Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B3430715 (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 26 March 2012 (→Disruptions, deliberate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • 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

Concern on recent high-speed deletions by Fastily

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to the above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blade, as I said above, I don't buy this "martyr" excuse. Fastily is a volunteer like the rest of us and has no obligation to do what he does. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

What is the Next Step?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have unarchived this discussion as we need to reach a resolution and figure out how to move forward rather than just letting this die until the issue arises again. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily has left for the time being, so I'm not sure what is to be gained by kicking a man while he's down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, good to know that if my behavior is ever questioned at AN/I I can go on Wikibreak to end the discussion... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, 28bytes is right - this needs to go to RFC/U. The discusion has not ended, it simply needs moving. GiantSnowman 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how productive even an RFC/U will be without Fastily there actively defending his side. I am reminded of the RFC/U in absentia of User:YellowMonkey, which ended inconclusively—put indefinitely on hold because YM was not around to further the discussion. Now, granted, Fastily has announced that he is leaving and planning on coming back, unlike YM, who just dropped of the face of the earth. Nevertheless, I am sceptical of any such investigations/mediations that do not involve the party at the centre of the debate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Burpelson AFB, I understand your frustration, but to clarify: you don't have to end the discussion, you just have to take it to a more appropriate venue. I know RfC/Us are a giant pain to put together and participate in, but that's where the discussion has to continue, if it is to continue. 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm most interested in seeing how Fastily acts when he comes back from his self imposed wiki break. Will he have finally come to the conclusion that what he was doing was disruptive and was, simply put, pissung a lot of people off? Or will he just continue to mass delete? Hopefully a lesson will have been learned. And even though he isn't editing at the moment, I'm fairly sure that he is reading every word of this thread. Aren't you? Hopefully we won't have any more Fastily related threads at ANI for a while. A lot if people jumped on his case this time. Lot more than normal, and that's saying something. It's not all sour grapes, as some have suggested. It's about right and wrong. It's about making sure that if an admin makes a mistake, or multiple mistakes, that they are held accountable, just like everyone else. Yes mistakes happen, but there seems to be a much higher rate of mistakes and a much higher rate of ANI discussions surrounding Fastily than most users. Where there's smoke there's fire. --JOJ 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to add my comments to any RFC/U but I have no idea how to put one together and since I'm not one of the principal complainants here it should probably be one of them and not me anyway. Hopefully one of them will do so. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptions, deliberate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on a reading of Talk:Columbo#Lead image: WP:COPYVIO problem, there could be a compromise about the DVD cover. The above discussion shows that no admin is prepared to issue a block at this time. If the editor is really trying to cause trouble, he will be back here soon. It would be better if Djathink would wait for someone else to make the next report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - message received loud and clear. What do we do here now? Close and archive this where no one will ever see it, when the editor goes round the bend again? Just wondering.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see and note the post above it, where the editor keeps responding to the ANI there. Yes, let's do drop this for now and let him keep trolling. ANI just makes me so proud at this moment. And of course, no one could at any time have even bothered him, by going to his talk and asking him to respond here. This board is asinine in the extreme. Let's just wait for "the next person" to come and report him.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any trolling, and think you should probably stop using that word. I do see an editor with poor English skills, who is perhaps editing beyond his means, but I don't see any bad faith. I find it completely understandable that a new user might suddenly start editing a mediation page, even though they weren't previously involved, and then not "sign-up" since the mediation was basically already over. You've been fairly threatening, and used some pretty strong language yourself. Trolling is a really strong claim: you're implying he is only here to disrupt Misplaced Pages, make false edits, antagonize people, etc. And yet I don't think you've come close to showing that through diffs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I did nominate the page he created for deletion per A10 (he essentially took the stuff removed from the List of episodes page and made a new page to keep it under a similar name), but, again, I don't see that as being intentionally disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW! OK, let me begin by addressing Qwyrxian that good faith can be assumed unless proven otherwise and let me assure you that B3430715 is desperately doing so. Its not that the user is bad in english, actually he is competent enough to put a very graphic English term on his userpage. Getting down to the point. Have you gone through the revision history? It shows that some really meaningful comments have been removed expertly from the page giving the appearance that the user is a happy-go-lucky type of user. His talk page will show you that he is an expert in feigning ignorance of the language unless it comes to the art of rudely dismissing a person, or acknowledging a compliment. This is certainly not contributing to a harmonious working environment. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a manic and inappropriate obsession with a subject a kind of trolling? W., I truly thank you for showing that there is a problem with him and it needs to be somehow addressed. That is exactly why I came here asking for advice and direction regarding what steps could be taken. That editor has deliberately disrupted several things and has persisted in doing it. It's a shame nobody sees this pattern, especially Qwyrxian. But as I said to Q, I'm prepared to drop this whole issue for my part. Someone else will come here about him if he persists. Does anyone note how sweetly behaved he's been lately? Still playing the troll ... I apologise if that term offends some people. But I still say he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dja... remember this little piece of advice and your reply? - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, God, I was just waiting for something like that. I went and put my foot in it, didn't I? Now this is all about me, whilst B3430715 gets justified and protected. This is NOT about me, DVdm. I am trying to stop someone much worse than I ever was! He's doing it deliberately, DVdm! Why don't you read the things before coming at me like this? Please, don't come here again to post stuff like that. Post it at my talk page. Please.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is doing it deliberately, that's the whole point. I have read the things, and I'm not coming at you, on the contrary. But if you insist, I will not comment any further. Forget about it. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Those working here are free to review me if they wish. I do not object. As for me, I am withdrawing from this silly thing and will not visit or post here again. In light of the undue attention going toward me, I leave it to the good wisdom of those whom I have seen posting (all too rarely) on this board. After all, the editor in question will get in trouble if he persists in wrongdoing or whatever it is he's doing. I leave you with this warning: keep examining issues in the way you did here, and LOTS of these types will eventually rule WP. I sincerely thank all of you who participated.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

May I say something? Apparently I received tons of disruptions from a same person. This person would like to controls everything. When someone disagrees him, he will argue and argue until you are just tired of it.

For ex, in the mediation case, I simply point out what was wrong with proves. But this person starts to avoid the thing when he knew he is wrong,and begins some pointless arguments. (same with the table issue back in Feb)

Moreover, this same person is being a dictator, he thinks that he represents ever wiki users... look how many time he made his decision even no one agrees him.

I remains silent and chose not to come here but today, to avoid having another fight with this person. However, this person continues his personal disruptions.

I know for sure that the Admins can tell who is right or wrong, and they'll need no instructions from anyone. So for now, I will remain silent again. B3430715 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An observation from an uninvolved non-admin: if this is indicative of User:B3430715's skills regarding the English language, I can see little prospect of him/her making any positive contribution to this encyclopaedia. Regardless of any other issues, I'd suggest that B3430715 would be better employed elsewhere: basic literacy in the language of the relevant encyclopaedia is a necessary precondition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply,because someone said this, thus I replyed(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - B3430715 please don't use quotation marks unless you are quoting someone else. Please mention whom you are quoting if you do. Please don't use phrase, instead try complete sentences. This is not a poetry competition but a legitimate discussion. If you use random phrases like you did now, I will strikethrough your comment and request a more complete and comprehensible statement. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikishagnik, You are in this discussion since the beginning. I quoted the phrase right from this page. But since you are having confusion, I added the person whom I quoted from.

• Just imagine：

when someone who edits Columbo says that Columbo season 11 has just released, and gives a as a prove...

when someone wants to change the existing episode order to "1~10 + Specials + 11 + Specials" instead

while on the other hand, the Columbo page said this in 2009:

In the UK, (Region 2) all episodes have now been released as ten seasons, the tenth season covering all the shows from "Columbo Goes to College" (1990) to the finale "Columbo Likes the Nightlife" (2003). However in France, and The Netherlands (also Region 2) the DVDs were released as twelve seasons.

Anyone will say things like hey you, look at the big photos, you are talking about an old things that will not be used in an English wiki article. Because in UK, all episodes have now been released as ten seasons

But if someone tries to avoid the fact, and claims you are being disruptive, being disruptive to a place where nobody is there.

anyone gets nuts--B3430715 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 Wikihounding, harassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So just so I have the facts here, we're saying that:

• Flat out lying in nominations
• linking to non-existent policies as deletion rationales
• re-applying tags that had been long since removed from images
• doing all of the above to every image a user has uploaded immediately after having a debate with them and in a very short time frame, and then following them to another project to continue the action is not harassment and totally fine by our community's standards? I just want to be sure when this comes up again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am back again. I have added a lots of links at the top of this discussions. To my knowledge, they link to all pages where both Crossmr and I have been discussing things recently, and the links make finding the discussions easier. In particular, I suggest that you take a look at the link to Commons:COM:AN/B where I have recently written a long reply, addressing concerns stated there.

• I am not aware of any nominations in which I have been lying. If you feel that I have been unclear or if I have made an error in a nominations, feel free to comment in that nomination. If users list a confusing source, it may suggest that the image was taken from somewhere. Ideally, the uploaders would comment on the deletion discussions and explain how the images were obtained.
• I'm not sure which non-existent policies you think I'm linking to. Could you clarify?
• I didn't notice that you had already removed {{non-free reduce}} templates from those images. See my long comment on this at Commons:COM:AN/B.
• I don't think that I tagged all of your images. Also note that many of the images I proposed for deletion at that point weren't uploaded by you – many of them were logos uploaded by other people and used in the article China Dragon. I didn't think that I was harassing you and I wasn't angry or anything. As LX wrote in the Commons discussion, "To go through a user's contributions when there is reason to believe that they may be systematically making some mistake (such as adding unsourced facts to Misplaced Pages or uploading non-free images to Commons) is pretty standard practice and is not indicative of an assumption of bad faith." The discussion on a Warhammer 40,000 image suggested to me that Crossmr might have an incomplete understanding of derivative works, so I decided to check his contributions and found some images which I thought weren't in compliance with policy, although not always because of derivative work-related issues.

I don't think that I am more strict than other people in determining whether an image is free or not. See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 29#File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg, where a different user is very strict when determining the validity of the licence of an image. My nominations don't seem to be more strict than that one. I will now go to the deletion discussions and clarify my statements for some of my nominations. I also suggest that you read my post at Commons:COM:AN/B where I wrote a much longer reply. The two discussions partially deal with the same matter, and I tried to avoid writing the same thing at two places.

I am sorry if you felt uncomfortable with my nominations of some of your images; that was never my intention. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already linked it twice, . While you can certainly come up with an interesting reason for all of your edits, the fundamental sum of the events tells a different story. WP:HOUND is quite clear and non-ambiguous Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. You not only did it here, you took it to another project as well. If there were images that genuinely needed discussing, that's one thing, but you took this well beyond that by:

• Tagging images that had already been tagged, and not just removed by me. There is no legal standard for the size of FUR images, our bot has a threshold for tagging but that's it
• Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons
• At best we'll say fudging the truth, over the nomination of File:Changchunfight.jpg, claiming there is no critical commentary, but then your nomination also seems to clearly indicate that you have no idea what the image is or how it is being used
• Whatever this is, as indicated you may have meant to link to something else, but that's a pretty strange error to make. Seems to me you may have been in such a hurry to get at my images you weren't really paying attention to what you're doing. Even not withstanding the bad linking, the image was in a GA during the GA process and deemed fine, to nominate it for deletion at that point stinks of sour grapes.
• Continuing to tag and make posts to my talk page, across 2 projects when I clearly indicated that I wanted you to stop and offering no response until I filed an AN/I thread
• Doing all of the above only minutes after we'd engaged in debate over several images.

Yes, you have provided some excuses for a couple of those but I don't really feel they hold up to scrutiny. Had you stopped when I posted to your talk page, I may have viewed it differently. But you were so wrapped up in getting at my uploads, and in the process making several mistakes, that you failed to engage in further discussion. This is why it's clearly a WP:HOUND issue. Was I perfect in my image uploads? Probably not, most people aren't. Nor did I find you perfect in your nominations. I found several incidents of bad faith assumptions on your part that didn't extend simply to the technical question of copyright at best. But what I didn't do after engaging you in debate on those topics was to go out and comb through your contrib history looking for more problems, fill up your talk page with notices and then follow you to other projects to do the same.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to repeat my request to consider this thread resolved. The discussion here appears to duplicate much of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Stefan4_Harassment and as this discussion is primarily about allegations of imagestalking and replies that are mostly about Commons copyright related policies (and even is inappropriately bringing in quotes from the Commons discussion), this seems to have veered well off-topic for WP:AN/I. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors; I cannot see that a remotely likely outcome here, so by definition this is the wrong noticeboard to raise this discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Two different projects. And most of the things in discussion are on en.wiki not commons. Only 3 images at commons, about a dozen here. The question here is clearly abou tWP:HOUND which is an administrator issue. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding why I linked commons here, it was for one reason: To demonstrate the lengths he was going to to hound me, and to show a clear example of how he was specifically targeting my edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And he continues to lie . There have been two sentences in the article discussing that event since I added the image to the article. As well as a full caption explaining its significance as a historic event in the team and league's history. Since it's clear he wants to continue to harass me I must renew my request that he be blocked.--Crossmr (talk)

• I refer you to the latest reply on Commons () which has been taking account of your claims about Misplaced Pages, not just Commons. Please stick to one noticeboard rather than forum shopping across both projects in parallel with the same complaints based on the same material. I suggest you keep in mind that repeatedly calling another long term contributor a liar (without giving the benefit of the doubt that they might have made an error) is unlikely to be seen as trying to assume good faith. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fae, I think it's inappropriate to call this "forum shopping" when there are issues with images at both Commons and here. We can't do anything about the Commons edits, obviously, but it's not forum shopping when the issue has apparently occurred here as well. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. The incident started here, and Stefan took it to commons to continue it. As I've pointed out a couple of times I've only linked them to demonstrate the depth of what he's done. They're two parts of the same incident but En.wiki can't do anything on commons and commons admins can't do anything on en.wiki. As such I reported it in both places when he refused to engage me in discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec, HandThatFeeds) Thanks, I'm happy to accept that observation. If there is a muliti-project harassment problem then evidence should be raised at meta rather than creating parallel complaints across the projects. As has already been said, I do not believe there is anything here for administrative action and though Stefan has apparently attempted to explain his actions in good faith, they have been sensibly advised to back far, far away rather than encourage more drama. Crossmr has raised much here about Commons edits and similarly raised complaints about Misplaced Pages edits on Commons; I am certain that most readers would agree this has badly muddied any case presented. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then please let me attempt to de-muddy what has happened here and make it into something slightly more readable and explainable:

• I found myself on PUF images. After commenting on what I went there for, I decided to give the day's listings a read as I don't usually head into that area.
• I commented on several listings, including some of stefan's
• Some of those turned into back and forth debates
• Immediately following a couple of those debates (one over technical application and one over what I considered to be a bad faith issue on his part) he started going through all my uploads
• After I started to get notices on my talk page, I posted to his talk page indicating I wanted him to stop
• He did not engage me in any further discussion at that point and continued to post notices to my talk page and then I started getting e-mail notices about talk page notices on commons
• I notified him that since he failed to respond and was continuing in what I indicated to him earlier what I considered harassment I was posting here, which I did and also posted at commons since he took the behaviour there.

Here are the key issues as to why I feel this is a WP:HOUND (with quotes from hound) issue:

• Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, - over a few hours he singled me out and basically audited every upload I made across 2 projects
• joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. - While he didn't join multiple discussions, he went after multiple images at once and started debates in multiple areas, and attempted to confront a high number of my uploads in a very short period of time
• is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor this is debatable, we can't read his mind, but I indicated on his talk page that I wasn't looking very favourably on what he was doing and he continued, so he was aware that it was likely to cause me distress or annoyance.
• Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages. he didn't follow me from place to place on wikipedia, but he did follow me to another project, hence the relevance of linking the information from commons.
• This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. - Doing this immediately after we'd just engaged in debate over a couple of images, and failing to respond to my talk page message is one of the larger factors in my viewing this as hounding and harassment.

In terms of specific behaviour that also made me feel this was hounding:

• The re-tagging of images which had already had the tags cleared by myself and other users, and in my case with explanation. He claims he didn't notice they'd already been tagged, I can't help but feel that means he wasn't really paying attention then.
• Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons - sure, he had an excuse ready that he "didn't know the age of the building and that he didn't really have any more time for deletions that day" but the fact remains that he went in and specifically targeted my images while bypassing others. Yes this is at commons, we can't act on it, but it can show behaviour pattern.
• The nomination of an image that passed the GA process with funny rationales (he's fixed that now, but the error he made again makes me feel like he wasn't paying attention)
• The now recent comment he made where claimed the event in the image wasn't on the page, when it clearly has been for over 2 years. We don't want to call it a lie, fine, but he already nominated it with what I consider a nonsensical deletion rationale and then came back to make that statement. He should have been paying much greater attention with his follow-up comment.

For me, these all clearly add up to hounding and harassment. It's some of the over-the-top and extra things which give it away. If he'd truly found a couple of misused images fine, but the tagging, and ignoring other's images, and then following me over to commons, is what pushes this from a simple good faith check to something more.--Crossmr (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tsuchiya Hikaru

I believe that it's time for an indefinite block for Tsuchiya Hikaru. This user persistently empties categories and replaces them with new ones, despite lots of warnings and three blocks. I blocked him eight days ago for a week because of continued disruption, and almost immediately upon the block expiring, he restarted it again, forcing me to un-empty multiple categories. He also has a pattern of disruptive changes to redirects (example) and to the babel links (example). All of this is on top of a nearly total lack of edit summary usage. I don't know what else can be done to resolve these issues; he claims to have an en-2 level of English, so he should be able to understand the big warning messages that are covering half his userpage, so I am driven to believe that only an indefinite block will be able to stop this user's continual disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree... Although I haven't been all that involved, I've reverted a few of his edits over the last few months and have monitored many of his disruptions. Nyttend has been patient with this user and I believe it's time to send him a strong message. Perhaps in Korean? -Travis Thurston+ 01:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Only a handful of diff's checked, and fully agreed - I have indef'd (after all, I'm an enabler) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to contact this user in the past, because he kept screwing with the babel links on Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nansei Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a merge of the latter to the former recently took place, and some babel links were retained on the latter as they did not work on the former). He refused actually answer the questions User:Kwamikagami and I posed to him, but insisted on repeating the acts. This is a welcome block.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Western betrayal

I have placed a 7 day block for new users and IP users on article Western betrayal and its talk page, because one or more editors using IP addresses have been stirring up passions, which has led to a lot of comments about editors rather than article development. I have hatted those threads.

However there is a subsidiary problem User:Volunteer Marek has been deleting comments by IP addresses on other user talk pages. This has led to one of the users Malick78 repeatedly reverting an edit made by Malick78 back onto user talk:Volunteer Marek which Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted. I have warned both of the to stop.

As I intend to be involved in the development of Western betrayal it would be useful if another administrator was to review my actions and amend them if they are so minded. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the IP comments I removed where made by 98.92.207.190 and 72.145.253.232 I believe (this person has by now used so many different IPs that I might have confused them). These two addresses, in addition to these , are the same person as this IP who was blocked for one year by User:SarekOfVulcan on March 8th for disruptive editing, and whose previous comments had to be oversighted. Hence this is a person who is evading a block in order to post personal attacks and harassment against myself, as well as to WP:CANVASS. As result removing these comments is perfectly justified per WP:BAN, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, not to mention WP:TALK which states that Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. is fine.

I was planning on filing a formal WP:SPI but I'm pretty busy atm and those take some time to write up (this is also why I haven't reported Malick78 yet) in regard to these IPs (they're all socks of User:Leidseplein though that part is not obvious unless you're familiar with the user - hence an SPI).

I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 part of the story here. Basically it's someone who I asked as far back (maybe even earlier, can't remember) as August 2010 not to post to my talk page (notice the rude message I am removing). Because of a dispute we had on one article Malick78 though has taken upon himself to follow me to various articles and try to come up with reasons, all of them essentially spurious, to criticize my editing (one example out of many). Along the way he figured out my nationality and began making disparaging remarks about Poles as a group (, as well as making numerous personal attacks (one out of many). I told him not to post to my talk page again on October 2010 and of course more recently , after which he, like Philip says, began edit warring to force his comments on to my talk page. As far as I know Malick78 is not connected to the person behind the IP addresses but is merely enjoying the harassment campaign they're subjecting me to, so he is trying to enable that person to the best of his ability.VolunteerMarek 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI report here .VolunteerMarek 06:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, me thinks VM doth protest too much. Firstly, let's remind new-comers that VM is the same person as Radeksz who was part of the EEML, which was punished for various things, including coordinating activity off-WP (including, it happens, ganging up on an article of mine about two years ago, if I remember rightly, which they had AFDed. It was reinstated after the EEML issue came to light). I don't know why he changed his name after being punished, you take a guess, but either way - when we started bumping into each other (him now as VM) perhaps a year back - we immediately didn't see eye to eye (though then I didn't know that he was the same guy as Radeksz). To suggest that it is me who is at fault, is of course just one side of the story. VM edits disruptively, seems to assume he owns pages and takes a lot of offence when others edit them and it's not to his liking, and he himself is happy to use insults (I believe I don't, yet I admit with this editor I don't try to soften my views). To suggest I have an issue with his Polishness is wrong and opportunistic: I live in Poland, speak Polish, and there is a six-month old foetus in my wife's womb that is half-Polish. I'm not anti-Polish ;) I do however dislike a certain group of jingoistic and over-sensitive Polish editors on WP who seem to tag-team all opposition, quashing all dissent on Polish articles. Many are from the old EEML, unsurprisingly. As for me following him around WP - I've made thousands of edits and he and I both have a Polish connection, so we're likely to bump into each other at times. That's just wiki-life. (As it happens, he seems to take a keen interest in my actions - commenting on my sandbox as soon as anything changes.)
• As for readding stuff on his talkpage: well, WP:TALK says that editors should only remove content if it's a personal attack. What I wrote on his talk page wasn't. It also says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I objected (he hadn't answered my complaint about him deleting stuff on my talk page) and he continued to delete/revert my edits. WP:TALK doesn't mention what to do when somebody removes your comment - so, I reverted. PBS later pointed me to WP:DRC, which I was not aware of, but hey - it's an essay, not a guideline or policy. But as a sign of goodwill - I'll refrain from doing so in future.
• Regarding his removal of a 3rd party's comment from my talk page (and others') - I believe VM did it solely for the purpose of hiding something he considered personally embarrassing - that it was perhaps by a banned user provides just a faint veneer of respectability to the actions. He should have asked me to remove it - since the message was to me personally, and not just a random defamatory comment. As we see here in an edit summary, other editors didn't like his intervention either or agree with his self-justification.
• As to posting on VM's talk page, I see no reason not to do so in future if his conduct (e.g. deleting things from my page without getting my say-so) warrants it. If he oversteps the mark, he has to be told somehow.Malick78 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • From WP:TALK, specifically WP:OWNTALK: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." This is the guideline on which the DRC essay is based. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I first came to this talk page and its Western betrayal article on 20 March, merely in response to a question I noticed concerning the section When to use and when not to use "", in a quote of a quote. I have not tried to research the history of the article or it talk page, or of its participants.

I quickly found that throughout the talk page User:Volunteer Marek was deleting a number of posts rather than responding or challenging them, or using strikeout, which seemed like much better methods of dealing with posts which may have been inappropriate rather than simply deleting them. These deleted posts may or may not have been posted by socks, or banned users - I had no way of knowing. In my opinion none of them that I saw were "harmful", did not contain "personal attacks", and were certainly not "vandalism". They may or may not have been "trolling". Essentially they were objecting to the practice of deletions of posts on the page, and to the apparent WP:Ownership of the page by Volunteer Marek. In briefly reviewing the talk page I had separately come to the same conclusion myself, that Volunteer Marek appeared to "own" the page. I thus reinstated two of the posts that had been deleted, in my opinion deleted on an entirely arbitrary basis, apparently because Volunteer Marek disagreed with them. (All these off-topic discussions have recently been hatted, appropriately, by User:Philip Baird Shearer).

Soon after I first objected to the deletions of posts I received a notification that I had a new message on my own user talk page. When I went to read it I found that Volunteer Marek had already gone to my talk page, and deleted the message posted to me by a different user. I was astounded and infuriated by what was clearly vandalism, and I used very bad language, for which I later apologized, and now apologize again here. It is my understanding that Volunteer Marek has also deleted messages from the user talk pages of User:Malick78 and of User:Philip Baird Shearer that had been posted by others. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been hounded by this person (the one behind the IPs) on (and probably off, but nm that for now) Wiki for awhile. They have been blocked for disruptive editing. What is actually amazing in this whole mess is that the other IPs haven't been blocked yet and that some users (not necessarily you) insist on aiding and abetting this person.

As to charges of "ownership" that's just plainly false. Before this month, I have hardly made any edits to the article. In fact the last time I made any edits before Malick78 showed up was precisely when the person behind the IPs was active there. Which was... oh... almost exactly a year ago. In the year between March 2011 and March 2012, plenty of various users have edited the article, made changes, adjustments etc. This is blindly obvious just by looking at the article's history. Likewise, I have not reverted you, nor PBS nor Paul Siebert on the article either.VolunteerMarek 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular interest one way or the other in the article Western betrayal, and have only quickly skimmed through it. I have no dog in that fight. By "ownership" I was referring to the article's talk page. As you say, you have not reverted my posts; but you did delete a post from another editor, posted to my talk page. This is vandalism. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

By this logic oversight edits would be vandalism. Bottom line, when dealing with SP/IP posts that seem to focus on stalking/harassing/outing, we do allow for their reversion. I am not familiar with most details of the recent discussion at Western betrayal page, but reviewing some edits, I do think that it is likely VM is being harassed/stalked by somebody. I suggest that he should disengage himself from this debate, to avoid collateral damage, while a neutral admin looks into this case and determines which SP/IP edits need to be blanked, and their originators, banned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, none of the deleted posts that I saw were in any way inappropriate, except as they might have been posted by a sock or banned user - which I was not aware of, and am still not convinced of. I am not aware of the history of "harassment". In my experience in wandering around Misplaced Pages, posts made by socks or banned users have been struck with an explanation provided, or collapsed, but never simply deleted. Deletion (on an article's talk page) should properly be applied only to incontrovertible WP:Vandalism: "irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." I did not see any posts deleted that were vandalism, or anywhere near it. They were simply objecting to earlier posts being deleted. (This is as opposed to normal reverts to changes to an article itself.) Maybe I'm misapplying WP policy, but to my mind, having someone come to my talk page and deleting a post to me, from someone else, also constitutes vandalism.

Do you not make a distinction between deleting posts on an article's talk page, and deleting 3rd-party posts on a user's talk page? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Geolocating the IPs indicates that they are very likely the same person: main sock 1 sock 2. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That may very well be. I don't see how this controverts what I was saying. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where I announced that I was trying to "controvert" you. Merely providing technical evidence for the IP-socking that you are "still not convinced of". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance. Any criticism of a page (not even of him) and he starts accusing people of "harassment" or "trolling".

Secondly, Piotrus above was in the EEML with VM. He has also left "warnings" on my talk page when VM has felt, presumably, "threatened" by others' disapproval of his edits. I'd suspect he knows quite a lot about the discussion at Western Betrayal. Malick78 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance - oh for christ sake! Here's what happened:

March 2, 21:05, Malick78 adds a 'fact' tag and a "" inside a quote on Western Betrayal article.

March 2, 21:26 I provide the requested citation and remove the 'sic' since it was inside a direct quote.

In the meantime I was writing up the Feeder of lice article, getting it to DYK (I was planning on getting it to GA status but frankly I am so sick of all this harassment I feel like I really don't want to contribute anything to Misplaced Pages at the moment)

An hour later, March 2, 22:14, Malick78 pops up on the Feeder of lice article DYK nomination and starts making baseless criticisms in an attempt to sabotage it in revenge . He's told of by other people He does the same thing on the talk page of the article itself . He's told off by others and warned about his behavior .

And all of this because I simply dared to provide a source for a 'fact' tag Malick78 left and removed an unwarranted "sic"! Somebody's got problems here and it's not me. And this was after I had asked him to leave me alone to which he threatened "As for coming to your talk page, I will frequent it as and when I like", which is pretty much a clear statement of intent to harass.

And yes, this goes back to at least September 2011, when I made some criticism on Malick78's article (because it was sloppily written and used unreliable source). He did the same thing back then; showed up to an article I wrote or spend a lot of time on, and began trying to find something wrong with it for "payback". And he's been doing it on and off ever since.

A frequent personal attack Malick78 engages in is to insinuate or directly accuse me of not knowing English or speaking English badly. As it happens, I'm pretty sure that I have been speaking English longer than Malick78 himself and am far better at it. It's just a gratuitous personal attack based on the fact that in our original interaction I - whom he believes to be a non-native speaker - "dared" to criticize his English grammar (which was in fact deserving of criticism).

I would very much support and appreciate an interaction ban for Malick78 here.VolunteerMarek 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Invoking EEML, which was last enforced in 2010, adds nothing of substance to your case and really makes it seem as though you are adopting a "me vs. those people" WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Drop it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone comes here and says they have had little contact with a page, it sounds like they are claiming neutrality. Yet this person acted in concert, against the rules, with one of the main actors in this issue. There's surely some worth in pointing that out to independent editors who may have to make a decision on this matter? Isn't there?

Oh, and I just noticed these two things: here, on 12 February 2012, VM reverts me on a page he has never edited before, a mere 17 minutes after I had edited it. And here he does even better, on 9 February, he tells me off just 2 minutes after I left a comment - on another page he'd never edited on. On both occasions, he'd never ever edited there before. Hope you got that. So, the only conclusion I can make, is that he was following my edits... (and in one case even reverted me). Make of that what you will. But please remember it when he claims that I follow him around... Malick78 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

VM and Piotrus are both Polish editors and have similar interests and views. You don't need to squawk about ancient conspiracies when it's more reasonable to assume that they probably keep tabs on each other's contributions here. You're just mudslinging with EEML.

VM can get very testy at times, I will admit. The first diff you provided was a good example of that. On the other hand, your comment that provoked VM's response in the second link was pretty inane, IMO, and deserved the verbal slap-upside-the-head it received. Just because a name has a foreign-looking spelling doesn't mean it's automatically unusable, especially with a Polish name, where any anglicisation is likely based on German and would as such cause a POV ruckus. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not mudslinging with the EEML. It's a justified concern. As for your second point: whether my comment was inane or not, to follow me to page he'd never taken an interest in before and then be so rude... shows a lot of bad faith. And stalking.Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't "provoke" his response. He went fishing for something to complain about. It's really quite obvious.Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sysop impersonation by a member of a known troll organization.

I've gotten a fake notice by a user named User:LEETCHAN. This is owned by one of the members of the troll organization leetchan.org. He issued the noticed as a sysop, but when I checked the page he has no sysop privileges.

They have been stalking me for almost a year. This user needs to be dealt with.

As evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jkid4&redirect=no#March_25.2C_2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkid4 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's one of our standard warning templates. Whether the warning was appropriate or not - and I haven't looked into that - there was no claim that he was a sysop in what he put on your talk. It just says that blocks may result from continued disruption, using standardized text in common use. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I did was transferring content from a wiki I own to Misplaced Pages, the article in question was Futaba Channel Jkid4 (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The diff between Jkid4's first edit and the intervention of an admin says it all. The warning was valid, albeit over the top - a level one should have been issued. GiantSnowman 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the warning was OTT. Different wiki projects, different rules. I've left an explanation at Jkid4's talkpage. Incidentally, Jkid4, I don't think you own the Japanese Misplaced Pages :) Did you mean that you wrote the article there? If so, where did you source the info. If you can add those sources to the English article, it would be fine. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Our Japanese sister project's article lacks sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

PS I've also notified the editor in question. GiantSnowman 19:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate speech and harassment

(A follow-up to the above report, #Death threat from an IP.)

A couple of days ago I blocked a number of IPs editing 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings‎, and protected the article. The user has then gone to attack other pages (Acid throwing and its talk page as well as my talk page, possibly more). The user seems to be Czech - perhaps the "vandal with a grudge". (Or perhaps it's a coordinated attack by multiple users?)

In any case, I think it's a fair guess that any IP used for this purpose can be assumed to be an open proxy, and should be blocked for an extended amount of time. (Any objections?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Did Elockid have any evidence besides quacking for blocking the most recent one on the French article? BTW, "WE, NATION OF EUROPE, HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN PEACE !!!" Right. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

I recently requested User:Banana Fingers to remove the offensive content on his/her userpage. However this request was deleted without being actioned. I feel this user is being unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational per the aforementioned userpage as well as various comments on other users' talk pages . I hope this post results in an improvement in the situation. Cloudz679 20:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So don't click on their user page. I do see that they have been warned by GiantSnowman, but they seem to be civil in their discussion on your user page. It appears to be under control. Let's see what others may say. Tiderolls 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an unacceptable personal attack by BF here. That is almost half a year ago, but the diffs given by Cloudz679 show this user doesn't need much to get frustrated and then has difficulty remaining civil.  --Lambiam 22:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• 99,9999999% of his sentences end with "!" (one or more) - and he did that as well in Cloudz's page - i have been told several times that constitutes shouting. With me, after suggesting something about the display of player positions, his reply was this one. Subsequently, i used a bit of sarcasm in my summaries in Juan Luis Guirado you tell me where's the incivility from me, his reply was this.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If I could just chime in regarding this user, Banana Fingers is honestly a child who throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way, it's really that simple. Ever since I made this realization, which took all of about 5 seconds, I just try to avoid him. If something can be done to correct his aggressive and confrontational behavior then I am all for it. Thank you for your time. --Spartan008 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for Superman RfC/U. Pesky (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Low-traffic article

New Testament Christian Churches of America, a low traffic article about a small church, has a new SPA user who refuses to discuss in a substantive way on the talk page, but instead edit wars. I tried for help at FRINGE and NPOV noticeboards, but no one cares. I don't want to edit war myself, and all attempts at discussion and explanation by myself and Orangemike have been in vain. He just posts tirades "(what!! USER:Becritical, hasn't gone over there and deleted it) interesting... interesting. Is any body feeling me out there?? Does any body hear me??? Wake up virtual world!!! Its time to calibrate those scales of judgment!!". For example I asked him to give some information and support his edit with a quote, then reminded him... but he ignored me. The user needs to be reached by explanation from an admin with a threat of block, or else just blocked. At this point, it does not appear he is capable of functioning under our rules. B——C_ritical 21:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I challenge and encourage all admins to check out New Testament Christian Churches of America talk page, and take note that all changes and updates were all constructive in manner and discussed and reasoning stated on talk page to justify changes. USER:Becritical thinks WiKi is owned by them. USER:BeCritical remedy for anything is delete now ask questions later. --ER 22:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

After attempting -and succeeding in- edit warring his changes into the article, he has posted a Edit-warring warning on my talk page B——C_ritical 23:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And also Dominus Vobisdu's talk page Apparently he got the idea because Dominus gave him a warning which he removed. B——C_ritical 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Edwinramos2:

• Edwinramos2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The pagelinks for the article are here:

• New Testament Christian Churches of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edwinramos2 has reverted at least nine times since 21 March. If he reverts again (before consensus is reached) he should be blocked for edit warring. He seems to be aware that he should use the talk page but does not acknowledge that he should wait for consensus in case of a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Um, I don't know about anyone else, but to me, the content dispute on the article is screaming RfC. An RfC on the article should get the necessary eyeballs to "tip the scales" in favor of reasonable editing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Disruption by single purpose accounts, which looks like the case here is a cause for an block not an RFC. Secret 01:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• See also similar edit warring on 21-22 March at Apothecary: we seemed to be able to come to a consensus at Talk:Apothecary#Bible Chronology, but only after irate accusations of pro-Muslim bias, etc. Scopecreep (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

After having been warned, he continued to both vandalize and to edit war over the headings some more today . Here is the edit for which he was warned for vandalism, the "cult" removal is the same . B——C_ritical 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. How this should proceed is not clear to me: the editor's talk page post are belligerent and really difficult to read, and I don't see a way out. But perhaps the editor will prove me wrong; I hope so. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit reverting, only due to lack of citing?

I have been in a heated debate for a while with another editor User:Doniago who has a habit of doing wholesale reverts of good-faith article edits, only because the edits are not cited, and NOT because Doniago is challenging the material content of the edits.

The intro to WP:V says:

It must be possible to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.

As I understand it, reverting/deleting whole sections of edits not because they are inaccurate or wrong, but only because it lacked citations, is not a good enough reason to be removing them. Doniago is not challenging any of the text they removed.

This very aggressive editing style of Doniago has been going on for several years, as shown in the player piano edit history. I have not intensively examined Doniago's other edits but this style of editing probably extends to other articles.

Player piano - article does have sources listed and cited at the bottom

• 10:04, August 31, 2009‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced - wikilinked article has the sourcing
• 07:55, October 30, 2009‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
• 14:29, November 29, 2011‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
• 08:00, December 12, 2011‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
• 09:26, March 19, 2012 - deleted section on mechanism, after my most recent edit, unsourced but not challenged.

I've also had to deal with this editor on the Uninterruptible power supply article, with Doniago reverting only because the edits were unsourced, not because the edits were challenged as factually incorrect.

There is talk of WMF trying to find ways to attract and keep good editors. Well I am of the opinion that really aggressive deletionary editors like Doniago are part of the problem, driving off people trying to make good faith contributions which just aren't provided with the full citations that Doniago is demanding RIGHT NOW.

So what if there is an old tag in the article that says "not cited in the last 7 years"? That doesn't impose an urgency to cite, that rises to the level of deleting large swaths of high quality, but uncited and unchallenged material.

I tend to believe that if you aren't an expert on an article you shouldn't be editing it. Doniago's reversions of the player piano article suggests to me that this editor is clueless about the article's technical subject matter but is editing anyway, and only by removing uncontested high-quality content for the sole reason that it is not cited.

DMahalko (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How does one know it is high quality if it isn't even cited? WilliamH (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know enough about an article subject matter to contribute, then don't. Your own lack of knowledge should indicate to you to not edit it.

Also, citing something doesn't actually prove anything unless people actually go try reading the source and fact-checking. If you haven't done that, you still won't know if an article which you don't know anything about is high quality or not. DMahalko (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." (WP:BURDEN). Whilst another editor may use a tag instead, or something else, they do not have to. Unsourced material may be removed on sight. "If you don't know enough about an article subject matter to contribute, then don't." ~ This is not how Misplaced Pages operates, but I've certainly heard it before. WilliamH is right to question; moreover, it is an integral part of what[REDACTED] is is that things are referenced to another source (consider WP:OR, for example). It's just what we do. You can ask Doniago to grant more time, but he or she hasn't done anything disruptive unless the reverts were aimed at proviving a point or something vindictive, which you don't mention. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the player piano article is already cited with large general sources at the bottom.

If unsourced material should be removed that isn't in-line cited, then why hasn't Doniago stripped the article down to a stub containing only the few in-line cites it currently has?

The only unsourced content that Doniago is removing is "new" unsourced content, but not any old unsourced content. That to me seems to suggest an agenda for why they are editing the way they are, basically harassing editors adding new material that isn't immediately in-line sourced. I've asked Doniago about it before but hir won't explain it.

DMahalko (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the general view on this is that we don't pull out vast chunks of content from an article if it's been there a while, simply on the grounds it is uncited. Prohibiting the addition of unsourced material is another issue altogether. If you are trying to add material and another editor is asking you to provide a source then provide a source. If it's easy to source then it's not a problem, if it's difficult to source then Donagio is even more justified in requesting one. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference to me is the reason for why another editor is asking for a source. Are they requesting a source because they think the newly added material is actually wrong in some manner, or are they just being a nitpicky rule-quoter with no interest or knowledge of the article and they aren't contesting the new material in its actual factual accuracy?

If there's an actual disagreement, then the extra legwork of immediately finding the exact source to an edit is justified.

If there is no disagreement or factual dispute, then to me the removal of content being added to an article that is already cited with other general cites is basically harassment.

Doniago appears to have a history of doing removals only because of a lack of citations and not because the edits are factually disputed, so to me that is following a pattern of overly-aggressive article editing that should be reigned in.

DMahalko (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you don't give me a source, how do I know you're not just making it up. After all, I might not know that much about the subject. But I want to know where you got your information from. That is sufficient challenge. If you want to add the material - say what the source for it is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea of the context of this discussion regarding the specific editor or articles, but just for the record I do quite regularly remove statements that have been unsourced for a fair length of time, usually when they have also been tagged as such. We cannot just keep things here on the basis that a source may turn up. If it does, then the information can always be reinserted. This may perhaps reflect my particular area of interest but since that (India related content) is one of the primary areas where WMF are seeking new input, it does have relevance. If my real opinion had consensus then I would be deleting anything that is unsourced. As it is, I respect a common-sense consensus that people should be given some time to source existing material but that any current edits should be sourced pretty much immediately. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Elen of the Roads, as I say, even if I provide a source, that doesn't prove anything until you actually go check the source yourself against the article and actually learn about the content of the article to verify its factual accuracy.

Providing a source does not in fact tell you anything other than I provided a link to something or other. In effect I have checked off a box on some "you will do X" guidelines which does not automatically lead to "therefore all work is done here".

In general, if you're really going to nitpick over sourcing then it falls upon you as the fact checker and cite-demander to actually verify the source and become an expert on the subject matter, which you aren't going to do because you don't really care beyond having that checkbox checked off, and because actually learning about the disputed subject matter is more effort than you care to expand.

If on the other hand you already know about the subject material, you'd already know whether or not the unsourced content is valid or not even without a citation.

Basically if all I provide to people like Doniago as a know-nothing checkmark-noting wiki-elf is that I'm citing some obscure print-only text, the fact that a cite was made does nothing to prove the new article text is correct, and Doniago requiring the presence of said cite without actual verification of the cite doesn't actually prove or improve anything. He has to actually KNOW something about the subject matter, to say if the edit is correct or not. DMahalko (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• An understanding of what he's writing about obviously helps, but most importantly, he has to demonstrate where he got it from. If I am told that Edwin Albert Link's pneumatic player piano technology was used as the basis for aircraft simulators, I want to be able to verify that information for myself. After all, this is supposed to be a reflection of material that has already been published. I want, for example, "Smith, R. (2010) A history of player pianos. Oxford University Press", and which page that can be found on. "It's-verifiable-because-some-guy-on-the-internet-knows-it-to-be-true is not good enough and the burden is on him to better that. WilliamH (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• DMahalko, this isn't a particularly difficult concept to grasp here. WP:V holds that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." In order to make such a challenge, Doniago - no more than any other editor (or, for that matter, you yourself) - is neither required to demonstrate his expertise in the subject matter or to submit a rationale for any challenge. If you can source the information, do so. If you cannot, then the information cannot be included. Whether you approve of his motivations, edit history or skill set is irrelevant. Ravenswing 04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• DMahalko, you're missing the point. If you provide the source, we can look it up and then we "KNOW something about the subject matter." If it's obscure or in an out-of-the-way physical location, it's still possible to contact someone in that area to look it up for us. That's what the whole "It must be possible to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources" bit means. When you do not provide a citation, it is not possible for us to verify it. Hence, this whole problem. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in a similar debate with Doniago (without ill-feeling on either side). I've been using other wikis as a source to fill out info on Orders, decorations and medals and then adding to categories. I know there's a caveat on the use of other wikis, so I don't cite them but instead add a tag to indicate the "source". Where I've cross-checked, it's panned out. I rely on 2 things. Firstly, ODMs are uncontentious and secondly, Russian, Polish, etc authors are likely to have access to foreign language sources. I repeat the quote above: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." (my emphasis) I would argue that a sourced Russian article is a source "good enough" for uncontentious info. I've responded to Doniago's deletions in good faith while enquiring why he/she doesn't apply the standard universally. Doniago also argues against other wikis as sources based on their volatility - surely this can apply to all websites? I would also argue that incomplete info is a form of inaccuracy. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Folks at 137 - we don't generally use other wikis as sources because they are also written by volunteers. There's nothing wrong with seeing if another wiki has a foreign language source though. But read WP:RS - a website that changes it's content all the time would not constitute a reliable source. A website that changed its info because it had checked and found it was wrong - or because the info had been updated - would be a reliable source. Doniago is not doing anything wrong here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, most useful. I wasn't arguing that Doniago was at fault in his querying my edits - we all do this to improve wiki - but I do wonder why the same standard - lack of citation, the point of this thread - wasn't universally applied by him in the same articles and elsewhere. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Folks...no editor is under any obligation to remove unsourced material, much less go through an entire article doing so, and oftentimes I find that it is more useful to remove unsourced material in smaller steps, as it hopefully calls attention to the problems with an article without "gutting" it (I believe in almost all cases when I remove unsourced material I leave an appropriate edit summary). This is why I will also generally, for larger sections of text, move it to the Talk page, where it can be easily located later, rather than merely deleting it. Doniago (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that I am aware of and have been following the conversation, but I think everything that I would say has already been said, and quite possibly in a better way than I might have said it. A big thank you to everyone who has addressed the concerns raised regarding my actions. Doniago (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

UsernameHardBlock review request and also eyes needed

I just gave a UsernameHardBlock to User:UGNazi. The comments on that user page seem somewhat threatening. I'd like both a block review and eyes to be aware of any possible threat from this purported group. Thanks, LadyofShalott 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good block, looks like a WP:NOTHERE issue with a pinch of WP:WEBHOST. I'm going to blank the user page as well. Saedon (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as for building an encyclopedia, they did create an article, UGNazi, but that is also problematic. LadyofShalott 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a ripe candidate for speedy deletion. Any reason we'd keep it? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted as CSD A7 -- Samir 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Barnes (minister) (2nd nomination)

this AfD has gone over 7 days, without contacting a specific admin, I am seeking someone to close it. thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done; that was easier than I expected. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:EagleEye edit warring and WP:IDHT

User blocked for 24 hours by TParis Saedon (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

EagleEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been attempting to add content sourced to a blogspot blog to the article mundane astrology. I have spent way, way too much time trying to explain to this person that blogs are not considered an RS except in very certain circumstances but the user refuses to acknowledge the policy. I created a report at WP:3RRN but it's gone unanswered and and this point the user is on his 6th revert after AndytheGrump reverted his addition as well and reexplained the policy that I have explained. Going over his talk page, you can see the WP:IDHT attitude as well as some strange interpretations of policy (e.g. I can't revert him since I haven't added sourced content to the page...what?)

Full disclosure: I accidentally violated 3RR as well, and mentioned it in my report, but when I noticed I stopped reverting and will not do so again. This user doesn't appear to believe that the rules apply to him and appears to be an astrology POV pusher, so can someone please block him for the 3RR and once again explain that blogs are not RS? Thanks. Will notify user in a moment. Saedon (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to give an idea of what this user is trying to add: "Mundane Astrology in the early 21st century saw the successful prediction by the American mundane astrologer Theodore White of Japan's Fukushima Earthquake which occurred March 11, 2011. Amazingly enough, and to the astonishment of worldwide seismotologists, Theodore White also accurately predicted the exact magnitude of Japan's historic earthquake before it happened." Of course I'm the POV pusher :). Saedon (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good block, TParis beat me too it. EagleEye would do well to use this time to review various content policies. It is not POV to use words like pseudoscience or fringe - neutrality does not mean giving undue weight to scientifically incorrect or minority positions. WilliamH (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the ongoing case of WP:IDHT that is evident on User talk:EagleEye, even after the block, I suspect we will be getting more problems when the block is lifted - perhaps a previously-uninvolved admin could try to get the point across, and save us future hassle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just tried it. WilliamH (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, well I think I've exhausted my efforts. Doesn't look like they are any nearer to understanding it, and I simply think they're going to walk right back into it when the block expires. WilliamH (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks to be the case so why not indef until they can demonstrate they understand policy and that they will follow it? They're making it quite clear they intend to continue the same so it's the very definition of a preventative block. SÆdon 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand Misplaced Pages policy well and will adhere to it. But I will not participate with POV bad editors. They are very bad for Misplaced Pages. I am learning more about the process but am not happy with the particular POV editors who break Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies while threatening an editor with an "indefinite block" but have not shown any civility, or teamwork with another Misplaced Pages editor unless they are part of their gang. There should be no gangs on Misplaced Pages. I donate money to Misplaced Pages as well, but this experience today has made me doubt whether to give any more money to Misplaced Pages and I have plenty to give. I would prefer help from a qualified Misplaced Pages editor who is honest, not-POV and is a good and balanced editor; however, at this time I am rethinking if to support Misplaced Pages at all considering the lack of help from the POV editors who participate in no discussion on the Talk page, but name-call, personally attack and insults with violations of Misplaced Pages policies I have endured today. It has left a sour taste in my mouth so I will just gather up all the violations of Misplaced Pages policies by means of the users and their comments in the meantime. But thank you for letting me know. Eagle Eye 06:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cute. So, User:Saedon posts here saying he won't argue with Eagle Eye anymore, but "signs" as "Eagle Eye", then tried to hide it by removing the signature added by SineBot. I think it's time for indeffing both accounts until Eagle Eye / Saedon gets their story straight. Sounds like we may have a Good Hand / Bad Hand issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, he's reposting a post that EagleEye made on his talkpage . The thing that Saedon did do wrong was to tell EagleEye that his block is going to be expanded to indefinite. This post is in response to that. I think Saedon should stay off his talkpage, but unless EagleEye is prepared to listen to what he doesn't want to hear, we'll be back here when the block has expired. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Not a clear way to quote someone then. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is patently clear that this individual a) has no understanding or acceptance of why they are blocked and that b) s/he will continue the behaviour after the block expires. I strongly recommend an indefinite block. WilliamH (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both a and b, but I'd suggest allowing them a bit more rope - it'll be easy enough to act after the 24h expires, if necessary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I didn't tell him his block would be extended, I told him that I was going to request that it be extended here and offered to move any response he had. I'm very experienced in the fringe topic area and have dealt with dozens of problem users in depth, so I'm not sure why you think I should stay off his talk page. I'm, of course, always willing to listen to user input so if you think I have been out of line I would appreciate it if you'd let me know how. @Hand: I'm not a new user and would certainly never do something as audacious as try to post as someone else. I suppose I could have mentioned that I was quoting him but considering the easy to find paper trail on his talk page (and our copyright policy) I figured this would be the cleanest way to do so. Back to the topic at hand: if you really don't think a block extension is necessary then I'm fine with that. I don't have the same optimism that this user will turn around, though it's possible that when the 24h is up and they've calmed down they'll get the point, but judging from my experience I see all the normal red flags. Since no one is willing to extend the block, would anyone be willing to take over the duties of trying to explain things? They still don't seem to think that using blogs is problematic. SÆdon 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologise for a misread on that one - you said you had asked, not that it would happen. My bad. I think you should stay off his talkpage only to avoid getting into a fight with the guy. It's not worth it. Others will deal with him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll also apologize for the misunderstanding of your edit, Saedon. In my defense, there was nothing to indicate it was a quote, and this wouldn't be the first time someone tried a trick like that. Usually just tossing it in a blockquote tag, or even just quotemarks, is enough to let us know you're quoting. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

possible ongoing sockpuppetry

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

On March 17th User:The undertow attempted to delete an image from the article on Gang signals. In the preceding hours three IP addresses had made nine attempts to delete this image. This was discussed at Commons:Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:OC.jpg

At around the same time commons:User:The undertow left a comment on Commons:Commons:VP, requesting deletion of the image. In that request they asserted they were a former administrator.

I looked to see what kind of record they had as an administrator, and saw they exercised administrator authority for only 291 days prior to raising so many concerns that ARBCom suggested they voluntarily surrender their administrator bits. I saw they earned a 6 month block. I saw they were found to have been entrusted with administrator authority as the sockpuppet User:Law.

Today, March 25, in a comment at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:OC.jpg they claimed I was an admin for many years.

This comment concerns me. The two wiki-IDs we know this individual controlled exercised administrator authority not for "many years" -- rather they only exercised that authority for a combined total of 433 days -- about one and a quarter years. Maybe they were simply exagerrating. But I am concerned that this comment may have been an acknowledgment that they succeeded in being entrusted with administrator authority under more that these two sockpuppets. I am concerned they might be exercising administrator authority today, under other sockpuppets. Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the statements on Commons are remarkably weak evidence to go fishing for other socks aside from the IP ducks you mentioned at WP:SPI. Use of sock IPs to take down an image strikes me as something that someone with a hypothetical sleeper en.wp admin account wouldn't need to do. You can see if a Checkuser other than the one that responded to your WP:SPI request is willing to look through it more. But if I were you, I would focus on discussing the systemic issue of whether unused PD Commons images can be deleted on request post hoc, on Commons, as opposed to spilling your dispute onto this project with rather flimsy concerns based on this fellow just exaggerating the amount of time during which he had admin rights here. -- Samir 06:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Genuine rogue admins are a serious problem in general. Rogue admins who have been able to successfully employ sockpuppetry to setup multiple wiki-IDs so they control multiple admin IDs is a problem that really concerns me. I thought this was sufficient justification to raise this concern here.

When his sockpuppet, User:Law was identified as a sockpuppet, and it was determined that a single individual had successfully employed sockpuppetry in order to be entrusted with administrator authority, several people said we had to examine the request for adminstator process -- to make sure this didn't happen again. If we take commons:User:The undertow's comment at face value he did succeed in fooling the community more than twice. I think this would be a significant problem.

Most administrators do a good job. Unfortunately, the corps of adminstrators does include individuals who ignore our policies, and who will abuse their authority to retaliate against ordinary contributors who have asked them good faith questions they don't want to answer.

I have had rogue administrators try to bully me, or abuse their administrator authority to retaliate against me for good faith, policy comopliant behavior that nevertheless bugged them. It is extremely unpleasant. Between them User:The undertow and User:Law this individual exercised administrator powerfor 433 days. He claimed to have exercised administrator authority for "many years" -- in what seems like a confession that he used sockpuppetry to become an adminstrator multiple times. This implies he may be excercising administrator authority NOW.

I do not agree this is a trivial concern. Geo Swan (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the exaggeration. It only seemed to be many years. I should have been more concise by adding that I was a user for many years, and an administrator for 433 days. I seldom edit, and only with this account. Although I cannot request a CU, as it is my understanding, I completely endorse the use of one, in order to establish if I have been entrusted with administrator tools under a sock puppet, or even if I am simply editing under another username. I am only "here" to address an issue on Commons, not to re-join the ranks of Misplaced Pages, and plan on adhering to any decision made here or on Commons. the_undertow 17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

indefinite protection of userpage over userbox

Hi, I don't know where else to take this so I assumed here would be the best place to allow the community to discuss the matter.

Admin Salvio giuliano recently decided to indefinitely protect my userpage due to a userbox he didn't like. I, and several other users, have attempted to explain that

• A. The userbox was a joke, and is protected by WP:Userbox
• B. It could be a legitimate belief and thus the trolling accusation could fall under WP:NPA

without any response back.

I'm not trying to point fingers, I just feel as though the protection was ridiculous and wanted to know how the community felt about the matter. I will gladly remove the userbox if there is an issue with it, I just want to be able to edit my own userpage again. Thank you :) -badmachine 03:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. I see on Salvio giuliano's that he's open not only to trout slapping, but to recall. He's eligible for being whacked by the biggest goddamn rainbow trout that can be pulled out of the drink for this one, if not some serious review of his admin record and what other user pages he's felt free to censor and lock. I'd be very interested to hear what possible justification he has to proffer for this. Ravenswing 04:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Salvio is a good egg. Never would Salvio try to do anything out of order to anyone. I am an interested editor because Salvio protected my page for me after some horrid attacks were made against me there. Please try and work out the issue with Salvio, and remember Salvio may not always be immediately available to reply ... but I do not dare to presume to speak for Salvio.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, well, whether you are a fan or not of Salvio's does not excuse his actions. I would be livid to the point of obscenity were any admin, whatever his putative good-guyness, to unilaterally censor out a viewpoint for which he didn't care from my user page, and then to protect that page to prevent me from any further edits to it. Short of a "I Heart Child Molesters" userbox, I can't possibly imagine a justification for it. Ravenswing 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking. Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting community input on whether to keep the giant GNAA banner on your page after the page protection is lifted, my input would be "please don't." I've never understood the appeal of an organization that tosses around a racial slur for the lulz. If Salvio made a habit of going around removing Satanism userboxes from people's user pages, I would be concerned, but here he appeared to remove a number of things (including the Satanism box, the GNAA banner, and a 666-pixel wide image of somebody's cock) from your userpage with the not-that-implausible edit summary of "rm. trolling". Regardless, my recommendation to Salvio would be to unprotect the page, and my recommendation to you would be to not put things on there that a reasonable person could mistake for trolling. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the humor behind GNAA nonsense either...but oh well. The image is blocked by the bad image filter so wouldn't show up for anyone (...unless admins see through filters.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with the userbox, joke or not. I see no attempt at discussion before action was taken...only a message with a heading of 'Satanism' saying that userspace was being misused. Remove and discuss? Prefer discuss first, but oh well. Remove, protect, notify and then stop discussing? Not the way it should be done. --Onorem♠Dil 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK...so there was some discussion first that I'd missed. I still don't agree that adding a image that nobody sees, a GNAA image and a satanism userbox are grounds for removal and protection. It may not be useful stuff, but I don't see how it's disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 05:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio issued this warning to Badmachine on the 19th. Shorty after, Badmachine was blocked for one week by User:Guerillero for "trolling and baiting". Reading machine's talk page, it seems his user page has stirred up a variety of trouble. I am also curious to hear Salvio's explanation, because it's probably a pretty good one.--RacerX Talk to me 06:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have protected the page myself, but is it a good idea to use a religious figure as a joke? We do have Wikipedians that identify as Satanists , and people would be up in arms if someone made joke Mohammed userboxes. AniMate 06:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with AniMate here. While we allow jokes within reason on userpages, they shouldn't cause needless offence. Adding a religion as a joke could easily cause needless offence to adherents of that religion as religion is often a sensitive matter. (N.B. I'm not commenting on Salvio giuliano's actions.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an in-joke over on Encyclopedia Dramatica, as I said, if you feel it is inappropriate, then it shall not be readded :) -badmachine 07:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll comment here and not on my talk page, since this charlie foxtrot moved a bit too quickly for me to reply swiftly. Misplaced Pages is lousy when it comes to dealing with low-level trolling and this is one such case. Badmachine was already warned that sexual images are not appropriate on userpages and yet he reinserted one not too long ago, he then added a very large image of the GNAA logo whose caption was "gaynigs4life" and, finally, he placed on his userpage a custom-made userbox according to which he hails Satan everyday. I consider all this trolling – the idea that I did this out of religious discrimination is ludicrous and reflects more on those making that silly accusation than on me, in my opinion – and, since this is most definitely not the first time badmachine does something of the kind, I took action, also protecting his userpage to prevent him from misusing any further – as a side note, when badmachine was brought to ANI the first time for having various images of a penis on his userpage, I warned him that I would protect his userpage if he tried something like that again; he did, but the image was added to the blacklist, so protection was not needed then. Now it was and I'm not going to lift it. Badmachine has been using his userpage to troll and since talking to him did not achieve anything, a different approach had to be taken. "Stop or I'll say stop again" is not the best way to proceed if one wants to be taken seriously... I'll leave it for the community to decide whether I acted inappropriately or not and, if there is consensus that protection was wrong, then I'll accept that. That said, if anyone wants to start a petition for my recall, feel free to do so. Salvio 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#06_February_2012. At the time it was thought that badmachine was a sock of (or even the sockmaster for) a number of My Little Pony/GNAA trolling socks. User:Alison vouched for badmachine being a real person (which of course does not stop them being disruptive unfortunately), and at the time, well prior to this, I warned the user not to replace the offensive items on their userpage, and they said they would not do so. Normally if it is necessary to lock the userpage, it is a given that it is also necessary to block the user for the same duration, so Salvio has actually been kind here. I'm not sure I'm seeing useful edits from badmachine. Persuade me I'm wrong, but if a user's main purpose is to see how many disruptive things they can add to their userpage, they aren't that great an asset. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Observation From an outsider's point of view, it looks like Salvio used a hammer in a situation where a hammer was called for. This isn't religious discrimination or censorship, it's effective and justified troll-busting, with the troll crying "foul!". Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Outside comment So a troll (and an obvious one at that) gets called out for being one, and the ADMIN is the party who's causing trouble? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Stipulating that Badmachine is being a troll here - and while questions of being able to read minds were floated at me, I could likewise ask it of others here - what's the issue? You cannot charge him with posting offensive material; if exhortations to Satanism (for instance) are prima facie offensive on Badmachine's page, they must be offensive everywhere else on Misplaced Pages too, and I doubt anyone's going through the roster of Wikipedian Satanists to grill them on their bonafides. The worst anyone can claim is that he's trying to get the goat of people staring at his talk page ... in which case, what's compelling any of you to give him an audience? "OK, could we take it down a few pegs? ... Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here." Useful advice; possibly some folks here could benefit by it. Ravenswing 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the key thing here is that Misplaced Pages is a project to create an encyclopaedia. While editors have kindly been given userspace by the project in which to express a little more of themselves, this isn't Myspace, Facebook or Deviant Art. There's no reason at all to provide space for user generated content that isn't somehow helping to build the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have more vanity content than I do/did -badmachine 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I have stuff I do on the project. You have willies and GNAA banners. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't what you say, it's how you say it that differentiates "having an opinion" and "being a troll". I would have jumped on Silvio if I had even a tiny suspicion that he was censoring someone's beliefs, this simply isn't the case here. Using your user pages to intentionally cause controversy is rather pointy and isn't an acceptable use. Viewing the previous discussions (Elen links above) further demonstrates his efforts to make a point here. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Having said my little part about Salvio: I'll address something Blade said: 'OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking. Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here.' I agree. (Hopefully, Blade, that wasn't directed at me.) Another editor said we cannot read each others' minds and that is also a good point. But what is important is that if you request or welcome community input, unless it's pretty egregious, don't throw our posts back in our teeth. Reactions are part of the process. OK? —Djathinkimacowboy 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Everything is "reverse-able", so that point is moot. If someone blanks 50 pages in one minute, that can be reversed, too. Being reversible isn't the litmus test for taking action, determining the editor's likelihood of continued disruption is. When an editor lacks the ability to say "Yeah, I now understand what I did wrong", then the likelihood is quite high. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My issue is, what did I do wrong? -badmachine 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You do things deliberately because other people find them offensive, and then pretend you don't know what happened. Drop the bullshit. → ROUX ₪ 21:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

General comments and requests

Over the past number of weeks, there has been an increase in the amount of GNAA-related trolling and disruption. It is unclear whether and to what extent the trolling is being perpetrated by the "real" GNAA, or by imposters claiming to be affiliated with the GNAA, nor does it matter very much. What matters is that the diversion of community time and creation of rancor created by disputes like this one is precisely what the people engaging in the intentionally provocative behavior are seeking to create. The corollaries are that:

• good-faith users are asked in the strongest terms to refrain from emulating or enabling the disruptive behavior—and putting a GNAA-related userbox on one's page is about as blatant an example of this as can be imagined; and
• administrators and other editors acting in good faith to respond to such disruption, actual or perceived, are working in the best interests of the project and are entitled to a reasonable degree of discretion, the assumption of good faith, and the avoidance of name-calling as they do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruno Bouchet

Hi, it appears that Bruno Bouchet has been editing his own article. User:Brewhahaha uploaded a photo of himself at File:BrunoBouchet.JPG, also appears to be shamelessly self-promoting himself and 2DayFM's Kyle and Jackie O Show. Thoughts on the issue? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How can he have taken the photo himself and thus own the copyright? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose he could have used a timer lol! More likely, its the common mistake that people think that snaps taken of them belong to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it seems unlikely he'd be attending an awards event with a tripod and using a timer, so I've PUFed it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The photographer may have assigned the rights to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't fit with "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is what it says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a photo of myself, taken by myself, in one of those photo-booth machines. Y'know, the ones where you can get driving licence and passport photos? Pesky (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have to have been a bloody big machine in this case :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! The mind boggles ... having said that, I could also quite easily Photoshop my pic to have a background of almost anywhere that I can snaffle a pic of ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a thought. Maybe in the original he was standing outside the toilet holding a plunger.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of igniting a wholly different debate... this wort of lawyering over images is really aggravating to me. I mean, you're assuming that someone else took the picture and didn't give him the right to reuse it (if he has a digital copy, I feel fairly confident that the "original" was given to him). Of course, that's open to challenge (and that's partially what OTRS is for), but this sort of... assumption of bad faith (to use Misplaced Pages parlance) bothers me. That and the hoops that everyone has to jump though to post any images on Misplaced Pages any longer.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's clearly labeled "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is quite plainly incompatible with someone else having taken it and having given him the rights to it. And I'm simply saying that the copyright information is inadequate, which may well be an entirely innocent mistake through not understanding copyright - nowhere have I suggested anyone is deliberately doing anything wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tak is Back

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs)

That editor has returned. For those who don't know, the editor uploaded a number of his personally-drawn images to commons, with the usual free license, and then yelped when they were edited to remove his personal watermark (thus depriving him of his ability to use them to advertise his website). He fought this war for over a year. Then about a year ago, he issued a threatening letter to the folks who operate commons, making the claim that the images were copyright violations (if so, he himself was the violator), and he got his way - they deleted the images. He was also indef'd bother there and here. One would have thought that was the end of that sordid affair. But now he's back. Any admin's suggestions would be welcome. Once I notify the editor, I'm not going to say anything more unless asked to or compelled to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd better say that give a final warning to the user about his actions. If he still claims those as copyright violations; I'd better suggest deleting each and every file he uploads. And if this is serious, just put a indef block with autoblock enabled; email disabled; cannot edit own talk page. He's already blocked by Timothy. Dipankan says.. 09:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the appeal as the user has been socking regularly (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Xanderliptak/Archive. The community may wish to make him a WP:STANDARD OFFER should he appeal again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone was giving this any consideration, I strongly suggest reading this and this (as well as the talk page of the RfC/U) before even thinking about granting an unblock. One of the most pertinent issues is the infrequent intersection of Xanderliptak's versions of events and what actually happened. In my opinion, this is once again very much in evidence in his unblock request, and anybody looking at this issue should take a look at what has actually happened in the past. → ROUX ₪ 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about me - I'm certainly not thinking about unblocking him. Perhaps in some alternate universe where it's perfectly ok for blocked users to just start another account.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just making sure everyone has the relevant info. There's a lot to dig down into, which is why I linked to the RfC/U, as it summarizes the actual problems, and while Xanderliptak's account of past events is certainly interesting, it is not accurate in any sense of the word. → ROUX ₪ 21:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Are censorship of others' statements in own talk page apporipate?

The talk page of User:AlienX2009 (talk) contains the following sentence:

...please do not use inappropriate swear words on this talk page please or they will be censored.

Is this apporipate? Because I heard that talk-page censorship is frowned upon here. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 11:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's their own talkpage, and it doesn't change the meaning of the text overall, they can basically do what they want (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is, but it's scarcely an onerous imposition to not express oneself in obscenities, which after all isn't precisely civil in the first place. Ravenswing 14:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't allow swear words on my talkpage. I always replace a letter in such words with a hyphen. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Per User pages "Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed", which includes the user the user talk page is about removing such material. It is hard to imagine unwelcome swearing on a user talk page being seen as justifiable for furthering the goals of the project. --Fæ (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

He's quite entitled to ask people not to cuss on his talkpage - and particularly not to cuss him out on his talkpage, I would have thought. And he's quite entitled to remove any content he wants, including cussing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Usual confusion. Misplaced Pages:CENSORED does not apply to user pages only to articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have the same disclaimer on the top of my page. It's simple courtesy; you can express your opinion without having to resort to F-bombs, and I star out the words. I don't want to have to read them every time I get a new message alert. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Light8008 (talk · contribs)

Light8008 (talk · contribs) has done nothing other than spam their user and user talk page, time for a block?. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Light8008 (talk · contribs) indeffed. Salvio 12:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A user whose time (to be blocked) has come

Beast00001 has made unconstructive edits to the article on Edvard Munch and has been through all the warning levels but he still continues to vandalize. AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 12:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a vandalism only account, thanks. For next time, (a) WP:AIV is usually a better place to report this kind of thing, and (b) when you report a vandal at AIV, you won't have to notify them of the report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that. Will keep that in mind for next time. Thank you! AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 12:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

I added {{POV}}, {{Peacock}} {{unbalanced}}, {{cite check}}, {{refimprove}}, {{weasel}} tags to War of the Pacific in order to get consensus about a lot of flaws affecting the page. In the talk page there are at least 10 unressolved issues and other editors support my aim:

• Wifione (admin)
• Alex

I provided the reasons for tagging, for example the case of "Grau's chavalry", a biased and peacook sentence that had been refused by a lot of editors in a RfC (see Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Issue_10_Grau.27s_chavallery), but the sentence is still there.

MarshalN20 MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted the tags in the article page and refuse to discuss the issues.

I ask the admins to intervene and to decide whether the article can be published without the tags. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• ANI isn't for content disputes; the only reason this should be here, if at all, is if you wish to discuss MarshalN20's behaviour. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it alright to use a WP:BOOMERANG in this case? Keysanger's behaviour in regards to posting his tags and placing forth a series of "questions" into the article has been criticized time and again by several editors as disruptive:

1. Donald Richardson:
2. IP 84.23.155.84: "Someone has tagged this article as: neutrality is disputed. No arguments are offered, why should the tag remain?"
3. Dentren: "Will delete the tag for now. Please reinsert it if some serious NPOV issue is found."
4. Selecciones de la Vida: "No need for excessive tagging, it is evident that there are exisiting disputes."
5. Cambalachero: "Finally, on a more technical issue, we do not use many different tags in an article if they are all for basically the same problem."
6. Cloudaoc: "I don't think than Keysanger can obtain what he wants, but meanwhile, the article remains unchanged and full of tags ("original research, "no NPoV", etc) put by Keysanger to keep the readers suspicious about its reliability."
7. Alex Harvey: "Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is?"

Despite all of these several notifications, Keysanger continues to disrupt the article with his excessive tagging and talk page questions. Instead of trying to discuss each issue one by one, he insists on discussing several things at the same time (a task which ultimately is neither efficient or good for the quality of the article). His excessive tagging is an obvious breach of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. Based on these points, I request that administrator's handle the situation with Keysanger. Whether you decide to make him understand why what he is doing is wrong (albeit he has already been told this several times), or if you simply decide to block him for continuing disruptions, the decision is now up to you. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 13:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree, tagging like that is a POINT violation. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP's talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I hope this is appropriate to post here - I thought it was something that should be brought to the attention of an Admin. It seems to me that maybe user:27.33.41.106, currently blocked for disruptive editing should be blocked from editing their own talk page (User talk:27.33.41.106) based on the edits there since the block notice. Apologies if this isn't the right venue for this. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Salvio 13:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious IP editor 194.60.38.198

IP editor 194.60.38.198 is identified by Misplaced Pages as registered to the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament. It has had a long history of making edits that are almost exclusively to biographies of British politicians, often removing negative statements that seem adequately sourced. Take a look at the IP's archives. Look at these four 1 2 3 4 trying to remove negative information about Chris Kelly (British politician), no edit summaries, I warned each time but no discussion, just simple reverts. Also see here. Some edits seem constructive like this one but no sources. I get the feeling that this IP is attached to a public computer at Parliament, maybe in the library or something, and random staffers use it to edit Misplaced Pages. I suggest blocking the IP and requiring the users to log in, at least then we'd be able to see how many different people are editing, let the good individual editors edit, and stop those editors that can't work within Misplaced Pages guidelines. Zad68 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is the right venue: I'd suggest AIV if another one of those edits are made. I've just reverted the IP on Judith Jolly, Baroness Jolly (what a name) where they introduced non-neutral biographical content copied from this PDF. You'd given them a final warning; next stop AIV, methinks. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No problems about blocking if it does persist. It's not like it's David Cameron on the other end...narrows eyes...or is it... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just remember: as soon as it is blocked, you MUST leave a notice for the WMF Communications Committee. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound paranoid but...

IP editor 173.99.103.237 has marked several files I created for deletion or merger. I don't think it's just a coincidence. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoever it is is hiding behind a cell phone, from looking at the WHOIS information. --MuZemike 21:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WOLfan112

WOLfan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user after noticing a valid article nominated for deletion, and found many more like it, including this, this, this, and this. He also incorrectly added CSD tags to articles such as here. I warned the user about these AfDs/taggings here, and he subsequently reported a good-faith contributor at AIV here. Fine, everyone's new at some point.

However, WOLfan112 then proceeded to misuse Twinkle for dozens of rollback edits, and requested the rollback right nine times (by his count) in a span of two weeks: March 13, March 20, March 21, March 25. Today, I received this warning to assume good faith regarding my initial warning from two weeks ago. His talk page is littered with warnings, and his unintelligible replies are evident throughout, including #Here tell me exactly what I need to do to get rollback and #Years of experience. I am requesting an indefinite block on this user who apparently cannot understand what several users are telling him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

please....don't! I am very sorry and will stop now. 1 more Chance, please. 1 more chance. I want a last chance and a fresh start. --UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Last chance saloon - here are the rules

• You don't use Twinkle
• You don't ask for rollback
• You don't nominate articles for deletion
• You find yourself a WP:MENTOR
• You do something useful on the project
• You don't argue with anyone enforcing these rules

Keep that up for three months and you can leave the saloon as a normal editor. What do you say? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin used powers in content dispute

Please discuss this issue at WP:AN, section "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". I've copied both of the above comments over there. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved with editing this article in any way, and it was only brought to my attention after a post at the WP:BLPN. Maybe I'm missing something, but as an outside observer, it appears that Drmies is abusing their admin tools to win a dispute they're involved in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this is an incident. WP:AN is the wrong venue to discuss specific incidents of an admin misusing their tools. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no more of a sacred trust than the tools we lay upon certain users who should be trusted to act neutrally when protected pages. This misuse of admin tools goes strictly against WP:FULL and this incident should not be swept u dee the carpet. An involved admin protecting an article then swiftly changing the content of that article is a blatant misuse of tools and trust. --JOJ 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards