Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 19 October 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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)

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)

• 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)

• Lol, it was already clear that the deletion of the article would be a greatly appreciated outcome for you, but again this is not the point. For what I can see from edit history, you didn't accepted the outcome of the AfD and from then you focused your activity on WP in this article and in a few others related to it, and considering your skills this is a waste (of time, of abilities, of everything). Part of your actions on this article was useful, but (sadly) a great part of them was just vain fuss. And both you and the ip you have developed an idea of ​​property of this article, and this is always a damage to the project. Please accept a wikibreak on this article, there are thousands of other less-involved editors that could patrol it, especially now that the problem was rised at ANI, and they could make your own work, probably from a more neutral point of view. And spend more time on other articles, so that your skills are used in a more useful way. Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cavarrone: Novaseminary always forgets there is an edit history. That history doesn't lie and it doesn't engage in self-serving puffery. This is how unnotable Tait is to Novaseminary: From March 3, his first contribution to "improving" the article - which was a speedy tag -, to his last effort before the block, an October 13 nitpick about Tait's high school basketball years: the Tait article is so unnotable to Novaseminary, that he logged over two hundred and fifty edits there. Tait is so unnotable to Novaseminary that he also logged over one hundred posts on the article's talk page: where he also felt it was important to share with editors what he had found about: "The phone listed on Tait's resume", or asking "Is it worth mentioning Tait's CINE Award?", or "I removed the "Fan following section.", or where he fought to include the number he had counted of the stuntmen who shared Tait's SAG Award nomination for Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture claiming that without including his actual count of the number of stuntmen: "One would not know Tait was part of an ensemble.". Because presumably, the word "Ensemble" in the title of the award isn't clear enough. Just this week, Novaseminary complained on the talk page about: "one sentence ("He played the role of "Jason" in the final scene of Freddy vs. Jason.") was left in the "Creature character roles" section with a reference to this website. In light of the the source and fact having been removed elsewhere (along with other non-RSs), was this left in inadvertently? I don't think this website is an RS and that the fact and source should be removed."' Of course, had he read the source, he would have discovered it was actually an indie film production company's official website. This company had hired Tait for a role in their film and were so pleased they announced: "Vigilance Films signs Douglas Tait to play 'Simon' in The Season. Mr. Tait, a working stuntman and actor, got his break playing “Jason” in the ending scenes of Freddy Vs. Jason. Since then, he has worked a lot behind prosthetic fx makeup and creature suits.". But yet to Novaseminary, an official announcement from an employer, who acknowledges an important point on an actor's resume isn't a RS. The list goes on and on. If Tait appears so unnotable, perhaps it's just because Novaseminary has worked so hard to try to make the article appear so. Those totals of Novaseminary's edit contributions also don't include his long list of edits on abandoned disambiguations, WP forums and related links that I've already covered, that Novaseminary has easily spent hundreds if not thousands of man-hours populating. All for such an unnotable. Then what does that say about Novaseminary and the time he's spend cyber-obsessing over Tait.

• Tait - an "unnotable": whose bio appears in the New York Times; has been mentioned as being pivotal to the work of an Academy Award winner's award-winning work - also published in no less a RS as the Los Angeles Times, been nominated for a major industry award, produced a film that won major film festival awards, and is one of the performers who played an iconic role in an iconic film series and has the fan-base, cult following and professional credits to prove it., , , , , , . No doubt if Novaseminary were so unnotable, he'd have a BLP too.

• While Novaseminary claims he's only edit warred with me - or correction: "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." Again, the edit logs tell a different story. Just some of the editors who have complained about or had run-ins with Novaseminary on this article: Trekkieman, who had to tell him: "You have been trying to delete this page for some time sir, and now you are trying whittle it down to nothing. You have already added the (stuntman) next to his name to further discredit the "ACTOR". Now you are adding negative articles to his page, and pass them off as needed articles to prove he went to Alemany. C'mon, back off." or x4n6' who had to post: "A pattern of unsourced edits and removing sourced edits on this BLP has emerged in blatant violation of WP:TE. If the disruptive editing continues, the editor will be reported. Suggest: if you will not/cannot contribute constructively to this BLP, see WP:JDI and WP:LETITGO. Otherwise, pursuing this course will result in action." Novaseminary edit warred with that person for months. Then there was Kuru, who after denying Novaseminary's speedy, saying: "decline CSD; does not appear to be "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" - has been improved and expanded)" was met with Novaseminary's response: "(tag for notability - unclear anything has changed since Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Douglas tait)". There was also MichaelQSchmidt, who had to remove several of Novaseminary's RS tags by saying "Dread Central and Cinefantastique and Fangoria are considered reliable sources for film related articles)". There were IP users, probably Tait fans more than WP fans, because many had never contributed to WP before. I should also probably point out that this Tait article was created on April 5, 2011. And before Novaseminary's March 3, 2012 first contribution - which was that speedy tag, without one word of editing, the article enjoyed contributions from 9 editors. None of whom found it unnotable, or tagged it for speedy. In fact as the edit history makes very clear, there were exactly zero problems with the newly rewritten BLP - until Novaseminary created the problems.

• Lastly, this obviously isn't about Tait's clear N which the links prove he easily meets on all three levels of WP:NACTOR, but it's about Novaseminary's unashamed attempt to dominate: see WP:OWN, the content of the article, and to do so in a decidedly negative, NPOV way. His latest claim that another AfD would solve the problem is just more proof that he doesn't have this project's best interests in mind, just his own. And remember, as North8000 has repeatedly tried to remind everyone, this ain't Novaseminary's first rodeo here, but it is consistent with how he operates. And Hoppingalong's delete comments would have carried more weight if s/he weren't the user who reverted the Keep decision on the last failed AfD. He should have revealed that here. Having not, his own bias is also self-evident. But finally, it's interesting that in all Novaseminary's concern about Douglas Tait (stuntman)'s notability, he doesn't question Douglas Tait (illustrator)'s notability, which he clearly supports. The Douglas Tait (illustrator) that he created. Then abandoned. Seems that if he were really interested in deleting unnotable BLPs, that would be an excellent place to start. 2602:304:5EA1:1429:DC5D:7BA6:DC0:5316 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of wasting time... Suffice it to say, I ever so repectfully disagree with IP's analysis, or whatever somebody would call this last post. Novaseminary (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Of course. We've come to expect no less. But notwithstanding the waste of time in simply collecting and reporting it, just imagine the amount of wasted time it took for him to generate - heck, amass it. Over all those many, many months. And yet, he's still fighting for more. Hmmm... Suffice to say indeed. 2602:304:5EA1:1429:DC5D:7BA6:DC0:5316 (talk) 03:01, 18 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)

I was going through afd's and noticed that Novaseminasy subsequently re-AFD'd it. As noted before, I think that general advice to this editor regarding obsessive aggressive editing is needed and would be useful towards a more positive situation with respect to this editor. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD page deleted (rather than speedily kept, since no one commented on deletion), and I've confirmed the topic ban is in place on Novaseminary's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 19 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)

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

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)

I was keeping it there to try my editing skills on wikicoding and also to remind me that that articles needs work. (I have made some edits there. I generally used it to try my editing skills by changing it is some way or other and by looking at the effects by pushing the preview button. Then I would ignore saving the changes because saving the changes would be unnecessary.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Most of us ANI regulars are not here to censor Misplaced Pages in favor of some government, but simply know a lot more than you about Misplaced Pages's policies and purpose. See WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:SOAP, which are relevant to this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... And why can't you do that in a sandbox? Perhaps use a sticky note thingy if your memory is poor? You seem now to be suggesting that myself and RegentsPark are "Pakistani tricksters"] - a comment that is unlikely to help your case here. This thread was closed for a reason and re-opening it as you have could quite likely boomerang. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, what can I say, he seems to see Pakistani evil doers all around ... There are some technical terms in the real world for that, but let's just say that at some point he is going to run out of WP:ROPE with that kind of attitude. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, according to him I'm naive and have never interacted with Pakistanis, nor have I spent much time on Word Perfect (I don't know what Word Perfect has to do with Misplaced Pages, but whatever...that is what WP is short for :-) ) dangerouspanda 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ

Request blocking User:JHunterJ for violation of the 1RR restrictions at WP:MOS. These apply to admins as well as everyone else. If the reversion was so important, let someone else do it. This is clearly not a case of removing obvious vandalizm. and Apteva (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious. For the record, I am not advocating for a block of Apteva for trying to skirt 1RR by first inappropriately deleting the other user's note and then hiding it after I restored it and warned Apteva against deleting other users' talk page comments. I also don't anticipate this to warrant my further comment, so I'm not watching this page; I'm sure I'll discover my potential block soon enough. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Ridiculous wikilawyering ANI post. Nobody Ent 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. JHunterJ is not in violation of anything, and Apteva's removal of comments is not in accord with WP:TPO. --Neotarf (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that your perspective is correct Neotarf. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages is very clear: "Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." And TPO says "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages), the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to hide this material as described above." I have no problem in someone asking me about an edit that I made, or in changing the heading to an appropriate heading and collapsing a section, but simply edit warring is not the solution. It was inappropriate for the editor who put it there to put it there. It is not inappropriate to respond by collapsing or moving to a more appropriate page. Apteva (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So the MOS talk page has completely degenerated into chaos due to Apteva pushing a pet theory about hyphens and capitalization, based on something remembered from grammar school, and has been pushing this theory at multiple forums, including WT:MOS, and no one is allowed to talk about it? This elephant in the room is supposed to be kept a secret? I'm not buying it. The community is supposed to be trying to solve these problems on its own first, and only if that fails, take it to other forums.

As Dicklyon said at AE, Apteva is well known for using multiple accounts, for being contentious, and for editing mostly as an IP (as he says on one of his talk pages); see also sockpuppet case and checkuser case. It's possible that IP 146.90.43.8 that filed the earlier ANI about the RfC is Apteva too, they sound the same but it's impossible to tell. Apteva's user page only started acknowledging this alternate account three weeks ago.

--Neotarf (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is why I almost never use talk page edit summaries. What was said can be seen above, but this is the edit summary: "if the MOS talk page is broke, that is a subject that belongs on the MOS talk page". And I will address that. No, it does not other than the following, or something similar: Here is what I would suggest. "This discussion is getting out of hand. I have opened an RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MOS civility. --~~~~" with not even a subject heading. Talk pages do not have talk pages to discuss the talk pages, but there are many places that discussion about individual editors or groups of editors can appropriately take place. If an individual editor is causing a problem their talk page is the place to bring it up. ANI is for Admin Notice of Incidents, such as the above violation of 1RR that was unfortunately laughed off. AIV is for notification of vandalism. And so on. The Village Pump or Help is where to go if you have no clue where to go. It is interesting that if you look only at the top 10 contributors, up until 2007 the number of posts to the talk page per edit to the MOS page steadily declined - to about 2, and since then took a big jump and has increased to 10 today - all talk and no action. The below mentioned now topic banned editor was consistently in the top 4 of edits to the MOS from 2007 to 2009, did not appear in the top 10 in 2010, and returned to number 3 in 2011. They do not appear in the top 10 in 2012, but that did not help bring down the ration of talk to edit. Maybe they caused the incivility, but it has not gone away. Apteva (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Or just bring it up as an example at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement - a discussion that was opened 4 October 2012 and has gone on for 300,000 bytes so far. Apteva (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This has already been brought to Apteva/Delphi234's talk page and the answers ranged from "I see no reason for discussing things that are totally obviously wrong" to "I only opened an RM for moving Mexican-American War because I knew that it had previously been discussed ad nauseum and produced an absurd choice" to "I feel like Clint Eastwood "go ahead ... make my day". So now it belongs on a different forum -- preferably one that those who are interested in MOS will not see? Right. --Neotarf (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apteva

I'm looking through the history of WT:MOS and Apteva (talk · contribs) appears to be a keen contributor to the page and is editing in a manner which does not seem to be helping the atmosphere there nor in a manner helping to drive forwards consensus in a collegiate manner. Given the page operates under discretionary sanctions, is there any support for a page ban of one month? Hiding T 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Apteva is comparing the infamous punctuation symbol in Mexican American to the Dred Scott decision . Perspective seems to be lacking. Intervention is warranted, just not sure we're at the page ban stage. Nobody Ent 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be the required official warning. The personalized charges referred to against myself and DickLyon at WP:AE (which make curious reading) have now been withdrawn. --Neotarf (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Keen contributor and does not seem to be helping are an odd juxtaposition. I went to the MOS to fix one problem and found a hundred. I am making a list and will bring them up when appropriate. But a page ban for a day even is not appropriate. I have been asked to back off and I have backed off. Enough said. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Keen contributor" likely meaning "one who makes many contributions" and "does not seem to be helping" likely meaning "those many contributions are largely not productive". Not such an "odd juxtaposition" at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Or "excellent contributor" Apteva (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Keen" here connotes eagerness of contribution, not necessarily quality of contribution. As in "I'm keen on having soup for all meals—I am a keen soup-eater." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This might give some indication of the level of disruption. --Neotarf (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

150 edits. Lets go back a year. or two. Or three. Or four. The number of edits does not indicate the quality of those edits. Apteva (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, banned user and sockmaster Pmanderson immediately leaps to the top. Very er, keen, that one. But the top users are all about the same: 1000 edits here, 900 there. Right now, Apteva, who has just now appeared on the MOS scene, already has more than twice as many edits as any other user. Hmm. --Neotarf (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For clarity's sake, Pmanderson has been WP:BLOCKed for one year , not WP:BANned. Not directly relevant here, but it's important to keep one's terminology in good order. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the block my understanding is they were topic banned. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I only came here (to the MOS) to fix one problem. I had no idea that it would be so sticky. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet when it was pointed out to you that the community had spent a lot of effort to reach the consensus in question, you vowed to keep on trying to fix the "error". Disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not disruptive if I have good reason for believing that it is an error, and I act in a respectful, non-disruptive manner. Trust me, 20 years from now someone is going to ask, why is Law not capitalized in Moore's Law? (not a good example for the MOS but a good example for TITLE) A good example is the Dred Scott decision which said that blacks are not people. Did that end the civil rights movement? Was it disruptive for Rosa Parks to take an available seat closer to the front of the bus? Or was it more disruptive to try to hold on to discrimination? The important thing to understand is that right now the MOS does not agree with TITLE, and having the MOS say that it gets to decide titles is shall we say not an optimal solution. A better solution is to rewrite the MOS so that it agrees with TITLE. But having looked over the current MOS, there are many other items that are questionable, and these will also be identified. Whether the two editors who make most of the MOS edits will agree with the changes remains to be seen. First on my list is delete "house style". First no one uses that term and second, WP is not a publishing house and does not have only one approved style. There are many styles and the MOS reflects those styles, and says not to edit war over them. "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." Apteva (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And no, I do not consider "Mexican American War" with an endash a valid use of English in that context, because over at TITLE what is done is choose the best title. Apteva (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The advice in the MOS not to make changes because of the MOS to the title, though, is good advice. Apteva (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom has already determined that MOS is the unique style guide for English Misplaced Pages. Yet, even after DickLyons's warning, Apteva declared at MOS talk page that "WP... does not have a house style", that the MOS merely "explains" what other styles are, and that "editors refer to it for suggestions, but use their own common sense in applying what it says." On the contrary, as was brought out at the much-cited ArbCom capitalization case, editing gnomes wish to consider "the MOS as a relatively stable, foundational framework to guide editors in producing a relatively consistent work" and wish to limit the instability caused by hard-to-track conflicting edits, inadequate edit summaries, and unannounced discussions. Bot operators also depend on the stability of MOS. I find it hard to understand why someone would choose to edit MOS if they do not buy into the same values as other editors here, that Misplaced Pages is prestigious enough, and unique enough to have its own house style. --Neotarf (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, instability in the MOS is at the root of some of the most protracted, difficult and acrimonious "wars" on WP and can be extremely disruptive to Wikignoming. A stable MOS is the foundation on which the standards of the entire project stand - without it we cannot deliver consistent quality product. Roger (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Support a one month ban for Apteva from the MOS for battleground behavior. This should not be taken to mean I don't think many others on that page have engaged in battleground behavior and should be banned as well, but at the moment Apteva seems to be the worst offender, and that's a good place to start with sanctions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Metalvayne - disruptive editing, sock puppetry, and breaking topic bans.

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

For some back history:

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Disruptive editing by User:Metalvayne - This link shows the last time User:Metalvayne was brought to ANI. It was over continual tinkering with music genre without source or edit summary despite many requests to stop. Additionally, homophobic vandalism was an issue raised. It was decided unanimously that he be topic banned from editing music genre for a year.
2. Also over the course of that discussion, Metalvayne "retires", only to have three socks blocked indefinitely due to vandalism directly after. (Also in the initial link.) He is blocked for 24 hours due to sockpuppetry.
3. Fast Forward to October. At this SPI case: ] it is found that Metalvayne was using a sockpuppet to get around his topic ban, as virtually all he did was further arguing and tinkering with music genre. The sock is indefed, and he is blocked for a week. (Until October 16).
4. October 17 - Right after his block expires, he uses his own account to break his topic ban, as seen in this edit. When I warned him about this, and some other unconstructive edits, here, his only response was essentially take it to ANI, and so I have.

In short, he's broken his topic ban twice already, and shows no sign of changing, or adhering to restrictions placed on him. His responses are with attitude, he's not taking it seriously. As shown in the dif that shows my warning, he is also now going about on talk pages calling me names and telling people to "stay away from me"; things that while, don't really bother me, but it sure goes to show his intent to be unconstructive. Something needs to be done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Metalvayne appears to have not the slightest interest in observing his one-year topic ban from music genres. My suggestion is to to block him for the duration of the ban, i.e. until August 28, 2013. If he manages to get through the year without any further socking he can return to normal editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That should be worth a try, but personally I'm sceptical if he's going to stop socking. I am inclined to indef him as soon as any socks appear again. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that Metalvayne has any intention of cooperating with any restrictions or that a one-year block will do any good. Indef him and be done.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of babysitting him like this, so I'd fully support an indef block as well. However, I would support the "1 year block, leading to an indef block if any socks are found", plan as well. (He makes no real effort to hide or mask his socks, so I'm sure he'd be caught if he were doing that. Four have been found already. He can't seem to help but to make the same sort of edits every time, regardless of account.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "polite sock" persona. It's like dealing with Grundle's grungier twin. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for a prolonged discussion for a case this obvious, I have indef blocked them. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for hearing me out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Having previously tried other measures to deal with it, none of which proved successful, I agree with the indef block. I imagine at some point he will plead that he has reformed, and will make excellent-sounding promises, but so far he has broken every such promise he has made here. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he had it coming to him. This individual has proven to be a disrespectful saboteur of Misplaced Pages and did not have any interest in helping the cause once his recent block was alleviated, in favor of helping his own cause. He did a poor job of accepting legitimate criticism (as seen by how he removed many of his talk page postings), and exploited many pages and aspects of Misplaced Pages, while mustering the gall to play victim, too.

He posted this derogatory, pathetic message about me and Sergecross73 on my user talk page, which was a message addressed to another user, yet on my talk page. In that comment, he depicted Misplaced Pages as a monarchy, unfoundedly so. Also, this post of his butted in on some conversation that had been resolved and dead for almost a month, and would not have likely been otherwise revisited. I don't usually remove material from my user talk page except for archiving purposes, but due to its rather loathsome nature, I felt that it was appropriate. Such comments don't attract trouble as much as they gratuitously seek trouble and end up receiving trouble out of obligation.

Here is another comment where he revisited discussion that was dead and resolved for a long time, this time for over six months. Although it was addressed to me, it was on his user talk page, so I didn't receive it immediately. I decided not to respond, in order to be consistent with comments I had said earlier, and I believe I know why he asked the question. He probably (note the use of "probably" instead of something like "certainly") still thinks he can prove that I performed this edit, even though proving I did that would be like squeezing pineapple juice out of a rock, especially since I did not do that, and that this person's editing style and locations are much different from mine.

The indefinite block, I feel, is legitimately reasonable and justified. Now the Metalvayne account will not be used again by this individual for any noteworthy editing activity. If trouble from this camp keeps up, though, then a shout-out to the long-term abuse page might be necessary. Sorry for the verbose nature of this post, but I sincerely hope these are the final words I have to say about this person in public. I really want to be done dealing with him, and I know others have a similar desire. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 06:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Request ban of User:AndyTheGrump

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

Respected senior contributors,

Highly abusive language on Talk page and AFD page without any provocation

Since last 4 days, i am facing abuses on talk page and AFD page. I have shown my utmost calm and presented my points in the most decent possible way but the abuses continued. The latest comment made by him on AFD page is direct, highly derogatory and insulting where he called me an idiot.

1. The first time he abused by using the word bullshit . I Chose to ignore it, maintained my calm, tried to establish the notability of article by clearing his concerns.

2. Then he again used the word More garbage

I requested him to use a decent language by saying - Words like Garbage, Bullshit and nonstop warnings, i would request you to use a decent language.

3. But instead of correcting, http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndyTheGrump again abused me by saying that heard enough bullshit from you.

4. Then he nominated Ujjwal Patni for deletion. When i replied him point to point on AFD page things crossed all the limits and he abused by calling me an idiot. This is a serious personal attack on a public forum. I request for a straightforward ban on him for this abuse.

I am not competent technically to understand pagelink or diff link, to lodge complaint at appropriate forum or to respond properly to such complaints. Just now i got a sock puppetry case warning as a reward by them. I would request senior contributors to help me and investigate the AFD page. If i am at fault ban me, and if Andythegrump is at fault then ban him. Pls don't ignore this request citing any procedural error or my technical incompetence.

The AFD page also shows my Serious concern. I would prefer not to mention it here. Senior contributors may judge on that. I am not able to add a single word in last months. Two contributors revert every citation within seconds, abuse, give different type of warnings and attack. last two hours edit history of Ujjwal Patni reveals everything. Now most of the vital points of the article have been removed due to unexplained reasons. I must get a fair chance to work on the article without getting abused and a ban on him. Showed courage to lodge a complaint here because I respect the policy of WP:BOLD.

Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The blind leading the blind. As usual AndyTheGrump is correct in his assessment of an article and almost completely deficient in manners. Again it involves a likely COI editor who is barely acquainted with Misplaced Pages guidelines and markup, who has turned that AfD into a headache--I have closed it per SNOW, since there wasn't a chance in hell that it would end in keep. The reporting user is asked to take the time to read up on our guidelines for notability; I will let other admins decide on whether AndyTheGrump needs to be admonished or blocked for their various insults. There will be no ban; I think that's clear. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see that the article concerned has been deleted: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ujjwal Patni. Unsurprisingly, since we have had months of discussion with this contributor, who has singularly failed to comprehend the need for proper third-party reliable sourcing, and insisted on posting the same questionable puffery time after time after time... As the talk page is no longer visible to me, I've no idea what the 'serious concern' was, unless it was the repeated claim that I am a sockpuppet of User:Rhode Island Red, who has had the misfortune to have had to deal with this nonsense even longer than I have. Yes, I used phrases like 'bullshit' and 'garbage', because that was what we were dealing with - a severe case of fingers-in-the-ears I-don't-want-to-hear-that tendentious editing that would try the patience of a saint (which I freely acknowledge I'm not...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c)Calling another user an idiot is completely out of bounds. Calling bullshit garbage sources "bullshit" and "garbage" is not an issue; however it IS extremely unlikey to do anything convince the editors promoting the bullshit garbage sourcing to begin producing sources that are not bullshit and garbage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The only thing I can see wrong with Andy's actions was the "idiot" remark. If he didn't want to talk about it anymore the simple solution is too.... wait for it... stop talking. Referring to sources as bullshit and garbage was, as Drmies points put, an accurate description. It also seems screamingly obvious that in response to what the reporting user perceived as a coordinated attack they recruited/created some help for their own side in the form of User:Anay jain. So, Andy needs to stop making it personal and Mahaveerji needs to read WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not me, Beeblebrox, though I don't disagree. BTW, no thread of this kind will make Andy change his tune, I think. But I don't like civility blocks to begin with. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to where you said he was correct in his assessment but deficient in manners. If he hadn't turned around and called the other user an idiot I would see nothing whatsoever wrong in his actions. I also have to agree that this thread is unlikely to change that and an outright ban is a near impossibility. If someone wanted to do the legwork to open Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/AndyTheGrump that would be the proper way to address the more involved issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. I agree with you on all points. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, on the now-deleted article talkpage Andy began a response with "Listen dickhead...", which may be straining the bounds of what is tolerable around here these days. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, if you want to make a case, I guess we can restore the talk page for the time being. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You know my stance on civility (i.e. I find this sort of thing silly and inconsequential), was just throwing that out there for discussion . If you want to undelete the talk page temporarily to see, feel free...I'd left the window open awhile ago about to get a diff, but after a bit of afk, refreshed to see it was gone already. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

None of this would justify a ban. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No ban. Perhaps a boomerang about competency for the original poster. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Without yet getting in the specifics of what solution is appropriate in this case, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia. Using it as your personal playground to be a bully in is not a simple matter "civility" as in tea, crumpets, and how you hold your pinky but the destruction of a working environment. --Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. I don't have all that much to add, I just wanted to voice my support of the above statement. --Conti|✉ 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What he said. --Jayron32 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI. It puzzles me why there are some users who have been brought here for this sort of thing again and again yet none of those who are upset by it ever take the next step of opening a user RFC. That is the option in between ANI and arbitration. My only guess as to why it is not used in these cases is that it it requires discussion with the subject rather than just asking for someone else to impose sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:Civility states that it is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  The problem here is not discussion or policies, it is enablers of incivility.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary:

• Civility is a pillar of Misplaced Pages
• Per the consenus above, the reported behavior may be unacceptable but it's not an ANI issue, some one should file an RFC/U.
• Per the current consensus at the Civility RFC no one should act should act as "self appointed civility police."Nobody Ent 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh give me a fucking break. One minute admin is forcing their hand down editor throats, ripping their guts out and spilling them all over the place with sanctions for just arguing endlessly, but we don't have civility police? That is the stupiest thing I have heard. Of course we don't have civility police...and admin ARE NOT just janitors. And again, ANI does not require a consensus for admin to intervene.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a RfC/U is the best way forward. He may be openly grumpy, but I feel that sometimes he's needlessly aggressive to other editors who are working completely in good faith. It's a shame, because I know he's acting in good faith too. Beware the tendency to support people because it appears that people oppose them for whatever reason (incivility, minority opinions, what have you); that sort of group behaviour has, in the past, allowed serious harassment to go on unresolved because even arbitrators are unwilling to take action. Sceptre 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak to all past situations, but in this particular case the editor that Andy was in a dispute with did not appear to be acting in good faith. A reasonable assessment is that the other editor was using multiple SPA sock accounts to create a blatantly puffery-laden BLP on a non-notable subject, and then antagonizing other editors by throwing out accusations of collusion/conspiracy/suppression, etc on the Talk page. I was also the target of the SPA/sock's wrath. When the other editor realized that the bio was being considered for deletion (and it ultimately was deleted), he simply started attacking other editors, Andy included. That situation may not justify incivility, but the incivility was clearly provoked and it was by far the lesser of the two evils. While Andy may live up to his name (i.e. grumpy) from time to time, crucifying him in an admin action would serve no purpose other than to curtail a productive editor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer12's disruptive editing

There is a discussion at the WikiProject Baseball talk page regarding SNIyer12's failure to follow consensus and continued re-insertion of content that does not belong. I am not really involved in the situation, but as nobody else has reported it here, I am doing so. Please note that the editor has been approached on their talk page and has not responded. I am not very familiar with the situation, but as I understand it, one instance is this insertion of content on 1996 New York Yankees season. As you can tell from the page history, this is not the first time SNIyer12's edits to this page have been reverted. I hope that some of the more involved editors can elaborate more fully on this, I am simply starting the discussion as no one else has done so. AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we might've taken this user to ANI before, but I don't recall for sure. This editor has violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POINT in an ongoing fashion for several years now. There is a minimal, at best, engagement from the user in discussion on various talk pages, but it doesn't change anything in the user's behavior. It's not vandalism, but it's disruptive, and it's gotten on my very last nerve. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer12's conduct has been brought to ANI in January 2007 and July 2009. I see the second time he got a 48 hour block. It accomplished nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue, ultimately, their being non-responsive to concerns raised to them, and that they engage in very slow moving edit wars across multiple articles. SNyler has a habit of obsessing over various topics, and if what he inserts somewhere (often SYNTH) is challenged, they just wait a little while, then reinsert in the hopes that nobody will notice. When they get reverted again, the process continues. And in some cases, this process lasts over a year or more. My personal inclination is that if they won't respond to the concerns, a block is the only way to end the slow moving edit wars. I've taken articles of theirs to AFD, and have attempted to engage them on numerous topics, so would not consider it appropriate for me to take such action myself. Resolute 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What's your desired end-state here? A block? That's how I'm reading this. Skimming through some contributions and his lack of responsiveness, I think that might be the only way to get his attention. Go Phightins! 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the disruption was limited to just one article, I'd say topic ban him from that article. However, it appears that more than one page is in question, so I'd certainly say a block is in order. AutomaticStrikeout 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, blocks are not the answer. Neither are bans. Use the RFCU for community sanctions by vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like some sort of block IS the answer. If the guy continues to corrupt articles and won't talk, then solely going through the RFCU bureaucracy is insufficient. It will take time and will allow continued damage to wikipedia. Put him on ice for whatever amount of time the RFCU will likely need to run. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

They have been warned over and over for years now. Personally I would have blocked them long ago if I didn't feel like I was probably too involved to do so. At the very least he/she needs a block at a step up from his last block. He/she was blocked 48 hours...lets block him/her a week and see if they are willing to start talking. And RFCU is fine, but more often than not they lead nowhere. But if people think we should go that way lets do it. But for an RFCU to work they have to be involved and talk, and well that is the problem currently, we can't get him/her to talk. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable...Go Phightins! 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't care if SNyler never says anything to anyone. What I do care about is not having to watch a bunch of articles for the re-addition of the same rejected crap over and over and over. WP:BRD is just a guideline, but if they won't discuss, then they should accept the revert as the end of the line. Resolute 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparent competence issue, continued; proposed block

I recently noted concern about an editor whose editing skills were seriously lacking and who had refused to engage on his or any article Talk page. The thread is archived here. It was generally agreed that the edits were disruptive, and the editor unresponsive, but that in light of the editor's apparent good faith we should tread lightly, offer help and hope that things turned for the better. I think that was the right approach, but it appears that it's not working - since then, the editor (Davebrayfb) has continued his disruptive editing, most recently to undo a months old redirect in the face of Talk page consensus. Perhaps one of his last six or so edits has survived reversion. Anyhow I'm not sure that the soft approach is going to work. I'm not adamant about a block but I think now that one is warranted and hereby propose one, something at least long enough to get his attention. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Diffs? You are actually asking for a block (with no time mentioned I suppose you want an idef block) that is not vandalism related but you don't show any diffs? You just want us to research through a discussion when even with diffs admin doesn't block for disruption?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Note the word "continued" in the section title. Detailed diffs were given in the original report only a few days ago, but such is the turnover speed at this board, it is now archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Apparent_competence_issue, as the OP has already pointed out in the second sentence of the report. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm breaking kayfabe here, but this one item from the school teacher's super-secret play-book:

What teacher says	What teacher means	What child hears
You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way.	You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way.	You are a bad person.
Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it.	You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way.	Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it.

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we recruiting editors from elementary school now? Why does WP waste its time trying to rehabilitate these types of editors? If all the energy expended on them had been turned to creating article content, we'd have ten times as many FAs than we do now and one-tenth the editor attrition. I've looked over his edits, and JohnInDC has had the patience of Job. Block the account, keep an eye out for his or her return, and move on. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand a little on Tom's comment, I have made repeated, friendly and patient efforts on the editor's Talk page to guide them toward more constructive editing practices (starting here.) I've also templated him occasionally to set up a proper AIV case in the event he got worse fast. None of my efforts garnered more than vague and non-responsive responses. (He has edited his own Talk page 6 times, not one entry longer than a sentence, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.) The prior go-round here at ANI ended, as I said, with a general consensus that the editor's work was in fact disruptive, but probably in good faith, and that additional efforts should be made to engage them. Kudpung posted a friendly plea on the editor's page (diff here) suggesting the editor avail themselves of the many mechanisms for learning how to edit well, and observing that a block might result if they didn't. Here at ANI, Kudpung said that we should wait to see if there was any reaction. Davebrayfb did not respond to Kudpung's plea, and continued the same sort of disruptive editing he had been engaged in before. (I supplied one good diff above.) With all that as prologue, I have returned to suggest that persuasion and discussion, having consistently failed to produce any change in this editors behavior, are not an effective approach and that an attention-getting block (or indef, whatever the collective wisdom counsels) is required. All prior disruptive diffs are listed at the linked entry above; I did not reproduce them here because this page seems to collect a good bit of clutter as it is, but of course would be happy to repost them if it would be more convenient. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor for 24 hours for disruption. If somebody nicer than me felt like reaching out to them and pointing them to some areas for improvement, that would be great. --John (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• I completely take Shirt58's point above about how to get the best from people. But looking at the interactions so far I do think JohnInDC has made heroic efforts thus far to adopt just that approach. Sadly the apparent lack of competence may simply mean we are on a hiding to nothing here. Good (sadly regrettable but inevitable) block. Kim Dent-Brown 10:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Zack of wikipediawriters.com"

According to s.p.a. User:Sharadha Bain, User:Faustus37 is somebody called "Zack at wikipediawriters.com" and was paid to write the puff piece Jason Shulman diff. The tone of the complaint leads me to suspect that the client didn't realize what a breach of ethics they have paid for, and just wants to know why we rejected their advertisement. Meanwhile, wikipediawriters.com uses the trademarks of Misplaced Pages to pimp themselves out shamelessly. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A reminder that it would be unethical to suggest that we DDoS them, but it should be totally fine for the legal department to scare them, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal is now aware of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles like Danielle Babb are curious. The notability there is marginal, to say the most. Resolute 01:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with wikipediawriters.org more than with this one writer of theirs, who's also been a good content contributor for us. I think he is (or was) just one of their many contractors and I suspect he was paid a lot less than what wikipediawriters.org received for his work. I suggest we tell this guy to do no more paid editing and tell him he's welcome to keep contributing useful content.

In the meantime, we need to figure out ways to better deal with wikipediawriters.org and similar organizations.

--A. B. —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs is unpopular here for many reasons I won't go into. (If you're interested in the backstory, search Misplaced Pages for his name, MyWikiBiz and Centiare to find many megabytes worth of discussions, noticeboard threads, etc.; go to wikipediareview.com and wikipediocracy.com for still more megabytes of his side of the story).

At one point, he proposed to put paid articles in MediaWiki format on his own wiki with GFDL (what we used before CC-BY-SA) licensing for reuse by Misplaced Pages. This gave Misplaced Pages editors a ready source of pre-written articles they could then move over to Misplaced Pages if they met our criteria. After a several subsequent years dealing with spam and paid editing, I've come to realize in retrospect this was a pretty good idea for all parties; certainly better than all the covert stuff we have now. There's so much animus nowadays between Kohs and Misplaced Pages, however, that I don't see this ever happening, at least with his firm.

I bring this up not to rehash (or rebash) Gregory Kohs' activities but because I think the underlying concept is worth further thought.

Paid editing on Misplaced Pages is sort of like the US' illegal immigration problem. Exposure on Misplaced Pages is worth so much money that material will find its way here one way or the other ("show me a 15' border fence and I'll show you a 17' ladder"). Is there a way we can at least partially triage or channel it in an intelligent way?

--A. B. 01:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, George I of Great Britain and Acrocanthosaurus and Cogan House Covered Bridge all became well written without a single cent changing hands. Could someone explain that to me? --Jayron32 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I assure you I am not "Zack of wikipediawriters.com." Faustus37 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

These articles were also developed without a single cent changing hands; I appreciate the work done on them. --A. B. 04:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, our friend and my accuser User:Sharadha Bain has contributed a grand total of two edits to Misplaced Pages. TWO. I'm over 5,500 edits at this point going back a good 7 years plus now. I've created 200+ articles in that time, mainly dealing with the State of Idaho. The vast majority of my edits were made in an altruistic sense. Try to prove otherwise. Yes, I have written Misplaced Pages articles for pay. There's nothing wrong with that. I remind you COI does not prohibit that practice and never has, provided said articles do not conflict with well-established notability standards. I firmly believe nothing I have ever written here violates either principle, especially in light of WP:NOTPAPER. Believe me, I've rejected many more paid article requests than I've accepted based on standards I believe acceptable here. Evidently others do not share my inclusionist view. Well, such is life. Frankly it's only because of this CNet article that the witch hunt is on in earnest. So the game is up, and the exclusionists have won. Do what you will. Faustus37 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you fancy that the only reason anyone's concerned about the burgeoning of hired guns is a CNet article, you've come very late to the game; there've been a whopping lot of us very unhappy about this syndrome for years now, something that pops up at AfD on an increasing basis. That being said, perhaps you could turn the experience you laud into a better grasp of WP:AGF -- casting our very legitimate concern over articles written solely because mercenaries are paid to do so in deletionist/inclusionist terms is a smokescreen at level best. You would be a great deal better served by a sober explanation of why you feel your conduct is okay than by aggressive hostility that anyone dare question you. Ravenswing 05:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing aggressive about my comments. I'm a firm disciple of Realpolitik. Argue the point, not the person. Question my good faith all you want. Even with clients I support (and I don't support many), I only guarantee my work for a week online. This is made very clear to them from the outset. I'm very well aware the purists were who they were long, long before the aforementioned CNet article. Frankly 95 percent of the "hired guns" you reference are stupid. They guarantee everything. I guarantee next to nothing. I know the jackals of the Misplaced Pages culture. But that begs the question, why the hell is it really that important? Most thinking people already know Misplaced Pages is a guide to the source and not the source itself. It's not like we're going to crash the Internet here. So what if the Muse is paid to impart knowledge? Is a bio of someone like Jason Shulman really going to detract from a bio of Gandhi? Really? REALLY? Even today American high school students cite Misplaced Pages as a source at their own peril ... Faustus37 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps its time to take COI back to the community to see if there is now WP:consensus to add a clear prohibition of paid editing - Misplaced Pages's reputation , such as it is, is being undermined by multiple reports of paid and COI editing in the press. Recently as I have understood, there is a rise in opposition to such editing. WP:RFC - Banning any user that is cited as a paid editor and implementing WP:Flagged revisions to end the defaming of living people via the project will help massively to raise the projects reputation as a respectable source reporter.. Youreallycan 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Without further ado, let's test how that would work with a live example: Sidel.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Previously deleted promotional article, easy, speedily re delete and block/ban the re creator indefinitely would be my interpretation of the NPOV Wiki project position. Youreallycan 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A company with €1.350 billion in revenue is absolutely notable even by German wikipedia standards (which are far stricter than ours for companies). Misplaced Pages always had poor coverage of notable companies (and was always full spam of non-notable ones like many IT start-ups.) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) YRC, I am on your side regarding the defence of integrity of the Misplaced Pages project against commercial exploitation. I'd personally like to see that article deleted as an obvious "created for financial gain" reasons. But the article is well-referenced, would easily pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and would pass a WP:AfD nomination. My apologies for resorting to cliches, but "the genie has been let out of bottle a long while ago" and "Misplaced Pages is a victim of its own success" and so on. Like it or not, I think we just have to accept that acceptable articles might be created for reasons we don't like.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at Jimbo's talk page, for what it's worth. Graham87 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Our COI policy document is poorly written. It doesn't make the distinction between the COI, which exists whenever an editor is editing in a topic area that they or their employer make money from (which is of course very common), and problematic actions potentially caused by the COI, which is an independent issue. This lack of distinction caused me a lot of grief recently. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid writing is not prohibited, regardless of how much Jimbo dislikes it. An RFC was closed in July with, in part, this summary: Overall conclusion: Nothing in Misplaced Pages's best practices concerning conflict of interest can be said to have changed as a result of this discussion. The situation therefore remains as it was before: roughly, that conflict of interest editing is "discouraged" (although it remains unclear exactly what it is that is being discouraged and what form the discouragement is supposed to take); that editors with affiliations are encouraged to be open about them, and also to avoid making potentially controversial edits in the relevant area without prior approval; and that we don't post information about the identities of other editors (WP:OUTING). Nobody Ent 13:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Making paid editing forbidden would also create a nightmare of enforcement and cause even more witchhunts at SPI, which is already buried. The solution is management, not barring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• This "discouragement" reminds me a lot of the history of domain names. Everyone said at first that in order to register a .com you had to have some kind of working company, not just be squatting, etc., in order to keep the riffraff out --- meanwhile some well connected people bought up the good stuff and made millions. I would predict that the people ignoring your AN/I process are the ones who will be making the big money here; some of the people waiting to see what consensus is will be will end up working for them for peanuts. I would like to see you encourage a fairer, more open set of standards to encourage a free market and more equal opportunity for all editors. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Re to Youreallycan of 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, by all means, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sneak every last marginal policy that has been opposed in with this irritation. Nothing says cabal like omnibussing lots of partial fixes through for a minor complaint. Hasteur (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree on the principle that paid editing is at least marginally COI. But I will agree to the point that if a paid article is clearly a positive contribution, then why does it matter that it was COI? I don't like it myself, but witchhunts and outing aside, there's no way to enforce any policy on paid editing.--Unionhawk 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind, COI editing is not against policy. It never will be. Some of the best work we get is by COI editors who understand the policies and comply with them, but are knowledgeable enough to know where to find the sources. We can't make paid editing go away by barring it. We can limit the damage from it, and even benefit from it, if it is done properly and within the policies, some of which do not yet exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with that 100%. I think our COI guideline needs to be changed drastically to make the distinction between a COI and taking actions due to a COI that corrupt our encyclopedic mission. Right now it completely muddles the distinction. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Blatant sock

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

Can I have User:Dubs boy blocked as an obvious sock of 46.7.113.111, who was blocked last night (see above and AE thread). I'd do it myself but I'm involved.

While we are at it, could someone close Talk:Derry#Requested_move, which is up for closure today anyway? It was started by 46.7.113.111, was identified early as disruption, has been closed twice already, and is a magnet for this user. --RA (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The user in question has actually self-identified as 46.7.113.111 so there should be no issue with blocking. I also second the request for closure of the requested move. As the initiator of the AE request and a major participant in the RM discussion it would be difficult for me to be more involved. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My internet was running slow, so I turned off/on my router and found I was unblocked. I thought I had been unblocked as I have been given no reason for my blocking. I set up an account so that my vote would count in discussion. I had dabbled with wiki back in February but it is only now that I have commented at Derry talk page that I have been blocked. I have not made any controversial edits, only commented at a talk page. Is that a crime? And I have present a great argument at Derry talk page for a proposed change, which seems like the most likely reason for users to try and block me?Dubs boy (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you are the sock indicated but I would point out that editors are supposed to be here to improve the articles rather than exercise their debating skills and mess up discussions with misdirections and misstatements to push an agenda. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally uninvolved having actually read through that morass of a RM, I can only conclude that you, Dubs boy, have been unable to effect a change in consensus and are continually arguing the same point over and over again. Even in the face of info digging by a couple of the editors there which showed that the statistics is against your proposal, you nonetheless continued to flog the same carcass. Raising a discussion on the talk page is laudable but after your proposal failed to gain any traction, the sensible thing to do would have been to call it a day. Others want you blocked because your continuing the same argument does nothing to help the article and is disruptive. Anonymous editors can get their "vote" counted as much as anyone elses so you need not have worried on that account, provided they make reasoned policy based arguments for it. There's no need for a sock block. Either way, it's best that you realise you've failed to gain consensus for a change and call it quits. If in time something changes drastically then it can always be revisited. There's no point doing a General Custer. Blackmane (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

just to add, that I will put my point forward so long as the discussion is open. I would say also Blackmane, that as an involved editor you are probably not aware of the POV that plagues this page. Note the comments by AjaxSmack, also involved.

I understand. I thought I had made a reasoned argument at the talk page in keeping with WP:COMMON NAME. I know its the same argument, but its a valid one, and the argument of the opposed hasnt changed much either. I had presented facts that have simply been ignored, so you can understand why I am still trying to flog the so called dead horse. Also if you look at the talk page you will see that 24 users have voiced concerns at the bias of the article talk page against 19 pro keeping the page as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please block as a sock block. The user's IP address was blocked, so they turned on and off their router to get an new IP address, then created an account, and is straight back to the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. --HighKing (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Note HighKing is a suspected sock. see here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I received no reason why I was blocked in the first place, so I couldnt possibly know what that behaviour would be. I had been given a 3 month block for no obvious reason. Raising an RM and contributing to that RM is not disruptive and certainly not deserving of a block. If anything I have been subject to harrassment from a number of users who essentially ganged up on me, and a few of them have come here to hammer in the final nail in the coffin. Dubs boy (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You were blocked per this decision on the Arbitration requests for enforcement. I've notified Timotheus Canens of this thread. --RA (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 4 months for block evasion, extending the previous 3 month block by the original admin. Very likely someone else as well. If another admin feels I've been entirely too generous by extending this only one month, no offense will be taken if you modify the block, just ping me afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering if they are a sock of User:Scandal Bird, who filed that SPI after creating the account and sleeping a great while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... I was going to say I thought a month's extension was more than was needed. Indef it and mark it with {{Uw-deoablock}}. --RA (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone had any doubt left -- yes, I'm that stupid: I've just closed the RM discussion. Nobody Ent 14:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the unblock request. GiantSnowman 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't suppose anyone would care to summarise this in Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars#Derry/Londonderry? --Ritchie333 15:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY would say we shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Me a sock of 46.7.. lol! What have I got in common with him? The sock spotters here need to get their act togther. HighKing is 100% a sock. I wish I could bet £1m on it. I'd win for sure, and yet, SPI declined on HighKing. It really is laughable. Scandal Bird (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Crap, crap crap. WP:TROUT me now. I misread the "tone" of the preceding comment, and thought that the "Me a sock of 46.7.." bit was an admission. I missed the whole tone point of the comment and sock-blocked him. I've now undone the block, but he might still get caught in the IP auto-block. I'll just slink back to my gnome-hole and hope that I did not inflame an already drama-filled situation too much. :( - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the autoblock at Special:BlockList, but I have to admit that I'm using more of a giver than take-a-wayer when it comes to blocks. Their statements above didn't remove my concerns. Oh, and I think this is yours-> <((()))>< Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission issues

Thank you Dennis

I need help with an issue of permission for file use. I tagged some files which are listed in my CSD log. The uploader left this message on my talk and I now fear the editor has an extensive upload log that needs scrutiny. ( User has no other uploads ) I hope I am correct in this matter and not bringing undue attention on this editors contributions. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• The owner either needs to be the uploader, or they need to give permission via the WP:OTRS system, who can keep a letter on file. I see at least one of your blue links already has OTRS links on the permissions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I looked up the OTRS page, but I couldn't find out what to do in this case. Who does what to whom? I do not follow what you mean by the '...blue links already has OTRS links on the permissions.' If this was done, it was in error. Can you please point me to the blue link you mention. Could it be that this file inadvertently meets the necessary criteria, which can simply be added to the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurnard (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Gurnard, please see my talk page for more information. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User Joefromrandb

User:Joefromrandb is using a RfC on Template talk:Civility to get revenge on me for "goading one of Misplaced Pages's finest editors into a site-ban" . The person I supposedly goaded into a site ban is Jack Merridew. At the same RfC, he has promised to edit war and says he has meatpuppets who will also edit war with me if I reinsert an essay into the Civility Essays template "if you're foolish enough to start inserting it again after the protection is over you'll be reverted quickly by multiple editors. Enjoy your puerile trolling elsewhere". This AN/I post has nothing to do with the template itself, as there is an ongoing RfC that will determine consensus and I'm happy to let that fall where it may. What I'm not happy about is this guy first making an Oppose !vote that basically consists of repeating Merridew's claims and attacks, then following it up with claims I'm "delusional" or "a troll", refusing to explain his oppose vote, and ending his screeds with threats of revert warring and meatpuppetry. When someone else asked him to stop on his talk page, he also attacked that other editor. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that Joefromrandb could tone it down a lot (having had negative interactions with him myself), but I would stop replying to him, as that's just fueling the fire. --Rschen7754 18:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That was after you full-protected an article and then punatively blocked a user 45 minutes later, and as I recall, I was far from the only one who had "negative interactions" with you. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You were also considerably unpleasant as compared to those other users, but that's neither here nor there. --Rschen7754 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will not respond to him directly anymore. Hopefully this thread will help resolve that particular issue and the RFC can continue without further disruption. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

COI spam links by SPA Nphar

• neilixandria.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

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

Nphar is a single purpose account adding links to neilixandria.com on various pages. When reverted, his explanation was "Link added at request of university. Easy to read printable format" at first. Upon further discussion, he says that his students asked him to add the links to those texts so they could find them and because he didn't want to email the links to them.

Much of that site duplicates material from places like Wikisource and Internet Sacred Text Archive, though often without full attribution (I found no attribution in the Dead Sea Scrolls section). He says that he's taken care to avoid adding duplicate books, though he adds a link to E.A.W. Budge's translation of Kebra Nagast right above the Internet Sacred Text Archive's copy of the same translation.

I noticed that the curator of the site is Neil P Harvey, and that if you donate enough money to the site you'll get a copy of Harvey's book "Beyond the Bible", a self-published book by someone who does not appear to work for a university which promises that its readers will "Learn the truth about Atlantis, YHWH, Zoroaster and the unification of Egypt." Assuming Nphar is university professor and a Neil Patrick Harris fan (because who isn't?), we need to make it clear to that he's accidentally helping Mr. Harvey use Misplaced Pages as an advertising platform for his pseudohistory book, and help him find an alternative means of providing students with the texts they need (easy enough, as most of the material is available on Sacred-texts.com and Wikisource, usually linked to in our articles on such texts). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've warned this editor not to add any more external links. Please ping me if they continue. --John (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc.

This article seems to keep reappearing from what I can see in the history. It seems to be CSD'd then shows up again. Also it was AFC'd over a year ago: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosurv. I don't have the skills, knowledge, or tools to figure this out. Or, what to do, if I did. Thanks.
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
I staywoke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--  :- ) Don 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• They are using AfC, so it is being reviewed. Salting the article isn't going to solve someone bringing it to AfC. Could be a COI creating it, but COI editing isn't a violation by itself, nor is resubmitting an article at AfC after it was CSD'ed. Actually, we prefer that. What is the remedy you are wanting here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Infosurv was created in 2005 by user:Infosurv, PROD deleted in 2007, recreated in 2009 by user:Pvisi111 (since blocked as spam account), and deleted again in 2011 per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosurv. Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc. was created in August 2012 by user:I staywoke (in that user's sandbox) and then moved to AfC. There it was declined on August 28, and again on September 29. At that point it was deleted per CSD G4. On October 8 user:I staywoke started this discussion on User talk:Mrt3366. Before Mrt3366 replied, I staywoke created the AfC again. Mrt3366 replied shortly afterward, and I staywoke hasn't contributed since (so we can't say that I staywoke ignored Mrt3366's advice). All of the article and AfC versions of text I've looked at have been clearly promotional and lacking in sources (the newer ones if anything more so than the older, article-space versions) - so all the deletions and declinations have been quite in order. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that every few years Infosurv hires a new intern who thinks making a Misplaced Pages article would be a good idea. The first and last didn't stay around for a constructive discussion; the middle one was adding promotional links to many articles. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Finlay, Dennis, that clears up some questions. I would just like to somehow reduce the work load at AfC. I guess we must just remain vigilant, wary, and research. --  :- ) Don 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Also there was Infosurv Concept Exchange, which was created by user:Jaredheyman in 2011 and deleted in 2012 per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosurv Concept Exchange. The deleted Infosurv article says that company was founded by someone named Jared Heyman. As far as Google is concerned, the only mention of Infosurv in article space now is in Cummings Research Park, which personally I don't have a problem with. I haven't done a link check for infosurv.com and icepredict.com, and I'm off to Tescos, so someone else might like to do that. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• infosurv.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.infosurv.com
• icepredict.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.icepredict.com

Linksearch turns up nothing. I'll take a look through the COIBot database later. I agree that this deserves future monitoring. MER-C 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the database either. MER-C 07:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged the article in AfC. Unless a miracle occurs, it should be there forever. --  :- ) Don 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Prioryman

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

Has been accused of outing another editor, he has restored this editors name after it was removed and has now posted a link to an external site with said users name on his talk page. This is obvious harrasment and needs to be sorted quickly. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Purely to avoid escalation, I have blocked Prioryman and suppressed the relevant revisions (I hope). Disclosure - Volunteer Marek pinged me to request the oversight. He did not ask for any action against Prioryman --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• I was going to suggest that in the future, Darkness contact oversight instead of coming to ANI. Too many wandering eyes here and we usually want to solve these kinds of problems quickly and quietly. I've had very good luck emailing for Oversight in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is something Marek has publicly stated. The account that Prioryman mentioned redirects to VM's account. Ankh.Morpork 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) I was going to ask: Since when is it outing to use the old name of an account when addressing an editor in the now? (but AnkhMorpork beat me to it). --Dirk Beetstra 19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Adapted (feel free to delete the intermediate revisions if so inclined). --Dirk Beetstra 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the old user name redirects to Volunteer Marek now, how is the world is this outing? AniMate 20:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has now posted an unblock. I'll let the community/other admins decide the outcome of the appeal. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• From WP:OUTING It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages Hence outing. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

On that basis, I've also blocked Dirk Beetstra, because that was a really stupid thing to do, given that Prioryman has just been blocked for doing it. If Prioryman gets unblocked, someone can unblock him as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• This argument for WP:OUTING seems to have skipped the first sentence of the quoted paragraph: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." As the diff provided by AnkhMorpork demonstrates, the information in question had already been posted by the person who changed usernames. Is there any evidence that the posting was not done voluntarily? --Allen3  20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Beestra on the basis of his and Ellen's comments. Could all users be very careful about referring to other users by anything other than their user name or an accepted version thereof? Better safe than sorry. --John (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good advice all round. Apologies for the flap - it's been a rather abrupt education in the fine print of WP:OUTING. Prioryman (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to agree with Allen3 in this regard - we have a standing redirect from old account to new, one that shows up on the new account's "What Links Here" list, yes? That would seem to complicate the case for OUTING, wouldn't it? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict^3) Ok, look, this is ridiculous. That diff posted by AnkhMorpork is, and let me emphasize this me asking the ArbCom to RE-FUCKING-MOVE that very information. Unfortunately there's no way I can ask for certain information to be removed without actually stating what that information is, now can I? Or am I suppose to play some kind of a game with the Arbitrators. Say, go up to Newyorkbrad and say "I want you to remove some information, but I can't let you know what it is, can you guess it on your own?". So this is a completely disingenuous line of argument - "VM asked for certain information to be removed, and in doing so he had to specify what this information is, so now it is okay for us to run around Misplaced Pages posting it everywhere". Stop and think for a moment for chrisssake.

Anyway, it's been dealt with, it's been oversighted, it's done. I was trying to be discrete here which is why I only reverted the edit, rather than going to ANI myself. So let's drop this now. Volunteer Marek  20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Prioryman for two reasons: VM has already posted that name. While the posting of the diff might still be problematic, I tend to think Prioryman really gets it and wasn't trying to actually out him. Again, this is why Oversight is a better place to report potentially outing issues. The Beetstra issue is completely different, reposting information that you know is improper and just got someone blocked. I will leave that to another admin since I'm a bit busy, but I would lean to unblock due to a misunderstanding, although that was incredibly poor judgement on his part. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked as I noted above. --John (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is unusual to side with Prioryman, but on this issue I think Volunteer Marek is being a wee bit hysterical and hypocritical. The "name" that he wants redacted here was in use on the currently-suspended Misplaced Pages Review, and his first post to the Wikipediocracy was to say "that old account is now this account". Conversely, everyone knows whhat Prioryman's previous account name was, it isn't a state secret any more than Fae's prior account is now known to the world. I think people who engage in regular pissing matches, as Priory and Marek often do, need to stop looking for these little nitpicky "gotcha!" moments to score points on each other. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Could someone clarify how mentioning the name of an older account that was moved to a new account name is "outing"? I don't see how this interpretation is supported. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Marek repeated this connection as recent as two months ago, in addition to his previous public acknowledgement of the link. Ankh.Morpork 20:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• VM has the right to decide how he wishes to be addressed. --John (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For civility purposes perhaps but WP:OUTING is quite clear: If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Misplaced Pages; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. Ankh.Morpork 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User:The Banner

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

User:The Banner is stalking me, disrupting addition of content to historic geographic entities of Sweden. Geographic entities get their own article all over the world, but Swedish parishes not? Compare all the parishes linked from Saint George Parish with WP:Articles for deletion/Sollentuna Parish. See also WP:NTEMP - only because the entities are not used by the government does not mean the articles have to be deleted. He has been pointed to WP:ILIKE several times. Additionally The Banner is violating WP:CIVIL"shut up". My interaction with The Banner started at the article Sollentuna. He deleted valid entries. Later he started to ask for deletion of content I created soon after the interaction with him there (stalking!). See WP:Articles for deletion/Sollentuna Hundred, WP:Articles for deletion/Bromma Parish. Please stop him from further disruption. ChemTerm (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-involved observations: User was not stalking ChemTerm, but was nominating pages for deletion that, in his opinion, do not meet Notability. See the AfD's above for information on that. Also, ChemTerm has been canvassing on pages that likely will have people on his side for the AfD's (WP Geography, WP Sweeden). I brought this up at the AfD for Sollentuna Parish already, and warned user accordingly. In the link to the diff ChemTerm posted in relation to WP:CIVIL, ChemTerm also used language such as "fighting a war". The user in question was only reccomending to ChemTerm that he not throw unwarrented personal attacks, using the words "shut up before throwing PA" to say that. The user in question deleted said entries because they were not ready to be linked to the Sollentuna article (and still aren't). Editor in question should never have been pointed to WP:ILIKE as he is providing valid reasons for his requests for deletion, and never saying "I don't like them". I would like to remind ChemTerm that when reporting this user to AN/I his own edits became subject to increased scrutiny as well. If other editors would like me to become involved in this, I will, but for now, just take this as uninvolved comments. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• ChemTerm has been canvassing on pages that likely will have people on his side for the AfD's (WP Geography, WP Sweeden) - On my side? If so, then I happened to have the side of Geography and Sweden editors. What is wrong with that? The articles belong to WikiProject Sweden and WikiProject Geography. Where are the valid reason for deleting Swedish parishes, whilst many other parishes have their articles in Misplaced Pages? I am not from Sweden. I have a neutral point of view. Tack. ChemTerm (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You only posted your notice on those pages. Your notice said "attacks" and "warring" if I remember correctly. That meets the definition of canvassing. AN/I is not the place to discuss the deletion. You reported someone to AN/I and now you are yourself being scrutinized. Don't be mad. It's in the rules of AN/I gwickwire | Leave a message 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it forbidden to use the words "attack" and "warring"? There are even policies that use these words: WP:EW, WP:PA. ChemTerm (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a single diff for any of the accusations being made. Not even from gwickwire, who should know better than make a blanket statement to intimidate a filing editor at AN/I. Should we also look at your behavior? ChemTerm, WP:HOUND has a threshhold you need to demonstrate when asking for Administrative intervention. As it states: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages." Please provide diffs to show where you are being followed and how the user has violated the policy. Gwick, you also need to provide diffs and your behavior can be scrutinized as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My accusations are supported at the AfD page, I made this clear in my first post. The only accusation I made was that of Canvassing, and if I must, here are the diffs: and . There are the only two postings of his canvassing messages. And my only edits in relation to this are to the AfD page for Sollentuna Parish and here. If I am to be scrutinized, so be it. I've backed up my accusations multiple times now. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You have accused an editor of canvassing for leaving two messages at related noticeboards. Are you kidding me with this? Two noticeboard posts are not canvassing and you need to be far more accurate when stating what is on these posts. While these may not be the most neutrally worded, I see this as a perception. They do not ask for an outcome.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay. Here's what I read. "There's some users nominating these for deletion. Come tell them not to." And it was posted on WP Sweeden and Geography. Okay, that may not be total canvassing because of where, but the wording means that he really is encouraging them to go !vote keep on the AfD ("There are some users hunting Swedish historic geography articles." and "deletion attacks"). If that's not canvassing then there's no definition of canvassing at all. He clearly is trying to attract others with his viewpoint to the article. If not, he would have posted them on other noticeboards too, such as the Catholic noticeboard (if this is completely a religious parish). This is canvassing. I don't see how it's not. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The two posts are the same and niether say what you postsed. In fact, as I stated there is no request for an outcome.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice, this saves me filing the complaint first. I like to use the boomerang now...

1. PAs/uncivil behaviour: , , , , , , ,
2. Vandalism/nonsense warnings: (ChemTerm is not a regular, but a newbie active since August 2012), (template for no personal analysis for an AfD), (idem), (complaint about non-existing PA),
3. Canvassing to protect articles: ,

I guess this will be enough to show the behaviour of mr. ChemTerm. The Banner _talk 01:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. ChemTerm clearly has a problem with shut up, in such a way that he forgets to give the full quote: When you don't have arguments, you better shut up then starting to throw PAs. ()

The complaint from mr. ChemTerm about stalking and following around is quite remarkable. Especially in the light of this nomination. The Banner _talk 02:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, no and that boomerang may not hit the target you wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How bout we wait for an admin to come resolve this? gwickwire | Leave a message 02:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Perhaps one might like to look into your overly aggresive warning manner about a policy you misinterpreted. Then perhaps they can look at The Banners complaint and warn the user to get a thicker skin. I see two boarderline comments from ChemTerm. Something about a clown. Not sure if this is name calling or not, but a warning seems appropriate and should be told to that if no diffs are provided there is nothing to look at. Diffs must be provided at AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Overly aggressive? The first warning was for this, the second warning was for calling someone a clown The Banner _talk 02:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about gwick's warning and then attempt to call into question a reduction of text as if it were attempting to avoid something. That and the fact that per Canvassing, use of Wikiprojects (these noticeboards are project related) is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation," and "canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate " and "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" and "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." and "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". All quoted from the WP:Canvassing page. The things he posted meet all of these. The page never says that all posts on WikiProjects are acceptable. Only if they are neutral, etc. which these aren't. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the posts could have been more nuetral, but was posted to the proper venues. Per Cavassing: "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Misplaced Pages collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion."--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way. Once you warn a user, if they even decide to delete the warning, that is acceptable. Deletion of a warning is considered to be acknowledgement that the post has been read. It was really not necessary to posts on the user's talkpage that a reduction in the text was an attempt to avoid something.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The canvassing page says that WikiProjects are only proper venues when the messages do not violate anything else on the page. They violate everything I put above. You keep taking quotes out of context. I will admit I did as well, but the context of mine was not as important. The page also goes on to talk about the times (some of which I copied above) during which it is inappropriate to post messages. No matter where. WikiProject, User Talk, Anywhere. Regardless of where they must pass those rules to not be canvassing. They fail those rules. They are therefore canvassing. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I will say also that my post about making it smaller was a little inappropriate in that situation. However, he was a new user, and I felt neccesary to make sure he realized that editors can still see anything he removes/makes smaller/etc. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you get it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Suspect edits by WalrusKingofFinland

Could someone review the edits of WalrusKingofFinland (talk · contribs). Most of the edits seem to be vandalism with two unsourced biographies, one of which is a blatant attack page by calling the subject a pedophile. —Farix (t | c) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems Materialscientist (talk · contribs) already banned them while I was making this report. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheesepary2 (talk · contribs) seems to be an alternative account of WalrusKingofFinland. —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain I recall a vandal with a very similar username from earlier this year - might be worth getting a checkuser in on this if you take it to SPI... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards