Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LadyofShalott (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 25 March 2012 (→Peter I. Vardy & Malleus Fatuorum throwing insults my way.: stop it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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?

Concern on recent high-speed deletions by Fastily

Quickly, before I get blocked, Fastily has to be one of the worst admins I've ever seen. He', , , and according to his deletion log, he's deleted as many as 88 pages/images in a span of about 5 minutes . There's no way in hell any human being reviewed all of these appropriately. Fastily should be desysopped and blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment too much here, since I was a dick to Fastily the only time we've spoken, but - an edit summary of "p" is not acceptable, everything else aside. And holy cats, that's a lot of very fast deletions. Can someone who's not pissed in Fastily's wheaties like I have ask him if he's using a script? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly not me then, because I keep seeing instances of clearly inappropriate deletions by him. Snowolf 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen at Night Ranger's talk page, Fastily recently made two pretty bad deletions of cat pages NR created, so yes, NR has a personal gripe here. But more to the point, it seems like Fastily's consistently brought to ANI in regards to bad/questionable deletions and/or overall deletion practices. The biggest concern is simply that he doesn't seem to respond to them at all—his response usually amounts to a one-liner and nothing more. Swarm 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Working too fast, making too many errors, and not communicating well with others is exactly what got Betacommand/Delta blocked by ArbCom after many years of that exact behavior. I would hate to see Fastily go down that road, but this pattern of behavior is sadly close to what Betacommand used to do right up until the most recent ArbCom case. It would be nice if Fastily instead modified his own behavior and worked better on improving his accuracy in deleting files and on his ability to communicate with other editors regarding his deletions, as well as his ability to admit and correct for his own mistakes in this area. If that doesn't happen, this will not end well. --Jayron32 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to the above:

• I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them.
• I have restored the two categories in question as a result of . I have better things to do with my time on Misplaced Pages than engage in drama.
• The tags on File:History of New England.pdf and File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg were indeed mistakes. I do, however, stand by the tag on File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg (it is a derivative work with no obvious copyright information on it's sources). I would also like to note that I transferred over 500 files to commons over the last two days while screening them all for potential copyright problems. Being human, I do, and will make mistakes regardless of how careful I am. However, I'm sad that NightRanger didn't first mention these tagging errors on my talk page (in which case they would have been promptly corrected and we wouldn't be having this discussion), choosing instead, to come to ANI seeking vengeance.

-FASTILY 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not this again. I raised a similar issue with him here and it even caused me to seek clarification of the CSD criteria and so indirectly led to change in the CSD criteria (after discussion). After all the whole point of the source tag is to help prove that the file is usable here. If this can be done another way then it is not necessary to have a source but I'm not sure Fastily agrees with / gets that idea. I've reverted the tagging of the PDF as it clearly has an appropriate release on the last page so what it's source was is irrelevant for determining copyright status.

What I found more disturbing however is their seeming lack of willingness to discuss people's concerns. Most queries are responded to with a very short link to a sub page. I was lucky enough to get a whole sentence in reply, but that was it, which is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Disturbingly I've not seen any replies or changes in edit habits despite a multitude of recent ANI threads. I'm sure they do lots of good work, and they may even be correct in most cases but this lack of discussion is very worrying. It suggests rightly or wrongly that they are unwilling to listen to others or to change their ways if that is what consensus suggests they should do. I really do think this is at the point where an RfC/U may be appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Fastily's post which I edit conflicted with. If this was a one of then it may be wikidrama but it's not. Concerns have been raised several times both here and on your talk page. I'm unsure what better things you have to be doing than discussing your edits with editors that have genuine concerns and certainly aren't trolling - discussion is an essential part of a collaborative encyclopaedia and failure to discuss is a serious problem. Your reply also suggests that you didn't even bother to read this thread properly. You mention restoring two categories yet the original complaint was about your tagging of pages. Dpmuk (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, funny you should say that, I haven't linked anyone to User:Fastily/E in weeks. Furthermore, if you'll look at my recent talk page archives, you'll see that I actually make an effort to discuss with users. Believe it or not, unlike Betacommand here, I am of the belief that I serve the community, and am therefore not deaf to its complaints. -FASTILY 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to expand on what I'd posted based on your reply above. To be honest I have no real opinion on whether you're "deaf to complaints" or not but it does seem obvious to me that you often come across, possibly inadvertently, as being that way. Even if you had taken the concerns raised here on board a comment like "I have better things to do with my time on Misplaced Pages than engage in drama" does not suggest you had - it suggests (to me at least) that you'd restored the categories as the easiest way out rather than because you'd taken the concerns on board. Personally I'd have been happier to see you leave them deleted and explain why then simply restore and leave such a short statement. This was also how I felt when you replied to my comments I reference above - I was left with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you hadn't taken on board what I'd said and you'd just replied in the manner which you thought would give you the easiest way out.

Given the amount of actions you undertake I honestly don't think your error rate seems too high and I will also admit that in many of the areas you work we don't have enough admins and so it probably can be hard to prioritize replying fully to all queries versus dealing with backlogs. Bearing all that in mind I do honestly think what we have here is a communication issue rather than and significant problem with your actions (and this is why I suggested an RfC/U to try to get you communicating). If you honestly do take note of every error you make and take on board the concerns raised then it would appear that if you could give that impression as well as acting that way we may avoid many of these issues. Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that so many nasty people play 'no talkies' and when someone who is rather busy is brief then it looks bad, whether it is or not. The speed of editing and error rate doesn't matter. If people want to avoid mistakes the best way to do that is to do nothing at all. He seems to have a page to tell people what they want to know, and it seems more helpful to refer someone to G10 or whatever on that page than say nothing at all when deleting a page. Shrug. Unfortunately no talkies seems allowed by policy in many circumstances, but Fastily doesn't seem to adhere to the no talkies idea as much as some other editors. He seems chatty but busy. Penyulap _talk 05:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. We had a very lengthy and on-going discussion on AN that you basically made a couple of comments on and walked away while people continued to discuss you for days without any further input from you at all over several raised issues. You even went so far, in early february, to claim a complaint about you from December was "extremely old" You then further went on to self-impose a restriction that didn't remotely begin to address the concerns being raised (in that they were from entirely different areas of admin work) and called all further complaints moot. I'm not really sure how that makes you not deaf to the community's complaints.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Links for the lazy, please? The archives are huge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You took part in the discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily. The last comment he makes to that thread is, as far as I'm considered, a lie. He walks away at that point, and people continued to discuss him for 3 weeks before it got archived with no further input from him. Look for the part where you asked me for diffs, I provided them, and Fastily's response was "all of these are extremely old", despite one of them barely being 2 months old. He then says "I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P" with a cute little emoticon no less. Despite the concerns being raised not only being about his closes, but his deletions he declares all concerns done because he's going to self-impose a restriction that he no longer does closes. Not sure how that addresses the bad deletions at all, but as far as he was concerned they were a done deal because of that. So again, not really sure how this is an indication that he's listening to the community's complaints. It looks like quite the opposite.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which it appears he's now done again. Despite on-going discussion and direct statements being made to him, he's continued to edit without returning to this discussion. I don't really see any evidence that Fastily is listening to the community's concern and instead appears to be saying whatever he feels is necessary at the time to appease the community and then walking away. As I mentioned before, the Deja Vu is very strong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just my take on the three files cited above: File:History of New England.pdf was a useless PDF ("wikibooks") compilation of existing Misplaced Pages articles, falsely tagged as uploader's "own work" and public domain. Could have been speedy deleted on sight as a copyvio (done so now). File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg is legit copyright-wise (obviously user-created), but has no foreseeable encyclopedic use; nominated at FFD now. File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg seems legit to me; it's a user-created, synthesized computer rendering of a song that itself is obviously PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the speedy of File:History of New England.pdf as it's nowhere close to being an "unambiguous copyright violation". I've just checked again and all the appropriate attribution and licensing information is in the pdf so this is simply a case of wrong tagging rather than a copyright infringement and we don't speedy for getting the tags wrong. I'd agree that their seems little point in hosting it given that it's just a copy of our articles but I'd suggest restoration if the user asks for it (e.g. if they want to use it as a historical snapshot). Dpmuk (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if the copyright had been fixed (and I agree it would have been fixable in principle), it would still fall under WP:CSD#F10, "files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are not used in any article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use", so it's rather moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well true, they'd have to come up with a good reason for keeping it, and I think that's unlikely to occur, which is why I didn't restore it. Given that most of the work do is in copyrights I pointed it out as I didn't want people to think I'd missed something when I commented above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion regarding the deletion rationales of the images or the speed at which they were deleted, but I do have concerns about Fastily's deletion log entry for the two sockpuppet categories as "Attack Pages". It looks to me (at least from the comments on Night Ranger's talk page and in the block log) like Kumioko was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, the socks were tagged and the populated categories were created. I agree that they could constitute attack pages of the accounts tagged were not Kumioko's socks, or if the category pages had personal attack language in them (did they?), but otherwise a sockpuppet category doesn't seem to be anything like an attack page. I'm also a little concerned by Fastily's responses when Night Ranger requested an explanation: basically providing non answers, answering questions with questions and then deleting the thread with the edit summary "troll". NR's subsequent response to that was not appropriate, but at least a little understandable. I'd be angry too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

TLDR: In Misplaced Pages, socks are sock unless they have admin friends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Which admin are you talking about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories are not "attack pages" if the socks are correctly tagged. If they were, deleting them under G10 is a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

correctly tagged being the key phrase here. :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if the sock accounts were tagged incorrectly, a category is not an attack page. You could make a case for someone tagging random accounts as socks as attack pages I guess, but as far as I can tell those were confirmed socks of Kumioko. Attack pages say things like "Joey is a Nazi", or "such and such person is *insert unsupported negative claim here*". Not a category that simply populates user pages based on userpage templates. Kumioko was, indeed, blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The deletion rationales of those categories aren't correct and without condoning his subsequent behavior, I can see why NR was upset. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

CommentIn my humble opinion, if Fastily feels that he has better things to do than engage in drama then I suggest he move to the (relatively) non-controversial areas of expanding articles and editing out-dated or bad references which require minimum interaction with others. These are areas where smart scripting etc. is of good use. My point is that Fastily's behavior is borderline contempt (or maybe even full contempt) that clearly demonstrates his beliefs that other editor's are not competent enough to question his conduct or maybe he is far superior to others. I can't imagine an experienced user not being able to answer simple queries for technical or other reasons. Wikishagnik (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the view that Fastily tends to show up here on a semi-regular basis over these types of deletion things. I can even understand the concept of comparing some things to delta/beta. My problem here though is this: Some people are actually good at doing computer programming, and perhaps they're not the most "chit-chatty" types of folks. But if you try to talk to them, they can give you some very valuable information, and be very helpful in the end. You may not come away with a "warm fuzzy feeling", but that doesn't make them "contemptuous". Sure, maybe a break now and then from various activities can be good for all of us - but in the end, if you stick with what you're good at - then it shouldn't be an ABF issue. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the deletion logs are incorrect. Autopopulated categories aren't attack pages any way you slice it. See my comment above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently had an image deleted, no warning, that was a drawing made by me in the public domain?? Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Ched, do you honestly believe that's the issue here? I can understand somebody being pre-occupied and focussed in their work and I too have met my share of Geeks (scholars etc.) but civility and trust are very important in Misplaced Pages. A person merely busy now can choose to reply later. A person not very communicative can make a few terse statements. We are all used to that in Misplaced Pages, but refusing to pariticipate in a Misplaced Pages discussion to me shows either contempt for the policy structure of Misplaced Pages or towards its editor's. Wikishagnik (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily is clearly working too fast/carelessly. He recently deleted with over 1000 edits and 16k of text as a copyright violation because someone inserted 200 bytes which may have violated copyright. (I have removed them, but the first admin to review it thought it was reverse copying.) The page remained deleted nearly 2 months before someone requested restoration at WP:REFUND. Errors are bound to happen, but I don't see how an error like that can be made unless someone is either 1) automating deletion without evaluating merits or 2) going too fast to properly evaluate things.

Additionally, I have read over the previous ANI conversation and find the lack of communication quite disturbing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I just took a second to review Fastily's last 10 deletions and quickly found 2 errors - both Aztec Warriors and Rhetorical Strategies were deleted as A10, when they should not have been. At minimum, both are plausible search terms and Aztec Warriors arguably expands on the topic (albeit without references). To delete good faith contributions such as these is very BITEy IMO. (I have restored the articles and redirected, so anyone can review them for his or herself.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the review to the last 34 deletions (six pages) from article space, I found:

• The X-101st deleted under A1 when it had sufficient context (doesn't fit any speedy criteria, but not restored because its clearly not notable)
• Prince Tupouto'a Tungi a redirect that had existed since 2006 and is clearly valid, but pointed to bad location b/c of a bot fixing a double redirect after a bad page move. NOte:Fastily himself deleted the implausible title it was briefly pointing to and so in theory should have known the situation even w/o checking the article history. (restored)
• W. eugene smith fund deleted as G11, but not promotional and most likely notable (restored and moved to proper capitalization/name)
• The Voice - Britain's Favourite Black Newspaper deleted as G11, perhaps validly so. However, the content is clearly written by a fan, not a business person, and is a good faith attempt at writing at article, including references. (I have not restored because The Voice (newspaper) already exists and I don't want to clean up the language and merge myself. It does, however, have unique content)
• System 12 created by a (good faith but improper) page move to System 12 (disambiguation) and then G7'ed leaving the dab page impossible to find (move undone)
• April Masini deleted as G4. While the article was deleted after AfD in the fall, G4 doesn't really apply as the content is completely different, with many references added. (I have held off on restoring for now. Restored upon request of article re-writer.)

I should note that the vast majority of Fastily's deletions are files w/insufficient source info or unused non-free images and thus are probably fine. (Although I think it is clear he doesn't check and just deletes are such pictures that has passed the "expiration" date.) However, 8/34 is a ridiculous high error rate for article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Fastily has announced a Wikibreak saying he is burnt out. Hopefully after some time off, he'll come back more focused and make fewer errors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT WE JUST HAD A MONTHLONG DISCUSSION OF HIS DELETION ACTIVITIES, with the strong suggestion by several editors of taking action against him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Recall that this was mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2012-02-20/Discussion report regarding Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Mm, well, somehow the notion that he's taking a Wikibreak just as the heat's turned up again is no surprise. Let's not let that affect the discussion. Thaddeus is absolutely right: 25% is an appalling error rate, one for which we'd haul a newbie up by the short hairs, and is intolerable in an admin with deletion tools at his command. As others have said, this is damned reminiscent of Betacommand's antics, which drove away and/or soured many good editors. Perhaps a restriction on automated admin actions would be something useful to hand him when he gets back. Ravenswing 20:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again its time other admins stepped up to this area. There aren't many active in those areas which means F deals with a lot. The level of mistakes are too high but so is the workload. Look at his archives there is no evidence he doesn't engage with people on his talk page, he always has. He used to use automated responses but no longer does, he replies in full. In regard to speed he compiles lists to delete and does it in batches, which is why the deletions are done quickly not because he does not look at them. There has been a witch hunt against Fastily in the past every time it comes up its the same people that complain. If people really think there is a problem create a RFC and move on. This just goes round in circles.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no excuses. There are only three possible reasons for an error rate so high: incompetence, indifference or inattention. You can decide for yourself which it is, but I'm sure you'll agree that none of the above are desirable in an editor or tolerable in an admin. It is also quite possible for uninvolved people who have never had any interaction with him (raises hand) to examine the evidence and conclude that his editing pattern is out of line. Bizarre as the premise may be, there are actually frequent complaints about some editors and admins for no sinister reasons beyond that they are chronic offenders. Ravenswing 03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd add a fourth reason - some people work to different policies than others. Not sure if it applies in this case but I've certainly encountered taggers and even admins who speedy unourced or even poorly formatted articles. I recently went to Fastily's page with a query about a specific deletion and had a perfectly civil response, so I'd be happy to park this until after he returns from his wiki break and we get a chance to see if he then takes on board some of the criticisms here. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no witch hunt here. Here are two facts from recent discussions: Fastily dismissed a 2 month old AN/I thread as "extremely old" and then claimed an IP was forum shopping by taking an undeletion request to a noticeboard and not discussing it with him when the diffs clearly showed the IP took it to Fastily's talk page nearly 24 hours before he took it to the noticeboard. When questioned about the first, he stopped participating in the discussion despite it continuing on for nearly 3 weeks after that point. When questioned about the second he stopped participating in the discussion and declared a wiki-break. These are not the desirable ways for handling interaction with community members.--Crossmr (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fastily is pretty much the only admin that works in PUF and FfD, he does hundreds of deletions a week because of this. The number of mistakes is tiny. If there were other people also doing the work, it would fall less on his shoulders, and he'd be able to spend more time on each item. That being said, Misplaced Pages only has about a dozen to two dozen people who work in the file namespace, only a few of them admins. Any area where there are many, many more people complaining about how work is being done than there are people doing the work, you're going to have massive bleedoff of workers and the area is going to be largely dysfunctional. The file namespace isn't the largest, it's just the most extreme case. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • While this thread was directly instigated by some questionable FfDs, there's rather more to it that that. I've been a little concerned of late by some (IMO) somewhat hasty deletions by Fastily at TfD (which had default summaries provided by a bot: I would personally expect any XfD with differing opinions to be accompanied by a manual deletion rationale), but that was merely concern over the method rather than because I thought the closes were wrong as such. I appreciate that we have backlogs all over XfD and that we really do need help in these areas, but false positives beget drama and harm the community more than backlogs do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There is one thought that I believe that most know intuitively but few put into words relevant to both Betacommand/Delta and Fastily, (and many less severe situations that people are uncomfortable with) even if they hadn't made outright errors. Most Misplaced Pages guidelines are not written with sufficient precision and exactness so that one person can just do major things based on their interpretation of any part of it. Giving notice, opportunity for discussion, actually having discussion when requested, making a careful review/investigation of the situaiotn are things that are intuitively expected before major actions, and intuitively considered necessary in light of those imperfections. It would be best if the concept of somebody feeling free to say that they get to play rapid judge, jury and executioner because they are "just following the rules" were to end. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB - from your examples above, can you explain the context of "The X-101st legion was a clan base in Roblox". You say that you did not restore it because it was clearly not notable. You know as well as I do (or at least should) that when a page is marked with a speedy deletion template, when you go to delete it the deletion reason autopopulates with the CSD tag. So, in essence... if you had arrived at that page first, and decided to delete it because it was clearly not notable (tho you apparently know inherently what a Roblox clan base legion is without any further context), what deletion category would you have used? Do you think there is any chance that Fastily went to the page, said 'Uhh A1 doesn't apply, Roblox is clearly the MMOG for kids but beh this is really trivial for its own article', went to delete it and just took the speedy classification of the tag as read? I think its very easy to go and second guess, and expanding on Sven's comment above I wonder how many of the folks taking Fastily to task do any kind of deletion work themselves. Syrthiss (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a wrong deletion b/c CSD does not provide for the deletion of minor fictional characters. I wouldn't have deleted it via CSD and would have told the nominator to use PROD. IMO, CSD should be followed exactly, but that doesn't mean I am going to make pointless undeletions either. Furthermore, if this was the only error I certainly would not have commented, but Fastily has regularly made blatantly bad deletions in article space so I took a small sample to try to get some idea of out his error rate on articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Syrthiss that some of the comments above are coming from people who have no problem bitching at other people bu can't be arsed to get out there and do the dirty work themselves. Guess what; it gets annoying when people who refuse to accept they may not know as much as you endlessly carp over minutiae and miss the broader picture. I can't get all worked up over the wrong numeral being appended to a deletion (and as a broader aside, I still don't quite understand why CSD is the one policy which Must Be Followed To The Letter At All Times Or Else); what ultimately matters is that the damn thing was deleted, and clearly should have been. And yes, I would have accepted A1 as a perfectly valid reason to delete that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If I had the bit, I'd certainly get involved, but the reason CSD must be followed to the letter is because there are few checks and balances. Someone tags it, or someone finds and article and just deletes it. They are judge jury and executioner and the average user can't even hold them accountable unless they had a chance to see the article before it disappeared. If an administartor is found to be tagging articles incorrectly when they delete them, it puts into the question the care and attention they're giving to those deletions.--Crossmr (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an argument by some that Fastily's behavior is due to overwork. Apparently few or no other admins choose to work in the areas where he works. I think it's important to note that NOBODY on Misplaced Pages is required to work on anything. The entire project is purely voluntary, so he has no obligation to produce results or work at such a high rate. Therefore, I don't think the argument that he's overworked holds much water because if he's overworked all he has to do is slow down and either let someone else pick up the slack, or let FfD languish long enough that people will take notice and join in rather than expecting him to just carry it all. I don't think he's overworked so much as indifferent. This is much like the argument that Betacommand should be excused for his similar behavior because he did so much work and I see similar responses from similar apologists. But nobody made him do that work and nobody is making Fastily work either. There's no excuse for such a high error rate, the indifferent and often haughty responses to other editors, disappearing whenever a discussion begins about his actions, and taking a wikibreak because he's "burnt out by people harassing him all the time". WP:DIVA anyone? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And to demonstrate my point above... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for demonstrating my point about the apologists. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Before I became an admin, I might have agreed with you, but now that I've seen it from both sides instead of making assumptions without actually knowing what I was talking about I have a lot more sympathy for Fastily's position. It's very, very easy to criticize, and in no way do I think Fastily is completely blame-free (some mistakes are documented, look for ones that DGG points out in previous discussions), but talking in pompous dogmatic language saying "How DARE thee" doesn't actually help move towards resolution of the problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blade re your comment "what ultimately matters is that the damn thing was deleted, and clearly should have been." Deletion codes matter because they are part of our communication with other editors. People see the deletion reason when they start to create a new article of the same name. If something has been deleted because of copyvio or for being overly promotional then we are happy to have a new attempt made to write the article, if the article was deleted because the subject doesn't yet merit an encyclopaedia article then we want people to wait until the subject has become notable. It's also an important part of our communication with the person whose work we are deleting. If they are writing about subjects that don't meet our criteria or then we need to tell them that, deleting articles under the wrong code means giving newbies the wrong reason for rejecting their work. Now there is an argument that some codes could be merged, if we decide that vandals and creators of attack pages are very rarely going to become good editors then a deletion reason of "meh" might not harm us - until that is someone else starts creating a page of that name. But many newbies start out writing about footballers who have been signed but have not yet played and various other "newbie" mistakes, and in those cases getting the deletion reason right is probably more important than actually deleting the article. An editor whose work has been rejected for a sensible reason that was appropriately communicated is I believe more likely to stay with us and try to meet our rules. An editor whose work has been deleted arbitrarily for a reason that doesn't seem to make sense is I suspect less likely to stay and I fear more likely to consider us unprofessional and inaccurate. ϢereSpielChequers 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen similar behavior from Fastily, most notably in his super-fast nominations of dozens (hundreds?) of orphaned sound files several months ago. Because often files are deleted without further review at FFD, it is important for a nominator to have a decent success rate of identifying deletion-worthy files. Fastily had an extremely high error rate and did not respond well to criticism. I tried to check all the nominated sound files for several days, but I ran out of time reviewing and I'm sure dozens of worthy sound files were deleted. See old talk page revision. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the Next Step?

So far I haven't commented on this thread, but it appears that many editors feel that something more deliberate should be done with Fastily. This thread is over a week old and is still getting comments, even days after Fastily gave himself a much needed wikibreak. Yet it appears that some feel that this is not enough, and perhaps something more should be done. Whether it is a sort of "topic ban" from deleting articles, a complete desysop, or a lengthy block. None of us who have edited for any length of time have not had our fair share of mistakes. Yet it appears that Fastily makes a few more mistakes than others. This is apparent by looking at the number of times Fastily is the topic of discussion at ANI. Hardly a week goes by without seeing some thread with his name on it. The number of "mistakes" made by Fastily only seems to have contributed to the frustration some feel while editing Misplaced Pages. We all get stressed with our little Misplaced Pages hobby sometimes. This shouldn't be the case, nor should normal everyday users have to continue to argue against deletions time and time again. Fastily gets so many editors complaining about deletions, he has even set up his own user space page to deal with them. That's a big red flag in my book. So then, what should be the next step in this process?--JOJ 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That page is pretty ridiculous. It is basically telling everybody who wants to have a discussion to go pound sand. North8000 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily will conveniently be on wikibreak until the day after this thread is archived. 12.90.146.190 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Who's sock has been left in the dryer here? Calabe1992 18:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The next step is exactly what was suggested last time: RFC/U. Shit or get off the pot, people. Stop asking the same question again and again, and stop letting the same people with bees in their bonnets get all tough about it, then do nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jojhutton: What's so bad about having a subpage with deletion rationales? I have one myself, which existed over a year before Fastily created his. Does that say something about my deletions?

Anywho, as for the topic at hand. I see where others are coming from. While taking care of the daily image deletion at C:SD, I found that Fastily's tagging has gone downhill as well. All these files were tagged with missing permission, despite the fact that the summaries read "Read by Alex Killby", which is the uploader's username. Similar issues arose with File:2da1xiao.ogg, File:Gdpz4.gif, File:Keralatourism.ogg, File:Ru-Cmapm.ogg and File:Tony Sideways.ogg. Who knows how this issue stretches back—and with months of him exclusively deleting files himself, who knows how many files have been deleting incorrectly. Other admins (such as myself, who work in the same area) stopped simply because we can't keep up with Fastily's deletion rate. He has the ability to delete thousands of images within five minutes. It takes me at least an hour to finish deleting everything in the image categories at C:SD (where I use Twinkle to help me with batch deletions), WP:FFD and WP:PUF. And I think that's one of the problems, his pace is far too fast. Sure, it lives up to his username, but still... — ξ 19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that he tags if there is no source information in the recommended format regardless of whether it's there in some other manner or indeed is even necessary to determine copyright status. This is suggestive of automated unchecked editing but assuming good faith I can only assume it's a case of not checking properly (possibly only checking that is indeed no source information in the recommended format) as they say above they do check. I'm thinking of stating to draft a RfC/U when I can find the time. I'm not even sure we have a problem here but repeated threads at ANI is not really productive when it comes to discussing their edits as a whole and determining whether there's a wide problem rather than problems with a few one off situations. For most editors with this number of ANI threads I'd assume there was a problem but taking into account the number of edits they make I'm not so sure here. Hopefully an RfC/U where there was more centralised discussion would at a minimum help determine whether community consensus is that there is or isn't a problem with their edits taken as whole. Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose the RFCU route. However, I don't know how to start an RFCU. I would be happy to participate in one, however. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why do we need an rfc to prove the obvious?. We can right here enact an indefinite ban from participation in deletion processes. That he is not checking adequately is proven by the log evidence that he can not be checking at all. There is the possibility that some supernatural ability permits him to be always right, but that would need some pretty extraordinary evidence (& is invalidated by the number of complaints that have been upheld). Like any ban here , it can be challenged at arb com, but the burden can be on he who wishes to challenge it. The argument "I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them." is highly implausible, for when would he be doing the checking, how would his script deal with those deleted before his script got to them or those where another editor had declined the deletion, and no conceivable script could take proper account of objections made in the interval. If he does have such a miraculous script, he should prove it by posting the code & then everyone will befit. Otherwise, I consider that claim of his a bad faith claim, and one warranting immediate action to prevent the resumption whenever he returns from the break. What he has been doing is radically disruptive to Misplaced Pages as not just rejecting good content but in discouraging new contributors, and admin status is no protection for someone doing that. How would we treat an admin who worked at the speed he did, but declining every deletion? DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  

I would like to reply to the original title of this section What is the next step? Going by the strong opinions of various user's but also repecting the basic tenets of Misplaced Pages, I would like to suggest the following.

• Peronal meeting - as an extreme departure of the regular practice on Misplaced Pages of discussing issues of dispute I suggest that some senior editor's of Misplaced Pages meet the user Fastily in person and take his opinon. It has been suggested that Fastily might not be the person who takes part in administrator's discussions, possibly becasue he is busy with other Misplaced Pages responsibilities. A personal meeting might break more ice with Fastilty and help him express his opinion throuugh others. He is an experienced user of Misplaced Pages and surely a valuable contributor. I suggest a friendly meet arranged either through a local Misplaced Pages chapter or over email etc. before we finalize and topic bans or deletion bans.
• Discuss image deletion policies - I have been personally stung with deletion of images without any discussion. I am inclined to believe that such deletions are the result of a bias against certain types of pictures - e.g. - photographs of imprtant places / people from amateur photoographers - and not on the basis of the actual copyright disclosures. Like all users I used the normal upload wizard to upload this image and explained all that could be explained. If some information was missing then as a user I should be let to know what I was expected to add. Leaving notes on the talk page of the deleting editor has produced no results. Strangely enough, the same editor's who expertly delete hundred's of images are also the one's who are too busy to give reasons. We probably need several seperate discussions to address all issues regarding such abrupt deletion of images but let's get the ball rolling on this one.

I still hold on to my opinion that user Fastily's actions are more a result of extreme contempt of regular Misplaced Pages practices, policies and users, than the mistakes of an honest and busy person. He has made ample comments to support this. In my case, good evidence is taking a precedence over good faith. A user has the right to make Misplaced Pages a better source of information, knowledge etc. but certainly has no right to take actions that leave hundreds of people dazed and confused. -00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous as has been said many a time take to RFCU if you want otherwise this is going nowhere. Its the same people every time now that are trying to force there views. That is the option that has been proposed at every discussion but as yet no one has done this. Instead they have brought this up at every discussion board or opportunity possible which is exactly why Fastily feels he has been hounded and to be honest i agree with him. Also are other admins willing to get involved in some of the areas Fastily deals with otherwise thats going to get out of hand and it will become fairly evident the good work fattily does. But for one reason i cant see it and thats because it gets a lot of flak. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How is RfC, a non-binding process that fastily can't be forced to participate in going to do anything for this situation? We've recently seen Fastily walk away from more than one discussion the moment the discussions don't seem to be going his way. As I pointed out to Fastily if he doesn't want to see things being brought up again and again he should actually stick around and discuss them for once rather than making a placating comment and then walking away until the next discussion comes up and doing it all over again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wanderer please understand that what you state as hounding is actually a lot of very valid questions that have never been answered. What I perceive as get over with it as your point-of-view is exactly what this discussion is about. It would be rather convenient for any admin to take a hasty (or harsh) action against Fastily but that is precisely what some of us are trying to avoid, as all of us are volunteers. I wouldn't mind if Fastily did a little less of good work and actually did no work for some time. Let other admins worry about important work that would be left incomplete (which I am sure they will). Wikishagnik (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

General comment, an admin needs to be open to feedback and willing to discuss issues related to his or hers admin activities. That's as much an obligation as anything else involved as an admin...that's the biggest failing I see here. RxS (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Any comments on how we deal with drama/wikibreak/drama cycles? Both generally and in this specific case. (While I've not looked at all the particulars myself, it has been suggested that this has happened w/ Fastily before, and concerns that it will happen this time. Anyone? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to what I said, you took part in it, and I linked you to the discussion already. In general as to how to approach these kinds of things, I would suggest that the community no longer accept self-imposed sanctions or wiki-breaks as a resolution to situations. What inevitably happens is that the subject or their defenders will then turn around and claim those things have no teeth since they chose to do it themselves and were under no obligation to actually follow them. Like the recent situation we had with Baseball bugs who self-imposed a month long AN/I ban, then came back early with a very poor thread and then several people jumped in defending him claiming since he self-imposed, it didn't mean anything. Despite the fact that the community basically killed on-going discussion for that very thing because he did that. In the future, I would suggest all discussions continue until a resolution is reached, and if the wiki-break/self-imposed restrictions meet or exceed the community's resolution, fine, if not, they'll have to be adjusted to at least match what the community wants at a minimum.--Crossmr (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a few small analyses of Fastily's deletions in the past, and found that he has a steady percentage of mistakes that's not very high (much lower than the percentage of my edits that I have to go back and fix something on), but because he does so many, even a <5% error rate will start turning out volumes. The errors are random, consistent with someone going too fast at a fairly repetetive task, and occasionally putting the shells in the bowl and tossing the nut, or finding themselves trying to shell their kid brother's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle that got in the bag by mistake. That said, if you consistently don't fill in the license templates or FURs right, you'll probably find your stuff consistently deleted.

And he does respond on his talkpage - if you ask him to undelete something, he generally just does it. But his talkpage archives quite fast (I manually archive mine when people start complaining that it takes more than 10 minutes to load, his seems to turnround in 72 hrs), so requests get missed. And, since most queries have a standard answer, he just points to a standard set of answers. But from years in customer service, I know that this is not what most customers want. They want a bit of personal attention, something that relates specifically to them.

Perhaps the answer is to have a better mechanism for responding to the questions and requests for undeletion. A place where people asking "why was my image deleted" could speak to someone from a team dedicated to helping people add suitable images, who could talk them through the problems. Where I work, the same people aren't expected to be front line customer service giving information about (say) planning applications, and make decisions on whether someone's planning application gets approved. Just a thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

speaking generally, there are several reasons to ask the original administrator: first, to avoid undercutting their authority and decreasing the likelihood of wheel-warring; second, because they might have a good explanation that the deletion message by itself does not make obvious; third, to give them an opportunity to learn by being aware of the complaints & themselves correcting their own errors; fourth, having previously analyzed the situation, they are in the best position to give real advice to the requestor. Obviously, if someone gives stock answers via a form interface, they are destroying the usefulness of most of this. The net effect of it is to discourage users with bona fide complaints from carrying it further--especially when deletion review, upon getting a request from someone whose item was deleted, generally send them back to the deleting administrator. When someone encounters this, it always seems like the sort of runaround they;re accustomed to getting from the most arrogant of monopolistic companies. (and a virtual monopoly at this point is exactly our position).

anyone can delete very rapidly--the only thing keeping any of us from going as quickly as Twinkle can let us is that we could not deal with the questions. Properly dealing with users is the limitation--any admin has the obligation to start no more than they can properly finish. If one cannot answer the questions on a personal level, one is going too fast. If one is unwilling to deal with people individually, one has no viable role as an admin here dealing with deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated violations of COI despite warnings

NatHandal (talk · contribs) (previously editing as NHANDAL (talk · contribs) has been editing the article Nathalie Handal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for several years. The user has confirmed both via OTRS ticket and on various pages that she is the subject of the article. (See for instance: , ) Ms. Handal has repeatedly removed sourced material from the article (, , , ) and removed the COI tag (, , ). Much of the editing that she has done has involved copying portions of her website to this article (this is the rationale for the OTRS ticket mentioned above). The user has been repeatedly warned about the COI policy(, ) but has continued to remove sourced information. Given that Ms. Handal seems to want to have ownership of this article regardless of the COI policy, I think that some sanctions are in order. GabrielF (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've rechecked the editor's talk page to see if there is anything new since I last reviewed the COI issue in 2008. Lots of people have tried to explain our system to her, but in March 2012 she has resumed active editing of the article contrary to policy. For example, she has removed well-sourced commentary and links to published reviews of her work. Four years have passed since she began editing Misplaced Pages, you would expect that she should be willing to properly express her concerns on talk pages. Since nothing else has worked, and since there is no question of unsourced defamation, I reluctantly propose a one-month block from editing. The only alternative is to *give her* the article and let her post anything she wants and remove anything she finds inconvenient, even though well-sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a shed load of warnings on talk her page dating back to a long time ago (2008), but no evidence that she's ever responded to anyone's concerns about her WP:COI editing at all. Whilst assuming good faith is important in COI cases, refusal to get the point can't be helped and nor can a chronic lack of communication -- especially not after four years. However, since no escalating blocks have been used recently, it would be unfair to take the enforcement immediately to one month; she's only been blocked once, in 2008, for a rather odd duration of 31 hours. I'm going to go ahead and set a 48 hour block for now and if she continues, a one-month block would be appropriate. --Tristessa (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Her offical website mentions a e-mail adress. Has anyone tried to contact her that way? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it odd she removes a photograph she apparently does not like, for it is certainly within her power to donate a better one, & we normally accept any such reasonable preference. I assume from this she still does not understand what to do, rather than that she intends to do the wrong thing. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DGG, this may be the most beautiful poet I've seen in a long time. I'm ordering some books. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

IP persisting in making drastic changes without sources or explanation

User:74.127.167.105 began editing about a week ago, with an apparent interest in children's television, particularly TV adaptations of the Berenstain Bears. Several of their edits appear to be okay, at least to my uninformed eye (examples: ). They've written some odd things ( ) that make me wonder if they're fluent in English, but they haven't reacted to my reversions in those cases. (I don't know whether any of the other information they've added is accurate, but I've left it alone where it seems reasonable.)

Where we keep butting heads is at Berenstain Bears#Television and The Berenstain Bears (1985 TV series). At both these articles, the IP keeps inserting these complete, elaborate episode lists, with episode titles and airdates, that doesn't correlate to any information I've been able to find anywhere (except where the same IP has added the same info to a Berenstain Bears Wikia). At the former article, we have sources that say five BB specials aired from 1979 to 1984; the IP insists 36 "specials" aired in that time. At the 1985 series article, the IP changes the airdates of several episodes and removes many of them entirely. That article has never included sources, but every website I've looked at agrees with what was there, not what the IP insists. From my limited investigation, I think all the IP's episode titles are actual titles of videos or TV episodes released at some point, but with no connection to when the IP says they aired on TV.

I have asked the IP several times to explain the source of their information, but the IP has not responded in any form, and just keeps making the same changes or the same type of changes (or a few other variations, such as in ). I do think they're probably acting in good faith (although I'm constantly wavering in my faith on that), but I don't know what I can do to proceed here, so I'm requesting advice or help in breaking this cycle, since I certainly don't want either article (particularly Berenstain Bears, which was in a much better state to begin with) to sit with information that by all indications is incorrect. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, can we just block him if possible since he is a known IP vandal? As a note, I have already issued a final warning on the talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As his most recent edits appear to be nothing but vandalism and disruption, I've gone ahead and reported him. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the action taken (the user has now been blocked for three days). I'm still baffled by their intentions, but given their unwillingness to communicate, it's hard for me to see any other recourse besides blocking. Theoldsparkle (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tony_Savo

Edits here by User:AwayEnter strike me as carrying highly charged language that verges on a WP:NLT violation. I gave them a template warning, and they responded in a way that left me extemely uncomfortable. Could I get some more eyes on this one? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Response

The response given to the template warning was, in its entirety, "No threats were made, only facts were presented." User_talk:AwayEnter -AwayEnter (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your "facts were presented"' using phrases such as "serious misrepresentations of fact"; "dangerous potential to legitimize and perpetuate these detrimental misrepresentations"; "recorded in legal action"; "dangerously misrepresents the subject"; and "makes false claims". Those reek of the courtroom, or at least the cease-and-desist letter; and appear to represent an intent to intimidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• The comment that suggests "an intent to intimidate" is frighteningly similar to what defines harassment "In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." The language used in the comment above is nearly identical to the language of the law. Are admins immune to WP:NLT violations? AwayEnter (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nah, admins may be thick-skinned but they aren't immune. However, most of us (including non-admins like me) are immune to frivolous claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to reek more of someone who thinks that using long words gives their comments more credibility. (I'm sure courtrooms see that tendency too, but then so do many other places.) I'm a big supporter of interpreting "no legal threats" broadly, but even a broad definition doesn't cover the diff for which you templated the editor. You've given them a templated warning, we know that they read it, so there's nothing more to be done unless they proceed to issue something that can be more clearly perceived as a legal threat. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That was precisely my reaction, too. Too convoluted to take seriously. More like a parody of a poorly drawn legal document.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Night Court had more clear, lasting legal statements. What we have is someone trying hard to sound more credible, but yes, teetering on NLT only so far... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Look ... invoking NLT is pretty much the nuclear weapon almost always guaranteed to earn the offender a long - if not indef - block. As such, I think we have a responsibility to recognize that violations must be genuine, tangible legal threats, not merely pompous big words which make us uncomfortable, however much they allegedly "reek of the courtroom." Stipulating that they do, so what? Ravenswing 04:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptions, deliberate

Disruptions at an ongoing mediation by User:B3430715: and . I request a review of this and advice on next step. Several of us are perplexed by the weird disruptions caused by this user. The user has a very short history of disruptive editing. The links will also show my warnings to the editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really responsive, but there's something disturbing about a Misplaced Pages editor having a huge image saying "Fuck copyright" () on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that also, Bbb23. My personal wish is that he weren't so (apparently) bad at English. If you notice, his fluency does seem to fluctuate. But he certainly knows what he's doing with his disruptions.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest weirdness may be seen here:. Can't say if this is deliberate or if he really does not comprehend. A brilliant strategy, if that's what it is, though.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He strikes me as a troll. Have you asked the mediator to step in?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this you must see. No, Bbb, the mediator doesn't even seem to reply to MedCab itself regarding vital issues, so ... but I did advise her of this. And I agree imho, I think he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what he's doing when he's not at the mediation cabal. I found this one really weird. He doesn't seem to like the movie as he removed a link to it from another article. Another weird edit related to the movie: . Oh, a heads up to any admins watching this topic, B3 removes warnings from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For all the world it looks as if he's just whipping about with the intent to troll. There's no other explanation. He's keeping off here - I trust you took a gander at his reply to this ANI on his talk page! I'll try to see how far back he goes ... I am under the impression he's very new. Yet his disruptive edits go back a ways on the Columbo artilce.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems recommended, aside from the diffs I have provided so far, is a look at his contribs. If anyone wants it, I'll find all of his disruptive edits as they pertain to my issue. One thing I noticed way back is that he 'does his rounds', and as I said, his disruptions are sometimes weirdly subtle.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with him dates back to around 22 February. All of this from the editor's talk page: personal attack. I warned him about this. Second weird personal attack after deleting my warning. My next warning. His next personal attack. Here he thinks he's deleted the evidence. This was his invitation to sign up to participate in the ongoing MedCab. The following are the diffs from Columbo and from the article's talk page (please note the edit summaries whenever there are any): the first edit to the article, innocent enough. That proves he knows how to edit properly and within rules. But then there's these two edits. Clearly off his rails. Though I am repeating this, I draw to your attention his edit warring here (which also shows a correction I have had to make twice now thanks to him) Note the reversion, for no good reason. I leave you with his blatant edit warring in the removal of the RfC I had there a while back (he removed that tag repeatedly):.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add: here I apprised my fellow editor who's with me at mediation about this trouble as well.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his entire history, but I don't think his "stupid people" ES is any more of a personal attack than you calling his answers schizophrenic, or telling him "... and learn better grammar while you're at it". I can quite understand that you're irritated by the guy, Djathink, but in terms of the shades-of-grey area between attack and not-attack, I don't see that you're actually that far apart from each other. Try toning it down with him a few (several?) notches, and see if setting a better example to him might make him more inclined to communicate more peacefully. Pesky (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation has failed, and the disruption is not clear-cut enough to warrant any immediate admin action here. Hence, you need to request arbitration, in which case the Arbitration Committee will look at the evidence and likely issue admonishments, topic bans, and even complete site bans, depending on the severity of the situation given. --MuZemike 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit: hardly an improvement, IMHO. Muddying the water. A slight competence issue, perhaps? 114 total edits. Wow. Hey: this is not a personal attack, folks. This is Columbo we're talking about, here. Can old dogs learn new tricks? We'll be monitoring... Doc talk 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to show this as an example of how this editor can edit properly, and knows what he's doing. Of course it is also proof that his English is really much better than he usually pretends. Reply to Pesky: Have you looked at the disruptive editing I showed from the mediation that he's done? And also from his talk page? When I responded angrily to him it was because he was just trolling about and sticking his tongue out - do you see him replying here? He's been responding on his talk page. This was enough trouble. I don't see what arbitration is going to do, except perhaps send me back here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here, an extremely recent edit, he is asked why he placed an image of a copyrighted DVD cover in place of an old image. Note his reply in edit summary, and his insistence on using schizophrenic reasoning when he does reply to other editors. So, he adds what is likely a copyvio and says it is because 'People love color photo ... ' This is but a taste of the insanity this editor brings, to disrupt articles. In one or two new edit summaries, he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. This user is a troll. I am beginning to expect him to be treated as one; why is it that we're supposed to try to charm him into behaving?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query: I'd like to know why this issue is being ignored here. The issue as I tried so hard to explain clearly is the following, about the editor in question:

1. After editing normally for a good while at Columbo, he suddenly became a little belligerent.
2. We either worked with him or ignored him until he became a bit offensive.
3. When I approached him politely on his talk, he attacked me.
4. When I warned him about this, he attacked again.
5. Recently in the Columbo mediation, he altered at least one of my posts, and injected disruptive, weird posts in odd places.
6. He was warned about this in about the same way as you see above.
7. He disrupted the mediation again, all the while his English getting 'worse' and 'worse'.
8. He responded to this ANI on his talk page with strange ramblings and began mentioning the ANI in his edit summaries.

I don't understand what more you guys needs to give me a perspective on this. It certainly does not help to say to go to arbitration - so this troll can laugh at us some more?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 Wikihounding, harassment

After I opposed Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few of his nominations at possibly unfree files, a couple of which seem to be clearly in bad faith, he's gone through to tag several images I've uploaded. Despite my indication on his talk page that he should stop, he continued to post notices on my talk page and tag files, and nominate several for deletion. As he persists in the hounding, I suggest he be blocked until such a time that he indicates he will stop.--Crossmr (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to make any assumptions about copyright status of images. If the copyright status can't be proven, one has to assume that images are unfree. See Commons:COM:PRP, for example. Your comments in the deletion discussions suggested that you don't know image policies, so I checked your images for errors and proposed some obvious ones for deletion. For example, non-free images must be subject to critical commentary, must not be used in galleries and must not be used excessively, as explained at WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, and photos of South Korean buildings can't be hosted on Commons unless the architect died at least 50 years ago, as explained at Commons:COM:FOP#Korea (South). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to assume that uploaders acted in good faith and properly copied licensing data years ago when images were first uploaded. Which you've failed to do. Not only that you clearly tried to misrepresent an individuals edits in your nominations by indicating they were a serial copyright violator when they were not. When it clearly stated on their talk page they were not. The fact is, you didn't like my opposing you and started going through all my uploads here, and even at commons trying to find a problem. That's clearly wikihounding.-Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As clear evidence of his intent to hound me and not actually do image work: This edit to commons . After claiming pictures of south korean buildings aren't permitted on commons, he only nominates a couple of my images, but goes ahead and cleans up similar images by other users. If he truly believed those pictures weren't permitted on commons he would have nominated it for deletion instead of cleaning it up and adding a category. Yes it's a commons edit, but it's just a very clear demonstration of the harassment that started here because I opposed him here. Most specifically I took issue with 4 of his listings on the 23rd where he described an editors uploads as Not own work? Many copyright issues mentioned on the uploader's talk page, but I can't find the image anywhere else. (bolding mine), when you visit the page. You see exactly 2 complaints and in the first complaint another user clearly points out that he talked to the webmaster of the site in question and it was indeed the user. I've no doubt the second complaint was the same thing. I also noted that he appeared to be assuming bad faith of users who uploaded images years ago because source pages had been deleted/hidden/etc and this is when the deluge of tagging, nominating and clear harassment started. He directly targetted my edits here and on commons because I opposed him (and not just him, I also opposed some other people who listed images as well), so there was no intent on my part to focus on him, when he's clearly come after me in retaliation.--Crossmr (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't clean up the image on Commons, I categorised it so that I would more easily be able to nominate a large number of images in the same report. In the end, it failed because I couldn't find any date of construction, but my plan is to try to find a date later, unless anyone else already has proposed the images for deletion by then.

One can usually not AGF when it comes to copyrights. Many users don't know how copyrights work or what a derivative work is (cf. your own photos of South Korean buildings) and users often get insufficient permissions, so it is necessary to be very careful when it comes to copyright issues. In the case you mentioned, I see 6 copyright-related notices on the user's talk page before my notices, and 5 of them have since been deleted (I haven't checked if the 6th one has been changed). If you check the deletion log, you can see that the webmaster-related text was deleted with the deletion comment "permission claimed but never supplied". That is, no evidence that Misplaced Pages was ever allowed to use that material.

If the source is gone, there is no way to verify a licence. People uploading from Flickr often get the licence wrong so images have to be deleted if they can't be proven to be free. That is exactly why there are licence reviews on Commons so that there is some evidence kept that the images have been on Flickr under a free licence at some point. You might also notice that it was not I but a different user who placed the Flickr images on that request page in the first place. Obviously, there are at least two users who agree that the sourcing is insufficient.

There has been no retaliation from my side. However, your posts to the deletion pages suggested that you didn't understand image policies and copyright rules, so I checked your images and proposed some of them for deletion. You might have noticed that many of the images I proposed for deletion actually weren't uploaded by you; they were images uploaded by other people which I happened to find in an article where one of your images appeared. --Stefan2 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We always assume good faith, which you've failed to do repeatedly. You even went so far as to imply a user could be editing the exif data on a years old image simply to try and get a google image on here. You went further to accuse an editor of being a serial copyright violator in your rationale to taint the discussion when there was zero evidence that that was the case on the talk page. I found a lot of your deletion rationales to be extremely light on evidence or reasoning, and not just yours and posted my opinion as such. You then proceeded to go after every image I've uploaded to two projects as a result. WP:HOUND, WP:AGF give them good long hard reads.--Crossmr (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One has to be very careful with copyright issues. I have seen many uploads from Flickr and other external sites where users have provided wrong licence information (for example by missing an NC or an ND or by thinking that any image found on the Internet is in the public domain).

There are many reasons for EXIF data to change. Some images have no EXIF data (might be caused by editing the images in a program which deletes the data) and I don't find it too unlikely that some programs might alter the EXIF time so that it shows the modification time in an image editor instead of the time when the photo was taken (although programs really are supposed to store such information in a different field). Editing using Exiftool or the like might be less likely.

Note that I'm going to be away during a large part of the weekend, so I might not be able to write any further comments until tomorrow afternoon. I'm bringing a mobile phone, but it isn't very convenient for writing long messages. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One also has to be careful how they treat other users, and constantly doing so with assumptions of bad faith is not the direction to take. Immediately auditing an editors contributions because they oppose you is also not the direction to take. To be honest you've clearly come across as a bully in this process with your bad faith assumptions of uploader's behaviour and your immediate reaction to my opposing some of your listings. You have no evidence that any of those editors made a mistake adding the licensing data to those images. None at all, and you're asking them to prove the impossible because you know the original pages are gone now.Further more you have zero evidence to suggest that uploader was tampering with the exif data. He didn't even know enough on how to properly rotate his image, and you think he's fudging the exif data?--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I recommend this request is considered resolved. I can see no need for admin action while there is ongoing dialogue and Stefan2 appears to be taking care to explain their actions. Unfortunately Crossmr has confused this request for action by including discussion about Commons images. If a pattern of imagestalking on Misplaced Pages is apparent and persists, then I suggest the complaint is preferably resolved by direct discussion on user pages sticking to the principle of Assume good faith, or taken to Wikiquette assistance if external opinions might help. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's not remotely resolved. I used his actions at commons to demonstrate the lengths he's going to to harass me. Immediately after opposing Stefan, he started going through every single file I've uploaded here, and then when he ran out of files, he went to commons to continue. My evidence at commons was to show that he was specifically harassing me by nominating my files for deletion (both here and at commons) while other similar images from other users were simply being cleaned up. As further evidence, some of his deletion reasoning is extremely weak. As an example he nominated File:Anyangjerseyscompare.png for deletion with the rationale: Excessive use of non-free images of clothes. Not an article on clothes; fails both WP:FTCG#3 and WP:FTCG#8. (whatever that means, I don't see any numbers on the pages he's linking to). Yet the image is directly referenced in and talked about in a section on the article. In addition, the image was present and checked during the Good Article process. He further nominates File:Changchunfight.jpg with the rationale: Not subject to critical commentary, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image not needed; any free image of the same hockey team would work equally well. Which is as far as I can tell an outright lie. Not only does the image contain a full caption detailing it's significance, the event is also referenced in the main prose as a significant event in the team's history. The bench clearing brawl lead to a league leading number of suspensions which is still the record (and likely will be forever, as it's a very high number). So he claims there is no critical commentary, which there is, and then claims an "image of the hockey team would work" but this image isn't being used to illustrate the hockey team it's being used to illustrate a significant event in their history. It seems he simply has no understanding of what it is he's nominating for deletion and the reasons for doing so. His immediate move to start tagging and nominating images with such spurious and honestly nonsensical reasoning clearly appears to be retaliatory hounding and harassment. I should be able to give my opinion on noticeboard discussions without being subjected to that kind of retaliatory behaviour. Yes, he's trying to play nice and justify his actions now, but they don't really stand up to scrutiny when inspected.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that for the longest time there were only the 2 parties talking shows that someone failed to try to have that exact same discussion prior to coming here for admin action. Discussion is first step. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, WP:RFC/U is thataway. If I was Stefan, I would back far away from any specific users ... far, far away. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I posted to his talk page, when he continued to hammer away, I brought it here. He was already hounding me, I wasn't going to hound him to stop. That's the point of this noticeboard to deal with disruptive users which is how he's acting.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD requiring closure

without contacting a particular admin, this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Intellectsoft was Relisted on 15 March and now requires closure. thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hello. I'm a complete noob here, and your instructions on how to contribute are extremely complicated for someone who is very new to contributing to wikipedia. please don't be harsh on me - we all have the start learning somewhere! i thank you in advance for your help.

the information I added to Comparison of DNS blacklists was legitimate and well formatted. The automated system removed it though. How can I add the information again without the system removing it? I'm afraid if I try again with the same information, the system might ban me or something. Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.145.149 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your addition was removed by an automated bot that thought it was vandalism. I see that someone else has replaced it on your behalf, and it appears that you have also taken this to the help desk. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor placing COI tags on articles and not discussing

Can I please get an administrator's assistance on this? It's not a grave issue, but attempts to reason with the other editor have been unsuccessful. I created this article on 03/20; on 03/23, MikeWazowski added a COI tag on the article diff alleging that I have an outside conflict of interest with the subject (which I do not). I revised the article a little bit but MikeWazowski put the COI tag back on (03/24) and claimed I was "doing nothing but adding promotional content" about the subject diff. I disagree, but he has not responded back to a message I left for him on his talk page, nor has he included any information on the article's talk page. While the article could use more refs, there is little ground to prove that I am "affiliated" with the subject. If this has to do with him not thinking the subject is notable enough for Misplaced Pages, I have no objections with a Nomination For Deletion. thank you. --MrMagix (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• It has been less than 24 hours since you posted on his talk page, and the tone of your post message didn't strike me as trying to start a conversation as much as complain about his actions. Neither of you has used the talk page on the article. You didn't even tell him that you have no conflict with the subject matter on his talk page. I don't see how any admin actions would be beneficial at this stage, as I don't see him doing anything "bad". Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC) (not an admin)

While COI editing is a pet peeve of mine, I'm going to AGF and assume that MrMagix is not related to the subject based on what he said about himself on his userpage. However, the case of User:Steelpantherwiki is not so clear. However, in both cases MikeWazowski should have immediately followed up his tagging with an explanation on the article's talk page. Therefore, I'm going to BOLDly remove the tag from George Schindler. I'll leave it on Steel Panther but MikeWazowski should post to the article's talk page explaining why he added the tag. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

MrMagix's entire edit history at the time I added the tag had been to either create an article about George Schindler, or add him to other articles. That, along with the username, led to the addition of the COI tag, as it seemed likely. As to not replying, sometimes it happens - I was dealing with another user (now blocked) leaving false warnings on my page, and the SteelPanther editor - sometimes, stuff slips through. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would the username be an issue, if someone had the username "MrHeavyMetal" would you suspect he's associated with Metallica? The username tells me that he's interested in magic and magicians. This could just simply be the first magician he elected to write about. Now if his username was GeorgeSchindler or if MrMagix was a known nickname for the subject, then the case would be a little stronger. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

MrMagix only contacted him once (without claiming that there wasn't a COI), and should have been more patient in waiting for a reply before assuming that he was being ignored. At least try to work out problems on a talk page *first*. There is no "wrong doing", even if someone else would have handled it differently, and a look at the contribs clearly shows (right or wrong) why the COI would be suspected. It simply isn't an issue for ANI at this stage. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

There's a backlog at WP:Requests for page protection, going back at least ten hours. Zagalejo^^^ 17:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Death threat from an IP

See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Acid_throwing&curid=1813817&diff=483750805&oldid=483750775 -badmachine 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How the hell are those IPs not blocked anyway? Look at these article histories: , . Breaking 35RR isn't a blockable offence now? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter I. Vardy & Malleus Fatuorum throwing insults my way.

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

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

Hello. On March 23rd I tagged an article for deletion that was created by Peter I. Vardy. My tagging was wrong. I admit that. However, on User_talk:Peter_I._Vardy's talk page, Numerous user's continued to insult and offend me. Including User:Malleus Fatuorum telling me to "fuck off" when I responded to Peter_I._Vardy's message saying he considered to write a "caustic comment" (insult) on my talk page but that he was "beat to it". I also recall a remark on the page calling me an "ignorant American". I am offended by these remarks and am also upset that this behavior was backed by a posse of editors. I claim violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just back away. You fucked up. You got called on it. You should have apologized then ignored the rest of the page. Being told to "fuck off" is not an NPA, although it is uncivil. You did kinda create the situation, then inflamed it a bit ... now you want someone to block someone? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Being told to "fuck off is not a "no personal attack" :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Telling someone to "fuck off" is very uncivil, and seems designed to create drama, as is responding "You fucked up.", while calling someone an "Ignorant American" IS a nationalistic, xenophobic personal attack. I don't see why editors should have to put up with this sort of baiting.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins. Anyone can make a mistake and he did apologise. If you had nothing constructive to offer it would have bee preferable for you to say nothing at all. Your attitude adds further credibility to the accusations that one of the involved parties here has frequently made about Admins. Leaky Caldron 23:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're actually paying attention, I'm actually TRYING to get the OP to recognize how they generated then escalated the concept. I always say that "someone else's incivility my explain your own, but it will never excuse it. Nobody is going to be blocked for calling someone else an "ignorant American" ... you either give them a Twinkle warning, or you back away saying "maybe I deserved that". Again, no blocks will come from it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't want to stand being called an ignorant American. Just because somebody tagged your article wrong? Just because your comments written behind another user's back? THIS WAS A CLEAR INCIVILTY VIOLATION WETHER I SCREWED UP OR NOT. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignorant simply means "unknowing". We don't block for simple incivility. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. You are an ignorant American. And if you're a Harvard student then I'm a monkey's uncle. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to meet your nephew then because I love monkeys. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So we're allowed to call people puerile names and slag them off as long as we think it's deserved? I didn't realise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what "puerile" means? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. If you're not sure, look it up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I know what it means, but obviously you don't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You do? So why ask? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Enough. Malleus, if you want to have a fight in a dictionary, pick the OED. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum has been blocked 13 times for incivility and disruption was recently admonished by ArbCom for "repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct". Clearly, MF has not taken ArbCom's admonishment to heart, has not reformed his behavior and should be banned from Misplaced Pages. Enough is enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Any excuse for a fight, eh? Have you actually checked your facts? The "ignorant American" comment wasn't made by me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Look at Malleus's block log! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to your "fuck off" comment. And you just did it again in this edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of equal or greater concern is the amount of uncivil conduct against the original poster taking place on this thread - mainly not by Malleus but by those who encourage him, such as User:Parrot of Doom and User:BWilkins. Why are people surprised about editors leaving Misplaced Pages if we allow this sort of nastiness, and then censor any attempts to complain about it?Nigel Ish (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly what is incorrect about my statement above. Parrot of Doom 00:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What did Hghyux's nationality have to do with him being ignorant? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(to parrot) The issue with your comment is that is it was uncivil and appears to be insulting the OP - and which is only making the situation worse.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And whoa, time out ... I have not in any way encouraged or been any part of nastiness. Indeed, I am still engaged with the OP attempting to resolve this - as noted, blocks were not happening, so I'm trying to assist. Everyone ... just fricking drop it here - all will be well in the long run (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux's nationality and ignorance were the very things that caused him to incorrectly tag an article for deletion. If you'd bothered to read the original discussion on Peter's talk page, you'd have realised that. Parrot of Doom 00:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

His nationality was part of the reason he incorrectly tagged an article for deletion, is that what you think? So Americans mistag articles on British topics all the time, do they? Must be a regular nightmare for the elite among us. I've read the discussion, thanks, and very unedifying it is too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was, because he was completely ignorant of the notability of a Grade II listed building, as many Americans naturally would be. Parrot of Doom 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with AQFK's comment. I participated in the ArbCom case and had hope that Malleus would have at least learned his taste in language is not acceptable in collegial discussion, but he has used inflammatory language such as 'tw*t', 'f*ck off' as well as ad homenim insults such as 'ignorant American'. Malleus should be banned for a period of one week at the very least. This behavior has no place on here and its enabling by editors such as Parrot of Doom and BWilkins is quite frankly uncalled for and reeks of WP:FANCLUB and WP:GANG. Toa Nidhiki05 00:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you get your facts straight, because Malleus has not called Hghyux an "ignorant American". And if you're looking for a fan club then perhaps you should look a bit more closely at AQFK's previous interactions with Malleus, particularly when it comes to the September 11 attacks article. Parrot of Doom 00:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well well well, why would I need to tell you about the 9/11 page when it turns out that you're also involved in that mire? What was that about fan clubs? Parrot of Doom 00:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards