut down - by force if necessary. The one thing that seems to have been completely lost in the "sturm und drang" of this whole mess is that, above and beyond any other considerations, the integrity and stability of the MOS must be preserved. We simply cannot tolerate that such a destabilisation drags on for so long. (For the record - I am not an admin I'd rather bash myself over the head with a baseball bat three times a day than ever ask for adminship!) Roger (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as another non-admin, non-involved editor, I concur. I can't see a single reason to continue this endless discussion here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It has already been closed twice, but the IP just keeps reverting the close. --Neotarf (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems you missed the part where I said "...by force if necessary". If the entire conversation goes into the cyber-shredder it won't be possible to continue. Roger (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A case can be made that repeatedly reopening a tendentious discussion in the wrong forum is a form of disruptive editing. JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of context, I'd like to point out that Neotarf is one of the editors, along with Noetica, who has been reverting in order to prevent the result of the RfC being implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP who may or may not be using an alternate account has reported an incident. The incident is, are IP's respected just as much as Jimmy Wales? The answer is yes. And with that we can see if any sanctions need be placed on any users who have acted inappropriately because of not granting the respect that all of us deserve. Apteva (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats just fucking great! Now the people responsible for the whole shitstorm are using this appeal for sanity as yet another place to continue their bloody fight! SOMEBODY PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!! JUST KILL THIS TOPIC ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!! Roger (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the MoS! It's not for the faint of sanity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions are not shut down by force and policy highly restricts when revision deletion can be used. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This topic and the one on the MOS talk page have long ceased being a "discussion" - AGF and CIVIL both left the building long ago. Roger (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tiresome and going nowhere

I've just discovered this grand waste of time. Agreed: it probably needs to be closed with warnings to all to cool off, be vigilant about 1RR on styleguides, and take the emotion out of this RfC closure thing. <yawn> Tony (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An appropriate AfD non-admin closure?

I don't want to cause problems, but I believe that the non-admin closure on this AfD discussion was incredibly premature: . Can you please tell me if I am justified in my concern on this? Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It does look a little premature, but did you try discussing it with the editor that closed it? - SudoGhost 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It was closed last week, a little more than one hour after it began. I only just discovered it about 10 minutes ago. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

...well I failed my perception roll there. I was focused on the times and overlooked the dates. - SudoGhost 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We both mush have rolled a 1 there. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would have relisted the article so more than 3 editors joined the discussion. That being said, I think that it is a fair close. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Probably one I wouldn't NAC myself (though maybe I would if I had one more keep, the keep rationales were pretty strong). You could have suggested this to the closer, perhaps, but most AfDs don't get much more participation.--Milowent • 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

SNOW closes should never be WP:NAC'd dangerouspanda 12:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I NACed Misplaced Pages:Assume bad faith, even though I !voted "keep", on the grounds that the original premise for deletion was shown to be factually incorrect, and nobody batted an eyelid. --Ritchie333 15:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• He held a named chair at a major university, so this would have ended a Keep 9 times out of 10. I don't like Non-administrative closes at AfD as a general statement of principle and this was a particularly sketchy one, since it had not been shown to be a true Snow Keep and was shut too fast. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't sketchy, the nominator changed his mind . Tijfo098 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want sketchy see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/T. Edward Damer. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • • Not sure why you would a) bring that up, or b) consider it sketchy? Pretty inappropriate either way dangerouspanda 17:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Firstly, if you are going to cite one of my AFD closes on a noticeboard you should have notified me. Secondly, NC is perfectly reasonable if an article has been relisted and there is no further comment. Thirdly, which may not be relevant since you context is unclear, but I was an admin at the time of that close so its not relevant to this discussion. Has this close ever been raised with me on my talk page? Spartaz 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I apologize if this was interpreted as a criticism of your closure. It wasn't intended that way, which is why I had not notified you of this discussion. Carrite pointed out the ease with which WP:PROF is considered met. My intent was simply to give a more obvious example of those "sketchy" prof. biographies; Damer essentially wrote just one textbook in a field crowded with similar (and more famous) ones, yet the article was kept by "no" consensus (and we have a separate one on his textbook too). I'm not suggesting that Spartaz did anything wrong in the way he closed that AfD. My point was that Larkin's bio is far less sketchy in comparison (to another that was kept by an admin), not just because of the named chair and recognition as a Fellow of RHS, but also because three of his history books were considered leading or authoritative texts for their topics (cf. reviews but also commercial success: reprints, translations, 2nd editions ). Tijfo098 (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Well, some sort of clarification of policy would be helpful here, because this happens all the time. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/North Coast Church is another good example - just a few hours after nomination and it is already snowing. I am itching to do a NAC, but in light of this discussion I thought I'd better hold back. StAnselm (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098, with respect to the article in question, perhaps you disagree somewhat with WP:PROF; if so, the place to discuss that is on the relevant talk page (or you might just see it as a borderline case, which I agree it is) But any professor who might meet that criterion of WP:PROf would almost certainly also meet WP:AUTHOR and the book would by itself meet NBOOK also, on the basis of the reviews and best-selling status of the book, so the question is more general than just WP:PROF. (My own view is that NBOOK is too weak, NAUTHOR about right, and PROF a little too demanding; and also that in cases of doubt we would in general as a matter of practice usually do better to write articles about authors than works.). And since you mentioned it, I agree with you about multiple reprints not necessarily implying notability, but I disagree with you about translations, which I think do imply notability : only an exceptional minority of works gets translated. Just find a good place for the discussion, and we can continue. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing more to discuss about Damer that hasn't been said in its AfD. Ergo, any prof more PROF-worthy than him gets a stub if it strikes my fancy. A particular version of the WP:HEY standard if you like. And profs known for (at least) one book who additionally get a staff-written, long obit in a high-circulation newspaper haven't been challenged before Larkin (as far as I know); see Howard Kahane—red-linked from and then created during the Damer AfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

IP ‎83.42.105.207 - account of indefinitely blocked user

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

I believe that the IP account 83.42.105.207 is being used by the indefinitely blocked user Curritocurrito, who is/was a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user Sonia Murillo Perales. Their most recent editing has been at Machilus and Mezilaurus. The pattern of editing of this IP is the same as from the blocked accounts, and includes a focus on similar topics, the same editing style, an unwillingness or inability to discuss on talk pages, and the same geolocation as the many IP addresses which were part of the sockpuppet investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonia Murillo Perales/Archive. A detailed description of this user's general behaviour can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive59#Tropical Families and tropical genera, which is also referred to in the sockpuppet investigation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please also see talk:Machilus for a list of other signons. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

{{hat|This is still not going anywhere. WP:RFC/U is what you seek. Horologium (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)}} {{archivetop|this isn't going anywhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)}}

Re-opening, as an inappropriate close by an editor who had weighed in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 has had an account since late 2006. He has a clean block log, but I believe a few months ago he was topic banned on a topic unrelated to this WP:AN/I. In August I raised a WQA raising his intimidatory behaviour towards other editors, in particular User:Skyring, and more generally, his inappropriate use of profanity. Things seemed to calm down a bit after the WQA, but recently I noticed that he - again - has been swearing at User:Skyring and calling him names, as follows:

• "Pete/Skyring is being a stubborn prick again" (section title), "I know he hates my guts, but this is just stubbornly idiotic", "I've brought it here rather than continue Edit warring with the clown any more"
• "No fucking way. It's YOU who wants to delete well established, properly sourced content, so it's YOU who needs to present the fucking case. It's called logic. If you don't hate me, maybe it's a love of the Liberal Party that's your problem. There's certainly something wrong with your thinking process. It seems to be totally driven by emotion rather than truth. See if you can find a rational thought in your brain when it comes to politics and stop acting on dogma"
• "Yes, we have a fucking communication problem. And I see no fucking way that it can fucking improve, unless you change dramatically. You don't read what I write. You always respond as if I had said something else. I think you have serious psychological issues surrounding certain aspects of politics and trade unions. You cannot think rationally in that area. It's ALL emotion driven. While you retain polite language, you talk utter bullshit. It's fucking editors like fucking you that create far more fucking problems for Misplaced Pages than anyone who uses the occasional fucking obscenity. I have a personal rule that I am breaking right now in even trying to respond to you, because in the past it has ALWAYS led to further problems, because you actually don't want to hear (or read) what I have to say. And than your responses make no sense. I can assume good faith, but I cannot assume rational thought, sanity and competence."
• "That you think it's irrelevant is your problem, and fucking insulting. Thank you for the confession, <big>but stop fucking ignoring what I write!</big> "
• "No. Swearing at Pete works. Polite language makes no impact at all." (edit summary)

He eventually calmed down and offered this conciliatory post, but despite that I would appreciate an administrator reviewing his contributions because I believe further action is required. --Surturz (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm an admin, but I think I'm a bit too involved here. I have had less than satisfactory interactions with this user at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement, where the user was a bit more snarky than necessary. --Rschen7754 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I congratulate Skyring, for his calmness in the face of such profanity :) GoodDay (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

During my time in uniform, as a night cabbie and a parent, I grew accustomed to this sort of language. What is of more concern is the attitude rather than the expletives. This was about a paragraph I removed because the source did not support it. A polite discussion on the talk page would have sufficed. HiLo and I seem to have communication difficulties and I've opened a conversation on his talk page, trying to sort things out. --Pete (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You refused to have any sort of a discussion on the Talk page! I had to start one. YOU just kept removing the material WITHOUT discussion. And now your political mate Surturz is complaining about the way I started it. But it worked, didn't it? It got you to do what you just claimed would have sufficed all along, but didn't do! HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And that post from GoodDay precisely identifies the huge problem, both here and on the civility front, for Misplaced Pages. Pete ALWAYS uses polite language, but talks absolute crap. He cannot communicate effectively. His posts are frequently clearly driven by his political leanings. He ignores masses of what I post, claiming it to be irrelevant. Yes, I have verbally attacked him. It actually worked to get his attention on an issue today where he was deleting long established, well sourced material from an important article, WITHOUT discussion. He seemed to think that Edit summaries were enough, despite requests from me that he discuss the matter. That is the background to one of the posts Surturz is complaining about above. It actually helped to improve Misplaced Pages, by getting Pete to the Talk page, where attempts at polite discussion had failed. The other posts come from my own Talk page, where I was responding to what I see as an idiotic request from Pete to make up. In asking for that, he ignored ALL that had gone before. No judgement here can be fairly made without someone looking in detail at Pete's previous incompetence and POV pushing, over probably the past six months. I saw him coming to my Talk page as provocative nonsense. I have tried on uncountable occasions to have intelligent logical discussions with him. It has never worked. I've actually asked to to stop bothering me, because he annoys the crap out of me, and no Misplaced Pages policy seems to exist to stop polite bullshit artists, but he persists. That he even bothered asking showed his complete lack of understanding and perspective. We cannot allow polite incompetence and POV pushing to continue. Swearing at him today stopped him in his usual inappropriate tracks. No-one here can tell me it doesn't work, where politeness didn't. And if I can't tell an unwanted visitor to my Talk page, making an unwanted request, to fuck off on my own Talk page, we have become too precious. (BTW, I have on several occasions reverted politically biased nonsense posted by Surturz, the complainer here. I believe he would to love get rid of me from Misplaced Pages, not for the civility reasons he raises here, but because I have successfully called him out for inappropriate posts in the past. A silencing tactic, no less.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I reject this conjecture. I've said it many times: a diversity of opinion is what makes Misplaced Pages rich and strong. The beauty of the thing is that policies have evolved to keep us all working productively. I do not want HiLo (or any other productive editor) to leave the project. What I want is for HiLo to work with other editors, politely, respectfully and productively. There have been many occasions where HiLo has been brought here or to WQA or other places, and the behaviour continues. WP:CIVIL is an important part of the project and HiLo does not seem to grasp this, judging by his behaviour here and elsewhere. I am dismayed that he sees incivility as the only way to get people to respond to him. This is not behaviour we should encourage. --Pete (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's cut to the chase and stop wasting time here. There were two areas where the Naughty Words Police didn't like my work today. One was at the Talk page of Malcolm Turnbull. My approach worked. It got Pete to the Talk page, somewhere he now seems to admit he should have gone in the first place. Polite requests hadn't worked. If the Naughty Words Police can solve that problem, I won't do it again. The other stuff was on my Talk page. Yes, Pete annoys me in many ways. I've now repeated there a request I've made to him before, to not post there again. No posts from Pete will lead to no annoyance from me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@OP: "I believe further action is required" — what action would that be? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to stop the intimidation and profanity. --Surturz (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything will come out of this ANI, but if the result is not satisfactory, feel free to start a user conduct RFC. --Rschen7754 08:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. In the meantime, one step would be to stop the harassment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or is there a burgeoning of WQA-style complaints here since WP:WQA got closed down? Although "I think you have serious psychological issues surrounding certain aspects of politics and trade unions." is not good, I don't think this is what AN/I is for. This probably could be closed with a suggestion for the OP of opening if an RfC if he wants to. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the fact this whole incident began with Pete/Skyring repeatedly refusing to discuss his deletion of long established, well sourced content? He is now hypocritically saying that discussion is a good idea. Why wouldn't he discuss it in the first place? Was it because it was me, someone whose approach he doesn't like, doing the asking? Such behaviour is obviously unacceptable, but he does it with no rude words. Then he posted on my Talk page, after I've explicitly asked him not to, but again with no rude words. Does that absence of naughty words completely excuse all this behaviour? Those who say yes don't want a great encyclopaedia, they just want a terribly nice one. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No action should be taken against HiLo48, IMHO. He hasn't vandalized any articles, nor committed sock puppetry. I would recommend a 'interaction ban' between himself & Skyring, though. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest an WP:RFC/U. It's generally a lengthy and ineffective process... but overall it's probably the best idea here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity in this area will set the precedence that no one should be banned or blocked at all for using profanity to interact with other users. Personally, I'm okay with that, but I want to see the result of this before I change my methods of communication.--WaltCip (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had past dealings with these two, and I want to look at a comment that Pete/Skyring makes above. He said, "a diversity of opinion is what makes Misplaced Pages rich and strong. The beauty of the thing is that policies have evolved to keep us all working productively." This is exactly where Pete goes wrong. He seems to think that this is some sort of adversarial system, like a court, where the best approach is for editors of multiple, in some cases, extremely polarized, viewpoints each editing according to their own POV, and that, in the end, it will all balance out in an NPOV way. This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what we're supposed to do. Each individual editor is required to edit neutrally; if they feel they cannot do so on any given topic, they shouldn't edit that topic. They could, possibly be involved in talk page discussions, but not direct editing. Since this does seem to be a general problem for Pete, it may well be that an RfC/U is warranted. And while, yes, RfCU's are long, irritating processes that don't usually result in any major improvement themselves, 1) occassionally, sometimes, they do, if an editor sees large scale condemnation of their behavior; and 2) it's a necessary preliminary step towards actual sanctions. While we can't easily hash through all of the problems here on ANI, an RfC/U can, and then those results can be shown (along with whatever Pete's response is) in future formal proceedings. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Q, but no, you've got the wrong end of the horse there. What I mean is that every editor brings a different approach, a different set of eyes, and together we cover the whole elephant. We do it coöperatively, with respect and consideration for our peers, to provide the complete picture. If we just have one side telling the story, we don't tell the whole story. And if we have several sides throwing rocks at each other, we're playing a different game to what we should be. Which is to work together to build a great encyclopaedia. So far I think we're doing a good job, but we need to work on a few things and one of them is respect for the opinions of others. I appreciate your thoughts on what drives me, but you are not a mind reader, you are wrong, and I welcome the opportunity to shed some light. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• RFC/U would be the best approach here. And don't get hung up on profanity per se please. Shadowjams (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly; the profanity doesn't help, but even if you removed all of it from the quotes above, it's still very insulting. --Rschen7754 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the fact this whole incident began with Pete/Skyring repeatedly refusing to discuss his deletion of long established, well sourced content? He is now hypocritically saying that discussion is a good idea. Why wouldn't he discuss it in the first place? Was it because it was me, someone whose approach he doesn't like, doing the asking? Such behaviour is obviously unacceptable, but he does it with no rude words, so that's fine by the naughty words police here. Then he posted on my Talk page, after I've explicitly asked him not to, but again with no rude words. Does that absence of naughty words completely excuse all this behaviour? Those who say yes don't want a great encyclopaedia, they just want a terribly nice one. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We can - and will - have both. No need to repeat yourself. GiantSnowman 08:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is. My earlier post was completely ignored. That's what Pete does. He ignores key parts of my posts, and tells me they are irrelevant. His behaviour in these two incidents was completely unacceptable, BEFORE I used any of the naughty words that so offend some of you, but all you care about is the naughty words. They will pass. Bad editing as Pete was doing may damage the encyclopaedia forever. But you don't care about that. Just my naughty words. Without his bad behaviour, none of the bad words would have appeared. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many, many eyes on this page/thread - perhaps nobody felt the need to respond. I'd also advise you to start providing some diffs of the other editor's supposed-bad behaviour. GiantSnowman 08:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly cannot be bothered. Don't you believe me? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered, then what makes you think editors who are un-involved will be? GiantSnowman 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It may of value for some of the naughty word police here to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Many editors there have made the point that civil misbehaviour is often the cause of naughty words. It's time some of you stopped the vigilantism against me and my naughty words, and paid more attention to what I and others with broader perspective have actually said. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reopening. If there is baiting going on here, it should be nipped in the bud right now before someone ends up getting blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Even the most saintly may be goaded into foul language. I'm easily impassioned myself with the combination of dark night, bare toes, unexpected furniture. The latest issue turns on a paragraph in the Malcolm Turnbull article, where we stated that a facility he approved as Environment Minister would put out 2% of Australia's greenhouse emissions, 10 billion tonnes in a year. The only source given was a web page of press release headlines operated by the Wilderness Society, and there was nothing on that page that mentioned Turnbull or greenhouse emissions. I deleted the paragraph from our article as not supporting the claims. HiLo is upset that I didn't seek consensus on the talk page for this removal. I suggested he read the source and see whether it supported the claims. The discussion is here.

HiLo is claiming that he swore and carried on in order to force me to discuss the issue. I am unsure as to whether he ever actually read the source, as he keeps referring to the paragraph as "well-sourced". I thought the thing was self-evident: the article makes specific claims, the source cited does not. QED.

Looking at HiLo's robust statements on the talk page, it seemed clear to me that we had a problem between us, and I sought to resolve this in direct communication here. The dialogue speaks for itself. Now, maybe HILo views me in the same light as I view (or fail to view) a piece of solid furniture in a surprise encounter with my big toe. But I don't deliberately set out to bait or attack or antagonise him, instead preferring to employ a "soft answer turneth away wrath" approach, but I'm really at a loss as to where to go now. If HiLo doesn't see within his own heart what is wrong with incivility - and it's not the language I object to so much as the attitude - then muzzling him is only going to breed unhappiness. Maybe a RFC/U is the way to go, and we can get this wrangle off of ANI. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommend that you both avoid each other. Less drama, is best. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well here we are discussing the problem. HiLo and I have an overlap of interests and we'll encounter each other in normal editing work. There are other editors who find communication difficulties with HiLo in other areas, and I note a recent topic ban. The crux of the matter is that WP:CIVIL is a core policy and if diverse editors are to work effectively within the project, they must accept others as human beings equally worthy of respect as themselves and communicate in a civil fashion. People may have wildly differing beliefs and still coöperate amicably. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I could make an extensive response to that, but just as GoodDay has suggested, I would rather avoid Pete. I've tried to on my Talk page, but he keeps coming there. What recourse do I have? (Not interested in a response to that question from Pete.) And should I have reported him for his repeated removal without discussion of long established, well sourced article content, despite requests to discuss? (That's where this all started.) Or what other approach would have been appropriate? HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Pete, I think the "crux of the matter" is WP:NPOV. Or, rather, that both WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL are important. So, Pete, if you want to establish that Hilo48 has engaged in long-term violations of our civility policy, open an RFC/U. Similarly, Hilo48, if you want to establish that Pete has engaged in long-term violations of our neutrality policy, open an RFC/U. The issue is too complex to be handled with a simple ANI report. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Q, but NPOV don't enter into it here. It's a simple matter of WP:SOURCE. Please see the discussion here, look at the old version of the article, note the specific claims being made and check the source to see if it supports the claims we make. The links are provided in discussion. Where is the NPOV issue? The WP:CIVIL problem is readily apparent. Would you (or anybody else) volunteer to help set up an RFC/U? I think that's the way to go now, but I want to be as fair as possible to HiLo (and to myself and other parties) and get all our ducks lined up nicely before we proceed. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

|}

User vandalising Scotland article.

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

I wasn't certain what to do with this user or if this is the correct place to go, but they have started off by vandalising the Scotland article. Thanks. Jonty Monty (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well I might include that in User:Ritchie333#My favourite vandalism, but in the meantime, you've done the right thing going to their talk page ... if they keep vandalising, escalate the templates, then ask someone here to block once you've got to {{uw-vandalism4}} --Ritchie333 15:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've warned them. If they continue to vandlise, follow the steps at WP:VANDAL and report to WP:AIV if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks, and I'll follow the advice. Jonty Monty (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Proper use of AfDs

Not really an incident, just more of a question. Is it valid for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) to nominate several articles? WP:BUNDLE seems to call for bulk nominated articles to be extremely close, whereas the articles nominated here are just similar in format and intent. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• It it a lot of vaguely connected articles in this instance, but then, there is a degree of logic to the bundling since they do have the common thread that ties them together. There have been times when I would just close the AFD as a default keep since the reason for the excessive bundling is disruptive, but I don't see this example as being motivated in this way. I think lumping the four DirecTV together, the Dish network together (or maybe all those together) and doing the others stand alone would have been clearer, although not as efficient. In short, it is in the eye of the beholder, and while I wouldn't have made the same decisions this editor did, it is very arguable that they are closely linked in some ways, thus in good faith. You can note your objection and the closing admin can consider it. Keep in mind, the closing admin *might* decide to only delete some and keep some if they think they aren't really linked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. I do find some merit in the delete side, but that's beside the point. What I don't care for, if you noticed my semi-rant in the thread, "deletionists" will often condemn an article or content they don't like, but when analagous articles are pointed out, will either scream about the invalidity of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or make any excuse for content they like. I also ranted about the lack of notification to similar articles when a "test case" AfD is proposed, or mandatory changes are being imposed on a class of articles. If anyone cares to read it, I placed that rant at Misplaced Pages talk:Canvassing#Notification to related articles. Could you please point me to the rules for closing an AfD? I've already been told by a "Delete" editor over at the AfD that I wasn't allowed to waste your time asking questions here - yet I'm at a loss to find anywhere else I can get advice from an admin or experienced editor. Thanks for reading. Later. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You can bundle any articles you want together in an AfD, although bundled AfD's on loosely related articles rarely succeed. -Scottywong| communicate _ 05:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• That bundle really makes a poor case for the rest of the articles. Perhaps shut this one down and re-bundle by service provider (DirecTV, Dish, etc.) Also consider that if you do one providers bundle, you have a stronger consensus to use on future discussions. Granted I see the purpose, but by building precedent and consensus it makes it a less "questionable" deletion. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • First, there's already a precedent AFD to delete any of these via WP:NOTDIR (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels). Bundling by brand doesn't make sense, because we're not arguing the brand isn't the problem, it's the content/format of the articles that fails NOTDIR, which is the same through all these articles. There's 100+ of these; as to reduce complaints about huge multi-AFDs, I'm doing AFD by regional chunk in case any actually should be kept. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As I'm reading it, the primary concern is that you're using a AFD precedent for one list and provider to broadcut the remainder of the articles. Build the consensus up. Start with 1 list, then work on a provider, then work the remainder of the providers. This gives people an opportunity to challange the deletion. Being that there's 'How many?!? section breaks it probably is contentious and could do with possibly mothballing this nomination and trying a smaller packaging. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Strongly disagree here. My intention was to use one list (irregardless of who that provider was) to so that the format of that list is not appropriate per NOTDIR; this was clear in the first AFD and in posting to VPP and WT:TV where there was discussion of it. I could have simply done the 100+ articles in one massive bunch on the same reason, but that would lead to "this is way too big" complaints. The splitting by bunches alleves that but the selection method shouldn't matter, I could have done it alphabetically, but I chose by region. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see impropriety in this AfD's bundling method. There are only 3 providers included in the nomination: DirecTV, Dish Network and Verizon FiOS. From AT&T (which was recently deleted) to these three it's not a huge inductive step. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of Minor edit

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

This user Becksperson mark all his edit as Minor, a lot of them is not minor e.g.:

Saturday I write on his talkpage exposing my concern but he doesn't answer. Can you do something about it? --Stigni (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but you can. Just ignore the notation of minor edit. in most cases, the only reason it is used is an attempt to conceal the fact that the edit isn't minor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

TRPoD is correct. I find it aggravating as well. Then again, I almost never mark any of my edits as minor, even the minor ones, which other may find annoying. There is a setting here to make all your edits be marked as "minor" by default, which I personally feel is a bit dumb for an option, but that isn't my department. I don't even look to see if edits are minor or not, and just filter by all edits the same. Sometimes it is a failed attempt to "stay under the radar" by socks, others just default to it, others just don't know any better, and others (like me) simply ignore that feature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dennis I (contingently) disagree. The setting exists so that people can, while monitoring their watch lists, "hide" minor edits" and review the rest. If feedback says that no one ever does that, well then we should disable the distinction, but I'll bet some do. I don't often, but do on occasion. We should either make some attempt to make sure it is being used reasonably, or remove it. I strongly disagree with the statement that " in most cases, the only reason it is used is an attempt to conceal the fact that the edit isn't minor". That isn't close to true.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Sphilbrick. The most likely explanation of course, is they're just not aware of their distinction and their account is set to minor by default. Blocking seems harsh but they should have gotten two to three orange you have messages boxes by now. Nobody Ent 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems a bit over the top. Being able to mark an edit as a minor edit and add an edit summary are tools. What is important is the content added. A friendly reminder should be sufficient. I do see that they missed one. Apteva (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The preference to mark all edits as minor by default was removed from the English Misplaced Pages in March 2011. Graham87 06:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't realize that. Nobody Ent 12:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

He is a big contributor to the Bulgarian and German wikis, and states that he has an advanced level of English. Here, he virtually never uses talk pages, I can find just his one response in Bulgarian on his own talk page. Although he seems to be a constructive editor, we really shouldn't allow editors to ignore such requests and continue to mark their edits as minor. We do need to give him a chance to respond. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But do we block a constructive editor simply because they choose to consider all their edits as minor or use that as the default? I would strongly be against that. If so, then I'm waiting for my block for almost never marking my minor edits as such. To me, the "minor" edit distinction is about personal choice and has zero to do with content. I agree that all editors should respond when someone poses a serious question or concern, but blocking solely for using a default setting that is part of the interface here would be considered way over the top, particularly when the inconvenience it poses to others is minor. Can it be used as evidence at SPI in a socking case? Sure, but that doesn't make it a blockable offense in and of itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong about the default setting as Graham pointed out, it was removed since my days as a sapling. The issue really isn't the minor marking it's being non-responsive to good faith talk page messages. Nobody Ent 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But does someone marking edits and minor and not wanting to talk about it strong enough to block them? Some people just flat out don't want to talk to others. Misplaced Pages is full of editors that loathe discussing with other people but are otherwise good gnomes and writers. What I haven't seen is anyone complain about his actual edits. To me, if there isn't a problem with the actual content of his edits, then blocking would be very heavy handed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any policy on the threshold for marking edits as minor, so that part is subjective anyway. If his edits are good, then running him off with a block, simply because of a default setting of "minor edit" isn't in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Is it aggravating? Perhaps to some, but I'm strongly against blocking someone over it. If the edits are good quality and good faith and there isn't a behavioral issue, then you tolerate the idiosyncrasies. We are still better with him than without him, if that is the only problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, the situations are not parallel. I don't always mark my minor edits as minor, but if someone is reviewing non-minor edits, it will be only a minor issue, as they will review an edit, and not need to do anything. In contrast, marking all edits as minor means that if you review non-minor edits, you will be missing some major changes. There was an option to make the setting a default, but (IIRC) you had to choose it, and it was intended for editor who always, or for long stretches of time, were only doing minor edits. I think it was removed as a preference, because it was abused. Some editors find it useful to review non-minor edits, we remove that as an option if we allow people to mark major edits as minor. Doing it once or twice is an accident, and not worth mentioning. Doing it repeatedly, after being told that it is a problem, is effectively lying to the community. If we don't have a software way to remove their ability to mark edits as minor, they should be blocked. (An obvious exception if their preference is locked and cannot be changed, in which case a developer should fix it.)

Dennis, I don't believe the editor has a default to mark all edits as minor (unless there is a glitch) as there is no such thing. The editor is affirmatively marking the edits as minor. I don't ask the editor to talk on the talk page, just take the advice and stop misleading.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to marking the edits as minor, there are no edit summaries on those I have checked including the first example above. Habitually making significant changes marked it as minor and without edit summaries is most certainly disruptive. --Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• While I can always be persuaded, I'm still unconvinced. The closest I could find on it was an essay (that wasn't even marked as an essay, so I fixed that). There is a serious difference of opinion here as to how large the offense is of "marking all edits as minor". I find it a minor annoyance, some of you think it is blockworthy, I don't see my opinion changing on this. I'm not going to get a wheel war over it and not here to tell any other admin what to do, but I still think a block is too strong. I see a lot of behavior that is much, much more disruptive that is overlooked regularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a minor issue (so to speak) but it is easily rectified. If an editor does not know how to distinguish between minor and non-minor edits, they should simply leave the default, which is to not mark them as minor. This is not a big deal, but it is not an unreasonable request. The only reason I would consider a block, is to get the attention of the editor, who doesn't seem to be paying attention to the talk page. The editor doesn't have email enabled. There is no requirement that an editor enable email or respond to talk pages, but it is very possible the editor is making a mistake, and just doesn't know it. Do you have any other suggestions for getting their attention? Do you really think someone would leave the project if they were temporarily blocked with an explanation that a block was our only way of saying "hello, we really need to discuss something?"--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions? How about this  ? I'm always willing to try "annoying" before I try "aggressive" as a solution. Hopefully, creativity will win the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it. I notice that there have seen no edits since the ANI started, so we will see.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A non-minor edit -- perhaps time to close this? Nobody Ent 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes

Mass killings under Communist regimes is currently under discretionary sanctions preventing any non-minor changes to the article without talk page consensus. My proposal for an edit has not received unanimous consent, but may qualify as "rough consensus". According to the sanctions:

"3.The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof."

I am asking for an uninvolved admin to make a determination of whether or not consensus exists for this proposal. If this is not the proper forum, please direct me where to go. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is more for active disputes, not requests for closure; it's better to go to WP:AN. You're not in trouble, so don't worry. I'll leave a note there asking people to come here. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is hopelessly confused. In particular it states that "There is no net change to the article in terms of adding or removing content already there" rather some content is to be moved to an undefined new "estimates" section. But half of the "supports" insist that a sentence in the lede be removed entirely, and that's the likely (based on the article sanctions) result if the new section is not written up now. All that needs to be done to make the proposal clear is to write up the new section and make clear where it will be placed. Then a consensus might be reached. But you can't get a meaningful consensus based on half of a proposal. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, of course supporting a "compromise" proposal does not mean editors must abandon advocating for their prior position. But this is not the place to be repeating your opposition. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's just an ill-formed proposal. You need to state exactly what you want to do, not leave the undefined "estimates" section hanging up in the air. The article sanctions state that "edits" must be approved by consensus, vague generalizations cannot be approved by consensus for inclusion into this article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attack

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

Can some one look into this. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Another one --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at them. Have you asked the user, privately, to temper their remarks, before coming here? It is clearly inappropriate, but one-off bits of rudeness like that aren't likely to generate any sort of administrator response (i.e. if that's all there is, he's not gonna be blocked). The best way to handle this is to civilly ask the user in question to modify or retract their insults. --Jayron32 05:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to make a minimal attempt to resolve the situation yourself before bringing it here. The comment in and of itself, while unnecessary and rude, is not a blockable offense. -Scottywong| prattle _ 05:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It bloody should be. These comments are not some edit dispute/unable to agree, they are childish personal attacks. It's ridiculous that you're expected to feed these trolls before something will be done about it. GimliDotNet 05:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is not the inappropriateness of the comments. They are unambiguously inappropriate. The question is the proper response to them. At this point, there's no precedence for blocking a person for attacks like that. Politely ask them to stop, politely request that they temper their tone, and see what happens. Being inappropriate does not mandate an instant block, at least not what is published above. There are other ways to handle the problem at this point. Blocking is always a last, and not a first, resort. It's also somewhat ironic that you just personally attacked him back again at about the same level of incivility by calling him a troll. It would be best, when calling out someone for belittling others, that you don't commit the same offense yourself. --Jayron32 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll after they have made multiple personal attacks is not the same. It's a thousand miles away. GimliDotNet 05:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I have left a message now at the user's talk page asking them to remove the comment. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there something that could be done about the comment that was left at the AFD, if the user doesn't remove it themselves? --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not an admin, just a passer-by (the above closed topic) - having had a quick look at the edit history of the user in question, I query (generally) whether he is actually here to contribute productively. Beyond his comments about the user above, this comment is entirely unhelpful and uncivil. The user has been editing on and off through 2012 but has made a series of rapid-fire edits today, mostly at AfD and mostly "per-nom" style. His response to Anbu's request on his talk page suggests he is WP:NOTHERE to contribute productively - in fact he basically says as much. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack and edit warring

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

Administrator GiantSnowman has accused Malleus F of paranoia. I removed this personal attack per WP:NPA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Earlier today I added this comment. A few hours later Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) (the comment did not relate to him at all) removed the comment, saying it was a "personal attack." I reverted and posted on KW's talk page. He removed my talk page contrib, and removed the original RFA comment for a 2nd time. The cycle continued - I restored mty comment, posted on his talk page - he removed my talk page post and removed the original RFA comment for a third time. I restored again but am bringing it here for a third (or more) pair of eyes please. GiantSnowman 11:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Note - both KW and myself posted at the same time. I've merged the two sections. GiantSnowman 11:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Giant Snowman. You need to review WP:NPA and WP:EW. You failed to use the RfA talk page to achieve consensus, but announced an intention to pursue ANIhilation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What consensus should be reached about my comment? The RFA talk page is for use to discuss the RFA, not your issues with my comment. I attempted to use your talk page instead; you refused to discuss and reverted straightaway. You also reverted my ANI notification - you didn't even send me one! As for me wanting to "pursue ANIhilation" - you actually posted the issue here first, not me. GiantSnowman 11:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, this is ridiculous. The original comment rises to the level of NPA at a stretch, although it was a silly thing to write either way. Edit warring over it is equally ridiculous. I suggest that Giant Snowman strikes the comment as unhelpful and you both walk away. Plus {{trout}}s and a 3RR warning to both of you, for drama mongering. --Errant 11:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no issues at all with removing my own comments when they are ill thought out - however here I a) don't appreciate another editor repeatedly removing my comments without first consulting me and b) the accusations of NPA. If you actually follow the discussion at the RFA, one editor has basically jumped down the throat of another editor's good faith general comment, implying it was written about him, when it was actually nothing of the sort. That's paranoia. GiantSnowman 12:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Further - Errant, I'll happily accept a trouting; I will not accept your implication that X removing Y's comment 3 times is no worse than Y restoring his comment 3 times. GiantSnowman 12:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in this case I think it is. Both of you knew exactly what you were doing; three reverts each then AN/I. Neither of you tried to discuss the matter. Your thought process should have been "actually, that wasn't a helpful comment better just leave it" and KW's thought process should have been "that's not a helpful comment I should to the Giant Snowman about it". The reverts are just Wiki-religion rearing its head, the failures happened before them... --Errant 12:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but KW made no effort to discuss the removal at all - either before he did it, or while he was doing it. I'm not going to let another editor remove my comment without decent explanation - that's pretty much vandalism. GiantSnowman 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, GiantSnowman, it isn't vandalism. The intent was clear and it wasn't to harm the encyclopedia - which is required for vandalism. KW may be violating TPO, but he's clearly citing NPA. Both of you should have focussed on discussion or getting review from third parties, not focussed on reverting. Both of you are equally to blame here. I fully concur with ErrantX, and do suggest you strike your comment, which is unhelpful. Worm(talk) 12:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Worm - I've already struck the comment, and I did attempt discussion at KW's talk page - twice. GiantSnowman 12:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Giant Snowman first announced an intention to seek ANI support. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (link added 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

Oh hell's bells. There is no issue here - Giant thought Malleus' comment didn't have much merit. End of. Given Malleus seems to have a track record for telling editors to fuck off when he disagrees with them, I can't for one second imagine he's going to be bothered by Giant's comment. If he is, it's pretty much a 6 foot wide cauldron comparing an industrial tea-urn to the innards of OJ 287. --Ritchie333 12:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)KW should not have removed the remark as it's mild as these things go and WP does not have any sort of clear consensus on what is and what isn't acceptable behavior (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement)). That said GiantSnowman's remark is not particularly helpful so I'd suggest they remove it. MF is entitled to an opinion and I don't see that it requires any reply, especially as Hahc21 indicated they were done with the conversation. Nobody Ent 12:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RFA has more drama than the RSC these days... Errant's suggestion is a sensible one - whilst the comment doesn't really rise to the level of a personal attack in my book, it doesn't add a great deal to the discussion, so strikeout-and-moveon seems the optimum course. That said, it's removal - repeatedly - seems very pointy: if Malleus had complained about the comment then Kiefer's deletion might have some merit, but from what I've seen Malleus has thicker skin than that. No-one's going to be left smelling of rose here; trouts all round, chalk it up to experience and find something more productive to do. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment struck because editors above have suggested it might not have been the most-constructive comment. Kiefer - that's all you had to say to me. GiantSnowman 12:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my lord, the original comments was nowhere near the definition of a personal attack, and the OP surely knows that all they were causing was dramah by filing. Seriously inappropriate filing, and an action seriously below the level of interaction I expect from any Wikipedian, let alone the OP dangerouspanda 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Any consequence for an editor posting a single edit that subsequently causes significant problems outside Misplaced Pages?

This 22 September 2012 "Sand Monkeys" post by 122.60.13.99 lead to Asian soccer body blames Misplaced Pages for slur of UAE team (October 15, 2012). Sand Monkeys is a well known "racial discriminatory slang term used to describe a Middle Eastern individual", and I've already made a request to ClueBot (who missed it) to address it.
From that IPs posts, 122.60.13.99 appears to be a troubled account and needs admin action. Beyond that, does Misplaced Pages have a way to respond to single posts by editors where that post causes significant problems outside Misplaced Pages? or do we merely treat a single edit causing significant problems outside Misplaced Pages the same as any other single edit? In other words, should there be a different consequence within Misplaced Pages for posting "Sand Monkeys" to the United Arab Emirates national football team article since caused significant problems outside Misplaced Pages or should the consequence within Misplaced Pages be determined without considering outside real world problems caused by the single post? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What consequence are you looking for? It's an IP that's unlikely to edit again, and if it does, is unlikely to be the same person editing. WilyD 13:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO your blame is misplaced. This is the sort of thing one has to live with in an open-source Misplaced Pages that "anyone can edit", for allowing a racial slur to sit unchecked for three full weeks. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides, noting racism and blaming their confederation and FIFA for the actions is practically the national sport of low-ranking international soccer teams. This has far more to do with the UAEFA looking to blame someone that anything Misplaced Pages did. In fact, the real problem is that the Asian Football Confederation cited Misplaced Pages than anything Misplaced Pages did. That's why the UAEFA is upset at the AFC, not at us. Achowat (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Anyone reusing Misplaced Pages content should be aware that it is unreliable and should cross-check the facts before publishing them elsewhere. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disgraceful and inappropriate edit. I agree it's futile to block the IP since it's probably since been reassigned to someone else. I am embarrassed but not surprised that edit lingered there as long as it did.

I have deleted the edit from the article's edit history. --A. B. 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reusing Misplaced Pages content should be aware that it is unreliable Remind me what is the point of wikipedia? John lilburne (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

we know enough about Misplaced Pages that we dont consider it a reliable source. Why should we then make any attempt to promise something to others that we dont believe ourselves? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As a bit of brainstorming, would it make any sort of sense to have a bot that can determine when potential racial slurs have been inserted into articles, and provide such reporting somewhere for people to review and check? We wouldn't want such a bot to automatically remove such slurs, since they be appropriate in the use of a contextually-significant quote, or in discussion of the origin of the term, so a human review is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reusing Misplaced Pages content should be aware that it is unreliable. You should put this as a big yellow warning banner on the top of the articles, just to be sure. What say you?Dan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We would hope that most people already know this. Misplaced Pages will never the be definitive authority on any topic, it can't be because it will never be complete and anyone can edit it. It will continue to be an excellent source of links on topics, and in most cases, provide some useful answers to basic questions. Even a "real" encyclopedia doesn't provide as much information as an expert in a given field, or as much as real research in that field will provide. It has been, and will be, more reliable than most other websites, more informative and better vetted. But fully reliable? Never. That isn't even the goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there already exists at the bottom of every Misplaced Pages page (even this one) is a link for "Disclaimers", which takes anyone who clicks it to Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer, which says in big type at the top "Misplaced Pages makes no guarantee of validity". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That would cut the donations by (at least) half. So NNNOOOOOOOOOOO, the WMF will never agree to that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just think...flagged revisions/pending changes could have fixed all of this from the beginning. I still don't get why we allow IP addresses to edit anyways. We're still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit if we make people make an account. It would at least one step deter some of the vandals. Silverseren 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. Same goes for the Gideon Levy story last week. (Levy's dad was falsely accused in Misplaced Pages of having been a Nazi collaborator. The Rotter news website picked it up, and claimed the deletion of the unsourced info meant that the Misplaced Pages article had been "censored". The result was a legal letter to Rotter and another black eye for Misplaced Pages) AndreasKolbe JN466 01:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

92.63.27.251

Per User talk:92.63.27.251#October 2012, this person has an tendentious aversion towards mentioning the Croatian name of the Krško Nuclear Power Plant in that article. I suspect it's a display of nationalism or something of the sort. Now apparently they're still at it, a whole year after I warned them about it. Can someone please apply WP:ARBMAC? --Joy (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have left them an ARBMAC warning on their talk page. Further removal of the Croation name without prior talk page discussion may result in a block. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is silly. There is no need for having any of these translations at all. "Nuclear power plant" is not a proper name but a simple descriptive phrase. As such, there is no encyclopedic value in having it translated at all, in whichever language. I have removed them both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that would be another neutral solution. I disagree though that the translations are not needed because that is what the plant is referred to locally. It is very well encyclopedic to list such terms and these are proper names since they include the placename. So either we list both the Slovenian and Croatian name or none of them. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani POV eds deleting my userpage

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

Two Pakistani POV eds are ganging up on me and have deleted my userpage. They claim there is some kind of breach of rule but I see no breach. They do not explain what rule has been broken and are trying to make it appear that I had put up a draft on my userpage. I have explained that it was not a draft but a copy of an existing article. They have taken offence because it happens to be a copy of list of terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. My userpage should be restored and action should be taken against the concerned users. My discussion with them can be found on my very short talk page. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your userpage was deleted as it was a redirect to User:OrangesRyellow/Sandbox, which isn't really a sandbox at all - it's a collection of quasi-Islamophobic links intended to portray British-Pakistanis in a negative light, followed by a list of terrorist attacks in Pakistan. GiantSnowman 14:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

PS I've notified RegentsPark (talk · contribs), the deleting admin - this should have been done by OP. GiantSnowman 14:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the sandbox should be Mfd'd too.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was the editor who first raised this issue at the OP's talk page. After a few days of nothing much happening, I mentioned it to RegentsPark because I didn't want to be seen as a pseudo-admin (got enough problems right now, without that). Neither myself nor RegentsPark referred to any particular POV, be it Pakistani, Indian, Martian or whatever. I did wonder about WP:POLEMIC but thought it easier to deal with the issue without getting into a scrap. Obviously, I was wrong. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The page was merely moved to the user's sandbox and this was explained to him/her. Also explained that the only reason I moved it rather than deleted it was to give some time to use stuff from there in the article. Seems more than fair to me. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you guys afraid of? That some Pakistani Mulla or taliban will take offence and issue a fatwa against Misplaced Pages? Misplaced Pages articles are meant to be copied and redistributed freely. The article on my userpage was not a draft but a copy of an existing article. This article Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. Now go and delete that too, lest some Pakistani sees it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

An unattributed copy of material which you did not write, where you do not give credit to the actual authors. What is the purpose of the page? Why do you need it in your userspace? Unless there's some specific reason to keep it, you won't mind if we delete it, right? After all, you can just read the article instead... Franamax (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

More content deletion / edit warring at Bishop George Ahr High School

User:Jcullinan's recent edit to the article for Bishop George Ahr High School again removed sourced material regarding the school's firing of a swim coach after an incident with a student at the school. Previous removals of this same content a few days ago led to an ANI report, and consensus there and at the article's talk page was that the material was appropriate and properly sourced. The edit summary left this time states that "all events regarding this incident happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule in the crimes, therefore inclusion in this article is unwarranted." I know of no Misplaced Pages policy that says that the school must have committed the crimes (and I'm not sure how a swim coach does not fit this standard) or that they must have been committed on school grounds in order to be included. The user's name, descriptions on an article this user created that has been deleted and material on the school's website also make it appear that WP:COI is an issue here, which makes the user's apparent employment at the school and the removal of this content to be an additional issue. A tighter editing restriction on the article along with appropriate warnings / blocks for User:Jcullinan may well be needed to prevent further such incidents of edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why this is at ANI. He or she did participate in a brief edit war but has not done so since being warned. In fact, he or she hasn't edited since yesterday and as far as I can tell you warned him or her today and then came to ANI despite his or her inactivity. Am I misunderstanding the timing of events? ElKevbo (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

After edit warring three days before, I saw the same edit warring this morning. While leaving a detailed warning it became clearer that there appear to be WP:COI issues that may well be clouding judgment here and after further consideration action at WP:ANI seemed appropriate. If the appropriate course of action is to restore the material and wait for another revert, I will certainly do so. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This users was Open proxy

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

Does anyone notice this user 129.33.19.254 is sharing to 71.23.151.145 of Open proxy. -Othdshrm 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• A quick check of the most common ports shows neither is an open proxy. One is in Chigago, a static IP, the other is a disposable IP on the east coast. You haven't provided enough evidence to make what ever you are claiming clear, but open proxy doesn't seem to the be issue. Did you notify the two IPs that you were reporting them here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• I just noticed this is YOUR first edit, ever. If that isn't sock behavior, then I don't know what is. Any CUs around? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:STATUSQUO actually matter?

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

An edit war has broken out at Pogrom, after an editor returned from a three month wikibreak and deleted sourced information that he had been discussing on talk at around the time he left. The edit summary suggested that the edit was tidying up and did not refer to these topics of previous discussion. The editor was good faith reverted and asked to split the controversial changes from the uncontroversial.

Sadly he hasn't needed to do that, because due process has been usurped by a number of other editors who are supporting this well known editor without any policy-based rationale. Having seen this tactic used umpteen times before, it has the effect of creating a new WP:STATUSQUO without discussion, so if an attempt to find consensus on talk gets deadlocked then the new version will remain.

I would like to understand whether anyone thinks this matters? If it is so easy to flip WP:STATUSQUO on its head, what is the point of the guideline? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:STATUSQUO isn't a guideline, it is an essay. WP:BRD is the closest thing to guideline on this. And this really isn't an WP:ANI incident. You need to take this to WP:DRN if you can't solve it on the talk page. Admins don't settle content disputes, editors do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. So I understand, since STATUSQUO and BRD are only essays, does that mean they are not enforceable and can be ignored at will? Is there any chance of them ever being upgraded to guidelines? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It means they aren't enforceable. In the case of BRD, it is the most respected of the essays, so it strongly suggested using it as an example. It isn't about ignoring them, it is just saying that they aren't "rules". BRD has been brought up and almost passed to guidelines, but it was split. Still, most people accept it as if it was a guidelines, including me. But DRN is still the best place, we admin just can't decide on the content. I can block, I can protect, I can warn, but I can't tell you which version is best with my admin hat on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Moodbar Feedback legal threat reemphasized.

A few days ago, I posted this based on a legal threat I saw from Akkiiey (talk · contribs). Today, an anonymous IP who is presummably the same person posted these messages on his user page and on Qwyrxian's talk page. Despite that the user has made no mainspace edits, I'm proposing the user and IP be blocked given this behavior. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

2 week block for evasion. IP is reportedly static so it could probably be made longer without harm, but I think it's enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your message here crossed with my comment on User talk:Akkiiey. The user-IP connection is very likely but with current checkuser rules we'll never prove it except by applying WP:DUCK. We can certainly block the Akkiiey account and I would support that. Blocking the IP might be more awkward if it is dynamic, and if Akiiey has not already been blocked then it is not evasion. The actual threat, btw, is pissing in the wind: it is an old story and the last significant challenge backfired big time nearly 12 months ago. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

For some background, see this and this. It was also spewed over ANI, Jimbo's page, WT:INB and various other pages. And the incident last November was not the first time. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the legal issue to be somewhat interesting; as far as I have read, if Misplaced Pages servers were located in India, this person might actually have a case; similarly, if someone actually uploaded the "disputed" maps from India, they, too, might be in legal danger. In this case, I don't know exactly who he's planning to sue or ask the government to bring charges against. I somehow doubt that, even if Indian law somehow applied to those of us editing outside of India, they could get and enforce an extradition request on this issue. As far as blocking is concerned, I don't know why I have this strange hope, but I feel like there's a way to talk to this person. I'm going to leave another message on the named account; since the user has never actually edited main space, there isn't any particular disruption occurring...but others can block if they feel necessary. However, the block on the IP should not say "Block evasion", since the main account is not blocked. And WP:SOCK doesn't apply to someone who just edits while logged out, since it's clear the user simply doesn't know what s/he is doing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian; basically it sounds as if he's threatening to try a private prosecution of Misplaced Pages in general. As Qwyrxian notes, it would be rather difficult to extradite Misplaced Pages for trial, since the English Misplaced Pages originating from China probably wouldn't be capable of doing anything about these maps. As long as our Indian editors stay away from these maps, I can't imagine any way that there would be a problem here: New Delhi probably won't take the effort to go after foreign nationals in other countries, and surely those nationals' governments would refuse to extradite for something that wasn't against their own laws. Treat it like any other graffiti, I say. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I had the impression he intended to have Misplaced Pages censored in India. The law that prohibits the disputed maps predates the internet, and our most relevant article never mentions a website being censored in India for showing those maps. Regardless, most legal threats on Misplaced Pages are total bunk, but still deserve a block. I had no qualms about blocking the IP because it's clear this person isn't here to join a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. I think even in the best case scenario, Akkiiey starts to understand and then never edits again. I'm happy, though, to see that not everyone is as big a pessimist as I am. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Robin Hood page locked with vandalism.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Robin_Hood

Robin Hood was a heroic outlaw in English folklore, a highly skilled pornstar and homo (NO HOMO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.242.225 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It would appear someone fixed it 1 minute after you made this post. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi There

I'm not sure how this goes, but another user Bobbyandbeans has placed two notifications/warnings on my talk page claiming that I have first off engaged in personal attacks against himsef, and secondly deleted/edited legitimate comments on Talk:Taken 2. This is not the first time he has made these accusations to myself, and other users. If I have undertaken any PA then I do apologise as they would not of been intentional. But he can't just throw around accusations like that as I believe (correct if me I am wrong) but wrongly accusing someone of PA when they havnt is not appropriate and could be conceived as a PA in itself. If an administrator could take 5 minutes and provide clarification that would be great. MisterShiney (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A) I do not see any personal attacks; B) You need to tell Bobby that you started this thread; and C) Please don't ever ever ever move someone's talk page comments, ever. Changing the indentation level is sometimes appropriate, but you should never move the comment to a new location. If an editor wants his comment to make utterly no sense in context, that's his choice. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks on my page, but they included the following comments by MisterShiney:

Out of all the editors I have come across I find you the most defensive and quick to jump the gun.

You are incredibly frustrating and argumentative and seem to enjoy baiting and snapping at people. I don't know how long you have been editing for, but I do politely suggest a change in attitude and tone down the "you're breaking policy" rants.

If you see it as such then you clearly need to toughen your skin or report me to the relevant administrator because there worse things to be said.

MisterShiney also made a comment to me on the Talk:Taken2 page that I was "throwing my toys out of the pram." He since removed/edited the comment but it was still made nonetheless. I gave him several reminders on my page about personal attacks but he persisted, hence the warning on his page. P.S. It's not important, but I'm a she, not a he.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks, they are strong opinions. We tolerate strong opinions. If he had called you an asshat, then that would have been different, but we aren't going to censor someone from politely expressing strong opinions. I see zero, nada, nothing wrong with the statements you are quoting, even if they are strongly worded. They are not a violation of policy in any way, and should not warrant a warning in any way. We are NOT here to force our own views of civility on others, only to insure that everyone lives up to a very loose and lax interpretation of civility. These comments pass the test without question. And to be clear, MisterShiney did notify properly and timely: If he does call you an asshat, then by all means, template him the first time or two, then come here afterwards. Otherwise, accept or ignore the comments if they are just polite but strong opinions. Of course, if they are on your own talk page, feel free to remove them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bobbyandbeans was topposting in the thread , which isn't standard practice. But it would have been better to ask her why she was posting there or and / or ask them to move them. Both editors escalated the situation in the resulting interchange. So I'd recommend Bobbyandbeans not top post, MisterShirley not refactor other's comments, and both editors move on. Nobody Ent 01:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct solution was simply to indent it one more level. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Any CUs around?

I guess it doesn't matter any more since I blocked all recent disruptors for VOA, but does any CU care to have a look at the recent history of Johann Pachelbel? Drmies (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't find any unaccounted accounts. Elockid 03:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Just a silly drive-by, I suppose. I appreciate the quick help, Elockid. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Newly released Bengali commercial (masala) films

Articles affected

Films

• Awara (film)
• Challenge (2009 film)
• Challenge 2
• Le Chakka
• Paglu
• Paglu 2
• Poran Jaye Jolia Re
• Khokababu
• Shotru
• Shree Venkatesh Films

BLP

• Dev (actor)

Already informed

• Noticeboard: India Noticeboard
• Admins: 1) Dear Drmies and 2) casual discussion with TParis.
• Vandal fighter: Jim and may be more (I have forgotten)

Issue

(copied from my post from India noticeboard, some addition)
Some users (to clarify this, I have found at least 6–7 registered users and 7–8 IP address (I was thinking to report to SPI too, but still trying to guess who may be whose sock because so many editors involved and all edits are similar)) are continuously adding exceptional box office collection (and some other unsourced content) in some Bengali movies infobox. A regional film is earning more than a national film is an exceptional claim. They might be lovers of those films and want to show their dedication in Misplaced Pages by adding some "out of the world" information in those articles. The worse thing is they change the amount every day (sometimes after every few hours– always without sources). A Bengali film is earning ₹100 crore (US$12 million) or more is just weird. They are changing information based on their own liking, disliking.

Steps taken

• Reporting and discussing in the topic boards etc mentioned above.
• Trying to talk to those users, specially those users who have registered accounts.
• Reverting
• Warning (many times)
• Finally in 1–2 article where claimed budget is ridiculously high and unsourced, and reverting etc does not work, removing the budget parameter from infobox.
• 1 article semi protection (Dear Drmies).

IPs are helpful too

IPs are helping too, like this IP. And, frankly when a new masala Bengali film is released, these not-autoconfirmed users, new users and IP editors structure the article. But, their additions like this make Misplaced Pages articles nothing but fairy tales!

Any suggestion?

I want to echo what Jim told me– "Unfortunately, this is all too common. Any suggestions on how to combat this? Advice would be greatly appreciated (before I give up)" – Well me too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards