Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:57, 2 June 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Recurrent personal attacks against a named WP contributor on an article Talk page

On the Talk:Bicycle helmet page there have been recurrent personal attacks made against a WP contributor (me) who is identified by name, by User:Harvey4931. These attacks incorrectly and, I feel, maliciously, allege undeclared conflicts-of-interest and personal biases against me as a researcher, which are bordering on the defamatory. I deleted the material, but it was restored by its author User:Harvey4931 (and I subsequently deleted it again). The material in question can been seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABicycle_helmet&diff=557185303&oldid=557183020 The unacceptable nature of such personal attacks was made clear on the Talk page at Talk:Bicycle_helmet#No_personal_attacks.

The opinion of experienced WP editors and/or administrators on whether such behaviour is acceptable on WP would be appreciated. Tim C (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I barely read it but there is definite outing going on by Harvey4931 (I've corrected your links above to the user.) Another admin may judge if there are personal attacks, but the outing is definitely not on. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain, Canterbury Tail, how "outing" is involved when Tim C. openly identifies himself by name, career, and published articles he's written on his user page? I see no "outing" and also no "personal attack" in this linked exchange. Where is the evidence of malicious intent? What I see is an editor with a clear POV strongly in favor of mandatory bicycle helmet laws arguing with an editor with a POV opposed to such laws, about whether or not conflict of interest has been properly disclosed. How is that a personal attack? The relevant question is whether either editor is capable of editing in accordance with the neutral point of view? Tim C., if you ran across discussion here of bicycle helmet laws that did not include the strongest and best referenced arguments against such laws, would you be sure to include those arguments and references? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or to advance a point of view? Cullen Let's discuss it 01:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Outing is not an issue because I do indeed use my real name on WP. The issue is the attacks against me as a person, rather than discussion of the edits I make. I am a researcher, involved in research about bicycle helmets, and I have been contributing to WP articles on this subject, helping to ensure that the articles reflect all the available scientific evidence, regardless of what that research shows, and not just selected bits of it which happen to support a particular POV or set of beliefs. It is not my fault that a great deal of the published scientific research finds bicycle helmets to be effective. WP is supposed to reflect the scientific weight-of-evidence, not a balance between personal beliefs or points-of-view. My objection is that User:Harvey4931 is making assertions about me as a person, which question my integrity as a researcher and as a WP editor, rather than discussing specific edits I have made. My understanding is that discussion of WP editors, as opposed to discussions of the edits they make, are not acceptable on WP. Am I mistaken in this understanding? Tim C (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain, Tim C, how it is a "personal attack" for another editor to express a concern about whether or not you have adequately disclosed your conflicts of interest? And can you please consider answering the question I asked above? For your convenience, I will repeat it for you: "Tim C., if you ran across discussion here of bicycle helmet laws that did not include the strongest and best referenced arguments against such laws, would you be sure to include those arguments and references? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or to advance a point of view?" Thanks in advance for your frank answer. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I would and have been sure to include discussion of all scientific and policy evidence that meets WP criteria for reliable sources, regardless of whether it was favourable to helmets or not. As far as I know, that has been done - just about every peer-reviewed scientific paper on helmets is mentioned (or included in summary papers such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses). However, all arguments? No, because WP is not an encyclopedia of arguments and opinions. Anyone can argue the case for or against just about anything, or come up with just about any plausible-sounding but untested hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that view or belief or hypothesis should be reflected in a WP article. If data has been assembled and analysed, whether it is scientific or policy or social data, and reported via reliable channels, then yes, it deserves a mention. Bt no, not every argument. That is what I believe WP policy to be, in any case. Tim C (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question, Tim C. Both you and I have freely chosen to disclose our real life names here on Misplaced Pages, which I consider admirable of you. My real name, by the way, is Jim Heaphy. More formally, "James Cullen Heaphy III". Once we have made that free decision, do you think that either you or I are entitled to any protection against heightened levels of scrutiny of "a WP contributor (me) who is identified by name"? I don't. Do you? Anyone can Google me or you, and research us as they see fit. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. If someone asserts "WP editor Slartibartfast is biassed and is funded by XYZ industry and all his edits are biassed" it is one thing, but making the same incorrect assertions about James Cullen Heaphy III or Tim Churches is quite another thing. But that is beside the point: WP policy clearly states that Talk pages are not to be used to make assertions or comments about WP editors, only to make comments about WP content. That's the very clear policy, and it applies equally to pseudonymous editors as well as real-life editors. Tim C (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Jim, I misread your question - I thought you were asking if real-named WP editors were entitled to heightened levels of protection against personal attacks against them on WP. My answer to your actual question, whether real-named WP editors should be entitled to heightened levels of protection against scrutiny (for instance, of potential conflicts-of-interet), then my answer is no, definitely not. In my case, I consciously chose to use my real name because I wanted to contribute to WP articles in areas in which I have co-authored scientific papers that need to be cited in those articles. I had to add them to the articles, because no-one else had, but I wanted any conflict-of-interest in my doing so to be crystal clear to other editors. I also took pains to declare all relevant conflicts-of-interst on my user page at User:Tim.churches, last edited in March 2013 BTW, long before this issue of attacks against me arose. I think it is fine to ask other editors whether they have conflicts of interest with respect to specific edits they have made, particularly if such potential COIs are not obvious (for example, if the editor making the edits is pseudonymous). But that is quite different from questioning that editor's motives and generally impugning their integrity, which is just not on, as far as I am concerned. Tim C (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is it me, or is this beyond expressing a concern about someone's conflict of interest, and entering the field of soapboxing against a person? When someone starts a header on an article talk page with the sole purpose of discrediting another editor and drones on about it, it is inappropriate. The goal doesn't seem to address any point, but instead appears to be an attack on his character. If Harvey wants to take the issue to WP:COIN, then he should do so, but in this context, Harvey is clearly soapboxing against Tim and doing so in a disruptive manner. Obviously, everyone has their own POV there, but comments need to be limited to the merits and not the editor. Harvey might find a more receptive audience if he toned back the personal observations. At the very least, the entire purpose of Harvey's post was ad hominem. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 08:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just you. That is beyond the pale for an article talk page for the reasons you and others outline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• He's made a couple of contentious edits since this ANI discussion was started, and has chosen to just blow off the concerns here. I'm not sure what is going to get his attention. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to start with a bit of context.

A few years ago, I observed Tim C argue about bicycle helmets in a never ending manner on a bicycle forum called SydneyCyclist. He was famous for his strong views on bicycle helmets. He came across as somebody on a mission to convert others.

A few months ago, I noticed Tim making many frequent edits in Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia. I noticed that many edits were biased in favor of helmets.

I noticed an attempt to discredit material (regardless of its intrinsic merit) from one of the main sources critical of pro-helmet studies, BHRF, on the basis that their position does not seem to be neutral. That seemed a bit odd while pretending to be neutral. Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#RfC:_Can_the_Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation_web_site_be_considered_a_reliable_authority_and_source_of_references_for_this_article

Tim suggested to put critique of papers in footnotes. I warned that this would result in a misleading article. This was ignored. Tim subsequently used footnotes to bury material critical of pro-helmets studies.

Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Trial_of_footnotes

Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Using_footnotes_or_generic_statements_to_give_undue_prominence_to_misleading_claims

I noticed that many misleading studies had been added by helmet advocates. This inevitably led other editors to add counterbalancing arguments, leading to confusing and overwhelming material for the reader. I mentioned this in two separate Talk sections, pleading for focusing on readability. However, Tim refused to get rid of contentious material that was more confusing than informative.

Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Wikipedia_is_not_a_place_for_advocacy_or_for_over-detailed_argument

Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Wikipedia_is_not_a_place_for_advocacy

Over the last few months, I have warned in the Talk pages about questionable practices making the article misleading or confusing. This made little difference, the misleading behavior continued regardless. That required other editors to make frequent corrections. None are as dedicated as Tim is though. Most have given up now.

Other editors have been frustrated by this behavior, especially when Misplaced Pages rules are abused to game the system. Some of this behavior has been described in by another editor, User:Kiwikiped:, in this talk section

Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Attribution_of_articles_published_by_the_Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation_.28BHRF.29_in_this_article

It was out of frustration over these repeated abuses that I started the contentious talk section, as Tim had failed to disclose several conflicts of interests. Each conflict of interest mentioned is true and verifiable. Evidence has been provided in the deleted talk section. However, I admit that I have gone too far in regards to usage of the Talk page. I'm not sure what is the best way to deal with this situation though.

The key issue is: how to deal with an advocate using Misplaced Pages as a platform for advocacy while pretending to be neutral?

Misplaced Pages states as one of its key rule that it is not a place for advocacy. I'm not sure what mechanism exists when this policy is violated. I noted the mention of the WP:COIN page. Would it be the most appropriate in this situation? Harvey4931 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin here with a general opinion from perusing the talk page: there's a lot of back-and-forth COI accusations from both of the two sides in the debate. The diff that Dennis Brown pulled out is pretty extravagant, but on the same page, I've seen Tim C pulling the exact same "declare your COIs!" trick with User:Colin at cycling, so it is sort of going both ways. In terms of Tim C's alleged COI: in a situation where there is a person with expertise on a topic, to the point of being, say, an academic researcher or scientist affiliated with a mainstream research organisation shouldn't have questions about their funding brought up as negatives. There's skepticism, and then there's ad hominem-based idiocy and conspiracy theory. I think User:Tim.churches has been more than up-front with potential COI by listing his institutional affiliation on his user page. Comments of the form "ah, but you get paid to do research!" are just bad form: people get paid for all sorts of things. I saw a similar thing a while back when someone accused User:Jmh649 of having a COI on the topic of CAT scans because as a doctor he had a financial motivation to send people for CAT scans. There's a lot of playing the man rather than playing the ball going on here, with people shouting about imagined COIs. That needs to stop if anything productive is going to happen on that talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the WP policy of respecting anonymity of editors is paramount, but there isn't there also a policy of requiring editors to declare COIs with respect to the edits they make, or if they don't wish to do that because it might undermine their anonymity, to refrain from making edits with which they have a COI, such as repeatedly deleting references to published critiques of papers which they have written? Tim C (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, COIs aren't required to declare nor refrain. They are strong encouraged to not edit direction, but current policy makes it impossible to require it, outside of sanction. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 06:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tom, I agree there is concerns on both sides, even if it has been more lopsided as of late, which is why I haven't been quick to jump to action. I'm not sure what the right solution is here, and there some good points mixed in with that ad hominem. Obviously, the issue needs to go to WP:DRN to hash out the merits (and the merits are not something we want to discuss here at ANI), but the behavioral issues seem perfect for WP:WQA, which doesn't exist anymore. ANI is a terrible place to work out those kinds of issues. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I decided I needed to read the actual article. It is one of the worst articles I've seen in a long time, to be honest. The amount of trivial detail is nauseating. Literally 75% of that material needs to be deleted outright or simply summarized, as is what we expect from an encyclopedia article. Sorry to be so blunt, but reading it as a casual reader is literally painful. No wonder there is disagreement. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good gracious, me! Dennis is being kind. To call this article abysmal would be an insult to abysses everywhere. Over this article we're wasting gazilions of electrons that could better be spent on articles about new Pokemon characters?! I think the article needs serious pruning, by an uninvolved editor or editors who knows nothing about bicycles, helmets, bicycle helmets, or Australia. Who has no passionate attachment to the topic or its tangents. Who's not graph and stat-happy. Truly, this is worse than what I usually see when I hit the Random article link. If I get time in the next couple of weeks, I'll revisit the article and try to prune back this blight. I'd urge others to try to do the same. There's probably something worth saving here. But it will take a full scale excavation and rescue team. And beer. Lots of beer. David in DC (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you and others were to do that, I would gladly buy the beer. I was serious that it needs to be about 1/4th its current size, and I do think this is part of the problem, there is so much irrelevant material to fight over and obviously a POV fight going on. If I had a magic wand and could just make up any rule, policy be damned, it would be that both parties complaining here leave the article alone for a month, and a few really experienced and uninvolved editors take a chainsaw to the article to turn it into an actual encyclopedia article, instead of a pamphlet/essay/book. It is worth writing about, it is a very valid topic and likely much of the sourcing is worthwhile (although I doubt we really need over 150 sources....). To do the topic justice means to summarize it in a way that makes reading it a pleasure instead of a burden. It really needs outside help, and once that is done and it is maintained as such, there will likely be less fights about it. Any volunteers besides David in DC? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the article I was talking about was Bicycle helmets in Australia, but I see that Bicycle helmet and its 200 sources is likely in just as bad of shape. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for offering to re-write the article David. From vague memory, the version from late last year is more concise and readable. It might be a better starting point. Same for the Bicycle helmets in Australia article.Harvey4931 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • I've tried to recruit some assistance as well, spamming a request on Drmies' talk page. That said, as frustrated as you might be, you need to stay focused on the edits, not the editor. His having a COI isn't a bar to editing, even if it is a bad idea. There is no requirement that someone be forthcoming on that either. You shoot yourself in the foot when you go off on someone like that, and need to consider WP:DRN or ask for help. I'm not saying sanction is needed here, it isn't, but you clearly went over the line. It is very possible (and common) to be completely right on the merits of a discussion and completely wrong on the behavior in discussing those methods. Tim's methods (and overzealous additions) aren't much better, but you have to avoid the page long rants on people at the article talk page. Hopefully we can put more eyes on this and take a chainsaw to it properly. I don't see a need for any other action at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Can I just re-iterate, for the benefit of all, including Dennis Brown, that apart from my co-authorship of a few (four I think) of the papers and articles referenced in the article, I do not have any COI with respect to the various bike helmet articles. The COI with respect to edits relating to those four references is obvious, since I use my real name, and it is explicitly declared on my profile page as well. I do not expect to find ongoing allegations that I have some other undeclared or secret COI, not on the article Talk page, and not here. Yes, I have a personal POV regarding helmets, informed by my study of the scientific literature on the subject, but having a POV is not the same as having a COI, nor is it a crime, provided a NPOV is maintained when editing. If people wish to allege a non-NPOV in edits I have made, please give chapter-and-verse (on the article Talk page, not here) and I will gladly defend my actions (or admit that I erred if that is the case). But would everyone please desist from making general statements about me or any other editor having undeclared or secret COIs. You can ask me if I have any undeclared COIs. The answer is no, none beyond those already declared. But then that's the end of it. Is that not how WP is supposed to work? Tim C (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis for your feedback. I apologize for the drama I have caused. As a novice editor, I didn't know how to raise the alarm when an editor is not genuinely contributing to an encyclopedic article. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages is far too tolerant of editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia.

About your suggestion, I am more than happy to stay away from these articles not just for one month, but forever. My experience as a[REDACTED] observer / editor over the last few months has been awful, having witnessed far too many condescending remarks, denigrating statements, and bullying tactics.

As long as these articles remain neutral, I have no intention to get involved any further.

After the cleanup, it would be nice if there were less fights, but I'm not too optimistic about that unless something is changed in the edit process. I'm not sure what form it might take. Perhaps all edits could go through a moderator, if someone is willing to take on that burden. Perhaps a strict discipline could be put in place upon editors misbehaving or not genuinely working toward an encyclopedic article.

Besides the conflicting POVs, there is one WP rule that seems to be at the root of the bickering. It is the sacred nature of "peer-reviewed" studies, regardless of their quality. Statistics can be misused to back up incorrect beliefs. Such pseudo-science doesn't prove those beliefs, but it gives them illegitimate credibility. This is at the core of this debate. It is made worse by the imbalance due to the larger number of well-meaning (and well-funded) people, who presume that bicycle helmets can only be a good thing, then attempt to prove it through studies. One of helmet advocates favorite misleading statements is to claim that the bulk of the science confirms their convictions. It would be more accurate to say they have strong beliefs reinforced by a lot of pseudo-science. It seems that some are too emotionally attached to their position to be able to see that.

As long as it is easy in WP to push a POV using pseudo-science, but difficult to undo such abuses, then this article is likely to remain a battleground. Distinguishing between science and pseudo-science is not easy, but it is essential in this topic. Getting rid of the (observational-based) stats would be a good place to start. Recently, I attempted to remove some of the worst examples of pseudo-science in Bicycle_helmet after providing detailed reasons in Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Confusing_science_with_junk_science.. Tim Churches did not engage in constructive discussion, while aggressively preventing any clean up of misleading pseudo-science. This is a hint of what lies ahead unless WP develops a policy around the use of pseudo-science.

I believe it would be best if all parties with a strong POV be prevented from editing Bicycle_helmet and Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia for the next few months, as any abuse from one side is likely to trigger more bickering. Another possibility would be to lock these articles for a few months, after they have been fixed up.

I hope this unsolicited advice will be helpful in improving WP policies..

Again, I thank you for being willing to fix this up. I wish you all the best in keeping biased edits, pseudo-science, and misleading statements at bay. Harvey4931 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added for clarity Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a new situation with the prolific TJ Spyke yet again. Despite countless warnings and requests to stop "fixing" redirects per WP:R2D/WP:NOTBROKEN, this editor continues to make these edits at a rapid pace (he uses AutoWiki Browser WPCleaner to really speed up his violations). His edit summaries often misleadingly suggest that he is performing "cleanup" when they have not been shortened to simply a period (".") or comma (",") which he presumably does to save himself time.

I'm currently trying to work with him to develop a set of proposed exceptions to the rule because I think there are some very valid reasons to bypass redirects on occasion, and I think we should bring them before the community for discussion. While this discussion is going forward I have asked TJ Spyke to stop making further edits of this kind but unfortunately he seems to be incapable of controlling himself. Our discussions began in early April and he has dragged his heels on it through all of April and May and I'm now much shorter on time than I was previously. Consequently I can't provide nearly as much oversight for the harmful edits he is making. I need help dealing with this. I've previously contacted User:Amalthea about this resurgent problem here, and I'll inform both Amalthea and TJ Spyke about this thread. Something needs to be done because TJ Spyke has demonstrated a real inability to make changes unless severe penalties are applied. For reference, here is a list of his prior warnings about this issue:
2007

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

2008

• 1, 2

2009

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

2010

• 1, 2, 3

2012

• 1, 2, 3, 4

2013

• 1, 2, 3

And here are his prior AN/Is on this topic:

• 1 - This is really connected to the terrible problems he was having with revert warring, but it importantly demonstrates his willingness to violate the redirect-related rules over and over again based on his own personal preferred usage of terms.
• 2 - His last R2D-specific AN/I

And finally his block log which demonstrates that real penalties with real impact are required to make any kind of impression on this guy.

Again I don't have the time to deal with this any more and I need administrative help at least until September when I'll have more free time. I'll continue to try to work with him toward developing a set of good exceptions to NOTBROKEN, but in the meanwhile he may need some discouragement in the form of blocks to stop him from violating the guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the only penalty left is an indef block at this point really. The edit summaries alone are disruptive enough but to continue the behaviour that has lead to not 1, not 2 but 6 separate blocks is taking things too far. If people still want to allow the user to continue to edit I would suggest an enforcement of not allowing them to use automated tools, a strict promise to always use proper edit summaries and a formal agreement on redirect editing with failure on any one leading to an indef block. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• This user's block log is a long, sorry read, with well over a dozen total. I suggest a preventative block of one year, to prevent any further consumption of editing time by the community. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 21:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've been reading over this since it first hit the page, going back through edits and there is a pattern of deflecting criticism and WP:IDHT. The last in a very long string of blocks was 35 days, with previous blocks ranging from sock puppetry to 3RR and obviously, lots of problems with improper redirect "repairs". I'm thinking there is little choice but to block here, for a minimum of 90 days. An indef might be the better choice because previous blocks have had no effect in changing behavior. I'm not sure, but it almost like the edit count is more important than the edit quality here, and Misplaced Pages isn't a video game. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason as to why the latest block increments for this users have been 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 35 days when so many users end up with increments like 1 day, 4 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 1 year, then indef? Is there the slightest reason to believe that the 32nd block will change his behavior when the first 31 blocks failed to do so? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've also taken a look over this and come very close earlier to indeffing myself but decided I wasn't quite ready for my first indef block for something other than copyvio (especially after my first admin block of the other day). That block log is atrocious and I think an indefinite block is the only answer as they have a serious case of WP:IDHT. The obfuscating edit summaries are the final straw. Dpmuk (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Boy, I'd really hate to have to drop an indef block over something as stupid as redirects.... but, honestly, if it's been this many years with this many blocks, all for the same thing? I don't know what other option is available. I'd like to see TJ's response to the above, but I am inclined to block in this case. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think someone hit the nail on the head and it seems it's more about edit count and pride of place in the top editors list that meaningful contributions or helping to genuinely improve the project. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am also waiting to see if they are wise enough to come help us understand before resuming editing. And Guy, I can't speak for other admin, but the idea of how to escalate blocks has evolved over the many years. Also, the violations are problematic but not the most disruptive type of problems that admin see, so I'm guessing that played a part. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out this does not seem to be AWB editing. It lacks the actual tag and the version number, something which has been rolled out for a long time now. Also, the functions performed are not of any AWB plugin that I've ever seen. A check for redirects seems to be occurring and then a manual insertion of the alterations. It is a bit bizarre and TJ's input is really needed at this point to make sense of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves me right (It's 3:16am, so it might not) but reading through his archives, he seems to be using some other tools that I'm not familiar with. At the end of the day, the editor is responsible for each edit regardless of tool. A block is inevitable short of a really good explanation, and sadly, he hasn't been forthcoming. If he hasn't come forward soon, I would likely just indef block and allow it to be hashed out on his talk page, as we shouldn't keep a report open forever. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, that's right. I guess one of the warnings from 2008 got stuck in my head. He's switched from AWB to WPCleaner now. I've fixed the statement above. As for TJ Spyke responding here, I was surprised that he didn't say anything yesterday (Thursday) since he had told me on his talk page that he'd be free on Thursday and ready to discuss the exceptions we've been working on. Something must have come up. Considering how prolific and experienced an editor he is, would it be worth dropping a note at WT:VG and WT:PW to get some insight into his behavior from his peers at the WikiProjects he is most involved with? It would be good to get some kind of explanation for his strange behavior. Given his history of sockpuppeting it might also serve the dual purpose of alerting others about pattern behavior that might show up in future socks. -Thibbs (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. The problem here seems to clearly be choices made by the editor, not the software itself. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a non-admin, I strongly support an indefinite block. The block log is atrocious, and since the last 6 blocks are ALL for violating WP:R2D (which I wasn't aware existed, which may be a good thing, maybe not), then I can't see how any lesser sanction will make a difference. If they are ever unblocked, a topic-ban from all edits to redirects, broadly construed, would have to be put in place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and dropped the hammer for indef, as after six previous blocks for the same disruptive behavior I don't see how anything else is going to solve the problem. No objection to anyone unblocking if evidence of clue is provided in an unblock request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That goes beyond what I was requesting but I completely understand why that remedy was applied. As this makes it TJ's third indef block I think it's quite apparent that he's a thoroughly lost cause. It almost makes me saddest of all that the bulk of his "crimes" amount to 3RR vios (14 of them) and R2D vios (7). His "rap sheet" practically deserves its own place on WP:LAME. I really can't fathom why anyone would choose to edit as he has. Anyway I'll give it a little while to see if TJ Spyke wants to appeal the block but otherwise I'll continue forward with the R2D exception proposals on my own. Maybe some good can yet be salvaged from all of this futility. -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I just logged in to do the same. I think we have waited long enough for a reply. There really isn't any choice but indef here, and I wouldn't suggest considering an unblock for at least 90 days or more. It is easy to use sweet words, but there needs to be some reflection on what the real problem is here. I want to be careful and point out that he isn't guilty by the simple virtue of the length of his block log (not all blocks at enwp are wise blocks) but it is the the long history of the same behavior. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 10:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Faizanali.007

• Faizanali.007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

About two weeks ago, I left a final warning for copyvios in Qaiser Naqvi, Samira Fazal, Barkat Ali Siddiqui and Rehan Sheikh. His most recent creation, Tarang Housefull, copies from . The user is generally unresponsive (3 user talk edits).

A contributor copyright investigation is already open at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007. MER-C 12:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him. He had his chance to address the concerns and chose to continue violating the rules. Wizardman 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User has posted an unblock request. MER-C 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive and ownership problems with Junebea1

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

Junebea1 (talk · contribs) has been blocked before for disruptive editing on Bad Girls Club-related articles (e.g, Bad Girls Club (season 10) and Bad Girls Club (season 11). He continues to revert my edits of removing cast members last name per WP:BLP which are sourced to twitter accounts and YouTube videos. There was a edit war involving Junebea1 here about Nicole's last name (which was changed frequently) as reported here and here is just one example of unsourced additions of last names being changed by new users. Among the BLP issues that are constantly being ignored, Junebea1 shows signs of aggression to users who do not agree with him Junebea1 exclaims he will block others if they do not stop, another example and six others of the same issue. Instead of discussing ways to improve the article's page, Junebea1 tries to intimidate users to stop editing Bad Girls Club-related articles and here's another example. I've tried throughout the year to discuss with Junebea1 about his edits and tried to encourage him to join in discussions instead of violating the WP:3RR rule and posting user-warning templates. I don't want Junebea1 blocked from editing as he has shown improvement since the last run in with him, if he continues down this path of revisions I have provided, I believe a topic-ban would be more suitable until he is ready to be a team member and join in discussions with other users on the talk pages of those articles. Best, jona 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The user also attempts to keep IPs from editing the pages, by requesting page protection. 81 of their 2402 edits are to the RFPP page. I almost always decline their requests for protection, because for the most part the IPs are attempting to make good-faith edits to the articles, not vandalising at all. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have also noticed this, and for my part have also almost always been declining his requests, but even leaving well meaning hints is to no avail; the user will just re-request protection some days later. A mentorship combined with a probable topic ban might be a way forward. Lectonar (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted his edit, but the only thing that was changed the second time was the infobox color. I left the last names out per his request. Also, when I put in requests for page protections, nobody looks at the articles' history to see that the IP's (most of them) are vandalizing. User:AJona1992 has frequently attacked me and has tried to get me blocked because of his own personal vendettas. Thanks Junebea1 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What a ridiculous answer. Everyone who works at RFPP gets it wrong when your requests are up? I usually skip your requests also. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• So nobody (your words) at RFPP is looking at the article history? As for your edits, the first edit I clicked on was this where you change an edit by making it worse, using youtube as a "reliable source". Are all of them like this? Looking at the first request I found and at the article history when that request was made, I didn't see any vandalism at all, and the last obvious vandalism was a single edit two week prior to that request. Have you read WP:VANDAL? You don't seem to understand what that word means here. "I disagree with that edit" isn't vandalism, nor are sloppy edits that were done in good faith, even if they weren't helpful. I haven't looked at the total track record, but if they are all like this, some kind of topic restriction is warranted. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you, Drmies. You just proved my point and you aren't being a good Wikipedian. Junebea1 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Lectonar (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Junebea, are you incapable of realizing that it must be those sorts of comments that mean Drmies ignores your RFPP requests? Could you provide diffs here of RFPP requests that were denied, and the vandalism edits that you allege the IPs were engaging in on that article? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, take a look at any of the articles' history and you'll find vandalism. You don't just ignore requests, it's unprofessional and childish. Thanks. Junebea1 (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's some recent examples: On May 25 Junebea requests page protection for Bad Girls Club (season 7), citing "high levels of IP vandalism". Reviewing diffs for the days immediately preceding the request, I cannot find any vandalism at all, just normal editing. The request was declined by Lectonar. Here's a second recent example: On Bad Girls All-Star Battle, Junebea files a request for page protection on May 4. It's declined on May 5. Junebea tries again for page protection on May 10. It's declined again, because there's been no vandalism, just normal editing. Many times have I seen this pattern of behaviour on Junebea's part: repeated requests for page protection on articles that are not being vandalised. It's a waste of administrator time to make these requests; I am not surprised that Drmies ignores them. I usually skip over them as well. We are not being childish to do so; we are trying making the best possible use of our only resource here: our time. -- Dianna (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that Junebea has refused to give any specific diffs, and gave such a vague answer, backs up your point (and everyone elses). Now, is it possible to topic-ban Junebea from filing RFPP reports for a while? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban from all Bad Girls articles? Repeated RFPP for no reason is more suggestive of a WP:OWN mentality. Just a thought Blackmane (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Threatening edit summary: Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked. (May 21)
• Threatening edit summary: Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked. (May 12)
• Threatening edit summary: Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked. (May 4)

There's plenty more of these, and here is why it's a problem. An example. A new editor, User:Slamber2222, creates an account on January 19 at 19:36 and tries to edit the suite of Bad Girls articles. Soon Junebea is there, and by 21:45 has left a warning on their talk, and all the new editor's edits have been reverted with the edit summary "Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked." Slamber2222's last edit was at 20:36. They left the project. And none of their edits were vandalism. This is just a random example, and was very easy to find. There's probably others. Articles about TV shows and other pop culture topics are a big draw for new users, and we are trying to attract new users, not drive them away. I can understand why Junebea wants to control the articles for quality, but if they choose to edit in this topic area or one like it, they are going to have to accept that new users will be drawn to their chosen field, and that they have to allow those people to edit. Since 90 per cent of Junebea's edits are to Bad Girls topics, a topic ban is in effect a site ban. Junebea, is there any way you can try to understand why your behaviour is not appropriate and in fact may be driving potential new editors away? Because otherwise a topic ban might indeed be the result. -- Dianna (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So when the IP's create fake characters and replace the real cast then that isn't vandalism? I didn't realize creating a whole person and claiming they are on a television show, which they aren't, wasn't vandalism. You need to read more carefully. Thank you Junebea1 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dianna for showcasing a perfect example: one of the IP users took cast member Amy Cieslowski out of the article and replaced her with "alyssa", a person who was made up and has never appeared on Bad Girls Club (season 8) or any other season for that matter. Junebea1 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Another example of vandalism that Dianna pointed out was how an IP user created nicknames for the cast of Bad Girls Club (season 2). That same IP also changed the ages of the cast. Season two's cast didn't have nicknames and the ages of the cast were confirmed a long time ago when the season originally aired years ago. So stop saying that it isn't vandalism when it clearly is! So I'm still confused as to why you are skipping over my requests, when they are legitimate. It is extremely appalling and confusing. Junebea1 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this experience has been so frustrating for you. The actual problem is now becoming evident: It is not clear to me at all that these edits are vandalism, because I have never seen the show. I don't watch TV at all, so what is obvious and common knowledge to you is totally opaque to me. What you need to be doing differently is to be giving a lot more information both to the users to whom you are providing warnings and to the patrolling admins at the RFPP board as to why the edits are unacceptable. Because what is obvious and clear to you is Not Obvious to me. Not obvious at all. We all need to cooperate here, and that's impossible to do if we haven't got all the information. -- Dianna (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sorry I haven't been as clear as I should be. I just assumed that the requests would be more thoroughly researched, but I guess that isn't really your job. In the future (if I'm not banned of course) I will explain my requests and the reasons behind them. Thank you Junebea1 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the people adding fake information already know the info they are adding is wrong. The reason you need to provide more information in your warnings to them is for the benefit of any patrolling admins. So for example, include the fact that they've added a made-up character or nickname in your warning. This gives the patrolling admin the information they need to make good decisions. This means you might have to step away from the use of templated warnings a bit. I personally have found it useful to create custom pre-made warnings on sub-pages in my userspace to save time. It's not as quick as Twinkle, but it's faster than creating a new warning / message from scratch each time. Same deal when you are reporting at RFPP. Instead of using the limited options available with Twinkle, write up a custom report that gives more details as to the actual problem (specify which info is fake and who added it, for example). -- Dianna (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry if some of this information seems redundant in light of your reply. I had already composed it and got an (edit conflict) and decided to post it in case there's anything here you can use moving forward. -- Dianna (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This makes everything more clearer and simpler! I would've been doing this all along if I knew. Junebea1 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Hengistmate and civility (yet again)

This reversion, in conjunction with the content, is particularly unimpressive (per uncivil hounding, dickish behaviour or whatever you want to call it). This is a long-term pattern from Hengistmate (talk · contribs) and it might benefit from a quiet word with a cluemop.

For clarity, I have no dog in this particular fight, although I've frequently been on the end of Hengistmate's taunting in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have no long-term experience with them, but I left them a note. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In my occasional dealings with Hengistmate, I have found him to be unfailingly courteous.Keith-264 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow, given his remarkably free hand with the snark, even when quite uncalled for (see Tank, Renault FT or History of the tank) I'm genuinely surprised that you've escaped this. It's his tendency to make every minor content disagreement into an opportunity to disparage editors personally, even over perceived slights from months earlier, that is the main problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, but the last warning is from a few months ago. If there were a talk page plastered full of warnings (and diffs), it would be an easy case even for AIV. Now, it's a bit of a fishing expedition and not (yet) necessarily an ANI case. In my opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think he's set in his ways perhaps it's with you and not a general phenomenon. Have you tried changing your approach? I don't attempt to lecture because I can be as diplomatic as that iceberg that the Titanic ran into but it's usually the practial suggestions that help me.Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... in situations like this, I keep a running timeline as a way to reduce the attribution bias that we all have. Normally I never have to refer to it, but as long as there is an ANI report, you might as well see the record of his interactions with me.

BTW, other names that will come up are:

Andy Dingley: a well-respected and productive editor in the science and engineering areas, but occasionally uncivil, especially when provoked.

Borealdreams: an editor with a severe COI problem who appears to be in the business of selling a product that is advertised as an alternative to lightning rods. We have a real problem with him pushing a fringe technology.

Qwyrxian: an well-respected administrator who on occasion gets involved with cases such as Borealdreams.

This all started when I gave Hengistmate a rather routine NPA warning.

01:04, 01 Nov 2011: Andy Dingley is incivil.

22:46, 03 Nov 2011: Hengistmate is (more) incivil.

23:18, 03 Nov 2011: Srobak comments on Hengistmate incivility.

00:03, 18 Nov 2011: Guy Macon gives Hengistmate a routine NPA warning.

13:02, 18 Nov 2011: Hengistmate objects to being warned, suggests that Andy Dingley be warned.

16:58, 18 Nov 2011: Guy Macon gives Andy Dingley a civility warning.

17:25, 06 Mar 2012: Three months later, Hengistmate jumps in to an unrelated COI issue.

21:56, 12 Mar 2012: Hengistmate jumps in again.

22:12, 12 Mar 2012: Guy Macon tells Hengistmate "I do not wish to interact with you in any way".

22:34, 12 Mar 2012: Hengistmate attempts to continue the fight.

22:49, 12 Mar 2012: Qwyrxian answers Hengistmate.

22:52, 12 Mar 2012: Guy Macon deletes thread from his talk page.

23:26, 12 Mar 2012: Guy Macon informs Qwyrxian of deletion.

21:26, 13 Mar 2012: Qwyrxian responds.

02:44, 14 Mar 2012: Hengistmate attempts to drag Qwyrxian into the fight.

02:44, 14 Mar 2012: Qwyrxian responds.

16:23, 15 Mar 2012: Hengistmate appears to be willing to drop the WP:STICK.

15:15, 16 Mar 2012: Hengistmate tries to pick a fight again. Clearly he is watching every edit Guy Macon makes, waiting for something he can fight over. Nobody responds.

16:34, 30 May 2013: Here it is, over a year later, and Hengistmate is still watching Guy Macon's edits, waiting for something he can fight over.

18:56, 30 May 2013: Guy Macon refuses to fight, deletes thread from his talk page.

19:18, 30 May 2013: Hengistmate edit wars in an effort to pick a fight.

19:23, 30 May 2013: Guy Macon refuses to fight, deletes thread from his talk page.

I have no idea why Hengistmate is still obsessing over a routine civility warning from 2011, but I don't want to have anything to do with him.

I also would not have bothered reporting this. One or two attempts to pick a fight per year is a situation best ignored. I suggest closing this case unless someone shows a lot more evidence than has been shown, and I am pretty sure I have 100% of our interactions on my running list. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:N-HH - automatically assuming bad faith, combative uncivil behaviour in violation WP:NOTABATTLE

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

I recently opened a discussion on problems I saw with the intro on the talk page of the Fascism article with repetition on points. N-HH has responded by automatically assuming bad faith on my part, accusing me of wanting to take over the intro, and presumably that I am not open to criticism for intro content. I will admit that in the past I have perhaps gone too far with WP:BOLD when I have seen material lacking in intros and main bodies of articles. However this accusation that I am trying to take over the intro is not rational when I specifically opened a talk page discussion on the subject.

All of these problems with N-HH started when I got extremely angry and uncivil at him at one point when he was accusing me of incompetence. I reported myself for incivility, and have since apologized on N-HH's talk page, and taken a long time off Misplaced Pages with some intermitting returns, and am only showing up to advocate changes I view needed. I believe that this is a long-term problem, that N-HH has neither accepted my apology nor has been willing to move on, and that this behaviour may indicate that he is holding a grudge towards me.

Still the main issue that I am addressing here is the automatic assumption of bad faith. The following two diffs demonstrate these automatic assumptions: , .

--R-41 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see what's ANI-worthy here. What action do you want against me? Even if there had not been a pattern of previous behaviour on your part – ranging from mild article ownership and disruptive editing all the way to random abuse and sockpuppetry – it would not be illegal to politely raise a query about actions and motives, while nonetheless focusing, as I have been, on article content. And, in any event, the second diff clearly shows me rowing back from any assumptions about your intentions. N-HH talk/edits 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno -- but perhaps you might try finding compromise edits instead of using the revert button so readily? Sometimes intermediate wording can solve issues far better than reverts do. And charging anyone with "ownership" and the like requires quite a bit more evidence than you muster. If you wish to start an RfC/U on R-41 - do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there were serious problems with parts of the Fascism lead as was, some significant changes and improvements were made and then, as you know, we had an RFC on the difference, which pretty unanimously backed the version that I've since been sticking up for over the past couple of months. Most of the edits since the RFC have been politically motivated borderline vandalism (eg "fascism is socialism!") or barely improvements at all. Reverting those seems fair enough to me; and my having done that a couple of times over several weeks is certainly not something for ANI. As for dragging other users to noticeboards or into the bureaucratic stocks, I have neither the time or inclination. I'd sooner rely on people being persuaded that not every contribution they make is as helpful as they might think it is. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I used an anon account as part of WP:CLEAN START, so that I would not face prejudice for previous editing actions. But that didn't work. During that incident several months ago, when I reported myself for my inappropriate statements I made, N-HH got angry at administrators and accused them of being friendly towards me in a way condoning what I did, an administrator responded by warning him about the fact that he was not adhering to WP:AGF of the administrators, and asked approximately "did you leave your AGF at the front door this morning?". N-HH is doing this again, and I believe that it is possible that N-HH is doing this because he may be holding a grudge towards me over what I said several months ago. Therefore I repeat: I apologize for my extremely inappropriate comments I said several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actions that I request should be undertaken: I want a clear warning to N-HH on his behaviour: to stop posting automatic assumptions of bad faith on talk pages that are about article content that aim belittle the content of what I have added based on implicit accusations against the nature of my character that could manipulate other users' perceptions of what I have contributed. If N-HH continues to post automatic assumptions of bad faith on article talk pages after being warned, I believe a 24 hour block should be put in place, hopefully to demonstrate that automatic assumptions of bad faith are not accepted on Misplaced Pages, and to encourage N-HH to change his behaviour. If it continues afterwards, I will request stronger sanctions. These public declarations of automatic assumption of bad faith on my part by N-HH has gone on for months now, in spite of me having taken long breaks from editing and apologizing for earlier unconstructive behaviour, this needs to end.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If he really believes that I am acting in a damaging manner to the Misplaced Pages Project, then he open up an RfC/U on me, and request administrative review of my actions. He should not be posting his perceptions of the nature of a user's contributions on talk pages about article content. --R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder of what AGF actually says: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism ... Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others". You know, like constantly asserting that I am "holding a grudge" against you. N-HH talk/edits 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Automatically assuming bad faith that you have done regardless of what I am contributing is not productive, especially posting accusations of the nature of my editing behaviour on article talk pages about content to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions. There is a place to make such complaints: that is RfC/U, but that should not be posted on an article talk page. Instead of discussing with me how to get the best ideas of all the editors involved in discussion and providing constructive criticism, you are combative, as Collect has mentioned above you simply revert my edits and condemn my edits for mistakes rather than working constructively. Also, take a look at WP:GRUDGE, I think it is reasonable to observe your user-to-user behaviour with me and make the conclusion that you are holding a grudge because you are still holding me in contempt for what I did several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

N-HH has added new combative accusations against me on Talk:Fascism at this diff: . N-HH's combative accusations are that I am making "arbitrary" searches that are "without any regard" for the text. I have read material on Mussolini's speeches before, including in a university course where I read that exact quote. I have Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 right in front of me. Yes I use Google Books because the content of those are easily verifiable by people who may want to investigate the content of sources used. N-HH needs to engage in more constructive behaviour, if N-HH has constuctive criticism on what I am proposing that could involve co-operative effort on working out how to improve content, that would be the best course of action. But these combative accusations about the nature of my behaviour need to stop being posted on article talk pages on content, if N-HH believes I am damaging the Misplaced Pages Project in such manners, he should open up an RfC/U.--R-41 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived but not closed and the issue is still ongoing. I am re-posting this. N-HH has posted further combative remarks at me, and keeps using hyperbole that exaggerates things. I have requested him to cease using combative uncivil remarks and have said that I will accept constructive criticism by him, he has not done so, instead he has escalated the combative uncivil remarks that is now at the point of breaching WP:NOTBATTLE. It doesn't matter what I seem to post, he always finds fault in it that he combatively condemns me for, and exaggerates it through hyperbole that effectively insinuates that I am grossly incompetent, malicious, and/or a person not to be trusted that he publicly conveys on article talk pages to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions.--R-41 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but most people will go "tl;dr", but your responses are dramatic and lacking evidence. First of all, if you are on a clean start you should actually read what it means. Editing in old areas is likely to make it obvious and connection never have been said or stated, until you reveal it yourself. Problems with editors are different from problem editors and you using an IP to bolster the same argument you did as R-41 is a problem. Furthermore, it is the reason you got blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Even if you remove it from the talk page, but we can still see it. If anything this looks like you are trying to shift the blame when your own actions were worse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at this issue briefly, with no prior knowledge. User:R-41: Please provide real evidence that you are being mistreated, rather than restating that allegation. Several users and administrators have considered your editing to be tendentious. Unless you can establish that you are right and they are wrong, then by pursuing this issue here, you are just increasing the level of controversy. You have basically three choices. First, you can go away. I don't think that you will. Second, you can drop this thread, and let the process work. Third, you can continue posting here, and then it is likely that you will go away. Please drop this thread. You are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

R-41: blanking prior contributions in protest

I stumbled across some article blanking by R-41 (talk · contribs) with disruptive edit summaries (a combination of WP:OWN and WP:POINTY behavior), and did a 31 hour block to allow time to cool down. But, given their comments at user talk:R-41#Block regarding disruptive blanking and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/R-41, it appears that they are intentionally wanting to get perma-blocked/banned due to perceived attacks they feel to have received. I haven't read all the background on the issues (I haven't even read all of the above discussion), so am hoping someone more familiar with the editor can assist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:RSN813 wp:ROLE, wp:coi, incivility, legal threats

RSN813 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• wp:ROLE account / WP:NOSHARE violation - it is explicitly used by more than one person (Alex Davidson and Robert Nathan )
• WP:COI - Robert Stuart Nathan
• incivility
• legal threats

Widefox; talk 02:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the mystery? I rewrite my assistant and he rewrites me. Is this uncommon? I guess maybe in some places it is, but not in show business. RN — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSN813 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can this get more absurd? The sentence directly above was a response to the comment directly below. But unsigned!? My initials are right there after the comment. What the heck is this about? RN — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSN813 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The username policy that you agreed to is quite explicit when it states "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked". This means that each person must have their own account. You also should not be editing the same articles, due to the potential conflicts as per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. In terms of "signing", on Misplaced Pages there is a technical requirement for you to end any talkpage post with ~~~~ ... this adds an electronic signature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the two editors using the RSN813 account are listening - WP:IDHT. I don't think they've heard yet that they've aimed the above at me, when the edit was by User:Drm310. Don't think they heard either of us point that out. Widefox; talk 13:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the statement that "“Self-published” to the common ear would translate as “fraudulent,”" indicates at the very least a serious lack of WP:CLUE. I've also given a final warning regarding the use of the account by multiple people. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the RSN813 editors understand that the text of a template is automatically substituted in place when an article is tagged. Regardless of that, my reasoning for added the {{self-published}} template was the precedent in Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb, which identifies the IMDb as a disputed source for crew lists and awards. If I have misinterpreted this guide then I am sorry for my mistake. But if I interpreted it correctly, then their dispute is better served at the guide's talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Seedennis

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

Seems like a sock puppet of this user. Notice the very similar editing pattern. - Amaury (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is where you should report sockpuppets. You also don't have to notify them if a report is filed there. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see Dennis, so what's the point? --Rschen7754 07:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • They have zero overlapping articles slightly differing timing and styles, and no diffs were provided, so bringing to a board where notification is required can cause drama. That was my main concern. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. - Amaury (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I take it you didn't get my horrible pun. :P --Rschen7754 07:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Would you care to explain it? XD - Amaury (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess not, it is 3:30am here, couldn't sleep but a little foggy I suppose. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"I see Dennis..." <---> User:Seedennis NE Ent 10:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm .... Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hand-written block notice added here. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Johannes003

• User:Johannes003 is making swift POV edits, denying the very existence of the South Indian film industry by proposing a cat deletion: Category:South_Indian-language_films and removing all references to it in film articles diff diff2 etc.
• He doesn't seek consensus with other editors for such edits as he thinks he is right during discussions: Maryan diff Talk:Maryan_(film). Some edit summaries displays this POV warrior thinking: "revert back again. last time Arjann. This is not funny."
• Most annoyingly he is convinced, that I agree with him, because I didn't reply to his last rant, even after I denied, that I would have agreed with him. He also uses abusive language: my statementhis reply. He does this to justify his POV edit campaign around eliminating everything South Indian from wikipedia.

Anything actionable here?-- Dravidian  Hero  12:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the deletion of that category is quite appropriate, and have said my piece at it's deletion discussion page. As for anything actionable yes, but per WP:Boomerang for this edit where you call another editor a rascist. No more personal attacks. Johannes003 edits while maybe strong don't seem like attacks. Goading perhaps. And there is definitely edit warring going on on both sides, by yourself and Johannes003. Reverting twice them bring it here to solve your edit dispute so you don't fall into the 3RR is gaming a little for my tastes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

He "accused" me on that page of South Indian separatism, which is nothing but a sneaky way of telling me "fuck you South Indians", and yes, I'm obviously a proud South Indian/Dravidian.-- Dravidian  Hero  15:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is only thus if you want to see and understand it like this....like a sneaky way of telling you what you expect to hear (and you rather go a long way and perhaps even want to understand them like you said). If you just read the words, they are just words, and there is no need to interpret them. And even all this does not excuse your attacks, btw. Lectonar (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your sensible approach but I stand by my comment.-- Dravidian  Hero  15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You are reading too much into it, and misinterpreting his statement based on your expectations, from what I can see. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• cease interaction The category is under discussion, let that play out, I've proposed that it be a container category, so I'd suggest you stop adding films and Johannes stops reverting, let the discussion play out and see where consensus lies. In the meantime, suggest you both start editing other corners of the[REDACTED] for a little while, to cool off.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am appalled! Nowhere have I abused or attacked any editors. We had a decent discussion going on and fellow editor Dravidianhero, did not reply back even after weeks. So I went on to remove the term South Indian from articles. (And I have stopped after reverting twice!) Dravidian, as Bushranger has rightly observed, reads too much into this, he has been doing this constantly. I have requested Dravidian repeatedly to not assume and to not misinterpret things. It's me who should be complaining here. And I'm seriously considering taking action against fellow editor for this personal attack against me. I am a senior editor and Dravidian by having falsely accused me of racism and having dragged me into this case, has belittled me. And, I AM a South Indian, too. Johannes003 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't like Indian regions at all. You wrote it yourself: "South, West or East, doesn't matter, it's all Indian, that is what I'm saying.". Your Anti-regional bias is evident from all your edits. So please don't call yourself a South Indian, it means absolutely nothing for you and insults real proud South Indians like me. You are just a OR POV pusher like many newbies ignoring reliable sources, consensus discussions etc (if someone wants evidence just read the full discussion on our talkpages). I have zero respect for you and I know I'm right. -- Dravidian  Hero  23:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say. You are separating a country by regions, that is right? Do you even notice what you're talking here? India IS one country, isn't it? India has several regions, yes, nobody denies that, but it is one country, we don't separate films or people by regions, we should not. Are you not understanding that your view point is so wrong, just so wrong? I don't how removing that obviously redundant word makes me a racist. And yes, please read our talks pages. Someone is making comments like "I have zero respect for you and I know I'm right" or "I never agreed with you and probably never will". I would even go so far as to say that editors with a fixed mindset like this are very dangerous. (And in which universe is this abusive language?) Johannes003 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes bro, everything regionalistic is "a big sin". I got your message. That's plain fanatic Proselytism and has nothing to do with[REDACTED] policies unfortunately for you. Take your moral policing in a very dark place and let other editors write per[REDACTED] policies.-- Dravidian  Hero  10:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When on earth did I state anything like this? Only read what I have written and don't read too much into it. And do you even know what Proselytism means? I suggest you read through the article first. It makes no sense discussing with stubborn people. I will let the admins do the talking from now on. Good luck, Dravidian! Johannes003 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The user Johannes03 always disapproves my and other user's edits. We here are providing references, writing neutral, considering featured articles on WP as source of page reference. Why does this user behave so. The way he responds and his talk backs are so demeaning. How dare he call someone a racist? We never use such insulting or abusive remarks on anyone! He thinks whatever we edit is trivia.Oh God! Arjann (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not removed any content, all I did was copyediting. I have explained all the changes I did in Maryan's talk page, you refuse to come and discuss there and neither explain why you keep reverting. No one has the right to act as though he is the owner of a particular article. Other editors will come and make changes. And please get the facts right, it's Dravidian who called me a racist. Johannes003 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Johannes is a highly discouraging editor. Arjann is a premium editor and Johannes belittles him all day and night while dubbing himself as a "senior editor", but with super low contributions from my 1st day (October) here. Johannes accused me of racism in his very first message to me: diff, but I assume that's a privileg for "senior editors". Also notable, how he links South Indian with racism in that diff as if it's a big sin to be proud of it.-- Dravidian  Hero  10:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

All I say is, admins may go on and compare my edits with Arjann's edits and decide themselves. I never boast about my contributions, that's why my user page is empty. But a little example here, that shows that I helped couple of articles reach good article level (all South Indian films-based articles, btw!) Fact is, I have got busy and stopped contributing. Does that take away my achievements? Newcomers nowadays here are hateful and it's them who bite senior editors. This is something I'm not going to put up with! And I said "That actually sounds racist", it indeed does, that does not mean that I called you a racist (like you did), that's a huge difference. Don't misinterpret things! Johannes003 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How on earth is mentioning South film industry for South Indian films racist? Can you explain it? India is a huge country and there is a reason why all reliable sources categorize films by region than by nation. Even National Film Awards categorize explicitly by language only, not by nation. Still you try to impose your POV on this critical matter without RS. Why do you think, you don't need sources? Is it because it's against your Anti-regional agenda? I guess so! -- Dravidian  Hero  11:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you are seperating films by regions and that hints at separatism. The National Film Awards are given by languages not by regions (why nation?). There is no "National Film Award for Best South Film"! You're scoring own goals in series. Also there is a Nargis Dutt Award for Best Feature Film on National Integration, just saying. And why we need sources for this? This is not an opinion. Johannes003 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Coming to self goals, there are regional censorship boards and regional juries for the Awards, not to mention the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce and numerous South Indian Award shows and Film Magazines as well as South Indian actors and actresses, all things based on RS. Basically you are saying that all such RS instances are meant to support separatism and racism. Is it so?

If you want more national integration start a career as a politician in India and become prime minister, but don't spread your thoughts here without any RS. I personally don't believe in Hindu-Muslim unity.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Now I am "cheap": diff.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• re: cease interaction - I hope other editors can see why I made this recommendation. Of course, each side is innocent, and the other side is a villain. Johannes and Dravidian - you are both just digging a deeper hole. Again, if you don't want a boomerang to hit both of you, cease interaction, and each go edit a different corner of the wiki for a few weeks, allow a cooling down period and allow other editors to come in and clean up any fights you've been in. I really don't see that you will somehow convince the other that you're right. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

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

Brief background - Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) tagged a page I created back in 2011 with a CSD. I removed the CSD per IAR as the original creation was a redirect which had later been converted by Boleyn (talk · contribs) into a disambiguation page. There follows a bit of reverting between Pigsonthewing and Boleyn, I warned both users about edit warring and asked them to discuss the mater, and that's when it took the situation took a nosedive. Pigsonthewing removed my warning with the edit summary of "stupid threat" and he removed later comments of mine with edit sumamries of "bollocks" and "further bollocks" - when I apologised for my admittedly hasty warning (though given his most recent block for edit warring, combined with today's editing, I hope you see why I warned him as well as Boleyn), he used rollback - he then used rollback a 2nd time on a later one of my comments. I know I am most likely deserving of a trouting, given my hastiness and apparent threats (which I assure you were never intended as such, I simply wanted both parties to discuss the matter before we got ourselves into a messy edit war), which is completely fine. However, Pigsonthewing's uncivil behaviour and mis-use of rollback is simply not acceptable, especially given his history here. GiantSnowman 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• My notification to Pigsonthewing reverted using Twinkle this time, edit summary of "more bollocks" - I despair sometimes. GiantSnowman 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• The rollback reverts were on the user's talk page, so it's not misuse of the rollback tool. It appears this all started because of your hasty warning. The solution to me seems for you to just drop the stick. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've already dropped the stick. That does not excuse his behaviour. GiantSnowman 15:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Bullshit. You haven't dropped the stick. That's why you brought them to ANI over nothing. He called bollocks (assuming that British for bullshit) on your warning for edit waring. Your warning was bullshit. So was your threat to block. Now that you've poked him enough, you think you've got enough to block. Quit sending out bullshit warnings and people won't call bullshit on you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, my warning was bullshit - hence why I apologised for it. But what about the other diffs? Was my apology also "bollocks/bullshit"? I've not poked him, I've tried to discuss a matter with him but have been unable to do so due to immediate reversion and uncivil behaviour. I'm not asking for a block, if I was I would have requested one in the opening post - I'm asking for other people to try and get through to Andy seeing as he won't listen to me and explain that his behaviour is not suitable. GiantSnowman 15:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Their behavior is suitable. The rollbacks were fine as they were in their user talk. That action signifies that they have read them. The first instance of them using the word "bollocks" was fine. You threatened to block them over reverting one time. The warning and block threat were totally unacceptable and it is acceptable for a non-admin to get upset about an inappropriate threat to block them. I see nothing wrong with the other reverts using the word "bollocks" as they were directly caused by you being a dick. So quit being a dick and threatening to block someone who you are currently engaged in a content dispute with and you won't have people calling bollocks on you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Saying "take this to a relevant discussion page ASAP before you get blocked" is not a threat, and I've already said it should not have been interpeted as such - but hey, it worked, the article is now under discussion at AFD with input by numerous parties. As for the "bollocks" situation, are you therefore saying that removing an apology with the edit summary "bollocks" is completely appropriate? I'm not in a "content dispute" with Pigsonthewing in the slightest, please retract that accusation. GiantSnowman 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor, but I can see where Giant Snowman is coming from. Pigs is being uncivil and is misusing rollback. Per WP:ROLLBACK, it should only be used for obvious vandalism or disruptive editing where it's obvious the user is not trying to help. And, Nathan, you might want to read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA because your remarks are coming across as personal attacks. - Amaury (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the page, it can be used "To revert edits in your own user space". It is easier than undo and the function is clear enough that it equates that the comment has been acknowledged, but the recipient does not want to discuss, respond or provoke further issue. While it may seem rude; it is not a violation of the tool for edits on the owner's talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of rollback in this context is a nit not worth discussing. NE Ent 02:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Misplaced Pages has much more of a "vague civility concept" than an actual policy (see Notes on civility, now in it's third year!) We're not going to solve that problem on ANI, so I encourage both GS and PotW to disengage and focus on the improving the encyclopedia. NE Ent 02:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

History of diffs for the two relevant articles:

• Pigsonthewing requests speedy deletion on David MacGill 09:50, 31 May 2013‎
• GiantSnowman reverts by removing speedy and restores redirect on David MacGill 09:57, 31 May 2013‎
• GiantSnowman "fixes" double redirect on David MacGill (disambiguation) 09:59, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill (disambiguation) 13:11, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill 13:11, 31 May 2013‎
• GiantSnowman reverts on David MacGill (disambiguation) 13:19, 31 May 2013‎
• Pigsonthewing reverts by restoring dab on David MacGill 13:14, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill 13:33, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill (disambiguation) 13:34, 31 May 2013‎
• Pigsonthewing nominates David MacGill for deletion 13:54, 31 May 2013‎

My conclusion, if GiantSnowman wasn't involved, neither was anyone else. I move to close this as no action needed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Thunderbolt93

I know Thunderbolt93 (talk · contribs), because he vandalize the Italian Misplaced Pages site in the article The 2nd Law. Now, he continues to inser without attendible sources "Supremacy" in the singles from The 2nd Law. Also, he insulting me in the discussion. --SuperVirtual (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I say again that you are simply ridicolous. At my home to insult people are used bad words, vulgarities. And I do not think I have mentioned a single one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, not your home. And I'm not ridicolous, because it's not the first time I try to talk with you (do you remember it.wiki?) --SuperVirtual (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Several points here. 1) What happens on Italian Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with the English Language Misplaced Pages, so forget anything about that. 2) If I understand the above you're complaining that he is adding it as a single. However you yourself were the one to add it as a single in this edit and then complained when someone tried to remove it less than a week ago here. So you're contradicting yourself here. 3) please provide the diffs of any insults. Canterbury Tail talk 18:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Personal attacks

I have been very patient with Expatkiwi (talk · contribs) however their actions long ago passed borderline issues with WP:NPA. They have made repeated personal attacks and other insults directed at me because they either do not like WP:NFCC or do not understand it. Werieth (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Got diffs? Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
2. How about you go back and read that big-ass orange box you neglected to read when you posted on this page? You know, the one that says in big bold letters You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Echo already notifies users when their user page is linked to. Werieth (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still a requirement as per the directions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone will have it set up for that. Better to be safe and just drop a note. --Onorem (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of taking care of it, but it looks got it as well, Toddst. XD We must have both gotten the idea. =) - Amaury (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrisy, overzealousness, and choking red tape rule certain editors on Misplaced Pages. My efforts to enhance pages on this site have been pulled down like a condemned building. I've had an utter guts-full. Expatkiwi 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you did violate a core image use policy ... WP:IAR does not apply to non-free image use and other copyright issues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

People don't read big-ass orange boxes on the internet, as determined by research six years ago: banners are invisible. If one of the five primary rules of a society is to "ignore all rules," it's not very reasonable to freak out when someone doesn't follow the rules. NE Ent 01:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:Expatkiwi_.28Result:_.29
• Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review#Submissions_for_List_of_Australian_flags_and_List_of_New_Zealand_flags

  Those are two areas besides the comment above. This editor is dragging this across a lot of different pages so its hard to keep track. Werieth (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You were called a hypocrite, and that rises to the level of an ANI report? This looks more like a tit-for-tat filing due to the 3RR report filed against you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

vindictive and my favorite, the same affection as I would a turd in a punch-bowl. Werieth (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he's calling you a "turd in a punch-bowl"? No. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I posted with good intentions, and it ended up getting torn out! How do you think I am supposed to take that? Expatkiwi

Good intentions or not, you have a responsibility to the rules - especially copyright. You're also responsible for your reaction when the edits are removed. The rules were explained - your role was to then eat a little crow and follow them - not call people names simply having advised you of the rule (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'rules' don't make any bloody sense!!!!! If non-free illustrations are illegal in Wikepedia, then why is there a section devoted to justification of non-free image usage? Care to answer that one, Sunshine? Expatkiwi

Do you care to check your attitude at the door please? "Care to answer that one, Sunshine" is more than a little inappropriate ... your actions are already up for review by admins, do you want to act like that while under such scrutiny? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of things. One: you appear to need to read the rules properly, and not just skim them. Two: you need to fix your sig, which appears to lack a link to your talkpage, and a datestamp. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as his sig links to either his talkpage or userpage, the linking is fine. The datestamping is an issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a bunch of petty-minded beaurocrats here who just avoid the issue instead of explaining things in non-beaurocratese. Its times like this that I wonder if I'm talking to a person or an answering machine. In any case, Bwilkins, since you told me that I'm under the microscope for the crime of trying to get a straight answer and a correct remedy for perceived errors and just getting double-talk and threats in response (thus making the unforgivalbe eeeror of blowing the whistle on that kind of conduct), it's going to be ponitless to continue as I'm sure that you and your colleagues whill find some interpretation to get me kicked off Misplaced Pages. User:Expatkiwi 23:30 (UTC) 1 JUNE 2013

User:Reisio making controversial and undiscussed removal of content on all letters of the ISO basic Latin alphabet, from A to Z

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

User:Reisio has with no prior discussion removed "ISO" from the text of the article of all 26 letters of the ISO basic Latin alphabet, changing "ISO basic Latin alphabet" to "basic Latin alphabet", in spite of being informed that there is no "basic Latin alphabet" other than that standardized by ISO, which could confuse readers, both because each language using the Latin letters has its own alphabet and because even after his/her edits each of the articles states that the letter in question is number "x" in the alphabet. Without specifying which alphabet. Reisio is now up to three reverts on each of the letters, once reverting the original text of each of the letters, once reverting User:LjL and once reverting me. And has clearly no intention of stopping what he/she is doing. In addition to that he has marked all of his deletions/reverts as minor edits in order to avoid scrutiny, in spite of being told not to in edit summaries by User:LjL. Since User:Reisio has made some 70 reverts it's hard to know where to start when it comes to diffs, so I'll just provide three sample page histories: letter A, letter S and letter Z. Thomas.W (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out what happened with the Latin alphabet page, which I made into a disambiguation page in order to make things clearer instead of just reverting bad edits; it got reverted, then reverted again, both time as minor, even though the intervening edit warned the user not to do that. The user has cited WP:MINOR as a justification in several of their edit summaries; however, after reading that article, I'm convinced it clearly states that edits such as those are not to be considered minor. LjL (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Borked move at Crowdfunding

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

Crowdfunding, a redirect was deleted so that Crowd funding could be moved there. But it looks like the whole thing has been deleted. Deleting admin - User talk:DGG, has been notified but appears to be offline. - hahnchen 21:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Inspectortr

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

This user is trouble. He's been warned too many times before. His recent contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=557742841 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan&diff=prev&oldid=557742221) show that he's only here to cause trouble. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat American_Academy_of_Financial_Management

I have reverted this edit as disputed. The edit summary includes a legal threat, though I do not see active discussion attempting to resolve the dispute. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is a very specific legal threat, posted on the AAFM's website: . I am one of the editors named for "libeling" AAFM, although I'm not sure how they figure that to be the case, since I believe all I did was to quote a Wall Street Journal article in a talk page discussion. In any case, it's a clear legal threat, and anyone connected with the AAFM should be barred from editing the article - since they seem to edit through IPs, I'd suggest that the article be semi-protected (at least). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And the AAFM issues a press release the day after I ask User_talk:Wealthadvise if he is connected with sockpuppeteer User talk:Doctorlaw. . --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist, but at the moment the frequency of disruptive editing (and the number of separate disruptive editors) would not seem to reach the level normally required for semi-protection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The exact edit summary says "News says that editors have been identified for defamation..." - that's not a legal threat, that's them supposedly quoting "news" - not a threat of its own. It is obvious that the goal is to create a chilling effect - at least IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The "news" is AAFM's own press release, which Beyond My Ken linked to above. It's not just a legal threat, it's off-wiki harassment. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, but is it the IP who's making that threat - are they the ones "cleansing" the article? The entire "press release" is a joke - no self-respecting company OR legal team would release anything like that ... I especially love the heading that says something about being a financial supporter of Misplaced Pages ... you don't put that in a headline; period. Whoever wrote that "release" is a jokester. If WMF legal has received a formal submission from the supposed lawyer, great. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purpose of WP:NLT is to eliminate the chilling effect caused by the threat of legal action. Clearly, the release on the AAFM website is an attempt to create that effect, and the ridiculousness of the effort is an indication that that is its purpose, since, as you note, it's legally dubious at best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies as a legal threat in the way Misplaced Pages uses the term. If it were a registered user, it would have to be blocked. As it is, it's a one-shot from an IP, so reverting it is about the best you can do, at this point anyway. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also been named as one of the editors who must recuse themselves or else face legal action. The IP, I would wager, is just Doctorlaw, who is under a permanent ban for abusing multiple accounts. The socks would toss around fraud, defamation, etc. in edit summaries and talk pages prior to being blocked, although this is the first time I've seen the AAFM site get involved. This isn't really a one-shot deal, although it (probably) comes from someone who has already been banned, so I'm not sure what sanctions could be considered. A note of this threat should certainly be made regarding Doctorlaw and related socks, in case this escalates into a severe case of off-wiki harassment. RJC _Contribs 22:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly harassed by the AAFM press release, since I judge that the chances of anything actually coming from the threat are infinitesimally small, but WP:NLT isn't based on the reasonableness of the threat, just the fact that it's made. Still, I see the problem with blocking an already-banned user, unless he starts using other IPs, in which case perhaps a range block would be reasonable. In the meantime, I suspect that all the editors who were named are probably watching the article and can keep it from being hijacked by an AAFM-connected editor with a COI and a POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin closures of controversial RM discussions - appropriate?

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

I'm requesting a quick review of two non-admin RM closures by Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) because their appropriateness rests on an apparent difference in interpretation of WP:RMCI#Non-admin_closure, which lists the following requirement for non-admin closures:

• The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days).

In particular, how does this apply to an RM discussion where the !voting is evenly split, and so the WP:CONSENSUS determination depends on the evaluation of the arguments? Is it appropriate for a non-admin to close such a discussion?

These are the two RM discussions in question:

1. Talk:Avatar#Requested_move_2013
2. Talk:National Association for the Advancement of Colored People#Requested move

For Avatar,

• Nathan Johnson closed the hotly debated discussion without explanation, saying simply, "Not moved". .
• At User_talk:Nathan_Johnson#Controversial_close_by_non-admin here I explained to Nathan that the high level of controversy at that RM indicates that only an admin should close, and asked him to revert. He disagreed, I explained more, asking him to revert a second time, and he still said no, agreeing this should go to AN/I.
• At Talk:Avatar, after the close, Dicklyon (talk · contribs) reverted the close, citing "Non-admin should not close such a controversial RM.". Nathan reverted that revert, saying simply "take it to WP:MR".
• Further discussion by the three of us on Dick's talk page also lead no where: User_talk:Dicklyon#non-admin_close.

For National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

• George Ho (talk · contribs) question's Nathan close, asking if it's a supervote, at User_talk:Nathan_Johnson#Talk:National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People.23Requested_move.
• I state my opinion that this situation is even worse (the reading of consensus is even less clear), and say this needs to go to AN/I.
• Nathan predicts the two discussions will be closed as non consensus/ not moved (perhaps, but I still think an admin needs to make that call, in both cases).

If non-admins can close RM discussions like this, that's fine, but it's news to me. I've always been under the impression that consensus has to be clear, almost unanimous one way or the other, for non-admins to close. In fact, I've closed similar RMs in the past, and have been reverted, and the community agreed my closes were inappropriate because of the judgment required in the close. Hence the impression I have. If non-admins can close discussions like this, where the !voting is pretty even, but the arguments are not clearly evenly based in policy/guidelines, then that needs to be clarified. Because I'm sure Dick and I are not the only ones who are not aware of this.

Thanks! --B2C 03:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the editor's status, closers should explain how they arrived at their conclusion. In both cases, Nathan Johnson apparently failed to do so. Failure to explain is not appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason for complex explanations when the result is clear. In the two listed above, there was no consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I received notice while I was browsing the user's contributions. I found the following closures that may not follow WP:RMCI:

• Talk:Godhra train burning#Name of the article — there were alternative proposals, but it was closed as "no move"
• Talk:Sam Morgan (General Hospital)#Requested move — closed as "no move" and suggested to discuss the matter outside request. Unfortunately, it should have been relisted.
• Talk:Extras#Requested move (2013) — closed as "no move" with a rationale, but there were one support and one oppose.
• Talk:Kutub al-Sittah#Requested move 2 — closed as "no move", but there were logical arguments that should have not been ignored.

There are too many to list; this should help: Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs). With regards! --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Where those closed wrongly? Or are you just bitching because a non-admin closed them? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nathan, I wonder if you know the NAACP situation or if you have read the NAACP article. Both sides made valid points, yet I question your closure. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I read the requested move discussion prior to closing it. Do you question the closure because you think it's wrong or because I am not an administrator? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, you changed your close rationale on the NAACP, so that's well-explained. Still, explanation is recommended for complicated discussions, and... the way you explained your closures confused me prompted me to doubt your abilities. But you fixed your rationales, so I hope this discussion dies down or is resolved. But I have the same situation with JHunterJ with closures, and he is/was an administrator. In other words, it's not because your are a non-admin nor are you wrong. Communication is very important for everybody, and great communication is encouraged, especially in requested moves. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I modified the close. I originally thought that it was clear why I closed it the way I did, but see now that I was wrong. I think the NAACP issue could have been better resolved on my talk page, but que sera sera. I will endeavor to be more clear in my RM closures (though looking through old RMs, it doesn't appear closers were more verbose than I). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, I moved your relisting sigs into between original posts and first days of discussion, so the bot will move proposals to newer dates. I hope you don't mind. --George Ho (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When Nathan closed the Avatar RM, I immediately reverted him to let him know that he should leave it for an admin. He reverted back. He is not getting the message that RMs this complex or contested should be left to an admin. Non-admin closes are OK for easy cases, but he persists in doing complex ones. Admins have been approved for a degree of fair judgement; he has not, so he should limit himself to the easy cases – and explain the decision in any case. As for his "take it to WP:RM" "take it to WP:MR" comment in reverting my revert, that's what I was trying to avoid; that venue has been pretty much abandoned. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess he meant WP:move review. Challenges against the original arguments were weak, but dot the i is challenged lately. However, I agree that MRV is almost a ghosttown. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrected above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

To my simple mind, the existence of this discussion indicates that the closes were not "uncontroversial" or "uncontested". Had they been so we would not be here. On the other hand, it's easy to see how Nathan thought he was helping with a backlog. Perhaps the answer might be to request closure at WP:AN whenever this situation arises. If the backlog moves to the noticeboard, it will be more visible to the community, and alternative solutions to keeping it under control might be forthcoming. Begoon  03:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The existence of this discussion proves nothing. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested moves#Can "no consensus" mean "move"? where B2C knew there was no consensus but was trying to change the rules on what a no consensus close means post hoc to suit their needs. Also, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would be a better venue to request closure I would think. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be a better place, as it transcludes to WP:AN, and that's where I should have linked to. Thanks for the correction, Nathan. Begoon  12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is one more: Talk:List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. It was closed as "not moved", but there were concerns about the current title without either oppose or support. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Nevermind, that was my err on my part. Nathan did appropriate close, yet rationale should have been better. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I think a no consensus in the Avatar case is fairly obvious. The discussion is complicated by the parallel discussion on WT:RM and there is no real consensus for either discussion. The NAACP discussion is, imo, not as clear since the oppose !votes tend to be based on 'preferences'. Regardless, I don't think it a good idea to start making a distinction between admin and non admin closes in the case of page moves. Better to bring up substantive issues on the closing editor's talk page and, if you're not satisfied with their responses and believe that the closer did not adequately address policy issues, take it to to RM/R. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion a little more carefully, I'm going to add that NJ does seem to have the habit of not explaining his closes and that's not a good thing. A closing rationale is important because editors should not have to go to your talk page for an explanation (that already raises the temperature a bit) and because it is unclear what policy points were being used to justify the close. My guess is that poorly explained closes will fester and will likely be reopened later. --regentspark (comment) 15:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the closing statements were brief or non-existent. It's not a good excuse, but I was simply following what I had seen done in other requested moves. In the discussion below, I said I would use more detailed closing statements in the future. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the consensus has changed considerably since the last time I saw this issue discussed on AN/I. Before, it was clear that non-admin should only close no-brainer discussions. Now, it seems that's no longer true, though good explanations are highly recommended. Something to this effect should be added to WP:RMCI. --B2C 16:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When a non-admin RM decision is challenged

Sorry, I forgot to ask for clarification on this related question too, while we're at it.

I've seen admins immediately revert their RM decision/closes if they were substantively challenged. I know that's not required for admins, but isn't it for non-admin closures? I mean, if a non-admin closes an RM discussion, and someone challenges it (either on talk page or with a revert), isn't that evidence that consensus (or lack thereof) is not clear? This AN/I could have been avoided if Nathan had agree to my request that he revert his close, or if he had not reverted Dick's revert of his close. --B2C 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Any admin may revert any NAC for any reason or no reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @User:SmokeyJoe that's wrong. Have you even read WP:RMCI? Admins cannot overturn a NAC simply because it was performed by a non-admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I certainly have read it, and do not give it much respect. More generally, closing discussions, distilling a difficult interpretation of consensus, is something admins are expected to do well, or not do poorly, and while NAC of discussions are welcome, if challenged we prefer to defer to admins. Admins alone are given the privilege of discretion in closing per a rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That's wrong. "We" certainly do not defer to admins. This has been discussed before. Admins have no special privileges in closing discussion (outside deletion discussions). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The time-limited RM discussions are on the boundary of discussions that an admin may close per rough concensus. You are stretching the language of RMCI. Did you annotate you closes with the recommended template? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry Joe, but there's no simpler way to say this than "you're wrong". Admins do not hold a hierarchical position above anyone else with regards to reading and interpreting consensus in any form, and that includes undoing bad closures on the part of others. Admins have access to additional technical tools, but that access only gives them the privilege to use those tools, and in any action that does not directly involve the use of their tools, they do not have extra privilege. Moving articles do not require admins because any user may move an article. Undoing a bad closure also does not require an admin, though users should not battle back and forth over the matter, as edit warring is a blockable offense, and THAT would require an admin at that point. --Jayron32 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. But my question is whether a substantive challenge from a non-admin user of a NAC sufficient to establish that the NAC was too controversial, and so should be reverted? --B2C 03:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If every editor was equal and had to discuss on the merits of the arguments, than yes. Admins generally know the policies very well. Any closure, not even a bad closure, from an admin could be challenged. You just don't go about reverting admin closures without extreme reasoning; because even if they are "involved" the action is almost universally seen as disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, but I've never seen any policy that says anything of the sort. All closures are subject to review, like the above, but whether it was an NAC or admin closure is irrelevant, and a single admin overturning an NAC should only do so in the equivalent of WP:RAAA. The only prerogative reserved to admins in regards to closures is that closures that require admin tools to execute (delete, move over redirect, merge) cannot be done as an NAC. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 05:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Mostly agree, but in the case of moves, WP:RMCI clearly says that non-admins can close requested moves and then tag a page {{db-move}}. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • And doing so would have been fine, but the way you closed it was suboptimal and confusing. Closing "No consensus" is the preferred method (expected, actually) then explaining a bit. Then it looks like a reading of consensus and doesn't accidentally look like a supervote. Being an NAC, it is helpful to really dot the i's and cross the t's with procedure in a contentious case, so stuff like this doesn't happen. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you User:Dennis Brown for your helpful advice. I don't think stating "no consensus" versus "not moved" is either preferred (or expected), but I had already changed the close of the Avatar RM prior to your comment and added a link to the discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves. I also modified the NAACP close and relisted 2 more of the discussions listed above. I don't think there was anything wrong with any of the closures, but I am open to constructive criticism. However, I don't think it's appropriate for users heavily involved in a discussion unilaterally overturning an uninvolved users close. Or to question, or revert, a closure for the single reason that it was done by a non-admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Thing is, Nathan, I'm not sure that is "the single reason". George annotated his comments above with his concerns, and then you asked "Where those closed wrongly? Or are you just bitching because a non-admin closed them?" I don't really follow that. Begoon  13:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • It was the primary reason for the original complaint in this thread; my closure of the Avatar RM. It was the primary reason for questioning the NAACP closure as well. I have added to the close of both those, as requested, and feel that now the only reason for questioning the closure is that I am not an administrator. There were complaints that the reasoning was not explained. I've looked through a large number of old requested moves and they are almost all simply stating the result, even when there was disagreement in the discussion. I have stated above that I will add better summaries in future. 2 of the closures that George mentioned above I relisted. I had thought of that before closing them. For one, there was move-warring going on, so I thought that referring them to actually discuss was better than simple relisting. The other 2 I still think were right, albeit with no summaries, but see previous. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • • Thanks, Nathan, for the clear response. Dennis speaks wise words (again) below. Communication is usually the problem with these things, and you're a braver man than me for taking on these closes. I'd never personally contemplate an NAC in anything other than a SNOW situation, but the way things are, non-admins seem needed to keep the backlogs under control. I might ask you to have a look at a Merge/Redirect discussion I started in a few days if anyone actually comments there... . Sorry if I added to your troubles. Begoon  15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • The authority in a close comes from the quality of the wording, not the bits assigned to the closer. To the eye, a non-admin close should look identical to an admin close. This is why I'm saying a close should appear more formal and with more information in a contentious debate. The reading of consensus IS separate from the action taken, which is why they need differentiating, to prevent situations exactly this this. It should be short, but speak with authority, so even those that disagree can clearly understand how you determined what the consensus was. Maybe old RMs did it wrong, so they aren't a good judge. I'm not picking on you, just trying to help keep you from having to do this part again. You are absolutely right that involved users should not have reverted the close and should have sought outside opinions, but again, a formal and explained close will make this all less likely.Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Thank you Dennis Brown, I agree with all you said. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not doing clean-up after move

Firstly this editor's closing statements are very brief and meaningless (which is being discussed above). The worse point is he is not doing clean up after moving articles.

• He closed Talk:Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan#Requested_move with moved but a part of the article and persondata etc required some changes.
• Talk:Augusta_Township,_Michigan#Move.3F also required clean-up!

This is unacceptable! Generally RM closers do the required cleanups after moving articles. If someone can't/doesn't have time they should notify the nominator to make required changes! Nothing has been done in these moves! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 13:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this requires a response, but it reminded me of this scene in The Terminal. You are, at this time, simply... unacceptable. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Or confess you don't know the reply! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 14:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I've moved Augusta Township, Michigan back to Augusta Charter Township, Michigan. There was no evidence that the short form is more common and the township web site uses the long form. There was no discussion at all of this move, only a request made to Anthony Appleyard's talk page that he moved to the article talk page. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fine as only one user supported the move. WP:BRD and all. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Here again, I would have added "Moved to the new name, asking others clean up the article to reflect the new name". Or I would have cleaned up the article, either is fine. Finality is important, and is what defines "closing". And Bkonrad, if you had followed the link you would have seen the discussion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• It probably is a good idea. However, I would expect that those users that actually care about an article, as opposed to me, would be much more qualified to clean up. Further, if they started or supported a requested move that requires cleanup, I would expect them to be watching an article and be ready and eager to make the necessary changes. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Even though it doesn't require the admin bit, closing is an administrative function, and when you do an admin-like job, you should do it in an admin-like way. Accountability to explain is the same for you and I, for example. You have to remember that many people are good editors but aren't policy experts, so you have to offer gentle guidance in the close, so they know what happens next. A close isn't solely for the benefit of the !voters, a close should be directed at the community as a whole. It takes a little practice. Nothing here got broke, that is how you learn, so I would say we just move on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

RMnac

The instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Step-by-step_formal_closing_procedure include the following:

Replace text on left with text on right. Add {{RMnac}} within the template if necessary.

I suppose "if necessary" should say, "if you are not an admin". In any case, I note that Nathan has not been using the {{RMnac}} template. --B2C 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is now simply harassment. Can someone close this thread now? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it harassment? I'm just pointing it out for future reference. I didn't know about it either. --B2C 17:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So, I changed the above to say "if you are not an admin" instead of "if necessary", and Nathan has removed the instruction altogether. My change was a clarification of wording that apparently had consensus support. Nathan's edit, the deletion, is a significant change. Does it have consensus support? Should there be no instruction for non-admins to add the helpful RMnac template to their closes? --B2C 17:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted all edits. ANI is not a good place to debate the policy for that page. Best left for another time and another place. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Still no explanation at Avatar

Nathan has updated his reason at the Avatar close to say this:

No consensus which defaults to Not moved. See also this discussion.

Per my reading, the only arguments opposing the proposal are based on the premise that article's topic is primary for "Avatar", which itself is based on some variant of the historical significance criterion. The argument in favor of the move is that since a similar argument can be made that the film name Avatar is primary based on the usage criterion and so it should be placed at Avatar, there is no primary topic here, and so the dab page should be at this location. This is not the case of two equal arguments. If the two arguments were:

1. The Hindu use is primary per historical significance and so its article should be at Avatar
2. The film use is primary per the usage criterion and so its article should be at Avatar

1. The Hindu use is primary and so its article should be at Avatar.
2. Since the film also has a reasonable claim to primary topic per the usage criterion, there is no primary topic, and so the dab page should be at Avatar.

• ANI isn't to reclose the discussion and a close doesn't require explaining the minutia in the discussion. although more might have been better. It can be as simple as "both sides present reasoned arguments but there isn't a consensus on how policy should be interpreted". In a case like this, I would probably have closed as "no consensus, take to a full RFC" as to solicit a larger audience and more input. We aren't in hurry to move things (or shouldn't be) so the 30 day cycle of an RFC is a better venue for a move as large and contentious as this. Rather than debate the close, your time might better be spent crafting a neutrally worded RfC and posting notices in a couple of neutral places, like the village pump. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was not originally nor now asking to reclose the discussion. Originally I asked whether the close should be reverted based on my understanding for some time that non-admins should not close such contentious RMs. It is now apparent that consensus has changed about that.

    I still think any closer should be held to explaining how the "no consensus" decision was reached, and, if he is unwilling to or unable to do so, that the close be reverted. However, in this case it seems reasonable to accept your explanation in its place, and proceed accordingly. --B2C 18:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User Shaushka: resumed edit warring, mass reverts, and ethnic namecalling

Shaushka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on May 29 for edit warring. The blocking administrator also warned him or her against making "further personal cultural/ethnic slurs". Since the block expired, Shaushka has resumed edit warring on the same article1, made a gratuitous reference to another contributor's supposed ethnicity2, and appears to be engaged in a reverting spree of said contributor's edits (see contribs for multiple diffs). I think a longer, last-chance block is indicated. Rivertorch (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry my racist words but Ahmetyal resumed edit warring, not me. According to me-and most of scholars-, the topics that I have reverted are controversial. There are many sources that support my edits. Furthermore, I have written my arguments on talk page/s and I also said that I'll add the sources. Regars... Shaushka (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being reverted by multiple editors, who have requested that you discuss your controversial edits. Continuing to edit-war in these circumstances is inadvisable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Whole lot of edit warring going on, inappropriate edit summaries by Ahmetyal , off topic summary by Rivertorch , forum shopping to wp:3rr by NbSB, little use of article talk page ... but yea Shaushka needs to stop or be stopped (blocked). NE Ent 10:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think it was forum-shopping, that wasn't my intent - I just thought it was necessarily a "required" formality to report the situation there, as it is obviously a 3RR violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

GB fan blocked Shaushka for 72 hours, so I think this can be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I blocked them for disruptive editing on Yazdânism. They continued to add a {{delete}} template without explanation even after I explained twice that they needed to go to WP:AFD if they felt the article should be deleted. GB fan 11:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

From the editor in question's talk page: "I am going to eat my fettuccine guys. Afterwards, I'am going to continue my "edit-warrings". Regars...Shaushka (talk) 5:40 am, Today (UTC−5)" It seems very clear from this and behavioral indication that this editor understands what they are doing, but is intent on continuing it as they do not see it as wrong (hollow apology after intentionally ignoring instructions aside). Were it purely up to me, the continued cultural/ethnic abuse would have earned an immediate indefinite block. A longer term solution is probably necessary at this point to prevent further harm to the site and its community. - Vianello (Talk) 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. I see your May 29 block notice on the user's talk page, but I see no actual block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The block was never instituted for some reason; the message existed but given that edits continued through the "block period" on May 31st. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I've got no excuse, it looks like I just got distracted at an inopportune moment and didn't actually put it through. - Vianello (Talk) 23:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but what was fascinating was that for quite some time there were no edits, almost like a notice was as good as a block (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This set of gems says a lot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone come up with anything useful this editor has contributed? Based on their history, I don't think I've ever seen so many reverts. Based on that alone, I think we should consider either a longer block or an indefinite block. And, of course, there's more than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In looking over Shaushka's contributions more thoroughly, I see he is unquestionably a WP:SPA. Considering his willingness to casually toss out epithets, and considering how fraught with controversy his chosen topic area is, I doubt we're be doing anything other than delaying the inevitable by using a time-limited block. Consider: 1234567. Still, there's no particular harm in giving him one last chance, as long as someone is willing to closely monitor what happens when the block expires. (I won't be that someone.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just like Bbb23, I do not see any good contributions. WP:Competence is required. This user apparently has little idea about subjects they are trying to edit. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As is often stated, blocks are preventative. In this case a block is meant to prevent continued edit warring. Their intent to continue edit warring means that the preventative measure needs to stay in place until they can provide assurance that they will not continue to do so. Blackmane (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur; indef per WP:FETTUCCINE. NE Ent 00:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible TBAN violation by Tristan noir

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

Tristan noir appears to have violated their TBAN on Japanese literature (broadly construed) by commenting on an article about a haiku poet. Also mentioned is the article's creator, who is clearly Japanese literature-inclined given their username. 182.249.241.40 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In the diff you linked to he is commenting about some sock-puppets, but not about any article. I don't see how that's a TBAN violation. A comparable example was closed recently with no action on this board. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Biggest Loser vandalism

Good day dear sirs and madams, I would like to report this ongoing vandalism on various The Biggest Loser articles. I have kept reporting those IPs that vandalized those articles. But they always come back. They have been around since 2012. They have been changing tables infos already. Here is a record of the vandalism going on, Records. I have sought help from Drmies aready.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotion campaign involving a small sock farm

For at least six months, and more intensely over the last month or so, there's been a campaign to promote the Margo Feiden Gallery (a Manhattan business) and its eponymous owner. This has been a bit less ham-handed than the usual campaign -- the gallery is best known as the representative of the Al Hirschfeld estate, and most of the recent campaigning consists of inserting copyrighted Hirschfeld images into various articles with plainly inadequate NFCC rationales, often adding related promotional text, and plugging the Feiden gallery in the image captions. There are others, though, including an odd attempt to promote Feiden's 25-year-old book on dieting. I spent most of the morning today cleaning out this mess, to the extent I could track things down, but several aspects may merit scrutiny from extra sets of eyes.

First of all, there seem to be several SPAs involved -- possibly multiple associates/employees of Feiden or her publicist, but given the coordinated editing and identical rationale texts, likely sockpuppets. The accounts I've identified are User:Chicago57th, User:Rwonderling47, User:Robyn42, and User:Factor-ies.

There's also a heavily promotional AFC draft created recently that manages a lot of minimally sourced peacockery while whitewashing her notorious business dispute with Hirschfeld. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Margo_Feiden Feiden is likely notable enough to support an article, but this isn't an appropriate starting point.

Finally, Feiden, forty years after the fact, started telling a story giving herself an important role in the events surrounding the 1960's shooting of Andy Warhol. One of the apparent socks recently removed the standard account of those events (in Valerie Solanas) and replaced it with Feiden's ersatz version. There's no verification of the Feiden version, and when it was reported by the New York Times, the online comments were so caustic and skeptical that the Times added a comment of its own noting that "The Times does not present Ms.Fieden’s account as definitive." Absent any verification (and some reports that her account is contradicted by most if not all other accounts) I don't see how this version belongs in Misplaced Pages at all, and certainly should not be presented as anything other than an uncorroborated story told only after everyone in a position to dispute it directly had died. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Mistake while submitting PROD

I attempted to PROD the apparently autobiographical article Donnell Alexander, but mistakenly pressed the wrong Twinkle button, and submitted it with no reason. I realised my mistake, and self-reverted, then submitted a correct PROD. However, I apparently did not do this correctly, and only the original incorrect PROD remained listed. Subsequently, this has been listed as a Speedy Keep, since no reasons were given; while my reasoned, correct, PROD on the article has been removed by another editor since it was submitted after the original incorrect PROD was opened. I had originally marked it as a BLP:PROD, since there were no sources at all; the original author removed this tag.

I have no idea how to rectify this mess, and still wish to list the article for deletion, since no evidence of the notability of this person has been offered. Could someone please help do this. RolandR (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Since the author (as xe is entitled to do) removed the PROD tag, it needs to go through AfD, though. I've added your rationale to the deletion discussion. Theopolisme (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Leelabratee

Can we get some experienced eyes and/or admin intervention to help with User:Leelabratee? Her User Talk page is covered with warnings, mostly having to do with references, creating inappropriate pages, and copyright problems. But this is just the start of it.

An article she created, Shonkhobash, has been put up for AFD. She has removed (and been warned for removing) the AFD tag 123 times. Her user page has been put up for MFD and she has removed the MFD tag 12 times. Her User page was put through MFD because she is repeatedly changing it to appear as other users: the first time as User:Titodutta, a second time as User:Ronhjones, a third time as User:Kironbd07, and a fourth time as User:Sonia. She often changes some details so I'm unsure of malicious intent—I'm really trying to AGF here—but she's also copying and modifying text from deletion discussions, such as using this from 16 May to write this from 31 May. On top of this, we've got refactoring comments in deletion discussion, redirecting AFC pages to her article, and other little things like responding to an offer of help to understand our rules with a request for help with the article that user marked for deletion. At this point, she's been spending more time working on her User page than trying to save the page she created, which makes me wonder if she understands what's going on. I'm thinking there's more than a little language barrier issue at play here, but WP:COMPETENCE and all.

Any help would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All her uploaded images and a several pieces of text were deleted as copyright violations / no permission. I'm not sure she understands how copyright works.  Ronhjones  22:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Now I feel they are trying to learn. They copied my userpage, my AFD rationale and now they are using my signature too. Anyway, my signature is not that artistic and I'll change it again soon and remove "email" from it. That AFD comment change was a funny one— they updated Facebook like numbers. I'll see if I can offer more help! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 23:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani

Moved from a section of the same name at WP:AN, since this is an incident. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani (Persian: حسن روحاني) is a member of Combatant Clergy Association (ref:"Members of Combatant Clergy Association".) since 1976. But Gorrrillla5 insists on Association of Combatant Clerics which is a different association and Rouhani was never a member of. He ignores what I wrote on his talk page and keep reverting. Mojtaba Salimi (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You failed to notify Gorrrilla despite the big warning at the top of the page, so I've notified him for you. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism

An anon IP, 46.7.19.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been engaging in vandalism and is currently misusing the Sandbox (). I actually don’t know what the policy is on sandbox vandalism, but thought it’d be best to bring it up. —Frungi (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Stuff like this isn't really a big problem, except of course for your "engaging in vandalism" link. Just treat like any other vandal — warn until the user stops or until the user vandalises after getting a level-4 warning; if the former, forget about it, and if the latter, take the IP to WP:AIV. Note that the IP's been vandalising this section, so I've given a level-4 warning; feel free to go to WP:AIV if you notice anything else. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion removal

Citrusbowler keeps removing speedy deletion templates from OpTic Rev. This is the first time. I have warned him 1 time and another guy warned him the second. RevdDaKing (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2013

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards