Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 12 January 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme POV pushing and disruptive editing by User:Borsoka

I am forced to report here the very disruptive editing done by User:Borsoka on the topic of History of Romania, especially covering the ancient times and the Middle Ages. One of the recent unacceptable behaviors is the redirect of the Daco-Roman article () as well as the repeated removal in mass of sourced content from it (, , ). The same has been done with the Thraco-Roman article: repeated redirect attempts to terrible choices (, ); repeated removal in mass of sourced content (, , , ). This was done without discussions, without proposing the mergers/redirects and without attempting to reach consensus. This is all driven by a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism on the Romanian history. The general idea of this POV/revisionism is to break or erase the obvious links (considered mainstream by most historians today), between modern Romanians and their ancestors, the Dacians, the Romans and the Roman Dacia time/space. One example of pushing these extreme views is the complete rewrite of the Origin of the Romanians by User:Borsoka from the Hungarian extremists point of view, an article which he attempts to also WP:OWN as you can see from the many edit wars. To support the ideas in this important article, other articles/concepts like Daco-Roman and Thraco-Roman cultures have to disappear or be pushed into obscurity at any price since otherwise they completely invalidate the claims of Hungarian extremists. A simple review of Borsoka's contributions shows that 90-100% of his "work" involves rewriting articles on Romanian history with an extreme Hungarian POV. If he loves Hungary and its history that much, I don't understand why he doesn't spend 90% of his time, in a positive and constructive fashion, writing great articles about this country's achievements and history. It is not at all justified and acceptable to spend one's entire time attacking and attempting to rewriting another country's history, causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing in the process. Another aspect of User:Borsoka's "contribution" involves a widespread trend of copyvio and plagiarisms, as can be seen in this investigation (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka). To me, all this activity is far from Misplaced Pages's goals, even though some parts of his contributions have merit and the editor has been around for a while. Me and many other contributors have tried to discuss the matters on the talk pages of some of the involved articles, have tried to solicit 3rd party opinions, but to no avail so far. The situation as it stands now it is far from being just content dispute on one article or another. Way too many articles have been attacked, rewritten with POVs, with copyvios, or hidden behind non-sense redirects for one purpose or another. As such I am forced to report the behavior here and suggest a thorough investigation and if considered fit, a topic ban. Thank you for your time. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, I think your above claims are driven by emotions which is not an issue, because we are human beings. Therefore, I would only like to reflect to one of your above points: plagiarism. Yes, there was a time when I was "green" and accepted other editors' push to cite verbatim in order to avoid any accusation of OR. I think my naivety is demonstrated by the fact that all sentences taken from the cited sources were properly referenced (I even added the relevant pages). If you think that any edit I made following the above investigation contains plagiarism, please report it because it should be fixed. However, I think no such a case can be demonstrated. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In-mass sourced content removal continues even after this report: , . This is hopeless...--Codrin.B (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I think there is a misunderstanding. User:Borsoka is an enthusiastic, extremely hard-working and valuable wiki member. I have been following his editing for a while. He creates entirely new, neutral and well referenced articles (e.g. History of Christianity in Hungary) or gives us exceptionally useful contributions (e.g. Romania in the Middle Ages, Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages etc). User:Borsoka aims to be neutral with respect to other editors. Misplaced Pages members should appreciate and recognize his work instead of senseless accusations. That is not his fault that nationalist editors can not accept other options. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fakirbakir. Borsoka is the last editor, who may be accused of nationalism. His articles about Medieval Hungary are well-sourced, accurate and useful works. For example his article of Voivode of Transylvania is the most elaborate source about this function in the Internet. His ban would be a great loss to the English Misplaced Pages. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Codrinb. See unconstructive discussion with User:Borsoka. User:Borsoka has strong Hungarian POV (he/she wrote on NOPV English wp about highly sensitive article "this is a Hungarian context"!). Consensus-building in talk pages is impossible with this user.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrin, Omen1229, thank you for referring to the above cases. I think they properly reflect my habit when editing. Borsoka (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration. The modern Sibiu was never called under its present name until 1918. The Misplaced Pages is not should be the scene of the falsification of history... --Norden1990 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Norden, looking on Boroska's contributions I strongly believe he continuously tries to discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians. His useful contributions do not excuse him for his persistent destructive behavior. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, would you please provide ONE example when I "tried to disredit any proof supporting the ancient origins of Romanians"? Would you please provide ONE case when I was destructive? Borsoka (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Codrin already mentioned several. That habit is destructive. Saturnian (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? "Sibiu" (or "Sibiiu") was well-established by 1918, and wasn't just invented out of thin air. - Biruitorul 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sibiu was the Romanian name of Nagyszeben/Hermannstadt until 1918. the Town belonged to Hungary until the Treaty of Trianon. After that Sibiu became official name of the town. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sibiu (popularly Sighii) name was used long before 1918 by the Romanians from Mărginimea Sibiului. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Hungarians call Vienna as Bécs. So what? I say again, Szeben belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary until 1918/20. Using of the Sibiu name is very anachronistic in the cases of preceding 20th century. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Borsoka repeatedly tries to discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians. The last example is where he deleted a reference mentioning the ancient name of the settlement. Then, because there is no other proof, he renamed the article diminishing the old age of the monument. Event he has useful contributions, this do not excuse him for his persistent destructive behavior. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, sorry, but I can only now answer to your above remarks. You may remember what was the reason of those edits, because I summarized it on the article's Talk page. If you cannot, I try to summarize it again. Three modern sources (including two official lists prepared by the competent Romanian authorities) ignore the name "Abruttus" when referring to the one time Roman fort (which is the subject of the article). This is not surprising since this is not a Latin name from Antiqutiy, but a Medieval Latin name of a medieval settlement (for sources I refer to the talk page of the article). Do you think that Romanian authorities are working on diminishing the history of Romanians by ignoring the "Abruttus" name? You are right: there was ONE book from the 1 9 8 0 s making a p a s s i n g reference to the s e t t l e m e n t (not to the fort!) as Abruttus, but even this source failed to state that it is a name from the Roman period. Furthermore, the dating of the fort was not changed. Why do you state that I wanted "diminishing the old age of the monument"? Finally, would you please provide ONE example when I tried to "discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians"? I never did it. Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Instead of searching for useful references supporting the articles related to the origins of Romanians, Borsoka immediately marked the articles for deletion (see ) or he challenged the articles introducing WP:OR. -- Saturnian (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, please checque my edits relating to the first 65-70 articles in "Category:Roman forts in Romania". You will surely be surprised, because I only proposed the deletion of no more than 3-4 articles, otherwise I improved the articles by adding proper citations. In the specific case, as you may remember, I suggested the deletion because none of the sources cited referred to a Roman fort called Morisena. Would you please provide ONE example of my OR? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For 1. and 2, Yes see ONE proof

• "ABRUD. Orășel din Transilvania, în munții Apuseni (Jud, Alba). Veche așezare dacă și romană cu mine de aur (Abrut, Abruttus)." translated as
• "ABRUD. Town in Transylvania, in the Apuseni Mountains (Alba County). Ancient Dacian and Roman settlement with gold mines (Abrut, Abruttus)."

1. O.G. Lecca: DICTIONAR ISTORIC, ARHEOLOGIC SI GEOGRAFIC AL ROMANIEI, BUCURESTI, EDITURA UNIVERSUL S. A., 1937, p. 7

Historians know very well that around Roman forts the settlements developed and these settlements included the forts. So the settlement name is the same as the fort name!

I can give more proofs about your abuses despite the fact Codrin mentioned several. I am so disgruntled about this behavior. Very annoying. Saturnian (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, I see you have just found a new source (from the 1930s) after a couple of days of searching. It is interesting that you have not succeeded in citing a source referring to the castra at Abruttus. Why do you think RAN and LMI (the two official lists of archaeological sites in Romania) ignore to refer both to the fort and to the fort as Abruttus? Do you suggest that anti-Romanian POV-pushing extremist, chauvinist, nationalist, ...ist, ...ist Hungarians force those who prepare them to falsify Romanian history? In this case, you should make steps against them instead of debating with me on these pages. Otherwise, I suggest that our debate on the article's title should be continued on the article's Talk page. I hope that other editors would also comment our debate on the proper place. Please read my discussion with Codrinb below. You will find lots of declarations of my "extremist, POV-pushing, nationalistic, uncivil, vandalistic, ..." behavior, but no example. Are you sure that sticking new and new insulting labels on me is the best method of improving WP? Similarly to Codrinb, I suggest that you should also use your library and edit or create articles on WP. Sweet dreams! Borsoka (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AE?

The above discussion is covered by the arbitration case WP:ARBEE, which applies discretionary sanctions to articles which relate to Eastern Europe. All editors commenting above have already been warned about this case, except for Fakirbakir. The diffs provided by Codrinb do not appear obviously problematic from a conduct point of view, and because we do not decide content disputes, we cannot evaluate their merits in that regard. As regards the allegations of copyright violations or plagiarism by Borsoka, he has plausibly replied that he now understands copyright and has not violated it since the now years-old investigation cited by Codrinb.

However, the above discussion itself is possibly actionable. In my opinion, it shows at least two editors behaving uncollegially, misusing Misplaced Pages as a battleground, casting aspersions of grave editorial misconduct without adequate evidence, and/or making personal attacks on others:

• Codrinb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism", "pushing these extreme views", "from the Hungarian extremists point of view", " causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing")
• Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (" strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration", "falsification of history")

I invite comment by administrators whether WP:AE threads should be opened to examine the possibility of a topic ban or other sanction for these two editors, or whether a warning might suffice.  Sandstein  00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See my edits, I have no enemies and I don't consider the encyclopedia as a battleground. Yes, I reacted to Omen's writing, but he did not deny in his user page that he is a nationalist. I tried the neutral point of view of all my articles, I gave the names of the cities in different languages etc. I think, my punishment would be unfair. --Norden1990 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I would like to comment the above case. I think a topic ban would be an exaggerated sanction. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to speak in your own defense, admin or not. Reyk _YO! 04:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is an underlying dispute about ancient Dacia, where User:Codrinb holds a particular point of view. Some of the disagreement can be seen at User talk:Codrinb/Archive 2#Wiki-project Dacia. Codrinb is one of the supporters of WP:WikiProject Dacia, while some other editors who know about Eastern Europe disagree with his approach. I have heard that Protochronism is connected to the same debate. Our article on Protochronism says that "The term refers to perceived aggrandizing of Dacian and earlier roots of today's Romanians." With regards to the dispute beween Codrinb and Borsoka at Daco-Roman, a content WP:RFC should be considered as an option. Codrinb was originally notified under ARBEE by Jehochman as the result of a request for arbitration that Codrinb filed against User:Andrei nacu in January, 2011. You might notice some common elements between Codrinb's 2011 complaint to Arbcom and his ANI that he filed against Borsoka just above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been simply trying to report abusive behavior on part of another user. I am not interested in any battles and as you can see, I've been staying away from editing for quite a while, not trying to engage in any conflict. I pretty much topic-banned myself out of disgust, but it is hard to stay aside and watch how some users like Borsoka rewrite articles with a strong POV and no one does a thing. I think that the practice of shooting the messenger and ignoring the real abusers is unfair and will not solve anything... --Codrin.B (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. Discussing your behavior is relevant, and not "shooting the messenger." — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think when Codrinb returns after a lengthy absence and finds articles he left in good shape apparently distorted, he is right to be alarmed. It may be the situation isn't as bad as it seems, but the reaction is understandable and Borsoka should give a fuller explanation of what is going on. - Biruitorul 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above request. What should I explain? Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be helpful if you went to the talk pages of articles where your changes have alarmed Codrinb (for example, Thraco-Roman) and explained more fully what you are trying to do. You don't need anyone's permission to edit, but because other users are interested in those topics, and because they may be in rather sensitive topic areas, it helps increase good faith if you give some kind of background to what you're accomplishing. (That is, if it doesn't take up too much time from your editing.) - Biruitorul 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for your above remarks. Please read the articles' talk pages. As to Thraco-Roman, there was a discussion on the topic (because I had once suggested the merger of the article based on the same argumentation) ending on October 10, 2012. During the discussion and in my last remark I reminded our co-editor, Codrinb to WP:NOR. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, month, year or decade before removing unsourced statements? Please also read the discussion ending on October 10 on the Talk page of Daco-Roman. Codrinb stated that he was working on the improvement of the article which in fact was a partial copy of an other article, Roman-Dacia. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, ...., .... before merging the two articles? I maintain that there is no point in maintaining articles copied from other articles instead of merging them. Would you like to pay twice for the same book under different titles? I would like to emphasize that the subject of the present debate on the articles and the debates ending on October 10 was the same: WP:NOR and a merging proposal. The first debate ended with a compromise: Codrinb would work on improving the articles. However, the articles have not been improved. Should I have started a new debate on the same topic? Why? For what purpose? In order to maintain pseudo-articles? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Codrinb knows more about this dispute than I do; let's see if he agrees with this presentation of events. - Biruitorul 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Auditur et altera pars. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't report this abusive behaviour and the breaking of many WP rules (in purpose!) just to help with some personal content dispute. I don't have the time or motivation to edit the affected articles at this time, but I can't stand by, looking at how extreme POVs are pushed and how the WP rules are not respected at all. I haven't seen any messages on talk pages about suggested merges, I haven't seen the WP:MERGE rules followed, I haven't seen civil discussions or attempts to learn how to edit. Instead I witnessed sourced content removal in mass (regardless or not it comes from other articles - this is allowed!), I've seen plenty of WP:EDITWAR and WP:OWN behaviours, I've seen a lot of copyvios and plagiarisms and a lot of generally unacceptable actions on User:Borsoka's side (as pointed out by other users as well), all driven by the desire to rewrite the history of Romania the way that some extremists want. Every time it suits him, User:Borsoka plays the rookie and the innocent (he didn't know this rule or that), but he's been around for a while now and he knows quite a few rules. Everyone is required to know the basics of WP:EDIT, WP:POV, WP:COPYVIO before contributing. You can judge me for the harsh statements I made on the user's extremism and agenda, but I've witnessed it for years now and I know it is all true. I don't know why some bring WP:DACIA into discussion here. A lot of people put efforts in this project to create positive content on less known topics which have virtually no English coverage. WP:DACIA has a constructive philosophy. No one is involved there to rewrite the history of some other nations who need to be minimized or obscured in order to push nationalistic ideas. The user in question here, is.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, please read again the edit-history of the above cited articles (Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman) and their Talk pages more carefully - you will find merger proposals. Would you specifically refer to the "plenty" cases of editwarring I was involved? Would you please specifically refer to copyvios I commited in the last two years? Would you please provide ONE example when I wanted to minimize or obscure other nations' history? (It is interesting that when I started to edit Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, a Hungarian editor started to call me an anti-Hungarian Communist traitor. Maybe, extremists do not like me.) Would you please provide ONE example when my edit was not based on reliables source? Would you please provide examples when I did not try to address your concerns? (Unfortunatelly, I can cite cases when my questions remaind unanswered for months.) Sorry, but I still do not accept loud declarations without argumentation ("you are an extremsit Hungarian POV-pusher, you are unable to civil discussion,..."). I do not want to offend you, but my impression is that you tend to accuse other editors (or at least me) of misconduct commited by yourself. For instance, here Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 11#The "Historic background" section you suggested me not to copy-past from other articles (what I actually did not do), but later you "created" the article Daco-Roman by copying text from Roman Dacia. Likewise, you state that I only pretend to be innocent, but interestingly it is you who tend to ignore templates or other proposals, therefore you are surprised when the action proposed is made. Would you please refer to ONE case when I rewrote articles without putting proper templates in advance (at least 7 days before the action was started)? Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:MERGEPROP? Have you ever posted {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}} for Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman, Roman Dacia or for any other other you try to merge and redirect at your own desire? Have you ever followed these procedures? Can you show a single diff of that?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, please read my comment here: at 20:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I stated that "I think merging this article with Roman Dacia is the best solution for the time being in order to avoid the creation of an article with text copied from other articles". On the next day, following a long discussion, I added that "I love the Dark Ages when whole monastic communities were braindeadly copying books written by others. Therefore I can really appreciate the above method of contribution for a transitory period. Even so, if we use this early medieval method, we should also properly copy the references." And I received your replay: "Thanks. Agreed. It is work in progress." Sorry, but I always assume that if an agreement is reached, both parties will remember it, therefore there is no need to remind the other party to that agreement. Dear Codrinb, you seemingly tend to ignore merger proposals as it is demonstrated here (see your remark at 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC) and my answer). My dear Romanian friend, time is important for me, because I am getting older and older on each day. I hate vasting my time with debates instead of editing, writing or re-writing articles. Dear Codrinb, may I ask you to stop these accusations? Believe me, if you spent your time with searching for reliable sources instead of copying text from one article to the other or of accusing me, we would have much lesser conflicts. All the same, have a nice day! My day was awful. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Side remark: the history of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is a very sensitive one with a wide range of different perspectives. Unfortunately, many editors in this area are emotionally motivated and strongly biased. Borsoka, on the other hand, strives to maintain the neutral point of view and supports his edits by reliable, academic sources. His work should put forward as a positive example, instead of accusing him of POV pushing. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing

I am reporting GarnetAndBlack for continuous hostility and incivility, biased editing of pages regarding Clemson Tigers football and related pages due to his hatred for Clemson University, bad faith edits such as , and retaliatory editing when positive information about Clemson Tigers football is added to the page and related articles. I will provide evidence links upon request, but please be aware that much of this evidence has been deleted by GarnetAndBlack and will probably need an administrator to access it.

The pages in question: Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Clemson Tigers football, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl, Memorial Stadium

Incivility GarnetAndBlack, a South Carolina Gamecocks fan, has a repeated history of hostility and incivility towards anyone who is a fan of the rival school, the Clemson Tigers. Attempts to make good-faith edits that are factual and well-sourced are met with immediate deletion. GarnetAndBlack demands that a consensus be made on a Talk page before a change can be made, yet often times he and I are the only ones editing the pages. He then refuses to engage me in open discussion by either ignoring my polite requests for dialogue or by exhibiting hostility and/or threats. He will often delete discussion topics to hide this fact.

GarnetAndBlack often baits users into arguments and responds with personal attacks. Most recently, he called me a "tough guy" when I pointed out Misplaced Pages policies to him. He also questioned my reading comprehension when I made a change that was from a direct quote to the source. When editing Clemson Tigers pages to update information about Clemson losses, he often adds snide comments or trash talk in the comments section to goad Clemson fans into arguments (of which I ignore).

Attempts to reach out to GarnetAndBlack are futile. His editing practices show that he harbors an extreme hatred for all things Clemson, and looks down on any input or attempt to discuss articles from Clemson fans.

Gaming the System Per Misplaced Pages's policy on , GarnetAndBlack often uses Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines as threats. He will commence in edit warring and excessive reverting over well-sourced and factual items, yet threaten users who try to revert the material back. In other words, he believes it acceptable for him to violate the policies yet threatens others he believes have done the same. He then demands a consensus be reached even though few (and most of the time, just us) people edit the articles. He even claims that factual information is POV even though he has made POV edits that contradict the very sources he links.

Please note that I have backed off these pages as recently as today to avoid edit-warring with him. This is even after my edits were well-sourced and did not reflect POV. It leaves me frustrated as an editor as I feel I cannot contribute to Misplaced Pages topics I am passionate about. Because GarnetAndBlack knows I will back down to prevent an edit war, he persists with his bullying tactics.

Only when a third party request has been brought in has GarnetAndBlack finally conceded, leading me to conclude that he simply opposes the edits because they are made by a Clemson fan. For example, on the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, GarnetAndBlack refused to allow the editing of irrelevant information about minority enrollment that he thought painted Clemson in a bad light. In a similar incident, he refused to allow the removal a highly-questionable and racist 1930s book that he cited as a credible source. Only after a fellow South Carolina Gamecocks fan agreed with me did he concede.

Ownership GarnetAndBlack has also staked ownership] of the articles in question, particularly the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article, per Misplaced Pages description. In fact, many of his demands are almost verbatim from the Misplaced Pages description of page "ownership" (all are direct GarnetAndBlack quotes):

"... no attempts at revisionist history or deletion of well-sourced and verifiable material will be tolerated at this article..."

" A previous editor clearly spent a good deal of time adding this material, and providing proper references, and this work will be preserved. Attempts to remove this material without consensus will be reverted as vandalism."

"The statistic is relevant, verifiable and sourced, and it will be restored." (After third party intervention, he admitted this wasn't true)

"Continued POV sanitization of this article by fans will not be tolerated..." (following a revert)

"...take it to Talk if you want to try to seek new consensus." (following a revert)

"Now take it to talk and seek PROPER consensus." (following a revert)

"Again, you seem to be operating under the belief that your opinions carry weight at Misplaced Pages. They do not."

"If you're going to edit an article, make sure you have the first clue about the subject material."

Of course, he knows no consensus will be reached because no one joins in the discussion and he avoids it.

Bad faith biased edits As a Clemson Tigers fan, I do not feel I am the best person to edit South Carolina Gamecocks pages due to my own bias. Therefore, I try to refrain. However, GarnetAndBlack watches Clemson pages like a hawk and works hard to maintain or add negative information about Clemson even when the facts are questionable or irrelevant (such as the minority enrollment). Aside for his disparaging and insulting comments about Clemson, he often over-states Clemson's negative information, such as continuous harping on Clemson's 70-33 loss in the Orange Bowl in 2012. However, if similar information were to be added about South Carolina, he would remove it and demand a consensus.

His hateful opinions alone make me question whether or not he should be editing pages regarding Clemson Tigers football.

GarnetAndBlack often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" per Misplaced Pages's guidelines on this matter. Rather than make easy corrections or changes, GarnetAndBlack will delete entire text based on technicalities if the text paints Clemson in a positive light. For example, a few days ago, he deleted accolades about Clemson coach Dabo Swinney's college career because one source was missing. He then deleted an entire paragraph about Swinney winning the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award in 2011 because he claimed the brief description of the award was "practically" lifted word-for-word from the award's website (it was not and falls under fair use anyway).

Retaliatory editing GarnetAndBlack follows me around Misplaced Pages religiously. When I attempt to make changes to Clemson articles to post factual, sourced positive information, one of two things will happen: He will either remove it and make demands/threats as previously stated, or he will make a new change to the article that either removes other positive info on technicalities or adds negative information. This will come after months of inactivity from GarnetAndBlack only to emerge after I make a change. If he can't find cause to remove my well-sourced facts, he'll try to one-up me with a negative counter edit.

Past history When I came to Misplaced Pages a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I immediately butted heads. I admit that my actions were not wise and I paid the price for it per Misplaced Pages's rules. You can see this on my Talk page. Being new to Misplaced Pages, I jumped in without realizing what I was doing. However, instead of trying to guide me and help me along as a new user, GarnetAndBlack immediately went on the attack when he realized I was a Clemson fan and put his bad faith practices to use. Since realizing the error of my ways a year ago, I've tried to be proactive and work with him through compromise and discussion. These efforts are futile, and I cannot reach a consensus for edits because GarnetAndBlack has chased other editors away.

Conclusion I want to contribute to Misplaced Pages to articles I'm passionate about and knowledgeable about. I try to make sure my additions are well-sourced. I'm open to compromise as my history shows, which is as recent as yesterday on Carolina-Clemson rivalry talk. However, I feel I am being met head-on by someone who hates my alma mater and despises me for being a part of it, therefore he refuses to work with me in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I don't despise GarnetAndBlack's school. In fact, I do work for them that helps bring students to the University of South Carolina.

I don't believe GarnetAndBlack can see the error of his ways, and I conclude that he should no longer be permitted to contribute to the aforementioned pages or other pages relating to Clemson University. However, I am hoping he would be willing to agree to some serious reconciliation and change in attitude towards how he works with others. His pattern of behavior leads me to believe this isn't possible as his hatred for Clemson is too deep-seated.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A small sampling evidence of hatred and bias against Clemson. Notice twice he calls us a "redneck" fanbase:

1. " Also, it's absolutely precious how you Clemson people have come out of your shells (and hiding) after one little bowl victory. Almost as funny as when I see Tiger fans around town these days and give them a friendly wave...with four fingers, of course. :)" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) User_talk:LesPhilky#WP:DRRC

2. "Oh, and thanks for showing the world how low your redneck fanbase is by making light of a teenage kid's injury. You stay classy, Clemson." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

3. "Fear the thumb." (This references to the possibility of SC beating Clemson five years in a row) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

4. 09:20, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . 2012 South Carolina Gamecocks football team ‎ (→‎Clemson: FOUR IN A ROW)

09:19, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-61)‎ . . 2012 Clemson Tigers football team ‎ (The streak is over...FOUR IN A ROW) Two cases of trash talk towards Clemson fans while updating an article.

5. "Never thought I'd see the day where a Clemson fan pretends to be a Bama fan, but after 3 straight ass-whippings by your rival and the worst loss in a century of bowl game history, can't say I blame you rednecks for trying to hide behind schools that actually have the football tradition that you pretenders only wish you had. Wait a sec...is that you Dabo? LOL" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

6. 03:54, 11 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . . User talk:LesPhilky ‎ (Sammy Potkins LOL) Derogatory reference to Sammy Watkins, a Clemson player arrested for simple marijuana possession.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, after posting a notice to GarnetAndBlack's talk page about this notification, this was his reaction:

(diff | hist) . . User talk:GarnetAndBlack‎; 03:26 . . (-535)‎ . . ‎GarnetAndBlack (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 532099323 by LesPhilky (talk) Sorry, not participating in an absolute joke perpetrated by a hypocrite guilty of exactly the same conduct he is reporting me for)--LesPhilky (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is not a very well-formed report. It would be helpful if you included properly formatted diffs; it is very difficult for me to assess what's going on. Second, given the length of this report (which is a bit excessive) and the length of time during which the incidents took place, I'm wondering if this is the best place for it: this is not, I think, a single incident or set of incidents, and that's what this board is for. But I tell you what: I'll have a look at the editor's comments, and I'll have to look at your own as well. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referred to this page by another admin. I was not aware there was a length requirement. I was trying to give as much information as possible to assist you in this matter. There are similar complaints filed and addressed on this board in this manner.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no: they are filed more concisely and with correctly formatted diffs, so we don't have to dig through stuff to find what your complaint is based on. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, this is not OK. First of all, that particular heading takes two "==" signs. Second, your counterpart had removed it--you have no valid excuse for reinserting it; a user can do that on their own user page. Third, I am a bit surprised by the tone you adopted in that message: it is really not acceptable. You are speaking in a very patronizing manner, and I'm not surprised that your opponents gets a little pissy with you. Now, I forgot which one of you was the Clemson fan and which one was the South Carolina fan, and I guess it doesn't matter; let it just be known that I roll with the Tide and I'm feeling pretty good about it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried every method I could to interact with GarnetAndBlack, and I was reaching out here in an attempt to point out certain policies with hopes he would adhere to them. I made no threats, and I'm not sure how you can assume the inflection of my tone from my writing. I also did not know not to reinsert the text; once he informed me of this, I ceased the practice. I'm also sorry about the heading, but is that really an important matter in the grand scheme of this issue?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, all you need to know about the user who filed this absurd report can be found on his own Talk page in the following comment made after he was blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation, "You and the admins may have the opinion that you taught me a lesson, but I learn my own lessons. This block didn't teach me anything." Speaks volumes, I think. Congrats to Bama for a great game last night and yet another championship for the SEC. Hope to see y'all in Atlanta next December. Go Cocks and Roll Tide. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I take responsibility for my errors a year ago and have taken steps to be proactive and edit in good faith. GarnetAndBlack has not changed any of his behavior. And since he's dredging up history from over a year ago, I'd like to cite for the record that he called my wife a "sheep". Is there a policy on this, Drmies?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that was fun. What I should do is warn you both for edit-warring and block the next one who starts fighting over little bitty things like who hit a piece of rock with a hammer, or whether a coach expressed disappointment or not. It's almost too stupid for words--almost, but not quite, because in those two cases it seems to me that Garnet is correct. (And I'm trying not to be an editor here as well, but Garnet is, i think, correct in this one as well. It is clear that you two can't get along, but unless one of you backs off or gets blocked you'll just have to. On the talk page. If needs be with RfCs on these individual questions. You know what's so silly about this? You two are fighting like two Auburn fans over a dirty sock possibly left by Cam Newton in a dorm room, and you're missing totally obvious stuff like a stupid Facebook link in the first sentence and a bunch of bare URLs in the article. Figure it out on the talk page--if you can't, perhaps both of you will have to be made to stop working on this article. Oh, one more thing: if people talk football smack, they will be smacked back. It's a law of nature. I see nothing too objectionable in the various remarks, and will hope that someone else can bear to look over this thread and close it. Beware, Les, of the WP:BOOMERANG.

  Garnet, thanks for your kind words and invitation; it's not likely to get that far, though we'd love to show Spurrier one more time who the real SEC powerhouse is, hehe. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understood the point of my complaint. I'm not debating content of articles. I'm documenting a repeated pattern of hostility, incivility, biased editing fueled by hatred, and violation of Misplaced Pages policies. You've summarily dismissed all of these and focused on matters I'm not addressing. And as I mentioned above, I agreed with GarnetAndBlack on the coaches dispute.

Again, I've stated that I've tried to discuss these matters on the various talk pages and I'm either ignored or threatened (or he just deletes it). The only time he has conceded (and finally admitted that he was pushing irrelevant and damaging information) was when a third party came in to point it out to him. Do you believe GarnetAndBlack is editing Clemson-related pages in WG:AGF? Or maybe a better question would be how would you react if an Auburn fan were acting the same way in regards to Alabama pages?

Finally, is there a chance an admin who is unaffiliated with an SEC team or college football at all can also consider this issue? No offense meant, Drmies, but I have found the SEC fans tend to stick together a bit in conflicts. You'll have to excuse my doubt that you "forgot which one of us was a Clemson fan and which was a South Carolina fan" when the complaint not only clearly lays this out, but his name is "GarnetAndBlack".--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

a. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't have the foggiest what "Garnet and Black" means. I suppose these are the South Carolina colors? The world is much bigger than your state, Les. I don't accept some nonsense about SEC fans sticking together: that's bullshit, and you should take that back. FYI, the very chair I'm sitting on was owned by a dear colleague, a Clemson grad who now works at --GASP!-- the U of Alabama. You may think that all the world's a football fan too drunk and too ignorant to lay aside their zeal, but you're wrong. Here, I am a Misplaced Pages editor, but I see no reason to defend myself from a ridiculous charge--yes, I have stopped beating my wife. I couldn't care less if an Auburn fan edited some Alabama page, as long as they're not being disruptive--and as I pointed out above, in the two specific edits I looked at your opponent seemed to have the sources on their side. Now, in regard to the repeated pattern you want to point at, I did not find much evidence for something actionable (but I'm about to read what another editor added below), and that's in part because the pot is calling the kettle black, and in part because of the less than suitable presentation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for LesPhilky and GarnetAndBlack from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry

This is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of childish bickering from the both of you is way out of the realm of productive editing. There is plenty more. This isn't new though, here is more of the same from months ago: . Blocks would accomplish nothing here. This is not to mention the several edit wars that you have both been involved in. It is obvious that you cannot conduct yourself within what is expected of Misplaced Pages editors when editing about this topic. Therefore, I propose that both editors be topic banned from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. At that point we can reevaluate this measure. If there is not support for this, then (barring consensus to the contrary) I intend to block both users for a period of 1 week, to be followed by an indefinite block if that proves ineffective. Prodego 07:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is what you deem the best course of action after reviewing my post, then I will accept it like an adult and not dispute it.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, months long content disputes. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think just indefing them would be most productive but, sure, maybe a topic ban could solve this --Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Throw in a full-bore interaction ban, clarify if "broadly construed" also means articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and I'll be quite happy to stop this puerile pissing contest like this. Shame on both editors for this display - so much for higher education (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of both editors from articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and an interaction ban per Bwilkins. Though GarnetAndBlack has the more impressive record at the admin boards, LesPhilky has been several times at the 3RR board, though each person was sometimes there as the filer of the report and not the person reported. Though GarnetAndBlack has caused more trouble overall, it will be simpler to have the topic ban apply to both parties. In terms of block log, each party has been blocked 24 hours on this issue in the past. Per Prodego, if the topic ban is not approved then escalating blocks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in the matter, and I will refrain from butting heads with GarnetAndBlack in the future. I honestly don't enjoy these battles.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support an interaction ban and a topic ban. Prodego et al, thank you for digging deeper than I had energy for last night. I can't judge right now which of the two is worse (though of course I'll ALWAYS side with the guy from the SEC!), but it's clear that the combination of the two makes for an unhappy cocktail, kind of like a Boilermaker, which is an abomination (every Bama fan knows you do shot of bourbon at the beginning of every quarter, and adulterating whiskey with beer is just blasphemy). Let's see if these editors can find other interests on Misplaced Pages. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you down your whole flask after the first quarter, like I did when we played you in 2008. Congrats on your title.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooooh, that first remark is an unwarranted personal attack and I'll block the hell out of you for it. Thanks for the second one--in all honesty, my contribution was limited to yelling, but it sure felt good. Les, nothing against you or your opponent, or y'all's schools, but clearly this isn't productive. I hope at some point you two will meet and eat some gigantic baconcheeseburgers and drink a few beers and talk about the good old days. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm sorry it went this far. And I hope Clemson keeps y'all off our schedule for a while. My wife still nags me about my debauchery after the butt-stomping y'all put on us.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion GarnetAndBlack is "worse", but both editors are quite too far. We can throw in an interaction ban if we want, I'm do not want to do that without seeing if the topic ban resolves the interaction issue. Most of the interaction has been fighting over these articles or personal attacks which can be dealt with in the usual way. That isn't the usual case for an interaction ban. I'd rather prefer a ban on discussing football, but again that's something I'd rather leave to the future.

"Articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed" includes but is not limited to articles relating to the rivalry, both schools and their sports teams, games, coaches, and players.

Drmies, I'd rather you not block anyone. Also if you could stop the SEC comments, I suspect they are a joke but it doesn't translate too well to text. Prodego 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he was joking, and I took it as such. No harm. And I will avoid disputes with GarnetAndBlack in the future even if you decide against the interaction ban.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Pretty obvious call. Leave each other alone. I'm tempted to suggest that as an alternative the pair be required to collaborate writing an article about something completely different so that they'd learn to interact a little in a collaborative rather than a combative manner, but that's probably asking a bit much... You two might think about trying that though... Carrite (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got a list of public high schools from the Mississippi Delta on my user page that don't have a single word written about them. Picking one at random, just in case you need a starter idea, here's a red link for O'Bannon High School from Washington County, Mississippi, located in the county seat of Greenville, Mississippi. I'm sure there's a football aspect to that somewhere... You might want to simultaneously work on the other high school in that town, which would be Greenville-Weston High School, also a red link... Carrite (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It could work! Those high schools live and die for football. Add in the private former seg academies and the arguments and lawsuits over which teams will play one another because of who does or doesn't allow black kids on their teams and which schools get to use the public football fields and there's an endless amount of editing to be done. No one editing regularly in the area has done enough with football, and it's clearly important.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hehe I like that. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I could make a request: I understand the admins' position and thoughts on imposing a 6-month ban on GarnetAndBlack and me for the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, and I accept it. I would like to say that GarnetAndBlack is passionate about Gamecock sports and does a good job of maintaining the everyday edits that the pages relating to his team require. I am passionate about Clemson athletics and would like to also ensure that those pages (such as Clemson Tigers football, Memorial Stadium, Clemson, Dabo Swinney, etc.) stay up to date. Could it be possible that, along with your proposed ban from the rivalry page, we are relegated to our respected teams' pages for the same duration along with an interaction ban so as to avoid any possibility of us butting heads again? Thank you for your consideration.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, you're getting more reasonable by the moment. The proposed topic ban would allow that, as long as you both keep in mind the spirit of the topic ban, which lies in the "related to" part. Honestly, the best thing that could happen (outside of baconcheeseburgers and beer) is that you butt heads and talk it out, but that would fall within both parts of the ban, of course, the topic part and the interaction part. An example is to be found in who chipped that piece of rock: if you two could ever agree on what it is that the sources say and how that is to be worded in an article, then we've won the war. For now (that is, until we hear from Garnet) I think that the proposed ban is a good idea, but if Garnet responds here, and you do too, and both of you agree to a. not bicker b. not edit-war (or even revert--a "don't revert each others' edits" rule is a possibility as well) and c. use the talk page to discuss topics and edits, then we've settled matters. So Garnet--what do you say? And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)? Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Really, any of the above suits me just fine. What I find almost comically absurd about this entire affair is that someone who just a little over a year ago attempted to belittle and insult me by remarking, "This isn't my life like it clearly is yours...Honestly, I would shoot myself in the face if I found myself spending two hours on Misplaced Pages over the weekend", has spent so many hours of his own life since Wikilawyering, forum-shopping and posting mind-numbingly long-winded reports on various noticeboards complaining about the editing of one "angry little man". I will say that any topic ban that forbids me from contributing to articles dealing with the University of South Carolina or its athletic programs will basically result in my quitting this project altogether (especially with college baseball season starting next month), and I guess Les wins in that scenario, since that seems to have been his goal from Day One. The project will be the worse for losing a dedicated editor, but my life will not be, I can assure you of that. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)." Well, to answer your question, Drmies, his response isn't exactly encouraging. I'm not trying to win anything, and frankly anyone who takes a "victory" out of this situation clearly has some issues. As my original complaint stated, I admit my actions a year ago as a new user were less than adequate. But my original complaint was over recent activity. Again, I'm not sure I have faith in cooperative collaboration at this point as GarnetAndBlack's response still seems filled with animosity towards me, and a "if I don't get my way I'll just quit!" type of response. I don't want to quit maintaining Clemson sites, but can see how a fresh 6 months away from the idea would probably be good for the mind and soul.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with his rock edit. Honestly, another user had written the text before and I just added a source (I think I may have also copied and pasted from one article to another... can't remember). That wasn't one of the ones where we disagreed. Bacon cheeseburgers and beer sound great, only as long as I get to cook, because my burgers could likely solve most world crises today. But seriously, my main concern is that we agree to do this and things deteriorate back to square one as soon as admins aren't watching. I'm concerned GarnetAndBlack sees absolutely no fault in his actions and will continue the hostility whenever I try to make good faith edits. I dunno, maybe banning both of us for a duration is the best way to calm it down. That's why they pay y'all the big bucks to make these decisions, right?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for another addendum: I also like the "don't revert each others' edits" rule until we discuss. In fact, another Gamecock fan, SCrooster, and I have an agreement that we will not revert or change each other's edits, or, if necessary, even make any additions, until we can talk things over. Thus far, this has worked well.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm willing to consider alternate proposals both parties agree to. One that is not an option, however, is allowing party A to only edit about team A, and party B to only edit about team B. This has too many COI issues to be a reasonable solution. Prodego 00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyway.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

1. User:LesPhilky and User:GarnetAndBlack are hereby subject to a formal interaction ban, and all restrictions noted in that policy for a period of 6 months;
2. Both are topic-banned from the article or talkpage of Carolina-Clemson rivalry for a period of 6 months;
3. Both are prohibited from editing any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months, although changes may be proposed on the associated talkpage in order to obtain consensus;
4. Both are subject to civility restrictions during all discussions, including being prohibited from making derogatory comments directly or indirectly about universities, their sports teams, and the athletes involved indefinitely

Violations of any of these restrictions will be met with a block for 1 week for a first violation, with escalation for additional violations of any of the restrictions.

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly broad I can support points #1, 2 and 4, but I don't believe either Les or myself has ever had a dispute arise due to updating Carolina or Clemson articles with game results, current events and the like. Prohibiting us from maintaining these articles with this type of uncontroversial material (can't argue about the score of a game, ranking in a poll, etc.) seems highly punitive, so I do not support point #3. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in full agreement with points 1, 2, and 4, but have to agree with GarnetAndBlack above that barring them from any edits on the topics that each of them most frequently edit seems especially harsh. Both of these editors have proven able to provide value to their topics, and GarnetAndBlack in particular has done great work creating and updating the last few South Carolina baseball season pages as they progress. The issue seems to be when they a) interact and b) add things that might be controversial or viewed in a different light from the other side of the rivalry. I'd propose that they both be permitted to make routine edits to articles - adding game results and other sorts of events of an ongoing and routine nature, so that they will both continue to be engaged with Misplaced Pages. If either or both were to stretch the limits of this either in their edits or in edit summaries, I'd be in favor of reopening this to give the offending editor a full topic ban. I just think the block as constructed above will simply result in both of them never coming back, which would be a net loss to Misplaced Pages. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Provisional Support - 1, 2, and 4 are clear preventative measures. And while 3 is very broad, it is also preventative. GarnetAndBlack and LesPhilky this may be hard to take, but how you have been handling yourselves makes some version of #3 needed. The last thing that is needed is for this to come back here in a few weeks time because the disruption has moved to the articles on the schools, athletes, teams, etc. Normally a topic ban would cover everything related to the topic. The latitude BWilkins took with #1 limits that but leave everything else open.
  That all said, I'd rather see #3 softened a little to give both a chance to show they can work in the area. A proscription from editing the games and sections of articles that reference/deal with the rivalry makes sense. But starting off with them having to come hat in hand to make good faith, constructive edits to the remainder doesn't. With that, the interaction ban should prevent most of the problems and possibly a 1RR limit to encourage discusion on thing other editors take exception to.
  - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - It's nice to see the parties agreeing on 1, 2, and 4. That strikes me as a reasonable remedy. Carrite (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the apparent support for (and parties agreement to) 1, 2, and 4. I suggest turning 3 into an expanded WP:0RR for the described articles. Revised #3 would read: "Both are prohibited from performing reverts on any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months. Undoing other editors, whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert." --Tgeairn (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposed remedies #1, #2, and #4, very strong oppose proposed remedy #3, following the reasoning of Billcasey905, J Greb and Carrite. Both parties to the dispute have apparently already either explicitly or implicitly agreed to that solution.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 4 for reasons given by other editors. I wish this could have been forestalled, but it seems Garnet is not interested in the hand extended by LesPhilky, and unfortunately an agreement is a two-way street. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what the hell does this mean? I've seen no sign of a proposal by an admin that suggested a way this could be handled without measures like those listed above, and Les hasn't exactly shown signs of assuming good faith in his responses here, so I certainly haven't seen a "hand extended" my way. If you have an idea (other than cheeseburgers and beers), where is it? Topic and interaction bans have been the only things mentioned from the outset of this tedious exercise. If you have an alternative, by all means, share it with the class. I'd be open to hearing it, and I'm sure Les would as well. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are gladly pardoned. There is a suggestion above, in the paragraph starting "LesPhilky, you're getting more reasonable by the moment." Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Which I replied to with, "Really, any of the above suits me just fine." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Although 3 is broad, it is a preventative measure for obvious reasons if you think about it. I'm a little confused by the wording though. If either propose changes to the talk page of an article bounded by 3, does that preclude the other from discussing these changes because of 1? Blackmane (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieving account

Hi, I had an active account under my passport name "Marijhaa" and one day my password was not working, and I can no longer sign in. However I hadn't changed the password, and apparently I hadn't registered an email for the account. How can I get the account back please? I don't mind verifying anything should this be a requirement or a way to retrieve an account. Any help would be most welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMarijhaa (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're out of luck, see forgot password. NE Ent 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that there is nothing confidential that anyone here knows which you could use to verify your account. The only things we could confirm about you and your account are already public knowledge, which means that anyone else could verify them too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ?

What is the appropriate level of protection for an article in the WP:ARBPIA topic area with the following characteristics ?

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War

Data covers 2012-04-08 - 2013-01-10 (the last 508 edits).

• 33.3% edits by sockpuppets of indefinitely topic banned editors
• 7.7% edits reverting sockpuppets
• 1.4% article protection related edits
• 39.4% edits by non-sock accounts with >500 edits (38%=currently active editors + 1.4%=editors who went on to be topic banned)
• 13.2% edits by presumed non-sock accounts/IPs with <500 edits (some of these edits were vandalism but like most articles the level of vandalism is relatively low)
• 5.1% bot edits

Summary

• 42% of edits are sockpuppetry related. Indefinite semi-protection would not have prevented them.
• The probability of a new account/IP (<500 edits) being a sock is 71.5%. Perhaps this calls into question the wisdom of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions statement "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute."

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What administrative action that you want?I think if you want to do something about sockpuppetry you should make a request atWP:AE or maybe even an ARBCOM request.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like administrators to answer the question asked so that the appropriate level of protection can be requested and applied to the article based on the information I have supplied. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand where 71.5% came from or the significance of the 500 number. NE Ent 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• 71.5% = number of sock edits / (number of sock edits + number of edits by non-sock users with edit count < 500)
• 500 is an arbitrary edit count to try to distinguish between new may-or-may-not-be-sock accounts and not-new non-sock accounts. I picked that number because it is the number has been used in discussions in the ARBPIA topic area as a potential edit count requirement to be able to edit in the topic area (together with account age requirement). Sockpuppetry is extensive in ARBPIA so there have been several discussions about ways to reduce it. Setting entry requirements for the topic area is one of them but that is a different discussion. My question here is just about protection for one article e.g. does it need full protection ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Applied pending changes level 2 protection. All edits by non-reviewers will require approval before going live. Therefore, even sockpuppets who have taken the time to become autoconfirmed cannot vandalize the article. In the future, WP:RFPP would probably be a better venue for this discussion than here. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 19:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, that sounds like the most sensible option, however it has been requested that PCPP level 2 not be used at this time, per community consensus, or lack thereof. It's not my intent to throw a wrench into things, and I leave things to your administrative discretion, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. Rutebega (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, you're right. I wasn't aware of that RfC until now. While PC2 protection is clearly the best solution for this case, I suppose that the RfC voters didn't consider cases of persistent sockpuppetry. If we're not allowed to use PC2, then I guess the next best tool we have is full protection. I've fully protected the article for a month, hopefully that will be long enough for the sockpuppets to lose interest and move on. After the full protection expires, the article should probably be semi-protected again. And someone should re-run an RfC on PC2 protection. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 19:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, you're right. I'll start drafting an RfC that anyone is free to help with in my sandbox. Vacation 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it actually, PC level 2 might not be that useful here. Pending changes is supposed to be used to prevent vandalism or BLP violations, as reviewing editors would most likely not have any idea about the sockpuppetry case. Striking my previous edit. Vacation 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that is one of the problems, how do you check to make sure an editor isn't a sock? At best you made be able to look at some socks active in the past there and try to detect similarities. I think that was why PC1 was rejected for fighting socks as well. Monty₈₄₅ 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing in using PC against socks (which I've seen done several times, with significant success) is referencing it in the protection log summary, which is available to anyone who clicks on the "show pending changes log" link on the reviewing screen. Of the times I've rejected changes as sockpuppetry, it's been because I was familiar with the case already, though, so I'd encourage admins to explicitly describe the editing behavior when PC-protecting for socking, if it's anything distinctive (for instance, the sockmaster who kept on adding content to lesbianism-related articles about how men can be just as good in bed as lesbians - an unfamiliar reviewer could easily accept an edit by him, as they often don't themselves meet any of the basic rejection criteria). — Francophonie&Androphilie 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there more than one sockmaster? Has blocking account creation been attempted? If there's only a few sockmasters, just giving them a hard block seems like a better option than full page protection. Just a thought. Rutebega (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of any RFC, we can apply PC2 for now until we decide what else to do, to prevent further damage while we all talk about this. I can personally guarantee that any edit from an autoconfirmed user on that page will be accepted within 10 minutes (we monitor a legobot in IRC). I'd say IAR and just go PC2 for now until we determine the best course of action. gwickwire_edits 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Hell, Bwilkins half-accidentally had two pages level-2 protected for like a week before anyone noticed (and even then, the only complaints were that it wasn't necessary, not that it was some vast administrative overreach). I think the fact that no one's seen fit to raise a ruckus here about the great injustice of PC2 is evidence enough that there's a sufficiently unequivocal need. Furthermore, the great thing about level-2 is that it can be combined with semi-protection. The thing I really like about pending-changes protection (and I think anyone else who's worked on 2012 Delhi gang rape case can agree with this) is that, as a bare minimum, it calls attention to edits on sensitive topics. If there's this much systemic abuse on this article, then what could be better than a system where uninvolved, trusted contributors will be called upon to keep an eye on what's going on? — Francophonie&Androphilie 22:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you forced me to move them back to PC1, even after the discussion...and the discussion I read was that people did consider it the right thing to have done, but ya forced me to remove it anyway (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was me, sorry. All I remember doing was requesting removal of some PC2 that was in place since back in September or so (before consensus existed on how to implement PC) on certain pages. Regardless, I think PC2 is a much better option here than is PC1, semi, or full protection. gwickwire_edits 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(He's talking to me, I believe, Gwickwire.) As I recall, we left off with me saying that I really couldn't find any point where the discussion had been resolved; you downgraded the protection without responding. If I really have been so stupid as to overlook an endorsement of the merits of your PC2 application, would you be so kind as to link to it? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:IAR and the comments above, I have PC2-protected the article. I think from now on, in cases where PC2 would be useful, we should hold a discussion about it, and allow it if consensus agrees. After all, there is no consensus that PC2 should be prohibited; it's merely that it failed to gain consensus for implementation. Thus, the community can call for its implementation in certain cases where applicable, or in other words, local consensus cannot override global consensus (in most cases) but it can override a global lack thereof. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, if I may add some bureaucracy to a wonderful application of WP:NOTBURO, would it perhaps be better to hold any future ad hoc discussions at AN proper? It seems to me that there are many well-respected, clueful users who steer clear of ANI but like to chip in on useful threads at AN. Thought I doubt anyone could argue against as well-reasoned an explanation as KoH has given. — Francophonie&Androphilie 14:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, no. I support PC2 being implemented, but this is a ridiculous way to go about it. Here I thought KoH made a mistake in applying PC2 protection and acted accordingly, but now I see that this wasn't a mistake at all. You guys aren't making it easy for people like me who come upon this situation completely unaware of this nonsense going on at some other location without any notice given at the relevant article. Please KoH, remove the PC2 protection.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reporting user Hari Krishna Valiveti

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

I have seen that a user, Hari Krishna Valiveti is trying to push and promote a particular website (apherald.com) that he is affiliated with on Wiki. I tried explaining him not to do so on the edit summary as well as on his talk page. I have seen that another user also warned him concerning his edits at Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu article. I asked him if he was anyway connected to that website and i haven't got any response. But, one of the apherald.com links (here) he posted has his name as the author. I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but i request to please look into this. Thanks, krZna (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. Comparing the user's contributions with the timestamps of those warnings that actually mention spamming and promotion, I see that the user won't have gotten the orange banner telling them they have spam warnings until they posted this edit, their last so far. In other words, they haven't actively ignored the spam warnings. Now they will have seen them (assuming they know what to do about the orange banner), and hopefully won't spam any more. I'll keep an eye on the user for a day or two. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

It is clear that the account's only purpose is to advertise that website. As krZna pointed out, the names of the spamming editor and apherald's reporter are the same. The account should be permanently blocked as this has been going on for three months in dozens of articles. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he made his last edit after the warnings were posted. The warnings were posted at 16:31, 10 January 2013‎ and his last edit that i reverted was on 20:59, 10 January 2013. My issue is that if he an editor at that website and he is using wiki to promote the website, isn't that considered a violation? Thanks, krZna (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is using his account solely to advertise his website is a huge violation. His obvious conflict of interest is a separate issue. If he did it once or twice, got warned, and then stopped, it would be fine. But it's been happening for months. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(Wow, edit conflict, apparently: look at those timestamps!)I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes, it's a violation, but new editors don't necessarily know that unless they're told, and unless they see that they've been told. You're right that he made the edit you mention after the warnings were posted, but it was only after he'd made that edit that he got the orange banner coming up, telling him that he had talkpage messages. Do you see my point? We won't block somebody until they've knowingly ignored the spam warnings. It takes another edit, after the orange banner, to knowingly ignore the warnings. That's why I said I'd be keeping an eye out for his next edit.

And indeed, I see he has made another edit now, continuing to spam, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I do understand your point that the user seems to be here only for spam, but we still start with a short block. If he comes back to spam again after this block, the next block will come quickly and be longer. Thanks again for your help. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I understand and appreciate your patience Bishonen, but this a clear-cut case of a single-purpose account being used by the editor to advertise their website. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether he saw the warnings or not since there is a months-long history of doing nothing but spamming. And now, as you just mentioned, he has spammed yet again! You must be Misplaced Pages's all-time most lenient administrator. :p Block that account forever. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In thinking about this matter further, perhaps it is better not to block him forever because he'll just create a new, anonymous account and continue his spamming. I suppose it's more beneficial to let him keep the account so his edits can be monitored. But I still feel his actions definitely warrant a block longer than 24 hours. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Well, there are one or two other admins as namby-pamby as me, I think. Please don't worry, if this doesn't stop, he soon will be blocked for ever. I've watchlisted his page, but in case I forget to check his contribs after the block, I'd appreciate it if either of you two would tip me off about any recurring spam on my talkpage. Just a quick note, and then you may find that I'm an admin made of iron. :-) And if spam for apherald.com should turn up from another account, as you suggest, then the website itself will simply be added to the spam blacklist. Bishonen | talk 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

OK, you somehow managed to turn me around. I've decided that you're a great admin and I fully agree with your handling of this matter. However, I do not concur with your self-description of being "namby-pamby". I just think you're a very nice guy person who has no interest in wielding his her power unnecessarily. That's very admirable and appreciated. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Blush, tee hee. (I'm a nice gal, actually.) Bishonen | talk 02:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Oops, sorry about that. Haha. Well, you're a very nice gal! ;) --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kinda your fault, Bish, for choosing a username that's almost exactly "beautiful boy".  :-) — Coren  05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not even kinda — it's totally my fault. I don't usually correct people about it either. But I had to giggle and blush at the compliments, and, well, it just didn't feel right to come across as a giggly pretty boy. (All good luck to 'em that do feel like it, some of my best friends etc, but it's not how I see myself.) Bishonen | talk 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

User:Hinata

RevDel requested

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

Could we please have a RevDel for this? As the editor is already blocked and I am requesting no further action against him, so I assume notification isn't necessary. (If I'm wrong about that, thanks for doing it for me; I'm cooking and need to get off the damn computer. Sorry if this isn't the most precise venue. The pot is boiling, then I'll be busy for hours.) Rivertorch (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean really, is there a reason to? The edit has been removed, so what's the point? Especially given the tone of that particular comment. Prodego 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is support for a portion of our community. Endorse revdel. NE Ent 02:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, everybody, Hinata's gender is set as female. I have no opinion as to whether this is or isn't true. — Francophonie&Androphilie 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rev delete seems unwise. Why would we not keep that comment for evidence of bias, if such bias shows itself in the future from this editor? (Assuming that indef does not mean forever). Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That did occur to me, but I'll tell you what: there should be no future for this editor at Misplaced Pages. The continued presence of anyone who is so hateful as to "support the death penalty for gays" is incompatible with a project purporting to be collaborative in nature. It is not ununsual for racist, sexist, and antisemitic viciousness to be RevDeled, and once again I'm taken aback that a different standard is evident for homophobic viciousness. Worse, I see from the user's talk page that an unblock is apparently under serious consideration by at least one administrator. Reality check, people: we have a diverse body of editors, and the ones who manage to get through each editing session without advocating death for minority groups are the ones who deserve our continued support and respect. If the community won't act decisively on something this far beyond the pale, maybe the Foundation needs to step in. I hope to God I'm wrong. (My apologies to the editor in question for getting the pronoun wrong; I had never heard of her before today, and I didn't scrutinize her user page or contributions before posting here.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Whether Hinata was simply saying one of the worst things she (or he) could think of to say to get a rise out of us, or whether they actually believe what they're saying is totally irrelevant. Either way, this is not someone we need or want on this project, and in this case, "indef" should mean "forever". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I commented on my talk page about the topic. My thought when seeing the comments is similar to what Alanscottwalker stated above. But Rivertorch has made an excellent point on this issue, and so has Beyond My Ken. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On Hinata's user page there is a link to a personal youtube blog. In the blog Hinata says she is from Germany, she hints that she is a school student, and she says that she approves of Rebecca Kadaga's call for Uganda to pass the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill which offers the death sentence or life imprisonment for homosexual sex acts. Hinata posted this opinion roughly "1 month ago", so it is not a newly invented position with which to annoy Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, good riddance. Seraphimblade 07:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and forever. However, have we made it permanent (someone above suggests she is young)? Won't we lose the history of this if we just rev delete? And there is, of course, the issue of "improper" ways to return with the issues of linking that history in the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Support revdel. It falls clearly under the banner of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Revdel'd content is available to admins, so it can still be used as evidence in any potential future SPI. (And I strongly endorse the indef block.) Yunshui 雲‍水 12:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Well, it was hardly likely I'd clamour for the return of someone who wants me and everyone like me murdered. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Revdeled. This is clearly RD2 material; not really sure why we needed to make a federal issue of it, but whatever, no big deal. Maybe if it was on their userpage (ahuge maybe), but putting that on the LGBT wikiproject talk page is just not cool. No reason to oversight, so it can still be seen by admins; if we need it as a reference, we know where to find it. If people could please make sure i got it all, that'd be nice. For reference, Hinata's post right before (the one using the word "condemn") was unsavory to me, but not bad enough for revdel imo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't think Prodego's comments could be called "seriously considering an unblock". I'll concede that a user saying the same sort of thing about some other groups would find themselves with an immediate indefblock for trolling, and probably talk page access revocation after the first unblock request, but, hey, it is what it is, and I think we're sometimes way too quick to jump to a conclusion of trolling, regardless. @Binksternet: One can troll more than one site - though I hope you'll agree with me that if this isn't trolling, that's actually probably worse. @WK: Would you mind making some sort of dummy revdel so the page's deletion logs can link to this conversation? Just so we can balance the need for removal of hate speech with the feeling that this should be kept on the record as evidence for the future. Oh, and, @all: I think it's very important to remember that not only did Hinata say all this, she also insists there's nothing controversial about it; this is why I said, above, that she must either be trolling or seriously disturbed, and that is still my feeling now. — Francophonie&Androphilie 14:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I realize this is closed, but I feel I should still respond to this. I would not have considered myself 'handling' the unblock request, so if someone else were to respond to it (which happened in this case) I wouldn't feel slighted. But I'm never going to comment on a unblock request without seriously considering making an unblock if the user has a good justification. Doing so would be quite biased and unfair. Prodego 21:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reporting user Subman758 for Personal Attack

I am reporting that User:Subman758 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), on my own talk page this evening, made a Nazi-reference to myself regarding my reading of another user's talk page about a previous edit I had made. As my talk history on Subman758's talk page, regarding this, shows that I was polite and civil. The Nazi-reference in particular was him citing myself as a "Gestapo wannabe." Usage of that terminology appears to follow under the guides of a personal attack— as described on the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks page, (Under "What is considered to be a personal attack?," fourth bullet item "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons"). With the exception of the required ANI-notice, I have since ceased any further contact, response or communications with this user. Anaheimer (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems Anaheimer left a cordial warning about general civility on Subman758's talk page after a message the latter posted on Vercillo's talk page vaguely referring to "idiots" editing Brea Police Department; Subman758 apparently reacted strongly to what he perceived as an intrusion in a private conversation. Perhaps, first of all, it should be explained to the user that all pages (including User Talk pages) are public and viewable by anyone... Salvidrim! ✉ 05:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes the term VAGUELY is correct! No specific person was called an Idiot! However Anaheimer feels he should be responding to a message that was not sent to him, intended for him, or related to him. He tries to say I called him an idiot, in that I referred to Idiots because "HE" made an Edit! Which is not the case. I don't know him, I have never dealt with prior to this so why would I want to call "him" an idiot! When I go to someone's talk page, I don't go there to read their mail. I leave a message, and leave. Anaheimer feels it is HIS DUTY to read someones mail and respond to it, whether the recipient wants him to or not. It is not up to him to correct someone for a message sent to someone else. If the person receiving the message is offended then he should tell me. Anaheimer seems to like to nitpick on people, I guess that is how he blows off steam, me on the other hand I am a Cynical Bastard. At least I can admit it though. If talk pages are Public, (which I did not know!) then I might suggest there be a way to contact a user in private. I feel there needs to some measure privacy here to prevent users like Anaheimer, who trolls users pages looking for a way to cause a problem. I would there is some way for Misplaced Pages to do this. It is not like they don't have the money, because I know they do, after all they have 10,000 of my hard earned dollars over the last four years.--Subman758 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Subman, if you want to contact another editor privately, you can use the "Email this user" function. Not all users have this enabled, and not all editors are receptive to being contacted by email in all cases. On-wiki discussions, however, are open to any editor's participation. I often find that conversations on my talk page benefit from the participation of other editors who can offer insight or information that I may have overlooked. Seraphimblade 06:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can e-mail any user that has a confirmed e-mail address. However this is a collaborative environment, thus private communications generally aren't common. Please make sure you understand that Anaheimer's concerns are valid and it helps create a better atmosphere to follow basic civility guidelines. There is also no justification whatsoever for referring to another editor as a "Gestapo wannabe"; I believe we can all agree that whatever happened before, that particular edit falls well into the realm of personal attacks. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anaheimer also wrote "typing in all caps and excessive use of the exclamation marks is not very friendly, and in fact, offensive" Prehaps Anaheimer finds it offensive. However; there was no intent to be offensive. If I use CAPS, IT IS BECAUSE, I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT CAN BE SEEN!!! Those History pages can often be filled with a lot of stuff, cause important information to be easily missed. In this case I wanted the editor to go back and read his source. Misplaced Pages could be, and should a source of information. Have you ever tried telling someone this line "But that is what it says on Misplaced Pages" Room erupts in laughter right? Misplaced Pages is mocked because to many inappropriate edits are being made. In this case an edit was made, and the user assumed that it was more than it truly was. Vercillo wrote an AWESOME article, that because of these inappropriate edits is now a shadow of its former self. I find that sad.--Subman758 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and I hope you all are well. I wanted to start out by saying that I had every right to file this discussion, and I have kept things civil and polite. For what I was called on my own talk page, by Subman758, it was clearly an offending remark as stipulated in the personal attacks guidelines. That's really my only issue as being labeled with a Nazi connotation was very disheartening. Now, within regards to the Brea Police Department page— I have no concerns within regards to the present state the page is in or any subsequent edits that may be made by anyone else. Sometimes we may make little mistakes when updating content, and I today I did catch my own oversight on the Brea Police page where I was only thinking about the Yorba Linda factor, and not the continuance of Brea itself. It was a simple oversight. But to get back to this issue... I had gone through my own contrib history earlier today, and for kicks I clicked the Brea Police page, saw it had changed (which did not bother me at all), but when I saw the edit comments, and the other verbiage seen on Vercillo's talk page, that's when I had reached out to Subman758 and left the comments that I did— just like how Salvidrim stated above that I had "...left a cordial warning about general civility." As we have seen now, and with his responses above, it really had upset this user, and that was not anyone's intent, let alone mine. I do in no way, shape or form "nitpick" on anyone or anything here on Misplaced Pages, nor am I one who "...trolls users pages looking for a way to cause a problem." I am not new to Misplaced Pages; I have been a reader since the site was launched, and am coming up six years this month as having been a registered editor. I am not full time on my contributions, and the like, on Misplaced Pages, but occasionally I will dedicate time to go through various pages of interest and go from there. One of the things I like to do, which is what I did this afternoon, was view pages in my contrib history. Its interesting to see what subsequent changes and, most often, improvements that have been made. In closing, within regards to the Brea Police page, if it is strongly felt that Vercillo's original content is better preferred— a revert would be easiest solution to be made in no time flat, if desired. I'm not one who takes control of pages. This is Misplaced Pages— a great community of folks. We can agree to disagree. This is a positive place on the internet. And thanks again. — ANAHEIMER (TALK) 09:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anaheimer; You went to another users page. You read a message I left for them. You ASSUMED I was calling YOU an Idiot. So you came to page to say something about it, and while your tone was generally polite it still grates at me, because your responding to a message neither to you, or about you, and your making seem like I'm attacking you. If I wanted to call YOU an Idiot, I would have come to your page and done so there! I have seen a lot of great articles destroyed by inappropriate edits, including one very near and dear to me, one that I basically wrote start to finish. I have seen a lot editors become admins, and then let that power go to there heads. The word Gestapo is still used today, to convey similarities in tactics. They had a habit of intercepting messages. I DID NOT CALL YOU A NAZI, OR INSINUATE THAT YOU WERE ONE! Trust me if I wanted to call you a NAZI I would gone to your page, and called you one! Make no mistake polite or not. It was wrong of you to ASSUME I was calling you an idiot. And it was wrong of you to respond to a message that was neither to you, or about you in any way. The message DID NOT include this (That guy Anaheimer is a real Idiot.) If it had, I could see your point. If you felt I was attacking you by referring your actions to that of Gestapo Wannabe, I sincerely do apologize. However I feel your putting words into my mouth, in that you made it seem I was calling you Idiot is also a Personal Attack. A Personal Attack to my integrity. As I said I am a Cynical Bastard, you try driving OCTA buses around Orange County all day, and avoid becoming one.--Subman758 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where Anaheimer claimed you called him an idiot. He noticed you were calling some people idiots and advised against it... that's all. And it is probably sound advice. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As a note: if you want emphasis, please use italics; the formatting is ''like this''. All caps is considered "shouting" on the Internet, including here, not emphasis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bushranger & Salvidrim! for your recent replies. Everything I have said is already written here, and I do appreciate the understanding and objectivity as displayed by the both of you in your replies. I don't think I have anything further to add as my actions and steps in this matter have already been reviewed and verified (contrib history, etc) by others who have commented in this thread. Thank you all, and it is much appreciated! — ANAHEIMER (TALK) 01:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a read through of the talk pages and would like to throw in some small denominations of currency. To Subman758, it looks like you've misread Anaheimer's intentions. As others have noted, Anaheimer posted a polite reminder about maintaining civility. In no way was their post to your talk page implying that you were speaking about them. In fact, after re-reading it multiple times I still can't see how you could read it that way but that's by the by. As a secondary note, using bold letters '''like this''' is also considered an acceptable way of adding emphasis and depending on a person's screen may be more noticeable than italics. Serious emphasis can be done with bold italics '''''like so'''''. That's 5 apostrophes in case all those marks are confusing.Blackmane (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violator needs a block

At User talk:Seraphimblade#Violation, and further clarification needed, the closer of the topic ban against User:Apteva agrees that the ban has been violated. Can someone please give him a temporary block to remind him that we're serious? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Him or her", please, see below. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever his gender identification, he has made it clear at least that he has balls, so I'll stick with the masculine, as the feminist has also been objected to. Or sometimes I'll use the neuter. I prefer to choose from among normal English ways of referring to editors or their (neuter) accounts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I start taking bets on how many minutes will expire after said block is enacted before he's unblocked? I think I'll open with an over/under of 20 minutes. --Jayron32 06:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"He or she", they, xe, or even "it", is preferred, please. Anything gender neutral is fine, though I have never seen "it" used before. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It stops violating topic ban or it gets the block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't see it nearly clear-cut enough to block. Considering the heat that's still on, I say 10 minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd tend to see it as a violation, since that discussion on applicability of MOS to titles was essentially precipitated by the War of the Dashes. However, Apteva didn't specifically mention them, so I'd tend to see it as more a warning than blocking issue this time around. Seraphimblade 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Warning heard and heeded. I had no intention of violating the topic ban in any way. A block would serve no purpose whatsoever. The connection between the MOS and wp:title mostly affects other issues, and it was those only that I was addressing. But I had no intention of stirring anything up. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want people to look into this issue, a link to the wording of the topic ban and a diff of the proposed violation would be a whole lot more convenient than making us hunt around for it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I've hunted around and found both, and I don't see a violation. The wording of the topic ban is specific, and prevents Apteva from modifying or discussing issues relating to punctuation. The discussion in question is about whether WP:TITLE should have a link to WP:MOS in some way, and is not specifically about punctuation. Apteva's comments are also not specifically about punctuation. If you want this type of comment to be included in the topic ban, my opinion is that you need to reword the topic ban. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked Seraphimblade to do such a rewording, but he expressed the opinion that the ban was already clear enough and that this was a violation. That's why I linked to that discussion, instead of to the diff and the ban wording, which as you note did not quite connect. So now that this is taken as a "warning", will we have any better luck enforcing the ban next time he violates it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• As this was already being discussed at WP:AN#Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?), and in fact Dicklyon participated in the discussion there prior to starting this one; starting a second discussion here is inappropriate forum shopping. Monty₈₄₅ 15:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been made clear to me elsewhere that AN/I is where one asks for a block to stop an incidenet. The post-close note at AN was to keep a record of how well the badly-worded ban in working out. I didn't expect a big conversation to develop there, but maybe should have. Are you saying I should not have done both of these things at these two places? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is a subset of AN, so anything that can be done at AN/I can also be done in the discussion at AN. When there is already a discussion started in one place, and editors have registered opposition to a request, taking the request elsewhere, particularly without highlighting the previous opposition, is very problematic. This discussion actually started in a new subsection at AN, specifically about the alleged violation, then someone merged it into that section much higher on the page. Generally a mess, still I think we should move this back to AN to keep it in the one place. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

One technical point I'm wondering about: The user in question is a wiki-legal alternate account. If an alternate account gets blocked, does the main account get blocked also? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes. Apteva, any reason why you are operating under your alternative account rather than your main? GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's explained, so to speak, at User:Delphi234. Given the verbiage on that page, it's to be hoped that the user's desire for admin status will remain only a pipe dream. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to block one of two usernames, since they're being used legitimately; block both if you need to block one. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugs - yes, I've read that, I just don't understand what it means to have an alternative account "to become an admin." GiantSnowman 17:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Beats me. But it doesn't sound good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good faith there would assume that that's a misunderstanding of the fact that most admins have alternate accounts, for things like logging in on public computers to avoid potential compromising of the password of the account that has the mop. Whether or not good faith can be assumed is, of course, for others to assume, or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That line of reasoning for having an alternate account makes sense, although I'd like to see a citation for "most admins..." In the case of the user in question, that premise does not apply. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are the links. The opinion of the admin who wrote the ban:

I would say that this edit is clearly related to Apteva's activity in the area of dashes/hyphens, and that this is both a violation of the ban and that no extension of the ban is necessary for it to be covered as such. I would see this as a clear attempt at gaming the ban by not technically mentioning the previous dispute subject. However, I would encourage opening a discussion at WP:ANI for wider input.

The language of the ban is:

Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion.

The closing statement for the RFC/U states:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

Twenty-eight editors signed this statement. Pushing this theory over and over is exactly what Apteva has been doing, again, this time at WT:TITLE. and especially —Neotarf (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Men's rights movement... again.

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

The talk page of Men's rights movement has erupted in nastiness again. Due to the recurrent problems, the article was placed on community probation some time ago, the terms of which can be read here. The most problematic current section on the talk page is found here, although some other recent talk page sections are also problematic. Most if not all of the people posting in recent sections are aware of the terms of the probation, and at least one of them has already previously been sanctioned. (You can see a list of who has been formally notified about the probation on the probation page that I linked.)

I would ask for any set of uninvolved admins that feel up for it to wade through recent conversations on the page with an eye towards enforcing the terms of the probation (and general Misplaced Pages policies as well.) Given the tone of recent conversation on the page, I doubt I need to point out too many specific problems, but to excerpt one example - User:Enjois asks "why are there so many misandrist feminist users on Misplaced Pages that like to censor the truth regarding men's rights issues? These people are sexist ***** and it is a shame there is such censorship and dishonest propaganda present on Misplaced Pages" and proceeds to call Carptrash a 'sexist feminist'. I know that as Misplaced Pages nastiness goes, this definitely doesn't top it.. but the fact that this stuff erupts on the talk page every couple months is really unproductive, and makes it hard for any good faith editor to want to work on this and related articles.

I'll drop notifications of this thread to everyone who has posted on the page recently about this thread as soon as I hit submit. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have completed all necessary notifications now. If I missed any it was just an error on my part given the number of people I notified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: My input at the talk page was only supportive of the preceding comment by Kyohyi. That being the case, I've no personal association with him/her more than any other user here and it does not mean I fully or partially endorse or support his views, comments or edits. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I will admit that my editing on this talk page has not been my most mature. The fact that I have been outed as being a woman and a "sexist feminist'." are badges that I can wear with pride, considering the source. Which is someone who is looking for an excuse for the failures in his life and finds it by stapling the label VICTIM on his white, male chest. Whooops. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good for you, but let's not shift the "not most mature" language to this board as well. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hafaz Refrisa Maulana

I am concerned that User: Hafaz Refrisa Maulana is not here to improve Misplaced Pages, but is rather attempting to use his userspace as a free website in contravention to WP:WEBHOST. The user has made nearly 300 edits so far, but of those, only 3 have been to articles, while all of the rest have been to her/his userspace. These edits involve a large number of different sub-pages, all revolving around Captain Tsubasa, a long running Japanese comic book. These user pages are not article drafts; they're all WP:FANCRUFT—and attempt to document every little detail about the series. While this may be appropriate for some sort of dedicated Wikia site, it's not information that would ever be important enough to include in Misplaced Pages articles. I've asked the user several times to explain what she/he is doing, but I've not gotten any response other than one WP:BLANKING to my first request (see the user's current talk page and its history).

I'm inclined to block the user as WP:NOTHERE and trying to use us as a webhost, but this is certainly a subjective judgment, and I'd rather others give their opinion as well. Similarly, it's probably appropriate to take all of the subpages to MfD, though, again, opinions are welcome. Also, is there anyone more technically capable who knows how to get a list of all subpages the user has? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex, and search on "Hafaz Refrisa Maulana/" in User namespace. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just post a direct link for us lazy folk? NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, because that would not provide the same educational service ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh. Wow. There are 30 pages in his user space. All of the one's I've looked have no encyclopedic value. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It's just a kid using it as personal web space for stuff about their favourite comic book. I see nothing remotely of value in any of it, and would support a block and a deletion of all those pages. I think one MfD for the lot would do - but I'd be tempted to block first and then wait a short while to allow chance for a response. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mfd = bureuacracy. (WP is not). The issue is the pages, not the account, so nuke the pages except the user talk page but don't block the account. NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a valid speedy category, but I guess G6 housekeeping might stretch to it? (I'm all for avoiding bureaucracy if we can). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Send it to MfD, (as one large bundled nomination) its unreasonably harsh to just delete the pages without giving the editor a chance to defend them, or transfer the content off wiki, both of which a week at MfD would allow. Monty₈₄₅ 15:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NE Ent - delete the pages, and if he re-starts then we block. GiantSnowman 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a note that there is already a Captain Tsubasa wiki: .--Auric talk 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Monty, just package an MfD discussion, there isn't a reason they have to be speedy deleted. I don't see a reason to block at this point either. Lots of people don't understand what Misplaced Pages really is. I was just talking to a small record producer via email the other day and explained it instead of speedy deleting and blocking. Same thing, we should try to educate first and assume good faith, then only block if there is real disruption. Nothing has been broken or disrupted by his actions as of now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you all bring the hammer down on this editor, it's worth noting he's only 14. This may be a crime of misunderstanding. Perhaps one of you with good adolescent communication skills might want to try explaining the rules around here and allow him a chance to comply first? This is all sounding a touch heavy-handed given he's so young. You could salvage a good editor, after all; 30 pages takes a lot of devotion and energy that could be productively channeled. --Drmargi (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I'm not advocating a block; however Q already reached out politely and didn't get an answer, so it's time to take action. NE Ent 19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also why I actually suggested a short block first, to try to get his attention as he's not responding to attempts to communicate with him. But an MfD notification should hopefully have the same effect, though I fear his English isn't very good and he may well just not understand. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done the "obnoxious stop sign thing" on his talk page. If that doesn't get his attention, nothing will. (I have pretty good luck with that, actually, try it some time.) Hopefully, he will start a conversation and someone can help him. I would rather at least try this method first. If he ignores and keeps editing, well, then we know we really tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's big! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Go big or go home ;-) Seriously, more times than not, this really does get them to talk since it obviously isn't an automated message. Obnoxious but polite and firm. I've noticed that people don't mind the second block as bad as the first, so preventing the first block is actually helpful for us as admin, as they have a "clean block log" to protect. We humans are funny that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a species I've never understood ;-) But seriously, I'll have to try using that - thanks for the tip. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it didn't work--they're still editing the subpages, since the STOP SIGN. So, what's the consensus--MfD first? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, any MfD notification is almost certain to be ignored too - I really do suspect he doesn't understand the words on his talk page (and maybe not even what the orange banner says). So I'd say the only way left to try to communicate with him is to block. He should get the chance to save all his stuff (possibly for use in that other wiki) before it's deleted, and he's not going to do that if he just sees it all suddenly disappear in 7 days time. And a block now would save him wasting another 7 days updating his pages too, while they're being discussed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is how one gets the attention of such a person, without MFD, without deletion, without blocking, indeed without exercising any administrator tools whatsoever. There's no resulting entry in the block log, and the action can be reverted easily enough by anyone if it turns out that this is a worthwhile use of userspace. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you blanked his user pages - worth a try. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Watch out: right now he's undoing Uncle G's blankings. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I just don't see another solution than to block. I've made the first (hopefully, only) block for 48 hours; I've also indicated that those pages are likely to be deleted sooner or later, so copying them off WP is a good idea. Additionally, I want to add that I don't this editor isn't "seeing" his/hr talkpage, because in the process of reverting the subpage blankings, she/he also blanked most, but not all, of her/his talk page, specifically retaining the message from Rich Farmbrough talking about he Captain Tsubasa Wikia site. I'd appreciate if other admins could keep watching his page as well, because I'll be just about to start a wikibreak when the current block wears off. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's blanked the block notice (having previously blanked the earlier warnings). I've restored it just this once and asked him again to talk to us. But if he carries on like this, I don't see it ending well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(Pretty sure it's "he", btw - Hafaz appears to be a male name. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC) )

It was indeed worth a try. My experience of what usually happens when one blanks things is that very quickly a plaintive "Why are you blanking all of my hard work?" appears somewhere, whether that be on the talk page pointed to or the user talk page of the blanker. Either would have been the desired result in this case. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the repeated blanking, I've revoked talk page access. Does anyone feel like putting the 30 page MfD together? I can possibly get to it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

An MfD for one page should do, and add "This MfD also covers all the other subpages at ". I'm a bit busy now, but I can do it later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done mfd %%^*$*&(@#! bureaucracy, should just nuke the whole kit and kaboodle and be done with it; there's good faith and there's pointless wasting of time...NE Ent 14:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have listed the pages, and unblanked (I think) all the remaining blank ones. The reason we MfD instead of nuking is that it gives the editor time to explain why we shouldn't delete the pages, and to mitigate the damage which we are (undeniably) causing by the deletions (albeit not damage to the encyclopaedia). Also when this editor is tired of this particular franchise, and a little older, they will likley be able to contribute on their new interest, which might be another video game, but might also be monoclonal antibodies. Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Syria flag replaced with a map? Can an admin undo this?

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

An admin removed the current Syrian flag (Template:Country data Syria) and changed it to a map of Syria. However, this a BIG mistake, per discussion here and here. Can an admin undo this?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've notified User:Gryffindor about this discussion. Whichever flag should go there, I don't think putting the map there is an optimal solution. Surely we've had to identify a country without a flag at some point? Is there a placeholder used in such cases? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware the template is interlinked to such an extend. I have reverted my edit. I still believe however that the current Baathist flag will soon be gone. It would be best for the portal and the Wikiproject to be politically neutral and just use a map of the country or something like that. We had similar issues in the past when things were changing in Libya. Just my two cents on this topic, I won't pursue it any further... Gryffindor (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this discussed anywhere before you made the change? There's nothing on the template's talk page. It looks like you edited through protection without consensus. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a self-revert and opening a discussion with Gryffindor as a participant. We shouldn't predict the future either. There will be time to change the flag, when and if (and I agree, it seems likely).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote from above: "I have reverted my edit". Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reoccurring Vandalism

Redsky85 has twice revised and removed an important fact about Frank Pastore, that he was a famed radio personality. This fact is verified and reflects Franks life after baseball. I have warned Redsky85 the first time he edited my contribution.

This is my contribution on December 17, 2012: * 2012 – Frank Pastore, American baseball player and radio personality (b. 1957)

This is Redsky85 edit both times: * 2012 – Frank Pastore, American baseball player (b. 1957)

Please intervene and resolve this malicious vandalism.

Thank you,

User98432 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)user98432 (Robert Ashbaugh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User98432 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not clearly malicious. I suggest discussing the matter either at user talk pages or Talk:December 17. This is not the venue for discussing this issue. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sven Manguard

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Adam_Cuerden&diff=prev&oldid=532589135

I really don't know how to deal with this. He has no tact, but I don't think he actually means any harm whatsoever. Nonetheless, when the entire first paragraph of a message asking to work with you is a string of insults, it's rather hard to respond to. I had hoped to just avoid the issue, but he won't let it drop. Obviously, no administrator action is needed - his intentions are good, but ye gods, his actions are absolutely clueless. Anyone able to mediate a bit? Adam Cuerden 20:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best if everyone just stopped editing the discussions (1, 2). I've made it very clear that my intention wasn't to create insult, and both of us seem to be making the situation worse by trying to deescalate. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, Sven: it in fact does not look like y'all can work peaceably together. For the record, I don't see any insults at all in what Sven wrote, but then I'm not familiar with the history between you two. Time to go your separate wiki-ways, perhaps? It's a pretty big encyclopedia, they tell me; it can't be too small for the two of you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: All three conversations involved in this thread (Adam's talk page, my talk page, and Signpost talk page) have been deleted. This is now the only visible or active thread between or relating to the two of us. Adam and I are just not able to communicate. It's not anyone's fault, it just isn't working well for either of us right now. If there is ever any future need for the two of us to communicate, I will ask John Vandenberg, who has moderated between the two of us in the past, if he is willing to assist. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN unblock and topic ban discussion not being discussed

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is appropriate, someone can remove it if it isn't, but Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Modification of Alan Liefting's topic ban and it's various subsections aren't being discussed at a high enough level to develop a consensus. I thought I'd leave a section here to give it a little more visibility. Ryan Vesey 00:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bold added for more visibility. Close? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP:AN is at a high-enough level; it's where we normally discuss this kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, let's not draw any more attention to it then, for instance by adding comments to the thread and thereby making it stay on the board longer. Oops, I'm sorry. FWIW, I was the one to unblock Alan so he could participate, so I certainly won't be closing anything there: I unblocked him precisely because I don't know him or the dispute. Drmies (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hafaz Refrisa Maulana

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

I am concerned that User: Hafaz Refrisa Maulana is not here to improve Misplaced Pages, but is rather attempting to use his userspace as a free website in contravention to WP:WEBHOST. The user has made nearly 300 edits so far, but of those, only 3 have been to articles, while all of the rest have been to her/his userspace. These edits involve a large number of different sub-pages, all revolving around Captain Tsubasa, a long running Japanese comic book. These user pages are not article drafts; they're all WP:FANCRUFT—and attempt to document every little detail about the series. While this may be appropriate for some sort of dedicated Wikia site, it's not information that would ever be important enough to include in Misplaced Pages articles. I've asked the user several times to explain what she/he is doing, but I've not gotten any response other than one WP:BLANKING to my first request (see the user's current talk page and its history).

I'm inclined to block the user as WP:NOTHERE and trying to use us as a webhost, but this is certainly a subjective judgment, and I'd rather others give their opinion as well. Similarly, it's probably appropriate to take all of the subpages to MfD, though, again, opinions are welcome. Also, is there anyone more technically capable who knows how to get a list of all subpages the user has? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex, and search on "Hafaz Refrisa Maulana/" in User namespace. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just post a direct link for us lazy folk? NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, because that would not provide the same educational service ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh. Wow. There are 30 pages in his user space. All of the one's I've looked have no encyclopedic value. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It's just a kid using it as personal web space for stuff about their favourite comic book. I see nothing remotely of value in any of it, and would support a block and a deletion of all those pages. I think one MfD for the lot would do - but I'd be tempted to block first and then wait a short while to allow chance for a response. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mfd = bureuacracy. (WP is not). The issue is the pages, not the account, so nuke the pages except the user talk page but don't block the account. NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a valid speedy category, but I guess G6 housekeeping might stretch to it? (I'm all for avoiding bureaucracy if we can). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Send it to MfD, (as one large bundled nomination) its unreasonably harsh to just delete the pages without giving the editor a chance to defend them, or transfer the content off wiki, both of which a week at MfD would allow. Monty₈₄₅ 15:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NE Ent - delete the pages, and if he re-starts then we block. GiantSnowman 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a note that there is already a Captain Tsubasa wiki: .--Auric talk 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Monty, just package an MfD discussion, there isn't a reason they have to be speedy deleted. I don't see a reason to block at this point either. Lots of people don't understand what Misplaced Pages really is. I was just talking to a small record producer via email the other day and explained it instead of speedy deleting and blocking. Same thing, we should try to educate first and assume good faith, then only block if there is real disruption. Nothing has been broken or disrupted by his actions as of now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you all bring the hammer down on this editor, it's worth noting he's only 14. This may be a crime of misunderstanding. Perhaps one of you with good adolescent communication skills might want to try explaining the rules around here and allow him a chance to comply first? This is all sounding a touch heavy-handed given he's so young. You could salvage a good editor, after all; 30 pages takes a lot of devotion and energy that could be productively channeled. --Drmargi (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I'm not advocating a block; however Q already reached out politely and didn't get an answer, so it's time to take action. NE Ent 19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also why I actually suggested a short block first, to try to get his attention as he's not responding to attempts to communicate with him. But an MfD notification should hopefully have the same effect, though I fear his English isn't very good and he may well just not understand. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done the "obnoxious stop sign thing" on his talk page. If that doesn't get his attention, nothing will. (I have pretty good luck with that, actually, try it some time.) Hopefully, he will start a conversation and someone can help him. I would rather at least try this method first. If he ignores and keeps editing, well, then we know we really tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's big! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Go big or go home ;-) Seriously, more times than not, this really does get them to talk since it obviously isn't an automated message. Obnoxious but polite and firm. I've noticed that people don't mind the second block as bad as the first, so preventing the first block is actually helpful for us as admin, as they have a "clean block log" to protect. We humans are funny that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a species I've never understood ;-) But seriously, I'll have to try using that - thanks for the tip. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it didn't work--they're still editing the subpages, since the STOP SIGN. So, what's the consensus--MfD first? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, any MfD notification is almost certain to be ignored too - I really do suspect he doesn't understand the words on his talk page (and maybe not even what the orange banner says). So I'd say the only way left to try to communicate with him is to block. He should get the chance to save all his stuff (possibly for use in that other wiki) before it's deleted, and he's not going to do that if he just sees it all suddenly disappear in 7 days time. And a block now would save him wasting another 7 days updating his pages too, while they're being discussed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is how one gets the attention of such a person, without MFD, without deletion, without blocking, indeed without exercising any administrator tools whatsoever. There's no resulting entry in the block log, and the action can be reverted easily enough by anyone if it turns out that this is a worthwhile use of userspace. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you blanked his user pages - worth a try. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Watch out: right now he's undoing Uncle G's blankings. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I just don't see another solution than to block. I've made the first (hopefully, only) block for 48 hours; I've also indicated that those pages are likely to be deleted sooner or later, so copying them off WP is a good idea. Additionally, I want to add that I don't this editor isn't "seeing" his/hr talkpage, because in the process of reverting the subpage blankings, she/he also blanked most, but not all, of her/his talk page, specifically retaining the message from Rich Farmbrough talking about he Captain Tsubasa Wikia site. I'd appreciate if other admins could keep watching his page as well, because I'll be just about to start a wikibreak when the current block wears off. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's blanked the block notice (having previously blanked the earlier warnings). I've restored it just this once and asked him again to talk to us. But if he carries on like this, I don't see it ending well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(Pretty sure it's "he", btw - Hafaz appears to be a male name. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC) )

It was indeed worth a try. My experience of what usually happens when one blanks things is that very quickly a plaintive "Why are you blanking all of my hard work?" appears somewhere, whether that be on the talk page pointed to or the user talk page of the blanker. Either would have been the desired result in this case. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the repeated blanking, I've revoked talk page access. Does anyone feel like putting the 30 page MfD together? I can possibly get to it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

An MfD for one page should do, and add "This MfD also covers all the other subpages at ". I'm a bit busy now, but I can do it later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done mfd %%^*$*&(@#! bureaucracy, should just nuke the whole kit and kaboodle and be done with it; there's good faith and there's pointless wasting of time...NE Ent 14:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have listed the pages, and unblanked (I think) all the remaining blank ones. The reason we MfD instead of nuking is that it gives the editor time to explain why we shouldn't delete the pages, and to mitigate the damage which we are (undeniably) causing by the deletions (albeit not damage to the encyclopaedia). Also when this editor is tired of this particular franchise, and a little older, they will likley be able to contribute on their new interest, which might be another video game, but might also be monoclonal antibodies. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Vandalism/Personal Attack/Legal Threat

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

User:Smokeablunt420 has been vandalizing along with making a personal attack/legal threat here. Could an admin RevDel that edit and block this user? All four of this user's edits are vandalism. That particular one deserves a RevDel as well. Vacation9 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Elockid indef for vandalism, RevDel may be good here (that was hard to read..) gwickwire_edits 03:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUCK Sock?

I'm having a hard time understanding this. I think the editor may be referring to this edit and me reverting it, but I can't fully understand it. Sands32981 made some (possibly bad faith) edits, then a non-sysop placed a blocked template on their talk page. I think the user might have thought they were blocked (they weren't) and then made another account (Carson) which they then contacted me with. This might be a case of DUCK with Carson30 and Sands32981. Maybe an admin could make better since of this? Vacation9 03:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The ubiquitous Bbb23 seems to have dealt with this, but it looks like your analysis is correct. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

What do you mean by dealt with it? Neither of them are blocked or anything. I think you mean Bbb has dealt with the false block notices. Vacation9 05:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you expecting us to block them for acting like a weenie? I'm not yet 100% convinced about a sock, and the behaviour of either account is not yet significant enough to raise the hackles to lead to a block, from first impressions. The false block notices were removed, and I think they've been told how to behave in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Bwilkins, it isn't really quacking yet and it looks like Bbb23 has it under control, talking to the "blocking" editor. For what it is worth, in most circumstances, it is difficult to call a "duck" with less than 6 contribs to establish behavior. They might just know each other, or the second account might just be an IP that finally registered, or something else entirely. There are too many possibilities to draw a conclusion yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The best way to deal with something like this is simply post a polite query on the talk page of the suspected second account whether they're related to the first one. The distinction between alternate accounts and sockpuppetry is intent ; as newbie editor(s) Carson / Sands is/are likely just not to know the rules. NE Ent 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Carson30 is a other IP Address who registered. 108.251.129.54 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that 108.251.129.54. However, I believe they are the same person because Carson was created after Sands was "blocked" then Carson blanked Sands' talk page. I do see your points however about intent, as the newbie editors probably don't know the policy. Vacation9 16:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't know I was "ubiquitous"; I struggle to keep up with even a small percentage of the stuff that goes on around here. In any event, doesn't this all relate to this topic at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is related to that topic. Carson30 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User:R-41 AND User:DIREKTOR's content dispute

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

User:DIREKTOR has repeatedly become uncivil in discussions involving a template layout of the Nazism sidebar and Fascism sidebar, and repeatedy assumes bad faith on my part in spite of me attempting to cooperate with him. DIREKTOR has become uncivil because I and another user User:Frietjes have disagreed with his template proposal. I am requesting some form of acknowledgement and a warning by administrator(s) for DIREKTOR to immediately cease this behaviour, and that ignoring the warning will have consequences of either potential blocking for periods of time or a similar penalty.

DIREKTOR became frustrated that a proposal that he opened up for a vote some time ago at the Nazism sidebar's talk page was not receiving much attention after a few comments by me on it in which I disagreed to his proposal. He then massively altered the template to the design he supported, he said in his first statement on that section in months, the following highly uncivil statement in violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith: "I've had enough of your brand of stonewalling, R-41. Logos and symbols are far more appropriate in these templates than full, SVG flag representations. And to me it seems you simply want images that you yourself uploaded to be used in templates." . After I rejected this accusation and stated to DIREKTOR that it was in violation of Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, DIREKTOR said "I do apologize, but that was my honest impression." .

When User:Frietjes entered the issue who also disagreed with DIREKTOR's changes. However User:Frietjes revert was considered combative and edit warring by DIREKTOR that provoked DIREKTOR to respond to Frietjes' statement that said "I disapprove" in an uncivil manner, saying: "Of course you do. Even though you didn't revert the addition earlier . Please forgive me, but as we're currently engaged in a dispute, I myself cannot regard your position as impartial and objective." .

I repeatedly stated in the conversation that I wanted all users involved to cooperate in creating an RfC with my proposal, DIREKTOR's proposal, and open to other proposals by other users, and I followed through Misplaced Pages:Negotiation. DIREKTOR then accused me of the following: "As in previous cases, after the success of the edit war the talkpage is now being ignored by R-41. The WP:OWN here is pretty obvious, as is the user's preference for his own published .SVG images." I responded by demonstrating that I do not intent to own the sidebar contrary to DIREKROR's claims; when support for DIREKTOR's proposal became tied (as it still is) with 2 users in agreement and 2 users opposed, I compromised by allowing DIREKTOR's proposal to be used for the time being, while saying that discussion needed to continue to reach a consensus on the template. After I did that, DIREKTOR commended by decision, saying: "R-41, I am humbled by your own willingness to get somewhere on this matter, and I feel I must once again apologize, this time for my inappropriate comment above." However a short time afterwards, DIREKTOR turned back to effectively accusing me of stonewalling.

On the Nazism accordance with Misplaced Pages:Negotiation I attempted to make a compromise. I said that I disagreed with the Nazi eagle being used in the template because I thought that a simple picture of an angled swastika like that of the Nazis would suffice. I showed a proposal that retained DIREKTOR's template but used an angled swastika instead of the Nazi eagle.

DIREKTOR's most recent edit to the talk page is here: If you look at the discussion on that edit, DIREKTOR is accusing me of stonewalling again by saying the following: "I trust you will let the matter stay frozen, rather than taking the opportunity to push something or other." In that edit, DIREKTOR said in a very aggressive and uncivilmanner: "I will say again that I am categorically opposed to a bare swastika, and that I do not accept it as any sort of a supposed "compromise"." Again, I offered suggestions that included almost all of DIREKTOR's template layout, but he is accusing this of being delay tactics and aggressively rejecting the compromise I offered.

I cannot continue this unhealthy discussion on the Nazism sidebar's talkpage that is filled with assumptions of bad faith, aggression, and incivility towards me by DIREKTOR. I am leaving that discussion. However in spite of it being an aesthetic issue, considering the amount of of hostility there and lack of consensus in favour of DIREKTOR's proposal, I believe that some sort of arbitration or mediation by an administrator is needed.--R-41 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

More of the same from User:R-41 - we just had days and days and reams and reams of walls of his text attempting to get another user who holds opposing views to him edit restricted and here he is starting another exact same thread - Youreallycan 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't even had time to look over what I have added in a matter of a few minutes, and you are already casting assumptions. I repeatedly sought to compromise and negotiate with the user, you can look at Template talk:Nazism sidebar if you do not believe me. The administrator who closed the previous report on Darkstar1st said there were serious issues that needed to be resolved, multiple users were in favour of my proposal there. Your association of that report with this is not similar. That is biased and irresponsible.--R-41 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have opposed User:Director on multiple occasions, he uses the project to push his opinionated POV , but here we have one opinionated POV pusher moaning and attempting to get another opinionated POV pusher edit restricted - so, move along, close me down thread and please stop opening up such reports, they are disruptive. Youreallycan 19:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh so you have evidence of me being an "opinionated POV pusher" then, care to explain that extremely provocative, extremely biased and extremely uncivil statement? I think you should leave this discussion, you have zero intention to listen to my report, and you have based your conclusions here, minutes after I posted this here, entirely on a previous report without even looking at what I have addressed here.--R-41 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't participate here in depth as I am currently travelling and very busy (on vacation) - in fact, this thread was posted immediately after I today informed R-41 that I am currently going on vacation. And I also wasn't notified either, I had to see this thread on my watchlist. All I can say is those are definitely not accidents. Suffices to say this is a content dispute over R-41's images that he introduced into various ideology templates. -- Director (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't notify you yet DIREKTOR, because I posted this minutes ago, and because this user above interjected immediately to shut this down. Quite frankly, although I disagree with your editing behaviour, I believe User:Youreallycan owes you an apology here for accusing you of being a "POV-pusher" while presenting zero evidence.--R-41 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I skimmed the talk page, and I see nothing requiring administrative action. Seems like a protracted content dispute with occasional heat but nothing unduly offensive, except as perceived by R-41. Indeed, R-41's constant harping on Director's alleged incivility, etc., is more disruptive than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please look at what I did there. I offered compromises, I offered cooperation to create an RfC acceptable to all users involved. I have cooperated with DIREKTOR in the past and I thought my last proposal would have been acceptable, it is not a grudge of why I am posting this here. It is that DIREKTOR accused me from the get-go of "stonewalling", assuming bad faith, and keeps going back to that accusation and that I intend to WP:OWN the template, which is false.--R-41 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're making way too much of this, there and here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I have brought this up here because I specifically have asked for how the issue could be delegated for someone familiar with policy like an administrator to either arbitrate or mediate, as well as requesting an administrator to warn DIREKTOR not to keep assuming bad faith of users. I am leaving that discussion because I tried to negotiate and compromise, but it didn't work, there is too much assumption of bad faith from DIREKTOR about my intentions. I could have done the wrong thing of responding by being combative, but I didn't I brought it here to ask for assistance to resolve it.--R-41 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I couldn't find anything offensive here either, 'close. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Forget it, I am closing it myself. I see users who disagreed with the Darkstar1st report where anywhere from 7 to 11 users requested topic bans of some sort on Darkstar1st while 7 to 8 opposed, the opponents are milling over to this report, including Darkstar1st himself here, whom himself said because of the the report that he sought to cease interacting with me, but has decided to interject here. There are several people who have axes to grind over that report here, it is not being taken seriously, I'm shutting it down.--R-41 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note what I've done

I did a restoration of a French opera poster from 1910 - obviously out of copyright in the US.

However, this is the Commons page on French copyright law: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France.

The author died in 1936. I ran this by the Copyright squad in commons, and they thought it should be fine there, but I wanted to throw up a {{Keep local}}-tagged copy on here, just to be safe.

Unfortunately, I did the uploads in the wrong order, so getting everything to the correct location was... interesting. (As one might expect, the software doesn't want someone uploading a completely different file under the same name as a commons file, so I had to do a few page moves to get everything into its proper place.

The files are File:Georges_Rochegrosse's_poster_for_Jules_Massenet's_Don_Quichotte.jpg and File:Georges_Rochegrosse's_poster_for_Jules_Massenet's_Don_Quichotte.png.

If I messed this up, please yell at me, and I'll be more careful in future. =) Adam Cuerden 18:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I am totally unable to view File:Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte - original.tif... Salvidrim! ✉ 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

TIFF support is highly limited, both on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, and this exceeds the image size Misplaced Pages can support. I suppose I could upload the original as a PNG as well, if this is useful. Honestly, I don't know why Misplaced Pages even tries to offer TIFF support - the filesizes for TIFFs tend to be huge relative to other formats, even other lossless formats, so the 100-meg-upload-limit tends to be exceeded pretty easily for the sort of files (roughly speaking, FP-worthy ones) we'd want the original, unedited versions of.

But it's great when you feel lazy, but still want to make a token effort at documenting your work. Adam Cuerden 18:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not appearing for me either. OlYeller21 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Longevitydude

I'll start by noting that this user has been brought up here twice before: Recently, I ran into this user at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Byrne (centenarian). We started by arguing a point, something that happens in AfDs, until he started talking in circles. At that point, I semi-gave-up and suggested that he provide the references he feel "would have" existed our exist but have since been deleted. After that, an SPA showed up 86.40.107.199 to !vote keep. This wouldn't be particularly concerning to me if I hadn't read his previous two ANI reports and this SPI where, at the very least, some fishy business was occurring. I also noted this edit where Longevitydude asks another editor to stop doing what they're doing and suggesting that the other user was from a forum called The 110 Club. After very little digging, I found that Longevitydude was essentially The Name That Will Not Be Mentioned on that forum, having been banned for something that wouldn't even be shared publicly. You can see that conversation at z3(dot)invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=6127 (apparently the whole site is blacklisted). You can see at other Wikis that this is something he takes personally. Here is where he was accused of canvassing at ArbCom. Here is where an enforcement request was made due to more accusations of canvassing.

Bases on this users editing habits, it appears that their goal is to sympathize with other members whose articles got afds which apparently means voting !keep on any AfD for an article about a person who is notable for being old (sometimes just over 100, sometimes the oldest in a country). He takes it as far as to comment on the talk page of closed AfDs (see here).

I bring this here because I really have no idea what to do at this point. I get the feeling I've hit the tip of an iceberg and I'm way over my head. Any suggestions would be welcomed.

I notified the mentioned users here and here. OlYeller21 19:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I also found some, what I could call emotional editing regarding people over 100, at other Wikis but I don't know if that's appropriate to share here. OlYeller21 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick note from someone who's familiar with this situation; Longevitydude's intentions are nothing but good, but he does have a way of taking these AfDs a bit too personally. I can provide specifics if necessary, but only if necessary. For the full background, this is something that dates back to 2010, and involves an arbitration case which was quickly followed by a warning to several editors after an AE thread. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Starship9000

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

The user is always attempting to delete and damage articles. He does not add anything productive to Misplaced Pages, but rather he just mass deletes anything he feels does not meet his knowledge. User comes out with comments like "I don't want this on here" or "This is not notable because I don't know it or know about it." The user also dubs himself an "architect" architectural expert . He has been warned by administrators but he keeps vandalizing the pages. Please block or ban this user because he is hurting the collegial atmosphere and the encyclopedic purpose of Misplaced Pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=starship9000&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 He is trying to delete everything. All he does is delete but does nothing to add any sort of knowledge to anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Starship9000 he has several warnings on his page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk • contribs)

• I think this AN/I is a little too soon - he's just had a last warning before a sanction (of sorts, basically, he's been told to have a break or face being blocked), and that only came this morning. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• He has been warned repeatedly, yet he still continues to damage articles. He has damaged probably hundreds of articles. He is a virus to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• But since their last comment they made another very unproductive edit--I was going to close this thread and say "it's being discussed" when I saw this edit. I'm blocking them for 24 hours and left an explanation on the talk page. Let's not pile this on; I won't close the thread myself, but I think it can be closed. And no, he's not a virus: this isn't contagious. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, maybe I should pay a little more attention *retreats back into hole* Lukeno94 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

IP linking dates against MOS

These IPs: 190.111.10.49, 190.111.10.43, 190.111.10.44, 190.111.10.46, 190.111.10.39, 190.111.10.47,190.111.10.46, have been persistently link dates on album which violates MOS as well as overlinking. Attempted discussions to have these have failed as they still continue to link dates on albums relating to Spanish-language albums. Note that all these IPs are traced to Guatemala. Erick (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.kkla.com/frankpastore.aspx

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards