Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 6 March 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest, Harassment and Vandalism

— Ched :  ?  19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been a member of Misplaced Pages since 2010, and I have made hundreds of edits for articles, such as corrections and to add additional information. However, until recently, I had never participated in any of the Talk or Afd sections. Misplaced Pages wasn't my hobby, but I used it regularly for reading.

Recently I received some messages via a Yahoo group that told about an individual who had a Misplaced Pages article written about him, Steve Cottle, and that a close personal friend had decided to see to it that it be deleted. This seemed odd, and I wondered about possible jealousy and a likely conflict of interest. Seeing others respond to Mr. Cottle with a sense of floundering, I posted a message at the Yahoo group about the problem.

I didn't know Mr. Cottle personally, but I knew very well who he was. I'd read many messages of his, had visited his archive of newspaper comic strips and found it invaluable, and had even independently discovered the article about him, had downloaded it on Jan. 9th and found it interesting and informative. Since I knew who he was and why he was notable, I thought I'd look into the matter.

I interviewed him extensively using a text chat with transcripts saved, and discovered he was actually text chatting with his friend at the very time that he (samrolken) had initiated an Articles for deletion (Afd) action at Misplaced Pages. A chat transcript confirmed samrolken's explanations for this action (the Afd) and the nature of the interaction, which seemed quite antagonistic towards Mr. Cottle, his friend, ridiculing him and calling him names.

I did some research and found this: "'You should not create or edit articles about ... your close friends.... You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and this "Misplaced Pages:Vandalism "Abuse of tags "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd} ... or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism

This seemed like a serious Conflict of Interest which samrolken should not have engaged in according to the guidelines I read, which are designed to ensure editing is done with neutrality and impartiality, which under the circumstances I described, is highly suspect. Deleting is a form of editing. I entered a Keep comment, which an editor MrX, suppressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cottle

MrX also criticized me substantially and declined to do anything about this reported COI. Since things went so adversely, I declined to participate any further in the Afd and cancelled my plans to enter more Keep comments. samrolken eventually posted on my Talk page, and I tried to engage with him, but he refused to acknowledge or discuss the COI, though he admitted they were close personal friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Drhankh#Steve_Cottle

I suggested withdrawing the Afd and continuing the discussion on my talk page, but he was adamant on getting things his way, which I felt was highly improper. In a 2nd post on my talk page, he closed with "... I'll not be interacting with you any more."

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Drhankh#samrolken_Quits_the_Discussion

Later, he sent an email letter to Mr. Cottle, then invaded the chat room where Mr. Cottle and I had a chat scheduled. samrolken parked himself and refused to leave, preventing me from talking privately with Mr. Cottle. When we were alone, samrolken, insulted me repeatedly, taunted me, called me names, and dared me to do anything.

He soon invaded a Yahoo group by joining it and posting a lengthy message there, which annoying the owner, who revoked Mr. Cottle's moderator rights as a result.

At another Yahoo group, a member alerted me that samrolken was trying to delete articles that I had simply edited. And I discovered that samrolken had indeed initiated an Afd for the article Russell R. Winterbotham, a published science fiction author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russell_R._Winterbotham

This seemed like harassment and retaliation.

My sense is there is a clique of people and samrolken feels untouchable, and he could care less what certain people think about the ethics of his actions. He has repeatedly spoken very arrogantly at the chat room. He has a displayed a clearcut malevolence, and based on how I've been treated, have no interest in either intervening in these two Afds, nor doing any more article editing for Misplaced Pages. Please note that I have documented two published articles about author Russell R. Winterbotham on my Talk page; they are from physical books called encyclopedias. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Drhankh#samrolken_Tries_to_Retaliate_by_Deleting_Article_Edited_by_Drhankh

I would also note that samrolken seems to be reading all this material (based on comments he makes to me at the chat room), yet he hasn't taken any initiative to note that these printed articles in books are available, which an objective person might do, more evidence that he's simply being malevolent. In my opinion, samrolken is simply engaging in vandalism, and that seems unethical to me. He has also been seemingly stalking me, using Mr. Cottle's chat room to post taunting remarks, tracking what I am doing and ridiculing me.

For example, samrolken knew about the reply from Shaun9876 long before I became aware of it (and of course taunting me about it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shaun9876#Conflict_of_Interest.2C_Harrassment_and_Vandalism

Despite samrolken's taunts (transcript kept), I do hope there is at least one honest person within the Misplaced Pages community that might be concerned and want to do something about it. Drhankh (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reformatted to convert this from a ton of little lines. The original version is here, if you care. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice wall of text and what a wonderful way to become endeared at Misplaced Pages with a passive aggressive accusation of dishonest editors. You seem to have missed the main part of what a conflict of interest is at Misplaced Pages "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". This seems to apply to you more than anyone else as you have taken a private conversation (an outside interest) with the subject to advanced it, and it seems to be more important to you than the spirit, policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. You seem to have a become a bull in a china shop here over this. This may have a boomerang effect. Mr. Cottle appears to have made himself pretty clear:

Steven Cottle Response

I Lilreader (talk) never thought the actions happening would happen. All I hoped for was the chance to save the page created about me, and not an overall attack on others. I thought it would be a good idea to get a 3rd party involved for a clean viewpoint. All I really wanted was help saving the article regardless of why it was up for deletion. It seems everyone is on the attack side right now.

This should be noted for everyone involved in the matter

• Personal misunderstandings between longtime high school friends (Samrolken (talk) & Lilreader (talk)), and private conversations, should have been kept private and not shared with others.
• Samrolken(talk) nominated the article out of a good faith belief that there were problems with its verifiability and notability.
• This should not be personal, and any discussion should be about the content and verifiability of the article itself, and not of any people involved. Lilreader (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amadscientist,

Please don't accuse me of making arguments or statements that I never made nor make snap judgments about a situation of significant complexity. You wrote: "... what a wonderful way to become endeared at Misplaced Pages ..." I am NOT here to become endeared. I explained that since 2010 I make corrections -- to articles I am reading for my own education and interests. This is what I did with the Steve Cottle article. I explained that I had never participated in the talk sections or other areas, and that unlike samrolken, this is not my hobby.

I came across a problem, which is now a series of problems. You wrote: "... dishonest editors." I never made any such statement. Why don't you quote me rather than falsely characterize me in your words? This notice is almost entirely about one individual samrolken. I am not at all attempting to "advance any outside interest." In fact, I have no outside interests. My only interest is to attempt to seek justice. I became aware of a problem through a message that came in my email. I received messages from other people, all commenting on this reported situation concerning samrolken's attempt to get the Steve Cottle article deleted.

Are you saying that because I learned of a problem pertaining to a Misplaced Pages article via email messages that were posted to a Yahoo group, that I was obligated to ignore the matter based on what you perceive as certain Misplaced Pages rules? With all due respect, I think that is sheer nonsense. I have seen, from MrX, samrolken, and yourself, that certain principles or rules can be manipulated to make anyone's actions appear suspect. An important element of fairness is to examine all of the facts in an impartial and neutral manner and not jump to conclusions, especially not regarding someone who is obviously new to this type of venue.

You talk about "... the spirit, policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages." There is a voluminous amount of material and your allegation is very vague, but I strongly disagree. I can't say I've read everything, but I have certainly read a lot of material, have downloaded everything I've read, and tried conscientiously to take all these different principles into account. I also got the feedback of another user, who read essentially what I posted here, and he suggested this as one of two places to post my material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shaun9876#Conflict_of_Interest. 2C_Harrassment_and_Vandalism.

Regarding your quote from Mr. Cottle, I am aware of that, but two things to keep in mind. First of all, I am not representing him, I am an independent Misplaced Pages user who wants to see justice done. Second, I have interviewed him previously, and I have many statements by him which contradict what you quote. The statement he made was based on the undue influence of samrolken. Now if all you want to do is to make snap judgments and not get all the facts, then why don't you just move along? Because I don't think such an approach is helpful to anyone. If you even paid attention, I stated in my piece, before it got reformatted, that samrolken invaded the chat room of Mr. Cottle and refused to leave, preventing me from communicating with Mr. Cottle.

In fact, samrolken has been doing that since Saturday afternoon. He also uses it to taunt me, which at least borders on stalking. This isn't just about what samrolken did regarding Mr.Cottle and that Steve Cottle article, it's also, what he's done to me, and an article I edited, which he is trying to delete. And trying to delete an article just because I had worked on it, affects everyone. The article is for Misplaced Pages and anyone who wants to read it. For samrolken to initiate an Afd as retaliation when I wouldn't agree to his demands, affects the community and is plain wrong. Rather than deflect attention from what I wrote, if someone wishes to comment constructively, I suggest someone respond to the reported conflict of interest between samrolken editing an article about his close personal friend, especially during an angry discussion. From my reading of the Misplaced Pages guidelines, and I do provide a specific quote, samrolken should not engage in this, regardless of whether he might think he's being fair, or whether he can lobby his friend to convince of this for the moment. The guidelines are for him to recuse himself, because any close friendship or angry relationship is very likely to affect a person's judgment, and at the very least give an appearance of a conflict of interest.

An editor should only be editing, changing or deleting articles in which he can do so in a neutral and impartial manner. Isn't this true? Isn't this important? Is is this to be simply ignored as if it doesn't exist? If you think it's unimportant, I seriously question your judgement and commitment. It's very important. Unless you address this point, I cannot give your arguments any credence.-- Drhankh (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Never thought I would ever use this but....... TLDR.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you REFORMAT it as you have done at least twice, into a single long paragraph, then yes, it will be too long. You certainly don't have to read it. But please stop reformatting my text. It makes it hard to read and seems very unfair to me. I am quite capable of editing my own copy. -- Drhankh (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I did it once. The first time was done by another editor. You could try looking at the history. About the only thing I can think of to say here is: Toro embolado.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Call to close this thread. No admin intervention required unless a temp block to the OP for disruption, COI and battleground mentality.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you should give others a chance to read this and form their own conclusions, esp. since I've criticized you. Drhankh (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Since you have not made it at all clear what admin intervention is being asked for in this thread, it is just soupboxing. This noticeboard isn't for editors to post diatribes.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, I am not an editor. And regardless of your opinions, they are not facts, and so far, you are the only person who has posted substantive comments. Please allow others to read and comments to form a consensus, not get your own way out of spite. Others can read the material, ignore it, or comment if they want, but they need time to notice it. Drhankh (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's my place to recommend specific kinds of intervention, since I hope that Admins are more experienced than me, but I think the Afd on the Cottle article should be withdrawn. Drhankh (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for requesting admin intervention for incidents on the English Misplaced Pages. What is the incident you are reporting that took place on Misplaced Pages and what intervention are you requesting?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I did try to read through a lot of this, although with "walls of text" along these lines I sometimes loose focus. I get the impression that much of the problem lies outside the Misplaced Pages jurisdiction (Yahoo, Facebook conversations, private chats etc.), so could you please explain exactly what administrative action you're looking for in regards to users/policy, etc. — Ched :  ?  07:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I've read this twice, and I can't see any request for admin action either. The two AfDs are proceeding properly (although one does have a couple of suspicious looking SPA votes) and the rest appears to be vague claims of off-wiki disputes. I think this can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ched. I am trying to explain that samrolken has been harassing me, trying to delete a second article simply because I had edited it, tracking everything I do on Misplaced Pages, and then posting disparaging comments to me using Mr. Cottle's chatroom (with just samrolken and myself in the room). As I tried to explain, someone at a Yahoo group noticed that samrolken had initiated another Afd on this article (Russell R. Winterbotham) I had edited, and it seems like a Conflict of Interest for samrolken to be trying to delete an article edited by someone who's told me repeatedly that he dislikes me intensely.

I was hoping that someone would understand that samrolken shouldn't be trying to edit or delete articles about a close personal friend or someone he dislikes (Conflict of Interest) and should stop trying to harass me. I had hoped someone would understand what he's doing and talk to him. I tried, and those were the steps suggested by MrX, and this was the next step according to both him and Shaun9876. Two experienced editors sent me here. (This is all in writing.)

samrolken refuses to accept that being involved with his friend's article is a blatant conflict of interest, and so far, not one person has even addressed it. -- Drhankh (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Close and warn OP.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ched asked me questions, Amadscientist. Don't you think the fair thing to do is give him time to read my reply to what he asked me? Please stop trying to control the discussion. You've had your time to make your points, let others participate. Thank you. -- Drhankh (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I truly think the best thing to do is discourage you from further disruption. You have brought an off-wiki discussion on a Yahoo group to this project and bullied a number of editors. You show clear signs of battleground mentality, conflict of interest and have created enough drama, both on Wiki and off that another editor felt the need to out themselves to stop you, and it is possible that you are guilty of WP:PRIVACY by outing an editor as a personal friend of the subject . You make accusations to the broad community in regards to honesty in a manner that clearly shows your disregard to others. All attempts by a number of editors has gone unheeded and I feel you are now guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Closing the thread and warning you is a kindness at this point....and I am one of a number of editor that tries to retain editors....but not with this attitude.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) OK, I did find User:Samrolken, as well as 2 of his post to your talk. (here and here) While it's obvious that the two of you don't agree, I don't see a direct violation of WP:NPA on those alone. I also looked at Steve Cottle, the article's history. I don't see that Samrolken has edited the article, so I don't see any WP:COI. I also looked at the talk page (Talk:Steve Cottle) and don't see anything there. I'm not aware of any policy that forbids even the subject from nominating said article for deletion (WP:AFD), so I'm not sure of anything actionable in that regard. Yes, any editor is encouraged to not edit an article about themselves per WP:COI, but they are encouraged to engage in discussion on the article talk page if they have concerns. If Samrolken is harassing you on Facebook, on Yahoo, or some other "chat room"; there's simply nothing we can do about it here. IF they are violating WP:HARASS on Misplaced Pages, can you provide links to those particular posts? If not, I'm sorry, but I don't see anything we can do here. — Ched :  ?  08:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum. While I detest the cherry-picking of sentences from the (spirit of) Policy, and I mention this only as a word of caution: this section also says: "You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life. Just thought I'd mention that. — Ched :  ?  09:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(note: I'm about done for tonight, but will look back tomorrow) — Ched :  ?  08:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't view myself as an "editor" (though I have edited a lot of articles). I am not trying to get especially involved in Misplaced Pages activities. I tried to rectify a problem, but some people seem unwilling to consider what I've actually written but rather come to subjective interpretations. I do think some people think about what I've written. Anyone who isn't interested this thread doesn't have to read it or post comments. Thanks for your additional comments, Ched. I don't think anything needs to be done immediately. Time to reflect on what different people have mentioned would be helpful. -- Drhankh (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment that you clicked "Save page" the very first time, you became an editor. As you've clicked "save page" at least a half-dozen times right here at ANI, you're now an "experienced editor". (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain, but I can see probably not well enough, so apologies if it wasn't clear, but since 2009 or so, I've simply been editing articles that I read and saw corrections were needed or information was missing. Until late Friday evening, I had never had ANY interaction with anyone at Misplaced Pages. I saw myself as a reader, a user, and a member, someone who made conscientious edits, which were mostly corrections, fixing mistakes I noticed. I never thought of myself as an editor. I had visited some Talk pages and read some of the discussions. I had read policy material. But I wasn't an editor like the rest of you. I got here because it seemed necessary. I haven't been looking to do it regularly. -- Drhankh (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who edits here is an editor.. It's not the same meaning as in the book publishing business, where it implies a position of authority (albeit one to be argued with by the 'client'...). Nor is it the same as in the newspaper/magazine world, where it definitely implies a position of authority (who isn't usually argued with by underlings...). We use a more basic meaning 'one who edits'. We don't have people like the publishing world does. Admins are often more experienced than many of the 'ordinary' editors (but many of the top by numbers and quality editors are not and do not wish to be admins). I was a reader for years until I discovered a silly edit in an article and signed up to correct it. And now I'm an admin (didn't run fast enough...). On content matters, I have opinions. You have opinions. Both of us are part of what makes up consensus. There is room for many different types of work. I cart out the garbage and nitpick on textual matters. Others create loads of articles. Yet others spend time in policy and procedure discussions. We're all here to keep things running and build the encyclopaedia. (Yes, there are vandals and spammers too - that's why we have admins...) Stick around and really get to know the place. Or just pop in and nitpick over wording. All helps. Peridon (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi BWilkins, many thanks for your comments! I smiled when I read them. "The moment that you clicked 'Save page' the very first time, you became an editor."

I still remember my first time. That was back in 2009, when I edited the Buster Crabbe article to add the material "Crabbe starred in the television series, Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion (1955 to 1957) as Captain Michael Gallant; the adventure series aired on NBC. His real-life son, Cullen Crabbe, appeared in this show as the character 'Cuffy Sanders'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/Buster_Crabbe#Television

Apparently the original author of the article hadn't been aware that Crabbe had even starred in a TV series.

I knew he had, because I remembered watching it; I had reference books with the details (articles about the TV show, there was none in Misplaced Pages at that time), so I figured I'd help out by adding information on the show. I didn't even have a Misplaced Pages account at the time. It wasn't until 2010 that I created an account.

I had the impression that there was a heirarchy of Misplaced Pages members with at least three levels, users, editors and administrators, and that I was just a user. One reason for that thought was that in my profile page, it says:

"Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Users"

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Preferences

Since I'd never applied to become an editor, I never thought I was one. :-)

You know samrolken actually told me something very similiar Saturday evening, "Everyone is an editor." He was talking more about himself, but I wasn't sure whether I believed him.

But in my Talk page, I quipped "Then I suppose I have been promoted. :)"

"... you're now an experienced editor". Ok, thanks.

But there's still a lot of things that are very new to me. The only time I really read much in a talk page was one of the articles on Tom Swift where a person I was acquainted with, Scott, was embroiled in some kind of controversy; apparently he wanted the article to mention his fan fiction, while someone more experienced didn't. So I read up on it. That's when I learned about sockpuppets. But I never wrote anything in any talk page.

I can see there appears to be a lot of customs, ways certain people are used to doing things. This doesn't mean I didn't try to read up on things, I did, but the material is voluminous, and it's difficult to just read and absorb completely if you're not using it.

It's something like learning a foreign language; just taking a course (to me) was a lot harder than going to a foreign country and speaking the language; it came much quicker to me that way.

Ched's been very helpful in his responses, but there's so much material (contentwise) as far as concepts, that I'm still having trouble completely grasping all of it, maybe even a lot of it. And that's not even counting the references.

I think some people (not him or you) may simply be expecting too much and simply not understand that I can't absorb it all in only 48 hours.

And a lot of the stuff I've encountered for the very first time is since I entered this section, which is only about 2 hours ago (when I had drafte his reply). I was hesitant to even come here. It appeared very daunting and complicated before I started.

Anyhow, I hope people will have some patience with me, as I am trying to learn as fast as I can. I realize there is at least one person who feels I rubbed at least him the wrong way, but I feel like he did it to me first. I don't think he appreciates how experienced he is compared to me and how fast he can do things compared to me as well. I could barely keep up with him (and couldn't really). I'd be typing a reply to him, and when I tried to update the section, I couldn't because he'd already changed it with new comments. ;-) -- Drhankh (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Too-Long, Didn't Read. Drhankh, rather than novellas of content explaining, how about short bulletized lists (or some other synopsis mechanisim). Also your very short lines are really disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peridon, many thanks for your comments. Very helpful. Yes, I'd actually worked as an editor, and I did actual editing work. So yes, I did think of it as a title, and was sure I wasn't one, because I had never applied. So you signed up for a silly edit. Well as you can see from previous remarks, I did a whole partial paragraph and still didn't sign up. :) Well the screen said I didn't have to. It said I could just edit. Of course later I regretted not having created the account back then, because I probably missed out on some bonus points or something. :)

"I cart out the garbage and nitpick on textual matters."

Well I fix almost every mistake I see, from spelling and punctuation to grammar. Even of the proposed to be deleted Steve Cottle article, I still went ahead and added a missing end quotes symbol. :)

Hey it doesn't hurt to be a perfectionist at sorts, and you never know, perhaps that article won't actually get deleted. :)

"On content matters, I have opinions. You have opinions." Thanks, that's good to hear. As I mentioned earlier in this section, until perhaps 3 days ago, I had simply never interacted with any editors, with no one at Misplaced Pages. I think there were times I actually wanted to, to get someone else's opinion or how to handle an article. Now that I think about it, yes, I remember this thought came up several times. But quite frankly, I could never figure out how to do it. I'm not saying that I hadn't been really persistent, I might not have been able to figure it out, but I suppose I was looking for an email address or a private messages system, and this is totally different.

Does that help explain things? So if I felt really unsure, then I just didn't edit something. My thought was to leave it alone unless I was sure I knew what I was doing.

"Both of us are part of what makes up consensus." That's true. Initially I had asked MrX how to post a Keep comment on the Afd for the Steve Cottle article. I had looked at it, I was pretty sure I understood how it was done. But it looked very unintuitive; I was expecting a form with fields. However, I didn't want to mess things up. Anyhow, he answered my question just fine. But then after I posted my comments, he was highly critical of me, acted like I had commited great offenses, and I felt I had do nothing in the least wrong. I think part of the problem was that he perceived me as an obvious newbie. Another part of the problem was that he came across to me as condescending, as if he knew everything, and I knew nothing, and I didn't cotten to it at all. Two other editors treated me that way, one of them being samrolken, though was very demeaning, calling me names. Anyhow, to reach consensus, there has to be mutual respect, and true communication, and just because another editor may be more experienced, even if a lot more, that doesn't (I think) give them any right to be disrespectful to me, to be demanding as if I have to take orders from them (which happened earlier in this section), or to act as if or pretend that they know everything, that I know nothing, and that by default they have to right and to imply that I should kiss there ring or other anatomy lest they banish me. I really was not going to tolerate that. It's not like this is my job or that I'm getting paid or that I really need Misplaced Pages or the aggravation. :) Hence, I stood my ground with three editors.

"There is room for many different types of work." I agree completely. That was another thing that irked me. Just because certain editors were doing certain kinds of work, and I hadn't been, they had no right to be demanding that I had to get involved to the same extent as them in order to in effect pass an initiation test. It felt like hazing.

"We're all here to keep things running and build the encyclopaedia." This is one of the things that annoyed me in my dealings with samrolken. He told me that this is his hobby, how many hours he spend editing, and sure lately I've been spend a LOT of time, but I never considered it my hobby. It was simply one of the places I regularly devoted time to making corrections, because I thought the articles deserved it. After all, somebody else might not spot the mistakes, make the corrections, or have the information I did. However, with samrolken, he acted extremely condenscending, calling such bad names, and I really didn't accept most of what he said as being the truth.

Sure, he could snow his friend, Steve Cottle, but I wasn't samrolken's friend, and I wasn't so naive. There was a big difference in educational levels and general experience, and his explanations of the 'inner' workings of Misplaced Pages seemed very hard to believe. I will say from actual experience, that yes, there was indeed SOME truth to what he told me, but it was just a slice of what goes on here.

I can see that for sure now. It does exist, but how big or small it is, I don't have enough experience to gage for sure.

"Stick around and really get to know the place." Thank you very much for such a warm welcome and encouragement, Peridon. I greatly appreciate it. I will have to admit, after some repeated interaction with one individual in this section, I was looking forward to finishing up this section and leaving. But I am feeling better now, thanks to Ched, BWilkins, and then you, Peridon. So thanks a million

And with that, I will take a break and rest. -- Drhankh (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference: Reader means wanders in from Google, reads, wanders out again. Only lasting thing is a click on a counter. User = editor = someone who does something. Confirmed or autoconfirmed can do a bit more than totally new or IP editors. Rollback and Filemover are rights that editors can apply for when they've been around a bit. Admins have more buttons to play with, including Block and Delete. They have no more say in policy matters or discussions than anyone else with the same experience level. Then there are bureaucrats and stewards, who do things that only they really understand. Like admins, chosen in discussions (not elections). And there are developers who do things that no-one really understands (or knows about until it goes wrong and everyone else gets angry...). Misplaced Pages is an argumentative anarchy with rules. Like in children's games, the rules can change if enough people get together (and no-one else notices...). Do try to keep the length of posts down - I worry about the length of mine at times. (Most of the time, I don't.) Peridon (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, it was somewhat lengthy. In my original post, there were smaller paragraphs. But another editor undid all my paragraphs and turned it into one overly large blog. So I had to redo it, and to pacify him, I made the paragraphs bigger, so there were fewer of them. The same thing happened with my reply to another editor, who modified my text twice. Again, I made the paragraphs bigger. I will be happy to consider changes like you suggested ("short bulletized lists") but please keep in my mind, this is the first time I've attempted anything like this, so I really don't know how it's done and had never thought of doing it. I tend to not use 'bullets' since they are not on my keyboard. I use dashes instead. Would that suffice?

"Also your very short lines are really disruptive." Not sure what you mean. Can you give me a specific example or two? And add an example of it changed the way you think would be better? Then I would understand and could give it a try. Just please leave my original comments as is. Thanks again. -- Drhankh (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments, Peridon. Interesting and helpful insights. And thanks for your comment too, BWilkins. "Misplaced Pages is an argumentative anarchy with rules. Like in children's games, the rules can change if enough people get together (and no-one else notices...)." Good comment. Seems to hit the nail on the head with what I had been observing. :-) "Do try to keep the length of posts down ..." Understood, and I am trying. -- Drhankh (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Drhankh, I'm not even going to pretend I read every word of that, but neither you or Mr Cottle come off very well here. Cottle seems to be trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote himself ("All I hoped for was the chance to save the page created about me"), which is very strongly discouraged around here. And you, Drhankh, are tossing around accusations, pasting walls of text, coming very close to OUTing another editor you're in a dispute with, and trying to bring off-wiki internet drama to Misplaced Pages, all of which is completely unacceptable. You may (or may not) have a point that samrolken might have been better to let someone else nominate the article, but regardless of who pressed the button, he's right that the article can't stay--myself or any of thousands of other editors would have nominated it too if we'd happen to stumble upon it first. The best thing you and Cottle can do at this point is let it go and avoid making yourselves look worse. (Cue enormous wall-of-text reply) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Steve Cottle doesn't come off well here. However, that wasn't my idea, and I had nothing at all to do with it. I thought what he posted reflected extremely poor judgment. However, as far as I can tell, this was due to tampering by his friend, samrolken, who wrote Mr. Cottle a long email letter. That part was completely out of my hands. Its appearance here in this section was solely due to the adverse action of another person. I certainly didn't post it and would not have done so. You are entitled to your opinions, and just because you have a perception doesn't make it accurate. I had stopped writing in this section, you chose to continue it with your comments. I am not going to reply to everything, but I did read what you wrote.

At any rate, you interrupted me from other work, so I must be going. However, I hope this helps. -- Drhankh (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Now I'm going to ask for some administrator intervention. Drhankh has added more than 17,000 bytes of meandering screed to the AfD. While I don't believe it's malicious in intent, it is seriously disruptive and indicative of a larger failure to understand and accept the advice given here, and on the Drhankh's talk page. I'm sorry to say that this seems to be a case of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. - MrX 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I ask that an uninvolved Administrator collapse the text and warn the user against further disruption and attempts to control the discussions. I also can't help but wonder if a topic ban on all BLPs is now necessary to avoid any further issues involving living persons. Clearly the editor does not understand policy and guidelines in this regard and the issue is too important to allow any editor to run rough shot over these matters.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've collapsed the content. A cursory reading of it leads me to the conclusion that it is an irrelevant screed. From what I see, I have to agree with X about this being a WP:CIR issue. --Kinu /_c 21:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a WP:CIR issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to further ask for administrator intervention in this matter. Beyond the AfD, Drhankh has posted extremely lengthy diatribes here and on his own talk page. This content has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Most of it is about me and consists of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, outing, and harassment. I disengaged from dealing with this user early on, but it doesn't seem to have slowed him down. At all. I don't know what the proper policies and procedures are with regard to blanking/removing these rants, but they are definitely a menace to me and I'd very much appreciate some help and advice. samrolken (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I had finished writing everything I had to say on Misplaced Pages before the three editors posted their latest comments. And clearly all three of them do not like me. I haven't written anything on my Talk page since yesterday; there's no need to. I was finished and the above three people can move along to do other things. I would just point out that I've been hearing from samrolken all day long via text chat, which he's initiated (transcript saved) and the tail end of it was actually cordial, with him helping me. -- Drhankh (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A few short additional comments. I do listen to everyone. I do read the comments of everyone who has posted anything directed my way or anyone I have replied to. That's the way I do things, as it seems fair. And I do think about what people say, including criticism.

samrolken mentioned the link to Failure or refusal to "get the point" in our text chat this afternoon, which he initiated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_r efusal_to_.22get_the_point.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required

I do read this material when people point me to it, as I have time to read and digest it. Please rest assured I've downloaded both of the above articles mentioned by MrX and samrolken. I will certainly be reading them carefully.

But like I said, I really had finished. However, if someone posts something pertaining to me, I certainly don't want anyone to think I would ignore the material. -- Drhankh (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mayasutra's talk page behavior

Mayasutra (talk · contribs) has recently hurled wrong accusations against me, in the talk page of Iyengar. See below.

• Mayasutra's offensive comments - , - Here, Mayasutra accused me of POV pushing and says "According to you (and not according to Monier Williams), the Vadakalis have nothing to do with the Prabandhams", addressing me. And he also says(according to the second diff) "It is apparent Hari7478 is pushing a POV such that Thenkalais are associated only with Tamil and Vadakalai with Sanskrit, and by doing so, somehow wants to portray an ethnic difference".

But, according to these sources, including the one authored by Monier Williams - , , , , , Vadagalai(Northerners/Northern school) accept the sanskrit vedas while Tengalai(southerners/southern) have compiled a veda of their own(4000 prabandhams - in tamil). Despite providing these sources, Mayasutra accuses me of POV pushing. Also, i didn't mention a word on ethnicity.

• Mayasutra's false comment - - Here Mayasutra has shown a diff of my edit summary and accuses me of wanting to push an ethnic difference.

This was my edit summary - according to which i simply changed the section's title from "Common Origin" to "Philosophical Origin" because the section was all about philosophical origins, hence i thought this title would be apt. I wonder how Mayasutra took it for "pushing an ethnic difference". Clearly a false and vengeful accusation.

• Here's a list of Mayasutra's past accusations and abusive behavior in the article's talk page - for admin's knowledge of Mayasutra's long term attacks. See below.

, (this one's a communal attack on Vadakalais), (edit summary vandalism/accusations of racism in edit summaries - removed by admin).

Due to Mayasutra's "accusations of racism", an admin had previously warned him, here - .

The Iyengar page has been under general sanstions for quite some time. I haven't abused other users in discussions, and i don't know how Mayasutra keeps getting away with this behavior. Hari7478 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything other than a content dispute here. Some of the diffs above are really old but, regardless, none of them are attacks. Mayasutra suggested mediation in this diff], did you try that? If not, perhaps that's the way to go. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It is fundamentally a content dispute but there seems to be a multitude of underlying problems relating to behavioural issues. Both the parties were blocked recently for warring, both appealed to me for support of their position and things certainly have been fraught. I've suggested WP:DR on a couple of occasions and, yes, I too have suggested that there may be some POV stuff in play, not to mention tendentiousness, WP:OR, misrepresentation of sources, IDHT and an inability to keep the discussion on a single talk page. If there is blame, it is certainly not reasonable to apportion it entirely to one party. However, I'd like to think that the fundamental dispute can be resolved, even though it will certainly not be to the satisfaction of both people. It seems at heart to be related to issues of ethnicity, which is a messy subject area anyway. More eyes might be helpful but not immediate admin action. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, Am open to WP:DR. Its apparent Hari7478 is stuck on 3 terms--European, Aryan, NorthIndian, and walls are written on it; with a particular POV pushing on Vadakalai versus Thenkalai such that Vadakalai are European and Aryan; whilst Thenkalai are Tamil. Am fed up of his misrepresentation of sources IDHT. I do not take kindly to such allegations either. Nor to ridiculous claims of me attacking Vadakalais as he says "(this one's a communal attack on Vadakalais)". Or to any of his allegations mentioned above. Obviously he does not realize how abusive has been so far, not to mention filing baseless reports of vandalism/sockpuppetry against me merely to escape answering on 4 issues raised on ANI earlier. Since those 4 issues were settled by yourself and qwyrxian, it appears he is trying other ways of POV pushing; by bringing in new sources which seek to represent content in the Iyengar article in such a manner that Vadakalai is associated with Sanskrit/Vedas-Only and Thenkalai with Tamil/Prabandhams-Only. By associating Vadakalai with Sanskrit alone and Thenkalai with Tamil alone wonder what he wants to achieve. Anyways, whatever he wants to prove, let him prove. Please advice on WP:DR -- since you are currently involved in sorting out issues between Hari7478 and me, is WP:DR advisable? Apparently the WP:DR will be on the current sources which Hari7478 has mentioned in this report above.--Mayasutra (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

The dispute ranges much more widely than just the sources that you mention. Let's deal with the issues - including any move to WP:DR - via the article talk page. They really are not a concern for this forum. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Biala Gwiazda - increasing belligerency, disruptive editing, 3RR, ad-hominem attacks.

User:Biala Gwiazda has become a belligerent problem with disruptive editing, three-revert rule, and now ad hominem attacks in his comments. This started with his reverting edits and moving the article for Rutgers-Newark, and compare this with my attempts to correct the matter at Talk:Rutgers-Newark, and User talk:Biala Gwiazda. I have approached AN/3RR, third-opinion, and page protection for assistance. I think someone here ought to take notice of the escalation of this user's bellicosity.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ColonelHenry, your posting at WP:AN3#User:Biala Gwiazda reported by User:ColonelHenry (Result: ) ought to be sufficient. By posting the same issue at two different noticeboards you may be forum shopping. You are invited to follow up at WP:AN3 and explain the actual content matters that are in dispute. Neither side gives any references or even says what they are arguing about. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• My intent is not forum shopping, it's was largely the result of unclear instructions. I provided more than enough references on the talk page at Talk:Rutgers-Newark, the user's talk page at User talk:Biala Gwiazda, and at WP:AN3. I do not see how I can make my case any more clearly than I already have as I have already pointed to the reverted edits, the bellicosity.--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I recommended it be brought here, simply based on the personal attacks that Biala has made. Accusations of racism without any evidence:. Claims of ColonelHenry having mental problems:. Other rather marginal comments: . This user needs a cool-off block, hopefully that'll sort out the issue - considering Biala admits their move was in error, I fail to see why the attacks have continued. ColonelHenry hasn't been the most neutral of editors in this dispute, and they had no right to make the comment "If you don't know anything about Rutgers, you shouldn't be spreading disinformation on the Rutgers-Newark article." I have seen information about Henry's remark about Biala being Polish - it was perhaps ill-advised, but it was in NO way racist, or harassment. I found this dispute after going to WP:3O. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit warring complaint is now closed with full protection of the article and with warnings to both parties for the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Harassment and incivility from User:Till

Till (talk · contribs) This user has been incivil towards myself and others. I normally wouldn't have filed this, but after the ANI and hounding, I feel compelled. I also know it's not only me as User:IndianBio spoke to Till about patronizing editors earlier today, and in the last 6 months this editor has had two other ANI's filled against them: at this ANI/continued ANI and this one too with in the past 6 months. It appears much of the same problems arise.

As I said at the other ANI, I was in the midst of filing an ANI against his incivility when an ANI was filed against me for closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat. Even the title, abuse of "authoritative status" shows a lack of respect and good faith.

I noted some incivility, in particular against User:IndianBio at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat such as this and this. Then I closed it and Till made this statement on my talk. Specifically, "You are absolutely incorrect and have interpreted the discussion in poor fashion... If you can't see that, then you have no business of making NACs in the first place" Till. When the ANI was closed, the editor was still making changes to the discussion. I think this statement, "...objective comment because you were acting dictatoral" is a good summary of how Till positions his comment as civil, but it's clearly incivil calling someone a dictator.

This edit made in between edits at the ANI filed against me on one of my AfD nominations. I feel this is a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

It appears this editor habitually uses a condescending tone with other editors, assumes they are as another person put it, an idiot, with their statements like "Obviously it's your first time", or "You obviously didn't bother to read" or "interpreted the discussion in poor fashion" instead of assuming they have and their position is simply in opposition to that of Till's. There is a pattern of Till being scolded at the other ANI's where he promises good behaviour but finds himself back at an ANI again and again, and a third time now. Mkdw 02:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that one hour after opening an ANI thread about you, and immediately after the thread was closed, he went and voted keep in an Afd you had opened (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Craig McMorris). Very petty behavior on his part. Perhaps we should consider opening an WP:RFC/U if he continues to do this type of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to anything. I noticed that in the last ANI it was closed after he said this statement but we're back here for a third time. The hounding issue is one thing, but the incivility is another for me. Mkdw 03:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's uncivil, not 'incivil', and none of what I posted today is. "You are absolutely incorrect and have interpreted the discussion in poor fashion" → How is this uncivil? It's objective information, disagreeing or not liking it doesn't make it uncivil. "If you can't see that, then you have no business of making NACs in the first place" → Indeed, if somebody does not know the relevant policies they should not be doing NACs. The first time I posted on your talk page I greeted you and even said thank you, and I felt that your response was condescending, dismissive and unfair. My query was treated like it was nothing, so that was my reaction. I spoke freely and openly, but I wasn't uncivil. And Mark, I don't think you of all people should be suggesting to open an RFC against someone (remember that unforgettable email to Malleus)? Till 05:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the word incivil and neither does the dictionary. Perhaps you could show where exactly in my initial reply I was anything but civil? I offered you the option of WP:DRV right off the bat. I know the relevant guidelines and it's only your disagreement of how they were applied. Enough editors thought you had not properly applied the notability guideline, but that does not mean you did not know it. There is a very strong difference between disagreeing and calling people ignorant. Mkdw 05:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You made an NAC and when I questioned you about it, it was dismissed like a piece of paper and directed to DRV. What was wrong with a simple 'revert' and 'relist'? That's all I asked for, but at the end of the day, my concerns were still not addressed and the nature of your response worsened the problem (for me). So if you feel that my response was rude, it was my natural response, although I didn't intend on having to visit ANI twice today for it. And I don't consider voting on an Afd to be 'wikihounding' Till 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How did you want me to take the AfD other than how I handled it? My close was measured, formal, and procedural. I stood behind my position. I didn't take you to ANI or say anything rude to you because you didn't change your mind after I tried to convince you otherwise. So why would you expect me, if I was not convinced by your reply, to change my action? You didn't. DRV would have been the neutral and unemotional path to see if there was consensus over my closure. It would have taken no different amount of effort or time than the ANI. Lastly, you have a history of incivility and it should be addressed. When people disagree with you, which will happen again, you should not come back with them about statements and fairly large assumptions like 'obviously you haven't this or that'. I never said, "you obviously don't know English or have read a dictionary because incivil is an English word and in the dictionary, and you have no business using the English language because you convey a poor understanding of it". See the difference? Mkdw 06:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your close failed to address the lack of policy-based votes. This could have been easily fixed if you reverted it and relisted it in the logs. When an NAC is challenged, especially if proven to be incorrect, there is an expectation for the closer to (at least) reconsider their actions. In this particular Afd there was 1 outstanding nomination complaint which wasn't addressed, 1 valid merge vote, and 4 weightless keep votes. Afd is not a headcount, and NAC is reserved for non-controversial closures. This should have been relisted at the least, but instead you acted dictatoral and caused a response which you perceive as 'uncivil'. What you are accusing me of ("history of incivility") is not true. You may have become irritated by a comment of mine, but that doesn't make it uncivil. Till 06:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are only your opinions. I did not fail nor was proven wrong on anything and in fact, you are, so far, alone in that assumption. Even the above ANI had admins which voiced opinions that it was a close that most admins would have done (as I said earlier) and that there was nothing wrong with my closure. Technically speaking, this is the 3rd ANI in 6 months, and one 7 day block in there. It's clear we don't agree on much so I'd rather not spend more time going back and forth over the same issue over and over. What has been said has been said and I await further admin input. Mkdw 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's entirely objective. It seems as though you have a tendency to make bad NACs and then argue with people who confront you about it and accuse them of incivility (). That is all I have to say on this issue. Till 06:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, if anyone reads through the diffs of the discussion between Till and Mkdw, the only failure of civility is on Till's part. Asking an editor to reconsider their close of an AfD is one thing, but then badgering them to relist it when they should know that it is generally not looked upon well to have an AfD that was closed as keep relisted straight away for yet another discussion, is beyond the pale. It is not the closer's responsibility to list at DRV when their close at an AfD is questioned. Till, Mkdw laid out their reason for their close, if you had a problem with it you could have listed it yourself rather than whinging. Instead of digging too far back for incivility and having noted Till's previous appearances at ANI, one might consider this diff for one of Till's customary responses to people who disagree with them. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the previous diffs for that page you will see that the user told me to "stop being an ass", so no, I wasn't the one who began the "incivility". Clearly, it's okay for someone to call another person a "pain in the ass" and get away with it, but when the second person responses to this, it is deemed uncivil. Till 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I also note that IndianBio chose to redact it, not strike through which would have left it there, but removed it completely even though it is left in the history. The redaction was prior to your reply to their post and as such is generally considered an acknowledgement that their comment was inappropriate. And if you want to argue about being a responder, your comment prior to the redacted 'pain in the ass' would certainly be considered the trigger for any following incivility, so yes, in this case you are the one who began the incivility. Also, having mentioned IndianBio, I will go and leave a notification on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Till, you have a long standing habit of reverting NACs. Why you despise them, I have no idea, as admin aren't magically more right than an NAC. NACs are allowed under policy, and the remedy is usually to have them reviewed, not to revert them except in cases of abuse. If you would simply stop reversing NACs, your life would be a lot less complicated. I don't want to see you topic banned, and prefer you just stop reverting NACs voluntarily. If an admin decides it needs reversing, they can. If you think it it needs reversing, ask an admin to review it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't despise NACs, I have made dozens of them in my Wikilife. This however, was a poor interpretation of policy. If somebody does not understand that WP:V#Notability is a policy-based requirement for articles and cannot differentiate between a vote with weight and one without weight then they shouldn't be doing NACs. But you are right. Next time instead of arguing I will consult an admin. Till 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Will you also refrain from casting Afd votes to spite people who close discussions, like you did at Craig McMorris? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • To add to this, I always refrain from commenting on an AFD or other process when it is initiated by someone whom I've had a strong disagreement with unless I have something truly remarkable to bring to the discussion. Being part of the community, I depend on the common sense of others and recognize that my more mundane opinions aren't required at every discussion, even if I have an opinion. Not voicing an opinion where it can cause drama is often in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Trust the rest of the community to deal with those cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I feel like most of this was addressed above at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrect_Afd_reading_and_abuse_of_authoritative_status and not the matters of incivility and harassment that this ANI is focused at. What strikes me is that Till does not see himself as having both been incivil against multiple editors and subsequently hounded me. I'm not seeking 'justice' but several editors/admins have noted the incivility and it should be addressed. Mkdw 20:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm not prone to blocking Till (or anyone, for that matter) for incivility that doesn't breach WP:DE, WP:TE or WP:NPA, and I think that discussing it has made the point fairly clear, what the expectations are. What we seek are solutions, and if Till will follow the advice given here (and he has indicated he will), it will go a long way toward resolving future issues. If simple incivility becomes a pattern, RFC/U is the proper venue. Till isn't a bad guy and does a fair amount of good work, but he gets a bit emotionally involved in what he does and doesn't pull back when he should, hence the tips above. I'm familiar with his methods (and I've blocked him for them previously), and feel that guidance is more likely to produce the desired result than blocking in this circumstance. Of course, I'm just one voice and another admin may feel differently, but I do think a little rope is appropriate here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoax/vandalism/promo only account

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

Can someone block this account before dealing with it becomes a time sink, or someone shows up and insists that I am required to have a good faithed discussion with it before reverting? It's nonsense edits - as best as I can tell he's putting in somebody's surname (maybe their own, maybe not) in for historical figures so it's either hoax, vandalism, self promo or d) all of the above.Volunteer Marek 02:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sweet Snow Covered Peaks of the South Eastern Carpathian Mountains (to steal one of your best lines) Volunteer Marek, it's just someone messing around. I'm willing to bet they've had their fun, and will never edit again. "Keep calm and carry thongs", as we say down here. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter

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

User:Wondering55 started editing in mid-February with a string of edits related to New Jersey highway articles. Bizarrely, every single edit removed sources written by John Cichowski, a report for The Record (Bergen County) who writes a column under the moniker "Road Warrior" about transportation issues. This edit to Pulaski Skyway, this edit regarding New Jersey Route 495 and this edit for the Port Authority Bus Terminal are examples of edits where the ONLY changes are to remove sources written by Cichowski and replace them with other sources. This practice came to my attention with this edit and this edit to the article for Chatham Borough, New Jersey, where Wondering55 removed a source written by Cichowski that was there solely to support Leanna Brown as a resident. After a series of talk page discussions, Wondering55 disclosed an apparent connection to Eye on the Record (see here), a web site dedicated to uncovering bad reporting at the newspaper, at which Cichowski is a frequent target. Subsequent edits by Wondering55 provided "explanations" for removing Cichowski-written sources, some of which might appear reasonable if you weren't seeing the entire edit history. After reviewing and reinserting many of the sources -- as they were indeed relevant -- Wondering55 ran through them again to delete any Cichowski reference, including this edit, with the bizarre insistence that the source is wrong, despite rather clear wording in the source, along with edit warring at Pulaski Skyway about this one source. The sources I see all appear legitimate, reliable and relevant, and another editor chimed in on my talk page to agree on this. How do you deal with an editor whose entire Misplaced Pages experience consists of an apparent crusade against one reporter, from someone who has some obvious background as an editor yet insists he is new to Misplaced Pages, and who has used any excuse to delete a source, now matter how clearly relevant it is, as long as it's written by John Cichowski? Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the relevant dose of alphabet soup is WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) ...and WP:SPA, though in a somewhat different way than usual. Because this is about a source's reliability, isn't it reasonable that editors interested in this little berg should have a discussion about the charges made by the website? —— 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'll be indefinitely blocking if this continues as obvious SPA. Disclosure: I am a member of the U.S. roads project, but I feel comfortable taking action as the disruption is extending outside the roads articles to geography articles and I personally don't care about the articles at stake (all New Jersey, and it's been a few years since I've been editing or reviewing anything from there). If people still think that's too close to take admin action, feel free to let me know and/or take action yourself. Meanwhile, I will be giving a warning. --Rschen7754 07:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Less inclined to take action now that other admins have indicated a willingness to do so. --Rschen7754 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• User just posted some out-of-format rant @3RRNB. Apparently insists that no-one is allowed to undo his changes w/o notifying him personally and discussing it with him personally. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I never stated that no one is allowed to undo my changes w/o notifying me personally and discussing it with me personally. If you are going to address the issues that I have raised, it is best to present arguments based on the facts of what I have stated. Please also be civil and do not refer to my calm rational presentations as "rants".Wondering55 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Alansohn continues to publicize false, unsubstantiated, accusations about my intentions. I have no grudges against anyone.

Please check out(Alanson talk page)that includes his bizarre history of false, unsubstantiated claims against me and my responses with facts, rational explanations, and good faith attempts for resolution with him, along with putting him on notice that he would suffer consequences if I brought my complaints to the attention of Misplaced Pages administrators.

I also am frequently involved with advocating for customers and various uses of NJ Transit and NJ DOT services. NO ONE at NJ Transit, NJ DOT, NJ State police, or at the offices of my NJ state senator, assemblymen, US Congressman, or US Senator is coming up with any crazy claim about grudges against NJ Transit or NJ DOT or bizarre theories that I only seem to focus on anything that they do and not on anything else. In fact, NJ Transit, NJ DOT, and many others are more than happy to assist me and work with me to make needed corrections and then THANK me.

I do have a more complex life beyond this nitpicking about a false unsubstantiated claim by Alansohn, who seems to be the only who is obsessed with Cichowski.

So far, it appears that it is Alansohn, who has a particular grudge against me, who is creating rants and false claims without any substantiated facts and is recklessly trying to Undo all of my changes without any explanations or valid justification, even when he has absolutely no previous involvement with articles that I am editing.

I updated articles when a cited article by Cichowski contradicts facts, which can be substantiated by more reliable sources, or is superceded by more complete, more accurate, and more up-to-date references.

Alansohn appears to be violating multiple Misplaced Pages policies in repeatedly undoing my updates, which are based on the facts, and not accepting my good faith efforts for accurate information.

Alansohn should be blocked from continuing his unsubstantiated, biased, public media campaign against me

It should be apparent that Alansohn, and not me, is the cause of all of this unnecessary disruption, which has grown exponentially based on his unsubstantiated biased claims and not the relevant facts.

Rather than accept my changes in good faith as Misplaced Pages policy requires and rather than NOT making denigrating comments about me as Misplaced Pages policy requires, Alansohn has chosen to harass me, make denigrating comments about me, and not accept anything that I do in good faith.

No reputable encyclopedia would continually reinsert wrong, unsubstantiated, or out-of-date sources when it can be proven the needed changes are correct.

Instead of accepting the facts and good faith efforts that I have made for these changes, Alansohn has chosen to spread his biased, misleading opinions about me in order to get his own way.

1. Alansohn cites misleading "examples of edits where the ONLY changes are to remove sources written by Cichowski and replace them with other sources."

The Key correct facts that he conveniently omits is that any examples that he cites are examples of edits where the ONLY changes were to remove "mistaken, misleading, incomplete, irrelevant, or out-of-date" sources written by Cichowski and replaced them with "accurate, more complete, more relevant, or more up-to-date" sources, which should be one of the primary requirements of Misplaced Pages.

2. Alansohn misstates that I "removed a source written by Cichowski that was there solely to support Leanna Brown as a resident."

The key fact that he conveniently omits is that all sources for "Notable People", that I checked in the Chatham Borough article were NOT to solely support showing the listed person as a resident, but also needed to show the valuable contributions or accomplishments that notable person made.

Another key fact that he conveniently omits is that he retained the 2 new sources that I added about Leanna Brown because I showed how these sources had more complete, more accurate, and more up-to-date info than the Cichowski article.

Another key fact that he conveniently omits is that I did not Undo his reinstatement of Cichowski after he added him back in, even after I explained that the Cichowski source should be superceded by the 2 sources that I added and which he kept.

Another key fact that he omitted is the communications that I had with him in his Talk section where I pointed out the fallacy of his wild claims about me and the rationale explanations and facts I provided for my changes.

3. After a series of talk page discussions, Wondering55 disclosed an apparent connection to Eye on the Record (see here), a web site dedicated to uncovering bad reporting at the newspaper, at which Cichowski is a frequent target.

The key fact is that I have NO connection to the Eye on the Record page. I am simply a reader of that website, as I am a reader of The Record. Being a reader of a website or a newspaper does not imply any connection or any bias. It simply implies I try to be an informed reader and it does not mean I believe everything I read in The Record or in the Eye on the Record. I am able to do my own independent investigation to check other sources to verify information and if it is accurate.

The key fact is that it should give pause to any concerned editor of Misplaced Pages about the reliability of Cichowki as a regular source, since the Eye on the Record reports so frequently on the mistakes of Cichowski reporting.

4. Alansohn make a wild claim about "How do you deal with an editor whose entire Misplaced Pages experience consists of an apparent crusade against one reporter."

The key fact is that there is NO apparent crusade against one reporter. As I have repeatedly explained to Alansohn, I have repeatedly checked many other published citations in articles that I have reviewed and all of them have proved to be accurate.

The key fact is that I have an apparent crusade for accurate, up-to-date facts, which must also substantiate the referenced statement. If any citation fails that test, they need to be revised.

The key fact, which Alansohn fails to mention, is that I pointed out other citations, which have nothing to do with Cichowski or The Record, for Notable People in the Chatham Borough article that I indicated to him needed to changed or updated.

The key fact, which Alansohn fails to mentions is that there are articles with Cichowski citations, which I did NOT change because these citations were correct.

The key fact is that I have not seen the level of detail for substantiating every single change someone makes that is being asked of me by Alansohn for relatively small changes. This is an UNFAIR practice.

5. Alansohn concocts the false theory that cannot be substantiated that "Subsequent edits by Wondering55 provided "explanations" for removing Cichowski-written sources, some of which might appear reasonable if you weren't seeing the entire edit history."

The key facts are that every one of my "explanations" for removing Cichowski-written sources do NOT just appear to be reasonable, but are completely reasonable based on the actual facts. These factual explanation cannot be overturned by his wild, unsubstantiated edit history conspiracy theory.

6. Alansohn once again raised his wild conspiracy claims about "someone who has some obvious background as an editor yet insists he is new to Misplaced Pages" in trying to raise more unsubstantiated doubt about me to try and make his failed biased case against me.

The key fact is that I am new to editing Misplaced Pages since only February. I an NOT an editor. I have an engineering degree and am not in the business of publishing reports.

7. Alansohn makes the misleading claim that "The sources I see all appear legitimate, reliable and relevant, and another editor chimed in on my talk page to agree on this."

The key fact is that Alansohn has provided NO facts to verify anything that "appears legitimate, reliable, and relevant" and the other editor, who commented about the Pulaski Skyway article, has NOT seen the facts that I have that prove that many portions of the cited Cichowski article are NOT legitimate, reliable, or relevant.

8. Alansohn makes the false claim that I have "used any excuse to delete a source, now matter how clearly relevant it is, as long as it's written by John Cichowski?"

The key fact is how do you deal with someone (Alansohn), who uses any unsubstantiated excuses and false claims that are not based on any facts to Undo any changes that a legitimate user, such as I make, no matter how correct or relevant my changes are for improving the accuracy and relevancy of a Misplaced Pages article, as long as the change has been made by me.

The key facts are that I have only deleted sources, which are clearly NOT relevant, NOT correct, NOT up-to-date, or that are already covered by more complete, more accurate, and more up-to-date sources that are already mentioned in the article or that need to be added.

The key facts are that I have NOT deleted every Cichowski source.

Bizarrely, Alansohn took a simple dispute about a a single correction I made to Chatham Borough of New Jersey that I thought was a significant improvement to the article and started to repeatedly make unsubstantiated, wild false claims about my intentions, about my identity, about my integrity, and about my hidden reasons.

He became so obsessive about this single change that I made to that one article that he had to investigate my entire history of editing. He then began to make more unsubstantiated, wild false claims about my intentions, about my identity, about my integrity, and about my hidden reasons.

I have filed a complaint against him in the Edit Warring section about his harassment of my efforts and his repeated unjustified Undo changes, which is against Misplaced Pages policy, that need to be addressed.

As I already explained to Alansohn, it is time to move on to more important issues, like working together and improving Misplaced Pages articles, rather than create a false crusade against me that is beginning to waste the time of more and more contributors to Misplaced Pages, who have better and more productive issues to address.

Thanks for your consideration and I hope that I can continue to make positive contributions to Misplaced Pages based on relevant facts and not having to continually argue with Alansohn and his false claims.

It is very clear that I was ready to move on after the Chatham Borough article and let Alansohn proceed with his own efforts, including keeping Cichowski article, while even giving him support in identifying other changes that needed to be made that had NOTHING to do with Cichowski.

It seems to be very clear that Alansohn wants to continue his bizarre investigation and false claims of my efforts and will engage anyone who will listen to his false claims without the facts.

I hope we can resolve this matter while respecting my rightsWondering55 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't have rights. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Enough. WP:NOTHERE seems to apply, so there are grounds for indef-blocking right Wondering55 right now ... but I'm prepared to give them a chance to try to edit constructively. So if there is one more removal of a Cichowski source, then block. Wondering55 appears to have some sort of WP:COI wrt Cichowski; if they have any concerns about such references they should raise them on the article talk pages and let others do the editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that "Road Warrior" contradicts the NJDOT on some factual claims. I suspect the NJDOT is a more reliable source for such claims, though this does not make RW an unusable source, just not the best source to use for such conflicting claims. This should be discussed on the article talk page - not really here. An "incorrect fact" (that is, one which appears in conflict with what would normally be considered a strong source) does not have any special purpose in being in a Misplaced Pages article - and I do not see any animus against a reporter at all here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope that other readers on this page will heed your fair and balanced advice based on the presented facts. I will continue to be constructive and add value based on fair and balanced accurate contributions to Misplaced Pages. I have also found useful references from others about Misplaced Pages policies that I will be guided by. I hope that others will not be so quick to judgement.Wondering55 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alansohn and BrownHairedGirl and most everybody else here, excepting Wondering55.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, BrownHairedGirl is spot on here. The editor needs to either get a bit more clue about what Misplaced Pages is and isn't, and participate based on those facts, or we accept they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. A bit of rope is warranted, but only a short length. I would note that Seb is also correct, no one has "rights" here. Misplaced Pages isn't a government, it is a privately owned website. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Misplaced Pages users have rights that are governed by Misplaced Pages policies. All users have the right to be treated with respect, civility, and to present their disputes for resolution, among many other rights that are outlined in Misplaced Pages policies. Misplaced Pages user rights seem to be a guiding principle in many of the dispute resolutions I have read. No one has raised any rights similar to government rights.Wondering55 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are not "rights". Those are privileges extended by WMF and/or the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

1. In the course of editing, removal of one source and replacing with another, which has gained consensus is better than the previous one is a good thing. Removal of a whole lot of sources across a whole lot of articles is not a good thing, particularly when all the sources removed happen to derive from a particular source, in this case articles by one journalist. Wondering55, the point that various admins and editors are trying to get across is that what you think you are doing and what you appear to be doing are 2 totally different things. You think you are adding in better sources but the appearance of how you are doing it is viewed as being disruptive.
2. Removal of citations from an article without discussion is generally frowned upon. If you want to replace a source, open a discussion first. Editors will tolerate boldness up to the point it becomes disruption. In this case, Wondering55, you were bold, Alansohn reverted and now it's time to discuss.
3. Sometimes, it is better to just acknowledge that there have been misunderstandings between editors and that bringing it to a wider forum has meant that others see what you do is not as expected here. At such a point, it would be less stressful to graciously accept that perhaps what you're doing is not a community norm and back down. Too often, I've seen editors getting riled up and it all ends in flames when one side is blocked. It's too easy to view it as the experienced editors piling onto a newbie.
4. Final note: I'm sure I speak for everyone here that it would be entirely in your favour if you condensed your posts. Excessive detail causes people's eyes to glaze over. (I've probably written too much as it is)) Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep your helpful suggestions in mind. Speaking as a new user and for other users, when issues are raised for discussion, it would be helpful in the future if there were more constructive insights and suggestions, similar to yours and from "Collect", rather than snap judgements, without hearing from both sides of a dispute, and fending off sticks and stones that I am seeing from other responses. Any consensus should be based on the facts and issues that various sides raise.Wondering55 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn Editor Grudge Against Wondering 55

Alansohn (talk) seems to be obsessed with investigating all of my changes and Undoing my changes without providing me any explanations, even after I explained the reasons for various changes, which contain mistaken citations. I even requested that he address with me any concerns with my changes prior to reversing any changes. He ignored my requests. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies.

Alansohn has chosen to ignore my requests and repeatedly Undid my changes without any justification.

Alansohn also seems to be obsessed to make false unsubstantiated claims about my intentions, my integrity, and my focus on needed changes, and raises false conspiracy theories about my focus on Cichowski articles.

Alansohn and others may be entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own unsubstantiated facts or to ignore facts that I present that clearly contradict their opinions. That is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies.

Instead of accepting my facts and valid reasons for making a single change in a Chatham Borough of New Jersey article, Alansohn became obsessed with my entire Editing history and began making wild unsubstantiated claims about my reasons for this one minor change.

Even though I did not agree with Alansohn on including the cited Cichowski article in a Chatham Borough of New Jersey article since there were better sources that I added that provide better, more accurate, and more complete info, which superseded the Cichowski article, I did NOT then become obsessed with all of Alansohn’s editing history or Undo his change in the Chatham article after he explained his reasons.

Alansohn even admits that if he did not consider his theories (Note: He cannot substantiate any of them) about why I was making the changes, many of the changes that I made “might appear reasonable”.

I am a novice and recently started editing Misplaced Pages articles starting in February of this year to revise/update/improve various Misplaced Pages articles. I originally thought my initial changes were so minor and clearly so evident that I did not need to provide an explanation. I did not realize that even for minor changes that explanations needed to be provided. Once I found out about my oversight, I have subsequently been providing clear reasons for various changes.

Alansohn continues to ignore these valid reasons based on substantiated facts and simply Undid my changes in multiple articles without any explanation. This is against Misplaced Pages policies.

I have been cross checking multiple cited sources in various articles in my attempts to ensure Misplaced Pages articles are accurate and look to see where I might add some additional information and corrections directly to the articles. I have made some minor correction and provided additional information for inclusion in the text of some Misplaced Pages articles.

Instead of welcoming me and accepting my good faith efforts to make legitimate changes and deletions based on my thorough investigation of multiple source information, which includes government websites, technical reports, and many newspaper articles, incl. The Record, prior to including it in various Misplaced Pages articles, Alansohn seems to be going out of his way to make a concerted effort to repeatedly undo legitimate changes that I have made to various articles, even after I have repeatedly explained the basis and justifications for these changes.

He has repeatedly made false, illegitimate accusations against me about my intentions and character and refuses to accept any of my explanations based on verifiable facts for all of my changes.

So far Alansohn is the ONLY Misplaced Pages user that has been obsessed with every single change that I have made. He is the only one that has harassed me with grossly, illegitimate claims about my identity and intentions and would repeatedly Undo my legitimate changes without any notifications or explanations to me, even after I clearly explained the reasons for these changes.

I repeatedly asked him to stop making false accusations against me without substantiation of facts or I would bring it up for dispute resolution since his actions are against Misplaced Pages policies.

I have repeatedly asked Alansohn to stop undoing my changes without notifying me and without addressing the issues with me in response to previous explanations that I have given him. Yet, he repeatedly continues to ignore me and continues to undo my changes without any explanations. That is against Misplaced Pages policies.

Please reference Alansohn's Talk page (talk) for my futile attempts to try and work with him and explain the basis for all my changes.

Please see my 2 communications with him talk about "Illegitimate Edit Warring" and "Changing References for Leanna Brown in Chatham Borough Article" in his Talk page.

He disregarded my repeated pleas to try and work with him and explanations for justifying all my changes.

He ignored my repeated requests to let me know in advance if he wanted to undo my changes or use cited Record articles by Cichowski that I previously deleted since I explained to him that they were unreliable based on the content of these specific citations for specific Misplaced Pages statements and I replaced them with more complete, more accurate, more relevant, or more up-to-date articles.

Instead, he undid previous changes that I made to the articles below without any notification to me. I went back in and put my changes back in with clear explanations and valid reasons for keeping these changes.

You can check the Edit History for each article to see my original changes, his unsubstantiated "Undo" of my changes without any notification to me and my reinstatement of my changes with clear explanations.

1. Pulaski Skyway 2. International High School (New Jersey) 3. New Jersey Route 495 4. Reversible lane 5. Bus rapid transit in New Jersey 6. Port Authority Bus Terminal 7. Garden State Parkway 8. New Jersey Route 55 9. New Jersey Route 208 10. Interstate 195 (New Jersey)

Yet, Alansohn still continues to relentlessly undo my changes; he will not accept my clear updated reasons for reinstating my changes; and he continues to harass me and make official false accusations in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Scroll to: "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter"

This is UNACCEPTABLE and I want Alansohn to be reprimanded and prevented from harassing me; prevent his undoing my changes without any communication with me, and reusing cited articles, which I have shown Alansohn to be unreliable, mistaken, outdated, incomplete, or irrelevant sources for specific referenced statements in various Misplaced Pages articles.

I have also responded to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter" that I am waiting for resolution.

I also notified Alansohn talk of an additional mistaken citation in a NY Times article that does NOT even mention the Notable Person for which the citation was included in the Chatham Borough article. I notified him that many of the Internet links for citations for the listed Notable People no longer open up to any valid web sites. Let us see if Alansohn takes any need action or if he is just obsessed to Undo all my changes.

I never initiated these disputes. I am simply responding to all of the false unsubstantiated claims by Alansohn and would look forward to good faith efforts to work with me and accept my changes without tryting to find unsubstantiated hidden agendas.

I hope that you can help resolve this matter with me and Alansohn.Wondering55 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this be closed and consolidated with "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter" above. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed at SPI, PROUT.

1) There's been a bit of a backlog at SPI, and while it's getting better this one is still awaiting resolution. The canvassing has started up again. I'd appreciate an admin taking a look.

2) The same group of editors discussed an RFC at the PROUT article here. Would an admin drop by to close it officially?

3) Finally, I think we're ready to have the page protection lifted on the PROUT article (although there's no harm in letting the protection expire as scheduled on the 18th).

Thanks,

Garamond Lethet
c 08:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Canvassing but asking other's opinions: As I've already said in my talk page your assertion is not correct. I never ask support to anybody. I ask users previously involved in the same topic to express their opinions on a talk. Abhidevananda f.e. didn't support my opinion, you and CK had already expressed your views. Sorry but it seems to me you're trying to find the "casus belli" to then turn to an administrator all your possible complaints. Please try to be more constructive. I have already expressed my strong complaints on the same page of this SPI. On this regard I have compiled a table to show the persistence of a group of users in requesting the deletion (with tens of AFDS) of all articles related with the same topic. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No. You know that's not true; I know that's not true; but I have to point out some facts here just in case any uninvolved editor believes what Cornelius383 says. Cornelius383 has clearly contacted people who had previously agreed on related issues. Most of those accounts are sockpuppets anyway. Cornelius383 did not contact people who had opposed, even though there are more of them. That is canvassing. It's not the first time: Like WP:V and WP:NPOV, Cornelius383 seems unable to comply with WP:CANVAS despite it being explained, repeatedly, on multiple pages; sadly these policies are obstacles to Cornelius383's crusade. bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously, though; it would be helpful if we could get some admin help to stem the torrent of socks, the canvassing, the misuse of sources, the walls of text &c. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Though I know the problems I can't be the admin you need, as what I intend to do is edit the article. It wouldn't be fair to others if I did it through full protection. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP. The background here is that a concern was raised in an Rfc on WP:FTN that the article has an overabundance of primary and/or proponent sources, previously uninvolved editors responded to the Rfc, and three proposals were eventually presented by various editors to address this concern (see Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta, Proposal 2 authored by myself, and Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). I believe that the consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3). Specific action requested: If an administrator agrees with the above assessment of those three proposals, I would like Progressive Utilization Theory to be unprotected and replaced with the draft noted in Proposal 2. Location (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Original research at "Computus"

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

In this edit to Computus user Q5968661 has reintroduced a table over my demand for a source. The editor has insisted on other unsourced material, such as with this edit and I have placed templates about sources on his talk page; (s)he asserts (s)he has read the appropriate policy.

I request appropriate steps be take to get the user to follow the Verifiablity policy (unless I'm wrong, and the edits are so obviously true that no source is required). Jc3s5h (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues of this type are generally better handled by a WikiProject than by ANI -- in this case WikiProject Christianity seems like the right place to ask for attention. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is more of a dispute resolution issue. Article talk page, then WP:DRN if that fails. Also, calmly discussing the issue with them on their talk page and helping educate them might be useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit lock of Next United Kingdom general election

The page concerned: Next United Kingdom general election has been edit locked without good reason. Please see the edit log for 04-05/03/2012. The individual concerned did not even see fit to raise the subject on the talk page. The editor in question doktorbuk admits to having a certain political affiliation and the editors comments in the edit log show a clear intent. This has been discussed on the talk page. I started the discussion on the talk page as doktorbuk kept reverting edits without seeing fit to leave comments on the talk page. I'd be grateful to have this looked into by someone who is impartial. doktorbuk has made no attempt to engage with other editors in a courteous and polite manner, nor has he assumed that other editors act within good faith. doktorbuk has acted preemptively, without justification and refuses to lift the edit lock. Please see full discussion on talk page and the comments on the for the full story. Many Thanks.213.120.148.60 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to recommend that doktorbuk is excluded from editing the politics section of Misplaced Pages because this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened and he does seem to be a man on a mission to politicise Misplaced Pages!213.120.148.60 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article should remain locked. If I recall correctly, some IPs kept creating problems a few months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That response tells me that you have not looked into this issue as that is something that has been addressed in our discussions on the talk page! I am not the only person who thinks this is a valid complaint, it was Bondegezou who suggested that I raise this issue on here. Bondegezou seems to agree that this person has failed to assume good faith. There has been no edit warring, no attempts do repeat the same edits as last time there were problems on this page so that argument is simply not valid. Can someone please have the courtesy to actually look into this issue instead of fobbing me off! I have raised this issue for a reason, I would appreciate it if someone could take this seriously! Thank you!213.120.148.60 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you give me half a chance to respond I will. I had actually moved away from my computer for a bit and shall be doing so again in a moment. I can not see any need or justification for this article to be edit locked. The whole argument seems to hinge on something that happened a number of months ago, that is not a sensible justification! I would also like a second opinion from another editor, no offence intended towards yourself of course!213.120.148.60 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm another editor, not involved in the article in any way. The protection is completely justified, and is based on several dubious IP-edits this week, not on something that happened months ago. Nothing wrong here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What dubious edits? The edits were reversed and the reasons given. The reasons were accepted. I started dialogue on the talk page, when ever an edit was reverted, the other editors did not engage and simply edit warred. In the end a good justification was given but the article was the locked. That is a major over reaction! Especially after the event! And yes it is why this has been done. The person who did it has said that this is the reason, therefore that is the reason they did it! You seem to be partial to the same opinion of the editor in question!213.120.148.60 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So every user who disagrees with you is partial, no matter if it's in the article or here at ANI? Are you aware that accusations against other users can lead to a block under WP:PA. I don't have a particular opinion about the article, I don't know which editor you refer to and I haven't read the whole article. I looked at its recent history, saw a lot of recent IP activity that involved removing valid tags, and that's already a reasonable reason for semi-protection.Jeppiz (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No that isn't a fair comment! I am not saying that disagreeing with people makes them partial! How dare you cast such judgement without actually looking into this properly as requested! As you say all you have done is looked at the tags, great brilliant job! NOT! Can someone actually come on here and look into this properly. I'm not interested in hearing from another armature who can't be bothered to look into the problem properly. I specifically asked that all the comments were read on both the talk page and the edit feed, if you are not prepared to do that, you will not understand the issue. If you are not prepared to do that please go away and give a lazy response to someone else!81.149.185.174 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Why have you changed IPs? Anyways, the article should remain protected. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I really think you need to keep cool and assume good faith. Attacking people will get you nowhere, son. The point is that Jeppiz found edits where people were removing valid tags. If that sort of thing is frequent, then semi-protection is valid. If you are unhappy, why not create an account? (Although I suspect you have done so in the past.) – Richard BB 07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this thread by chance, but I would have appreciated being notified, as I'm the user who placed the protection. Actually, even better would have been to bring this up on my talk page first, as we might all have been saved a trip to Drama Central. :) As to the protection, my intention wasn't to endorse any particular version of the article, but rather to stop the edit warring that was going on. I didn't think that the content was particularly objectionable, and it seemed like something that could be discussed at dispute resolution if necessary.

Now, if the page was being edited by a static IP, then I probably would have opted for full protection to stop the edit warring, as admins aren't allowed to discriminate between IP editors and registered editors in content disputes. However, in the case of an editor or editors who are hopping between IPs, we have no real way of knowing whether they are the same person or not. This puts registered editors at a disadvantage with respect to the three-revert rule, as registered users only have three reverts before they are blocked, but IP hoppers would have (in theory at least) unlimited reverts. So, to prevent disruption or gaming of the system, the protection policy allows administrators to use semi-protection in such cases.

Note that I am not saying that the IP editor was intending to be disruptive - on the contrary, I see an honest intent to improve the article - but it is the unfortunate reality that content disputes from IP-hopping editors have the effect of being disruptive, whether that is intended or not. The best solution for this problem, in my opinion, is for the IP editor or editors at the article to register accounts, as unregistered editors are put at a disadantage in content disputes on Misplaced Pages, in practice if not in theory. Hopefully this explains why I protected the article, but please do feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any further questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 05:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, you've missed the whole point. Your intervention came after the "Edit warring" was over. If you look very carefully at the talk page and at the edit log you will notice that I used fake edits (removing unnecessary gaps between paragraphs in the article), not reverting edits of others. The reason I did this was so that my comments could appear on the edit log page! I have done nothing wrong, this can not be considered edit warring as nothing was reverted! You have based your reasoning for locking this article on factual inaccuracies. However in any case you acted after a clear end had been put to the matter. Closing the gate after the horse has bolted rings a bell! Although in this case the horse didn't intend to bolt! You were not assuming good faith and have over reacted! Please remove this protection! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You should be aware of the WP:REVTALK policy. Nasnema  Chat  07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The article should have semi-protection until after the election. It's a high-profile article and attracts way too many disruptive IPs; simple as that. – Richard BB 07:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To correct a misapprehension above, I have no issue with doktorbuk's edits and think the article benefits from protection. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User page vandalism and talk page incivility

An IP user vandalized my user page starting here, then undid the vandalism. I warned him that he need to stop. Today I get this message on my talk page here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT 19:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Short block issued just to express how their attitude and name calling isn't appropriate here. I usually just ignore the previous test edits to avoid confrontation, but your adding the template on his talk page certainly didn't warrant that kind of abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how they could be called "test" edits, but I appreciate the fast action on this. I wasn't pursuing it anymore until he left me the message. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT 19:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm using the word "test" loosely, to mean anything that is quickly reverted. Wiki-speak. Bad habit when you become an admin, I suppose. But clearly he needed to be blocked due to a cranial-rectal inversion issue he was suffering from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP shows a bizarre obsession. As I look through Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace, I don't see a template recommending that the user seek psychiatric help. Perhaps there should be one. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERAPY might be the relvant link there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that such a template would be a good idea — misuse would probably be much more common than appropriate use. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

64.134.184.251

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

I would appreciate it if an admin would deal with 64.134.184.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeatedly harrassing me on my talk page because I voted to delete MattyBraps. And if you could semiprotect my talk page that would be great because this person seems to be able to IP hop. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

NativeForeigner has kindly done the job. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Was my talk page semi'd? Cresix (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at your talk page history and you will see it was not semi'd. However, if that bozo pops up again under another guise, take it to WP:RFPP, as that page typically gets pretty quick response. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

71.60.29.41

Please review the edits of the 71.60.29.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and consider blocking the IP. I came across edits today where he wrote that Paul Bearer died from "being a fat motherfucker," Ronda Rousey's submission was "butthole," and Frank Gore was "aka FAG."

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Bearer&diff=prev&oldid=542323772

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ronda_Rousey&diff=prev&oldid=540016461

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_Gore&diff=prev&oldid=541767171

I suspect that, if you dig deeper into the diff log, you will find more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/71.60.29.41

• Block for a week, vandalism only account. Normally, you need to notify the party using the template above, or actually just report this to WP:AIV, but I saw no need to be overly bureaucratic here as he is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

93.65.126.6

I don't know if this is necessaly an incident report, but I would appreciate it if an admin would deal with an user with this IP adress 93.65.126.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's been doing disruptive editing on film infoboxes on various films, including Olympus Has Fallen, Ted, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Hobbit (film series), Man of Steel, etc. I gave him a warning, but he still keeps on doing this to the film infoboxes on whatever films he does edit at. his contributions should tell you about that, so you can go over it and see for yourself. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you provided more info and some diffs. I sampled several of his edits, which were removing html and wikifying and seemed in good faith. Whether they are right or wrong, I don't know, but I didn't see any effort to undermine Misplaced Pages with them. Perhaps some diffs would shed more light on the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• And I added the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template on his page, notifying him that there was an ANI discussion about him. You must do that when reporting someone at ANI, it shows the template at the top of this page. I'm assuming it was an innocent oversight, but just keep that in mind if you report someone again, it is only fair to them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's some differences to shed more light on this. This is one diffs on Olympus Has Fallen - . These are two diffs on Spring Breakers set in two different dates - and . one from Ted - and one from The Hobbit (film series) - . This guy hasn't see the instructions on how to Template:Infobox film work. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, that is more of what I saw before. He doesn't seem to be intentionally trying to screw anything up. As a matter of fact, it looks like he is trying to improve the boxes. Before you file at ANI, you need to start a discussion on his talk page, point him to that doc page, and try to help get learn how to do it properly. Since you know more about the docs for the info box, you would be the proper person to do that. And keep in mind, that while we prefer everyone edit in a similar style and such, the infobox docs aren't policy, so we serve ourselves best by persuading others to adopt the generally accepted guidelines, not swing the admin bat at them. The guy seems to be acting in good faith, just a not preferred form so try and help him a bit via his talk page. You get more flies with honey, and all that. I went ahead and left a message on his talk page, assuming the best of faith, pointing him towards that template doc. If you are so inclined, you could go behind me and offer your talk page if he has questions. IMHO, this is how we convert a newb into a productive contributor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Right. I'll be sure to do what you say about something like you said above next time when something like this happens again. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Strebe

Hello, I am a new editor and I would appreciate it if an administrator would tell Strebe not to make personal attacks against me. We have a disagreement about the content of the Map projection page. I have put up a disputed template and made an RFC, which I think are prudent steps. He, however, on the Talk Page, has said about me:

(1) "The reader simply does not understand English or the topic well enough" (I'm a native English speaker and mathematician) (2) "That makes you a troll." (3) "You are wasting everyone’s time, including your own. Go away."

He is clearly not following the guidance of WP:BITE

I am attempting to make good-faith improvements to the page and am getting insulted. I am a Misplaced Pages newbie but I still think my views, which are informed, should be considered respectfully. Thank you. 184.186.8.148 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've left a note on his talk page. Like I said there, I have no idea who is right on the merits, but his overall tone is a bit stronger than what is best for reaching consensus. I don't see any need for anything else except my request at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Danjel: For the last time

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

Danjel - The ANI thread closed not in his favor, the RFC/U closed not in his favor, the SPI closed not in his favor and he claims to have retired and yet he still has a polemic list of grievences on his talk page, he spammed all his RFC/U supports () about how 'awful' the RFC/U close was, he still is accusing Epeefleche and his supports of off-site canvassing, and he is accusing User:BrownHairedGirl of supervoting. The RFC/U closed 77% in Epeefleche's favor by !vote count alone and much higher if you go by the content of the discussion. Could we please help him 'retire?' I'm getting tired of the constant bashing on multiple forums because he doesn't like the result.--v/r - TP 14:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The username is new to me and the disputes are new to me. Whether or not it's regrettable, it's normal (i) for people who are defeated in AN/I disputes and so on to complain about their opponents, about alleged supervotes, etc., (ii) to have lists of grievances on one's user or user talk page, and (iii) to announce that you've retired but not to retire. When you ask Could we please help him 'retire?', well, I have the technical ability to block him, if that's what you're after, but what block rationale should I cite? As it is, I don't see that what he's doing is particularly noxious; why not just ignore him? -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing legally (or wikipedially) binding about a non-blocked user posting a "retired" banner. A user's actions have to be judged as they are, in reference to wikipedia policy, not in reference to a phony "retired" banner. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The constant accusations that haven't let up for two months is what's wrong. I ignored it for a month on Pedro's suggestion, but it still continues unabated. These are just in the last couple of days, compound that over two months and you see what I'm putting up with. The two policies would be WP:NPA and WP:DE with support by WP:IDHT.--v/r - TP 14:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of in the same camp as Hoary here. It is easy to see that it is annoying, but I don't know the policy violation taking place that justifies an indef block here. Perhaps it is just a lack of imagination on my part, or I'm maybe I'm too lenient when it comes to venting that doesn't interfere with the articles themselves, however, drawing more attention to his actions may just be rewarding them. WP:DE is more about articles, and I'm not sure that expressing an opinion that a close was a supervote really breaches WP:NPA, or even qualifies as ad hominem. I understand your frustration, I just don't see a clear path of action as defined by policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I think we spoke about WP:CIV once, or rather were part of the same discussion (Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#3RR_blocks on down), where the topic of how incivility wears on editors. This is the kind of 'just below the line' incivility that is much more dangerous than the run of the mill "get the fuck off my talk page" that folks have been talking about. I'd anticipated that recent discussions had made this more obvious but I suppose it hasn't.--v/r - TP 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor's primary recent activity seems to be hassling various users. However, the main question should be, "Is he interfering with your efforts to edit?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally would prefer the "fuck off my talk page" since there's no misunderstandings. Quite frankly, if danjel wants to sulk like a child while hiding behind the retired banner like their mother's apron then let him. After a while, he'll either realise how petty and small minded all the whinging makes him seem or he'll do something stupid and get himself blocked. Hey Bugs, how about Wikipegally? Blackmane (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And TParis, again, I completely understand your frustration and have found myself on the same side of the fence you are on, asking other admin to review and see if there is a reason to block. If another admin feels like there is, I won't be jumping on them about it, I just can't see a reason for me to block and stay consistent with my previous actions and statements, as well as my personal understanding of our civility policy. I accept that we all have slightly different interpretations, and mine isn't "more right" than anyone else's. This is just one of those borderline cases, to which I (and others, it seems) default on the side of no action. If I thought a personal discussion with him would be beneficial, I would have already started it. I'm more afraid that it will only embolden him. I don't know of a solution here except wait and see, expecting it will get better or worse, to which action can be taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I happen to be one of the editors Danjel has directed his ire at. When I saw the "list of grievances" or whatever on Danjel's talk page, I was mortified. The grievances are exaggerations at best; personal attacks at worse, and a couple of them I think are of me. The blatantly obvious thing here is that Danjel can't let it go when he gets the short straw. He couldn't let the Middle Harbour AfD go; he brought it up nearly a year after it closed. Then he couldn't let Chili burger being kept alone. Now he can't let Epeefleche go.
• Should there be an indef? Probably not. But I think, and continue to think, that 1-3 months of forced retirement is the solution here. And there need to be sanctions that tell Danjel that discussion on the matter by him is closed, such as:

1. Interaction bans with me, Epeefleche, and probably several other people
2. Danjel be topic-banned from anything related to Epeefleche, and face blocks if he violates that ban
3. Since the real problems are stemming from Danjel's interactions at AfD with other editors, he probably should be topic-banned from that, too.
4. The list of grievances needs to come down. Now.

That's my 2 cents pbp 16:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The list is harmless, doesn't mention anyone by name. Best to ignore it. NE Ent 16:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like they're on their way out, best to just let the go peacefully. NE Ent 16:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Monty Python have the answer. Warden (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw this before any replies but was lazy to reply. But looking at the above, I stick to my original conclusion which is I agree with NE Ent and Blackmane and Dennis Brown about just letting this go for now. The spamming was silly but was about 5 days ago now. The stuff on their talk page while not ideal doesn't name names and while it's not the sort of stuff we should encourage, it's the sort of stuff that you do see on occasion, and while yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ultimately you have to consider whether there's any benefit to the community getting in to a long discussion about whether it should be deleted. The snipe on Pass a Method mentioned above appears to be a follow up to a comment and again while it's somewhat uncivil and could be considered as a personal attack, it's the sort of mild thing which will generally be let be, particularly as again no one was named. As for the supervote accusation, well these sort of accusations aren't exactly uncommon and DGG themselves also disagreed with the decision although didn't suggest it was a supervote. Again, the sort of mild thing which is generally best left be. While I have sympathy to those like Purplebackpack89 above who feel they are one of the targets, even taken together I don't feel these justify a block. And as established in the previous ANI discussion, people are not forbidden from commenting or editing even if their talk page says they are retired although we obviously don't allow poor behaviour just because someone says they are retired. In other words, rather then forcing a retirement, let's just hope Danjel either stops these sort of actions and starts editing beneficially again or stops commenting. If weeks from now Danjel is continuing to do nothing but criticise other editors, we can reconsider. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Involved in a few previous attempts to ameliorate the situation. I'm not an admin, but I try to conduct myself as one I endorse the request for "Forced Retirement" (indef-blocking) for danjel. We have one editor who has been pulling every bureaucratic trick in the book to force their significantly minority viewpoint to be accepted as prefered. This same editor has announced their retirement already once before since January of this year and still continued to cause disruption of some of the community members. This editor has, in the face of policy based arguments, cited canvassed editors/cabals/harassment against themselves when challenged on specific policy arguments. On the other hand we have multiple members of the community who are being hampered in their enjoyment of wikipedia by danjel's badmouthing, flinging of accusations, and general battleground mentality. If danjel wants to acknowledge that their behavior is significantly below the expected behavior for editors then a restoration of privileges would be in order. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, you do a much better job describing the situation than I. Perhaps I should've contacted you about my concerns.--v/r - TP 17:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a reason for an indef. Not even close. I do see a reason for a month-long block, based on dodgy accusations, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of moaning (or even a lot of moaning) about their RFC/U failing - if it's just on their supporters' pages, then what's the issue, and why do you care, to be blunt? Same with a "list of grievances" - sure, it's a bit petty, but nothing against the rules, as it doesn't mention anyone by name. And why do we still have this ridiculous debate about the "Retired" template? It was laughable at first, it's still laughable now. In addition, most of the moaning was several days ago, and the user hasn't edited mainspace since they announced their retirement, so I do believe they HAVE retired - all they've done is finished their existing discussions off, be it at ANI, RFC/U or talk pages. Bringing this back to ANI is just as much a waste of time as the user's complaining, to be honest - in fact, it is basically EXACTLY the same thing. Maybe I'm guilty of being too uninvolved, I don't know. (Yes, I did comment at the retirement ANI, simply because it was a joke of an ANI) Lukeno94 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"The user hasn't edited mainspace since they announced their retirement". Yeah, that's part of the problem. Danjel really hadn't done anything productive in mainspace since the Epeefleche RfC was still going on; all he did was complain about it in various forums. If Danjel had, say, created a couple articles or fixed a couple dozen errors on existing articles, then I could see a case for him coming back whenever, no questions asked. But, no, there's little indication that he has any intent of being productive in mainspace pbp 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's your reasoning for an indef? Completely and utterly unjust. As I said before, Danjel is evidently finishing their existing discussions (posting comments on their RCF/U supporters' talks counts as this, albeit also lengthening the process) before leaving. If you want Danjel gone so badly, leave them alone and stop opening baseless ANIs. The ONLY valid grounds for a block here is Danjel's accusation comments. None of the other complaints here have any remote justification for any action whatsoever. You've won your argument, leave them alone unless they come to you. I don't have any issue with interaction bans, but they need to be two-way, the constant filing of ANIs on both sides has shown that to be a requirement. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• As long as he continues to throw out accusations, concerns about those accusations are valid. If he stops, the ANI threads stop too. There is no need for a two sided interaction ban, then. It is justifiably reasonable and right that someone, like me, would complain when someone else is spamming lies and accusations around. If you can convince him to stop, then everything is peachy. You seem to be friendly with him, why don't you give it a shot? He doesn't have to apologize, he doesn't have to admit guilt, all he has to do is stop. Manage that, and I'll have nothing to be upset about.--v/r - TP 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems in unsubmitted AFCs

I wasn't sure if I could tag these for speedy deletion, because they aren't actually articles yet, but they are all pasted directly from other sites, and I think potential copyright violations are considered problematic even in drafts:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sino-American Culture & Arts Foundation - http://www.sacaf.org/aboutus.html
• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Chinese American Business Development Center - http://www.chinesebusinessdevelopment.com/aboutus_detail.html
• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sino-American Friendship Association - http://www.safaus.org/aboutus.html

Apologies if this is the wrong venue for this, I just thought someone should see them. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone tagged one of them for speedy deletion, so I went ahead and tagged the other two. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The someone was me. :) Yes, blatant copyvio anywhere where the entire article is copied from the source should be tagged for speedy deletion. All three of the websites copied were clearly marked "Copyright ©". It happens all the time at AfC. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks, Voceditenore! Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted them, even if the contributor secured the appropriate permissions from the sources, they would need fundamental re-writes to bring them in line with our standards on neutrality and sourcing. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Keithstanton after being blocked

Keithstanton (talk · contribs), after second block expired continues with nationalistic editing, in violation of NPOV. He started new AfD, only per article subject, and PLEASE, just read that explanation why it should be deleted. Then, he obviously canvassed only INVOLVED editors, while this one was purposlly added to the "opposing side" in conflict, so he can do revert of canvassing with this edit summary:

• OOPS I forgot. You're now allowed to edit there are you! Oh well, it's what you deserve for being a naughty editor! So long.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment This should also be fixed, as all invited editors voted per same attitude, and i am afraid, per national interest. Not to mention IP's and SPA brand new account who quack "Delete".

Therefor, i ask for instant reaction, as this is obvious violation of WP:ARBMAC final decision, and he is also obviously NOTHERE, and he barely missed block for this sockpuppet investigation. --WhiteWriter 17:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

His activities were unacceptable but your conduct hasn't been appropriate too. Accusing users that he notified about the AfD that they "vote per national interest" is plainly disruptive given that bobrayner, whom you've systematically accused of sockpuppetry without any shred of evidence left him a very reasonable message discouraging him from canvassing as did I and from the conclusion of that discussion I think that he realized the gross flaws of his conduct. If you want ARBMAC enforcement, report him on WP:AE, where both your decorum and editing will be judged. Btw you should mention that you and him are involved in the same edit-wars and that you just recreated a deleted article, which you failed to restore on DRV as a redirect to an article that he listed on AfD, which itself is disruptive action. --— ZjarriRrethues —  18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, i never mention anyone by name, and your wast comment about me is, as usually, totally out of place and time. I dont see any real reason for now to report anyone at WP:AE, but your comment speak for your self. At the end, i may expect vast attacks on me, with 6 months + old edits, but this user, Keithstanton, is not here to edit normally and neutrally. For a user that is obviously not new user, as concluded at SPI, i am sure that he knows what canvassing is. --WhiteWriter 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner and I had a very reasonable discussion with him and he agreed to stop. After the conclusion of that discussion you started this thread and made some very disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND edits.--— ZjarriRrethues —  18:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I may imagine that this user may be "useful", but lets see what admins think about it. We maybe will not canvass anymore onwiki, but what about the attitude? Also, lets face it. He is quite involved in sockpuppetry, among other things, so... --WhiteWriter 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, the AfD was speedily closed as it was very badly written and he realized the issue of canvassing.--— ZjarriRrethues —  18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Which AFD? Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment is still running, although the last two people to comment have asked for a speedy close. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, it's still open. I thought that it was formally closed too.--— ZjarriRrethues —  18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish to state that this contribution is highly disruptive and consistent with the accusation of this thread. Looking at the full catalogue of this new user, it is evident that he is WP:NOTHERE. If ZjarriRrethues disagrees with this, has any evidence to the contrary, can site an edit by Mr.Stanton that has benfited the Misplaced Pages community, then perhaps he can grace this discussion with that finding rather than point the finger at editors whose edits disagree with his. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his edit was disruptive as his conduct for which he was notified and warned.--— ZjarriRrethues —  18:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not considering any of the source complaintsArbitration Remedy Enforcement is over there. If the user has already recieved their ARBMAC warning it should be easy. If not, procedurally we're supposed to give them a warning prior to applying sanctions. If it can be domestrated outside the AE route, that's something different... Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've issued a WP:ARBMAC warning, though after considering the contribution history I believe an indefinite block may well be appropriate even now.  Sandstein  22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It might be relevant to note that at least 10-20 of Keithstanton's most disruptive diffs no longer show up in his edit history as the article was since deleted. Keithstanton is a user who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but only to push his relentless nationalist POV, he constantly vandalizes articles, is disruptive and downright rude to other editors. This is the third or fourth time in less than a month that he is discussed here. Already in the first discussion, it was suggested that he is a sock. Whatever the case, Keithstanton should not edit any article related to Balkans. Ever.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalizing IP Making Threats

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

A persistent IP vandal, 151.40.36.33, made this remark on his talk page: .

Probably calls for a block and an edit deletion, but I'll leave it up to y'all. -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

174.227.5.213

174.227.5.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) aka Colton Cosmic (not outing, claim was made on-wiki in this diff you silly oversight blockers) is in the middle of some block evasion. Please block promptly. I feel I am too involved since part of their complaints is about a system I helped develop.--v/r - TP 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also 50.75.14.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per this diff.--v/r - TP 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm grateful to be notified about this. My IP shouldn't be blocked. Those are solid fully-disclosed edits that in my view benefit the project. My account was falsely blocked last year for sockpuppetry, no evidence was ever provided. No argument to support the allegation was ever provided. I am innocent of sockpuppetry. If you can believe, my blocker now sits on ArbCom and did not recuse himself from my appeal. So my appeal was declined in part by my blocker. But they didn't explain anything anyway. No-one has ever furnished any argument or evidence that I socked. No-one has responded to my self-defenses. This is Colton Cosmic. PS: My block is not an "ArbCom block," any admin can unblock me under policy.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards