Misplaced Pages

User:NeilN, as with your friend Skyring alias Pete, I am not wasting any more of my time playing your games any more, and I will not respond any further to your edits, "questions", and baiting. We're done here. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was a splendid example of "silly season" stuff - it used huge amounts of unneeded and irrelevant details, and a strange "timeline" which did not improve the article. As always, sufficient gist is left for the reader, but Misplaced Pages is a poor place for campaign pamphlets, at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

{ec}x many :Admins might also want to drop a word or two to HiLo48 about the repeated personal attacks on Pete. I've no horse in this race, but have just read through the talk page and no matter how frustrated one gets, flinging insults like this, this, this and this is pretty much beyond the pale. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You cited this, and Hilo48's reply there was hardly an insult; all HiLo48 did in the section you cited was to relocate the part I added. Look again at his(?) response - it is very civil, especially given the circumstances. As for what you called an 'insult', I call it as I saw it; lies are false statements knowingly made as statements of fact, and is defamation is the knowing dissemination of false information by person A to lower the opinion of person B in the opinion of another. Skyring repeatedly inserted both into the article and it was removed. I agree that what I wrote there wasn't a very nice way to put it - but it was done with the intent to quickly get administrator attention onto the article quickly, and in that, it succeeded in its aims. Your subsequent citations regarding HiLo48's previous responses were in response to baiting and edit-warring by Skyring. And, que surprize; here is Skyring baiting Hilo48 again, so poor little Pete is hardly an innocent party here. However, given this struck-through comment it's not surprising you're interpreting what's gone on in the way you are. I guess at least Skyring alias Pete or his friends NeilN and DDB will never complain about anything you edit, hey. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your point on that diff, must have selected the wrong one. Baiting aside, HiLo's rising to the bait is hardly the way to deal with things. My political POV is exactly the reason why I avoid editing in political articles. I would be vastly surprised if they could find anything to complain about in anything I write, since I solely focus on copy editing, but if they do my talk page is always open for criticisms and opinions. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like someone to address the behaviour from Pete that got me fired up. For a couple of days he followed an editing pattern of placing a comment on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article in line with his comment with his opinion, before anyone had responded on the Talk page. This behaviour continued despite repeated polite requests to stop. Ruder requests (yes, against Wiki rules) worked. He finally paid attention. I'm proud that I protected the article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, HiLo. Could you provide an example, please? Most of your "ruder" comments came during the time the big football game was on, and I suspect you didn't check previous discussion or follow the links provided at the time, being distracted by other things. --Pete (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I've said my piece here. And I suspect that we follow different football codes anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Baseball, and only very mildly - the last game I watched was the Reds whipping the Mets at Citifield, after a dinner at Mickey Mantles in 2009. But come on, you've raised my name here without the courtesy of informing me about it, do you have anything specific to say? --Pete (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was required to inform you that he mentioned you in this thread, considering you had already commented here and were presumably watching it. Doc talk 11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting fired up is one thing, but verbally abusing another editor is completely unacceptable. If this "affair" brings down the Australian Government, another will take its place. Nothing ever really changes regardless of who we vote for (yes, I'm Australian) and to be honest, Gillard is a joke, but that's neither here nor there. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Edit: Striking inflammatory remark. Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article looks solid to me. What's libelous or defamatory about it? Contrary to the article being POV or agenda laden, it seems like those fighting for it to be altered from a simple report of what is available in the media to a whitewashing have a POV agenda. Obotlig ☣ 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What's libelous or defamatory about it? Obotlig, do you mean before or after Collect expertly ran a broom through the article? Collect removed the nonsense, but the POV pushers are back at it again. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is important. Seriously, can we get an experienced admin onto this. The Craig Thomson or Health Services Union affair is a major and ongoing political controversy in Australia. It's been front page news since 2009, the nation's leading politicians are talking about the subject, and he's been getting all sorts of abuse and possibly death threats. His Twitter account is getting some worrying messages. A lot of working people hate him, after the release of the damning report by Fair Work Australia last month into financial irregularities involving union funds dating back to 2002. The affair has huge political significance, given that the minority government depends on his vote and would fall without it. I've been working on an article about the affair over the past month since the release of the report.
A few days ago a new SPA IP editor showed up and began making edits, strongly partisan edits in favour of the subject. A very distinctive pattern, indicating somebody who knew a lot about the controversy, but preferred to use political blogs rather than mainstream media sources. He was challenged about his identity, but gave an odd and evasive answer, saying he has no political affiliation and is not being paid to edit. As Craig Thomson himself is no longer a member of any political party, i wondered about this, and had a look at his IP address and other stuff.
I take no offence at any of the many personal attacks made against me, above and elsewhere. New editors don't know the rules and usually learn quickly enough, and while Misplaced Pages can be a harsh playground, there is a lot of help around for those who seek it. Could I ask someone to take a closer look at this user, hold his hand, give him some guidance, and maybe get him to feel more at home. I'm concerned about the level of tension and aggression exhibited by this person, and if he is indeed the subject of the "Craig Thomson affair", trying to edit articles concerning him, then he can run into a lot of rocks, as do many BLP subjects doing the same thing. In any case, whoever he is, this editor is a fellow human being and clearly under a lot of stress. --Pete (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem, and the reason for this users stress was the opinionated POV attack content you, User:Skyring had created and are still attempting to recreate and publish using en wikipedia in relation to a living subject of one of our articles - your contributions expose you as a clear conflicted partisan. Youreallycan 07:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've stuck to reliable sources, and refrained from pushing my own opinion. In discussing political matters, there are always people who have a contrary and strongly-held opinion and view the thing as a football match, where they cheer on their saints and take no criticism, while damning the opposing side as demons who can do no good at all. I stand by all my edits on this matter. Regardless of anything else, even Thomson admits that union funds were spent on prostitutes through his credit card number and never repaid. The Fair Work Australia report goes into forensic detail on this, repeated by every media outlet in Australia as a major story the next day. If we are to have an article - and we already have several in various places - dealing with the matter, it is incumbent on Misplaced Pages to present the facts, back them up with sources, and be as fair as we can, with regard to NPOV and BLP. If there are any of my edits which represent original research or personal opinion, please point them out. --Pete (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You, User:Skyring, are a biased partisan attack content creator in this instance - others have also pointed them out. I have also had to revert and NPOV some of them. - You are also a single purpose account in regards to this subject for the last five weeks. Your contributions to this topic have been commented as POV and undue and BLP violating by multiple experienced editors as you are well aware - your content addition has been removed as violating and undue in regards to Misplaced Pages policy - and so on and so on - Youreallycan 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow. There must be lots of offending diffs with my name on, then. Perhaps you could be more specific, perhaps list three of the ones you really hate? --Pete (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You will probably never recognise it, but quite possibly most of your edits are unacceptable. I have debated several with you (when you paused long enough for that to happen), and you never seemed to understand. I've encountered this before on Misplaced Pages, an editor who simply cannot comprehend what they're doing wrong. For the sake of the encyclopaedia, they usually still end up being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but all I'm seeing is opinion and no details. This is Misplaced Pages and we don't lose diffs. Pick three you say are bad and show how they violate wikipolicy. Please. --Pete (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's gaming. You know it's more complicated than that. The behaviour I first called you on (and subsequently many more times), was seeming to initiate discussion on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article before anyone had even responded. WP:Consensus means nothing to you, despite later writing an essay on how important it is. You did it many times. You really don't care what others think. (Unless they're barracking for you.) Such bad faith editing and hypocrisy is very confrontational and never helpful to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't provide anything to support your claims - which I reject - then you put yourself in an awkward position, where the only recourse is to be disruptive. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, provide diffs please. If you can't provide evidence of your claims, this will be closed as no action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NO! PLEASE READ MY POST JUST ABOVE AGAIN! (Although you give the distinct impression that you haven't read it once yet.) Diffs alone won't show you the problem with Pete/Skyring's behaviour. It's a serious problem, but you have to look at the timing pattern between Talk page posts and article updates to see it. This editor uses a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time. Diffs form one page won't show you that. If You close this just because simple Diffs won't show the problem, you're not doing an effective job. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's something like an aura, maybe? It don't show in diffs, it's something that you just feels in your water and you knows. The hairs on the back of your neck all rise up together and a wolf howls in the lonesome distance... --Pete (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A "where wolf", maybe? Doc talk 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing so sophisticated; just a plain rabid mongrel. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, if "diffs from one page won't show you that", then...show diffs from multiple pages. If you can't provide diffs of your accusations, then we have to assume that the refusal to provide evidence means that there is no evidence. It's not the admins' job to go digging - it's your job to back up your accusations with actionable evidence, which is something you have, so far, singularly failed to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you assume "that there is no evidence", it would be a stupid and very incorrect assumption. I have a life outside Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not HiLo48 (or Craig Thomson for that matter!) but now I know how, I'll do that if he doesn't. Give me a couple of hours. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Thomson_affair is a bit of a mess with strong "suggestions" of COI and socking being made which, IMO, do not belong in such a discussion. Might someone examine the excess verbiage? Collect (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across my name up there in the middle of that wall (just barely made the top 10! ), and thought I'd add a little clarity to the section that refers to me. My only contact with the IP was when he brought an extremely vague question to RSN, a template was posted by another editor asking for more info, and after some time he said something to the effect of "I see no one disagrees with me here", to which my response was this explaining that that would be an incorrect assumption, and tried to provide a little clarity on the issue he was having at RSN. That's pretty much it (he never responded)... *shrug*. I have now archived that section on RSN as I don't see any value in going down that road now that larger issues with that article appear to be in the forefront. -- Despayre   16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

....he brought an extremely vague question to RSN ...' I don't agree; after this happened my questions basically boiled down to

1. Can my.talk.com.au be used to source the JPG, since it is a Fairfax-owned and operated site; the JPG was used in a letter to the police; and the JPG was created by Fairfax in the first place; and

2. Can "Independent Australia" be considered as a 'reliable source'?

Those questions aren't rocket science. There wasn't any meaningful response, so I went back to state that, as there were no objections, I'd re-insert the material deleted. It wasn't until after I stated the foregoing that anyone meaningful responded.

After I'd experienced a certain recalcitrant who was willfully playing stupid while others and myself were trying to put NPOV balance in the article, it appeared to me as though I was encountering the same on RSN. I apologise if my perception of your response is mistaken, but the impression I got then was that you were playing the same sort of games. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't use political blogs as reliable sources. Not when the affair is front page news in every metropolitan daily and leading the evening news bulletins. We have many excellent sources to use on this, and they have a wide coverage. If one has to resort to a site run by one or two guys pushing their own partisan views - and the "Independent Australia" blog is about as balanced as the North Korea Daily Buggle - then one might ask, why are the big broadsheet papers not carrying the same fascinating and alarming stories? It's not just one particular outlet you scorn as a source, it's every daily newspaper in Australia! You also wanted to use an image that had been obviously tampered with and had no information as to provenance. I'm happy, more than happy, that you are participating in the Misplaced Pages project, and that you bring your own views and perspective, but you have to play by the rules. They aren't arbitrary policies and guidelines laid down from on high, they are procedures we have all developed together, often wrangled over and disputed, but they work, and given the amazing variety of people contributing, that is a miraculous and inspiring achievent. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RS/N has a well established and specific format for questions. Despite the page and edit window indicating this format to you, you failed to specify the required information. Despite requests for you to specify the required information, you failed to do so. Reconsider the collegiality of your editing in relation to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. RSN required 3 things to be identified: (1) the source(s) (they were); (2) the article (which was); (3) the content (which also was, pertaining to the JPG). There was no response until after I stated that "since there were no objections..."; nor was there any request to clarify my questions prior to me posting that. If someone had asked me "what is / clarify your question" before I made the "since there's no response" post, I never would have made the latter. Having never seen the RSN before, let alone used it, I had no experience or knowledge on how to ask; I was referred there and was trying to do the right thing in order to improve the article. Although I appreciate the need for processes, it seemed to me to be a lot of hoop-jumping just to get a very simple yes or no answer to two (what seemed to me to be simple) questions. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't indicate a source or proposed edit here, "2. With regards to 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/): if this can be considered by Misplaced Pages as a reliable source, I intend to link to certain documents from this source in the Craig Thomson affair. I am reluctant however to reference some articles from the site itself, as some articles are clearly opinion pieces and are thus not the neutral reportage of news. Question: can IA be considered as a reliable source?"

You don't indicate a source or claim supported here, "1. With regards to mytalk.com.au: That said, I will restore the JPG in order to provide a balance to the article which it currently lacks."

Author, date, title, publisher. It isn't that hard. Stating a claim to be supported. It isn't that hard. Next time you enter a forum you're unfamiliar with, do bother to determine the locals customs because your current attitude is fundamentally non-collegial. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I begin to see what you're getting at, however the JPG at issue was within this PDF file (http://media.mytalk.com.au/2ue/audio/Brandisletter.pdf) which I'd previously linked to, as "Annexure A". I take your point though; I should have linked to the JPG itself. With regards to using IA as a source, the question I was asking was along the lines of if it was considered to be as (a) blog or personal website, or (b) as a publisher in the same way that crikey.com.au or Washingtonpost.com are considered to be internet news publishers. Or, put another way: if I wanted to link to news articles from The Washington Post website and asked you, "would that site be considered to be a reliable source?" without nominating any particular article on the site, you would most likely reply in the affirmative. I was asking the same question with regards to IA. If the site in general could not be considered to be a RS - ie it's considered as a blog or personal website - then there would be no point in specifying particular articles from it or propose edits using that source as a reference. I don't know how I can make these points any clearer or phrase the issue any other way. With regards to your comments about working in a cooperative relationship with reasonable people, I am not opposed to that and in fact that is what I am trying to achieve. The article left in the state it was at that time was a defamatory attack article, and I was trying to restore some balance to it. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Entire RSN exchange is here, any reviewing editors may want to note that the exchange is chonologically dis-ordered as there were several conversations going on at once in there. I think it speaks for itself. If others have more questions somehow, please leave me a note on my talk page. -- Despayre   03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• From the onset, I believed that edits were being done to the Thomson articles in less than good faith and/or otherwise in violation of policy, and that there has been a conflict of interest at work in negatively slanting the POV of the article for the advantage of vested political interests,

After examining all of the above in detail (and other URLs which I have not mentioned above), it appears to me as though you have a clear WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issues at work here from a player who knows how to game the system. There is also an established history of similar behavior to that complained of now - why bother keeping a history if you're not going to learn by it. I note also that topic bans have been placed on editors before and that ought to be considered in this instance, but your own views may differ. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the material immediately above except to say that I hereby withdraw all contention that the IP editor is the biographical subject of the articles on which he is working. His research skills are way better! On that note, he or she should be encouraged to stick around and contribute in a positive manner. We need this passion. --Pete (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not so sure about that. I suspect that passion may sometimes get in the way of objective editing, for more than one player on this topic ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. You are very good to say so. Admitting a problem is the first step to overcoming it. Now, do you have any sober evidence to back up the emotionally intense claims made above? --Pete (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you even realise that I was talking about you (among others) in that post? There is masses of evidence, but your machine gun approach to editing makes it very hard to isolate for policemen who want it all present in point form on the back of an envelope. (Do you have any idea how many edits you have made to Craig Thomson related articles and Talk pages over the past two weeks?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered. Why not, if my edits are so outrageous, just pick three of the absolutely worstest? Admins are (hopefully) busy and committed dedicated people, and when they request your guidance, why not direct them exactly where you want them to go? --Pete (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered." this kind of language is not needed on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Skyring (Pete) topic ban

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

• Its not difficult for an administrator to have a historic read of - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Skyring and see the outcome, - banned for a year as a result of wiki stalking and violating edits in regards to governance of Australia and see the disruption being caused here and see whats going on. - his sockpuppet page Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Skyring although appears on first investigation historic is quite interesting reading also - As a user that has been previously banned for a year for disruption in the governance of Australia topic area and has returned to it and has created a policy violating WP:NPOV article, resulting in a WP:BLP violating and WP:UNDUE content and plenty of disruption. I suggest User:Skyring be topic banned from all articles and their talkpages and content additions or removals relating to the governance of Australia. Youreallycan 05:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as per above - Youreallycan 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for ongoing active disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages, given a history of disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT diff IDHT diff Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT PRIMARY diff Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 24th contribution to a AfD discussion, badgering Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) badgering Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is one of those more challenging problems. Skyring (Pete) is a user obsessed with Australian political dramas. He lives in the national capital, Canberra. That's far more significant than an American living in Washington DC. A high proportion of Canberra's citizens are political junkies. The difficulty is that I don't think he's aware of what's unacceptable about his approach to editing, no matter what others tell him. This makes it very difficult to discuss it with him. It's also worth noting that not discussing, while dramatically changing articles, is a standard approach of his. And I still object to the demand above to provide diffs. In this case it's like picking machine gun bullets, and their cases, scattered over several farm paddocks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of focus. Look closer at my contribution history. Most of my edits are on talk pages, the Australian political articles numbering maybe a dozen out of many hundreds on which I've contributed over the past year, most often making tiny changes, usually labelled as minor. I've put a lot of effort into Ugandan notables, a BBC radio presenter, a list of things named after the Queen, British merchant ships... It's all there, for anyone to see. I'm certainly interested in Commonwealth political drama, but hardly obsessed, and certainly not to the extent that my contributions here reflect any one focus. If there's any obsession, it's date formats. I like to organise and arrange things in their proper order, and I like to see errors identified and corrected. Misplaced Pages is a sweet playground for nerds like me. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am truly reluctant to respond at this location nowhere near the end of the thread, because it will further perpetuate the massively multi-threaded, scatter gun result of your efforts (which I again emphasise makes the simple listing of Diffs fairly pointless when discussing the real problem here) but my immediate thoughts were, if so many of your article changes elsewhere have been tiny and minor, the massive changes you have attempted to make to Craig Thomson related articles surely demonstrate some sort of obsession with the man, or what his elimination from the scene will do for perhaps your preferred direction for federal politics. (I'm still trying to guess at the real motivation for your huge interest in Thomson's world.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created an article on the notable topic when Fair Work Australia presented its report and thus provided a solid source. Apart from linking the Craig Thomson and Gillard Government articles to the new article, I didn't touch any other "Craig Thomson-related articles", let alone make massive changes. The article needed to be written, I begged for coöperation on the talk page, the BLP problems were raised at the BLP Noticeboard and

I'm a teacher. It's part of my job (and, I might say, a professional skill I possess) to try to work out the real reasons the behaviour of some people is a long way from the norm. It's not a personal attack. It's an attempt to better understand your true motivation so that I can work better with you. As for facts, despite your massive denials, you HAVE tried to make big and significant changes to Craig Thomson related articles. That you do this while claiming that most of your edits elsewhere are minor is a real puzzle. I'm still trying to figure you out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created Craig Thomson affair from scratch. That's a significant change, I guess. Kindly provide diffs that show I have made "massive" or "big and substantial" changes to any other Craig Thomson-related article, as per your repeated claims above. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nup. Not playing that game with you. Perhaps a better indicator would be a simple count of the total number of edits you have made to Thomson related articles and talk pages. That includes pages like this one. Have you any idea how many that would be? I don't, but it sure ain't small. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I like to think that I've learnt from my experience, years in the past. If my behaviour is a problem, where is the evidence? Where are the diffs? (ETA) And would it be too much trouble to ask that the wikipolicies I'm supposed to have breached be mentioned? Some of the diffs provided aren't mine, and those that are mine look okay to me. If the precise breaches could be pointed out, it will help whatever admins step up to work out if there has been any violation of wikipolicy. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• They are littered in the talkpage discussion and the content you created at the Craig Thomson affair - diff - see the removal of content you didn't like because it didn't attack Thompson and its removal by a policy experienced editor User:Collect and your replacement and the revert of your removal by an administrator User:Qwyrxian - there are so many similar situations it seems unnecessary to post more. Youreallycan 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the material because the source didn't support the statement. I began a discussion on the wording here where I explain why and suggest an alternate wording which is pretty much a direct quote from the source. The discussion becomes pretty choppy (as noted above) because the IP editor won't follow WP:INDENT guidelines for talk page procedure and takes it as a personal attack when indents are altered or comments moved to their correct place. But that's by the by. The statement in the article remains unsupported by the source and I'd like to fix it. As, I trust, would any editor reading both and spotting the error. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You had to be reverted twice, once by an experience policy compliant user and after you replaced the content by an administrator - Youreallycan 06:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement in our article remains unsupported by the source. I pointed out the problem and suggested a wording that kept the intent of the original statement but got the details correct. The discussion remains open and I invite you to comment there. --Pete (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Per request from The Bushranger (above in previous section), I hope this may assist to show the points which HiLo48 made there:

Skyring's original edits contained the section heading "Attempts to blame others"; that was a libelous innuendo removed by me (Revision as of 01:12, 7 June 2012 by me (article)).

With regards to points which may begin to illustrate HiLo48's point as originally posted (ie of "...us a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time.." please note the following:

1. . Hilo48 comments regarding Bolt (Revision as of 01:56, 8 June 2012 by Hilo48 (talk page));
2. . Skyring restores the libelous innuendo here (Revision as of 01:59, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article));

3. . then Skyring comes back to the talk page (Revision as of 02:05, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (talk));

4. . and then Skyring puts more garbage back into the article (Revision as of 02:08, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article).

5. . Later, Skyring made a dishonest edit summary in the opinion of Hilo48 (with which I agree); interestingly, Hilo48 restored a Fairfax opinion piece which Skyring originally wanted to use to further defame the article's subject, but Skyring didn't like the portrayal of that article in the NPOV version and so he then ripped it out.

6. . If there are any doubts remaining that Skyring intends this article to be an attack page and a coatrack, the following edits may be indicative pointers as to the agenda being pursued: a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, which is a dishonest edit summary given the source material.

There's other matters worthy of mention, for example lying about me outing an editor with a COI when that user had clearly and previously identified himself long ago on WP, lying about me when stating the need for page protection, and removing sourced material after the article page was protected. Skyring has also been baiting me edit-warring again here and here, although I admit that I screwed up when using the (undo) function and accidentally removing a comment he'd made in the interim. He's still bating me by moving my responses around and right here, he's at it again with another act of pure pedantry. I hope the point has been made that Skyring's behavior warrants attention again, and leave the matter in your hands. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: added the wrong diffs; struck-though and amended.

• - @User:Skyring - As for your NPOV content creations that resulted imo in undue violations that created BLP violating content, you created this content - and I WP:NPOV'ed it as per the citation you used, to this - Please see the difference - Youreallycan 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, thanks. Could you provide the diff, please? And what is the precise problem? Remember, you're asking admins to examine the evidence. They aren't mind readers. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um - Actually I am not asking admins anything - I am asking the community/experienced users (some of them may well be admins) to look at your history and your disruptive content creations and talkpage contributions and to support topic banning you as a simple resolution to this disruption and your content violations.- Youreallycan 06:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In these particular circumstances—where political matters in Australia are highly unstable—this does not seem appropriate. There seem to be more problems with the edits of the IP who does not appear to understand wikipedia policy properly (looking at the report on WP:RSN amongst other things). The IP also posted links to messages on an external blog and to another external message from 2005 posted by David Gerard, seven years ago. That kind of editing seems disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has never made a single content addition; never mind a policy violating one and has never been banned by arbitration from the project for similar related policy violations in the same topic area like User:Skyring has - Youreallycan 07:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has extensively edited Craig Thomson affair and its talk page. The IP has also suggested using dubious sources that fail WP:RS. Linking to external blogs and outdated messageboards was also not particularly helpful. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference in attempting to NPOV content and creating clear policy violating additions in regards to living people - I suggest if you support action about the IP that you open a separate thread about the user , this thread is an attempt to address and resolve the issuers created by User:Skyring -If you support User:Skyring;s contributions please make that clear. Youreallycan 07:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The thread about the IP user is on this page, above, and has been open for several days. This discussion is actually a subthread of that one. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Youreallycan. I am commenting on the IP, whose edits seem to be problematic. I don't personally know how any particularly objective article could be written on this particular political brouhaha, before matters are resolved (e.g. in a year's time). If Skyring had been reported or blocked for edit-warring since 2008, perhaps you might have a point. But that is not the case. A far more convincing case of disruption over a prolonged period would have to be presented to justify a topic ban on such a wide range of articles. Here only two articles are being discussed, the subject of the original report, whom I believe some newspapers refer to as a "disgraced politician". Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Australian head of state dispute, Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 3, Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government, and Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government for another Australia-related discussion, where unfortunately informal mediation only led to rehashing the same discussion points again. isaacl (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Pete appears to be unaware that WP:BLP is a very strong policy, and that his desire to use articles as some sort of weapon to make sure people know just how bad any "Satan" is, is not how Misplaced Pages operates. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that aligns with my view that Pete isn't really deliberately breaking the rules. He truly believes that he's editing within the rules, unless simple diffs can show otherwise, as he and his fans here frequently demand. But he DOES break the rules on NPOV and, when one looks at the sum of his Talk page and article updates in sequence, is very disruptive and confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given my participation and input into the recent Jim Hawkins affair, I reject the view that I'm unaware of BLP restrictions. Again, I ask for diffs that demonstrate the allegation made. This matter was raised at WP:BLPN, examined and rejected with no violation found. (See also this earlier mention, where an IP editor threatened legal action if we inserted sourced material.)

Collect, as you labelled the Craig Thomson affair, "classic silly season stuff", when in fact it's been ongoing for three years of front page news with intense public interest in Australia, and the ongoing notability is that it could cause a fall of government in the tightly-balanced parliament where Thomson has been removed from the governing party and now sometimes votes with the opposition, could I ask if you've read through some of the sources that demonstrate that this is not some passing scandal. It may sound like sleazy mud-slinging, but like the Profumo affair, it's been prostitutes in the headlines since day one. Just google "Craig Thomson" to see what I mean. There are reliable sources for all of my edits, and a government body has produced a report listing and detailing 150 findings made against Thomson. It took three years to gather the material, and over a thousand pages to put the case. Thomson was given the opportunity to refute the report in Parliament - in a speech which was carried live throughout Australia and put the Twitter hashtag #thomson into global number one trend for a time - but brought no evidence to counter the claims against him. His position was that he had been somehow set up by his enemies, who had gained control over his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone, hotel room phone and forged his signature. Repeatedly without his knowledge over several years while he continued to approve the credit card bills, sometimes for thousands of dollars at a time. All of this is supported by reliable sources from the leading Australian news agencies and the subject of keen public interest. This isn't a case of Misplaced Pages smearing a person out of all balance - what I produced was mild compared to the mainstream reports. Thomson sued the first publisher to break the story for defamation, but dropped the case two years later before it could be heard, and paid $240 000 in settlement. That newspaper - and every other within Australia - continues to publish the allegations against him and no apology or retraction was ever made. I invite you and others to examine our coverage at Gillard Government#Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, which has the same sourced story, occasioning no controversy on the discussion stage, and no input from me except to provide a link to the Craig Thomson affair main story. I invite review and criticism of my actions in writing an article on a notable matter, but I do ask that the sources be read, and my edits examined before making a hasty judgement. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for so spendidly showing the problem. It is, in fact, the fact that you edit with a specific intent which is so wondrously limned that this proposal has been made by others. The policy of WP:BLP requires articles to be conservatively written, which is not what your edits seem to have been intended to follow. Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Coffee, actually, in a 20oz "Americaware" mug I bought last year just outside St Louis at the Route 66 State Park. I'm onto my second Aeropress coffee maker, which I heartily recommend to all. Big mug of sweet coffee - makes working here a pleasure! Just out of curiosity, just what do you see as my "specific intent"? I would describe it as "summarising a major Australian political scandal for the benefit of Misplaced Pages's readers", and I invite you to start at the top of the Talk:Craig Thomson affair page for what is virtually a blog of my stated specific intentions and read on down. I copied across the relevant material from the Craig Thomson article and set to work on expanding it using the just-released 1 100 page Fair Work Australia report as an authoritative source. Three years in the making and a wealth of forensic detail. I urge you to at least thumb through it. But you have a different perception of my "specific intent", apparently. Do you have any diffs to illustrate your opinion? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In a period of just over an hour there, Pete made 17 separate edits to this page to create that content above. He has digressed all over the place, delving right into the nitty gritty of detailed content for the Craig Thomson affair article. He has completely missed the point of THIS discussion, clearly demonstrating his total obsession with Craig Thomson, and an inability to look more broadly at the issues under discussion HERE. A total lack of perspective. In the broader Misplaced Pages context, this editor simply does not know what he is doing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I make three points:

1. I have asked for diffs to be provided, demonstrating the claimed non-compliance with wikipolicy. After a day of discussion the evidence provided has been scanty, but I invite inspection by any admin. I stand by my edits.
2. This is a subthread of an ANI request launched against a recently-arrived SPA:IP editor. I invite examinations of the contributions of that editor, which are best described as relentlessly abusive against myself and any other editor opposing his or her view. I also note the behaviour of other users involved in the article referenced by the first sub-thread. User:HiLo48's contributions are also disruptive, containing frequent personal attacks. User:Collect, as outlined above, has in my opinion made a serious error, removing most of the material from Craig Thomson affair, which had already been advised and dismissed at WP:BLPN, especially the material contributed by other diverse editors which had been copied across from Craig Thomson and formed the starting material of the new article. If the material had survived two notifications on WP:BLPN and been worked over by many other editors, where is the BLP violation? Massive removal of reliably sourced material during collaborative editing is disruptive in the extreme. Any disruption to editing has been the product of more editors than one, I suggest.
3. It has been mentioned above that I was banned for a year. Yes, I was. I did not enjoy the experience, but I learnt from it, and my edits over the past few years have been productive, in accordance with wikipolicy, and polite and coöperative despite serious provocation.

I ask that any admin involving themselves here look at all the material. If this needs to be referred to ArbCom, I have no objection to my edits being scrutinised in a more formal manner. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. ALL the material. Especially Pete/Skyring's editing style, which is confrontational rather than consensus seeking, impossible to explain using standard Diffs, and involves a rapid fire, scattergun approach. And, you describe some editors as opposing your view. My opposition has nothing to do with what I think of Craig Thomson. It an opposition to his unhealthy trial by media and politicians, and now by Misplaced Pages, handled here with an unseemly haste. It's an opposition to keeping up with every scandalous tidbit obviously involved media and politicians release on a day to day basis. Misplaced Pages doesn't need this indecent haste. We could write a much better article in fifteen months time, when all the emotion and political ambition has gone. Maybe that's what we should be aiming for. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Skyring has a long history of treating Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for his political views, and making edits which are obviously motivated by his political leanings. Many editors (including myself) have asked him to stop this, but without success. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This can be sorted out by discussion. So little evidence is supplied here that a topic ban is not needed. Living in Canberra does not mean a propensity to be politically biased. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to very firmly disagree with you there. Discussion with Pete/Skyring is pointless. Rational discussion is almost impossible. He does not comprehend the problems his editing style creates here. He ignores what others say. So how can it be sorted out by discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been lots of discussion including Skyring, and I'm sorry to say that it generally makes things worse. Skyring has an unfortunate tendency to use article talk pages as a forum to discuss his political views rather than to propose concrete improvements to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you provide some diffs, please? --Pete (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's another bloody annoying habit of his. One presents a well explained, comprehensive explanation of the problem, then Pete/Skyring (and some of our Admins who want this to be simple) just ask for Diffs. As I've also explained many times, Diffs on their own will never tell the whole story here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me put it another way. Should this matter go to ArbCom, they'll be wanting evidence, not personal attacks or gripes. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples from Talk:Kevin Rudd: , , , , , , , . The common thread in most of these posts is that you make a vague suggestion about changing the article as part of a post which is mainly about your personal views on Rudd. There are lots more posts from you like this in the talk page's history, and it adds up to POV pushing and an attempt to include negative material in a BLP on the grounds that you don't like the guy. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite! It was his deputy Julia Gillard didn't like Rudd, moved against him and became Prime Minister without benefit of any ballot or election. For our readers looking at the article painting Kevin Rudd in a saintly glow, there was no explanation. In the eyes of Misplaced Pages, the guy was a hero! NPOV doesn't mean merely reprinting every media release out of someone's office. --Pete (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no need for an election for Gillard to replace Rudd. What happened was legal, and completely ethical in the Westminster system. The Libs have used the same process themselves. That you post this line pushed by the Liberal Party's tame shock jocks shows that either you are ignorant, are deliberately pushing a POV yourself, or are easily manipulated by others pushing a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I have used the word election there because Pete/Skyring used that word in the previous post. He has now changed his post to say ballot instead, perhaps because of my post. He hasn't explained, or apologised. I won't change my wording. It made sense before Pete/Skyring again abused and confused the discussion process. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Diff here shows the change was made well after HiLo48's response.One21dot216dot (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. See my apology below. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for any misunderstanding. By using the word "election", I meant to highlight that Gillard became Prime Minister without either the processes of a general election or an internal party ballot, both of them perfectly normal. She did, however, topple Rudd, and she said that "Rudd's government had lost its way" as her explanation for action. Our article did not provide any such reason, despite heavy media criticism since the Copenhagen thing. Barack Obama is supposed to have rung Rudd after news reached the White House and asked if there had been a coup! --Pete (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider Holt, Gorton, and McMahon and the lack of howls of illegitimacy about them. One21dot216dot (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Any primary investigation of your talkpage contributions supports the Admins comment - such as diff, diff - the second one is a clear verification of the Admins comment - Youreallycan 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these diffs may may also assist to illustrate the points more clearly which Youreallycan and Hilo48 have already clearly made wrt to the opposing admin, that discussion is not going to solve this issue. Skyring has an agenda at work; these diffs all relate to a simple statement which 3 different editors all agree is supported by the reliably-sourced reference: talkpage a; talkpage b; and talkpage c. The result on the article has been article a; article b; article c; article d; article e; and last I saw it, article f. People try to work with Skyring to achieve consensus but it's not happening because it conflicts with his POV and let the facts be damned. It seems to me as though Skyring wants to be left at liberty to bias the article the way he wants. Circular discussion seem to be one of the methods he uses to remove any balance and annoy other editors with this behavior so that they either inappropriately blow a gasket in frustration (as I must confess I have) or give up on the mess and walk away (as I nearly did). One21dot216dot (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You only provided one diff of mine, which looks perfectly reasonable. Your own contributions on that page don't show you in a good light, but it's tough sometimes being a raw editor, and I forgive you. You're learning fast. For the record, if anybody here wants to have a go at getting the statement discussed on the page to agree with the source, feel free. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's not all about just your posts. It about how your posts relate (or don't relate, as is more frequently the case) to what others say. So showing what others have said is important in showing your inability to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Still, I believe the diffs I showed above illustrate the point, and using the arrows back and forth can illustrate it further. Anyway, this appears to me to be a dishonest edit summary from our friend per WP:ME as the change seems a bit more than minor and involved more than an indent. But maybe I am being over-sensitive here given the history. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to my knowledge never directly interacted with this editor, but came across some of his edits at the Julia Gillard talk page when it was nominated at WP:GAN last year. I remember reading through the threads here and here and thinking that, although exceedingly polite, Skyrings comments were aimed more at expressing his personal opinion on the Government than any real meaningful improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the links - for which thanks - my comments there go to the question of balance in Australian politics articles. The opinions I expressed are those of established political commentators using reliable sources. The bad news for Gillard] keeps rolling in, but our article does not reflect the reality. How can our readers rely on Misplaced Pages when our political coverage is tilted? Looking at comparable USA articles, for example Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, they read more like balanced biographies than the choppy and incomplete pieces on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott which are the Australian counterparts. Misplaced Pages is best served by input by editors from all views, and seeking to exclude those with whom one disagrees through topic ban proposals is poor practice indeed. If the diffs supplied showed a pattern of abuse, of acting against consensus, of pushing views unsupported by reliable sources, then maybe. But where is it? Those most strident in their criticism of me are hardly shining examples of model wikihaviour and might look to their own hearts before stabbing mine. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, this post is a good example of the problems with the talk page posts you make in regards to these article. You tend to start posts with commentary on your views about recent political developments and then complain about articles not being up to scratch without offering concrete amendments to the text (with supporting reliable sources) for how to fix this. The political commentary turns people off right away, and the complaints without solutions are unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not my singular views, but those of the mainstream sources I quote, and have sprinkled liberally through discussion above. I'm sorry if some editors are upset at my highlighting the gap between our article and the reality, but as noted, political discussion attracts partisan editing behaviour, and Australian political articles are notorious for incivility and personal attacks, as may be seen in other comments in this set of threads. I'd like to improve the standard of our articles and discussion, and the first step in improvement is identifying the problem and accepting a need for change. What you are saying above is that I supply reliable sources, but not the content? --Pete (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've done it again! It would be great if you could provide reliable sources and NPOV wording. However, starting things off with discussions of your political views and vague allusions to significant problems with articles is exactly the wrong way to go about this. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing baiting and harassment from User:Skyring (Pete)

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

This user persists in moving my responses around to annoy and provoke, latest example of this is here; more available on request. He persists in this behavior after being asked to stop on several occasions. I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors. One21dot216dot (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your problem right there! More experienced editors know where to place and indent their comments correctly. For example here, where I respond directly to HiLo. Your subsequent response should have been placed below mine. You've been told about this a couple of times, at least once by me. When I move my contribution back to its original position, that's not intended as a personal insult, it's just the regular practice. My apologies if any offence was taken - none was intended! --Pete (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• He's done it again well after being asked to stop on numerous previous occasions. No one else except Skyring has had any issues with my indenting. Can an admin please respond to this? One21dot216dot (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: To support my comment of "I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors," please that Skyring didn't dare move HiLo48's comments around when the chronological order of edits was post a / post b / post c, but the order displayed is (a) / (c) / (b), as post (c) was HiLo48's response to The Bushranger - in other words, the threading follows a logical pattern. The same applies to the matters complained of. One21dot216dot (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One21dot216dot (previously the IP) seems to be trying to create drama here unnecessarily. In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary. Yet One21dot216dot not only interpets it otherwise but opens a whole new subthread. What possible administrative action does he expect? Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci writes, "In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary." There's more to it than that, so I will try and explain the issue more clearly. Please carefully examine the difference here between lines 371 (left diff) /372 (right diff) and lines 384 (left) / 387 (right); Skyring is moving not only his own contribution, he's also moving mine. Note how the diff as shown there omits 38 intermediate revisions by 11 users, but when the differences are displayed in the way I set the diffs up to appear, it clearly illustrates the point - that is, he is disruptively editing, and he's doing it intentionally. Why? Maybe in the hope that I'll revert his edits and so I'll run afoul of the 3-revert rule. Or he's doing it because I won't otherwise respond to him. Yes, I opened a new subthread; should I have started a completely new case, considering all of these matters are inter-related? I do not know; I am learning. Ditto insofar as what kind of administrative action can be taken. Considering Skyring has created a defamatory attack page to supplement kooky blog pages while having a clear conflict of interest, and has had numerous problems with other editors - some now, some long before I began editing, do you think some form of administrative action is required? As for your other comments, thank you for showing me another amazing display of WP:AGF. One21dot216dot (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) (PS - there was an edit conflict the first time I tried sending this.

The last change, however, did forget that the highest level of indent should not be moved to a position where the material to which it was a response is apparently changed - which is what Pete did. You need to count the colons, Mathsci! One's edit had more colons that did Pete's, so the move made it look like one response was to Pete's post and not to HiLo's post. Meanwhile. I think you should look at Pete's overal history with regard to Australian politics here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. He's still at it on the CTA talk page. I replied to you here, and it was moved again here. He is deliberately editing disruptively and I believe administrative intervention is now required to make him stop. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Collect is here, made (going by the page history) two and a half days before Onedot's post (which has my support, as noted there.) It is standard practice for second or subsequent responses to a comment to be placed below existing responses. Does this sort of stuff really need to be on AN/I? --Pete (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, I think I and several others have asked you this before, but would you please stop with personal attacks? I get that you might not see what you just posted as one, but plenty of people would see your offhand pithy sarcasm as a personal attack. Even if it's not, it does not help foster a collegial atmosphere, so reign it in, please. - Jorgath (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed seeing this personal attack completely - it was changed while I added a warning template to Skyring's Talk Page. Please note that Skyring reverted me again after the Level 3 template was added asking for this to stop]. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the part I was objecting to. In response to your edit summary, I do realize that you were commenting on behavior, not on the editor, but there are ways to do that more politely, as you did in your fixed version. - Jorgath (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. It's just that the neighbour's cat strolled past a few moments earlier, and my thoughts followed it! --Pete (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• • The disruptive behavior from Skyring continues.

(a) He has opened a frivolous matter at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which was closed as a waste of time.

(b) He has been cited for badgering other editors in relation to the AfD discussion of his WP:COATRACK attack page.

(c) Now he has opened another sub-thread here to make more frivolous, outrageous and false allegations. Where is Skyring mentioned at all in this edit? Likewise this edit, which was a response to Doc9871 who posted a video clip about werewolves from "Young Frankenstein" - which is clearly different from Skyring's own personal attack: "... Onedot's behaviour reminds me of my terrier dog, who spends a lot of her day watching through the window in case the neighbour's cat should saunter past, at which point she begins yapping in gleeful indignation.".

(d) Skyring points to my edit here and misrepresents it as "label as a member of an "extreme right wing racist hate group"...." This allegation is false; I have not labeled Skyring as any such thing, nor have I engaged in "...WP:OUTING behavior..." as alleged. While I have linked to "...external sources such as blogs and mail correspondence", these were all publicly available, and the blog I cited in the URL clearly admitted that the blogger was (quote) "...writing the "Craig Thomson Affair" on Misplaced Pages" (unquote) while further defaming the person who is the subject of the article. I posted to the URL to it since that blog showed clear evidence of WP:COATRACK behavior.

(e) It should also be noted that Skyring and his chum from the Liberal Party of Australia have accused me of being Craig Thomson on numerous occasions, of sock-puppetry, of having a partisan interest in the article, of "whitewashing" the living person being defamed, and of other nefarious and malicious activities. If a more specific statement is wanted as to who and what I am not, please respond. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Onedot appears to have been editing this page in an aggressive and disruptive way. Skyring can blank or modify his own edits, but Onedot could themselves be blocked if they insist on changing those edits. I have already said that Onedot's linking to external sites was problematic, because it is outside wikipedia policy. His continuation to do so, despite warnings, is not a good sign. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As a new editor, Onedot may not be aware of wikilawyering: ignoring the spirit of a rule or guideline in favour of pettifoggery. I quote from the nutshell, Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Misplaced Pages community. --Pete (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci appears to have be supporting Skyring's editing this page in an aggressive and disruptive way. Skyring has blanked and modify his own edits, but Mathsci does not appear to want Skyring blocked after Skyring insists on making disruptive edits. I have already said that linking to the external sites indicated clear problems with a conflict of interest and using the "Craig Thomson affair" attack page as a coatrack because all of it is outside wikipedia policy. His continuation of supporting Skyring's disruption, despite the evidence, is not a good sign. Skyring and his friend from the Liberal Party persisted in stating that I had a conflict of interest and was, in fact, Craig Thomson; this is untrue. I shall also now state categorically, for the record, that:

(i) I have never been a member of any political party, let alone a State Branch President of one;

(ii) I have never violated any position of trust in relation to my employment;

(iii) I have never abused the trust of my employer to deliver confidential internal documents to Senator Amanda Vanstone with the intent to aid her and her party's agenda;

(iv) I have never been arrested and charged with any crime, let alone by the Australian Federal Police with five counts of communicating Commonwealth Government information wrongfully obtained or convicted of any offences;

(v) I have never been in prison, and I know for a fact that on this day in 1995, I was not confined in Goulburn Correctional Centre;

(vi) No person has ever applied to a court at any time to take out an AVO or similar upon me; and

(vii) I have never been blocked from Misplaced Pages.

The above needed to be stated, just so it's perfectly clear who and what I am not. One21dot216dot (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Misinformed is what you are. Can I get someone to have a quiet word to this promising editor about how to contribute productively, please? --Pete (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, both of you need stop beating the dead horse and leave each other alone for a little while. This is not a battleground, or a game. Skyring, stop provoking OneDot - you're biting a newbie, and although you've stopped outright personal attacks, you're not exactly being civil. OneDot, stop letting Skyring get to you, since responding in kind is only going to get you in (more) trouble, too. The best way to deal with provokation is to take a deep breath and refuse to be baited. Both of you apologize - Skyring for provoking OneDot, OneDot for losing your cool - and leave it be for a while. - Jorgath (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help Admin Arthur Rubin

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

Arthur Rubin randomly deletes articles without respecting deletion policies and accused me of vandalism. Further information here: --Anthrophilos (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you make that video? Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Having watched it, I don't see any actual evidence presented in that video, just a rant from someone who's been offended in a dispute. Since the video does nothing but encourages others to contact the WMF to complain about Arthur, is this not just an attack post? Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• All I see are articles that, as Arthur Rubin rightly pointed out, should either not exist or only be categories, that Arthur Rubin deleted. For instance, how could you possibly have "List of potential Nobel Prize winners?" when they don't publish the candidate list for a given year until 50 years later? As Arthur Rubin points out, that's obviously original research. The others are all in the same vein. Don't bandy about "abusive administrators" so lightly, that's a serious accusation and you really need to back that up; I'm not seeing it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• I, for one, am not going to watch a YouTube video for something that can be explained on-wiki, with ordinary diffs. Make your case on-wiki, with ordinary diffs. And stop putting the URL of that YouTube video in edit summaries. Edit summaries are supposed to summarize edits. Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Somebody needs to step up to the plate and help put an end to the harassment Arthur has been dealing with. There has been a slew of various IP's and now this garbage...MONGO 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. Block Anthrophilos (talk · contribs) until at least he pulls that defamatory video from youtube. This is pure harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Struck for the time being, until Anthrophilos' involvement with the video has been clarified; see below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fut.Perf.! A rational voice among false accusations. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just a point: The video could been seen as an outing attempt, since pretty specific info is given about who he "thinks" AR is in real life, though I'm not seeing anything on the Libertarian party website to back up his claims. But still, if he is posting this video in multiple places across WP, I think some clean up is going to be required. I'm admittedly not an expert on the policy of such things, but attempts at real life outing, even if subtlefrivolous, should be removed, right? Quinn 18:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Anthrophilos is pushing that video around Misplaced Pages. I've rev/del'd it from an edit summary. Because I have been involved with him today I'm not blocking him, but if he continues this harassment (particularly adding the video to edit summaries or simply to his edits, as he also did at he probably should be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Another point - before anyone shoots off about the video being an outing attempt or whatever, I'm not entirely certain Anthrophilos actually made that video. It may well have been made by some other troll and Anthro fell for it hook, line and sinker. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

He says he didn't, and I from the content I don't think he did, it talks about going to arbitration. He's also at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion where the video has now been removed. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

True, now that I looked more closely into it, the description of the video author clearly points towards him being XB70Valyrie (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. Perhaps one of you guys could say something to him too? Seems like he's got just as much of a chip on his shoulder, and it's not helping anyone. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not expect being accused and even threatened to be blocked. What a community! And for those who do not know it, I did NOT post the video on Arthur Rubin on Youtube. It merely illustrates the experience I am having with him, and apparently I am not the only one. I have no problem in accepting that the "List of potential Nobel Prize in Literature winners" be deleted IF it cannot be backed up by adequate sources. What bothers me, however, is the extremely rude attitude in deleting articles prior to its PROD deadline so that the proposed deletion can neither be challenged nor factual evidence established in time. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Notified XB70Valyri. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Anthrophilos used the wrong template to notify me. Do I need to comment on my actions in regard Anthrophilos's edits at this time? I decline comment on the video; anything I say would only encourage the author. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthrophilos, what you say was a threat to block you was a statement that if you continued to post that video you might be blocked. You seem to have stopped now, so hopefully there will be no reason to block you. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthrophilos, there is a very well known principle at ANI called WP:BOOMERANG. Succinctly put, the behaviors of ALL contributors to ANI are up for review, and it's normal practice to examine that of any accuser. It's likewise common for accusers to react angrily when people focus attention on their own actions, but that doesn't do them much good. That being said, you have failed to provide any evidence that Arthur called you a vandal; kindly do so. (And beyond THAT, are you sure you want to go the route of inferring you had nothing to do with a video you're urging us to see?)

I did, however, find a diff of you accusing Arthur of vandalism . I also see that you're canvassing XB70 . Ravenswing 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Have interacted with Arthur Rubin at several articles and consider them to be the best. The title of this looks like a personal attack, labeling them as an "abusive admin". And Anthrophilos not only presented the informationless attack video as "information", but as the only information when posting this complaint. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember: 99% of the time, when someone yells "admin abuse", it is indeed the admin being abused. This one meets the 99% rule (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that linking to your youtube video in a summary in this fashion is not acceptable, and I would be willing to block on site if I see it again, as Anthrophilos has now been adequately warned this type of soapboxing isn't appropriate, and is flatly disruptive. This isn't your personal blog or web forum, it is an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think the video on Mr Rubin is a bit odd, consider its creator's previous effort, particularly the part about "genetic programming". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what video you're talking about. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Then click on the link I provided. Anybody who viewed the now-deleted youtube screed denouncing Mr Rubin will recognize the voice and probably note that it was posted on the same youtube

"channel" by the same youtube user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I watched the video and based on the complaint against AR made by the author it was clearly XB70. The author clearly states that they went to Dispute Resolution to resolve the Koch article discussion, which is exactly what XB70 did. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• The above made me curious as to whether there are any YouTube videos with my name on them. Turns out there is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x9fI5Ov91M

-Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:XB70Valyrie

The video’s creator is user:XB70Valyrie. I was involved in the discussion over edits on the Political activities of the Koch family that he attempted to include. I want a chance to help in clearing Arthur’s name and my own because this user made numerous personal attacks and false accusations toward us and anyone else who had a different opinion than his. In XB70’s comments on the video he claims that Arthur was ‘ranting and raving.’ He also accused me, Arthur, and other editors of ‘edit warring,’ ‘changing arguments over and over,’ and ‘tag teaming,’ among other things. I encourage anyone to read the actual talk page posts to see that all of those things did occur on the talk page, but they were done by XB70Valyrie alone.

After seeing the video that he posted and observing his actions and comments, it is very clear that his goal is in no way to improve Misplaced Pages. (It looks like he removed the video shortly after this thread started). He is motivated by a political bias and wants to damage the reputation of the subjects of the article. He is not mispronouncing the name by accident (it rhymes with Coke not rock). He reverted multiple editors multiple times and posted on their pages saying they were edit warring, while he was the only editor involved who actually was edit warring. The other editors removed his addition of a Controversy section asking that it be discussed first since the source may not be reliable. He continued to revert those editors and made personal attacks and long angry rants on the talk page.

XB70 has been an editor here for a while and has not improved at all on the principles of being civil or assuming good faith, which he has had problems with throughout his time editing. Based on XB70’s actions and comments throughout the dispute, and from the youtube video he created, it’s clear that he has strong biases, a short tempter, and has failed to act civilly on several occasions with editors who disagree with him. Because he is too strongly motivated by bias, he should be, at the very least, blocked from editing the pages that he has been edit warring on. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

From his "opening statement" on that talk page alone, it's clear that he's simply not here to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Basalisk ⁄_berate 21:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

*For what it is worth I do support a full site ban and a global ban since they are now operating on several projects. They are clearly unable to work cooperatively. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support a global ban here. This user is clearly not prepared to adhere to wikipedia guidelines or policy.--Anthony Bradbury 21:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC) (These remarks are struck because, while Anthony and myself did say these things, they were in reference to another thread up the page and were copied into this section. I'm going to AGF here and call it a genuine mistake since the user specifically came to our talk pages to let us know about it, apparently a bit confused as to what these edits were and where they went. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

Look at the link. It leads to what is a deleted video. (At least NOW it's been deleted). Been up just long enough for everyone to weigh in on but me huh? Arthur. This is the last straw. Actually, it was the last straw a long time ago. Anyone looking at your record of Admin notifications since 2008 will see you have a long and frequently visited record of harassing users and abusing WP rules, here on Misplaced Pages. And you're supposed to be an Admin?? I've been here for 2 years and had not so much as a Kerfuffle on any notifications. Here is what IP users have been leaving on my User talk:XB70Valyrie page since I've been tangled up in editing with Aurthur Rubin.

"Thank you for your recent comments. You may find User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_16#ANI interesting, found on wp:Tea. 108.195.139.228 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)"

I responded, "Wow! Have you searched his name in the Admin noticeboards archive as well?

]"

Again the IP editor says...--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'll look at the link you posted. This may be of interest (view 500). Look for the "Be aware" Edit Summaries, for deletion on Talk pages. Here is an example: . Looking back over Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin through the years Mr. Rubin seems to be a real fountain of hate, and given that he is an Admin one might call it "judicial activism". 99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)"

End--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to paste my reply in here and it's not showing up after I hit save page. I've done it 3 times now. Instead it's showing up in the section below. Still trying. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the commentors above; given the slew of evidence that he's WP:NOTHERE, and now his apparent claim that he believes Arthur got the video taken down from Youtube(!), it's clear XB70Valyrie isn't a benifit to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the video is back http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuLuzVehKO8 62.255.248.225 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User also has serious WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. See Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Controversy_Expect_a_Fight and User_talk:Arzel#LPOV_page (ignore the first sentence there, it's about something different). SÆdon 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable assessment of the situation. a13ean (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably wrong of me to suggest to tag him and bag him isn't it? (what? too soon??) . -- Despayre   22:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I gave an 'at the very least' suggestion before, I think I will upgrade it and explicitly state that I'm in agreement with the other Wikipedians here. I support a global ban as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How can I argue against a video I can't even see?? You can argue all you like Aurthur Rubin. Just remember how difficult it is to attack that which no longer exists. If your wish is granted, I'll be happy not to have to deal with you anymore on WP. But don't think that's where I just "go away". Your behavior and incessant bad faith scheming violate ever last fabric of WP intent. Your POV political pushing is obvious and your record of breaking WP rules as a means to that end is appalling. Arthur Rubin (see wikipedia article on obscure political figure. Oh but it's complete with an image. Gee must be a caring wikipedian that overseas that article). Look! Even Arthur Rubin has gotten involved with editing his own vanity article ]. What happened? Did you forget to sign in as one of your multiple sock-puppets before editing your article? Arthur Rubin is an unabashed Topic sensor. He has run for office on the Libertarian ticket ] also supported here ] and the Libertarian party receives donations from the Koch Brothers. It can very well be concluded that Arthur Rubin and David Koch even know one another here. David H. Koch "party Libertarian (before 1984), Republican". Arthur Rubin's motives are Obvious. My recommendation to have Arthur Rubin removed as Wikipedian is currently review at Wikimedia Management.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say "blocked for personal attacks and being blatantly WP:NOTHERE", but BWilkins beat me to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Endorsed recommendation: I endorse XB70Valyrie's recommendation "to have Arthur Rubin removed as Wikipedian". Arthur is one of those "tinpot dictators" that Larry Sanger has referred to in one of his blog posts (http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=221). And I echo that "one of the most annoying things about the Misplaced Pages community is the way that people really do act like each others’ editors, forming their requests as orders and in other ways competing to outdo each other in how condescending they can be". This is not exactly contributing to a productive atmosphere on Misplaced Pages. I am giving Misplaced Pages a maximum of ten years. This project is already in decline (member numbers, less edits) and if there are no major changes to resolve these issues, especially the endless edit wars and self-appointed editor-dictators then I doubt that Misplaced Pages has a fruitful future. But I have not yet given up my hope and will see how this project evolves. --Anthrophilos (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"I am giving Misplaced Pages a maximum of ten years"...too late...Misplaced Pages is already more than 10 years old.--MONGO 02:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I may have gotten the video removed from YouTube. I reported defamation (both of myself and of David Koch), and potential copyright violation (is a screen-shot of a Misplaced Pages article a derivative work which requires the same copyright notice as would an HTML or WikiFormat copy of the article?) to YouTube. They wouldn't tell me why they removed the video, although they might have told him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(bemused bystander) Arthur, I don't know when you made any request to YT, but my experience suggests that they work in a timescale of days or weeks, and not in minutes or hours. I had assumed that it was the channel owner himself who had taken down that video, not for any copyright violation, but because he was embarrassed at being linked, by another editor here, to that second video on the channel. Perhaps it's unfortunate that, whatever the editor's position is on Misplaced Pages, he has been personally compromised by being seen to rant about fat ladies and being linked to some kind of dating site that seems to involve consumption of large amounts of fish. I'll have you know that we in UK have to live with pretty harsh fish quotas imposed by the EU! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But I've submitted a defamation and copyright claim to YouTube AGAIN. I'm not going to watch the new video, but he's revoked "like/unlike" and "comment", this time. Anyone have a good contact for WikiMedia counsel? This video is more damaging to Misplaced Pages than to my reputation, even if someone believed it. (Is it allowed to discuss legal actions again YouTube, or is it in violation of WP:NLT?) (He seems to have removed the video you're talking about, also. There are only two videos left on his channel, and there were 3, before.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I feel you may be worrying uduly. I think many viewers will watch and laugh, as I did (even before seeing the fat ladies rant). Do you consider that defamation against you personally, or against your Misplaced Pages persona? But you are probebly right to be concerned with the way it portrays this project. I'm still surprised that he used screen shots of him logged onto his own account. But I suppose that shows he's not prepared to be `intimidated'. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And the video (and all of the channel except a broken link) is gone, again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And it's back at another channel. I suppose I should submit another defamation report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think YT have the concept of "sockpuppets" as such, do they. I'm sure that editor is not looking for any long-term channel-following, just exposure. So you might find yourself chasing your own defamation claim tail, if you're not too careful. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, YouTube doesn't remove videos for defamation Which doesn't explain why those videos were removed.... I'm tempted to ask for the identities of the (now two) channel owners in preparation for filing a lawsuit, but I don't know if they'll go along. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the YT policy on copyright infringement seems to have been rather fluid. As far as I know, YT have in the past been obliged to pass on verified contact details, including full real name and home address, to interested third parties if a copyright claim has arisen. That policy now seems to have changed. But I'm not sure how claims for defamation are dealt with. I would have thought they would have carefully washed their hands of that with some find of snall-print clause in the user agreement. There is an informal way of reporting channel content and harassment, although I do not know whether that ever leads to any kind of action. Goodness me, Arthur, anyone would think you had some kind of close interest in the finer points of US law, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes

1. Which makes one wonder why they have a form for reporting defamation.
2. I wasn't asking them to remove the video for defamation. I was asking them to remove it for a violation of the customer service agreement, which mentions defamation. Not the same thing. Just as we remove "fair use" violations for violating "our" definition of fair use, which is stricter than the legal defintion.

Daft and self-defeating ways to ask for help, demonstrated once again

I, personally, wouldn't have applied the biographies of living persons policy quite so immediately, given how little actual content there really was there at all. That is not to say that List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature would have stood a snowball's chance of being kept at AFD, given its clear and stated purpose to act as a discussion forum for editors to exchange gossip about living people, in blatant contravention of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, rather than to be an encyclopaedia article. Anthrophilos would have received a lot of negative feedback from other people at AFD over what a completely bad idea for an article xe had had, just as is in fact happening right now at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion#List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature. It's also important to note that it wasn't Arthur Rubin that sent the article to proposed deletion.

I also wouldn't have used Twinkle's anti-vandalism tool to rollback the removal of CFD notices mid-discussion. Vandalism rollback tools such as Twinkle really should be reserved for actual vandalism, because this sort of "He called me a vandal!" outcry is what happens in response; and a far better edit summary is to point to the wording of the notice itself. But it was quite wrong of Anthrophilos to remove three CFD notices (1, 2, 3) also using a reversion tool mid-discussion in the first place.

Anthrophilos, you really did reap what you sowed, here. Try to take less completely daft, self-defeating, and hysterical approaches to dealing with other people in the future. And try to be a little less credulous with respect to pseudonymous people posting YouTube videos.

Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• This also seems like a fair summary of the whole thing, thanks for taking the time to look up the diffs, etc. a13ean (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, I appreciate your analysis of the situation. Arthur did in fact not send the article for deletion, but worse deleted it prior to its official PROD deadline. Actually, there is no point in requesting the article to be restored for it most likely would have been deleted anyway. The problem is Arthur. He is one of those "tinpot dictators" that Larry Sanger has referred to in one of his blog posts (http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=221). And I echo that "one of the most annoying things about the Misplaced Pages community is the way that people really do act like each others’ editors, forming their requests as orders and in other ways competing to outdo each other in how condescending they can be". Arthur is not only randomly reverting edits violating Misplaced Pages's Good Faith policy, but actually systematically boosting his ego with reverting edits and thus abusing his skills and experience as a Wikipedian. Please not that in one of my edits that he reverted, he commented "oops". To be clear, this is not exactly contributing to a productive atmosphere on Misplaced Pages. I am giving Misplaced Pages a maximum of ten years. This project is already in decline (member numbers, less edits) and if there are no major changes to resolve these issues, especially the endless edit wars and self-appointed editor-dictators then I doubt that Misplaced Pages has a fruitful future. But I have not yet given up my hope and will see how this project evolves. And, to have XB70Valyrie blocked is the biggest mistake you admin guys have made, you were fooled by Arthur and got the wrong guy. --Anthrophilos (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Didn't you just post almost this same comment in the section above? I can't see the article since it's deleted, but the title alone indicates it was probably unencyclopedic.--MONGO 02:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If it helps, the quotation in the section title at User talk:Dougweller#"was created with the intention of inviting response and debate among readers and writers everywhere." is from the introduction of the article, which sentence, in full, was:

        The following is a list of well-known and lesser known writers whose literary work has generated enough verifiable media attention in journals, newspapers and the blogosphere to be potential future Nobel Prize winners and was created with the intention of inviting response and debate among readers and writers everywhere.

        In other words, the article-space page itself was intended to be a discussion forum; as can also be seen by Anthrophilos' comments on that user talk page. Uncle G (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

    • @Anthrophilos: Complete nonsense. Not many will bother continuing this discussion because the correct result has been achieved (the very misguided and attacking user has been indef blocked)—please do not assume that means not many people care. If you wish to continue editing at Misplaced Pages you need to do some learning fast. Start by asking questions and forgetting about whatever is your imagined grievance—Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges or to express displeasure with other editors (other than through the normal noticeboards). Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • While you're on your diatribe, Anthrophilos, I note that you still haven't produced so much as a single diff indicating where and when Arthur called you a vandal, and you still haven't tendered any explanation for your conduct when you called him a vandal, never mind your tidal wave of personal attacks. Uncle G and Johnuniq gave you sound advice, and I concur that you need to do some fast learning and drop this concept you're clutching to your chest that any admin who deletes a file you created is someone who is Out To Get You. Ravenswing 02:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's be a little more blunt: Anthrophilos, stop your personal attacks now or you'll get blocked too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• I came here after Anthrophilos posted on my talk (discussion, permalink), and second the Bushranger's warning.
  Anthrophilos is a new user, and I know that learning the complex ways of wikipedia can be difficult and even frustrating, but these personal attacks are not acceptable. Ravenswing and Johnuniq are right: Anthrophilos needs to do some fast learning. He also needs to put the brakes on his responses, because at this speed he is likely to drive straight into a block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like he's understood the advice given about not making personal attacks. --Calton | Talk 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Admins may wish to examine User talk:Anthrophilos where I see a number of his article starts were prodded for deletion since they lacked a single reference. He went and added a reference to each, removed the prods but the references are all in German.--MONGO 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Non-English references are acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • But not preferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

some or all of these were to support article on German writers. Though of course there should be English references added if available, the best references on German subjects are likely to be in German. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • • ... beyond which I wonder if Anthrophilos understands that a single reference is insufficient to sustain an article? It seems to me that among the learning he needs to do is a review of the WP:PILLAR links, and not a cursory glance. Ravenswing 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to ban XB70Valyrie

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

He posted an unblock request containing more insults and threats of sockpuppetry. Thus, I've revoked his talk page acceess and would like to propose a formal ban on XB70Valyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support I made a mistake by activating that unblock request - XB70Valyrie was fiddling with the template in the block notice - and I decided to help the dude by activating his unblock request (without paying attention to the content in the unblock request). Oops! If his intention is to continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, then so be it - formally banning the dude is basically common sense. (on an unrelated note, I was personally attacked by him before because I mistakenly declined his AFC submission.) →Bmusician 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, I decline comment, per WP:NLT. However, I have a question. If When he reappears, am I allowed to "bag and tag" (sorry, I mean revert and block). I am an involved admin, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Don't feed the trolls - let someone else to do it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure that Arthur Rubin has the best of intentions, but for the same admin to take more action against somebody who's already got a conspiracy theory, well, it's like throwing petrol on a fire. Caesar's wife... bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. What's the best noticeboard to report it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment and Support Also note the potential IP-sock on his user talk page. The "combination of ingredients" here is more than adequate to have a perpetual "bye-bye" to this editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think that IP is his sock. See #Michigan kid (revisted) below. XB70 didn't speak in miscellaneus] links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Especially considering the threats included in his block request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support If he's not willing to mend his ways and is persistently refusing to change them, it's indicative that he cannot take control of his attitude. Period. Misplaced Pages does not want editors with this bad of an attitude to other editors. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support The user is basically telling Arthur that he plans on continually harassing him both on and off wiki. This is a terrible thing and should be squashed as quickly as possible. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support and recommend he be reported to his local police as well - the unblock reaks of real-life personal threats and harassment. The online video was harassment. This needs to be stopped (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is that legitimately possible? Using a checkuser? I would be in support of that, considered it myself but didn't think we did that sort of thing. The wording "I think by that time though you'll have another bead drawn on you. The heat is on." may have been symbolic, but that combined with the off-wiki harassment becomes a pretty big deal. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- the threat to continue harassment is clear. a13ean (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support - His kind of attitude is about as far away from useful here as it can get, ban him for at least 2 years, by then he'll be 14 and may well have a much better perspective on things. -- Despayre   14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Each time he was making piloting analogies, I was really confused. Don't you have to be older than 12 to be a pilot? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Also notice the following comment of that IP. This IP also commented on XB70's own page. I believe that XB70 is the long editing IP jumper that AR has had to deal with for some time. It all makes perfect sense now as well. XB70 is a pilot and as such likely has access to numerous different IP's based on his current location. The use of random blue linked comments in the edit tag is a dead giveaway that this is that editor. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support ban. The harassment and threats are unacceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It is obvious that XB70's obsession with a single editor has completely destroyed their ability to edit normally in any fashion. Their unblock request is also seriously disturbing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support: It's clear that he was never here with the goal of improving the project. We need to watch out for IP's that have similar patterns of editing and behavior because, based on his unblock request, he basically admitted that he will be using IP's to continue to edit and harass Arthur. We may need to do some page protections as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support based on recent obvious sock block evasion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass speedy deletion requests by User:OrenBochman

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

As I dared to remove an invalid request of speedy deletion for CSD A7 by User:OrenBochman (here the article, here his resentful message in my talk page), he started tagging for speedy deletion CSD A7 a bunch of articles I started (see my talk page) in about three minutes. I don't even think it is possible read all them and check their references in such a little lapse of time. Not satisfied, he then started to overtagging them (, , , , , ). His bad faith is patent as ie. he tagged the article about Briana Blair as it should be expanded from the related Russian article that is nothing more than an unsourced summary of the English one. Let you judge. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did you have to report this to ANI so quickly, without attempting to discuss the issue with him? This issue can be easily solved through talk page discussion →Bmusician 08:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I send him a message... without response. His response was to start overtagging the articles. Cavarrone (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't respond because all you said to him was "Are you serious?", without explaining in detail what he was doing wrong. Your next step was to report this to ANI without letting him know. →Bmusician 09:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And could you explain this edit summary? →Bmusician 09:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you assuming he has acted in good faith? Just to know... he also wrote in his talk page "First you incited this situation - next you declined to communicate - now you come here to gloat and play it for maximum effect - I will not be annoyed by this childish behaviour" that sounds like a confession that this behaviour was just vindictive and disruptive. Cavarrone (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how two wrongs would make a right either - even if he acted in bad faith, telling him to "go away" is also another bad-faith assumption, and doesn't solve the problem →Bmusician 09:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see bad-faith assumptions in removing a message, laughable on the merits (a lame accusation of violating "basic wikipedia policy") and mocking/resentful in the tones ("Dear sir..."), from my talk page. Even if it were, could be a nervous response a justification for disruption, overtagging and mass-nomination of articles? PS. I see Oren was one of the users you adopted. As your course finished, I would suggest you to give him some extra-lessons, that as you can see he still needs, especially in the field of speedy deletions. He needs more study before continuing to nominate articles for speedy deletion with invalid reasons (this is his CSD log). Cavarrone (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

in addition to what is written above... I found this statement in OrenBochman talk page, in response to one another user who pointed about his behaviour. I took a little of time to understand what he wanted to say as he uses the word media in a wrong way...: "I plan much larger action regarding certain media uploaded by same individual" it sounds to me like a notice of future further diruptions to my work.Cavarrone (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the retaliatory article tags. Don't see that any more needs to be done here. Nobody Ent 01:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some nominations at AfD as well.

I have some concerns with this user's use of tools. And not just for XfD. And further, not thrilled that someone doing so much reversion, and nomination, and so on, has delinked their signature. I'm not seeing a want to discuss. It does look a bit like someone using automated tools to play Misplaced Pages:The Game. - jc37 01:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What does delinked mean in this context? Nobody Ent 01:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Means the sig doesn't link to the userpage.... ah well, I think OB can forget about this for a while. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes exactly. This is not the sort of transparency that I think we'd expect from someone placing warning on other editors' talk pages. And a quick perusal of the individual's edit history gives me several other concerns. - jc37 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing it -- his (as of now ) last edit has the required links. Obviously if they persist in intentionally improperly signed talk page posts sanctions would be appropriate. Nobody Ent 02:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly they changed their signature after starting the RfA page yesterday. This edit just prior to that should show you what we were talking about.

That aside, I've been doing a more thorough looking through their edits, both here and on other wikis. commons and wikibooks in particular were enlightening.

Anyway, though I usually hope for the best, unless things change, it looks to me like we'll likely be seeing this individual here at AN/I again for disruptive actions. YMMV, of course. - jc37 02:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of the relatory tags. I would just recommend that someone writes to this user highlighting that such behavior is wrong and disruptive. Looking at some of his recent posts (Since I have been personally attacked on the Admin's Notice Board I tread in safety and protocols while I continue what I sincerely believe a necessary action,As my record will show I have not been involved in serious conflicts necessitating a ban or even a block. I have editing increasingly controversial subjects. These have revealed some of the less savoury tactics in use by experinced COI editors against relative new comers) he does not seem to have taken the point. And there's still that sort of menace: "I plan much larger action regarding certain media uploaded by same individual. However as per your suggestion - I will take care of other matter in the meanwhile so as not to appear WP:Pointy." that sounds like "I will stay quiet for a while, then I will take up my actions against this User". Cavarrone (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just note how User:OrenBochman refuses to discuss here in public but he is contacting all the editors who are involved in this discussion, one by one, in their talk pages. Cavarrone (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has become the best encyclopedia the world has ever seen at the best price (free) due to the efforts of many passionate editors with a diversity of backgrounds; an unfortunate side effect is from time to time conflict occurs. As situtations are resolved its not usual for editors to say things in the heat of the moment that, given time and space to reflect, they come to realize on their own will not be in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. In this situations we can best help by giving them that time and space. In practical terms I'm suggesting Cavarrone simply proceed with their Misplaced Pages work and not be concerned with OrenBochman is doing. Nobody Ent 12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite my comments above, I'd like to echo User:Nobody Ent's comments. And at this point, if there are any other scrutiny-worthy XfD nominations, that can be dealt with as they happen. What we don't need is a climate of paranoia and/or fear of the future. (My comments above were not one of paranoia, but rather of a feeling that we've seen these kinds of patterns before at AN/I, and so the outcome is likely to be unsurprising if things do not change.)

This thread exists now, so if any gaming the system, edit stalking, or any other things that are scrutiny-worthy happen, that can be dealt with then.

As it's clear from their edits that User:OrenBochman has seen and read this page, I think for now this thread could be safely closed. - jc37 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Seen and read, perhaps... but understood?? "I plan much larger action regarding certain media uploaded by same individual". His written intent to WP:HOUND another editor require that his edits be closely watched. Schmidt, 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for info: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brynn Tyler, , . Cavarrone (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. A quite active user for one asserting to be retired and no loner active. And blanking one's talk page does not mean the activity since claiming to be inactive will go unnoticed. Schmidt, 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement: Since I was made aware of this discussion after it had taken a very ugly turn I decided that I could not in good conscience take part in it. Nor did I wish to stoop to the level of my accuser. I have requested the deletion of my talk pages and have prepared my retirement. I am willing to reconsider these if my request below is met. I have however like my first mentor decided that Misplaced Pages is an environment where AGF is now mostly Lip service. Many participants in this discussion have "Assume Good Faith" writ large on their user page including articles on ettiquete and civility. But this is not a - but this is not a doctrine which they follow in practice. I consider this the most important aspect of Misplaced Pages policy. I have assumed that Cavarrone in some way believes that his personal attacks are aimed at a greater good and have taken them in stride.

Regarding the final AfD. This should not come as a surprise - it had been posted on my talk page for an extended period in response to the challenge of the validity of the CSD. Since this is a BLP it cannot wait 2 months of cooling period to see the errors expunged. I had been advised that I could pursue a matter at Afd if I thought in earnest that it will improve wikipedia. I do and I have but as I explained and quoted out of context above I also made my best effort to avoid looking pointy I had sought a third and a fourth opinion on the matter by consulting both the remover of the CSD who has explained my mistake and an uninvolved admin who has inspected my recent edit history on and off wiki.

With exception of high risk at CSD - I have not been informed that my action are to be restricted in any way w.r.t. this incident. I plan to avoid Cavarrone as best I can but our points of view are diametrically opposed on five fundamental issues such as WP:N WP:V WP:OR and WP:NPOV. All these I have found deficient in at least one of the above 5 articles. I think that tagging is considered as the reponsible form of dealing with these. I believe that the editor who has removed these may have thought he was acting in good faith but WP:Neutrality has not been observed - and the result is unprodctive. These tags had already been reviewd and edited by the CSD removers who would have rolled them back otherwise.

I have made a best effort to make it a productive one aimed at improve the articles under discussion and increasing the level of discourse. However even this is not required as long as the community does its part to upholds the rules of consensus something it is not very good at.

Request: Since this proceedings have not been initiated by Cavarrone in accordance with the instructions on this pages but in a disruptive manner; since as a result it has poisoned the Neutrality of the consensus discussion; since bad faith has been assumed in this incident and used to punish me in the area of my primary activity countervandalism depite an recent accolades in this areea; since my statement were quoted partialy and out of context instead of a revision history reference; since this discussion includes personal attacks - name calling instead of arguments from policy by many of the involved and since this is the admins notice board and admins are expected to respect uphold both policy and etiquette and protocol. I find this a travesty of justice and accordingly request that this proceedings be closed and expunged from this page's history for the exclusive use of oversighters. BO | Talk 02:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do "expunge and oversight" for things like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How many Policy violations are the norm for a single ANB debates? I thought that Misplaced Pages is not a Soapbox - yet this discussion has been permitted to be used as a Soapbox for a personal attack on my Character. You the participants have not observed the required decorum and in many cases have encouraged it.

Expunging as discussed in various context is precisely for this type of situation, when the system has take a record of a serious violation against an individual - such as an attack page. And to any uninvolved party this debate has been exclusivly and one sided attack on my character. Misplaced Pages's ettiquate requires that discussion not include name calling or personal attacks and not in a content dispute between ediors.

The folowing is directly out of WP:Attack page

An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.

While this discussion may have been initialy started in earnest by the time I was aware of it - it had denegrated into a defamatory personal attack. To reciprocate would only lend weight to such claims.

The folowing is directly out of WP:Libel

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory.

It is Misplaced Pages policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

and Defamation is defined here as:

"...is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, ... a negative image."

I have already contacted people this debate directly about the lack the accuracy of their statements and even resolved some of these issues. Accordingly I demand that this Kangroo Court discussion be dissolved and expunged per the policy dealing with defematory and libelous statements. And in case there is any confusion - this the legal term is not a legal threat.

P.S. I believe that I am in my rights not respond to comments which I find offensive in content or tone - such as the defamatory WP:Appology request below. BO | Talk 08:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are requesting an assumption of good faith about your actions, but it is sufficent look at our edit histories to have a neutral response. I will use the standard time line: at 7:02 you sent that bitter and sneering message on my talk page, at 7:03 I deleted it, between 7:08 and 7:13 you started requesting five speedy deletions, at 7:14 I started on your talk page the section "mass speedy deletion requests" you read it and between 7:30 and 7:43 you started to overtagging all the five articles. Furthermore, later you wrote on your talk page: "First you incited this situation - next you declined to communicate - now you come here to gloat and play it for maximum effect - I will not be annoyed by this childish behaviour" that is a clear admission of disruptiveness and bad faith.

I would be content with a "Sorry, I was disruptive once, I was wrong and I learned my lesson" but you still keep on refuse the point and still mock me (and everyone) against all evidence... now you are opening idle topics on articles I started (), nominating other for deletion, putting a false announce of retirement in your personal page to appear as a victim of something, then, above, this silly request... I am just curious about your next move, as it is clear you have not yet finished. Cavarrone (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hounding by Sitush

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

Yogesh Khandke's topic ban

1. I am suffering hounding by user:Sitush, I have tried to discuss the issue with him informally,
2. He has refused to discuss the same, deleting my edits with an edit summary "go away" One example of his hounding is the article Sudheendra Kulkarni, while I was attempting to discuss the issue with him, he reported me for edit warring and had me blocked, when I was the one who updated the article a BLP, which was hopelessly out of date.
3. His last edit before he set up the edit war (28 May 2012) was on 24 July, 2011. I have been trying to improve the Sudheendra Kulkarni article, and this time he alleges that I have violated my topic ban - "any edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history, widely construed." Kulkarni is a living person and not history.
4. I have not written about colonialism and Indian history, as far as I understand.
5. He even deleted my talk page edits at Sudheendra Kulkarni.
6. I have given him no encouragement, yet he hounds me, for example
   1. Gosha woman. an article I created, and he followed.
   2. Purdah, where he has no other edits.
   3. Intrudes into a discussion about Charles Dickens, he has made no contribution to the page
   4. He alleges that I am worse with him because he is a "Brit", do I seek him out for a duel? No. He is hounding me.
   5. Free Press Journal, I created, he followed, his last edit was on 4 March 2012, he never went back.
   6. S. Sadanand, I created he sparred, his last edit is on 3 April, 2012, he stopped editing after I left it alone because on of my topic ban.
   7. Free Press of India, I created it, he arrived to edit war, and then after I stopped editing he didn't go back to the article, last edit 2012-04-03
   8. The hounding isn't limited to the list above, if solicited I would be able to search more examples.
7. I request that admins ensure that user:Sitush stops hounding me, and allows me to enjoy my editing privileges. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• You violated your topic ban with your edits, and you were warned by a number of editors of this. Might want to duck that WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Could you explain which edits of mine to Sudheendra Kulkarni violate the topic ban? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A narrowly construed interpretation of Indian history might exclude contemporary politicians, but not a "widely construed" interpretation. Please find other areas to edit while your topic ban is in place.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a general statement, does any of my edit to Sudheendra Kulkarni cross the threshold? Would you SPhilbrick and Wildthing also look at the hounding? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to leave topics that could be considered infringing my ban alone, would you Sphilbrick help me with it, (once we are done with this hounding issue) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is 11.34 pm here. Got to go. GN. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The following edits were made by me to the article: (1)In 2008, a sting operation was carried out and later televised, called the cash-for-votes scandal, it involved Kulkarni and another BJP activist. It allegedly showed a bribe of Rupees one crore being allegedly offered on behalf of the Congress led UPA government, to each of three BJP MPs to seek their support in the July 2008 confidence vote in parliament. A parliamentary panel probed the operation and asked the Delhi police to investigate some of those alleged to be involved, including Kulkarni whom they said had "facilitated the giving of bribes to members (2)On 17 July 2011, two of those involved were taken into custody for questioning. Kulkarni, who had been questioned earlier by the Kishore Chandra Deo committee said that he had been interrogated by the police on the matter and that he was prepared for further interrogation by them (3)September 27, 2011. (4)He was released on bail on 17 November 2011, The Economic Times reports that "The high court - while grantig bail to Kulkarni and five other co-accused - had on Wednesday punctured the foundation of the 2008 cash-for-votes scam, arguing that had the BJP leaders wanted bribe, they would not have conducted the sting. Are they about Indian history? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comments that are presently unarchived at User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#Ducking_and_weaving_the_topic_ban, the comments here, here and here. I recall also seeing some recent mention by you regarding your creation of (IIRC) 17 new articles since your ban was put in place. That may have been mentioned in one of your many visits to this noticeboard but, regardless, I would be interested to know how many of those articles I have contributed to.

The stuff that you are talking about consists of articles that have long been on my watchlist and in most cases are there precisely because of events that culminated (after a surprisingly long period of tolerance by the community) in your topic ban. In the specific case that you are now becoming upset about, there were discussions and you participated in them. You cannot simply drift away, then return some weeks later and try to slip the same stuff through again when the discussion had petered out, and you had previously raised issues such as the "card-carrying" phrase in other complaints that you have made without ever receiving any support. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh, you're pushing your luck here. You have got to stop trying to game your topic ban, as I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yogesh, take my advice, take a break from editing India related articles for the time being, because it seems that your editing of those specific articles are causing problems between you and other editors. Conflict at the time being isn't your greatest area. (I've had a brief look at your contributions). Don't push the goodwill of any admins. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights- (1)I am aware of "Boomerang" and everyone has every right to discuss my edits along with my complaint of hounding, however when you allege that I am gaming the system , could would you share a few examples? (2) Last time you have exercised your discretion to block me for "edit warring" when user:Sitush has had initiated the edit war, and I was foolish enough to take the bait. (3)So I have every reason to believe that you would deliver on your promise: " I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. " Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mr. Wikipediania: (1)I was under the impression that constructive editing in non-ban areas, and not keeping away was the key to have the ban narrowed, or revoked some day. (2)I have done over 500 edits since my ban early April, 2012. (3)Most of them have been India related, (but none under the topic ban area (in my opinion). (4)I have created 18 articles, got a DYK for one, had to argue to prevent RfD for a couple, a few had been tagged for one reason or the other, however I've been able to partner with those editors, to improve the articles to their satisfaction. The only time I had problems since the ban is when user:Sitush showed himself up when I updated a badly out of date BLP - Sudheendra Kulkarni a few weeks back, I received a edit warring related block, when I took the bait thrown by user:Sitush. (5)Do you believe that hounding by user:Sitush is my fault, and my topic ban be widened from "colonialism and Indian history" to India? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23- I have clearly mentioned that I have been topic banned, yet you hanged the link like a shop sign, under the sub-title, isn't that a little strange? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush: Please explain "the stuff that you are talking about consists of articles that have long been on my watchlist and in most cases are there precisely because of events that culminated (after a surprisingly long period of tolerance by the community) in your topic ban." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yogesh, calm down. I can understand your frustration and I'm not interested in who's fault it is when this matter erupted. What is really concerning at the moment is the fact that you have gone into far too many scraps, and you should be careful about what you say, as your comments are not helping the Blade of the Northern Lights. Anyways, I have wasted time, and I've got to go. Good luck with the next person reviewing this. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler: In my experience, exceptionally tendentious editors, such as Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), don't reform when they are cut some slack in the form of a topic ban. They keep testing the limits of their gray zones, and of others' patience, until the inevitable realization, of the need of a permanent ban, dawns on others. I believe it is time to permanently ban Yogesh Khandke from Misplaced Pages. He has long outstayed his welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment:I feel that admins like The Blade of the Northern Lights should also be mentioned for saying something like I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. keep up what? keep up the good work of editing out of date articles? Is there any anti-YK group present which involves people like you?

Mr.Wikipediania this is how I want to interpret your advice, lets not get into conflict with few editors and lets not question their judgement as they are always right, so its better you stop editing. There are lot of India related topics which are not related to history why should YK stop editing those articles? because some editor doesn't like him(for reasons better known to him). Fowler welcome to the party, the last time when YK got his topic ban it was due to a content dispute, you are trying to do the same here. Hope no one takes you seriously. This is about Sitush hounding YK and not about YK's style of editing, if someone has a problem go report it somewhere else not here.sarvajna (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to generate a report similar to those used in SPIs, showing commonality of articles edited over a given period? I really do not see this hounding accusation as having any merit. Yes, our paths cross but there are long periods of nothing. This is not the first time that Yogesh has claimed that I have been hounding him, eg: he raised it in the topic ban discussion. Mind you, I have been looking at contributions made by him since he opened this thread, and I can see some selective pseudo-canvassing going on. Why tell AshLin, for example, that he is mentioned in a conversation that I linked to here, but not inform all the other participants in those conversation threads? Something is a little inequitable here. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

AshLin was accused of being YK's meatpuppet, 'he also could be dragged into this, fair enough for YK to warn him'. He had written "I'm the guilty party and not YK" sarvajna (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems a boomerang is in order here. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I know about WP:Boomerang, but what I wanted to say is that discussing about everything else but not about hounding would be unfair to YK.user:Saravask writes on Fowler's page '" If the FBI or MI5 or CBI instituted a program to track these users down in RL and euthanise them on the spot, let me just say that I wouldn't be phoning Amnesty International."', thank you Fowler, you don't want YK to be killed, you just want's him to be banned.sarvajna (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of hounding apart from this spurious AN/I complaint, that's why I'm suggesting a boomerang. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Fifelfoo: (1)I've given seven diffs of user:Sitush's alleged hounding, following me to articles I created (please see my statement above for diffs), Sudheendra Kulkarni is the 8th, he never bothered to go to those articles after, I stopped editing them, partly due to my topic ban. (2)He also has deleted an edit made by me on an article talk page. Do you consider that normal collegial behaviour? If he has a normal interest in those topics, why doesn't he edit them now? (3) Does he have the privilege of "stirring shit"] all around me? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I noted and read your diffs prior to offering my opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Smell bad blood huh Sarvajna? There is no anti-YK group, nor is there a pro-YK group because that would be considered canvassing, and by now you should have known that canvassing is unacceptable conduct on Misplaced Pages. My comments are not meant to deter YK from editing India related-articles, but to take a break from them because he tends to get into conflicts too often, and it's testing the patience of the community. I'd hate another editor getting blocked from a silly matter. From how I see it, there are disagreements on both sides, and that's natural for anyone to get into a dispute, even in real life. Rather than misinterpret my actions as an assumption of bad faith and take advantage of my goodwill, stop trying to game the system. Good luck to the next person seeing this. This is the last comment I shall put here. Good luck, and have a nice day. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 07:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo. Will you make a proposal Fifelfoo? We could start with a 3-month ban. If his behaviour upon return doesn't improve, the ban could be extended and lengthened. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Three months seems counter productive. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Articles edited by each user Since this section is titled "Hounding by Sitush", I have created a list of articles edited by Sitush and Yogesh Khandke in 2012. There are 19 articles edited by both users, 218 edited by Yogesh Khandke only, and 2620 edited by Sitush only. If wanted, I could show the other pages that each edited, but it's a long list because Sitush has been extremely active with over 23,000 edits in the last six months. While the two users have interacted on a number of pages, it looks like that is because Sitush does a lot of work on a lot of pages. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that, Johnuniq. In fairness to Yogesh, although I have not edited Charles Dickens (shown as unique to him) I certainly have commented about it. Of the 19 common articles, I'd hazard that it is fairly evenly split regarding "who got there first". In any event, even if Yogesh was first at all of those, 19 out of 218 does not seem to me to support a charge of hounding. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• My personal definition of hounding is that it occurs when editor A maliciously follows editor B around and makes mischievous edits to articles where editor B has been active. The purpose is disruption or revenge. In my view that is a different case to a situation where editor C notices poor editing behaviour in an edit made by editor D, and looks at editor D's contributions to see if this is a systemic problem. If it is, then in my view C is justified in repairing problems caused by D.

The actual actions (one editor checks another's watchlist, goes to articles there and edits them) are the same. The intent is different. Of course actions on WP are easy to spot; intent is not. Nevertheless I have seen enough of Sitush's edits to feel as though I can trust on his/her good faith and judgement and there's nothing here to make me doubt that. Kim Dent-Brown 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The instances of hounding that I have referred to here, are of articles created by me the "A and B example given by you". The evidence of his hounding is that he makes no other edits to the article after having warred with me. There are many other instances on talk pages such as the one I have provided regarding the above related to Charles Dickens. You write that "C is justified in repairing problems caused by D" can you provide examples of such a repair at the seven examples and Sudheendra Kulkarni I have provided. John's stats are great, now would you go into the details pl. Why would one invoke a history ban threat in relation to an article about a living person, and when all the edits are about contemporary events, like user:Sitush has done unless to make Misplaced Pages miserable for the other editor. Please don't rely on trust alone, peruse the evidence pl.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like Kim Dent-Brown to see this sub-Section regarding discussion related to Sudheendra Kulkarni, first Sitush argues that he didn't use the word "implicated" with reference to Kulkarni, then, when evidence is presented in for of a diff, he does a U-turn and justifies the use of "implicated", hardly amusing.. He also has made dozens of edits on my talk page (when lately I made one to his page, he deleted it, with an edit summary "go away"), using expressions like " there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry...", making false socking allegations and dragging me to ANI, taunting me about my interactions with Sue Gardner, "..A word in Sue Gardner's ear may not have gone amiss..." making baseless allegations "...Now, I understand that you are also proposing that the government block access to Misplaced Pages..." accusing me of being disruptive at Charles Dickens and Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar neither articles he ever edited,, taunting and heckling "Hi Yogesh, I notice that your nationalist stance is getting you into problems again on various articles, eg: at Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Charles Dickens. Is there any chance of you leaving out the Hindutva/anti-colonial style of POV and just sticking to the Misplaced Pages way of doing things? If not then perhaps it really is time for you to find another outlet for your opinions.", poisoning the mind of another editor about me "I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong.", luckily for me the concerned editor user:WickerGuy ignored him, and we collabrated into creating a new sub-page ], he commended for writing the section Reconciliation. Please see the evidence, if you want more, I will look it up, but don't just assume. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

That Yogesh Khandke be blocked for one week to prevent their disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles, and for breaches of their topic ban in relation to Indian history, broadly construed. One week is enough time to calm down from making six months stale claims from a period which resulted in their topic banning. More than one week is punative, rather than preventative. The elements of breach of ban are disturbing, but comparatively minor, and do not in my mind contribute to adding any time to a one week block; this block's period being solely BOOMERANG in relation to the disruption this plaint has and is causing; the breech of ban merely being noted in relation to the block. Yogesh Khandke should consider their editing style and alter it on their return, I really hope to never read their name here as an element of a report ever again, and in a years time to see an application for removal of the topic ban based on excellent editing on other Indian topics. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo and all: Oh my claims complaints are stale? I didn't go official because, I don't believe in puerile complaints at the drop of a hat. However user:Sitush reverted my edit at Sudheendra Kulkarni with an edit warning "breach of topic ban." That was the proverbial "last straw" for me. I have presented my edits above, do the edits reverted by user:Sitush constitute a topic ban? If so then I'm happy that this WP:BOOMERANGs on me as I deserve it. If not, I request that user:Sitush should be persuaded to stay away from me.

• Four edits I made to the article (in effect) reverted by user:Sitush with edit summary "breach of topic ban"

  (1)In 2008, a sting operation was carried out and later televised, called the cash-for-votes scandal, it involved Kulkarni and another BJP activist. It allegedly showed a bribe of Rupees one crore being allegedly offered on behalf of the Congress led UPA government, to each of three BJP MPs to seek their support in the July 2008 confidence vote in parliament. A parliamentary panel probed the operation and asked the Delhi police to investigate some of those alleged to be involved, including Kulkarni whom they said had "facilitated the giving of bribes to members (2)On 17 July 2011, two of those involved were taken into custody for questioning. Kulkarni, who had been questioned earlier by the Kishore Chandra Deo committee said that he had been interrogated by the police on the matter and that he was prepared for further interrogation by them (3)September 27, 2011. (4)He was released on bail on 17 November 2011, The Economic Times reports that "The high court - while grantig bail to Kulkarni and five other co-accused - had on Wednesday punctured the foundation of the 2008 cash-for-votes scam, arguing that had the BJP leaders wanted bribe, they would not have conducted the sting.

  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support week-long ban. YK has been violating the terms of his topic ban, for example, in this edit to Krishna Desai; following it up with bizarre punctuation, as in this edit, presumably as a way of inserting unencyclopedic material by way of quotes, adding meaningless, dated, and pejorative (to Communists) phrases such as "card carrying" in this edit on Sudheendra Kulkarni, and then edit warring over it. In addition to the Boomerang referred to by Fifelfoo, this is altogether too much disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment regarding Fowler's allegations of topic ban: (1) "Card-carrying" it means a full-fledged member of an organization (as a Communist party) (Merriam Webster), nothing pejorative about it. Moreover it was in the source cited "CPI(M) card holder" (2)Krishna Desai was murdered in 1970? Historical? (3)I appeal to the administrators to request Fowler&Fowler to excuse us, and leave this discussion as he has nothing constructive to share with us. Fowler has an axe to grind in my case, he on informal advice of administrators had apologised to me for incivility and for abuse of Hindu dieties I have always taken the informal route, unless left with no option. (3)Yet Fowler continues being abusive his edit summary at Sudheendra Kulkarni reads this is an encyclopedia; just because someone uses a hackneyed meaningless and pejorative phrase, doesn't mean you can quote it. removing garbage, isn't calling other editor's work garbage a personal attack? (4)More examples of personal attacks by F&F (edit summaries) (a)Talks about an Indian community disparagingly: "Sorry, but removing bogus history; the Mughals would have whupped the Jat butt with both hands tied and both eyes closed; Please no fantasy history" (b)Insulting comments on Hindu beliefs: "clan founder lived 4 billion years ago, when there was no life; was he the first life form, a fragment of RNA? Or a tube worm in a hydrothermal vent?". (c)Calls Hindu belief's garbage "what sort of garbage is this? All humans in India originally came from Africa; Never heard of an African clan leader named Ikshavaku..."]
• Comment - Sitush's disruption(1)Sitush is acting like the proverbial "dog in the manger" he is blind to this simple punctuation mistake, which he simply keeps on inserting, In 2011, Kulkarni was remanded in judicial custody for a period and In November of that year was released on bail. It seems all he wants to do is heckle and hound me and not be a constructive contributor at least in the case of Sudheendra Kulkarni. I really fail to understand why the administrative community is turning a "blind eye" to this disruption.
• @Fifelfoo: (1)You write One week is enough time to calm down from making six months stale claims from a period which resulted in their topic banning., I request you to check the diffs, those are of articles I created and Sitush followed, hounded and followed me there. How on the earth does he know that a new article was being created by me unless he was wp:STALKING me? (2) Would you kindly explain with examples your statement prevent their disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles (3) I must thank you for reading and understanding the nuances of my statement I was under the impression that constructive editing in non-ban areas, and not keeping away was the key to have the ban narrowed, or revoked some day, your positive response is reassuring. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanation solicited:user:Sitush seems to be referring to off-Wiki activities, "We all know that you will likely find it difficult to be neutral when it comes to writing about Communists etc, given the events late last year that were spattered all over the newspapers/YouTube etc, as well as mentioned on Jimbo's page and at ANI." Isn't bringing off-wiki activities such as You-Tube/ newspapers a serious transgression of Wiki rules? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would like user:Kim Dent-Brown/ All to (1) See the following sub-Section regarding discussion related to Sudheendra Kulkarni, first Sitush argues that he didn't use the word "implicated" with reference to Kulkarni, then, when evidence is presented in for of a diff, he does a U-turn and justifies the use of "implicated", hardly amusing.. (2) He has made dozens of edits on my talk page (when lately I made one to his page, he deleted it, with an edit summary "go away"), using expressions like (a) "...there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry...", (b) Making false socking allegations and dragging me to ANI, (c)taunting me about my interactions with Sue Gardner, "..A word in Sue Gardner's ear may not have gone amiss..." (d) Making baseless allegations "...Now, I understand that you are also proposing that the government block access to Misplaced Pages..." accusing me of being disruptive at Charles Dickens and Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar neither articles he ever edited,. (e) Taunting and heckling "Hi Yogesh, I notice that your nationalist stance is getting you into problems again on various articles, eg: at Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Charles Dickens. Is there any chance of you leaving out the Hindutva/anti-colonial style of POV and just sticking to the Misplaced Pages way of doing things? If not then perhaps it really is time for you to find another outlet for your opinions.". (f) Poisoning the mind of another editor about me "I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong.", luckily for me the concerned editor user:WickerGuy ignored him, and we collabrated into creating a new sub-page ], he commended me for writing the section Reconciliation. Please see the evidence, if you want more, I will look it up, but don't just assume. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's keep cutting Mr. Khandke more slack and he'll keep delivering his flailing many-splendored diatribes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Support I'm now for the week-long block. The ideas that I've given to him to stop coming around in conflicts doesn't seem to be working at all, and the persistent name calling and trying to seek support to make this point is showing that he isn't understanding. I find this edit summary here: () very uncivil. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Pl. see my interactions with user:Sitush, I've side-stepped all that was thrown at me by him, not a word in reply, it is a year's interaction, and continued attacks, that has made me bring this up. You are looking at the effect, look at the cause too. I have laboured to stay away from him, I've never sought him out, he has. I see a completely non-involved editor like you, feel the way you do, (one should not say hounded when one feels hounded, one should not say heckled when one feels heckled etc.,). I've to ignore even at an ANI when an editor who supports me at at a discussion is called my "cohort". It means that I don't understand the mechanisms here, which is my fault. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Fowler gives some diffs that do not justify that YK violated his topic ban.I would not like to agree with Fifelfoo that YK was responsible for any disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles and a lot of editors like Fowler are being very inventive in connecting everything to Indian History.sarvajna (talk) 2:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Like I said, compulsively tendentious editors, such as Mr. Khandke, will test the boundaries of a topic ban in order to remain in the limelight of controversy. Continue to engage him civilly here, and he (or his cohorts) will continue to post long, disjointed, incoherent posts, the additional boldfacing of which will add eye strain to the headache you already have. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, please don't be plainly disingenuous. In this edit about a political murder in 1970, in which, to boot, Mr. Khandke, managed to take a swipe at his usual punching bag, the Indian National Congress, he adds, "According to the Communists, the then Indian National Congress government had an interest in the weakening of the Communists, and so it 'supported the incident'." What the heck is that about if not Indian history? It is an incident of 42 years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fowler that depends on your definition of History, please note even yesterday is also history technically.When YK was banned it was due to the AIT/AMT which is not a 1970 incident. Do not stoop down to your old habit of making comments like he (or his cohorts) will continue to post long, disjointed, incoherent posts, the additional boldfacing of which will add eye strain to the headache you already have.(this time the fonts are not in bold, hope this will not cause more headache) you have an option, stop reading the commentssarvajna (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support a week off. I had been undecided about this ban, concerned in particular about it possibly being punitive. However, Fowler&fowler has spotted another problematic POV pushing contribution. Someone needs the time to trawl through YK's edits since the topic ban and fix the things, without being subjected to continued, repetitive arguments in the process. I am pretty close to suggesting that the topic ban be extended to Indian politics also. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

I would propose that Sitush and Fowler be banned from interacting with YK, a lot of time of everyone can be saved.sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And damage the encyclopedia in the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It would mean that YK could quite likely get away with point-y edits such as this. I spotted it in my review today and I know that YK is well aware of the Ganges/Ganga naming disputes and their outcomes. I have not reverted but I would hope that someone sees sense. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Another stretching of imagination: Is GangaxGanges about Indian History? Both are contemporary names of the river, both are English names, the dispute is which name should we use when we refer to her on Misplaced Pages, it is an issue of wp:COMMONNAME. Moreover user:Sitush in his disruptive edit on Sudheendra Kulkarni had described my four edits there betweeen 2012-06-19-15.57 and 2012-06-19-16.14 as violation of my topic banYogesh Khandke (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is best to not be obsessively tendentious, Mr. Khandke. The Ganges page has seen several unsuccessful page move attempts to Ganga. The consensus, thus far, has been overwhelmingly to keep the name Ganges. Having been on the losing side of the debate for your entire time on Misplaced Pages, you are well aware of the consensus. In spite of that, if you are casually changing "Ganges" to "Ganga," with unintelligible edit summary "gangesxganga," you are attempting to do in an everyday edit what you have been unable to do in the page move. This is not to place to redo all the arguments for that page move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Deathlasersonline

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.

Deathlasersonline (talk · contribs)

I honestly think that this user is here just to troll. To wit:

• A mass of improper G7's to various articles (such as Eleutherococcus gracilistylus), followed by a comment at User talk:LadyofShalott#Deletion which says, "So we got 2 ways of doin this-either you mass delete or I blank!"

• Creation of a Grawp-esque browswer crashing page at User:Deathlasersonline/revenge. Afterward, he submitted it to RFPP, where it got speedied per G3. After that, he claimed it was a test to see how much a page could hold (). He then said others were assuming bad faith.

• A comment like "Every-one thinks I am traitor!" suggests he knows he's disrupting the project.

While the user has created some seemingly viable articles such as Dark radiation, their behavior in the past 24 hours suggests that they're not here for seriousness. Some of their edits are borderline vandalism, trolling and gaming of the system. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I don't know what got over me over the past 24 hours. I was actually editing and revising maths in 2 tabs at once. I will immideatly take a wikibreak and promise not to repeat this type of behaviour again!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You obviously knew what you were doing from the get-go, and your actions seem far too deliberate. You also seem to know way too much for an ostensibly new editor. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I really was just testing the maximum amount of data you could put in a page. I was just curious-the canon picture was because it was 2.74MB which is the largest I temporarily found!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you call a browser-crashingly huge page "revenge", you are obviously pulling the same stunts that a certain banned editor used to do. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you name it "revenge", link to it in reply to a warning from Lady on your talk page, and request protection for it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to voice my support for the above claims. Deathlasersonline previously signed up for the WP:GOCE backlog elimination drive in May, and the WP:WikiProject Wikify backlog elimination drive in June. In both cases, his contributions were determined to be either non-existent or actually worsened the articles he edited. He then joined the just-started GAN backlog drive, and his reviews have been lacking. I have serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns, outside of the possibility that he is simply trolling. Another example of the latter is this bizzare conversation he had with a handful of other editors last week. I was shocked that no one else realized that the simplest explanation was that he was just trolling everyone and making things up about the supposed e-mails as he went along. I honestly haven't seen him do much that was productive, and have spent a lot of time behind the scenes cleaning up after him or watching others do the same. —Torchiest _edits 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Deathlasersonline, if this is the case, why would you write "User:Deathlasersonline/revenge" at that moment at time? Also, calling it "/revenge" seems to instantly go over the borderline. ⇒TAP 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But it was not a threat nevertheless, why do you all think I am making a threat. I was also trying to come first in Misplaced Pages:Database_reports/Users_by_bytes_uploaded.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The hell it wasn't. You titled it "revenge", obviously making a threat. You seem to know too much for an ostensibly new editor, as I said before. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If true, the above comment seems to fall into gaming territory anyway. —Torchiest _edits 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this user is young and perhaps quite immature and/or over-dramatic (no offense intended - just being blunt). I've spent some time offering this user guidance. This latest stunt, apparently intended as revenge towards LadyofShallot who has also spent a lot of time helping and offering advice to this user, is over the line. I'm not certain that they are Grawp/an experienced troll, but I wasn't convinced by several claims this user has made in regards to people emailing him. I have been assuming good faith, but the continuous questionable behaviour is really whittling away at my ability to AGF. Bunnies! Leave a message 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with OohBunnies here; I don't know that implications of sockpuppetry are warranted yet, but I think this is getting disruptive enough in its own right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I WAS NOT MAKING A THREAT, I CAME ON WIKIPEDIA FOR ATTENTION AND AWARDS, PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A THREAT!IT WAS NOT A THREAT, I TITLED IT REVENGE BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY THE THING THAT WOULD COME TO MY MIND AND INSERTED A LINK FOR A RED LINK SO THAT I COULD TEST HOW MUCH A PAGE COULD BE!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been told before not to "shout" (i.e use caps lock). Sorry, but we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to give you attention or awards. You can either help us build the encyclopedia or continue to cause drama in the community...the latter may earn you a block though. Bunnies! Leave a message 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The community has given Deathlasersonline the benefit of the doubt far more than most other editors, primarily because they have appeared to be making some positive contributions; however I believe that we have reached the point where their positive contributions to Misplaced Pages are outweighed by the negative contributions. It has been clear for some time that this editor has some Competence issues and even with a significant amount of help by several other editors, have been unable to address them. Deathlasersonline treats Misplaced Pages as a game/competition (and they aren't the only editor to do so) and it is becoming disruptive, this has also been accompanied with frequent dramatic bursts of anger/annoyance. I'm concerned that this editor may not be mature enough to edit Misplaced Pages at this time, the above comments suggest this is true. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am incredibly tempted to indef per WP:CIR. Anyone has a good reason why I shouldn't? Salvio 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• DO IT. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please, last chance.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sure hope you do not get any more chances to troll. This: " I was also trying to come first in Misplaced Pages:Database_reports/Users_by_bytes_uploaded" after all your previous nonsense leading up it, puts my troll-meter squarely into the red. Zad68 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Plus this: "I WAS NOT MAKING A THREAT, I CAME ON WIKIPEDIA FOR ATTENTION AND AWARDS" is just about as good as typing "I AM A TROLL" on your user page. Zad68 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 7) I have large concerns over Talk:Worthington Brewery/GA1 and Talk:Thessaloniki/GA1. I would suggest Deathlasersonline withdrawing those, so a proper review can be done. I also see copyright concerns in the Brewery GAN, the editor quoting the public domain tag. I later added {{pd-old-100}} to the image.. In the past I have been assuming good faith with deathlasersonline, but this is too much now. LadyofShallot has gave Deathlaser(sonline) great guidance in the past, which they seem to not be following. I had also assigned Deathlasersonline tasks to do, like fix the interwiki errors in some of their stubs. This was not done. As a stub creator myself, who has fixed over seven-hundred stubs in my time, I do not seem convinced that this editor has enough care about their articles than they should. I will recuse myself from the block, as I have interacted with this editor much. I also think that because the editor was reluctant to forward the email threat to ArbCom and the fact that the sory of it kept growing, I think that there is an issue here. However, the user has had many 'last chance'. Regards, ⇒TAP 18:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, after I come back from Wikibreak and troll again-block me! But not this time please.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deathlasersonline, with every issue you have, you always go on a wikibreak, then instantly come back after the dispute is over. ⇒TAP 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A wikibreak doesn't earn you any favours. So many editors have spent their free time offering you guidance and advice, including LadyofShallot - and your treatment of her is quite unacceptable, not to mention unfair and ungrateful. If you do get this "last chance" then bear in mind it really would be a last chance. You've been treated incredibly leniently. I do hope you realise this. Bunnies! Leave a message 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Quit going around in circles and block him. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I block-conflicted with Jac16888... Salvio 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocked for a year, hopefully a year from now they will be mature enough to edit--Jac16888 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppet of User:WOLfan112

Deathlasersonline/Deathlaser is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of WOLfan112 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked before for abusing sockpuppets. --MuZemike 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, honestly would not have called that. Talk about a 3rd act twist--Jac16888 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I will note that WOLfan112 is currently not blocked, presumably because nobody caught on until now. I will leave the sockmaster for the community to handle. --MuZemike 22:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Apart from being a sock, Deathlaser's behavior lately has been sufficiently disruptive that I'm not too pleased with the idea of the editor having an unblocked account under any name. As Deathlaser or as WOLfan112, this person needs that year off to mature. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Per the above, a minimum of a one year block is necessary. I think an indef block should be put in place. However we should refer to this person created the Deathlaser account one day after a one week block was put in place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Both have now been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Geez, I just loved being played for a fool. :( LadyofShalott 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Democracy112 (talk · contribs) was just confirmed as another sockpuppet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

WOLfan112 requested unblocking. I declined and think I fairly represented the consensus here, but I invite any other admin to review my decline. LadyofShalott 18:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No brainer to refuse here, I support your decision, and so would anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and a few minutes later he tried again, no luck. I'm debating taking away talk page access now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls

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

This article is undergoing mass IP vandalism (An edit like every 10 secs or so) can anyone help on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. And, dang, yeah. I wonder if this is some sort of group attack or something. I guess i'd better go and start handing out warnings so we can get that bureaucracy out of the way and start blocking them as soon as possible. Silverseren 04:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget what I just said. It's too fast. Full protection needed immediately!!! Silverseren 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I would lock the page the last good edit is a ways back by Cluebot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mine is good, since I reverted all the way back to Cluebot myself. Silverseren 05:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the page was semi-protected at least that should help in the short term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

New registered users are vandalising, too. Full PP might be a good idea. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If they're new, then they're not auto-confirmed, so they should still be locked out with semi-protection, right? Silverseren 05:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Other Hanna-Barbera articles

Keep an eye on them. I've got one of the vandals making an edit on Courage the Cowardly Dog. Silverseren 05:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Would blocks help at all for the editors involved? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at least for 24 hours. Silverseren 05:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is confirmed by the edits it looks like Courage the Cowardly Dog is getting hit next. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Got an edit to Samurai Jack as well now. Silverseren 05:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

List of The Powerpuff Girls villains is undergoing one vandal IP's edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Now at List of The Powerpuff Girls characters - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to rapidly create some kind of script that could semi all the articles in some particular category? This reminds me a little bit of a problem we had with Beatles songs a year or two ago. The H-B stuff is probably rather broader in scope. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So far no more vandalism on Jack or Courage, but protected the villians list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of them are wandering off into other topic areas, like List of Grand Theft Auto III characters and Zelda II. Silverseren 05:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Admins please!

Could we please get some admins to wade through these article histories and start blocking all of the IPs? That would be appreciated. Silverseren 05:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I second that we editors on wikipedia can only do so much we need a helping hand so this does not spread anymore than it needs to Thanks =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The IPs that hit Courage and PPGV have been blocked 24 hours. The PPG vandals are either dynamic IPs or a group of attackers; blocking any one would be pointless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks then I know what you mean anons can easily skirt around the blocks but it does slow them down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunce caps and the corner for a few more. I think we've got a lid on it now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay and thanks again, for now I dont see any new mass vandal edits but this may be something to keep an eye on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this has been discussed before, but my search didn't find it. Is an auto semi-protect technically possible for a rapidly edited article with multiple reverts? Dru of Id (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just one edit from this guy, but it's probably related to the whole thing. Caught it earlier and thought it might be a good idea to let you guys know, in case the particular IP gets lost in the shuffle and causes trouble again later. Evanh2008 08:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered

Alan Liefting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently removing what appear to be all instances of File:Replace this image male.svg from articles using an automated tool. He uses the edit summary "rm image per discussion. See File:Replace this image male.svg", but I can find no discussion about this. He has not reacted to what I consider a reasonable request on his talk page to stop this until it is clear whether there is a consensus for the removal of these images. Because I believe our practice is to consider undiscussed and potentially controversial automated changes to hundreds of articles disruptive, I am considering blocking Alan Liefting until he agrees to (a) stop these removals and start a structured discussion, and (b) undo the removals he already made if there is no consensus in favor of them. What do others think about this?  Sandstein  06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. From my standpoint, this sort of behaviour is becoming a recurring pattern for User:Alan Liefting. (See here, here, here for examples.) I know he is able to productively discuss things when approached because I have seen it happen. It just seems that more often than not he prefers not to stop after an editor or editors ask him to stop. There are several Misplaced Pages users that I know of that have lost all patience with Alan and are hoping that some sort of action is taken. I don't know what the right solution is. I blocked him on 14 May 2012 for vandalism of a reporting page and some personal attacks after he kind of lost it after being reported on an administrator's noticeboard. Good Ol’factory 06:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A templated note on the male placeholder says:

    Note to Misplaced Pages editors:

    From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits.

    There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and this one. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation.

    66% seems quite significant to me, but then it's my opinion that the placeholders make us look totally amateur and should be deprecated. Why would 66% not be considered a consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this discussion is the one the remover refers to, and it's five years old; moreover it does not seem to have resulted in consensus for actually removing the files. I don't think that a discussion that old that has since not been acted upon is now a reasonable basis for an otherwise undiscussed mass removal.  Sandstein  06:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • According to the old discussion, 66% of participants were opposed to the use of those images, and if only a smaller percentage advocated immediate removal it was because they wished to first see a discussion about developing some alternative solution as a successor system. Since evidently no such successor system has been introduced in the four years since, I find it entirely reasonable to now take that as a justification for removal. My understanding has long been that these things were thoroughly deprecated and I'm astonished to see there were still so many of them around. Most seem to have been on minor, rarely-edited bios, where they probably were simply forgotten. Plus, in most of these cases the original introduction of the placeholder image was itself done through an undiscussed mass edit back in 2008, Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A discussion involving only around 50 editors from four years ago is not a community consensus to remove this image across thousands of articles. I strongly oppose this action. A new discussion about removal should be conducted and then Alan can do his removals. But he should stop immediately until such a discussion is concluded. Silverseren 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • And how many prompted the replacement by a useable image? Dru of Id (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Probably unknowable. Even if we had statistics about how many placeholders were replaced, we would still not know in how many cases the uploaders were prompted by the presence of the placeholder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to comment on behavioural issues and the state of consensus, but ditching this image is an improvement. Editors were always aware that bio articles without masthead images could benefit by having such an image added. There was no reason to make the pages look untidy for readers too by adding this boilerplate.

Mind you, if this image is to go, then isn't that a 'bot task? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support the removal of these amateurish images. Commend the editor who has done the work of removing them. They should never have been added in the first place, they look terrible, and our articles are the better for their removal. --John (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Number of times in my 6+ years here that I have seen an editor actually replace one of those 'replace this image' with a proper photo? Zero. They serve no real purpose and look grim. GiantSnowman 11:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good removals, no real consensus to implement it, and it is time that this is cleared. Sometimes it is good that someone takes initiative to clear out stuff, and I think it is very inappropriate that editors then directly start considering blocks - we are, clearly, not a bureaucracy where everything that is done needs a clear pre-established consensus (unless someone can show me significant opposition against removal that is ignored). --Dirk Beetstra 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support removals and trout slap those coming after him. How is an old consensus invalid? Unreal. Yes, consensus can change but if there's no new consensus that overrides it, it's still valid regardless of subjective ideas of "old". Plus, looking at this discussion, coming after him for not having a bot do the work? I'm getting rather disgusted with this new-think idea that a repetitive task must be done by a bot, else not be done, and therefore any editor doing a repetitive task is by default 'wrong'. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support removal Even if we decided that the removals were incorrect, a block would be completely punitive as long as he agreed to whatever consensus was established here, but it seems like consensus is moving in his direction. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support the removal, never been a fan of the File:Replace this image male.svg and File:Replace this image female.svg. If there is no photograph then there should be no image stating it, it is clear that no free-use photograph exists and there is no need to state the obvious by using File:Replace this image fe/male.svg! Bidgee (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support getting rid of those ugly and unprofessional things! Alan Liefting deserves our thanks for taking on this job. Threatening a block for this is ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and Sandstein should be admonished for starting off a discussion with a threat to block unless the party he is in dispute with complies with his demands. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• 20-Mule-Team Support: What the hell? Since when does consensus have a sell-by date? Hell, if Silver's bizarre contention that we can safely ignore any consensus that was reached too long ago holds true, I bet there are any number of policies and guidelines we can ignore, right? Has WP:N been currently ratified by the community? Ravenswing 17:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  The issue isn't so much how old the discussion is as the point that such a fundamental change to thousands of articles should have a Wiki-wide discussion before implementing. With a watchlist notice and the like. Silverseren 19:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Then this should be a non-issue. There was a wiki-wide discussion, and it was duly posted at WP:CD (). 2/3rds supported removal. No evidence has been provided by anyone that this consensus has been overridden by a new consensus. Given the amount of support Alan is getting here, it seems rather likely any new consensus would mirror the previous one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Plainly the age of the discussion is an issue - why else would you mention it? And, as Hammersoft points out, there WAS a notice and WAS a widespread discussion, and you know full well that a full fifty editors chiming in is quite a broad base by Misplaced Pages standards for such a technical discussion. If you didn't notice it at the time, that's scarcely Alan's fault, or our problem. That being said, come on: this is not a "fundamental" change. This is removing a placeholder few seem to like in favor of no image at all, a cosmetic alteration few Misplaced Pages users would even notice, let alone care about. If the impulse some folks have is "OMG we have to block him to STOP HIM!!!", that strikes me as much more trigger-happy than is fitting for an admin. Ravenswing 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fine. I never said I was opposed to the idea anyways, just Alan's mass removal with no context. So long as there is still support, it's fine. I just wish he had obtained this reaffirmed support before starting. It's better to do that than to act on years old consensuses for removal without warning. Silverseren 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's plenty of things around here that we apply that gained consensus years and years ago. Sheer age of a consensus does not make it invalid. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about consensuses like policies or things that have been already implemented, but consensus for things that would require mass removals and haven't been implemented for years afterwards. At that point, it should be reaffirmed or at least announced that the person will be undertaking this consensus, rather than just starting to remove all of them and confusing a large number of people. An announcement of the intent to do so on AN would be the best option. Silverseren 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• The removals have been done for years. It's not the case that consensus was achieved and nothing was done about it for four years. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• 40-Mule-Team Support removal: The evidence at the time was these were not bringing in usable pictures and articles that still have them four years on is further proof of that. The rules for allowable pics are so Byzantine that it is a mistake to encourage uploading of pics that will get deleted anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• No strong opinion on the images, but Alan needs to communicate when his editing is questioned on his talk page. He appears to have completely ignored the first message on his talk page and only decided to stop editing at the moment the ANI thread was started, 18 hours later. This is not collaborative or cooperative behavior. Also, these edits are being done at a high rate by a semi-automated process, and clearly they're not completely uncontroversial edits. Therefore, per WP:BOTASSIST, Alan should submit a BRFA for this task. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with what he is doing, being unresponsive during a huge run of automated or semi-automated edits (for which you don't have explicit approval) is equivalent to begging for an immediate block. -Scottywong| communicate _ 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• In light of my support for his actions, I do agree with Scottywong that his communication during this ordeal has been subpar. If an editor is going to make 1000's of edits and someone questions them, the editor should make sure the concern is completely addressed before continuing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I might suggest that we "beef up" WP:Fait accompli, which is a decision that came out of a ArbCom case (TTN's?) on the impact of doing a large number of similar changes. I don't think we need to make it policy or even a guideline, but I would suggest that if anyone is planning on doing a wide range of a common action in a short period of time via a non-bot mechanism (whether manual, semi-automated, or automated), that one should (but absolutely not required to) validate those actions, and more importantly, if such actions are contested while being acted on, the actions should stop immediately (and that's more a requirement than a suggestion) to allow discussion to continue. Again, I do not want to make it anywhere enforceable as problems with fait accompli can be handled through standard admin action like we're discussing here (and knowing how both the Beta and RichF. Arbcom cases closed out, what exactly is "wide range of common action in a short period of time" is a poor definition and will be so gamed by editors with grudges), but it's a piece of advice that I think we want editors to follow and that we can remind them of if they are acting in this fashion in the face of obvious resistance. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Alan did have validation for his actions. He responded promptly to queries about it as well. When the actions became contested via this thread on WP:AN/I, he stopped immediately. Alan's done nothing wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I 100% agree he's done nothing actionable by AN or most other metrics (during or currently), but the only reason I point this out is that if he said, say, over at VPP that he was about to act on this past consensus, we wouldn't be here right now at ANI about it. Hence why beefing up the essay to suggest that announcing large scale non-bot efforts is highly recommended to avoid being in the line of fire later. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• On 29 May 2012 Alan was approached about the removal on a particular article. Alan responded 13 minutes later. Alan was approached on 31 May 2012 about the removals. Just two minutes later he responded, pointing to the relevant centralized discussion that gave consensus to deprecate the use. How is that not cooperative? Because Fram, who was party to the 31 May 2012 discussion, asked him yesterday to stop and he didn't respond or stop? Alan had already responded to Fram previously. Kudos to Alan for stopping when another editor notified him of this thread. Alan's done nothing wrong here. His edits have consensus and the summary is accurate and provides a link for further understanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies for my earlier reply to Scottywong then, I didn't realize that Fram was part of the earlier discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I created the WP:IPH shortcut to the consensus decision supporting removal, and have suggested Alan include that shortcut in future edit summaries when he resumes removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Just in case it wasn't clear from my comment above, I support the removal of the placeholders (and generally do so myself when I come across then, which is quite infrequently these days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to allow Alan to finish

I propose that we allow Alan to finish making his improvements to the encyclopedia in relation to removing the placeholders. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I just hope he makes an announcement next time on AN or VPP before conducting something like this. There's been far too many ANI discussions regarding him in relation to his semi-automated edits that he really should announce things first at this point if he wants to avoid this stuff. Silverseren 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, I hope you do realise that we are 'again' here with Alan because Sandstein felt the necessity to immediately come to AN/I without talking to the editor first, where the editor was before already approached twice and already twice has shown that there was consensus for his tasks. I actually really wonder why Sandstein brought this thread here and not continued a discussion with the editor on their talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support of course. I think we already have done this above. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I felt like consensus was there, I just wanted to make it official. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until a consensus is obtained for an automated removal of the images. The discussion from 4 years ago seems to have resulted in a consensus that the images are ugly, and something should be done about them, but there was no discussion of having an automated tool remove all of them. For instance, perhaps it would be more useful to convert the image tags to something like Category:Biography articles needing images. A brief discussion at WP:VPP is not much to ask, and could result in a better outcome than blunt removal without discussion. In my opinion, a BRFA should be filed for a task of this magnitude. -Scottywong| speak _ 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Cat'ing bio pages without infobox images is easy to do via the infobox template, so it could be done post-facto. And since its not a bot, BRFA is inappropriate (but that's why I bring up the idea of non-bot automated/manual repeated tasks being announced prior to the fact. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We should not be setting a precedent that it's ok to silently set up AWB to make thousands of edits based on discussions with a weak consensus that took place many years ago, which never discussed the possibility of automated action. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Knowing how editors that are affected by this demand wikilawyering-levels of resolution, this is a very bad precedent ("Oh, I disagree with this long-standing clear consensus from X years ago because consensus can change! Stop that task at once!") Is it a smart idea to check for support for a task? Heck yes. Required? Heck no, as long as you the editor doing those changes accept that if they are contested, you'd better stop, and if later found to be undesirable, work to fix it up. Refusing to do either of these with any type of mass editor (manual, AWB or something in between) is cruisin' for a block. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The point is that there was no consensus for an automated tool to remove thousands of images. There was consensus that something needs to be done about the images, but no consensus that they all needed to be forcibly removed. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • There was no consensus against the use of automated tools either. If he was acting against that, then let's through the book at him. But we encourage bold actions when by good faith they are believed to improve the encyclopedia: he ran AWB on that assumption. I'd say we'd want to encourage giving fair warning or re-establishing consensus, but as long as there wasn't clear consensus against the action, being bold is nothing we should punish him form. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and also support the idea of creating a bot to do the work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  I would not try to do it by bot, many would go fine, but this is work that typically glitches for strange reasons. This needs to be done human-supervised with AWB, not automated. --Dirk Beetstra 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Plenty of websites use silhouette images in place of actual pictures. IMDB comes to mind immediately. Ancestry.com does too. The claim that they're "unprofessional" is funny, given the wretched quality of no small number of user-taken snapshots littering the bio's. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is the unintended consequence of the "no fair use images for living people" policy. But regardless of where they're used otherwise, the placeholders here, at least, are some kind of ugly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ha. I had this debate with someone here, a few years ago, and when I said our multitude of snapshot-quality photos made us look amateurish - and they said it's supposed to be that way. Regardless, those silhouettes don't look any uglier than red-links to non-existent articles. And they're supposed to serve somewhat the same purpose: To maybe encourage someone to look for a picture. However, it would help if it were consistent: Either all or none, not "if we happen to think about it." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Scottywong. Happy to start a more full RfC. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that I don't see consensus against having a call to contribute images - just against the former image in terms of style (and that was marginal). James F. (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support makes articles better. Nobody Ent 02:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a small piece of text in the image slot or at the bottom of the infobox that requested images, but the placeholders are (sorry Bugs) amateurish and ugly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the eye of the beholder, I guess. This doesn't seem at all ugly and amateurish to me. The worst I would say about it is that it's mundane. I don't think it looks any worse than what IMDB uses. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, a matter of opinion. The IMDB star thing is marginally better than our placeholder -- but also, we're an encyclopedia (albeit a popular one) not a commercial website owned by Amazon.com. I'm a great believer in being as visually interesting and informative as possible, but those placeholder images are like nails on a blackboard to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying that what it looks like is not really a strong reason to delete it. Much better reasons include (1) that they are not consistently used, but only on a whim; (2) that they don't really serve any purpose (the fact that there's no picture is fairly obvious); and (3) that they might unwittingly encourage editors to post non-free content. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • • I think it's fair to say that no one has any clue about whether they "work" or not, where "work" means "encourage people to upload legitimate free images". I guess what I'm saying, as someone who's focused a great deal on the visual aspects of WP articles, is that an article is better off with no image whatsoever rather than the placeholders, and that the lack of an image is as useful in nudging an editor to upload an image as the placeholders are. I also agree with the implications of your last remark: veteran WP editors will see either the lack of an image or a placeholder as an encouragement to look for a free image, while tyros will basically ignore the lack of an image, and will be encouraged by the placeholder to upload non-usable non-free images, because that's what are most easily available. (Finding free images is much more difficult, and the vast majority of people don't have personal snapshots of celebrities to contribute.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is tending towards opinion ("it's ugly/unprofessional" vs. "it isn't any uglier than empty space"), which doesn't take into account whether or not they actually work – the whole point. I'm wondering if (warning, about to sound like the WMF) we should try an A/B test to determine whether the placeholders actually encourage people to upload images. Remove all that are manually inserted, build a list of BLPs without an image, use some parser magic in infoboxes to give half of these articles a placeholder image and leave the other half empty, come back in some months, and see what percentage of articles gained a picture. Has anyone suggested this before? As Bugs said, the placeholders potentially encourage users to post non-free content that they wouldn't add otherwise. We can, of course, review what's uploaded and see if this is true. — The Earwig  04:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, Alan is doing fine with AWB (I actually see no reason why we are !voting to have Alan continue - there is no reason he should not). Alan, please continue the removals. --Dirk Beetstra 04:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• We are !voting because an admin – the otherwise esteemed and perceptive Sandstein – told Alan to stop. When someone of that repute says to do something, a community override -- if that's what is wanted -- is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think that spurring on Alan to continue in the midst of a discussion about what he's doing, that is not providing a clear consensus for him to continue, is not showing the best judgment here. -- Despayre  16:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Remove the last of these ill-considered and ugly place holders. It should have been done long ago. --John (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Semi-Support Not on the highly subjective grounds that they're "ugly", which I don't agree they are; but rather because they are at best useless and at worst might induce editors to post non-free photos. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Masem - it's a bad precedent to stop an editor from work that has consensus just because the consensus is old. There appears to be sufficient support for a removal here anyway. A short comment somewhere (e.g. VPP) by Alan before starting the work would have been better, but it is not required. – sgeureka 14:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like ScottyWong said there's no consensus to use automated tools to remove these images wholesale. I also second The Earwig's suggestion -- there hasn't been any proper study as to whether these placeholder images lead to eventual improvement of the encyclopædia. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until a BRFA has been approved for this semi-automated task. — madman 15:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The consensus was only that the current PHs shouldn't be used, not what was to happen to them (either replacement with others or deletion). Until consensus has been reached on that issue wholesale automated deletion seems counterproductive. It also looks like most editors who have voiced disapproval of PHs seems to have done so for aesthetical reasons, and that opens up the possibility that there could be a consensus to replace them with newly designed images. I also agree with the editors suggesting that we find out if the PHs are actually having any effect before deciding to remove them completely.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• What is the next step then? Do we start an RfC on the status of the images? Do we have an in depth research study performed on the images and their effects? If we did, questions would need to be answered as to how many of the placeholders prompted image placements and how many placeholders prompted image placements that were later deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per reasons given by The Earwig and Saddhiyama. -- Despayre   16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ScottyWong. I don't have any particular objection to the idea, but we need to follow the process. We have BRFA for a reason. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to remind folks that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Consensus is that the existing images are undesirable. Saying "don't remove them until we !vote" is, well, bureaucracy that isn't needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama - more weirdness

Continuing...

Hello? This IP continues their disruptive antics on the talk page. It's all very well to be amused by their absurdities, but could we please get a block as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dianna blocked the IP for 31 hours. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AJona1992's restrictions

As per my talk page notice I was told that after 6 months I can ask for a loosening of my restrictions. I had tried to do so in April 2012 though it was preferred that I get a mentor. I have tried to ask two users who were experts with image uploading and rules/guidelines however none were interested. What other options do I have now? Best, Jonayo! 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of possible mentors. Why stop at 2? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Those were the only ones who were recommended. I don't know any image mentors and I don't mind asking around if there were a place where I can find them? Best, Jonayo! 16:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• (AJona, do NOT take this as a suggestion to ignore your sanctions) I think somewhere there needs to be a principle that if a request is made to lift a community sanction, due notification is placed at appropriate places such that the community has a chance to respond, and there's no response from the community, the sanction is void. Otherwise, sanctions could exist in perpetuity. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarificationgiven deleting sources

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

Could someone possibly give Clarificationgiven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a clue please? Despite me explaining several times that sources don't have to be free to view per WP:PAYWALL, he insists on deleting references to The Times that require subscription. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Source isn't working, niether there's any other source related with the same information, so i guess it should be replaced with another source, and if you are unable to provide it, you are welcome to remove it. Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So you still haven't read WP:PAYWALL then? And I'll repeat what I've already said. The source is working, if you don't want to subscribe that's your problem. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the source isn't unpopular, the information should have been included by others as well, because it isn't i heavily doubt, yes i have read, that's why not editing those anymore. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a free source, you are welcome to add it. But there no reason to remove an existing reliable source because it requires subscription. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconding that: don't remove as source because it's "unpopular", or because you "heavily doubt". Remove a source if it's wrong. There is no prohibition or discouragement of paywalled/subscription sites; also, would you remove a print source because you don't have the book and "doubt" that it's accurate? Misplaced Pages doesn't discourage offline sources either, nor should it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas

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

For quite a while there is a discussion going on about a picture on Template:American cuisine. During that discussion Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is really annoying. Misbehaviours include editwarring, nagging and PAs. But his last provocation is too much for me. This has nothing to do with civility but everything of claiming ownership of the template and plain nagging. Because it is more then likely that he will target other templates with this type of behaviour, I ask a topic ban for all food-related templates for Viriditas.

At the moment "Template:American cuisine" is protected due to an editwar started by Viriditas. No matter what the outcome is, it is not right to removing a picture before the discussion is closed. He even managed to let acclaimed administrator Nihonjoe to loose his temper with his attacks and nagging.

The whole discussion (and trouble) begun on 18 May 2012, when Viriditas, without prior discussion, removed the picture of the template. During the discussion, a poll was suggested by Jerem43, what was, without prior agreement, closed by Viriditas.

In fact, Viriditas is using a lot of words, but is not engaged in discussions. Warnings for an editwar are followed up by a personal attack, a remark about the poll was followed up by a troll accusation, and comments on his behaviour disappear as de-trolling.

Seeing his moves, without prior discussion, on Template:Canadian cuisine (), Template:Japanese cuisine (), Template:Korean cuisine (), Template:Turkish cuisine (, Template:Serbian cuisine (), Template:Pakistani cuisine (), Template:Moroccan cuisine (), Template:Italian cuisine (), Template:Algerian cuisine (), Template:Indian cuisine (), Template:Chinese cuisine (), Template:British cuisine () and Template:Argentine cuisine (), I don't believe that the annoying behaviour will stop just at "American cuisine", hence the afore mentioned topic ban request to prevent editwars and unrest. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone in on the same page here - a paid employee of Burger King (not a burger flipper at a franchisee, but rather at the corporate level) is engaged in an edit war with someone regarding if a picture of a hamburger should be the lead image on the template "American cuisine," and you are reporting the person they are edit warring with for being less then civil to the paid employee of Burger King? Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that was just one of the incidents. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you mean when he interpreted the poll which is current running at 3 to keep (including one editor who is employed by Burger King in what appears to be a PR capacity) vs 12 to remove/change to indicate that keeping the image was not supported by consensus? How exactly is this the straw that broke the camels back? Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This case is not about the poll, not about Jerem43 but about the disrupting and annoying behaviour of Viriditas. If you have a problem with Nihonjoe or Jerem43, open a separate case for each of them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So, in summary, you're certain he's doing something wrong, but you can't explain it except to note that when you flung a bunch of automated templates on his user talk page he got steamed at you, and when it's noted that we've got a paid PR agent a massively incivil admin your response is "look over there!" Got it! Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, who are you and why are you accusing me of being paid to do stuff on behalf of Burger King? At no time have I ever been paid to do anything for anyone. Your comment shows a severe lack of civility and assumption of good faith. You sir are making baseless personal attacks and I resent them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my misreading of an earlier comment. Apparently you are not employed by Burger King, and I have struck my errors. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• There has been less than optimal behavior on both sides of the debate at the RfC for Template:American cuisine. My sense of it is that (1) a topic ban for anyone involved would be a gigantic overreaction and that (2) everyone should just exercise a little patience, stop discussing one another's faults on the talk page, and wait for an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC (which should occur less than 48 hours from now). Rivertorch (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll endorse that. At the moment I don't see how a topic ban for anyone (and if we go that way, the behavior of some on both sides will need examining) would help Misplaced Pages. Hopefully it's all over including the shouting and as Rivertorch says, everyone should just wait for the RfC to be closed. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe

However, reviewing the entirety of the content, I am confused as to how Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) thinks it's acceptable to say "Stop being a jerk, Viriditas," and "I have never seen any discussion in which you participate where you have been anything but a bully and a complete jerk to anyone who disagrees with you," and "I've given up any hope you'll ever be anything other than a bully on this site," and "Please grow up and start engaging in polite debates rather than continuing as you have been." But, hey, he's an admin, so he can do no wrong! Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Then read it properly and see how he is the main victim of the nagging, unfounded accusations and provocations. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

'eye for an eye'? --Dirk Beetstra 17:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Between mr. N. and mr. V.? Possible but unwanted and uncivil. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jeremy (User:Jerem43)

I wish to address my actions before anyone else falsely accuses me of actions that I did not commit.

1. I do not work for Burger King Corporation, its agencies or contractors. I am not paid by anyone to do anything on behalf of any entity anywhere. The accusations that I am some sort of PR hack are patently false and violate almost all of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. I am deeply angered by the accusation made by Hipocrite, and ask that he withdraw said comment and apologize.
2. The only thing that I have asked of Veritidas is that he play by the rules, in his actions he has violated several policies and guidelines including, but not limited to, WP:BRD, WP:AGF and WP:3R. At every turn he has repeatedly acted in a manner that is inappropriate, and that is what I object to. If the discussion goes his way, I will abide by the consensus of the community. Right now the discussion is eight in favor of no image and five in favor of some sort of image, three for maintaining the current image and two for the addition of another image.
3. The Poll I established was intended solely to break free of the massive wall of text that the discussion had become. There were no other motives behind it, and to ascribe any to me is simply baseless. I was simply trying to avoid issues of TLDR.

Viriditas' behavior and how he acted during the period leading up to the discussion is what is at question here. I personally think he should be sanction some how because it appears, through my research into his past behaviors, that this is his modus operandi. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the record: WP:BRD is not policy, and if you believe Viriditas has broken the three-revert rule, there is an edit-warring noticeboard. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 18:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing my error out, I clarified my statement a bit. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • BRD may not be policy, but it should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. And I question whether "hamburger" and "cuisine" even belong in the same sentence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on the first part; WP:DRN is thataway. As for the second part, clearly you've never had a Cheeburger Cheeburger. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Michelle Fields

There has been an edit war going on at the Michelle Fields page. It involves two IP users, one of whom continuously adds the same bit of information, and the other who takes that information away. Here's what I'm talking about I've tried posting on both users' talk pages, but no improvement. It looks like 69.143.14.13 may have WP:COI with this article, and 68.34.96.216 seems intent on inserting information that, while sourced, is not in keeping with WP:BLP or WP:RS. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe better to take this to WP:RFPP? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The nonsense that keeps getting added is a serious BLP violation, in addition to demeaning the English language. The "other" IP removed that violation, as did User:Torchiest. If 68.34.96.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which seems stable) adds that nonsense again they should be blocked for a long time; semi-protection can be extended if violations (with possible socking) continue. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this. I mischaracterized the nature of the problem in my first post as an edit war, I just meant to draw attention to the fact that malicious information kept being added, and that another IP address was removing it, but that didn't seem to be a reliable long term system for removing the continuously added information. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was an edit war also, so that was not a mischaracterization, but there was something else going on as well. These kinds of edit wars are easy to resolve; it's worthwhile looking in some detail to see if someone is actually right, because sometimes that's the case. Thanks for drawing our attention to it. Drmies (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Racist hate

See discussion above In this edit an IP editor (who has since registered as User:One21dot216dot) apparently labels me as a member of an "extreme right wing racist hate group", as well as linking to external sources such as blogs and mail correspondence. This is wrong, defamatory, malicious, contrary to wikipolicy and I want these edits deleted entirely. Previously he had offered to email his allegations, and a look through his contributions reveals numerous comments that transgress any bounds of civil behaviour. Comments about rabid dogs being put down etc. have no place here, regardless of who they are aimed at. Bottom line, I want his WP:OUTING behaviour dealt with promptly. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC) deleted by Skyring here One21dot216dot (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you hadn't heard that the KKK supports same-sex marriage? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

lol. Instead of putting on a wedding dress - or donning jackboots, shaving my head, going out to bash Asians and gays, and trying to screw what little remains of the Aboriginal population out of what they have, for that matter - I'll reply to the latest nonsense up here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_baiting_and_harassment_from_User:Skyring_.28Pete.29 since this latest entry is more evidence of that, and not respond any further in this disruptive sub-thread. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I suggest you drop the stick. Those edits are over a week old and while One21dot216dot did get off to a rocky start, he seems to be focused on commenting on content now. I suggest you do the same. --NeilN 05:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Was a post deleted? This thread makes no sense. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Skyring went on a binge of deleting his own comments from here, rendering this all very bizarre. I believe he actually editwarred to remove the comments, but of course nobody did anything about that. → ROUX ₪ 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the comments that didn't have (a) legitimate potential outing concerns or (b) edit conflicts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The offending material has now been oversighted. --Pete (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping sockpuppetry accusations

User:FactStraight reverted an edit I made, and accused me in the edit summary of being a sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles. I went to his talk page to tell him that I'm not a sock, and that he shouldn't call me one, and noticed that the last message left on his talk page was over the exact same issue. I looked through his edit history, and ~50% of his edit summaries seem to be "reverting sock of louisphillipecharles". It looks like he's using this edit summary as shorthand for "reverted IP editor I disagree with", and to avoid giving any rationale for his edits. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FS has already apologized. Nobody Ent 09:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FS does use that term "sock" a great deal in his edit summaries. Pulling up his last 500 contribs shows the word used 226 times, which is an extraordinary number. Since being called a "sock" is a pretty strong charge, might this be a bit excessive? Or maybe obsessive? I wonder what his track record is, which isn't easy to just pull up without doing a lot of homework, but that the sheer percentage of summaries that use the term is worrisome at the least. It might be fine, but a closer look might be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I know he already apologised. This isn't about defending my personal honour against being called a sock, it's about the fact that he's accusing editors of being socks left right and centre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I decided to start by going to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive to review that history and FactStraight's involvement. LPC is indeed a major sockmaster who seems to edit in at least one of FS's areas of interest. Many of his block-evading socks have in fact been successfully reported by FS. The impression I'm getting is that FS is starting to get suspicious of any IP that edits in LPC's target area, especially IPs that begin with an 81, 85, 86, 89, or 90, and is seeing more ducks than there are. - Jorgath (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 Group D

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

• UEFA Euro 2012 Group D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Accused here of removing material, despite the accuser doing the removing. Received talk page messages on conduct despite not doing anything wrong, not even losing my cool. Had responses and explanations repeatedly deleted from other user's talk page. Had contributions called "crap" here. Plus my edit joining two paragraphs of together reverted and called "vandalism". Now being patronised about my inexperience and poor editing on my talk page. Brought this to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Walter Görlitz closed it (is that allowed!) and told whoever was there to "encourage the anon to get an account and a mentor". Again pretty patronising, and assumes that anonymous users are somehow inferior to other editors.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)
• 86.40.100.107 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes. Well I've tried but I've been told I'm wrong to do that as well.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=UEFA Euro 2012 Group D}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Have tried to discuss but been treated like a child and had contributions called "crap"

• How do you think we can help?

86.40.100.107 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: Seriously? You haven't even opened a discussion on the talk-page of the article. Yes, that is how we do things here... --Τασουλα (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, seriously, it's impossible to talk to this person as outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.100.107 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

One of you could of at least opened up a discussion on the talk page. However, Walter Görlitz conduct is pretty poor and not handling the situation well at all, abusive edit summaries are not OK (I have been in trouble for this before, I speak from experience .___.) and for some reason making it seem as if your IP being from Ireland has something to do with your editing is also not OK. I can't exactly see anything anti-English in your editing. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But what damage can a user with such a provocative attitude cause? I've tried to be patient but really - I think there are others who be less patient in these circumstances. And there is certainly nothing intentionally anti-English in my editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.100.107 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A dispute can only be resolved by discussion in a calm and orderly er, manner. What should of happened at the very beginning of this whole incident is that there should of been a discussion opened up on the talk-page of the article in question. I really don't know about the dispute and why is arose but it's just gotten out of hand, really, and this isn't the best time to discuss such things anyway - most of Western Europe are in bed now...and I shall be shortly. er, I'd wait for some more additional input on this. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am not terribly impressed with this revert by Walter. It appears to me that he has removed two reliable sources and a passage written in a neutral tone in favour of a simple sentence that could be construed as slightly POV and supported by a very unreliable source - which he himself questioned in the very next edit! It looks like he saw what was removed, but failed to note what was added. This doesn't need to be at ANI, however, as there isn't anything requiring immediate admin action. But I'd hope both 86.40 and Walter will discuss these changes on the talk page along with other interested parties. Resolute 02:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I erred when I restored the material removed. I should have simply moved the reference and in removing the newly added material. Also, when I realized my second error and tried to correct by removing the duplicated material and moving the ref, anon had already inserted their edit so I stepped back. I suppose WP:BRD would have been appropriate but I didn't want to take extra time for an anon who might be gone in fifteen minutes. Other than that, there is nothing wrong wit my edits and when anon recognizes their mistake we can call this resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"I didn't want to take extra time for an anon who might be gone in fifteen minutes" - There is that attitude again. Anons going away and never coming back. Anons being worthless. Anons being an inconvenience. Anons being inferior. You being superior. How long have you been editing wikipedia, there are probably anons who have been around for far longer. We're not all vandals, the term you've used to describe me at least once in this exchange. We're not all children. We don't all need to be guided by our account-occupying colleagues. What mistake? This one? I wonder how many others you've left with a terrible impression of the so-called "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --86.40.100.107 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely got a point there. Ravenswing 05:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not have an attitude. I have seen anon vandals and while I assumed good faith, I also assumed that this editor would be gone soon. It appears I was wrong. While anons are not all vandals, it's more often the case than not I deal with more anon vandals than registered editors who are. I am out of this discussion unless someone notifies me that I need to be here. I will also put this anon's edits into an RSS feed to monitor for additional misbehaviour which is what was displayed here. I have recognized my mistakes. Notice that anon has not and would rather blame others for messing up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

While the vast majority of vandals are anonymous editors, only a minority of anonymous edits are vandalism (about 25%; see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive AH#What will it take to ban unregistered editors?).  --Lambiam 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's still quite the "anons are beneath me" vibe I'm getting here, neighbor. DarkAudit (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to get over your attitude DA. No I don't think they're beneath me. I recognize that they're editors. However, I recognize that I deal with more vandals who happen to be anons than registered editors. I recognize the good edits this particular anon have made and will watch for a while so that this particular anon doesn't make mistakes that escalate into misunderstandings like the one created here. I also recognize that other anons make good edits too and have seen many of those. So if you think that equates to "anons are beneath me", it's your issue, or opinion, not mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 Group D discussion

Serious disruption: – User:Kwesiidun91 and various IP's (Possible socks too)

Kwesiidun91 has been engaging, for almost the entire time they have been a registered user on Misplaced Pages, in systemically erasing any mention of the English or England from articles as they see fit without any discussion or edit summaries. They have engaged in this activity despite having their edits being constantly reverted, and after being told that the broad community consensus that such changes are not acceptable without discussing them first. What is worse than this users activity on English BLP'S is that they has also been removing any mention of sourced English ancestry too such as here which points to a blatant agenda. What's more, he/she has been changing geographical information on England-related places (This is by far the worse - on an actual English team - ) this has to stop.

But wait, there's more! Over time I have noticed a highly disruptive IP range editing England-related articles in a similar fashion. here and here - this actually goes back a long way, and according to a revision of this disruptive IP here this IP-hopper is in fact a banned user, but I cannot verify this. At any rate, this user appears to be "promoting" Scotland at every opportunity (most of their editing on Scotland related articles is actually fine) whilst "putting down" England-related articles, the most blatantly disruptive of which is their rational that British Citizenship only applies to people from England. I have been reverting edits from this IP range for ages and I'm tired of it, and so are a few others. These could be socks of Kwesiidun91, or meat-puppets or something, but I have doubts, thought it was worth pointing out. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin or someone who knows what I'm talking anout do something please? What the heck is it with the selective responses here to only certian things? I'm reporting serious disruption here, believe it or not.--Τασουλα (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they think this should be reported at WP:AIV and not here. (I'm just guessing – I'm not a mindreader.)  --Lambiam 16:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I should, I just want this user blocked pronto, there edits are nothing but disruptive. I don't understand why this got virtually no response here though...but thank you. Add: I have given the user a final-final warning. If this user was doing the same to Welsh or Scottish articles they'd be blocked already. Pretty aware of how little people care when it comes to England related articles... --Τασουλα (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Socks and meats

I'm thinking that the SPAs at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jarred Land, complete with their accusations against another editor, may be meatpuppets related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/09beemali and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine. I also like this comment . These appear to be related accounts that have worked on related subjects. When the articles are nominated through AfD, they don't supply reliable sources, but attack the other editors and their motives. Eventually this grinds to an end when the AfD is decided, but in the meantime there's a week's worth of meatpuppeting and baseless charges against editors in good standing. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll confirm that these smell of a concerted ring of sock/meatpuppeteers; the first bunch (at the Bambi Magazine AfD) wound up blocked as loudly quacking meatpuppets after CU indicated they weren't socks; the new batch has precisely the same arguments... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• One of the suspects is claiming to be an admin at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sandra Kennedy. On their first day? I doubt it. DarkAudit (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Sarah Kennedy AFD, the formatting and content of the keep vote of user:Pigfish23 ('Keep - Looks like another personal notice for deletion. We as admins must not make these personal assumptions) is virtually identical to that of the admin User:Davodd ('Keep - nomination to delete should cite WP policy rather than personal bias of the nominator (i.e. please define "such as this are inherently non-notable" and where in WP policies deletion is warranted.) That in itself doesn't prove anything (could be a strawman account or user:pigfish could simply have copied the formatting of the keep vote) however it's a little suspicious. Valenciano (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would find it unlikely that a user who was an admin three years before I joined would risk his adminship over such a matter. Or I'd like to hope that it would be unlikely. DarkAudit (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, though the similarity in formatting and content (accusations of personal bias) set bells ringing. Valenciano (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP that re-formatted the user's !votes on the AfD as it was also altering user comments elsewhere. Interestingly, it turns out that it is allocated to RED studios, the company of which the AfD's subject is the CEO. I have also blocked User:Pigfish23 for vandalising the Jarred Land article. Both blocks for a week, by which time the AfD will be concluded. Obviously these blocks may be superseded by the results of the SPI, but certainly the IPs don't originate from the same place (or even the same country, unless they're proxies) so it is pretty certain these are meatpuppets rather than socks. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanking and MFD tag removal

User:KO.2 (whose his user and talk pages are under WP:MFD, in which he refuted the 'propaganda' claim by nominator, although others insisted that the problem is WP:NOTWEBHOST) was caught blanking his user page and consecuently removing the MFD tag, which is prohibited. User:Armbrust re-added the MFD tag, but he quickly removed it again and I have re-added the MFD tag.

To prevent KO.2 from removing MFD tags again, I decided to bring the issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs)

I read through the page in the history and KO, who identifies as Taiwanese, has some very strong opinions about administrators on Chinese Wiki and the Chinese government, who he thinks of as Russian puppets. In fact, he goes as far as listing out puppet governemnts through the different eras around the world. As it is, it violates WP:POLEMIC, not to mention WP:OR and most likely WP:BLP as well. Blackmane (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Of note; this user appears to have another account at User:KO.7. Could be a friend though. Either way, within the userspace of these accounts we find

• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2008
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2009
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2010
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2011
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2012
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2010
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2008
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2009
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2011
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2012
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1988
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2000
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2004
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2008

all of which contain fictitious information, and some of which contain WP:NFCC #9 violations. There are also two additional pages which appear to be accurate, but given the presence of the other intentionally inaccurate pages, the existence of these pages is equally suspect:

• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1992 (1)
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1996 (1)

Also, please be aware of User:KO.2/傀儡政權. This is effectively a copy of the main userpage puppet regime content.

In reviewing the editor's other contributions, I'm seeing some seriously problematic issues. In particular, creating Cao Yu (Three Kingdoms) and claiming this person was the son of Cao Pi. In fact, Cao Yu was the son of Cao Cao. I'm seeing a number of attempts at what appear to be subtle vandalism. Further investigation is needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible block of I.P Address

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

• 210.212.230.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello I have noticed that the I.P. Address 210.212.230.196 has made significant vandalism edits to Bokaro (Thermal) among others. This I.P. constantly changes articles from useful information to advertisement often violating the 3RR rule on more than one occasion. This I.P appears to have been blocked for a small amount of time in April 2012 for similar edits. I don't think this I.P serves any other purpose but to harm Misplaced Pages which is why I am asking for it to be blocked. Thank You!keystoneridin! (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It was actually blocked in October 2011, not April 2012, because it was used as a sockpuppet by a blocked, serial copyright infringer. I don't see any sign of its breaking the 3RR rule, at least not in the past year or so. The IP belongs to a school and is not heavily used for editing. I'll grant you, there's not a lot of useful stuff coming out of there (I've spot-checked and the only evidently useful contribution I've seen in recent months is this one (this seems to be true). If the IP is being used by a mix of people, it wouldn't be good to shut off access to it by those who are legitimately trying to help out unless the vandalism/spam that we receive from some of them is so disruptive that we have to risk alienating new users. I'm not sure that's the case here. --Moonriddengirl 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• thank you for the response!keystoneridin! (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted article: KHOKHAR RAJPUTS A BRIEF INFO

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

please help me, why did you deleted my page, only the name was matching but the information was differnet please help me regain my page, please I beg you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Zaynab-x (talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please read Misplaced Pages:Why was the page I created deleted?. The first step ordinarily is talking to the administrator who deleted it, User:Mike 7. If he does not agree with you, there are other options explained there. That said, we could not use this content anyway, I'm afraid, as it was previously published at Facebook and there is nothing there to indicate it is compatibly licensed or public domain. This is in conflict with our copyright policy. Please see Misplaced Pages:Copy-paste. --Moonriddengirl 12:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right to vanish (for a while)

Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing#What vanishing is not says

"..When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning... If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked."

Does this qualify? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Qualify for what? There's nothing wrong with a previous editor deciding to come back after a hiatus. Nobody Ent 10:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the "right to vanish" article, that's not the case. You're confusing "right to vanish" with "clean start". And if the IP has come back and then gotten into an argument in an area they were previously arguing, then they've violated whichever rule they went-away under. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but (s)he's been involved in only a single article and its deletion. If (s)he starts editing more productively, it would be a good idea to unvanish them. VanIsaac_WS 10:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think this editor has previously "vanished" and not just abandoned an account, and is considering a fresh start? We have WP:CLEANSTART, WP:SOCK#LEGIT and so on - I'm not seeing the problem here. Worm(talk) 10:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning this IP has not edited in over a week... Worm(talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no right of return after invoking the right to vanish. It's a permanent state of affairs. Otherwise, it's just another noisy form of temper tantrum, and we have enough of those.—Kww(talk) 11:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that he may have misused the phrase as opposed to actually requesting and being granted a courtesy vanishing. If that's the case, no problem. If he was granted a courtesy vanishing, however, I see nothing in Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing that says that "stop editing forever" really means "stop editing (unless you don't edit too much) forever (just kidding!)" and I see nothing that says "When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning" really means "When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is OK to return as long as you don't overdo it." --Guy Macon (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. But it takes effort to research and investigate what the previous account was. If (s)he just came in once and isn't doing anything else, then there's really no community payoff to all that effort. So let's just keep an eye out and actually see if this is actually a reappearance in progress or just a proverbial loch ness monster sighting. VanIsaac_WS 11:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"I invoked the right to vanish a few years ago" seems pretty specific to me.—Kww(talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But the only "penalty" for not vanishing is putting your account back from the anonymous name to which it has been moved and linking your accounts. What is the old account name? What is the new account name? Without that information, does it matter? --Moonriddengirl 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, if the guy did invoke "right to vanish", then the IP so claiming should be blocked, regardless of what his previous username was. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? And, if it doesn't, why? :) "Right to vanish" does not necessarily indicate that the contributor left under a cloud. --Moonriddengirl 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, he has to have not left under a cloud. But according to the RTV article, he's not allowed to come back. If he has come back, he's violated RTV and should be blocked. And if he's lying about RTV and is actually a blocked or banned user, then he should be blocked. However, discussion with the user would be in order, to try to discern whether they misunderstood RTV, or didn't actually do RTV, or are actually an evading sock. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say he's not allowed to come back and that if he does he should be blocked? Can you please quote that? --Moonriddengirl 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't. I will say that in my experience every return from RTV has been problematic, and it would probably be best if we explicitly forbade it.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But that's a different issue entirely, and it's not currently our policy. There's nothing that says s/he should be blocked. Keilana| 13:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed." Nothing here about not being allowed to come back, just that the vanishing will probably be reversed if one does. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, it is in the policy: What vanishing is not "Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning... If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked." If they won't reveal who they were, blocking has been practice, because we can't link them back. And policy is written based on practice. It can be added to the policy if we really want to be sticklers for bureaucracy. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet another example pointing to the need for a comprehensive overhaul of our various related policies. Many "Vanished" accounts rethink that "forever" decision, sometimes within days.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who started the discussion on the IP editor's page I have a few comments.

1. My Comment to the user were motivated by them hauling be before the Drama Committee without any sort of contact. As the text indicates, I asked a question and suggested that they log in (or register an account) so as to pull away the veil of Anonymous IP editing. I decided to leave it at they didn't want to log in for one reason or another.
2. When I saw the IP attempt to nominate the article for deletion (but get tripped up in the intricate rules of AfD) I pro-forma nominated the article so they could make their case.

If editors want to open up something that has been done for over 10 days I really don't care. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If my reading and memory served me right, we do not block users if they exercised a Right To Vanish then come back, unless there is some type of abuse. They do so at the risk of having their old account linked to their new account. This may included having all their previously "vanished" edits reconnected to their old user name, which would take process and a Bureaucrat to implement. Unvanishing yourself isn't a violation of policy, but it is subject to reversing the good faith actions granted to you when you were allowed to vanish. Vanishing isn't a right, after all. I'm not sure SPI would be proper to link them unless there is some abuse involved. I'm not sure we are at the point that a discussion to unvanish someone is a good idea anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, figured I should just mention again that it was several years ago. You had a right to vanish back then, whereby you just left your old account behind, and could later create a new account. That's why I call it "Right To Vanish" and not "Courtesy Vanish" which has been created since I left. It has been about four years since then. The idea was that you could start over, and as long as you didn't cause any issues, it'd be all good. I didn't realize that I was no longer allowed to come back under a new name anymore. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As recently as August 1, 2011, the page (then still at Misplaced Pages:Right to vanish) stated: Of course the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind.  --Lambiam 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Under either reading, coming back isn't a violation of policy, you just risk being linked to your old account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• 70.15.136.149, I hope my question did not offend you. I was surprised when someone else brought up blocking. I was expecting either "it's OK, we need to change the wording that implies it isn't", or "It's not allowed, we will politely ask the user to not do it" or perhaps "you are misunderstanding the policy". From a policy standpoint, the interesting thing is the concept of someone who stops editing (whether by being allowed to courtesy vanish, by retiring, or even through a lifetime ban) and is at that time told that there are certain requirements concerning starting new accounts or IP editing, then later those requirements change. It would not be fair to criticize that editor for following the rules in good-faith that were in effect when he left. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So under the rules you left under, it was just a variant of RTV that was half vanish and half clean start? And we'd consider it a courtesy vanish these days? - Jorgath (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If you didn't have your talkpage deleted then you exercised what we would now call WP:Cleanstart. wp:RTV involves having your account renamed to something like vanished user ..... and usually the talkpage deleted. In any event, welcome back and glad to have you with us again. ϢereSpielChequers 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator?

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

• User:EdwardsBot 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I run EdwardsBot. Someone apparently just registered EdwardsBot 2 and created both a user and user talk page for the account. "EdwardsBot 2" is not my account and has no affiliation with me. This seems rather strange. Can someone investigate, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the talk page messages that were copied over from EdwardsBot page as well as material suggesting that the user account is operated by the EdwardsBot operators. I'm tempted to indef for the username violation - this is not an approved bot account - but I think there may be a deeper issue here that requires other handling. Why is this person impersonating you? :/ I'd like to hear what others think. --Moonriddengirl 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked, pretty obvious troll.--Jac16888 13:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If, for some reason, this is (or ends up being) a legitimate bot account, it can be easily unblocked - but I doubt that's the case. Even if someone planned to run another instance (as with the multiple AIV bots, for example), how they went about it here doesn't fill me with confidence. And that's just before AGF wore out. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User Ronnie42 - Account used solely for disruptive editing

Ronnie42 (talk · contribs) I was really on the fence on whether to use this or just go straight to the incidents/vandalism noticeboard, but for the sake of discussion I'm bringing it here. Ronnie is an incredibly difficult user - he has a long history of editing against consensus and removing the same material from one article -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - before, during and after 1, 2,3,4 separate discussions to reach consensus. His methodology can be summed up by this edit; he'll do what he wants until someone proves him wrong. He's been told by numerous editors to read about various wikipedia policies and that his editing is disruptive but he dismissing all of this as trolling or vandalism (see this bewildering notice he left on one of the Noticeboards). In addition to this specific issue above, the vast majority of Ronnie's edits fall into two categories - Treating talk pages as forums (and this makes up the bulk of his usage, see his full edit history for a litany of examples; he's been cautioned and had edits reverted, only to be reverted back, several times by Ronnie) - and finally, outright vandalism, vandalism and more vandalism. In fact, his entire first year was used for nothing but. Lastly, and most importantly, I can't find a single constructive edit that Ronnie has made. For five years this user has popped up every few weeks or months to soapbox, vandalize and disrupt, and I can't see any reason why we'd keep him around. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Seems more a case for both WP:DRN and WP:WQA. His calling good faith edits as vandalism and throwing around the term "troll" is problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll give the a shot if you think I should, but given that he's been offered help, directed to Misplaced Pages policy pages, cautioned and warned throughout his Wiki career, only to completely ignore what anyone (and it's not just me) has to say, I don't expect a positive outcome. If you feel I should move this anyway, please let me know. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think once you have a consensus at DRN, it becomes easier to see when someone is being disruptive by reverting against that consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Decongestant Article Vandalism.

Note: This section was accidentally deleted due to a software bug and is now restored by me. The OP is the IP, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding false information that nasal decongestant can be available as laxatives to help the digestive system. This is ridiculous.

I add this link to the NHS website for anyone unsure on what a decongestant is. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Decongestant-drugs/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Please fix it and stop them. --User:94.174.19.151 (talk)

Had to guess you were referring to our Decongestant article. Anyway, it's typical vandalism, and the person had already been warned. Nothing that needs ANI here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, something's not right, look at 94.174.19.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s contribs and the article's history. The one doing both the inserting of the unsourced material and the removal of it is the same user User:94.174.19.151. Software bug? Zad68 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Could just be test reverts, the IP hasn't been very active before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Derogative and insulting entries

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

As I have already brought to attention issues regarding the article on Sōka Gakkai --- some editors have responded in support. Nevertheless the somewhat derogative and insulting style of writing by user:Naveen Reddy is just not on. My user name is Catflap not Catflop!! Maybe an editor could clarify some issues on etiquette with the user in request. Thanks.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:WQA might be a more appropriate venue to raise this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, did you try clarifying the correct spelling of your username with Naveen, if it bothers you? People do make honest mistakes. I would also concur with Hammersoft's suggestion of WQA if a polite clarification does not work, at that point it would be deliberate rudeness. Seraphimblade 17:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input I already posted fpr further assitance on WP:WQA--Catflap08 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

French press

I recently became aware that the Canadian trade-mark "French press" is the subject of a large-scale trial in Federal Court in Vancouver that began some days ago; the trade-mark is impugned, it seems, although I don't have all the details. I note that an IP editor, 38.98.140.67, made a number of relevant edits to French press at about the time the trial began, with specific reference to this question, asserting something which is the subject matter of the trial, and I'm wondering what the propriety would be of reverting those edits. The judgment in the case will be some months away and may not be widely publicized. Before the IP's edits, the article stated that "In the United States and Canada, it is known as a french press" and I believe this is a more accurate statement, although evidence would not be easy to provide. My concern is that the outcome of the trial will not be reflected in the content of the article as assiduously as the respondent's side of the case has been represented in its current state. I'd appreciate an experienced editor or admin's guidance about what seems appropriate given this information. Ubelowme (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reference we should be using there is something from WP:Secondary sources discussing the trademark. The IP editor should not be trying to insert commentary based on the IPO registration page, a primary source. Too many trademarks are worthless or undefended or otherwise unimportant. The supposed "french press" trademark in Canada must be discussed in news items or similar. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and for reverting the material in question. I'll keep an eye on the article over the next while. Ubelowme (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

Customary report to ANI regarding AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs); making a personal attack in response to a final warning is one of the silliest things you could do. As one of the targets of Andy's personal attacks, I first asked him to retract his attacks which was met by a reversion. Seeing as he is incapable of contributing to discussions without resorting to personal attacks (I, for one, was having a civil discussion with Collect (talk · contribs) before he came in and resumed the attacks), he needs at least a cluebatting, maybe even a block; I've felt somewhat uncomfortable editing because of his constant personal attacks on me (see from last month: ). Sceptre 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this was in response to Sceptre attempting to continue his ridiculous campaign to involuntarily 're-gender' Bradley Manning on my talk page. I suggest that given Sceptre's contempt for WP:BLP policy, and for the rights of a vulnerable individual to make his own decisions on a personal matter without being used as a convenient puppet for some bizarre campaign, it is time that Sceptre be topic-banned from any article concerning Bradley Manning, any article concerning trans-gender/transsexual issues, and any biography of any individual where gender identity is of any significance. Sceptre is clearly abusing Misplaced Pages facilities in an attempt to 'right a wrong' - though the only 'wrong' that is apparent is Sceptre's wrong-headed and obnoxious refusal to acknowledge Bradley Manning as an appropriate person to comment on Bradley Manning's gender identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None of which excuses this attack in any shape or form. Is there any particular reason (apart from it being five hours old) why that shouldn't result in a block? Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None that I can see... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is true? There are gross double standards here - I am supposed to be 'civil' to Sceptre, while he is free to use Manning (who is of course in no position to respond) as the scapegoat in some bizarre and unfathomable exercise in sexual politics. No. This is wrong. It is obnoxious. It should not be allowed to continue. If Misplaced Pages prefers agenda-pushing trolls to editors who actually have respect for the persons we write about, go ahead block me, and continue on the downhill path to a low grade tabloid gossip blog that some seem to desire... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages prefers editors who have respect for the persons we write about. We also prefer editors who can follow Misplaced Pages's policies, and no matter what another editor, troll or not, has done, personal attacks are never acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that we should fight low-grade tabloid gossip, and I appreciate his willingness to do so, but it is entirely possible to fight to uphold BLP without saying things like "fuck of and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot". Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To claim it's scapegoating is to imply that being transgender is wrong. Besides, what stake do you have in this issue that you must make personal attacks to protect Manning? I'll admit that my own stake is that, as a feminist and a member of the LGBT community, it doesn't seem ethical to refer to Manning as we do in spite of our guidelines on gender identity and the sources given. Your behaviour does look quite similar to concern trolling seen elsewhere... Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's completely wrong and you know it. It doesn't matter if it's your belief that it's true - whatever Sceptre is doing, if you've got an issue with another editor then there are a range of places to take that problem. What you don't do is tell them to "fuck off and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot" which is utterly out of the range of mild incivility (which I think the other diffs were). Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that it would be highly punitive? A block isn't the answer in this case. You can look into interaction bans and various other options. ANI has become wickedly punitive recently. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is the only way to get someone's attention to prevent further invicivility, is it punitive? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe attention has been obtained. What is the expectation, that AndyTheGrump is going to start following Sceptre around dishing out personal attacks? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the above diffs, he "started" doing that a while back. Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you accusing me of 'following Sceptre' to my own talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy, the diffs above are on at least four different other pages. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy lives quite well up to his username. I should point out that I'm only one of the editors he's attacked; he's also been making attacks on BLP/N, probably against seasoned editors too. Re Ryan: yes. He did so on WT:LGBT six weeks ago, reverting a post I made there. Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that the blocking policy lists a "preventative block" as being (among others) one that "encourages a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Do I think that this will do that? No. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yikes,I got edit conflicted all over the place. My comment: Misplaced Pages:Don't fight fire with fire, Andy. That said, can I issue a strong request that the WP:BOOMERANG pay close scrutiny to Sceptre, too? - Jorgath (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free; I've been very careful this time around, as my last complaint about Andy's conduct got threatened with the boomerang. Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Am I to understand that Sceptre has self confirmed that he is the writer of this off-wiki blog? Doesn't that look like a conflict of interest?--JOJ 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes that is some COI, which explains the POV pushing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think what you will find if you examine both the dictionary and Sceptre's behaviour you'll find that Andy used an accurate description.

• Any discomfort felt as a result of reading Andy's remarks are pretty much the result of the reader continuing to refuse to address the issue of Sceptre's ongoing unacceptable behaviour. For 90% of the editors reading those remarks, they have themselves to blame for it, for the 'innocent' reader who happens upon them, the 90% who are refusing to address the Sceptre issue need to take responsibility for their own part in the mess created. This is a bit like wikileaks, don't stop people getting away with murder, just silence the paper-boy instead.

• Andy needs to get with he program and anaesthetise his intellect, so like the rest of us, he can drift through the project blissfully unaware of his surroundings, he has to turn a blind mind to what is going on, rather than be focused on reality and using appropriate words from the dictionary that threaten to burst our bubbles of delusion. I suggest he takes up lying himself, rather than calling lies 'lies' he should use soft agreeable words like 'unusual view of reality' so we can read right past it without waking up. Yeah, like that Andy,

• tell us some lies, we want to believe. Penyulap ☏ 22:02, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't make any secrets that that's my blog, yes. It's no different from other Wikipedians blogging on other matters; if you'll notice, even on that blog post I deliberately backed myself up with Misplaced Pages policy. Re: Penyulap, I suggest you retract that comment. It's a personal attack by proxy. Sceptre 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

allow me to apologise for any indirectness there Sceptre, allow me to say, from me to you, fuck off and troll elsewhere. Am I being clear and direct ? Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre does kind of need to drop the POV-pushing. I don't think Andy needs to be getting so grumpy, but slap the fish and move on. Bradley Manning doesn't need more negative POV stuff and I would venture to say it is more of a problem for people with personal agendas to push those into Misplaced Pages articles than a single immature blow up at another editor. Bradley Manning's life is not a plaything for us to decide controversial determinations of what gender someone ought to be addressed as. I can easily see how this has become very frustrating for some of the more involved editors, since they are having to push back constantly against what Sceptre sees as a personal crusade. While I can see a point of view that these underlying gender issues can inform the discussion about Bradley Manning, the sources aren't there to support Misplaced Pages being 'forward thinking' on this, and as such, the stick needs to be dropped because the horse is long dead. We are not here for people to push agendas, but to present articles in a thoughtful and neutral fashion. To make this person's gender choices front and center in the article is not a DUE presentation of the topic, which heavily is notable because of the Wikileaks connection (not for gender issues). -- Avanu (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• POV pushing COI users are the bane of the en project - defending living people against them is a difficult task - I do it and Andy does it too - the primary issue is with the COI POV pushing account - User:Sceptre needs topic banning from trans gender wiki content. Youreallycan 22:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - there are clearly two issues here. On the other hand, Andy seriously needs to tone down the attacks - as I said above, there are areas for dispute resolution (including POV and COI) and nothing is solved by swearing at people. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in looking at the diffs presented by Sceptre, it is even more clear that Sceptre is approaching this the wrong way. Forum shopping the idea around that Bradley Manning should be addressed only as Sceptre says isn't the right approach. I agree there should be a style guide on this, but just as it is considered impolite to "out" gay people, it should probably be equally inappropriate to label someone without unequivocal evidence of their choice on the matter. If Sceptre wants to have a real discussion, then it should be about bringing sources, not just opinions. -- Avanu (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu: at risk of going off into a content dispute I'm basically agnostic on, since when did gender identity become "negative POV stuff"? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Failing to sanction editors who engage personal attacks because (e.g.) "Andy is right" is a path towards altering WP:NPA so that it means "it's okay to attack someone as long as you think you're right". Is that where we're headed here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)