Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:53, 5 December 2012 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,553,124 editsm Fixing accidental category links← Previous edit Revision as of 03:10, 5 December 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 edits →Proposed solutionNext edit →
Line 147: Line 147:
*User Stalwart111’s proposed two-part solution above seems reasonable, constructive and fair. I am quite willing – would be grateful, in fact – to accept an administrator’s decision to enforce an '''interaction ban''' between Elvenscout and me. *User Stalwart111’s proposed two-part solution above seems reasonable, constructive and fair. I am quite willing – would be grateful, in fact – to accept an administrator’s decision to enforce an '''interaction ban''' between Elvenscout and me.


:I do share the reservations Elvenscout expresses regarding a '''topic ban''', however, due to Stalwart’s suggestion that said ban cover '''“’poetry’(broadly construed).”''' Elvenscout has made contributions to a number of Japanese poetry articles that I’ve never edited and do not intend to edit; I’ve contributed to articles on American and Russian poetry that Elvenscout has not touched and perhaps will not touch. I see no need to ban Elvenscout, for example, from articles such as ] or ] or to ban me from articles such as ] or ]; these are articles where our editing does not intersect. In place, therefore, of '''“poetry (broadly construed),”''' would it be possible to establish a narrower parameter, one that includes only those articles wherein we’ve been in direct conflict or wherein we’ve both directly participated? If so, like Elvenscout, then I can '''agree''' with Stalwart’s solution. <del>:I do share the reservations Elvenscout expresses regarding a '''topic ban''', however, due to Stalwart’s suggestion that said ban cover '''“’poetry’(broadly construed).”''' Elvenscout has made contributions to a number of Japanese poetry articles that I’ve never edited and do not intend to edit; I’ve contributed to articles on American and Russian poetry that Elvenscout has not touched and perhaps will not touch. I see no need to ban Elvenscout, for example, from articles such as ] or ] or to ban me from articles such as ] or ]; these are articles where our editing does not intersect. In place, therefore, of '''“poetry (broadly construed),”''' would it be possible to establish a narrower parameter, one that includes only those articles wherein we’ve been in direct conflict or wherein we’ve both directly participated? If so, like Elvenscout, then I can '''agree''' with Stalwart’s solution.<del>


:It might be constructive for all concerned, also, to archive the Talk Pages of these same articles where our disputes took place – to remove them, that is, from immediate view. Those articles, to the best of my recollection, include ], ], ], ], ] and ]. If I've mistakenly left anything off of this list, Elvenscout can supply it. :It might be constructive for all concerned, also, to archive the Talk Pages of these same articles where our disputes took place – to remove them, that is, from immediate view. Those articles, to the best of my recollection, include ], ], ], ], ] and ]. If I've mistakenly left anything off of this list, Elvenscout can supply it.
Line 157: Line 157:
:::] was archived with on Oct 17. You have subsequently, on Nov 30 and Dec 2, added three posts , and to the same talk page, however, that reintroduce old controversies, and to what purpose? I haven’t responded to these edits as that can only exacerbate the situation but I believe, as a good faith gesture, that they, too, should be archived or deleted, Elvenscout. We’re here trying to put this conflict to rest, no? The talk page edits that you’ve added are rather inflammatory and do not contribute to a possible solution here.] (]) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC) :::] was archived with on Oct 17. You have subsequently, on Nov 30 and Dec 2, added three posts , and to the same talk page, however, that reintroduce old controversies, and to what purpose? I haven’t responded to these edits as that can only exacerbate the situation but I believe, as a good faith gesture, that they, too, should be archived or deleted, Elvenscout. We’re here trying to put this conflict to rest, no? The talk page edits that you’ve added are rather inflammatory and do not contribute to a possible solution here.] (]) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


:*'''Addendum:''' Would it suffice, in other words, to replace a broad ] with an ] that would stipulate as off-limits those articles (and their talk pages) enumerated above? Wouldn’t this less restrictive ban, in conjunction with an ], do the trick?] (]) 03:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC) <del>:*'''Addendum:''' Would it suffice, in other words, to replace a broad ] with an ] that would stipulate as off-limits those articles (and their talk pages) enumerated above? Wouldn’t this less restrictive ban, in conjunction with an ], do the trick?] (]) 03:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)<del>


<del>::It seems a little odd to ban me from editing ]. ] (]) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)</del> <del>::It seems a little odd to ban me from editing ]. ] (]) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)</del>


:::On second thought, yes, you are right that it would be “a little odd” to ban the creator of the article from future editing of it. However, see my concerns above about the current state of ].] (]) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC) <del>:::On second thought, yes, you are right that it would be “a little odd” to ban the creator of the article from future editing of it. However, see my concerns above about the current state of ].] (]) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)<del>


::::Creating a separate archive page for three edits is pointless. I'm deleting them, since they are no longer relevant. The first was posted to provide a concise explanation for why the article changed subjects in September, but since then all edits prior to 13 September have been blocked from view for copyright reasons. The later edits were posted in response to your comments here, but given that all three possible topic/article bans under discussion have you not editing that article, a response to you seems irrelevant. ] (]) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC) ::::Creating a separate archive page for three edits is pointless. I'm deleting them, since they are no longer relevant. The first was posted to provide a concise explanation for why the article changed subjects in September, but since then all edits prior to 13 September have been blocked from view for copyright reasons. The later edits were posted in response to your comments here, but given that all three possible topic/article bans under discussion have you not editing that article, a response to you seems irrelevant. ] (]) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Line 182: Line 182:


:I personally see no reason for you to restrict your topics at all. I favour Tristan noir avoiding all poetry, not just Japanese, as you've made a convincing case that he is editing problematically in a genre that crosses English and Japanese poetry. We need more eyes on the case, though, to be fair to Tristan. The difficulty is, a grasp of your case involves an hour or two of reading, and time is our currency here. You may make appraisal from your peers "cheaper" for them if you can restate your case more succinctly. Perhaps take your time - a day or two if necessary - to construct a clear, simple and concise case for Tristan noir's exclusion from poetry articles (or whatever you believe would be the mildest effective sanction). A few paragraphs with ] would be ideal. --] (]) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC) :I personally see no reason for you to restrict your topics at all. I favour Tristan noir avoiding all poetry, not just Japanese, as you've made a convincing case that he is editing problematically in a genre that crosses English and Japanese poetry. We need more eyes on the case, though, to be fair to Tristan. The difficulty is, a grasp of your case involves an hour or two of reading, and time is our currency here. You may make appraisal from your peers "cheaper" for them if you can restate your case more succinctly. Perhaps take your time - a day or two if necessary - to construct a clear, simple and concise case for Tristan noir's exclusion from poetry articles (or whatever you believe would be the mildest effective sanction). A few paragraphs with ] would be ideal. --] (]) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}}I’m willing to follow Elvenscout’s good faith example and to agree to Stalwart’s original proposal above, ''viz.,'' that Elvenscout and I ''mutually'' accept an administrator's implementation of a '''topic ban for “poetry” broadly construed''' as well as the implementation of an '''interaction ban'''.] (]) 03:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


== User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again == == User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again ==

Revision as of 03:10, 5 December 2012

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    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 Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity. to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.
    elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    Extended content
    In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above.
    My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin. If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination.
    My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example).
    My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Misplaced Pages policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him.
    My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Misplaced Pages community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character.
    I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity. to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.
    elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    (The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC))
    Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Misplaced Pages rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Misplaced Pages or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Misplaced Pages). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “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,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me.

    Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging.

    Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    Could someone please tell TN to stop making personal attacks like the above? My reasoning for doing everything he mentions was clearly established multiple times in the edits themselves, and his assuming bad faith on my part has been troubling me for almost 3 months now.
    My informing User:Drmies of the need to watch out for TN and one other editor while editing the Tanka in English article was justified, given TN's constantly attacking me for making similar edits.
    My informing User:BDD that I had replied to his query, and stating the reason I forgot to inform him previously was equally benign (the reason was TN's ridiculous assumption of bad faith/personal attack distracting me).
    My making a slight edit to my initial response to User:BDD in order to clarify my meaning, in light of TN deliberately getting my subpage deleted and making my reasoning unclear, was also justified. (I am beginning to think TN deliberately posted my subpage for deletion without ever trying to discuss it, specifically to blur the meaning of posts where I had linked to it.)
    My edits to Tanka in English were extreme, yes, but they drew the attention of a couple of good editors and led the article being significantly cleaned up and made into something resembling an encyclopedia article. The fact is that before I added those tags the article was already illegible because of how poorly written it was (almost every sentence read as "The first A was B", with no clarification of A or B's relevance to the article).
    I would like to hear what TN thinks is "revisionist" about my recent posting on Talk:Uta monogatari. I merely provided a statement of the reasons why the first half of the page's history seems to be a completely different article to what is there now, in the hopes that concerned editors would not think User:Bagworm and I had engaged in vandalism in our completely overhauling the article. Also, I am not sure if Misplaced Pages policy demands that the previous history of the page be deleted because of its copyright violation? TN has, unfortunately, yet to explain why his initial version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article from two weeks earlier...
    elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Correction TN's article was a NEAR carbon-copy of the Woodward piece. The final four words ("and Contemporary Haibun Online") of Woodward's piece were cut, and Gary LeBel's name was added to the list of "other notable poets who adopted tanka prose in the 1990s". Also, while six of the ten work's TN's article cited were Woodward's (the other four, naturally, did not actually use the phrase "tanka prose"), TN failed to cite the one Woodward piece that had clearly had the most influence on the writing of his article. This blatant copyright violation has never been properly addressed. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Tristan noir is here for one thing, to promote the work of Woodward. He consumes a great deal of other people's time; other people who are here to build an encyclopedia, not push a tiny, tiny, non-notable fringe idea. He insults others. Could someone please do the right thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    Extended content
    While this discussion proceeds, User Elvenscout, contrary to WP:CANVAS, continues his campaigning and possible stealth canvassing, via posts such as this of Nov 27, or this of Nov 30, or this of Dec 1 on various user’s talk pages.

    User Elvenscout also, contrary to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, continues to alter and / or suppress unilaterally the content of article talk pages, e.g., at Talk:Uta monogatari with edits on Oct 17 and Nov 30, and at Talk:Tanka in English on Dec 1.Tristan noir (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    The above comments are not canvassing. The users in question have equally taken note of TN's bad behaviour, and I have asked heir advice on how to proceed, because this ANI post, like all my other attempts to deal with TN through community involvement, has apparently been derailed by TN's refusal to be concise or accurate and instead relying on ad hominem attacks like the above. The above removal of the contents of the uta monogatari talk page is called "archiving", TN. It is a perfectly normal process for when a talk page becomes very long, and especially in a case like this when the previous talk is almost entirely irrelevant to the article content.
    Additionally, I removed one account of the recommendation regarding "tanka in English", because after two months neither TN nor anyone else has made any attempt to implement it, because, as was already established by broad consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, the merge would likely bring in WP:WEIGHT issues. Additionally, instead of making any attempt to improve that article or participate in the currently active discussion there, TN limited his edits to making personal attacks against me and arguing entirely irrelevant points about my "ignorance of the publishing industry". (My comments were that fringe-materials that are "published" through Lulu, and therefore do not exist in any libraries or bookshops, are probably not reliable sources and should not be advertised on Misplaced Pages.) In fact, the majority of TN's edits to article talk pages over the last two months have been limited to following my edits, and whenever another user (primarily User:Bagworm) disagrees with me, TN will jump in and attack me, claiming that this is "consensus". One other noteworthy example is , where I had had a dispute with Bagworm over his/her posting of an inappropriate item on a list. When I removed it I explained my reasoning, and Bagworm seemed to accept it in his/her silence, but then almost two weeks later TN appeared and posted a ridiculous argument in response. His argument was that since one author had said that in Japan visual arts are often linked with literature, then a Japanese painting style should be included in a list of literary terms.
    elvenscout742 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    I am collapsing irrelevant, off-topic portions of the conversation. Personal issues with my actions on unrelated pages should be brought up with me on MY talk page or on the relevant article talk pages -- they should not clutter this ANI post, which is meant to address Tristan noirs behaviour. Next-to-nothing TN has posted above qualifies as a defense against my pointing out that his activities have been limited to posting spam/fringe theories to numerous articles, and undermining my integrity as an editor. Ad hominem arguments against me have no place here.

    TN has, throughout all of my interactions with him over the last three months, constantly failed to address his problems with my edits in the appropriate venues; several of the pages he has posted to contain some reference to a separate argument, as well as a reply by me that received no direct response until TN posted something else on an entirely different talk page. The current example is in his constantly using this page to moan about my edits to other pages, when his edit history shows that he has not tried to engage me directly on any other talk page for over two weeks. Probably the most blatant example is , where he attempted to use Talk:Tanka in English to attack my edits on four other articles, but has since failed to bring up his specific problems with my edits on either the appropriate article talk pages or on my talk page. His drawing a link between my edits to different articles was also bizarre, since my edits to each of the pages he listed only vaguely resembled my edits to "Tanka in English". This has made it very difficult to discuss anything with him.

    Accusations of canvassing on my part are ridiculous: my message to BDD does not mention ANI once! It is exclusively related to a comment he made on a separate talk page two weeks earlier. I also asked the advice of an experienced Wikipedian who had intervened in what TN apparently considers an ongoing content dispute at Tanka in English -- on my side, of course, since TN's view is apparently that the article should include material not found in reliable sources, and should refer to unreliable sources as "noteworthy publications". Further, my messaging Stalwart111 cannot be "canvassing", since he was the one who suggested posting here in the first place, and he had already posted here himself before I messaged him! I was merely asking his advice on what else I could do to stop TN's seemingly endless quest to post spam/OR/fringe on various Misplaced Pages articles.

    TN's initial response above also technically qualifies as an ad hominem argument in its failure to make any attempt to address my issues with his editing activities, but I guess it needs to be left intact since he is entitled to a response. I don't suppose he would like to post a more relevant defense against the accusations that he is here to spam Misplaced Pages?

    elvenscout742 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    Proposed solution

    I have given my opinion (on a number of occasions) and am undeniably "involved" but would like to propose a solution nonetheless (I hope admins will allow that, given how long this has dragged on without a solution). As this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND based on differing opinions / personal views / supposed conflicts-of-interest relating almost entirely to one topic, a topic ban seems (at least to me) to be the obvious solution. An additional interaction ban would probably be a good idea.

    Topic ban - if either party is genuinely here to build Misplaced Pages, they will accept a topic ban and move on to editing other unrelated topics. I suggest a topic ban for "poetry" (broadly construed).

    Interaction ban - to prevent the battleground cancer from spreading, an interaction ban for elvenscout742 and Tristan noir is proposed.

    For the record, I came to the original AFD completely at random (I probably participate in around 5-10 a day) and have had nothing to do with either editor in the past in any way shape or form. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any article relating to poetry, save for perhaps the biography of some obscure 17th century noble who happens to have also written some poetry in his spare time. Given topic bans (as I understand them) are designed to avoid future conflict or prevent disruptive editing, I can't see the face-value, but if admins believe my actions have exacerbated the problem then I will quite happily sign myself up for a topic ban as well. Stalwart111 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment As a peripherally involved editor I have found the negative interactions between the two editors in question quite disruptive, and I'd like to voice my support for User Stalwart111's proposed solution as outlined above. While on the face of it, the proposal may seem extreme, the volume of heat and friction visible across a range of poetry-related articles has reached intolerable and disruptive levels, and I believe that if both editors are prepared to place Misplaced Pages first then they should accept it. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    *I like this solution in theory, but I'm not sure about "unrelated topics" -- does it mean I am limited to editing articles on topics unrelated to the TN's topics? Or does it mean I am banned from editing articles on Japanese poetry? While I am here to build an encyclopedia, my area of expertise, and my only real interest, is Japanese literature; this is also a topic I have generally limited myself to up until now. If I am still allowed edit articles related to Japanese literature, then I agree to the above solution. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    The proposed topic ban would prevent you and Tristan noir from editing any content related to poetry. I've read most of the background here and, although you, elvenscout742, can be wordy, I haven't found your editing to be anything but on-policy and generally constructive and civil. So I can't support topic-banning you. Also, I'd prefer to offer Tristan noir the opportunity to return to the topic if he demonstrates constructive on-policy editing in other areas over the next 12 months. I'm not sure an interaction ban is necessary, but if both parties agree to it, why not? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    :::I don't think I can accept a blanket-topic-ban on poetry when I'm in the middle of an incomplete translation of an article on poetry... elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    • User Stalwart111’s proposed two-part solution above seems reasonable, constructive and fair. I am quite willing – would be grateful, in fact – to accept an administrator’s decision to enforce an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me.

    :I do share the reservations Elvenscout expresses regarding a topic ban, however, due to Stalwart’s suggestion that said ban cover “’poetry’(broadly construed).” Elvenscout has made contributions to a number of Japanese poetry articles that I’ve never edited and do not intend to edit; I’ve contributed to articles on American and Russian poetry that Elvenscout has not touched and perhaps will not touch. I see no need to ban Elvenscout, for example, from articles such as Waka (poetry) or The Tale of Genji or to ban me from articles such as Jones Very or Zaum; these are articles where our editing does not intersect. In place, therefore, of “poetry (broadly construed),” would it be possible to establish a narrower parameter, one that includes only those articles wherein we’ve been in direct conflict or wherein we’ve both directly participated? If so, like Elvenscout, then I can agree with Stalwart’s solution.

    It might be constructive for all concerned, also, to archive the Talk Pages of these same articles where our disputes took place – to remove them, that is, from immediate view. Those articles, to the best of my recollection, include Haibun, Tanka in English, Uta monogatari, Renku, Haiga and Prosimetrum. If I've mistakenly left anything off of this list, Elvenscout can supply it.
    Anthonyhcole’s suggestion above that this editor alone be placed under a topic ban “over the next 12 months” is slanted and hardly justified when taking fully into account both sides of the lengthy WP:BATTLEGROUND conflict that Stalwart addresses in his proposal.Tristan noir (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Talk:Uta monogatari was already archived. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Talk:Uta monogatari was archived with this edit on Oct 17. You have subsequently, on Nov 30 and Dec 2, added three posts here, here and here to the same talk page, however, that reintroduce old controversies, and to what purpose? I haven’t responded to these edits as that can only exacerbate the situation but I believe, as a good faith gesture, that they, too, should be archived or deleted, Elvenscout. We’re here trying to put this conflict to rest, no? The talk page edits that you’ve added are rather inflammatory and do not contribute to a possible solution here.Tristan noir (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    :*Addendum: Would it suffice, in other words, to replace a broad topic ban with an article and page ban that would stipulate as off-limits those articles (and their talk pages) enumerated above? Wouldn’t this less restrictive ban, in conjunction with an interaction ban, do the trick?Tristan noir (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    ::It seems a little odd to ban me from editing an article I created. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    :::On second thought, yes, you are right that it would be “a little odd” to ban the creator of the article from future editing of it. However, see my concerns above about the current state of Talk: Uta monogatari.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Creating a separate archive page for three edits is pointless. I'm deleting them, since they are no longer relevant. The first was posted to provide a concise explanation for why the article changed subjects in September, but since then all edits prior to 13 September have been blocked from view for copyright reasons. The later edits were posted in response to your comments here, but given that all three possible topic/article bans under discussion have you not editing that article, a response to you seems irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    ::How about this: Tristan stays awayis banned from Japanese poetry, I stay awayam banned from English and American poetry, and we both agree to generally avoid non-culture-specific poetry articles (like Prosimetrum), as well as Tanka in English and Haiku in English. My main concern is that both myself and Tristan seem to be primarily concerned with poetry, and banning us both from all poetry articles doesn't seem constructive. Tristan's most constructive edits have been to articles about western poetry, and mine have been to articles about Japanese poetry. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    It's probably the right time now, Elvenscout, for you and I to pause and let others weigh-in on Stalwart's original proposal and / or your suggested modification above or my earlier modification above.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Change of heart It occurs to me now that since the purpose of the proposed topic was to demonstrate that we are both here to build an encyclopedia, either one of us placing weaker restrictions on the ban defeats the purpose. I will therefore accept a full ban on poetry articles in order to prove that my primary reason for being here is to help improve Misplaced Pages. While my main interest is Japanese literature, and poetry is a huge part of that, there is still plenty of work to be done on Misplaced Pages's coverage of classical Japanese prose as well. (I think I might go back to improving The Tale of Genji.)

    On examining WP:BAN, though, I notice that it mentions several times that such bans are imposed for being "disruptive", and so I must emphasize here for the record that the reason I am self-imposing this ban is not because I believe I have been disruptive (I think community consensus would agree that I have not), but merely to demonstrate that my recent actions have been in the interests of building an encyclopedia. Therefore, I don't want to be stigmatized as having been "banned" for being "disruptive".

    This "ban" is self-imposed and only meant to prove that I am not here to post spam or POV on Misplaced Pages poetry articles. User:Stalwart111 and User:Anthonyhcole understand this; User:Bagworm and User:Tristan noir, if they have understood WP:AGF, will also agree to this. (I don't want to see any user take this as an opportunity to go around reverting every edit I have made that he/she disagrees with.) If at some point during my ban I accidentally slip up (once or twice) and, say, add a notice to a poetry-related article that I was reading for my own enjoyment, I expect a polite reminder on my talk page.

    I do not want, for example, a posting on the article talk page (where I can't reply) "In this edit user Elvenscut742 violated a topic ban that was imposed on him by community consensus for being disruptive. I have therefore reverted the edit and have reported him to an administrator." This kind of action (from anyone other than Stalwart111, Tristan noir, Anthonyhcole, Bagworm, and whatever admin chooses to close this discussion) will result in me responding on that user's talk page by drawing their attention to this discussion. This kind of action from any user who should know better will be treated as a personal attack.

    Of course, all of the above is dependent on Tristan noir accepting a similar topic ban. Or such a ban being imposed.

    elvenscout742 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    I personally see no reason for you to restrict your topics at all. I favour Tristan noir avoiding all poetry, not just Japanese, as you've made a convincing case that he is editing problematically in a genre that crosses English and Japanese poetry. We need more eyes on the case, though, to be fair to Tristan. The difficulty is, a grasp of your case involves an hour or two of reading, and time is our currency here. You may make appraisal from your peers "cheaper" for them if you can restate your case more succinctly. Perhaps take your time - a day or two if necessary - to construct a clear, simple and concise case for Tristan noir's exclusion from poetry articles (or whatever you believe would be the mildest effective sanction). A few paragraphs with diffs would be ideal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    I’m willing to follow Elvenscout’s good faith example and to agree to Stalwart’s original proposal above, viz., that Elvenscout and I mutually accept an administrator's implementation of a topic ban for “poetry” broadly construed as well as the implementation of an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

    User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again

    BAN ENACTED It's been over a day since this discussion started. I count 19 people supporting (counting people who voted twice as a single vote) and 6 opposing the topic ban. Based on a combination of the numbers and the strengths of the arguments, the topic ban is enacted as described: "LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics." --Jayron32 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    After admin Black Kite's 48-hour block for disruptive editing expired, LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned immediately to editwarring over diacritics (what he was blocked for before). In fact, he appears to have done absolutely nothing but editwar about diacritics at Lech Wałęsa and argue tendentiously about them at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, despite being warned to not do so. His edits are extremely WP:POINTy, insisting on adding "better known as " to this and (previously) to other articles with diacritics, as if anyone could not understand that "Wałęsa" is sometimes rendered "Walesa" in English. If not stopped, his "WP readers are idiots" editing would affect many thousands of articles. He has been on a WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against diacritics at WP:RM, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WP:TENNIS articles, and any other forum he can think of to shop this to, for months and months. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    • The reason given for my block was that I reverted several attempts by User:SMcCandlish to trash titles and contents of my RfC on "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLP". Trashing the contents of somebody's RfC is like rewriting the comments of another user, and is surely forbidden. There was a comments section for making comments, but User:SMcCandlish trashed the contents of the RfC itself.
    • The reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. There are several guidelines covering diacritics:
    • WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
    • WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
    • WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
    • MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"
    • and I am not aware of any decision that all of these are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation.
    • I do not think that politely discussing, on the article talk page, the reasons why the English version of Lech Walesa's name should not be totally stripped from the article constitutes "disruptive editing". I do think that SMcCandlish's repeated insults and repeated attempts to intimidate other users (see also discussion here) and silence polite discussion are far below the minimum acceptable and tolerable behavior on Misplaced Pages. I believe that he deserves a block for refusing to tone down his abusive, vindicative, and insulting behavior, even though cautioned by other users. The insults, character assassination, and veiled threats under "Better use of WT:BLP time" below this RfC are also surely far below minimum acceptable standards of behavior on Misplaced Pages. You can see another example of such intimidation and character assassination here. LittleBen (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Dear Ben... please learn to use the SHOW PREVIEW button (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    No seriously - please use the 'show preview' button. GiantSnowman 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    Whatever is decided otherwise, two things need to change; LittleBenW needs indeed to use the preview button (24 edits in this discussion already, to compose one message? The last 17 edits on Talk:Lech Wałęsa all by the same editor, for the same comment?), and templates in userspace should never be used in the mainspace: <ref>{{User:LittleBenW/Template test|Lech Wałęsa}}</ref> was part of the Lech Walesa article until User:Volunteer Marek removed it; moving it to template namespace will not help in this instance though, a "Google search" is not a reliable source that should be introduced into articles. Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    I concur. I make no secret of having done this; I also asked Dominus Vobisdu for help, as I really don't have the first clue how User RfCs work. I did not know the full back-story, and I was surprised and relieved to see SMcCandlish bring the case here last week. I freely admit that I painted a bit of a target on myself during Ben's RfC by describing my contribution as an 'expert opinion'. I am not, and do not pretend to be, an expert on diacritics. However, I felt I had sketched out my area of knowledge, and its relevant to the discussion, fairly clearly. I was therefore surprised by the vehement hostility of Ben's reply. I found his behaviour thereafter to be hectoring, wilfully ignorant, and generally obstructive. I would especially emphasise the following points: (1) persistent biased description of his own views, opinions, perspectives and so on as 'neutral' and 'NPOV' (for which, I refer to Bernard Woolley's observation that "Railway trains are impartial too, but if you lay down the lines for them that's the way they go."); (2) constant not hearing what others are saying - in particular, claiming not to understand Agathoclea's perfectly clear and lucid use of English; (3) his wildly incompetent editing style, resulting in dozens of consecutive edits to the same few pages, and making it really difficult to get a word in - as I mentioned in that discussion, at one point it took me four attempts to get past edit conflicts with him in order to post a single short paragraph; and failing to sign comments, or indent correctly, leading to misattributions and unclear threading;(4) his persistent attempts to censor others' opinions by unilaterally declaring repeated moratoria on other people editing his RfC, and collapsing sections of the page which contain criticism of his views and methods; (5) his fiercely confrontational style, including inserting ad hominem attacks into his comments to me after I had already replied to them. My response to this report can be found below. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Black Kite: Please explain why your user page contained the statement, "In response to this abuse of power by ArbCom, I am withdrawing my services as an editor and as an admin, except for commenting on this case. Although I have great respect for some members of the current committee, I do not feel I can contribute while the current ban motion is still viable. Should these things change, I may reconsider, but if not then I thank all those who have made my time here so pleasurable, and I apologize to those whom I would otherwise have been happy to help" on around Nov. 17, right before blocking me. Also you did not specify any rational reason or any successful RfCs or other decisions that justify your premature closing of this RfC. You reason sounds like a deliberate fabrication. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
        • He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
            • What is your point? Black Kite is in protest of something unrelated and voluntarily walks away. Obviously he still checks his userpage, saw what he deemed inappropriate behavior and handled it. Which policy was violated by Black Kite? He can do what he wants. You do not get to dictate the terms of his break.--v/r - TP 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
          • And SMcCandlish asked him no such thing. He notified him of this discussion. His previous comment on the talk page was in response to BlackKites handling of your edit warring on the 3RR page. It is quite normal and expected to notify and administrator who blocked a user of further disruption by that user. You keep digging your hole deeper by misrepresenting the facts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


    • Support topic ban, for the last two years we've had non-stop excessive drama about diacritics, and it is nothing more than disruptive. - filelakeshoe 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support topic ban. Just from the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user has demonstrated here it's plain that this user is going to be single minded in their persuit of diaretics issues. From having to do 24 edits for their initial response, to digging into commenter's histories to look for a reason to discredit the outside comments on the grounds of being involved, to digging into Admin's histories to find a reason to ignore the advice. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Topic ban Having had a look at the previous ANI that got them blocked for 48hrs, LittleBen should have considered himself lucky not to have been indef'd. Assumptions of bad faith and combatative attitude in this area justify and indefinite topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support. I noted, as part of LittleBen's battleground behaviour his attempt to rally an ally after this ANI was created. That comment led me to investigate his argument that SMC "attempted to intimidate Fyunck(click)". Except that SMC's only comment - strongly worded - was directed at nobody specific and was merely an expression of frustration at the tendentious nature of the argument. In short, LittleBen is inventing bad faith motivations for his opponents (also noted by his misrepresentation of DJSasso and AlexTiefling's brief interaction). LittleBenW is not so much an editor as he is a crusader, and that is far too problematic to ignore. Resolute 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Since I was mentioned here let me comment. I did not find SMC's strongly-worded comment "intimidation." However, saying it was directed at no one in particular would be naive. While I have been intimidated by two other diacritic allies of his, to the point of needing administrative assistance, SMCs wording was simply the same kind of frustration I sometimes have felt being on the other side of the coin. And while Littleben is correct that the title should be at "Lech Walesa" here at this English encyclopedia, removing diacritics is not a fight I've been recently pushing... too frustrating with the same old faces on each side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    Formal topic ban proposal

    I've just realized that we are basically !voting on "a topic ban" without really defining it. So, I'll formalize the proposal using the same verbiage from other cases: LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.

    Naturally, my support comment above stands. I will leave it to others who have already weighed in to reconfirm if this specific proposal is adequate. Resolute 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Support this formal resolution. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support User completely in the battlefield mentality on this topic. Digging into peoples histories and mis-stating facts just to try and discredit those who disagree with him is ridiculous. I already thought he should be topic banned, but his behaviour in this discussion has only solidified that more. (moved from earlier in discussion to indicate I support the formal wording) -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd have to oppose because, honestly, the user is in the right...and as I myself have found in this project from time to time, it is hard being right in the face of such abject obstinance. The article in question should be moved to Lech Walesa, even; start recognizing the en aspect of en.wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Asking people to either follow Misplaced Pages guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Misplaced Pages) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Misplaced Pages guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
          • The only one doing any intimidating, bullying, baiting, and insulting at the moment is you. With the way you are lying and misrepresenting facts in this current discussion. The RfC that got shut down was far from civil, you were removing any comment by anyone that disagreed with you. You were rigging the outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Actually Tarc, this issue has been sliced, autopsied, analyzed, examined and argued from every possible angle. As one example, take Britannica, which in the past user has claimed does not use diacritics for "Lech Walesa" - it turns out it actually does, it's just that he had the diacritics turned off on his browser somehow. Here it is: . If it's standard English (the en part of the encyclopedia) on BRITAINnica, then why does it all of sudden cease to be English here? Perhaps because some of the people who think they know English usage, actually don't. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
          • One further comment - this has been brought up before as well - why can't we have the technology which would allow users to choose a diacrtic or non-diacritic versions in their preferences? It certainly seems feasible and if it puts an end to all this stupid bickering once and for all, it'd be money well spend by the Foundation. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Let's not make this about solving the diacritics 'problem'. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. This is about LittleBen's conduct, which, frankly, stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Reconfirm support See my reasonong above. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Suppor, the RfC was an extreme example of IDHT, and doesn't seem to be an exception for this user. Fram (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • support wording. - filelakeshoe 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support this as a bear minimum. Frankly, I feel that Ben has failed to show the competence necessary to contribute. I am sick of dealing with an editor who consistently 'plays the man and not the ball', and cannot himself ever make a single, clean edit to a page. I would gladly support a longer full block than the one already issued, in addition to topic and interaction bans. If I never have to deal with this anti-diacritics nonsense again, it will be too soon - but if its proponents conduct themselves more graciously, that's my problem. When it's the sort of behaviour Ben has displayed, it's the community's problem, and I say we bar him from the topic for good. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose Per Tarc. He's right  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Strongest Possible Support Although Tarc is in principle correct, it appears that Ben turns both nasty and "I didn't hear that" when dealing with anything related diacritics. As such, it's best to keep Ben away from such articles and discussions until he's willing to actually a) not edit-war, b) not attack others, and c) actually listen to others. As such, this topic ban proposal has complete merit in its goal to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Holy crap. I hardly know where to start with what's wrong about this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    I have added "strongest possible" to my support, primarily due to this edit by Ben that shows a) it's personal to him, and b) that he just cannot stop himself from personal attacks and bad faith (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Tark. LB is correct and it is always tough if you're correct and you face several editors of opposing views. I also think handing out a topic ban is way out of proportion here regardless of wrong or right and wiki should be going out of its way "not" to impose these things at the drop of a hat. Editors should usually be given written warnings acknowledged by a couple "non-involved" administrators that their behavior is bordering on a topic ban and that they should reflect and change their modus-operandi lest further action be taken. Otherwise it seems like an old western small-town mob hanging where if the victim had walked into a different small town he might be regarded the hero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Even if he was right he has proven to lack the competence and collorative spirit in contributing in this subject area (see also this comment on his talkpage) The competence issue goes beyond the diacritic issue, he has repeatedly been made aware of his wrongly marking edits as minor. He obviously does not understand English and his discussion style is so bad that I was on the verge of asking the community to impose a different limitation to the one suggested here - limit his contribution to a maximum of 10 edits per discussion, but let's keep this idea in mind for another day. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support mostly on the basis of the activity being disruptive and pointy. Volunteer Marek  19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support as per VM and others - and also because edit-warring over MOS issues is of no benefit whatsoever to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Support, but without "participating in any discussions about the same." Tarc is right: the article should be Lech Walesa, to hell with the MOS if it says otherwise. But that discussion is over (at least for now). Tough luck for me and other people who prefer the version without diacritics. It's a re-direct, I can live with that. As per VM, this is about "disruptive and pointy" editing in articles. But: the editor should be allowed to discuss it all they like. What is their time, they can waste how they please. Just not others' time. (And people, please: spell-checker, does your browser have one? Then use it!) --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support: Extremely disruptive battleground behavior and incivility that has already consumed countless hours of editor time. Absolute refusal to listen makes it impossible for this editor to ever work contructively with others on this topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support – LittleBenW's stridently anti-diacritic antics of the last two years has made it very hard to have any serious discussions of the issues. Holding him out of the way will allow more normal processes to proceed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support; editors do have legitimate disagreements over diacritics; the battleground mentality is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support. Being right or wrong is irrelevant here (and it's absurd to even claim that an issue like that has one clearly right and one clearly wrong answer). Disruptive edit warring gets you topic banned, simple as that. --Conti|✉ 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose gross over-reaction -- the person should absolutely be allowed to discuss the issues, and this ban would not aid Misplaced Pages as a project. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Per Conti, being right is not the point here. And it is clear that Ben's editing has been found wanting. However, it does not automatically follow that whatever remedy someone proposes will be the best one. The behaviour of both sides should be examined here. It seems to me that some editors have been too eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics and giving them this satisfaction would not address that issue. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose, a ban should be a last resort, after other reasonable measures have been tried but failed; not one of the first measures applied, for the convenience of silencing an opposing view that ought rightfully be heard. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose I would support a short ban (a couple of months or perhaps as long as six months) to allow a cooling off period. I do not support an indefinite ban. I am also worried about the process within this ANI as I see some editors acting as prosecutor, judges and executioners. If there is to be a topic ban of over a few months then I think the more appropriate venue would be a user RfC (although those too can degenerate into kangaroo court). If an RfC is initiated before the end of the year, I think that all those who have commented here should be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support as per my 'informal' comment above. GiantSnowman 15:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Unlike a content dispute about the shape of the earth (flat vs. round), there is not an objectively correct answer about how to handle these diacritics. It's a somewhat arbitrary decision about house style, made by WP editors through discussion/consensus. If someone is acting disruptive, it's completely appropriate to remove them from the process, so other editors will decide the issue without them. Even if it's a different decision, it's still not "wrong".

      Tarc's objection seems to be that there's a MOS argument for writing Lech Wałęsa without diacritics, so we're doing it wrong and we should accept unlimited amounts of disruption to avoid the catastrophic, project-destroying error (snort) of writing Wałęsa instead of Walesa in the article. The remedy for that concern is to have a talkpage or RM discussion narrowly about the Wałęsa article, not using it to fight a proxy battle about diacritics throughout the project. The discussion will close with either (depending on your perspective) either the "right" outcome (in which case the situation got handled just fine without Little Ben), or the "wrong" outcome (in which case we add one more to the countless tiny imperfections in Misplaced Pages, probably way below the millionth on the list in terms of consequence, so not worth any significant amount of disruption, and in case this outcome is to remove the diacritics as Little Ben wanted, it also benefits from his non-participation by decreasing the stridency). Our reading public is frankly not going to care one way or the other which way we write it. (And to whoever suggested a reader preference: no that won't work, almost all our readers don't have accounts, and anyway it would be a sort of POVFORK). 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    Alternate suggestion

    What if I or someone else volunteered to mentor User:LittleBenW through conducting a proper RFC and ensured there was no disruptive behavior. The community could dictate that to accept this suggestion, LittleBenW would be required to accept the decision of the RFC as binding. Would that work instead of a topic ban? Several folks have said he is technically correct, right? I have no opinion on the specific use of the English language (if anyone has seen me write) so I've got no particular opinion.--v/r - TP 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Good idea, but surely the diacritics pushers would not support discussion on a fair and level playing field. LittleBen (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support - Sanctions are only advisable if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Why not try this? Against the current (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose as an alternative. As the diacritic issue is just part of the problem, albeit the worst, I recommend mentoring to solve the underlying issues and then for the mentor to come back here when his mentoring has been successful to lift the topicban and then guide him through a diacritic related rfc. Agathoclea (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose. While diacritic marks may have been the gateway for this user, I see the embers of the WP:DIACRITICS war in the verbage. The answer is not to coddle them, but to stamp out the embers as soon as possible as this has nowhere to go (including the Jimbo Appeal) but straight into a full out diacritic war. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose: The situation has gone far beyond the point where a gentle slap on the wrist will do. I, and many others, have tried to reason with him, all to no avail. You can't reason with a true believer who's on a crusade. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support/Oppose - I would oppose this and the section above, but if these turn out to be the only two choices then I would support this lesser alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support. Part of the problem here is that some editors have been excessively eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics. Ben has played into this a little, because he does not appear to have to experience necessary to formulate a robust RfC question. This has led to his frustration. If he were given support to enable him to see an RfC through to its conclusion (and assuming he were willing to abide by the outcome), then that would substantially solve the problem. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    Another alternate suggestion

    Boldly closing as an entirely inappropriate digression from the matter at hand. Entertaining this discussion further is taking away LittleBenW's shovel and giving him an earthmover. Blackmane (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    TParis's suggestion, that an RfC be allowed to proceed, surely is another way of saying that the reason given for terminating the RfC (and that Black Kite refuses to back up with facts) was fraudulent, deliberate fabrication. Administrators are supposed to be fair, honest, and unbiased, which certainly does not seem to be the case here. Surely to shut down a discussion which was courteous, until his crony SMC came along and started trashing it, is gross abuse of authority. Black Kite should keep his word (as posted on his talk page) and relinquish his Admin powers if he can't or won't clean up his act. LittleBen (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    Note: I have advised Ben to amend his personal attacks above, and have amended my OWN !vote above to become "strongest possible support" for the topic ban due to his extreme bad faith and his personal attacks related to this subject overall (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • As I explained above, the reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. As I also pointed out above, I am not aware of any decision that all of the guidelines listed above are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above guidelines) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation. LittleBen (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    Ben, I don't think it's likely that you have seen any evidence of "fraudulent, deliberate fabrication", so you should strike that. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I said if he can not produce evidence of "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (the reason that he gave for shutting down the discussion) then surely it is untrue. He seems to be refusing to reply to this. The suggestion by User:TParis that a fair and neutral RfC is necessary surely supports this viewpoint (that an RfC was needed, contrary to what Black Kite claims). LittleBen (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You are just being tenacious, you have been in repeated discussions that have resulted in your preferred outcome not being accepted. You are well aware that you were just bringing up the same discussion again in yet another forum where the outcome was going to be exactly the same. In all cases it was very clear there was no consensus to implement your wished changes. Trying to claim he has no proof that such discussions occurred is ridiculous and is just you trying to shift blame to whomever you can. It is in fact further proving the need for the topic ban above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    We've had numerous RFCs on the topic, and they never turn out the way you hope. TParis is trying to save you from a topic ban with a good faith suggestion that he basically mentor you through a "proper" RFC. Two problems, however. First, I doubt very much you will get what you hope out of it. Second, when you fail to get what you want out of it, I have exactly zero faith that you won't simply continue forum shopping and battling. Hell, even while facing this topic ban, you continue to attack editors who disagree with you and continue to cast aspersions on those whom you view as opponents/enemies. The issue here is not the usage of diacritics. The issue is your behaviour, and so far you have given no evidence that you either see anything wrong with your behaviour, or that you intend to change it. In fact, it is telling that you simply ignored TParis' comments about your needing to ensure you offer no disruptive behaviour. Resolute 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they participate in an RfC, and (yet again) attempting to intimidate people participating in an RfC ("Better use of WT:BLP time") is acceptable behavior? Is it illegal to hold an RfC to determine mutually-acceptable and neutral ways of confirming real-world usage and so end this user's long-running and disruptive intimidation and move warring? He has been cited for the same disruptive behavior many times before, such as here and here.  LittleBen (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • How many hundred diacritic-related controversial moves that defy commonsense do I brag about getting away with? LittleBen (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The general consensus on Jimbo's talk page seems to be that there is no justification whatsoever for not making the English version of Walesa without diacritics the preferred spelling. I'm surprised that none of the Admins here are threatening Jimbo with a block for permitting a civil discussion of diacritics. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "It's been over a day since this discussion started." When the community is deciding on an indefinite ban for an editor, a month at an RfC is not considered excessive. My count of the "votes" is 18 (excluding the IP opinion) to six, and a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus. I think that this should be reopened and lets see if a broader consensus can be found for a shorter ban rather than indefinite one. As I said above I think that two months for this ANI is more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    "a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus" - but 18 for, 6 against is exactly 75% in favour.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Then if you prefer to split hairs a ratio of more than 75% ... Either which way I do not think that there was a rough consensus here. . -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose (for the record). Came here to participate in the discussion and oppose a ban, but judge, jury and executioners were in a real rush to judgment this time and I didn't get my vote in.--Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I'd oppose, too. Unfortunately, I didn't get in under the deadline, either. --Nouniquenames 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:BAN states "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly." (bold mine) The formal ban discussion began at 15:07, 30 November 2012; and I, as an entirely uninvolved admin, closed the discussion at 19:59, 1 December 2012, 28 hours and 52 minutes later. If you would like to change the rules at WP:BAN regarding the length of time a topic ban discussion should remain open, please do so at WT:BAN. I can only follow the rules that are written down. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      your highlighted section says "at least 24 hours" not "a maximum of 24 hours". 28 hours and 52 minutes may comply to the letter of the sentence, but the spirit of the sentence is to give time to see if there is a consensus to implement a particular ban. As there is not a clear consensus (not even a rough consensus), I think you ought to reconsider your close. -- PBS (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      I have reconsidered it. In the reconsideration, I stand by the summation I gave. --Jayron32 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Note: The extreme ban is not supported by 75% - at least one of the supporters makes clear that his support was not inclusive of a ban on discussions, ans I suggest that the close statement is errant with regard to the extent of any such ban. Further that where such a broad ban is proposed, that 28 hours is actually insufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    I really don't know where people are coming up with this "75%" bit. That's not a rule at all, and I think it's taking this discussion off-course. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS and About RfA and its process as an example of where it is used in practice. It also used to be used more at WP:AFD and WP:RM, but those decisions tend now to be based more on interpreting policy and guidelines than they used to be, however for a number of years the %ages for all three used to be listed at WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. This case is closer to the RfA process than the other two, so I think it is appropriate to ask the question would the rough consensus here be enough for someone to be given a broom? If not, then is this rough consensus strong enough to ban a user from editing or even commenting on an issue indefinitely? -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    The whole idea was *not* to have to ban the user from editing, but to stop the disruption he causes on his crusade. If he is willing to be mentored and someone is willing to mentor him to solve the editing issues that make him disruptive in addition to the diacritic issue, then he and his mentor can come back here and say, "we solved the issue, reconsider" I am sure that many to are for the topic ban now will reconsider. Maybe you can offer? If on the other hand the reason for some to oppose the topic ban is that he does their dirty work for them, and they succceed in allowing him to continue to cause disruption, then this no doubt will end in arbitration. And unlike the arbitration for Goodday I doubt that many of his "opposers" will plead with ARBCOM not to ban outright. Agathoclea (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    I was going to say the same thing, rough consensus has always as far as I am aware been considered to be about 60%. Except at RfA where it was specifically upped on purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


    Questions re appeal: 1) Is there is an appeal to Arbcom in an AN/I topic ban situation? 2) Has a topic ban appeal board from AN/I, similar to DRV and Move Review, ever been discussed? Appeal would seem to allow for reflection, where a "quick" AN/I would not, and also perhaps bring more uniform standards, over time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    I believe it would fall under point 2 of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities. Specifically, otherwise restricted users appeals. MBisanz 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. It would seem a jurisdictional thing than, but does anyone know if it is "exclusive" jurisdiction (the appeal board, I am thinking of would be limited to indef. topic ban. To avoid/restrict the Arbcom v. Community, or Arbcom v. Closing Admin issues, as well as less stressful resolution (hopefully)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sure Arbcom would at least hear an appeal but in my view, LittleBen was on the fast track to Arbcom already. This reminds me a lot of Ludwigs2's obsessions that led to the Muhammad images bruhaha. I would rather see LittleBen step back from this issue and edit elsewhere productively than go down the route of RFCU then arbcom. And based on GoodDay's arb case, from which I took the exact language in this proposal, I think it unlikely that the committee would have viewed things differently than the community has. Resolute 15:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Right but with Arbcom, there is a lot more procedure, time, etc, when these things are enacted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I just think it's important to say I agree that more time should have been allotted for discussion and consensus. I believe we need to do more to promote and protect the collaborative nature of the project, but I would have opposed an immediate, outright topic ban (trying more discreet tools before the banhammer, so to speak). jæs (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    I think the topic ban should be amended so that it excludes LittleBenW's user space. He should have the freedom to refactor as he pleases there. Reyk YO! 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    • The discussion went on for "over a day" (!) and 25 editors voted. I noticed the discussion, blinked my eye, and it was already closed before I could vote Oppose. I guess you could interpret this as a really strong consensus, although I see it as more of a rush to judgement. Putting titles at the common name of the subject and writing articles in conventional English should not be controversial. Kauffner (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Given that the validity of the ban is in question, I propose that it should not stand on its own and should either be re-opened or a new ban discussion should be started. Quickly counting above shows 18 unilateral supports and 1 conditional that specifically does not support the ban enacted. 6 individuals opposed above (not counting the special case). Since the close, an additional 4 have opposed. That would give us a total of 18 for the ban as it is, 10 against a ban, and one against this specific ban. 18-6 (or a misread 19-6) may have appeared to be consensus, but 18-11 is much less indicative of such. Given the severity of the ban, a simple majority would not be enough. The community has not endorsed the ban in continued discussions, and the ban is voided, as it lacks sufficient consensus. --Nouniquenames 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    You're basing your hypothetical count on the assumption that all further votes would have been "oppose" votes. That is a highly unlikely scenario. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    While that has proven to be the case so far, it would work particularly well if support and oppose both chimed in equally from this point onward, as the overall percentage difference would trend toward (without ever reaching) 0. My point was that, based on current responses, the ban is not sufficiently supported. --Nouniquenames 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    No, that has not proven to be the case so far. You forgot to take into account that any potential participants that would have voted "support" have far less motivation to state their opinions now than those who oppose the ban, so their silent "votes" are invisible to you. As far as they are concerned, the case is closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

    User: CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT

    Blocked for the username and an unambiguous threat of prosecution. This edit summary references a "denunciation to the National State Police. I've left them a note as well, but am leaving for the day and won't be able to follow up. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Seems to be a case of Don't overlook legal threats. Something fishy is clearly going on at those articles and it is for me very hard to determine what are facts... I have tried to engage him in moving his behavior from focussing on his legal position to an information-based argument, and am a bit disappointed (although factually fully correct, and possibly the outcome of a discussion anyway...) this has led to an immediate block... L.tak (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    L.tak is right. There's more than just an account issuing threats of involving the police, here.

    What a mess! Uncle G (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    L.tak is right. However, now we have another account making similar denunciations to the police. Their objections shouldn't be overlooked, but neither should attempts at criminalizing edits be overlooked. If there is some sort of disinformation campaign going on, that needs to be dealt with too, but not by calling the police. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    In trying to sort this out, Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization, Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute, IIMSAM, Sulaiman Al-Fahim and Diego Maradona (with peripheral activity at Monica Seles) and others appear to be the targets of a number of role accounts, some of whom are making unsupported or poorly supported allegations of misconduct, while others are removing them. Several editors have cut much of the junk from IIMSAM in particular (thank you all), but it looks like severe pruning may still be needed, with protections. I am particularly concerned about Jageshwar (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs), but IREOtruth (talk · contribs) raises the traditional alarms for usernames containing "truth." A number of other accounts may by organization staff. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    It is basically a fight for power/true UN representation of (disputed) subsidiairy bodies of Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (CISRI). That organization seems notable (it is established by international treaty and has UN representation). However IIMSAM is either a separate organization (standpoint of (former?) CISRI boss Manini) without UN representation or a subsidiary program of CISRI or both (2 things, and the suggestion of the IIMSAM org that it is affiliated with the IIMSAM program of CISRI). In both cases it doesn't need an article (as a non UN accredited org, I see no shred of notability; as part of CISRI it should be merged...). I will therefore propose a merge (I am telling that here, as many of those editors are clearly against any association between the two names, so a merge proposal is likely to be controversial)... L.tak (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you, that seems like a sensible course. I'm quite certain that it'll result in more denunciations, but so be it. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    ← From a purely technical standpoint CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed and as such I have blocked DrManini. Jageshwar (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely and Elena.dalis (talk · contribs) is  Stale. Hope this helps, Tiptoety 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    I've blocked Jageshwar (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for putting back poorly referenced defamatory allegations from primary sources. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Could someone do the honours for Unirev (talk · contribs)? L.tak (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Blocked, and another note left on the advisability of explaining what the actual problem is so that it might be dealt with in some constructive way rather than the unlikely-to-succeed method of complaining to the Italian police about English Misplaced Pages content. Other editors are welcome to engage. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Apteva disruption

    I warned him (see User talk:Apteva/Archive 3#Warning) that another disruptive move and I would ask for a block at AN/I. His previous round of disruptive RMs and MRVs all closed against him, and his continued disruption after that led to the RFC/U at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva. Even with that open, and a ton of editors trying to explain to him that his last two months of behavior has been disruptive and needs to stop, he went ahead with this WP:POINTy new one at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy_9#Requested move.

    I would appreciate it if an admin with no prior involvement with Apteva would take a look at these links and see if a block to prevent continuing disruption is in order. Of course, it should be made clear to him that if he wants to continue participating in discussion at the RFC/U about him, he can be unblocked easily by agreeing to hold off on the disruptive behaviors while the RFC/U is open. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    This is an absurd example of being pointy. The RFC/U is merit less. Comets are spelled with hyphens. No one can dispute that. Check with the IAU. I do not decide what punctuation to use in comets, nor does Misplaced Pages - the IAU does. Apteva (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment)In all honestly, yes, Misplaced Pages does decide what punctuation it uses. And Misplaced Pages has repeatedly come to consensus that it should stay how it is. I agree that you opening another RM was pointy. The IAU can decide what punctuation it uses, but Misplaced Pages decides through established consensus what we use. gwickwireedits 03:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    To be completely accurate, yes Misplaced Pages can do whatever we want to do, but our policies and guidelines are not normally in conflict with each other. In this case they are, with the policy, WP:TITLE, saying to use common use, and WP:MOS, a guideline, saying to use a hyphen for comets, but uses a dash in a comet as an example of using a dash, which creates a conflict with the policy. It is just oh so simple to fix this conflict - admit that no proper nouns ever use dashes, and be done with it. See Misplaced Pages talk:MOS#Three corrections. Make those those three corrections to the MOS and eliminate the conflict. Apteva (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Then work to fix whatever comet-specific guideline it is, such that it becomes, "WP naming of comets should follow IAU practice". I for one would support that, whether it's hyphens, endashes or Egyptian hieroglyphs.
    What you're actually doing though is pointy, disruptive edit-warring outside this. That's a no. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Exactly. Although you may hold the WP:TRUTH, we go by Consensus that has been reached on Misplaced Pages, and not someone else's consensus. Try to gain ground on MOS for your desired policy. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Until then, follow Misplaced Pages's policies. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    I should point out that Apteva has tried, repeatedly, to "gain ground on MOS", and failed every time. It seems he just doesn't hear it. Powers 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Yeeesh. I am fully aware of the local consensus at MOS, and I do not appreciate the squashing of my attempts to "gain ground" by calling the RM's "disruptive". If anyone has a better suggestion for methods of "gaining ground" I would appreciate hearing them. A block would be incredibly out of place. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Pointy disruptive RM closed speedily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    The basis of this block request is that he keeps saying that he intends to keep at it. I still request an uninvolved admin to have a look and decide about that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    If he does one more actual move, tell me and I'll block him myself. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    That is he or she, thank you. This is like telling someone not to use the letter K. This not Sesame street. This is an encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    If it's not Sesame Street, why are you behaving like a child? You're right then, "if they do one more actual move, tell me and I'll block them myself. Better? Still just as valid. This is not telling you not to use the letter K, it's telling you to NOT use the letter K when the rules of the specific language call for a C. We have a specific language - use it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    If what I'm reading of the history here (that he's tried and failed to get local consensus at projects), this VPP RFC on standardizing hyphens seems pointy, canvassing, and in the face of the RFC/U complaints. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    No, that is there because I was asked to put it there. It is not an RfC, so will not likely need to stay long, but it is an important opportunity for everyone to weigh in, not just the MOS editors. I would like to get input of 50 or 60 editors though. Apteva (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    While I see JHunterJ pointed you to VPP for this, I think you need to be aware of the number of times that people have told you that the consensus is likely not going to change, hence the fact that its beating a dead horse at the different/proper venue and still a problem. --MASEM (t) 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe, maybe not. I can either laugh at WP or I can try to fix it. I choose to fix it, or try. WP does not need to stick with something that really makes no sense. I can assure everyone that I will follow procedures, policies and guidelines, though, and this ANI is meritless. If WP is still misspelling comets in a few years I will bring it up again - deal? Apteva (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Move to close, with alternate venues: As requested, User:Apteva has complied with requests to address concerns in the proper venues (wp:RFC/Apteva), posting a topic at wp:VPP (dif-616, 01:31, 3 December) about hyphens/dashes as would affect all areas, beyond just guideline wp:MOS, to include policy wp:TITLE, wp:ACCESS, and names in charts or graphs, etc. Because the use of hyphens/dashes affects many areas of Misplaced Pages, then this thread (1 of 32 active) should be closed to avoid further distraction, and instead focus on the other venues, so that WP's use of dashes is not seen as "laughable" by major factions of the community. We need to properly assess the issues in consideration of worldwide views, NASA, IAU, other space agencies, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      The supposed issues regarding WP's dash style can be addressed in other venues. This noticeboard is not seeking to address the dash "issue", but to address Apteva's latest disruption incident. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      Right, the issue is that this appears to be the N+1 attempt recently to get something changed that the editor has been told is consensus, but keeps trying anyway. Noting from Apteva's comment above about "follow procedures, policies and guidelines", the type of approach they appear to be taking is that of Wikilawyering - in this case, taking JHunter's advice of VPP posting without considering all other factors involved. I've encountered editors like that before - it can be hard to get them to understand that all of WP's policies and guidelines are meant to be worked and understood in concert and not to get too hung up on one specific one - in Apteva's case, understanding that the point on dash-vs-hyphen has been explained and spelled out with no apparent change in consensus and yet the editor is trying to change it. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      The MOS is inconsistent with WP:TITLE, and removing that inconsistency is trivial. Apteva (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    User:Mongo Feels Better

    Main page: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Ankit Fadia

    Mongo Feels Better (talk · contribs)

    Please could someone take a look at the behaviour of this editor. Their edits have been BLP/OR violations against one particular subject. This morning I asked this user to stop posting on my talk page if they can't do so within policy as I've had to redact much of their posts as BLP violations three times. The response was this, which seems to be a threat to sock. January (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    • I've blocked the editor for 48 hours for BLP violations, sock puppetry threats, and personal attacks (calling you a "shill"). Do you have any clue as to who the editor is, i.e., have they edited here before using another account?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • First edit from that account suggested they were familiar with its history - I had a similar dispute with another account just before this one showed up, but didn't think at the time it was enough for an SPI as they could also be one of the various IPs who have been adding attacking/negative material over the last few years. There is a Facebook group and Twitter account about Ankit Fadia who have been discussing his Misplaced Pages article and this is probably bringing his critics here. January (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Woah, that looks to me like a pretty crappy article, and Mongo Feels Better's concerns are legitimate. Obviously MBF's edits to the article aren't the way we do things, but wp:don't bite the newbies is still best practice. I think MBF is basically right that the article should be deleted and I'm not impressed with January's approach to this. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Whoever you are (the IP has an unusual editing history), I'm sure you know there are legitimate processes for deleting articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I've got a tin foil hat on here, but could this user be in anyway an attempt to imitate, discredit, or in any way attack MONGO (talk · contribs)? – Richard BB 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Obviously, given MONGO's notoriety here, it would be hard not to wonder about any relationship between the two accounts (I don't mean sock puppetry), but there are so many meanings for the word, I figured it was coincidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
        • A possible relationship (in the broadest possible sense) between those two accounts was my first thought as well, but it seems to be purest coincidence—I don't see any overlap at all between their editing histories, so socking, taunting, or a joe job all seem quite unlikely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Yeah I also thought of MONGO but it seems coincidental. Anyway (re Bbb23) I think an AfD for the article is sadly unlikely to succeed. It's an article about someone working in a technical field (computer security) sourced primarily by popular-press articles that a security professional wouldn't consider remotely reliable about security stuff. So it ends up with a heavy slant towards stuff coming from publications that are basically marketing adjuncts to the IT product industry, yet AFD is unlikely to be willing to get rid of it, and we end up looking stupid to knowledgeable readers. I have other stuff to do today but may look into it a bit more later. I'd support an unblock of MFB if he can agree to back off the invective and help with the article's neutrality (it does have some poorly source cruft in it). I may try to talk to him later if he's still around. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I was initially suspicious of User:Jimbo online. Go figure. Per Bbb23 "Mongo" could mean pretty much anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Seems fair enough. I'll remove my tin foil hat. – Richard BB 09:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • 66.127.54.40 is right in this instance. There is an on-going problem with this article. Mongo Feels Better was incapable of expressing it without adopting a tin-foil hat of xyr own and assuming that people here are in some vast conspiracy to promote Ankit Fadia. It was a problem in 2007 when Tqbf wrote this and it was a problem in 2006 when Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankit Fadia happened and I tried to get a horde of externally canvassed drive-by contributors to stick to policy and make a good argument based upon it. (66.127.54.40 above and Mongo Feels Better on the talk page have merely predicted the events of six years ago, notice.)

      The problem here is that there is one set of sources promoting a person and another set of sources discrediting the picture put forward; and the people who have written the latter set of sources haven't published them properly or put their names to them and reputations for fact checking and accuracy on the line. It's compounded by the fact that this article has been the focus of sockpuppetteer Kalpesh Sharma (talk · contribs) (see also Kalpesh Sharma (AfD discussion)), which of course casts suspicions of sockpuppetry on single-purpose accounts like Mongo Feels Better.

      I invite everyone reading this to worry less about whether Mongo Feels Better was quoting Blazing Saddles and more about the accuracy of a biographical article on Misplaced Pages in the face of six years of sockpuppetry and people's unwillingness to put their own names and reputations on the line in a newspaper or something, as Bbb23, Little green rosetta, and others already have. The link to the BLP Noticeboard discussion is at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

      • Because an over-aggressive spam filter won't let me post the below as normal text, I'm going to try writing it backwards. I'm sure a software wizard like Uncle G can unscramble it and edit it back to normal, and this would be much appreciated. Thanks and sorry for the nonsense but I'm low on other ideas.

        .elcitra eht ni ti gnisu ot tcejbo ylbaborp dluow enoemos os SPS s'ti tub ]lmth.40rpSsuballys/suballys/562SC/pmats/ytlucaf/ude.usjs.sc.www//:ptth

        • The policies are not in fact as you state them to be, and you make the very same mistake as the people who mis-apply them in such fashion do, ironically. That's a problem, but it's not a problem with the policies. I recommend reading a sampling, over the years, of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and indeed Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, back to their earliest versions. The idea that something is self-published automatically makes it completely unreliable is a falsehood, as is the idea that sources have to be paper. The problem here is in part that the sources desired by some editors in this case have no identifiable authors whatsoever. Another part of the problem, of course, is that the people wanting the article deleted have been shooting themselves in the feet for six years. The herd of canvassed drive-by contributors, who couldn't put a policy-based argument together between them, got themselves a speedy keep for their lack of effort, and Mongo Feels Better decided to have a pop at the article's subject and other editors, and got xyrself blocked.

          Real Administrators don't need toys in Perl for the task of reading backwards, by the way. ☺

          Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

          • I was hoping you could unreverse the post so that other people could read it. I didn't write it backwards as an exercise for readers, I did it because I couldn't think of another way to get around the edit filter. Yes I'm familiar with the old versions of those policies (we can have a philosophy discussion about them sometime) but I'm talking about the way stuff actually happens on WP. If you want to open a new AfD for the article, then I'll support deletion, but I don't have much hope about the outcome. The reality on Misplaced Pages is that WP:N trumps everything else almost all the time, no matter what other policies or common sense it conflicts with. It's extremely difficult to delete an article once it has minimal published sources. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Cut and paste copyvio fix

    Hey Wikien2009 blanked User:Auric/Lia 19 with this edit then created Lia (actress). Auric's copyright was violated because attribution was not given in the cut and paste move. There was also some poor form on the part of Wikien2009 by even creating a page using Auric's content even if he had correctly given attribution. Can an administrator fix the copyvio by performing a history merge? Ryan Vesey 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

    Very poor form, very sneaky; but Auric does not own the "copyright": "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." ("You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.") Keri (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Auric does own the copyright. He holds a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright license. The conditions of that license were not upheld in Wikien2009's cut and paste move. When you post something on Misplaced Pages, you do not release it into the public domain. Ryan Vesey 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you are mistaken. And even if you were correct, Wikien2009 "distributed" the work under the exact same licensing as Auric, which is all that the license requires. Keri (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    You're very wrong. Wikien "stole" the work of another editor(s) and claimed it as their own. That's removal of the input/work that Auric had put into it, and thus violated the attributions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    You need to re-read the GFDL: "2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." As you clearly do not grasp what that entails, there is no point my continuing this thread. Keri (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages requires proper attribution of edits - you're right, no sense continuing if you don't get that. Thankfully, it has been actionned already. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
     Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. Ryan Vesey 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Keri, the BY in CC-BY-SA means that attribution is required. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I know. What you are all missing is that this is dual-licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 AND GFDL. Heres a line from Wikimedia which might help explain: "If a work is published under a single license, all of the terms in that license must be followed. If a work is multi-licensed (that is, released under more than one license), re-users may choose which license's terms they wish to follow." As I said, what the editor did was immoral, sneaky and underhand, but not theft and not a copyvio. Bwilkins would be laughed out of court for attempting to prosecute that case. Keri (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Gee Keri, what YOU are missing is that Misplaced Pages's community-confirmed policies and processes require it to be done a certain way - an in this case, attribution is required. Maybe a quick tour through WP:CPM might be a good start, and perhaps a few less chips on your shoulder might go over well too. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    lol I have never said it wasn't against policy. I said you can't go around accusing someone of larceny and copyright infringement when they have actually followed the terms of the GFDL license. Keri (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    When something is dual-licensed, the smart thing to do is follow the one that's most restrictive. Otherwise, you're taking a risk. If the light at an intersection is broken and showing both Red & Green, driving through without stopping isn't a good idea. Judges & juries don't always see things the same way we might. I personally think the CC/GFDL compromise was a bad idea, but it's old hat now. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    I think a more relevant point here is even if you are following the less restrictive licence, most legal discussions I've seen agree you cannot relicence GFDL content under the CC-BY-SA licence (except for the limited exception which expired) as mentioned in our own article GNU Free Documentation License#Compatibility with Creative Commons licensing terms. Since all wikipedia content is dual licenced except for that from other sites which may be CC only, the editor was claiming they released the content under both licences. But if they are following the terms of the GFDL they cannot then also licence it under CC-BY-SA. The only way they can licence it under CC-BY-SA is by following the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence which the original licensor granted. In other words while the editor may be able to get away with it legally if they are doing it on their own website and only claiming to licence the content under GFDL (since they can chose which licence to comply with), they cannot legally do it here since they cannot chose which licence to release it under, they need to release it under both licences which they cannot do unless they comply with the terms of both licences. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Surely we're missing a point here: if you copy just the text of a document, under the GFDL that's not Verbatim Copying. Verbatim Copying would include copying the copyright notices (Keri quoted this). If you're not copying verbatim, then what you're doing is covered by Section 4 – Modifications. This requires you to list "at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." GFDL It therefore seems to me that GFDL does require attribution, and further I don't see how dual-licensing could work if the two licenses were to differ on such a fundamental point. (Non-lawyer spokesperson). – Wdchk (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Disruption by ipsock (open proxy) of Echigo mole

    RESOLVED All socks blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 22:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    This is the second time Echigo mole has used an open proxy from Chennai in the last few days. This time, as well as trolling on ACE2012 discussion pages, they are removing user page tags for ipsocks of Mikemikev (recommended by Deskana) and from their own open proxy user pages. Please could an administrator block this account, which is now disruptively edit warring on Jclemens' ACE2012 discussion page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    If Mathsci is aware of the WP:HUSH policy, perhaps he would like to explain how he justifies tagging accounts as sockpuppets that he has never even reported at SPI. --58.68.21.67 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)WP:DENY per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    This banned user cannot comment on the SPI page because it is indefinitely semiprotected (and rightly so given his capacity for trolling). To comment, he would have to use another of his named sockpuppet accounts, which would then be blocked by a CU. He is currently engaged in mindless reverting of tags on 4 ipuser pages. Mathsci (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Blocked, obvious troll sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    More of the same disruption with new open proxies / ipsocks

    Echigo mole has just found a new open proxy with which to pollute this site with his trolling. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    And a second one. Please could they be blocked per WP:DUCK, since they're continuing the previous proxy's mindless disruption and trolling. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    And a third ipsock has now appeared. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    And another. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    All now blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    Shocking Afd closure

    RESOLVED Faustus37 has voluntarily agreed to refrain from doing any more closures. --Jayron32 21:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    Earlier today I was patrolling the discussions listed at Afd and went through the December 2nd log, to find that were was an error with the technical closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Albannach, due to the missing archive template at the bottom. As I realised what the problem was, I noticed that the closure of the discussion was non-administrative and closed as "no consensus" by Faustus37 (talk · contribs), which I found rather odd as there were two delete !voters (including the nominator) and one "weak keep" !voter, which would suggest that administrative action would be required. I reverted the close as an improper NAC closure with the edit summary "Requires administrative judgement and didn't give others a chance to opine", and notified the closer of my actions regarding its revert. A few moments later, I took another look at the Afd to see if any new comments had been made, and was, quite frankly, astonished to realise that the user who !voted "weak keep" was the same user who improperly closed the discussion as "no consensus" (Faustus37). Till 12:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    • I see that's been undone. However, when you get to three relistings without anyone commenting, it's probably better to close as "No consensus" meaning "nobody cares whether the article stays or goes" - but it should be done by an admin. Although I've done the odd non-admin AfC close, they've always been ones where there's been a unanimous "keep" !vote from everyone (example here). Looking at it, the only comment that actually properly shows evidence of policy and WP:BEFORE is Michig's "Weak Delete". --Ritchie333 12:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Re-reading the RfA, the User was told to participate with AfD. Obviously, in doing so they have made "bad closes." Therefore, why those are bad closes should be explained in discussion, so the user understands and acknowledges, those problems. And, yes, stops and reforms (hopefully on their own). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Topic ban seems a bit too much, unless it's very temporary. Strongly suggesting a, say, couple months pause in NACs and seeing if he only does uncontroversial ones when he gets back to it could be enough. If he's doing it again, then a topic ban could be appropriate. --Cyclopia 15:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    He should only be making uncontroversial ones anyway, and there's no backlog at AfD so I simply don't see the point of it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with Black Kite, this editor has been previously warned about such behaviour and this recent close is just a blatant example of their inappropriate closures. Till 13:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      Till, while I definitely agree that there are issues with Faustus's NAC record, and fully see the need for starting this AN/I thread, it's worth noting that this is the second time you've started a thread on inappropriate NACs using some rather hyperbolic rhetoric. — Francophonie&Androphilie 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      These are not interrelated. That user's inappropriate NAC behaviour involved closing Afds early without justification and closing discussions that were contentious (see this, whereas this editor makes NACs despite previously opining to the discussions. Till 13:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Just to comment on the "Don't NAC close if you've !voted" - the above example of my NAC was one I !voted in ... the crucial decision for my close was that the nominator effectively changed his mind, resulting in a totally unanimous "Keep". However, that's the exception to the rule, even the one person implying "Keep, but I'd settle for a redirect" could be considered problematic. --Ritchie333 13:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    • So, before we whip out the tar and feathers, shall we wait for a comment by Faustus? From my review, they haven't edited the project in almost 3 hours. As a minimum, I think we would need to see the following:
      • recognition that they cannot close AFD's they have been involved in
      • recognition that NAC's can only be done in extremely obvious cases
      • recognition that they have been warned about such closes/behaviour in the past
      • a voluntary decision to no longer perform NAC's until such a time as they are fully aware and willing/able to follow the policies
    • If not, a NAC-ban will need to come into effect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    So let me get this straight so that it's easy to follow. The discussions being put forward are:

    Anything else? Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    • How much might that percent be boosted by the fact he closed a number of them that he commented in. In other words of course he has a good percent when he is closing them to match his comments. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that "shocking" isn't the most appropriate description, but this does seem to be the right place to have brought the matter.
      1. Regarding NACs, IME there doesn't seem to be general consensus in the community about what is and isn't appropriate. (WP:NACD states Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. - emphasis added). But what's clear is that WP:INVOLVED states In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. - again, emphasis added. I believe there can be common sense exceptions to this (for example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Breyer horse is one which I seem to have so far escaped a wrist-slapping for (and with hindsight, I should have referred to the snowball clause)... but I challenge anyone to claim that any reasonable editor could have arrived at a different conclusion in that particular case).
      2. Regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights, this comment (Relisting Comment: My vote is still a Keep for this one given the sourcing, however I'm relisting anyway due to an obvious lack of consensus ...) surprised me at the time, considering that the editor in question hadn't previously formally cast a !vote.
      3. Regarding the lack of backlog, I suppose that's a fair comment. However, it can be said that the assistance of non-admins at AfD (and elsewhere) frees up admins' time to undertake tasks which actually require the tools.
      4. I think that an acknowledgement from the user in question that some recent closes have been clearly inappropriate is desirable.
    • -- Trevj (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • My overall opinion of this is:
      1. No one, administrator or not, should be closing any AfD they are WP:INVOLVED in.
      2. I don't have a problem with non-admins closing AfDs with low participation as "no consensus." Non-admins usually should not be allowed to close any AfDs that require discretion and/or deletion, but in cases where it's just a trivial votecount, such as the already accepted case of WP:SNOW keep, they should be allowed to do so. If an AfD has a single "delete" !vote and a single "keep" !vote after two relists, it can hardly be closed as anything other than "no consensus WP:NPASR."
      3. The use of "shocking" does seem a bit sensationalistic and unnecessary, per above. Just call it inappropriate or involved.
    • King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      I'd just like to add that if I'd also been involved in the subject matter/editing of Breyer Horse, then I obviously wouldn't have closed it. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      Of course, withdrawn AfDs can be closed by anyone (as long as there are no outstanding "delete" !votes). In fact, why nominators don't just close it themselves is beyond me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      (edit conflict) Precisely to avoid any claims of "shocking" behaviour because they dared to close an AfD started by themselves. KTC (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • As stated above, perhaps if Faustus37 (talk · contribs) acknowledges that their behaviour was inappropriate and will not be repeated again, we can call this a day and move on. If not, it appears that more serious action will need to be taken to address the issue. Till 10:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) As someone who have NAC closed "no consensus WP:NPASR" in a number of AfDs, I'm obviously believe it is not a problem in clear cases. Regarding the original AfD in question, Faustus37 shouldn't have closed it given he or she had !voted in it that we all agree, but the no consensus closed itself wouldn't had been that unreasonable if the 3rd relist had been allowed to run for the full 7 days, and the only comments are the nom, a weak delete and a weak keep. -- KTC (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    -- Trevj (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Not closed inappropriately??? Per my link above , he closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights as Keep with 4 Keeps and 7 Deletes, including a number of editors who suggested it should actually be speedied, and only later reversed that and re-listed after being called out on it. WP:NAC is very clear that this is the sort of debate that shouldn't be closed as NAC, even if they'd got it right. If that one isn't a clear sign that the editor isn't competent to close AfDs, I don't know what is. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      I'm referring to the process of closing it, i.e. not being obviously involved at that point. As you've pointed out, the conclusion stated in the close was inappropriate, which is why it was initially questioned. As has been said before, there doesn't seem to be general consensus in the community about what is and isn't appropriate in terms of non-admin closures. The adminship tools can be granted to an editor with little AfD experience - e.g. if they state no intention to work there - but that doesn't preclude them from working there in the future. Sometimes some admins close in questionable ways (you're only human, and of course mistakes/misunderstandings happen). Being an admin doesn't automatically mean that all closes performed will more accurately reflect consensus.
      Having said all that, I do agree that the editor hasn't exactly shown the competence required to close contentious AfDs, and should proceed with caution for some time. -- Trevj (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Wow. Take a day off and look what happens. (1) I truly apologize for the NAC for Albannach and others I voted in beforehand. There's really no excuse other than it was a stupid indiscretion on my part. It won't happen again. (2) I wouldn't put too much into my ill-fated admin application. That was made several months ago before I had any real experience in "behind the scenes" Misplaced Pages tasks. Frankly it was also a bit over-emotional on my part. One can safely say I've become significantly less radical since then. (3) In any event, given that my NACs are clearly causing more problem than they're solving, I'm simply not going to do them anymore. I'm just glad I didn't do anything outrageous. Faustus37 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    Vandal bot?

    I'm doing some vandalism cleanup and noticed in List of The Emperor's New Groove characters the partial phrase added

    • Also, he tends to be considered one of the sassiest of the Disney princesses

    Ordinarily I would revert and just move on, however I recall reverting this exact same phrase in another article in the past week. My hunch is that this is some strange automated vandalism. I've no idea how to search my contributions for this phrase so I can investigate further. Any suggestions?  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    • (edit conflict) Diff of this one, please? And any idea about when you saw it last time? An approximate date range? I imagine it will be pretty hard for anyone to respond to your actual question until someone can find evidence. Well, I'm off to stalk your contributions and see if there's any tools that might help. Thanks for coming to my defense yesterday, by the way. — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    (od) The IP's contributions show they just reverted you on November 27. Also, the article history shows where they were edit warring over the phrase. So the place you saw it was in this same article and probably not in a different article. Looks like they also edited as 38.100.117.129. Probably best resolved by taking it to WP:RFPP. Rgrds. --64.85.216.11 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Facepalm Facepalm . Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Court case edit warring

    Could an uninvolved admin look at LMS Hughes Crab please. An anonymous editor has been repeatedly reinserting information about a possible court case about a preserved steam locomotive. I don't know the full facts of the case, but the IP is unable to provide any WP:RS, other than claiming the court order itself is a reliable source (though it does not appear to be published anywhere). Whether this is the case or not, the IP has violated 3RR, despite final warnings. There is a discussion about this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways#LMS Hughes Crab.  An optimist on the run! 17:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. Next time please report this at the edit warring noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    IMO there was a bit more to this than just a simple 3RR - i.e. the repeated addition of unsourced information which could be considered negatively. For tsis reason I decided to post it here rather than ]. Thanks for dealing with this.  An optimist on the run! 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    There is a forum thread about this locomotive with some discussion about the wheel theft here. Not a suitable RS for an article, but enough to call for a bit of AGF towards the person who was adding the info and had no clue how editing works (WP:BITE). We ought to change the blocking software to handle this situation better, since it happens all the time. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    This IP wasn't blocked by software. They were manually blocked by an admin. The block has nothing to do with whether the IP was adding the information in good faith. It has everything to do with the fact they were warned to stop and didn't stop. There is no good faith in repeatedly adding information to an article after someone has repeatedly told you to stop. Sperril (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    The admin pressed a block button and the software did some things. I'm not claiming the block was automatic. I'm saying the stuff that happens when the admin presses the button should work differently than it does now, so the user is prevented from editing, but in a friendlier way than now. Also, the communications with that user (see the talk page) were absolutely atrocious and it's no wonder they didn't respond. If we see this problem over and over and have to keep blocking new users, the problem isn't with the new users, it's with us. We get edit warring because our user interface and our interaction style is conducive to it. As long as we keep shifting the blame to non-malicious users who try to contribute useful info and see the reversions as just another misbehaving software system to fight through, we will keep deluding ourselves and losing them.

    And no, nobody told them to stop, at least no human being did. They got a bunch of obnoxious prerecorded warning templates (added: sorry, there was this, one exception in the middle of the noise). That's not a person telling them anything, that's a computer giving them an error message, and people know that error messages from computers are usually bullshit annoyances to work around or fight through, but in any case to ignore the content. So they follow their reflexes. There was no human who specifically tried to discuss with the person what they were doing. THAT is one of the most broken things about this place. Modifying the block software might help with that, but mostly we've (collectively) got an attitude problem, and that's much harder to change. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    The templated warnings are not automated, they are left there by a real human being, created in such a way to ensure that warnings and messages are consistent, plus provide links to the appropriate policies so that the editor can learn and change. In other words, they're pre-recorded on purpose - but whoever left them still has to choose the correct message to leave. So yes, a human being DID tell them to stop by using Misplaced Pages's suggested wording. The onus was on them to at least reply to one of the messages, which could have started a more personalized discussion. The block was also done by a person, and the chosen block pre-recorded message was also left by a person based on the specific situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    All true. However, a perceptive human might have noticed the template approach wasn't working and tried something different, a little more personal perhaps. Additionally, I'd expect savvy Wikipedians to be having discussion on the talk page instead of attempting to have a discussion via edit summaries. The IP did make an attempt to engage in discussion but only received a technically correct but unfriendly and curt response. If the only goals were to stop the edit warring and prevent addition of unsourced material, the action here was a "success." WP is not (or shouldn't be) a zero sum game; a bigger success would be to stop the edit warring, prevent unsourced material, and bring a new editor into the fold. Given the article has 14 month old stupid tag at top, it seems getting more editors would be a good thing. NE Ent 13:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    (EC) You actually missed another non templated message. In the very first fairly polite template message on the IPs talk page, RedRose64 left an additional comment that was directly relevent to the situation and which should have been obvious to the IP it was not a templated reply. The IP did reply to that comment only after again reverting see User talk:Redrose64#Horwich Crabs - locomotive 42859 and the contrib history. RedRose64 again left a non templated reply to the IP in response to the IPs message. Beyond a clear lacking of understanding to policy despite multiple attempts to inform the IP of it, the IP's message didn't IMO clarify RedRose64's question. They were still referring to some reference in a 'mysterious' notes even though there's no sign of these notes (the article has a note section but there was never anything relevent in it unless for some reason books from 1975-2009 mentioned a court order given in 2012) or any actual evidence of a court order in any of the IPs edits nor in the existing article. When an IP keeps referring to something that we can't even see, you can blame existing editors for confusion. (Of course it's unlikely the court order or these 'notes' would be an WP:RS but when an IP keeps talking about something we are supposed to be able to see, except it's not there and we've told the IP of that, it's difficult to help them.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    P.S. I forgot that one of the edit summaries did include case number, it may be this is what the IP was referring to by their continual mention of 'notes' in a reference section. If so, this reflects an even poorer understanding of how wikipedia works which the IP was apparently not willing to do anything about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Why was there no discussion at Talk:LMS_Hughes_Crab? NE Ent 13:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I do agree linking to the UK Railways discussion on the article talk page and providing a link to the IP would have been wise (although I doubt it would have helped) since it's the sort of thing people unfamiliar with the specific topic or with wikipedia are unlikely to find on their own but there was actually decent discussion there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Dream Focus, CallawayRox, and the ARS drama machine, again

    What Milowent says, and just about everybody else. Wrong thread, wrong venue, y'all just settle down. Seriously: there is no consensus to ban anyone, though there is broad consensus that someone should really tone it down. Sorry PBP, but that's you. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    As you know, the ARS is a point of contention in a number of arenas; they use to have Template:Rescue which they emblazoned on articles to canvass inclusionists. That was deleted, but they made Template:Rescue list to replace it, which does exactly the same thing (get out the inclusionist vote), but is pasted on AfDs instead of articles. So I nominated it for deletion, on the sole grounds that it. Dream Focus, naturally, was up in arms, and tagged the rescue list with its own rescue tag, a highly inappropriate act since the rescue tag is supposed to be used for improving articles, not notification of deletion discussions on templates. When I informed him of how inappropriate that was, he insisted that the ARS had to be canvassed, and that the rescue list (rather than the WikiProject's discussion page)

    The last straw was the personal attacks I've been subjected to from. Rather than actually give a good reason for keeping Template:Rescue list, Callaway's comments here and there are nothing more than personal attacks. Then recently, Dream Focus accused me of being 11 years old, and also refused to name a policy for where it said ARS had to be canvassed. This isn't Dream Focus's first rodeo; he's been to ANI countless times, blocked thrice, and several people have suggested he be indeffed

    The following things ought to happen:

    1. First off, this template's gotta go. It creates way too much canvassing drama, and duplicates a SALTed template.
    2. CallawayRox needs to be told that personal attacks are unacceptable
    3. Dream Focus needs to be blocked again; and probably banned from XfDs for a very, very, long time

    pbp 20:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    • I don't think you'll gain much traction here with this, and I also don't think that this, for instance, is a personal attack. They may be wrong, they may be right, but it's not a personal attack. Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with trying to rescue the rescue template. Finally, an ANI report won't help you speed up deletion of the template: that will be decided at the appropriate forum. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks to PBP for pointing out an odd typo on my part: correction added in bold. PBP, one more thing, and maybe you don't want to hear this from me: less is more at such MfD discussions. ;) Best, Drmies (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    FYI, the diff you used is one of Callaway's, not mine pbp 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I did not tag it, I simply restored what someone else had, as I already told you. I explained to you already that all Wikiprojects have a thing you put in AFDs which tells people that Wikiproject has been informed of the discussion. That's what this is, not the totally unrelated banner that formerly existed. And please stay on topic. The discussion of him on my talk page is at and if you read through that, and the other two places this is ongoing, tell me if my comment was inappropriate. He does seem immature and has a problem understanding very simple things. Dream Focus 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Since my unrelated three blocks were mentioned, let me explain. First off, he brought this up previously when arguing with me on my talk page, and I already explained it to him there. User_talk:Dream_Focus#October_2012 I'll just copy and paste it here for people to read my explanation. "You keep trying to change the subject to something to totally unrelated. In 2009 I was blocked for 24 hours for undoing vandalism and violating the 3 revert rule by mistake. In 2009 I was blocked for a simple mistake on a talk page, for 12 hours, which meant when I logged back in the next morning and saw it, it was over already, too late to protest. The third time I was blocked was earlier this year in something that many administrators in the discussion about agreed was inappropriately done." Dream Focus 20:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I will note what I just noted at TfD. You want to nominate the rescue list at MfD, not the list template at TfD. The former is what notifies ARS members of AfDs, while the latter just notifies AfD participants of ARS involvement. What we need is a speedy close of the TfD discussion and pbp can then nominate the list page at MfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    The list was speedy kept at AfD, and endorsed at DRV, so I would highly object to a new MfD in light of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron. I thought you guys (Wolfie, PBP, and you) were preparing a new RFC at some point (not that I really welcome that either, but at least it promised to be based on some sort of comprehensive evidence in light of the outcome of the RFC).--Milowent • 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Not sure what you mean by "you guys", but I was preparing, I ran out of the time limit though for userspace storage. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You know, if we deliberately ignored the project and discounted the percieved influence they have in their activities, there wouldn't be any membership or people to monitor the alert list. I'm going to say this once at both sides of the debate, Stop bringing your quasi-religous schoolyard fight here. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm really not surprised to see PBP show up at ANI. Last I heard IRWolfie- was planning some mother-of-all RfCs on ARS (despite the outcome at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron, a mammoth three-month long RFC that closed just in June). PBP was encouraging Wolfie on this, but it seems the draft RFC was later deleted though User talk:IRWolfie-/ARS RFC Prep archive remains. In any event, putting the rescue list up at TFD, done by PBP, was guaranteed to elicit a very frustrated response by ARS editors are very tired of this stuff.--Milowent • 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    I do have a copy of the prep. I do think the RfC is warranted, and there are plenty of reasons why, including disruptive keep votes where ARS editors (i.e Dream) vote sometimes without even understanding what a topic is (it would be funnier if it wasn't disruptive), stealth canvassing by Warden by his refusal to provide notifications at AfD about ARS notification etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    To my comment "You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool" was given the response "Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct."
    ARS members are fairly open with the fact that they canvass for AfD. FeydHuxtable said, "Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements." .
    Warden lists topics at ARS without adding notification to the respective AfD discussions, despite being asked to provide the notices .
    Warden made this vote: 15:14 7th Oct Then Bangladeshi political families was listed. 15:18 7 Oct. No improvements have been made to the article as of this verison of the AfD 19:03, 10 October 2012 no edits to the article were made after it was listed. ARS member Dream Focus just turned up to vote keep and didn't improve the article. His rationale was a WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: . IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Is it that time of year again? This kind of persecution of the ARS appears regularly. We get it, you don't like how the ARS operates. Fortunately, those doesn't tend to achieve much effect given that, like the current one, they're more inflammatory and emotional than based on reason. Diego (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    Topic Ban Purplebackpack89 from ARS

    Purplebackpack has been bothering the ARS for awhile now. He should get a WP:BOOMERANG for this latest nonsense.

    1. Template:Rescue list should be speedy kept. All delete votes are critically flawed. Even The Devil's Advocate understands.
    2. Purplebackpack needs to be banned from interacting and commenting on the ARS.

    CallawayRox (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

    No I fail to see the reason for an interaction and topic ban. And you're misrepresenting what TDA is saying -- I don't read it to say that the delete votes are critically flawed; just that the deletion discussion is occurring in the wrong venue; that diff has no bearing on the merits of deletion or not (other than that, as I said, TFD is the wrong venue). Not to mention that this is a completely inappropriate reason for a speedy keep and does absolutely nothing to explain why it should be kept -- something you might want to think about if you're claiming that others votes are "flawed". ⇒SWATJester 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Callaway, it would be helpful if you would address the thread PBP started, rather than jumping immediately to demanding a topic ban. Maybe one is warranted, but we can't know that unless you actually speak about what's going on. Right now, without that, it looks a bit retaliatory: "Oh, you're going to report me? Well, I'm going to try to get you back!" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


    I have pointed out the examples of ARS canvassing, &c pbp 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I think that PPB needs to step back and trust the process to take place now that he has set it into motion. It is rarely helpful to respond to every single comment made by someone that disagrees with one's own stance, and PPB seems to be doing that at the AFD. I would counsel them to just step back, respond no further, allow the process to work itself out, and accept the results whatever they may be. However, even though that behavior isn't helpful (and neither was starting this ANI thread) I don't believe that formal bans or blocks need to be handed out regarding any of this. Both sides need to be counseled to leave each other alone, and stop personalizing this. Neither side needs banning as yet, and I'd like to keep it that way by seeing both sides step back from the personalized back-and-forth bickering. --Jayron32 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose: For starters, the rationale given does not come anywhere to justification for a topic ban, and seems to be nothing more than CallawayRox out for blood. It also troubles me that ARS wants to boot someone mainly because he disagrees with the inclusionist views supported by a preponderance of their members pbp 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    How surprising you oppose your own topic ban. Anyway no, I don't want to "boot" you because you disagree with inclusionist views or with ARS views. Plenty of people do, and it's fine -it's part of the diverse community we have. However most of these people tend to more or less respectfully discuss them, instead of trying games like deleting templates that project use and then complain of canvassing if the wikiproject takes notice. --Cyclopia 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Meh. The list should go to the right venue for a proper discussion. The rest of this is all unnecessary. jæs (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose As a completely frivolous and disruptive attempt to silence a critic. I would say the delete votes have a "critical flaw" in that the template is not the rescue list and deleting it will have no impact on the rescue list. MfD is where the discussion needs to go and it needs to be the page for the list, not the template, that is up for deletion. If the page is deleted then the template would be speedily deleted for no longer having a functional purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support You'll have to show plenty of revision edits to convince everyone else of the problem though. He isn't part of the project, just out to get it, and has argued constantly with those who are active in the project on its talk page and elsewhere. Should someone be able to go to a project they don't believe should exist and constantly argue with them nonstop without contributing anything useful to the project ever? Dream Focus 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Diffs...diffs... I contest the assertion that I have "ever contributed anything useful" to the project. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist...not only did I vote "Keep", I laid out a framework for how the article should be expanded, and where to look for additional information. And what about the opposite argument: should WikiProjects be allowed to boot minority views from their spaces? And there's never been (and never going to be) a requirement that you have to be a member of the WikiProject to participate in discussion, so me being a member or not is irrelevant. It's no different than someone who doesn't believe AfD should exist in its current form still voting at AfDs pbp 22:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    If the person insults the project constantly, and says he wants it deleted, and is right now trying to delete it, then their only reason for being there is disruptive. Dream Focus 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Dream Focus, I don't see where PBP here is insisting that we delete the ARS. He's arguing for the deletion of a page that belongs to the ARS, and he may well think the ARS ought to be deleted, but going at him as if he's holding a knife to the throat of the very existence of the ARS right here, right now, in this thread, is blowing what we're actually talking about wayyy out of proportion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    At User:Purplebackpack89 he says I believe that WP:BEFORE and the article rescue list should be abolished. And yes, he appears to believe he nominated the ARS not just that one template that tells people in an AFD that the discussion was mentioned in a Wikiproject. Dream Focus 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    While we're discussing people's user pages, User:Dream Focus has a section entitled "Please stop the deletionist from destroying wikipedia!" (sic) I nominated the template for the reasons I said: because it bears too much resemblance to Template:Rescue, which in of itself is all the deletion rationale you need (actually, that's almost enough for a CSD) pbp 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    No project is a walled garden (that's what lead to the UFA/MMA issues a while back) and needs to have introspection from time to time. As long as the contrary posts are not purposefully disruptive, editors should feel free to post criticism of a project - in hopes of improving it - there. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    I totally agree that criticism is fine. AFAIK, ARS gets it every day. But pbp is not bringing criticism -he's being disruptive, with pointy template deletion attempts and unsupported accusations to other editors. --Cyclopia 22:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Not going to vote on this but will say that this sub section should be closed outright as an obvious retaliatory measure. This is symptomatic of sand pit fights of this sort. The original ANI hasn't even been dealt with and one of the opposing members has tried to create a smokescreen. Collapse this and finish one thing at a time for fucks sake. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Speedy Close Both Sections: PBP has irked me many times in connection with ARS, but I think its highly doubtful that PBP is going to be banned based on the very limited statement made by CallawayRox. It would take lots of diffs to lay out the history, and life is too short to do this in almost all cases. And in most of those cases, bans aren't that common anyway. I fervently wish PBP would work on improving articles, including little unsourced stubs he creates like Chili burger that would probably die at AfD in their current states, but what he chooses to focus on is his choice.--Milowent • 23:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Milowent, don't feed the drama queens. Diego (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Asking someone to review my actions at Ralph Drollinger

    Several times, User:AccuracyInPosting has tried to add this image to the Ralph Drollinger page (most recently, ), and several times, I have removed it (most recently, ). I can't even find the image at Ralph Drollinger.com, let alone a statement about the public domain. I've left multiple messages about the image at User talk:AccuracyInPosting, but I haven't received any real clarification on the matter.

    I do suspect that User:AccuracyInPosting is associated with Drollinger - just look at his edit history. However, he has made statements such as this ("I do not work for Drollinger, and the fact that you would ask such a question serves to reveal your premeditated mindset.") Thus, I can't just assume we can use the image, can I? Zagalejo^^^ 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    You are correct we cannot assume that we can use the image. There's no evidence that the photo is in the public domain as claimed. The copyright for the image is owned by whoever took the photo unless it has specifically been released under license. The image qualifies for speedy deletion as {{Di-no permission}}. I have placed a speedy deletion tag on the image and notified the uploader. The uploader has seven days to try to get an WP:OTRS ticket in place for the file. If no OTRS ticket is forthcoming, the pic will be deleted in seven days. User:Orangemike is a highly experienced admin and he can likely help with the BLP and COI issues you are facing on that article. -- Dianna (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks, I appreciate the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Your actions are fine. There's no release on the page they cited; from their talk page, it appears that AccuracyInPosting clearly does not understand the concept of copyright. ⇒SWATJester 05:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Actually at the bottom of the page on RalphDrollinger.com , there is a release allowing Misplaced Pages to use his image. It's not the same image, of course, but it's still him and the release on the bottom of the page doesn't necessarily state that he allows only that image on the website. Just my .02  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Here it is in fact. That's jolly decent of him isn't it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, but it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's licensing requirements, does it? Try Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I agree. The particular image in question needs to be explicitly released under an acceptable licence. Releasing to Commons would be preferable, because any free license used here would AFAIK be appropriate for transfer anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    The subject of the photograph is not the copyright holder and is not in a position to release it. The original photographer (or in some cases the photography studio) is the copyright holder. So this note on the website is inadequate under copyright law. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Hmm, that's an interesting development. I don't think that message was there before. If it was, I apologize for missing it. But as others have said, it doesn't resolve the situation by itself. Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

    Bad username

    A new usernmae has been registered called User:Lionsystemss. Users single purpose is to edit Tau Gamma Phi and nominate it for deletion. User:Lionsystems (one s at the end) is a (spa) contributer at Tau Gamma Phi. Double s name appears disruptive, trying to look like the single s name. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    I've blocked the account which opened the AfD; it's a blatant attempt to impersonate. Plus an account whose first edit is to open an AfD is almost certainly a sock. Basalisk ⁄berate 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Legal notice, WMF involvement?

    New user Shadow003 (talk · contribs) requested indefinite semi-protection of Flavio Briatore saying that the article "contained false and slanderous information, and it has been formally contested by Mr Briatore’s lawyer with a letter of formal notice to the Wikimedia foundation." Shadow003's edits to the article have twice been reverted as removing sourced information. I declined semi-protection, which would not solve anything, and have posted at WP:BLPN#Flavio Briatore to get more eyes on the article.

    I take this as a legal notice rather than a threat, but do we need to involve the Foundation? JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    IMHO it's a legal threat - intended to chill. If Legal had heard about it, they would have protected or taken other office-action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Sounds almost like Mr. Briatore's lawyer has already involved the foundation from what Shadow003 said, so it might be nice to have a comment from the foundation. I would agree, though, that it seems more a notice than a threat (at least from a blocking standpoint). Ks0stm 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    (Aseeming legal notice have indeed been served to WMF) If WMF's lawyers consider there's any action that needs to be taken, then office action will be invoked. In the mean time, just decline and move on. -- KTC (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I have left a note on User talk:Geoffbrigham to close the loop. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I think our policy is perfectly clear on this, and the editor should be blocked immediately. His comments are clearly designed to change the article by fiat, rather than by consensus, in violation of NLT. What's more, NLT states that when legal action is ongoing, the editor is required to not edit wikipedia until the legal matter is resolved. Worm(talk) 14:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Absolutely not. They were just told on their talk page they didn't post a legal threat. NE Ent 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I agree that it is a thinly veiled threat. Should be blocked until things are figured out and legal threat resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)And I'm saying that was incorrect. Indeed, if they had not been told that, I would have blocked them myself. {{uw-lblock}} specifically states "you have been blocked for making legal threats or taking legal action" (emphasis mine) Worm(talk) 14:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Policy is pretty clear: If the consensus is their request was a legal threat, they should first be asked to retract it, before blocking. NE Ent 14:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Ent, policy is extremely clear on this matter, thou shalt not subvert Misplaced Pages's consensus driven process through legal means. Editors are of course allowed to take legal action (which this editor confirms has been taken), but whilst legal action is ongoing, the parties may not edit Misplaced Pages. We're not talking about someone who's just used legal terms (which is what that paragraph is refering to), we're talking about someone who has specifically retained a lawyer, written to the foundation and is trying to subvert process. What more do you want? Worm(talk) 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    JohnCD might wish to amend his statement on Shadow's page to "though I accept that you perhaps did not intend to make one". Indeed, I would also have been likely to block, but I think some discussion with them might help - I also smell some WP:COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Amended as BW suggests. I am prepared to be over-ruled if there is consensus to block, but WP:NLT says go to the Foundation and that's what they have done, or say they have done. That isn't subverting process, that's what process tells them to do. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Cheers JohnCD. I'm in the middle of writing a note to the editor - explaining matters, which can include blocking should consensus here be in favour of that. By subverting the process, I was referring to the "consensus driven content process" rather than the legal process. Worm(talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    The use of "we" also raises the possibility this is a role account; the editor should also be asked to clarify that. NE Ent 14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    As a general statement, many lawyers and law firms around the world have no familiarity with how Misplaced Pages works, nor is there any reason to expect them to. While we cannot simply change article content because some lawyer asks us to, there also is no advantage to our assuming that any mention of a lawyer reflects bad faith or a legal threat. Such editors need to have the collaborative nature of the editing model here explained, to be referred to OTRS, and to be advised that except in truly extraordinary circumstances (which as a practical matter almost never happen these days to the best of my knowledge), the Office does not get involved with article content. Starting off the discussion with a threat to block, while permissible within policy, may not be the most productive approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Brad, I generally find the threat to block (or indeed the block) necessary in NLT situations, but as always, it does depend on how it's explained. I've dropped a note on the talk page, I would have blocked with the note but didn't think it prudent in this situation. Worm(talk) 14:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That doesn't look like a threat to me, it looks like an informational post from a third party, such as an Italian Misplaced Pages editor who has been dealing with the situation on it.wp. Better to just ask the person what their connection with the situation is, explaining the NLT policy. Added: Worm's usertalk to Shadow003 post is ok; shadow003 can clarify as required. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You should look harder. The same threat has been issued, and indeed the same cycle of events has already occurred, on the Italian Misplaced Pages a fortnight ago. Ironically, the Italian Misplaced Pages article, thanks to the back and forth as people didn't bother to fix things as they went along, now sports a notice about lacking sources and cites no sources at all, in place of the 16 sources that it cited before this began. I hope that history does not repeat itself in that respect on the English Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Well, we tried ... NE Ent 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    The intent to create a chilling effect in NE Ent's diff is clear now. I'm going to block per NLT, unless someone objects (or has done it already). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    And blocked, with what is hopefully a polite message. As always, anyone should feel free to fix anything I did as necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I don't know what did Wikimedia receive but Shadow001 did almost the same on it.wiki but, in addition, it also replaced page content with a promotional text. I rejected protection request and I tried to de-emphasize the text. It's definitely an example of media-maquillage but, imho, some request should be taken in consideration. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

    Does posting a bounty count as a threat?

    117.220.151.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a bounty for someone's head on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Definitely a threat, whether its credible enough to justify reporting to the foundation emergency contact is a judgement call. I would say probably not. Monty845 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Vandal/troll, block needed. NE Ent 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    He did try to have a conversation with Alexander the Great, which makes me question his capacity, but still leaves me totally convinced that he wasn't an editor we needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Worth noting that WP:EMERGENCY states to "Treat all claims seriously." Obviously I can't see the original threat now, so maybe there's some other reason reporting isn't necessary, but I think the point of EMERGENCY is that "whether it's credible enough to justify reporting" is not something we're supposed to take into consideration. — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Reasonable point; I just emailed diff to WMF NE Ent 17:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a returning IP signing as "Amanbir Singh" who has been trolling us for a long time. I brought this to WP:ANI a couple of months ago here, also that one after a more or less implicit threat. I endorse NE Ent contacting of the foundation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Alleged canvassing by user Emmette Hernandez Coleman

    There is an ongoing dispute between myself and user Emmette Hernandez Coleman (latest summary of opinions here) on the general issue whether entity related articles can be referred to as Palestinian Authority or Palestinian territories. During many debates, which Emmette initiated on many related pages (like those ,,,,,), he was suspected of canvassing and a complaint was issued on Administrator's noticeboard on November 22, which however wasn't closed despite remarks by other editors. While meanwhile i took some time off the argument due to political developments - upgrade of Palestinian Authority to the State of Palestine, an administrator closed one of Emmette's initiated discussions of renaming Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority->"Human rights in the Palestinian territories" in his favor (related to the canvassing case). I herewith request to investigate the canvassing case as summarized in the AN complaint , so other discussions where he is accused of canvassing will not be closed prior to an investigation.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    When things "fall off" it's typically because no action will be taken. From what I recall of the situation, people on both sides of the argument had been notified, and thus it was not formally by the definition of WP:CANVASS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    First, i was advised to move the discussion here. Second, that is exactly the point - users only on one side were notified! Let me quote the original issue:Greyshark09 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    "... a series of discussions/polls were launched by both of us on the talk page of the Palestinian National Authority article, during which user:Emmette resumed spamming my talk page, and hence i warned him on Nov.17 not to spam me for the second time . On this occasion user:Cptnono also warned user:Emmette of an apparent votestacking of his view-sharers from previous/similar discussions . For a while, user:Emmette didn't make any suspicious moves, but suddenly on Nov.21 started a messaging campaign, apparently in a legal way - making notifications to participants of the discussion on PNA talk page . Shortly after, on Nov.22, he however started blatantly and openly votestacking various users from different discussions, who would share his specific POV regarding the discussion/poll Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity, in a kind of attempt to change the opinion balance in this discussion:
    First, user:Emmette asked user:Tiamut to participate in discussion on PNA page , but didn't ask User talk:Bleddynefans with an opposite opinion from the same thread .
    He also approached user:Int21h with the same request , but didn't approach user:Alinor, who also participated in the same thread , but with an opposite opinion.
    Finally, there was a message to User talk:Andrwsc , regarding his post on Pt/PNA .
    So far, user:Int21h responded to Emmette's message in supporting him (as expected) . Since user:Emmette could not restraint himself from doing anything to "win" the discussion, and warnings didn't do any good, i ask for an official investigation on his actions.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)"
    Unless you're in the mood for an WP:RFC/U or ArbCom, then there's no such thing as an "official investigation". You raised an issue on the noticeboard for urgent incidents. Nothing urgent was found in the brief investigations by a number of admins. It fell off the board as nothing to action. You now have other options. It's sadly that simple. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing, new editor

    Please review contributions of MaxXD1 (talk · contribs) NE Ent 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    I've re-reverted his edits; he apparently has an axe to grind after being banned from Serebii IRC (a Pokemon website, don't ask). I'll talk to him. Block probably needed, but might as well try; hope springs eternal and all that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Needs taking to SPI, I'd say. GiantSnowman 17:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    My initial impression is that this user's behaviour is way on the wrong side of WP:POINT, and that WP:NOTHERE strongly applies. I was just on my way here to report the same thing (which I'd spotted at sibling).AlexTiefling (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    ETA: Seriously? IRC sites still exist? :-) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages uses IRC for several different reasons, though the reasons have been questioned as back room dealings and canvassing in the past. Hasteur (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: I doubt he's a sock, unless you know of other similar cases. My guess is that he got banned from Serebii's IRC and came here to change Misplaced Pages to support his complaints, so that he could point them to the Misplaced Pages articles. I doubt he's edited Misplaced Pages before, or he'd probably know that that won't fly. NOTHERE, certainly, and I'm pretty sure that talking to him is a lost cause, but whatevs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I think you're right - I saw the list of names in this edit and thought it referred to banned Misplaced Pages editors; closer inspection shows it's actually users banned from other websites. GiantSnowman 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Request for review of possible misuse of Administrator privileges by Administrator KillerChihuahua

    NO ACTION No evidence (diffs) presented of abuse by KC NE Ent 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    I have several concerns regarding possible misuse of Administrator privileges by KillerChihuahua, including:

    1. Imposition of a sanction ex post facto.

    KillerChihuahua placed an editing restriction based on an edit of mine that had already been retracted and reversed before the sanction was imposed.

    My edit that prompted the edit restriction is here.

    KillerChihuahua's sanction is noted at the top of this section on my Talk page, or, here.

    I had already acknowledged and apologized for my editing mistake, and I made sure it was corrected -- at 02:06, 28 October 2012 diff.

    KillerChihuahua's sanction was imposed after this the following day -- at 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Diff.

    Also, the length of the editing restriction was not specific, but was "for a period of approximately 2 months" (see here).

    I requested several times that KillerChihuahua reverse the editing restriction she imposed. However, KillerChihuahua refused to acknowledge that it was inappropriate to apply a sanction ex post facto. The history of our discussion about this on my Talk page can be viewed here.

    2. Misuse of Administrator privileges: biased application of warnings and sanctions.

    I perceive that this is but one example of KillerChihuahua applying WP policies in a biased and selective manner for this article. I find this particularly egregious behavior displayed by a WP Administrator, especially given the controversial subject matter of the WP article in question (Men's Rights Movement).

    This is also exemplified by her comments on my Talk page here and here.

    This bias is further documented on the Log of Sanctions wherein she reserves warnings primarily to those editors who attempt to add relevant and sourced material generally supportive of the Men's Rights Movement, while editors contributing pro-feminist critiques of the topic do not receive the same level of intense scrutiny. This bias has also been noted by another editor here.

    Additionally, KillerChihuahua terminated a Talk Page discussion about this very issue of bias on the article Talk Page. I had posed for disucssion: "Is the article a neutral and an accurate overview of the MRM and the men's rights for which it advocates?" This was followed by comments from editors offering very differing opinions about this issue here. I believe the rationale for this termination of the Talk page discussion was based on a pretense that further exemplified biased policing of this article.

    KillerChihuahua has for quite a long time policed this article, and it appears to me that she looks for pretenses to apply warnings or sanctions primarily to those editors who do not edit and contribute content from a pro-feminist / anti-Men's Rights Movement perspective on the topic. Again, this concern is echoed by another editor here.

    3. Misuse of Administrator privileges: hostile and disrespectful tone

    I have concerns about the civility and respectfulness of this Administrator (per WP policy: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."). Again, see our discussion on my Talk page here and here where I repeatedly pointed out what I perceived to be excessive hostility.

    I request that KillerChihuahua's privileges as an Administrator be reviewed for possible biased application of warnings and sanctions on this controversial article (and possibly others), and, for showing inappropriate hostility an editor(s). Memills (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2012 (CST)

    (edit conflict) tl;dr. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. (I wouldn't be surprised if Memills ended up with either a topic ban or a community ban.) Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Mathsci, that won't happen unless admins actually go read User talk:Memills from A friendly notice to the end. Admins are busy. KillerChihuahua 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Quite true. After being blocked for his POV edits on Men's rights movement, he showed some understanding that he had not been adhering to the wikipedia guidelines for editing. Unfortunately after that, he back-tracked. With this histrionic outburst/rant, he shows that he has no understanding of the basic editing principles of WP. Hence the possibility of some kind of editing restriction. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No. Articles that are so frequently subject to tendentious editing (such as this one) need firm guardrails to protect the neutrality of the content and to ensure other editors aren't swept-up into the inevitable poisonous cycle that comes very quickly when point-of-view pushers are given virtually any leeway. Several of your edits have been poorly considered. After being advised, several times, to revisit your editing, you went further still. I'm not of the opinion that your simply "reversing and retracting" your subsequent bad edit provides immunity from the restrictions that you were told would be forthcoming if you edited further towards the cliff (which you did). User:KillerChihuahua wasn't being arbitrary and you shouldn't have been taken by surprise. I am not categorically calling your editing tendentious, but several of your edits were close enough, and came after sufficient warning, to reasonably justify restrictions. jæs (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    −

    • If I am not mistaken it appears that Memill believes that the mistake they made that gained them the sanctions was not worth the sanction given because someone else reverted or fixed the edit. Memill feels that KC is involved, probably due to the block they recieved earlier for one week by the same admin. Their history shows a lack of understanding on how to deal with blocks and bans and it appears the editor has made a number of mistakes when requesting sanctions be lifted, this being just one.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Endorse actions by KillerChihuahua and move to close this thread by Memills. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sock farm builder?

    5 SOCKS BLOCKED All accounts are now blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

    Curious series of account creations...

    Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    You forgot Bard the bad bowman (talk · contribs). Anyway, {{checkuser needed}} to determine whose socks these are. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Smelly Smaug (talk · contribs) now vandalising multiple articles. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Someone at SPI is on it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I've blocked them all for vandalism and sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Uncle G is a just a frood that knows where his towel's at... wait, wrong fandom... --MASEM (t) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Bilbo is a paranoid robot/android? That explains... nothing. Never mind. KillerChihuahua 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Isn't there some well-known ANI drama junkie named after a Tolkien character? Seems awful suspicious to me. Jester of the court (sock) 21:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Nah, that guy's a nobody. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass BLP violations - date of birth from primary source

    By chance, I came across the biography of a living person today which had a birth date sourced to "U.S. Public Records Index". WP:BLP is quite clear on this subject: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". It also says that dates of birth should only be added if they are "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I left a note on the talk page of User:Spacini, who seems to have added dates of birth to many BLPs, but they simply deleted the message. A Google search shows that there are hundreds of biographies which use this source, but I do not know who added it or how many of these are living people. This may be a job for a smart bot. Additionally, it may be useful to have an edit filter look for this source in edits. Any other suggestions on how to address this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    WP:BLPN and what is the article, please? Thanks. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Exactly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Before anyone strokes out, I started removing all of the primary source citations I added for living persons' biographies. I was completely unaware of the BLP rule about this issue when I began adding them. I was simply working from the Category:Date of birth missing page and adding in the DOBs where I could find them in the public index. Fortunately, I got bored with the never-ending work and stopped sometime in July (maybe August). I'm working my way back and will continue to remove all the citations where I find them. Should I be removing the DOBs altogether? I'm not quite sure why the WP:BLP rule was created, given that the primary sources where this information is found is public information, easily obtained for free. But, whatever needs to be done, I'll fix it. Now, back to my bourbon. Spacini (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

    Suspicious activity at Micah Baldwin

    This article came up in an September 2012 ANI discussion about promotional throwaway accounts. (wiki-pr.com was the subject of the original thread.) The article was created by a sock, but most of the content was added by User:Fountainflower in their first (and only) edit. The article looked great on the surface, with tons of citations for everything, but when you dug into the sources it was mostly sourced to blogs, Linkden, Twitter, and publications by or about the subject's company, Graphic.ly. Also when you started reading the actual text of the article it came off as very promotional. The subject himself is a CEO, and apparently one of those entrepreneurial you-can-do-anything types who maintains an inspirational blog and is active on Twitter. I'd guess that his notability is debatable. Anyway, the article was deleted near the end of September as "promotional".

    Today the article was recreated in a single edit by User:Rudeerthanyou (a new user with 51 edits) and marked as "Reviewed" less than a minute later by User:Noiratsi (a user with 197 edits who has had an account for about 5 days and has reviewed about 50 other pages today). Rudeerthanyou has also been active on Graphic.ly where they (along User:Denimd, a blocked sock of User:Bartlbs) basically rewrote the entire article to a more promotional sounding version. Anyway, I suspect something hinky is going on, and I'm not sure what to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

    Highly disruptive IP editor

    An unregistered editor whose IP Address is fixed, 14.200.28.81, has frequently vandalized the article for Christian Mortensen, and several other articles, for an extended period of time. Can a ban be imposed, to preempt any further mischief on the user's part? Thanks. KirkCliff2 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a vandalism-only account. gwickwireedits 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    Category: