Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:01, 27 October 2012

• 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
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Apparent competence issue, Part 3 – longer / indef block requested

(The following languished for 24+ hours and was archived. I'm restoring it per instructions.)

I am returning for what I hope is the third and final time to discuss editor Davebrayfb, his unsound editing and what I now conclude is an intractable unwillingness or inability to improve. I think that an indef or other, non-trivial block (a month?) are warranted at this point, now no longer to get his attention but rather to stop his editing. My prior two postings are archived

here and

here.

They include all diffs, etc., to support my summary below, and in the interest of brevity and clarity I am not reproducing their combined content here. (NB – on my browser, at least, a comment that ‘no admin action’ is required appears alongside the second archived posting above. Please review the source page of the archive to see that that comment in fact relates to a prior, unrelated item in the archive.)

In brief, Davebrayfb appears to act in good faith but consistently edits in ways that degrade the encyclopedia rather than improve it. He has not responded to my own (extensive) efforts to engage him on his Talk page, nor to those of other editors who also stepped in in an effort to steer him in a better direction. A few days ago he was given a 24 hour attention-getting block, but when it expired he simply resumed editing, with no apparent improvement. Here are three examples:

This edit – while certainly plausible – was not sourced or otherwise reflected in the article text; it removed content that did correspond to the article text; and by reason of a typo, resulted in a redlink.

Here is a careless, obvious typo

Here he restores a prior unsourced edit, again without source despite a request to supply one

The consensus arising out of both of my prior postings was that 1) this editor is in fact disruptive; 2) I (and other editors) have made extensive and exceedingly patient efforts to try to help him improve; and 3) if he does not improve, sooner or later he will need to be blocked. He is not improving. Every one of his edits must be reviewed for substantive or technical shortcomings or errors. I think an actual, preventative block is in order, and ask that one be imposed.

I apologize for the fragmented, tripartite nature of my request but I am hoping this marks the end of it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Usually if it drops off without any comment whatsoever, it's because nobody is going to act on it. You're trying to establish long-term behavioural issues: that's WP:RFC/U territory, not ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that this case appears to present no particular urgency, and does not invite decisive action - or even stir much interest (particularly after two prior go-rounds), but I am skeptical of the value of a non-binding mediation process in dealing with the consistent, persistent unsound edits of someone who seems wholly indifferent to anyone's guidance or warnings and whose Talk page comments (when he deigns to make them) consist of non-responsive sentence fragments. (E.g., diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.) Is that really the only venue remaining? JohnInDC (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It didn't. The user was blocked for 24 hours. Nobody Ent 22:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thanks. I forgot to mention that in each of the two prior rounds, a variety of editors commented and acted, at first with a bit of counseling and then a brief block. The essential problem here is that persuasion and instruction in this case have had no discernible effect on the problem. I'm not sure how starting again, in a new forum that offers the prospect only of more talk, is going to be productive. JohnInDC (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Commenting on the three diffs linked, I can see why no one was particularly interested in supporting action on this request. Diff 1 is unsourced, but doing a bit of research suggests it was on Nick Jr in the UK, which makes the edit defensible. Now just re-adding it without addressing the issue is the wrong way to go about it, but basing a long term block in part on it seems unreasonable. The second diff is very defensible, while it seems conventional to refer to a show that no longer airs in the past tense, the show still exists, and its not exactly unreasonable to refer to it in the present tense. The only clear error is the failure to capitalize, which again does not seem reasonable to base a competence block on. The last diff is a question of national identity, which can be a complex issue. He was born in India, he has spent most of his life in America. Ultimately the article should reflect what the reliable sources say, but its an issue that confuses many editors and its not exactly unreasonable to think, oh born in India, nationality Indian. I just don't see enough to justify any action from the diffs. The diffs are less then ideal editing, but I don't think they are anywhere near the level of a competence block. Monty₈₄₅ 06:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I realize that these latest examples are not that egregious, but they come after 2 ANI entries and a 24 hour block that was designed to tell the editor that his edits are not up to snuff. Every single one of these editor's edits has a problem, or a potential problem. It might be a big one and it might be a small one, but the bottom line is that someone has to follow him around cleaning up his messes like the guy behind the elephants in a circus parade. I'm tired of it. I've posted on this three times in the short space of about 10 days and each time it seems I have to establish the whole set of concerns anew. Again I appreciate that it's a pain to go back to prior linked discussions, but for goodness' sake they're only a few days old - it's not like I'm dredging up something from the spring.

I have been reluctant to re-list the editor's originally incompetent edits because it seemed like unnecessary clutter, but because I am not conveying the kind of disruption that this editor routinely causes, here again are those lists, taken from my first two postings:

Abridged sampling of troublesome edits, in generally ascending order of concern:

• Idiosyncratic addition of information to articles which is generally plausible but unsourced and possibly incorrect. E.g. declaring that because one company involved in the production of a program is in Canada – a fact not in evidence in the article – the program is properly described as “Canadian-American” (see diff); adding “Emmy-winning” to an article when the company appears only to have been nominated (diff);

• Very infrequent use of edit summaries;

• Creating a category with a typo, here;

• Creating superfluous redirect pages (“Mrio” to “Mario”; “Mini mARIO” to “Mini Mario” – itself a redirect to “Mario”) (both since deleted);

• Removing a proposed merger template (albeit stale) without discussion, here;

• Undoing, without comment, other editors’ efforts to clean up articles and remove cruft, here;

• Placing articles into non-existent categories here then doing it again – twice – after other editors undid him, here and here;

• Low-grade apparent vandalism – here;

• Page blanking, diff and diff;

• Unilaterally moving “Nick.com” to “Nick.co.uk” without discussion and inconsistent with the content of the article, which is about “Nick.com” – followed, a couple of weeks later and after a Talk page reminder about the need to discuss most moves beforehand, by another unilateral move (“Viacom (1971-2005)” to “Viacom (1971-2006)”);

• Adding a “Good Article” designation to article that is not, in fact, a “Good Article”, here (defending the edit by saying that “it’s not a bad article”);

• Not once discussing any edit, before or after making it, on any article Talk page.

After my first posting which resulted in a third party editor posting a friendly suggestion to Davebrayfb that he should avail himself of various instructive links - a suggestion which Davebrayfb did not acknowledge or otherwise respond to - one of his first edits was to undo a months old redirect in the face of Talk page consensus. Here. That resulted in a 24 hour block, after which Davebrayfb returned to make edits that included the three diffs I listed above. I appreciate that those errors are minor but they reflect this editor's unwillingness (actually I think inability) to comprehend or achieve the level of competence that is expected here. The first edit is unsourced (as are all his edits), removed legitimate information and created a red wikilink. Someone has to go in, check the source, restore the right information, and fix the wikilink. In the second he spelled "British" with a small "b". Someone has to go in and fix that. In the third instance he changed - for the second time, his first time having been reverted with a request for a source - M. Night Shyamalan's nationality from American to Indian, again without a source, in the face of article text indicating that he'd been raised in America. Now someone has to go in, find sources, and conform the article to itself. Someone always has to fix his edits.

I don't care for the tone of the foregoing because to my own ears I am beginning to sound petulant or hysterical, but this guy makes the encylopedia worse, not better; he doesn't respond to suggestions, templates, requests or blocks, and after three rounds of this it seems clear to me that either he is permitted to continue to edit and slowly degrade the encyclopedia, or not. JohnInDC (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

John, I appreciate your forbearance - both with this editor and with the slow grinding processes here. You make a persuasive case above and I think it's just that we are so used to dealing with malice and bias here that well-intentioned incompetence gets overlooked. However I do take the point that his (I presume Davebrayfb is male) edits are becoming disruptive, none more so than his refusal to discuss them or take feedback. I'm going to put a post on his talk page asking him to respond to this AN/I and I'll regard a failure to respond in any way as further disruption. Whether that in itself is sufficient to indef block or not I'm not sure - do others have an opinion? I incline towards saying yes, but we have a day or two to decide. Kim Dent-Brown 11:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocking in this case would not follow the purpose of a block: prevention. You're for some reason unwilling to assist the editor in amending their ways via an RFC/U. You're trying to take the quick way out: a block. Yes, the editor is frustrating - we have more than a few of those around. The annoyance this editor is creating is being watched (and fixed) and generally insignificant for the most part. You don't create a better editor by blocking them - you make a better editor by educating them. hence the RFC. The evidence you're putting forward certainly does not lend itself to a block for any reason, but I would like to hear their reasoning (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on this editor's talk page. I'm going to datestamp this post +48 hours so this doesn't get archived, to give him chance to reply. (And also for us to discuss the best way forward, taking on Bwilkins' contribution just above.) Kim Dent-Brown 11:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate your efforts. Turning to BWilkins: I'm sorry, but this is where I just throw up my hands. I would love to hear his reasoning too! I've made a score of entries to the editor's Talk page - at first, friendly efforts to assist, with suggestions on ways to improve, and then later, templates. He doesn't respond. He doesn't respond. He's been asked previously to come and comment on the ANI postings about him (three times now!) and hasn't responded. He just - keeps editing. This is all laboriously detailed in my prior entries, which I now appreciate need to be reposted in full if I want anyone to read them. I'm trying to be responsible and patient and positive here but I'm really just about to walk away from the thing. JohnInDC (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to place on record that JohnInDC's attempts thus far to help this user do seem to heve been above and beyond the call of duty. This is not a lazy attempt to block someone whom we can't be bothered to help. But what do we do with someone who simply appears uninterested in receiving help or taking feedback? If anyone has suggestions and/or is willing to volunteer to go yet another extra mile to help Davebrayfb I'd love to hear from them! Kim Dent-Brown 12:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur - I was never suggesting that JohnInDC was lazy :-) You have engaged him - rather strcitly advised them to respond ASAP. If they fail to do it and they continue their editing pattern, is a longer "this'll get your attention" block until they actually start to talk what you're suggesting? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of "attention-getting" blocks as it feels perilously close to an abuse of process. But I think my own view is that an indefinite (not permanent...) block would have the benefit of protecting WP from further disruption. It does seem as though pretty much all of Davebrayfb's edits get reverted by other editors almost immediately, all of which takes time and energy away from more productive work. However I don't feel sufficiently strongly about this to block on my own initiative (or I'd already have done so.) I'd prefer to see if a consensus emerges here about how to handle him henceforward. Kim Dent-Brown 12:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just - for the record, I guess - I have no particular interest in a block other than as what appears to me to be the only remaining solution for preventing the slow degradation that this editor's efforts produce. He's not uncivil, he's not pushing a POV or promoting his business; he's just inept, and for whatever reason, does not seem able to improve. If no one is comfortable finally with a block, that's fine, I won't go away in a snit. I'm not an admin, I won't take the heat for a bad decision - I get that. But all that being said, I really only just stumbled across this fellow and decided to spend some time trying to turn him in a better direction. I haven't been able to do it, I've run out of ideas that are within my ability as an ordinary editor (not to mention that I've grown kind of tired of it) and will probably just let him go after this. JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd propose a conditional indef block, which I gather is what Kim Dent-Brown is saying above. If the editor will engage in discussion about the problems with his edits and show his willingness to address the issue, the block could be lifted. When almost 100% of somebody's edits need to be reverted, they are not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Something more than talk is necessary to put a brake on his bad edits. I also think that the moment he indicates a willingness to engage and try to learn how to be a better editor, he should be taken up on it. EdJohnston's proposal (summary?) accomplishes the former, and leaves the latter possible. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along with Ed's suggestion too, which makes my half-formed thinking more explicit! Kim Dent-Brown 15:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

After a day's pause, he has now resumed editing with this contribution which, while substantively sound, created a red wikilink that had not been there before. I fixed it. His renewed activity does not introduce any new urgency into this discussion, and he may yet come here to comment. We'll see I guess. JohnInDC (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the message I left him on his talkpage a moment ago is along the lines of the discussion above ... anyone else is free to make good on the requirement based on his next contribution (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the merge template on the aka cartoon page by accident Davebrayfb (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What about your other 213 edits to Misplaced Pages? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Think a CIR block is needed here. Looks like this editor is quite young, based on the field of their edits. He doesn't seem to have much of an idea about how anything is done here. Biting aside, this isn't a day care centre. Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

He's visited a couple of Talk pages now but with this series of edits today managed to restore a couple misspellings, restore again an unsourced category and wreck a merger template. JohnInDC (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely and left a message emphasising that indefinite does not mean permanent. I am not optimistic that he can convince us to an unblock but I think he has run out of chances. Kim Dent-Brown 09:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Sally Season

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

Sally Season (talk · contribs)'s user page consists solely of a list of user names and topics. It appears that these are users he's had conflicts with. His unwillingness to explain the list's purpose has raised some concerns. I would like to hear the opinion of one or more admins as to whether the user is in violation of the rules, or not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My immediate instincts are to ignore it. Looks to me like a list of some of our finest contributors, so I assume that's what Sally Season is trying to document.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The complainants on the user page would be well-advised to provide some diffs that demonstrate otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should they? You started this thread. --Malerooster (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the user's user page and talk page before opening your beak again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

At least one of the notes seems to possibly relate to a template on the user's talk page (user template notified about article, user now linked to template subject on page). The same user has asked for and not received an explanation for the list. I'm no admin, so I don't fit Bugs' request, but it seems against policy and/or norms for this site. --Nouniquenames 03:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the user won't explain what the list is for is a red flag that it's an enemies list, which is against the rules. The user's false contention that he owns his page is another red flag. Normally such lists would be rubbed out. If that's needed in this case, it should be done by an admin, not by one of us peons. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I made the list! That's so exciting! Why? "Policy"? They should list Bbb23 or Dennis Brown for that--unless of course there was, gasp, sarcasm. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For the second time now, I've removed the list. Recommend a block for trolling if the user adds it back. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Last time Sally visited my talk page they were not at a loss for words. I wish they'd comment here, in plain English. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@Viridtas. I, on the other hand, would recommend a block for you for stalking and provocation. If your repeated blanking of another user's user page escalates, you should be the first to go for throwing the first punch, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What "rule" defines enemy lists, and prohibits them? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Civility? I mean, it's not that important, but still... GiantSnowman 08:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Civility doesn't define enemy lists. How does one distinguish an enemy list from, say, a list of genuinely disruptive users whose edits one is monitoring? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

See the 'Avoiding incivility' section - the first point is 'Explain yourself'. If I featured on an unexplained list of editor's names I'd be fearing the worst. GiantSnowman 09:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:UP#POLEMIC states as prohibited: "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked..." Since the user in question has been asked the purpose and, absent a logical explanation, other editors have come to the conclusion that this page is quite possibly what was prohibited there, it must be either explained or removed per guideline. --Nouniquenames 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, you should have notified Sally Season about this new discussion. I have now done that. De728631 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I did, before I posted here originally. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with the list. I do have objections to a stalker erasing a user page over some (pretended) policy violation — which is heading for status as a slow motion edit war, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To the point, how does this list differ in any appreciable way from the multitude of people keeping lists of spammers or copyright violators or sock puppet operators? Frankly, it doesn't. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that this user has failed to provide any rationale for the list. Hot Stop (Edits) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it anybody's business? Carrite (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So if I kept a list on my user page of Rescue Squad member with whom I'd had beefs with over the years with little blurbs next to them, that's be cool? "A Nobody - socks", "Dream Focus - keeps everything", "Silver Seren - Wikipediocracy hater". ? Guess I'll get started... Tarc (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Because someone who was on the list asked? Pretty simple. Arkon (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Show me where on that list that SS accuses anybody of anything. It's almost Halloween and the strawmen are being built in celebration... Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

They've been asked multiple times, and refused any explanation besides saying it's for 'notes'. SS could really help themselves by offering a better explanation when asked, but they haven't. Collegiality means something around here, doesn't it? Hot Stop (Edits) 12:06 pm, Today (UTC−4)

You are all a bunch of busy-bodies, get a life please. I could point to specific comments and people on this page and my page, and point out which is stupider than the next, but I'll address everything collectively instead. So much misinformation being spread above, so allow me to clear it up. Go ahead and fact check it.

My page is simply being used as a notepad to keep track of my wiki interactions, and to-do stuff. I have already explained that, and even went so far as to explain why I use that location. There is no enemy list, that is just weird fantasy, and overlooks the fact that the notes and reminders relate to helpful and positive interactions as well as less positive ones. I haven't refused to explain anything, except when one single person keeps needling me for even more detailed explanations that simply do not concern him, and are none of his business. It's all there in print. There is nothing uncivil or in policy violation there. As for all the talk about "community", please. I've had quite the introduction to "community" so far, and I'd really rather not hear it. I'm going to fix my page again, and I'd appreciate it if you all would busy your bodies elsewhere. That's all I plan to say.Sally Season (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should use an actual notepad (digital or paper) for such a thing, as when names ar elisted on a Wiki page i nthis fashion, it is taken rather badly. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a digital notepad. And what "fashion" are you talking about?Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"is simply being used as a notepad to keep track of my wiki interactions, ... notes and reminders relate to helpful and positive interactions as well as less positive ones." If you need notes to remind you of "less positive" interactions, perhaps it is better off for everyone if you delete them and let yourself forget them. Nurturing such interactions can never be positive for the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Try the whole quote instead, Red Pen, and your lie will be revealed. I never said I need notes to remind me of less positive interactions. I said I was using the notepad to keep track of interactions only, and the mention of positive and less positive was only to disprove your "it's an enemy list" crackpot conspiracy theory.Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor is an SPA involved only in a small handful of political articles, and has been noted for injecting POV material therein. is a window on the problem. Those on his "little list" are primarily those who actually do not feel such a POV is proper during political silly season. I suggest he be told to gain editing experience in a broad range of articles, rather than have the significant problems he has faced with his edits. Collect (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Look closely at that window linked by Collect. Notice any "POV injecting there"? I didn't think so.Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Being a SPA is not necessarily problematic. The editors says the list is not an enemy list. It should be deleted (through MfD?), and the editor asked to keep such notes off wiki; but I don't think further action is warranted. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that most of the people on the list either reverted Sally Season this month, or vice versa: Arthur Rubin, Adventurous Squirrel, Collect, Devil's Advocate,,and Drmies As for the other three, Mollskman asked why he is on the list, but received no answer. Insomesia defended Sally Season, but also advised Sally Season to “let it all go and try to avoid getting caught up in the drama”. And IP 112.133.198.141 reversed someone who had reverted Sally Season.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I unclosed this due to the fact that the closing statement was based on the fact that the page was blanked. It wasn't, though I have just done so again. Arkon (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

After I saw the addition of Arthur Rubin to the list I became much more concerned about the nature of the listings. This came a minute after Sally reverted Arthur Rubin in an ongoing edit war Sally has been waging on the David Koch article. I felt the note about Rubin "? Rep" was implying that Rubin has a Republican bias or is a Republican. Under the circumstances that would appear to be a veiled accusation of misconduct against Rubin. That caused me to re-evaluate the note about me that says "? OPSEC" to suspect that Sally is subtly accusing me of being involved with the group because of my edits to that article. Hence why I am much more determined to get a straight answer on the purpose of the list. If my suspicions are incorrect then there merely needs to be an explanation, but if I am right than the list should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think the list should be removed then take to to MFD and stop biting a new user. There are a lot of bad faith assumptions about this user based on a list contains absolutely nothing negative and you people are wasting a lot of their and your own valuable time bitching about it. What possible consequences does this list have on WP? Don't answer, start and MFD and point it out there or leave this user alone. Sædon 23:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

1) There was no biting. Questions were asked by people on the list, and ignored. It was explained why this was not a good thing to have on the page. 2) Your opinions on how the people on the list feel are irrelevent. 3) You are now enabling this behaviour. Take your own advice and go away. Arkon (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree there was no biting; I think the entire thing is bitey. You have the right to ask for an explanation and SS has a right not to respond. My opinion is worth exactly as much as yours or anyone else here. Am I enabling their behavior? I don't have a problem with their behavior so that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Again, if you don't like it then take it to MFD - unless you have evidence to demonstrate that it's an attack page (and you don't, because there is nothing on that page that is an attack by any definition) then you're acting inappropriately by forcefully blanking it. We have processes for a reason. Sædon 23:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is worth jack squat if you think it is ok to enable the bad behavior of a single-purpose-account keeping grudge lists in userspace. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

AKA "Your opinion is worth jack squat if you don't see things the way I see them." Sædon 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How would initiating an MfD against another user's page without even getting the other editor's side not be an example of biting? I preferred to try and handle it civilly with Sally in a one-on-one capacity rather than having this editor brought up again at ANI, but Bugs decided to open a discussion and I have no control over that. Being a new user doesn't really justify stone-walling either since most people, on-wiki and off-wiki, understand it is only polite to respond openly to people asking polite questions regarding something said about them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point, TDA. Can we acknowledge at least at this point MFD would be more appropriate? Sædon 00:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I just want to know the meaning of the list. The circumstances of Sally's listing of Arthur Rubin raised a lot of red flags for me and without an explanation I can only speculate as to the reasons, which includes considering the possibility that at least some of this is malicious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like, but you haven't disputed the facts, which explicitly show that all care was given to get an explanation. When it comes to opinions on the list, the opinions of the users on it is worth more. And look above you, you can read one such opinion. We also have a user page policy that states Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. when speaking of things that should be removed. It doesn't take bad faith to take the non-responsive answers given to the questions asked by those on the list as 'view(ing) it as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.' MFD is hardly necessary or the only resort. Now off you go, this is a waste of time, remember? Arkon (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We now have an official ruling that enemies lists are perfectly OK on user pages. Thank you all for your input. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my user page, if you think it's so clear then why not just take it to MFD and be done with it? If it's as clear as you say and I'm so obviously wrong then it will be a quick deletion won't it? Sædon 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone named on the list has the right to remove his name if he thinks it's an attack. And users who post enemies list always end up indef'd sooner or later. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I like how you're skipping the part where you actually have to prove it's an enemies list. Now you're saying that as long as an editor thinks something is an attack they can remove it from another users page; nice. Sædon 02:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Enemies lists are against the rules, and if someone feels under attack, they can remove the attack. In fact, one already has. If someone edit wars to put it back, I trust the admins will put a stop to it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Enemy lists are against the rules. That is why I have not and will not ever create one. Not on wiki anyway. You should stop lying and mischaracterizing now. People are seeing through it.Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Bull-Doser (persistent disruptive editor)

(This thread is still waiting administration. Please do not archive until the issue has been resolved.) I'm reporting this user for his persistent disruptive editing on Misplaced Pages for years. That's right, not weeks or months, but years. Some of his disruptive edits include original research, unsourced content, incorrect information, wild guessing, speculation about what he considers to be the most likely scenario, and other forms of disruptive editing. His talk page for 5 years has been filled with warning and notices. He was blocked last December for adding a dubious info in one article. The reason why he has only been blocked once in 5 years (despite his huge history of disruptive editing) is because he usually temporarily corrects his behavior for a short period when he receives a notice and then goes back to his old habit a couple of weeks after. User never respond to the warnings/notices that he receives, further proving that he doesn't care.

This is what has decided to make go to ANI. Both the edit summary and the edit itself are unacceptable. If it was a first offense, I would just say "so what". But given the excessive amount of chances that Bull-Doser has received and his unresponsiveness in general to the situation, it's time to take actions to solve this problem. On his unblock request of last December, Bull-Doser promised that he would always provide sources. Yet he continues to violates this policy on a daily baisis. I suggests that Bull-Doser is blocked until he let us know what he plans on doing to change this behavior. The block is not to punish him, but rather to make him understand that his edits are unhelpful and are hurting the encyclopedia and that there will have to be a change if he wish to remain with Misplaced Pages. Farine (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly ever hear 1970s hits on contemporary hit radio stations today, and CKMF-FM began adding Queen's 1975 hit Bohemian Rhapsody on its rotation. This is a similarity of hot adult contemporary radio station WSTR in Atlanta having reported to the contemporary hit radio panel until 2010. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The official link is there: http://montreal.radionrj.ca/broadcasthistory.aspx and look on 13:40 (aka 1:40pm) of October 22. They have officially had Bohemian Rhapsody on their rotation. In this business, some hot AC stations have dropped '90s hits, and some AC stations don't play pre-1979 content at all. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, Bull-Doser. OP was questioning the original research of your edits, rather than trying to discuss this issue (which should be taken to the article's talk page). – Richard BB 12:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Until a source says that CKMF is a hot adult contemporary, then this type of edit can't be added on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter what song played at what the time or how the other stations qualify their radio format; IT IS STILL ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And even if Bull-Doser had provided that link about the song as a source, that WOULD STILL BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH because it doesn't indicate us that CKMF is indeed a hot adult contemporary. Saying that the station has a Hot AC format because of a particular song is pure POV unless it is backed with a source that explicitly says it is a Hot AC station. And Bull-Doser's response is the proof that he does not understand at all the WP:NOR and WP:V policies nor does he show any desire to follow these guidelines.

I would hardly ever hear 1970s hits on contemporary hit radio stations today, and CKMF-FM began adding Queen's 1975 hit Bohemian Rhapsody on its rotation. This is a similarity of hot adult contemporary radio station WSTR in Atlanta having reported to the contemporary hit radio panel until 2010.

Bull-Doser's answer above is the proof that he needs this block until he decides to follow the guidelines. If you want to provide him mentorship as an alternative to blocking him, fine. But the status quo is not an option. I also reverted his edits on the CKMF article, not because I want to make a point, but merely because it is not an edit that follow's Misplaced Pages NOR and V guidelines. Farine (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the status quo is not acceptable, I think a block is a little unnecessary. You are absolutely right to question his edits, they are unquestionably WP:OR. However, the other important thing to note is that his edits are still made of good faith. Perhaps he simply does not understand what we mean by WP:OR, why it's so bad, and why his edits are WP:OR. As such, I would indeed recommend guidance or mentorship. – Richard BB 14:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it's hard to show AGF when someone shows no responsiveness to change. But I agree that we should at least give him a shot at mentorship before blocking him. Farine (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just sampled a bunch of Bull Doser's edits and all of them were OR of some sort of other. None of his claims are ever backed by sources not to mention the lack of edit summaries in the majority of his edits and marking non-minor edits as minor makes it very hard work to dig through each edit. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly and this has been going for years. And when we tell him this, he either ignores it or says it's not true. And I'm sorry but AGF does not apply to someone who is unwilling to change. I strongly suggest that a reviewer or an administrator goes on Bull-Doser's talk page to propose him a mentorship program. If he declines the offer, block the account until he lets us know what he plans to do to amend his disruptive editing. But one way or another, I'm not settling out for the status quo. This has been going on for years and we've been fooled into thinking that things would change and this failed big time. So we now have to take this into a higher lever because Bull-Doser's edits don't conform at all to Misplaced Pages. And I disagree with Richard BB about the block being unnecessary. A block is justified, not because of the OR, but because of Bull-Doser's apathetic attitude. If he doesn't care about Misplaced Pages's principles, then why should he be allowed to edit here? It doesn't make sense. Farine (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a strong case could be made for a ban citing WP:CIR here. I strongly urge a mentorship; however, if that fails, a block may be the only option. – Richard BB 14:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A ban on some topics such as radio stations, shopping centres and department stores could be another option. But given the gravity and longevity of the situation, I would go straight for a block outright or mentorship. And you'll notice that Bull-Doser hasn't even address this discussion since its original response of yesterday despite that this whole ANI case is about him. That in itself is enough to warrant him a block instead of mentorship. He doesn't care at all about the problem, he just wants to edit on Misplaced Pages and that's it, with no regard to the policies. Farine (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to Bull-Doser, not all of his edits are OR. I have no comment on the edits covered above, just the ones over which I have interacted with him. He likes to take pictures of cars and trucks, and drop the pictures into the articles for the places where the pictures were taken (Montreal area from what I've noticed). Thus, a picture of, say, a red Toyota model such and such will get added to the Town of Mount Royal article simply because the piucture was taken there. Pointless, but not OR or vandalism. Meters (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And by incessantly adding these car pictures on articles that don't even deal with cars, he is again causing disruption. A couple of times I had to delete some of these car pictures because they were totally irrelevant and their presence didn't make any sense in the articles. Also, I didn't said that Bull-Doser's edits were vandalism. I said they were disruptive; there's a difference. And no one ever said that all of Bull-Doser's edits are OR. That's not the point. But a very high percentage of his edits are OR, and it is seriously hurting the encyclopedia. Also, the reason the future of Bull-Doser on Misplaced Pages is being questioned today is not just because of OR, but because of his other disruptive edits (unsourced content, undiscussed unencyclopedic content, speculation/guessing, false information, inappropriate images, POV and more) and most importantly because he does not want to change. Bull-Doser did not get himself in this position overnight. Have you actually looked at the history of his talk page in the last 5 years?

I have left a message to User:Strikerforce to participate in this discussion. He has dealt in the past with Bull-Doser's OR and refusal to collaborate. But if the administrators must take actions (whether it be mentorship, block, ban or whatever) they don't necessarily need to wait for Strikerforce's comments. Strikerforce does not edit a lot on Misplaced Pages these days and it could take a while before we hear from him. Farine (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Good evening (as it currently stands in my time zone)! I must say that I have been expecting a discussion of this nature for quite some time, as my own frustrations with Bull-Doser have more than a few times led me to consider beginning one, myself. However, as I do not - as pointed out by Farine - edit as regularly anymore as I did for awhile, due to increased responsibilities at my employment and a few other non-Misplaced Pages related factors, I chose not to open a discussion that I didn't feel that I would be able to contribute to in a needed fashion. All of that being said, my biggest frustration with Bull-Doser is his insertion of OR into articles about radio stations. While there are many aspects about radio stations (speaking from the POV of someone currently working in the industry and who has 12+ years worth of experience in it) that do lend themselves to a bit of speculating, Misplaced Pages is not the place for those speculations to be made. A common edit summary or reasoning that Bull-Doser likes to resort to is like the one that apparently prompted this discussion, i.e., "I heard (song) on (station) and since that song doesn't fit the format that the article calls the station, then it must have changed formats to (new format here)". I have also seen - and reverted, many times - various edits where Bull-Doser makes assumptions about things that have happened within a given station's market and he has tried to use those things to draw conclusions about why Station X did something. Again, this falls under the umbrella of OR. I can not speak for the other areas that Bull-Doser edits in, but in regard to radio stations, I wholeheartedly endorse a topic ban. Strikerforce 03:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to radio stations, a similar ban would be in effect also for shopping centers and retailers. I personally think a block outright is more justified due to Bull-Doser's unresponsiveness to this thread and his editing in general. Seeing how Bull-Doser has blatantly rejected this discussion after posting his dubious original response, I'm not even remotely interested by the mentorship option anymore. How can we help Bul-Doser when he does not want to be helped? On the other hand, topic bans can be an alternative to a block while still preventing further disruption. Now all we need to do is to wait for the verdict from the administrators. Why has not of them addressed this thread in 3 days is beyond me. I will insert a comment to prevent this thread from being archived until the issue has been resolved. Farine (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Farine, you do understand that I was just poiunting out an area of problematic edits that had not been mentioned before, right? I'd hate to see how you would react if someone actually tried to defend Bull-Doser. You've made your point and no-one has argued against it. Take a break and let the process do its thing. Meters (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to be on the defensive Meters. I'm not angry at all at you . I was just pointing out that no one ever said anything here about the edits being vandalism or that all were original research. And I don't mind if anybody wants to defend Bull-Doser. But if something controversial is said, it must expect reactions. Cheers. Farine (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been indef blocked in the past for persistent insertion of original research and synthesis as it effectively amounts to persistent disruption. His lack of participation does not help his case. Blackmane (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to mentor Bull-Doser within the area that I have had encounters with him (radio stations), as I consider myself to be knowledgeable enough to help him edit constructively in the future. His other preferred eras of the encyclopedia, however, I would not consider myself as a capable mentor. Strikerforce 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• If Bull-Doser will agree to mentoring, and apply himself to learning what is and is not allowable as OR, and we can find a suitable mentor who is willing to take this on, then I'm willing to agree to giving mentoring a chance. In my experience, mentoring does sometimes work. Otherwise, I would support an indef block, as the editor has been inserting OR for a considerable time and shows no sign of mending his ways. KillerChihuahua 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

While it's good that we are addressing OR, don't forget that this thread is about the disruptive editing in general (unsourced nonsense, false information, unencyclopedic trivialist content, etc), not just OR. All of these have to stopped as well. Bull-Doser has to be responsive and the change must be permanent, not some temporary tactic to calm down the storm.

I wouldn't be interested in becoming a mentor for the simple reason that I'm an occasional editor and Wikpedia is not my #1 hobby in life (in almost 7 years, I haven't even made 10 000 edits). But Bull-Doser is always welcomed to come to my talk page for advice. I just don't want the status quo because I'm really fed up of reverting/correcting his nonsense and I often get the feeling that we're going round in circles. Farine (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the mentor would have to monitor and correct all of BD's bad habits; I apologise if my failure to enumerate them all specifically and only mentioning his most egregious failure has caused concern and/or confusion. However, it may all be moot, because thus far we have no mentor stepping forward. KillerChihuahua 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have to proceed with the indefinite block, then so be it. It's not like it was unwarranted. The mentorship is merely a bonus alternative to what should have otherwise been a block applied a long time ago. I've seen disruptive editors being indefinitely blocked for things less worse than what Bull-Doser did. Let's face it, Misplaced Pages, like anything else in life, is not made for everybody. Farine (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indef block proposal for User: Bull-Doser

Suggested by Blackmane above.

• Support as editor has had many chances to improve his editing habits and learn to adhere to policy, but has not bothered to profit from those chances, and as no mentor has stepped forward as willing to attempt to mentor him, this seems to be the only way forward to protect the encyclopedia from a series of OR and other policy violations. Editor not found to be a net benefit to the project. To make matters worse, the editor in question was notified several days ago and has not seen fit to respond here. I have advised Bull Doser to respond here; advise not closing this for a bit, even if there are no objections to the indef block. We should give BD another chance to respond, IMO. KillerChihuahua 23:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Hypocaustic

Hypocaustic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user is unilaterally changing links at many pages to intentionally point to the redirect railway station instead of the actual article train station, even when the term is piped and it doesn't matter what the link says, like here and here. He has also blanked redirects from titles with "train station" such as here. He proposed a page move of that sort last year, but the move had no consensus ("train station" was deemed to be dialect nuetral compared to "railway station" or "railroad station", and it was closed following paragraph 1 of WP:TITLECHANGES).

This pattern of behavior has been followed by the editor in other places as well, notably his frequent dust ups over the term passive smoking and smoke-free laws and most recently regarding the musical act Shakespeares Sister. He blanks his talk page on a regular basis, which itself isn't an issue, but it clearly fits with a pattern of covering up his acting against consensus. (He tried to blank the move request at Talk:Train station when it failed to gain consensus, and it still bears a note after admonishing people not to remove the discussion!) It is clear that this user has no respect for consensus when he just doesn't like the term that consensus says we should use, and will edit war and move war to get his way. His petulance has no place in a collaborative project. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like some personally-directed tensions may be creeping in here, but as I don’t know the above user let’s hope we can resolve that appropriately. Re Shakespear’s Sister, I’m not sure you’re correct in identifying this as a consensus issue, true; I’ve just tried to rectify some recurrent mistakes. But if you feel there’s a danger of an edit war breaking out, let’s leave that page to one side for a while – it may suffer some incorrect punctuation as a result, but the occasional incidence of that is hardly the end of the world. Re railway stations, I’ve done my best to respect the ‘agree to disagree’ consensus on that page’s title and re-drafted the lede specifically in order to accommodate your concerns while also providing the best possible introduction to the subject for readers. Oknazevad, if you feel that level of effort displays a less than collaborative spirit, I’m sorry to hear it, but I suggest our best option is to both step back and let other contributors, who may be less exercised about such fine points, take a fresh look. Re my user talk page, I do occasionally clear it to provide an uncluttered space for discussion – knowing that anyone who really wants to indulge in detective work can easily back-track – but if that’s seriously bad form I’ll be happy to stand corrected by others.Hypocaustic (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thi don't about the content. Yes there's none concern that "train station" is colloquial (though only you seem to be outright offended by it), but most didn't share that concern, and to marginalized the actual article title, as your edits attempted to do, is poor editing. But that's not the point if this thread. The point is that, despite the consensus that the title is fine, you have repeatedly, through your edits, marginalized the links to the correct article title. The changing of links where the term doesn't even appear because of piping (shown in the above diffs; there's no reason a station in California would ever link to "railway station" unless that was the actual article name) and blanking of redirects (pure vandalism) is not collaborative by any stretch. Also, reverting to your choice of edit even after being informed of the ANI on you (as you did at train station is clearly PoV pushing. It seems clear, based on these edits and other disputes, that you seek to make these changes and then use the fact that there are vastly not links to "railway station" as "evidence" that it's the more common term and the article should be moved. All because you don't like the term "train station". oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A nice clean talk page is probably better achieved by archival than blanking, and bot archival is super easy to set up. Just sayin'. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to corroborate these complaints; earlier this year I went to WP:DRN for exactly the same reasons (link to DRN discussion here). The user was systematically changing links across Misplaced Pages for "passive smoking" so that they pointed to "second-hand smoke", then afterwards tried to move the page claiming it was "the most widely used" term (link to page move discussion).

After the page move failed he engaged in long-running edit- and move-wars across a number of articles (see the user's move log from February as a demonstration of this: ), and after they failed he even tried copy/paste moves to avoid process (see for example the history of second-hand smoke). It was only after his admonishment at DRM that he ceased, at least temporarily. However he seems to have resumed on different articles, using the same tactics as before and with the same disregard for consensus.

Thanks for the hint, Chaos - how easy is that to do? Oknazevad, Cross Porpoises - you're at risk of straying into ad hominem attacks here; please try to keep ideas for how to do things better positive and constructive rather than assuming bad faith.Hypocaustic (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, POV pushing over several pages. User:Norlns22

I have a few articles in my watchlist that have popped up a lot the past few days where it appears that edit warring was taking place. Primarily, Cheri Bustos, William Enyart and Tammy Baldwin. I was going to start warning some users about possible edit warring (and I had warned one of them about their lack of using edit summaries), but then I see this comment on a user page and this edit summary and thought that I needed to be more proactive here. Possible sock puppetry? I'm not sure if any of this rises to that level, but what's going on over several pages needs to be addressed. What notices/warnings should be given to any of these users? If my posting here is jumping the gun, I apologize. Since this relates to BLP issues, I wanted to get admin help. The users that appear to be involved include Norlns22 (talk · contribs), Decaturstreet (talk · contribs), and Lesbianadvocate (talk · contribs). Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, this is norlns22. I would like to respond. A while back, I helped create in its early stages a page on Cheri Bustos, a candidate for Congress in IL 17. Since that time, I have fallen into the habit of visiting the page periodically to see how many page views there are as the election has drawn closer. A while back, I noticed a user with the screen name/ handle "Lesbiantadvocate" was making changes to the page. I also noticed that all of the changes were made to make Ms. Bustos appear in an unflattering light. Looking at Lesbianadvocate's other contributions, and the amount of time he/ she or they spend on wiki, editing ONLY Democratic candidates to make them appear in the worst light possible (with an occasional edit to a Republican candidate to appear in a better light), I realized this person or group is obviously being paid to do this by a PAC or the RNCC. This is sad, and runs totally counter to the spirit of wikipedia in my opinion. Edits should be organic and not done for money in my opinion.

I should add that I am not on here that much and have never caused trouble in the past. I have edited a page of a television producer when someone asked for my help in doing so, as well as a few artists, but I am definitely at best a very sporadic dabbler here. My main complaint or grievance with Lesbiandadvocate's edits to Cheri Bustos is that he/ she has not been willing to even mention this candidate's TOP FOUR issues (from candidate's own web site and ads) central to her campaign, yet writes at fairly significant length about hot-button issues to clearly sway readers on emotional grounds who visit the page. In my opinion, this is not editing in good faith AT ALL. Furthermore, I would like to point out that this individual's handle alone indicates duplicity. Just looking at his/ her edits to Tammy Baldwin, a LESBIAN candidate from WI, shows he/ she is probably not a lesbian, and CERTAINLY not a lesbian advocate in any sense of the word. His or her only interest is in boosting Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming election. Isn't THAT a form of vandalism????? I believe he/ she chose this handle to purposely throw people off his/ her trail (not very cleverly, I might add). It only takes one click on this user's contributions to quickly uncover the agenda at play.

I realize that Lesbianadvocate believes I am vandalizing the Cheri Bustos page, but I see things VERY differently. I believe I am protecting the page from his or her (likely paid) partisan edits and clear bias -- again, with the sole intention of swaying votes. I realize there is such a thing as free speech in this nation, and that Lesbianadvocate did cite some of his/ her entries (though I cannot speak to the quality of the sources he or she used by any means). However, since I had a hand in helping create this page, my intention is NOT wholesale vandalism out of some teenage rush. I am merely wanting to protect Ms. Bustos from unfair edits that do not accurately reflect her and, more importantly, the issues she holds most dear to her candidacy. Again, Lesbianadvocate's edits do **NOT** reflect Cheri Bustos's priorities on issues. If Lesbianadvocate wanted to accurately portray Cheri Bustos, he/ she would at least mention her top issues/ positions.

I would really appreciate any feedback on this situation (other than Lesbianadvocate, or course, or other individuals from his/ her organization or camp). I am actually curious who brought this situation to light. Who is to say the person who started this particular page about this issue wasn't prompted to do so by Lesbianadvocate and isn't in some way associated with him or her??? (more bias!!!). If I were adding factually untrue items to the page, and I had not had a hand in creating this page (with properly sourced citations, I might add), I would not be as assertive in my right to carry out these reverts. I do realize, as unwiki savvy as I undoubtedly am, that helping to create a page in no way implies any sort of "ownership" over the article, as articles on wiki belong to no one individual. Having pointed this out, this is a two-way street -- Lesbianadvocate should have no more right to edit the Cheri Bustos article in a biased manner than I do to revert these edits.

In supporting Cheri Bustos and having had a hand in creating the page about her, I do believe it does show my reverts have come from a place not of haphazard and thrill-seeking vandalism, but from a place to protect the integrity of the article. Furthermore, I am a busy student, and thus am feeling completely outsized by someone who clearly, if you will look at his or her contributions, possesses the time and resources to devote HOURS to edits on wiki -- again, almost exclusively to Democratic candidates and ALWAYS in some negative or charged way. Again, I believe this person must be getting paid by a PAC or the NRCC leading up to the election. I no longer have as much free time to edit (as opposed to reverting) the page, as I am too busy. This is clearly indicated by my overall activity on wiki of late. Thank you to whoever reads this!!!! Norlns22 (talk)

You are blanking whole sections and paragraphs without valid justification and engaging in really obvious sockpuppetry. If there is material that you want to add then add it. Time spent making trouble and levelling bizarre accusations against me is time you could have spent making constructive changes.Lesbianadvocate (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a busy college student. 2 tests this week. I don't have time to edit. The only accusation that I have made against you is that you are getting paid to edit Democratic candidates' wiki articles/ pages who are in the midst of tight races leading up to the Nov. elections, and that, judging by the TIME you spend doing this, you are probably getting paid. How is that in any way a bizarre accusation? Anyone can see the numerous, lengthy edits you have made across a wide range of pages recently. It is hardly inconceivable that a PAC or the NRCC is paying a staffer to make these edits, esp. w/ all of the $$$ flowing into these elections. What I find bizarre is your screen name. Norlns22 (talk)

Accusation of (improper) paid editing without credible evidence is grounds for an immediate block, under WP:NPA. I don't see evidence. Furthermore, NorIns22 / Decaturstreet / Nationalavenue / Nickargento are clearly all the same editor, making zer edits on Cheri Bustos a probable WP:3RR violation. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure who to warn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, to reply partly to Norlns22's insinuations, I have no relation to Lesbianadvocate and was not contacted or prompted to bring this matter here by that user. As I stated in my original comment, I just saw these articles pop up in my watchlist and kept seeing the back and forth reverts. I just wanted to help prevent edit warring and possible sock-puppetry. Ad hominem attacks do not really defend a position. As far as Lesbianadvocate's edits, I have not gone in depth to make an opinion on their content and, indeed, stating what should or shouldn't be in any article isn't this board's purview. Content discussions about specific articles belong on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, this was not followed. Please view WP:BRD. I was set to begin warning all involved about possible edit warring on the Cheri Bustos article when I saw your edits and your comment on Lesbianadvocate's talk page. It is incredibly bad faith to state that you are going to oppose all of a user's edits and use sock puppets to keep any certain views off a page. I have no clue if Lesbianadvocate has any derogatory agenda, but your edits jumped out at me as problematic since they deleted content that (at first glance, anyway) appeared to be validly cited information and often simply reverted Lesbianadvocate's edits without any edit summary. That is highly inappropriate. Edit warring ensued over several articles as Norlns22 simply began reverting Lesbianadvocate's edits over other articles simply because they were by that user and Norlns22 didn't like LA, not because of any real stated content dispute. Misplaced Pages takes a long-term view of articles and electioneering on WP is highly discouraged. We should not be here to muck-rake but neither should we try to whitewash any articles. Thank you for your interest in contributing to Misplaced Pages. The users involved just need to be more civil and avoid soapboxing. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkish people

Could an admin please have a look at the Turkish people article. It seems as though another edit war could emerge due to a user who keeps placing a genetics section. It was previously agreed that we would not have such a section as those studies are not representative of Turkish people living outside of Turkey (e.g. Turkish minorities in Bulgaria etc.). Moreover, they have included new sections such as "Anatolians" which have no citations at all.Turco85 (Talk) 21:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• This was dropped on my talk page as well. In a nutshell, you do NOT need admin telling you what the content should be, and this is an admin board. What you need is to just leave the article as it is, go to the talk page for a few days, if you can't work that out, go to WP:DRN. Decisions on content are decided by fellow editors, not admin. As long as you two don't get into an edit war, we admin aren't needed here. And you don't want us involved. Trust me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:Turkish_people#Origins_of_Turkish_people_in_the_article_is_wrong and Talk:Turkish_people#Genetics_.28again.29_and_recent_edits_by_User:Cavann. User:Turco85 seems to want to OWN the article. Cavann (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are an interesting sort of fellow with an interesting history. You wouldn't happen to be User:Tirgil34, would you? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we addressed this before: User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_10#SPA (you collapsed the remainder of archive page incorrectly, it's hard to find). Cavann (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I need to fix that. Done So you are saying you are User:DeFacto (or User:Ornaith) then? Hmm, not the one I was expecting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I had never been banned from wiki before. Are you looking at all the banned users in Toronto. You know it's a big city right? 23:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavann (talk • contribs)

And that's all I'm gonna say. I hope another admin looks into this, cause you are actually harassing me. (are you this banned user? or are you that banned user?) Cavann (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And I did ask rather politely and non-reactively. It is what I do here, after all, and harassing wasn't the intent, discussion was. When someone is obviously familiar, it is helpful to know who I am talking to, although I didn't demand it and it wasn't personal. My previous comments about DRN still apply, by the way, and I still suggest everyone back away from reverting back and forth and discuss it on the talk page, without admin interference. But if any other admin has a question, they can ping me or email me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Polite and "non-reactively"? Are you kidding me? Without a question, you seem to be assuming I'm some banned user and your tone of questioning is "oh you are that banned user then," and you think you are polite and "non-reactive"? Besides being ridiculous, it is also ironic since you actually founded Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention. This is why I don't stick around, I have to spend 2 extra hours just cause I added material citing journal articles and someone accused me of being a sock. Is Wiki's sock puppet investigation process this pathetic? I don't even seem to be in the same continent with those users you are throwing around which seem to be editing UK related articles /rant Cavann (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope the talk page can help, the above reactions are exactly what I was expecting from Cavann though. I'm not sure if I've got the energy with editing on wikipedia anymore (though it is 1am!).Turco85 (Talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And I missed the "89" in the first comment, which led to the misunderstanding as well. The names are so similar that wasn't as obvious to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by Omar-Toons

Dear Administrators

While reviewing the article Republic of Salé, I asked for references for the two following statements:

• The fact that corsair city was a major piratical port during its brief existing.
• The fact that: Cultural differences between the native Saletin people and the Morisco refugees, together with language differences led the newcomers to settle in the old Medina of Rabat, on the opposite bank of the Bou Regreg.

User Omar-Toons kept deleting the tags I added asking to source these two statements. He did so twice even after I wrote this message on his talk page refusing to be collaborative. May be Omar-Toons needs the English speaking reader to believe what he wants him to believe without asking for sources. Sources are important, otherwise everyone can pretend whatever he wants. I would like this user to stop vandalism, to stop pushing and to be collaborative. What he may know or what he may consider as a fact has to be sourced since wiki is neither a blog nor a forum.

Fort-Henry (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Accusing another user of vandalism when you are in fact in an editing dispute is always a bad idea. Please review WP:VANDAL fow Misplaced Pages's definition of vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Policing somebody is also a bad idea (this "presumed new user" is making edits or reverting me on each article I edit, a few minutes to few hours after mines).
  • --Omar-toons (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

edit warring is an even worse idea and if it keeps up you will both be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:Omar-toons's alternate account User:Omar-Toons was globally locked for "massive crosswiki edit-warring", and it seems that this behaviour has continued. I haven't been able to find the discussion the led to the global-lock, but it seems that allowing users to get around it by switching to an alternate account defeats their purpose. TDL (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Omar-toons created Omar-Toons, began a massive cross-wiki edit-warring campaign which resulted in that account being blocked, and then returned to using Omar-toons here. I'm inclined to reblock Omar-Toons, as it appears he did not get the point.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I just was busy translating the fr.Wiki featured article to English while another user was just making useless edits like this one.

The only question I have (for myself) is "who's this so-called new user, policing me (+ this), already knowing how does Wiki work and finally accusing me of vandalism?".

Can I ask for an RCU for this case?

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not really understand this behavior from user Omar-Toons. I do not neither understand what he means by "presumed new user"!!!??? Why is that? Is it only because I asked for references? Or may be Omar-Toons do not like to be challenged. As I know, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project in which contributors should accept to be collaborative and should accept to be challenged on a scientific base.

Now, to avoid confusion, let me introduce myself. I am not that new user. I contributed long time ago, under an IP address, to Wiki (because of that I already know some of the policies). Starting the month of September, my son (the high school student here in Canada) has to accomplish some extensive work about Morocco (as have some of his classmates to accomplish similar work about other north African countries). And, to be honest, I was shocked to see all that unreliable content. How could we trust that? How could we as parents and how could our teachers allow some scientific works to be based on such articles? So I decided to be back.

Now, in my real life, I am a university professor. And the most important is that I am a reviewer for some of the most prestigious scientific journals edited in Oxford, UK. Analyzing and reviewing articles is my job.

Omar-Toons is accusing me of policing him, I do not understand how he dares showing to other administrators an example of his rudeness and impoliteness towards other contributors!? (Stating their contributions are stupid) Is it allowed to be that rude and impolite in Wiki? Omar-Toons also treated one of my contributions of useless while he has simply hidden a part of the article republic of Sale’ instead of sourcing it. Now, let’s admit you were translating the article, why did not you add the appropriate tag to let us know???

Finally, I would like to inform the administrators that I do not contribute to wiki to be involved in edit wars, my aim is to make wiki more reliable. Fort-Henry (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Why not to be enough fair to invite the administrators to observe all the history of our contributions in the article Republic of Sale'? I do not believe I was involved in an edit war since I was simply asking for references. Fort-Henry (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A warning to both editors: you need to talk with each other and settle your differences. The first one of you that reverts the other after the article protection has expired without discussing it first will be blocked.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre edit-warring or sockpuppetry ... whatever it is, it's disruptive

I'm not sure what exactly is going on here, but most recent edits on Ditylenchus dipsaci (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch seem to be from users with very similar usernames: SarahNC (talk · contribs), SarahNicoleTaylor-3 (talk · contribs), SarahNicoleTaylor (talk · contribs). Not sure if this is a case of edit-warring + impersonation, or if it's sockpuppetry. Also the page should probably be temporarily semi-protected. Amp71 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The article had not been edited since last May so something is definitely odd here. This IP 72.33.106.211 (talk · contribs) from Madison WI is likely also involved. I have reverted the article back to the May 24th version. If any of the edits are legit please feel free to restore them. MarnetteD | Talk 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is another 72.33.107.127 (talk · contribs) also from Madison so the duck is quacking loudly. I have filed a RFPP but I do not how long it will take to be responded to so any help would be great. MarnetteD | Talk 01:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see recent message on my talk page. Thanks. Amp71 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked the three registered accounts and the one IP address for one week for abusing multiple accounts. I would appreciate it if either Amp71 or MarnetteD would file a report at WP:SPI so it can be official. Also, please put the article back the way it should be. I didn't undo any of the recent edits by the socks. Finally, if there is block evasion by IPs, please let me or another admin know so more blocks can be issued or the article semi-protected if it's too unwieldy to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm adding this after the message left at Amp71's talk page. I don't intend to unblock at this point. The issue of all these accounts and the one IP address editing at the same time is disruptive. I also can't tell whether it's one person or more than one person. The claim that it's on behalf of a professor is also muddling. If another admin wants to address these issues preemptively (rather than wait for the fallout from the blocks), that's fine. Otherwise, I'd just as soon wait. I have to go now and put block notices on all the pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Another admin semi-protected the article before I could get to the report at RFPP (I was about to decline it). No big deal. Won't hurt the article to be semi-protected for a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response everyone. I have filed the SPI here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SarahNicoleTaylor. As I mentioned on Amp71s talk page if any of this turns out to be legit and/or anyone from the class returns I suggest that they be directed to a sandbox so they can finish their work and then editors familiar with the subject can confirm whether they would improve the article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

These accounts are requesting unblock. I've left a quick note at User talk:SarahNicoleTaylor-3, but I'm off to bed now so someone else will need to keep an eye on things. – Steel 03:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• What should have been done for socks is to indef all but one account. That one account can either get a warning or a timed block. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This seems to be the class website. This is the website from last year and does mention a "Misplaced Pages assignment". I think this is probably a real class. The usernames are...let's just say not artfully selected, but I'm suspecting that it's three people working/editing together in a group, which is OK by policy, so I'd say that we can safely unblock. The instructor should really be pointed to WP:SUP though. T. Canens (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It is really important to avoid blocking classes, even when the do not follow the suggested guidelines for the educational program. The nature of the article being worked on should really have been spotted as a hint that this was not typical sockpuppetry DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock please. Per TC and DGG, highly likely this is class project, not puppetry. Nobody Ent 11:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have posted to the user talk pages, explaining the username policy issues, and asking for clarification as to whether they are the same person. If the answer is "yes" then one account can be unblocked subject to the usual requirement of an indication that she understands and will not edit disruptively from now on. If, on the other hand, the answer is "no", then they can all be unblocked to allow requests for changes of username. I disagree with DGG that members of classes should be treated differently from other editors: If the editing deserves a block then it deserves a block. Having said that, I would not myself have blocked without first explaining the issues on the user talk pages, for several reasons, not least the fact that the question of whether they were the same person or not was unsettled. I really don't see why, in such a case of doubt, it was not considered better to ask the user(s) first, not only before blocking, but before reporting here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am slightly irritated that the collective response to these editors has caused far more disruption than any they may have caused themselves. I can understand that the flurry of fast-paced editing from similar usernames spooked a couple of users, though week-long blocks for all was probably a slight overreaction. Since then we've had two WP:SPI cases created, one of which I summarily closed on the grounds that no further sockpuppet investigation was required, and the other I deleted. The closed one was then reopened for some reason so a checkuser could be run (???), which came back as confirmed. Well no shit, Sherlock. What new insight could a checkuser have possibly provided on this situation? We already knew they were editing from a university connection.

So I have unblocked SarahNicoleTaylor and SarahNC, and left a note with SarahNicoleTaylor-3 to create a new account. – Steel 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Further comment after edit conflict: I appear to have stepped on James's toes here a bit, but I think we can safely say these are separate users. – Steel 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for handling this badly. Unfortunately, after I issued the blocks and left notes, I went off-wiki (until now). In the future, unless I am more confident I know what I'm doing, I'll ask another admin to handle it or just leave the original ANI post intact and allow some other admin to act on their own. I'm still a little puzzled as to who everyone is, and why -3 was asked to create another account and the other two weren't. All of the usernames are obviously similar. Is it one person or three? Is Sarah Nicole Taylor the name of the one person or the name of their professor (assuming it's three) - the one explanation I see doesn't really fully explain. Anyway, I'm not going to touch any of the accounts, having made enough trouble for everyone already. Again, I'm sorry for wasting so many admins' time, in particular to James and Steel.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WMF has docked Bbb23's paycheck for this month 10%. No, Bbb23 spotted amiss, made a reasonable interpretation and took action to address the situation. Depending on the level of the class, either the instructor failed to research and provide adequate instructions on how to go about creating accounts, or the students failed to heed the advice at Special:UserLogin/signup (the "not logged in" version) -- the usernames were clearly in violation of policy. As long as an admin provides reasonable indication of what they are doing and why there is no requirement they stay logged on for "X" minutes ... that's why we have many admins and unblock templates and AN & ANI. I don't see anything wrong with Bbb23's actions. Additionally the students have learned something about how the Misplaced Pages community tries to maintain the integrity of its articles, regardless of whether that was part of the assignment or not. Nobody Ent 14:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked for the checkuser because I wanted to make sure before I unblock the accounts. The reason I did not unblock last night is because of the CU finding, which, I'm informed, unambiguously shows that SNT and SNC are editing from the same computer. T. Canens (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I really wonder how CU can actually prove they "are editing from the same computer". I've been to a few universities which had (1) identical software on many machines, and (2) an outgoing NAT/proxy giving the same IP to all. Never mind labs of physically-shared computers. And terminal servers, e.g. accessed by Sun Rays. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't "prove" anything, ever. See WP:PIXIEDUST. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no requirement editors edit from different computers. In fact Pair programming is a notable software development technique. Nobody Ent 14:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested user name change

. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Responded, sending them to WP:CHU. Mdann52 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And typical wikipedian response

. @ MarnetteD - 02:13, 25 October 2012 (above) : Have you ever heard of WP:AGF? You seem to know nothing about the topic but reverted anyway. For starters, a quick GB search confirms that "stem and bulb nematode" and "teasel nematode" are both a common name for D. dipsaci . Tijfo098 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it sure is easy to cherry pick and criticize hours after the events took place. First, I was responding to another editors concerns. I was also responding in real time to a page that was being heavily edited in an obvious socking situation. The edits were coming so fast and furious that there was no time to verify any of them. As the events continued to unfold, and understanding that there might be more to the situation, I was the first to suggest (as the edit you highlight shows) that, if the editing was legit, that they move to a sandbox so that things could be checked out by those in the know. I filed the SPI at another users request. In my time here I have come across vandalism, both subtle and overt, that stayed in articles for a year or more because people did not react to it at the time that it occurred. If protecting articles is a typical wikipedianb response then I am happy to be one as several of us were in this situation. It's a funny thing that some people think that AGF is only for new editors. MarnetteD | Talk 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I echo DGG, above, and others: there are clear hints here that this was indeed a kind of class assignments. I've run into enough of them to see that, and I'm sorry I haven't kept a closer eye on this board. Now, oftentimes such assignments are not handled properly, as in this case, with those usernames and a lack of communication (with education projects, for instance), but it is our job to help them along, not block them or fling them to SPI (sorry Bbb et al.). As for Marnette's reversal, I don't want to look at the timeline (and its argument) given my own timeline, but sometimes a complete revert is the best way to go--this, in my opinion, was not one of those occasions. Sometimes it's best to let the thing play out: there are no BLP concerns here, it's all done as an effort to improve things, etc. One can always revert afterward. On a related note: does this article still need to be protected? With vandalism cited as the reason? Drmies (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, let me make clear that I don't doubt anyone's good faith here. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think not. (protection) Nobody Ent 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I hit "vandalism" by mistake actually--I semi-d it because I thought there was sockpuppetry going on. I have twinkle pre-set to use vandalism as an explanation for protecting, and I sometimes forget to change it in specific circumstances. I'll unprotect it now though, since things seem to be under control. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I hold a record for detecting a two-year old article that was entirely vandalism (hoax): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/R-peak. It's easier to analyze their work after the dust settles rather than diff by diff, IMO. So it matters little how many edits they make "fast and furious". Tijfo098 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that's nowhere near the record. Graham87 06:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Mkay, two years seems the average lifespan of a hoax on Misplaced Pages (although that page may be biased). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to defend my own actions, but I would like to defend Marnette's. I understand Drmies's point, but at the same time things were happening very quickly and Marnette was just trying to help out. Overall, I think it was simply everyone acting too hastily. As an admin, my own actions are less defensible; as others have pointed out, I should have at least looked at the content changes to see if there was any associated policy violations, and I didn't. The only thing I did right was to leave a clear record of what I did wrong before going off-wiki. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding to situations like this is Between Scylla and Charybdis; we neither want to allow crap to get into articles nor do we want to bite newbies. It's really easy to analyze after the fact -- this editor was obviously a troll, that editor was clearly a newbie. We have logs and review boards and unblock templates for a reason. Billy Joel is wrong, we don't have to Get It Right the First Time. Post-hoc beating up admins and editors doesn't help Misplaced Pages. Nobody Ent 02:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true. However, continual education of editors and admins is a good thing. So, part of these discussion would seem forward looking, for example, should the admin have protected the wrong version and then investigated or done something else? Do some investigation first? Would it depend on the type of article? Etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the last (well, before the "etc"). Politics and BLPs require immediate action besides investigation, IMO. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and legal threats

I've been involved in an escalating dispute with Rollingwagon at the AfC help desk. The draft which is the basis for the dispute is at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist; it was blanked by Kelly Marie 0812 because it was a word-for-word copy of Johnson's biography at Amazon.com. It was a word-for-word copy, but apparently the Amazon biography changed within the last few hours. The old version of the draft as edited by Rollingwagon still cites the Amazon biography for claims such as Johnson's "Thanksgiving dinner with Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan a few weeks before his murder", claims that are no longer supported by the current Amazon biography. I have no idea what should happen to the draft. Right now it does not look like a copyright violation, but I don't think the change of the Amazon biography means we no longer violate copyright if we did so before.

Furthermore, Rollingwagon apparently didn't like my attempts at explaining Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines; he accused "a certain editor" (me) of hassling a newcomer and engaged in what might be seen as veiled legal threats in comments such as this one.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Rollingwagon is himself Christopher Johnson and that he changed the author-submitted Amazon biography in order to circumvent the copyright problems. If so, I can understand his frustration, but I still think this needs some kind of intervention, and apparently I'm unable to interact with Rollingwagon without alienating him further. Any help would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

At the time I reviewed the article for the second time, the article in its entirety was word for word the same as the amazon.com biography cited numerous times in the article, that Huon linked above. However just now revisiting the site, the amazon.com biography has been changed and dramatically shortened since I last read it. I too wondered if Rollingwagon is actually Christopher Johnson, or someone close enough for a COI, if anything because the amazon biography states it is author submitted, and the coincidental timing of its change. In terms of the disagreement, Rollingwagon seems to have taken the comments about the reliability of the sources he used very personally, and as an attack on the subject of the article. While I have not read their lengthy discussion in detail, from what I've gathered it's my opinion that Rollingwagon misinterpreted Huon's comments and intentions. It's clear Huon spent a lot of time helping him reformat the article and looking into the sources in depth, as well as attempting to explain Misplaced Pages's policies. I don't think there was any just cause for the insinuation of libel and cyber bullying. It seems that third party intervention would be helpful in showing Rollingwagon the policies on reliable sources are consensus here and not an attack on him personally. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was able to dig up a gcached version of the bio: LINKY for ease of access. Ishdarian 06:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have already accomplished one good thing: he (or his rpresentative) has replaced the ridiculously promotional bio at amazon (which we wouldn't be able to use in any case, regardless of copyright) with something more reasonable. I wonder, though, if it instead represents his judgement that an extended WP bio is more essential advertising than one at Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it does represent that. Judging by the format of the cached version (October 13), it looks like he pasted his planned Misplaced Pages draft onto Amazon before creating it here (October 15). In any case, if it's been previously published, even if taken down later, it's still copyvio. We've removed plenty of copyvio under those circumstances. By the way, the book he's touting is self-published. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a heavy-handed response indeed considering the likelihood that the same author is behind both bits of text. Assuming that Rollingwagon is indeed Johnson, said bio also correctly identifies that he's responsible for a good number of high-quality free images that we've grabbed from his Flickr account. Biting down hard on him here may result in him deciding to shut that particular stream down. Let's not allow one overreaction (deletion of a page which, even if inappropriately fluffy and self-referenced, was only lacking a permission / attribution statement to get over the copyvio suggestion) lead to another (blocking over a deliberately-strict interpretation of NLT). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Response from Rollingwagon

Dear Members,

Thanks for your invitation to the club. I would like you to kindly consider this scenario.

Imagine if you walk into a country club for the first time. You would like to donate some of your art work to them. The club has a sign saying "Donations Welcome." It seems promising. You have always liked this club, and dreamed of being a member.

However, nobody greets you, or lets you in, for a couple of weeks. You get frustrated. So you take your art work to another club, which is much more welcoming, and hang it on the walls there. So, you go back to the first country club. Finally, somebody, using a false name and a mask, takes a look at your art work, and tells you that you can't come in. In fact, they have made a mistake, but they don't admit it at first.

So you ask for help at the Help Desk. The guy at the Help Desk seems strange. You wonder if he is drunk, bellicose, belligerent, and illogical. He tells you, "your work is above-average quality", and then, the next moment, hassles you over every little thing about you and your free art work, which you are offering as a charitable donation. He makes false accusations about you and your friends and colleagues - people he has never met. He spouts opinions, without verifiable evidence, that offend you and your friends. He reads out all these rules, basically as a way of keeping you out of the club, or making you submit to his superior authority. After a while, you begin to wonder if this person is a bigot, and he simply doesn't trust your "kind." You feel like the "Help Desk" is the "Hassle Desk".

However, since you are new to the club, you try to be tolerant and calm. You are open, and eager to learn. You politely state your points, and ask for further advice. All you want to do is donate your art work, for free, since you care about the community. However, people at the club start ganging up on you, in support of the folks at the Help Desk, and other Desks, which all seem confusing. They take your art work and hide it from you. Perhaps they are tearing it up. Perhaps they are going to write graffiti all over it, and put it on the walls, without your approval. You get scared, anxious, suspicious. You carefully check over the rules of the club, and remind the members about these rules, which are supposed to protect newcomers to the club.

But club members, in defiance of their own rules, make more false accusations about you. They claim you are violating their rules -- a hasty judgement on their part, without proof. They accuse you of breaking their rules by hanging your artwork in that other club, when in fact you brought it to them first, as a free donation to the community. They don't know the full story, about how you came weeks earlier, and were ignored. They don't seem to care about how much hard work you put into your art work. They only seem to care about preserving their status within the club.

So, you ask your friends to take down that artwork in that other club, in order to please the demanding members of this new elite club. But that causes a knee-jerk reaction from these club members, who adopt a lynch mob mentality, ready to burn you at the stake or throw you out the door, for defying their sacred policies, which they didn't explain to you weeks ago. They start calling you names. They accuse you of being somebody else. They use rude, inflammatory language, disrespecting your friends and colleagues. They say you are making "deadly" mistakes and doing "ridiculously promotional" things, basically because they are envious of the work and achievements of you and your colleagues. It's a form of schoolyard bullying, but these are adults who should know better, and some of them are paid club employees. They are right, because they are members of the club. You are wrong, because you are a newcomer. Logic, reason, common sense doesn't matter. Might makes right.

In this case, what are you going to do? Are you going to defend yourself from these false accusations and hasty judgments, and continue to make your points based on logic and reason and verifiable information? Are you going to ask to speak to the manager of the club, or the founder of the club? Or do you walk away, abandoning your art work? Or do you take some kind of action, through courts or the media, to expose the mistreatment at the club and to assert your rights as a member of the community?

Please offer your wise and careful advice. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't assume that the actions of individual administrators is indicative of the consensus of the community. This discussion was raised precisely in order to assess what the appropriate action should be. Please do note, however, that as a matter of policy we do not permit editors to continue to contribute here while they are asserting the possibility of legal action; it would be best for you to retract that portion of your statement should you wish to continue debating this matter here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The amazon license seems compatible with CC license. Per Amazon's terms, "You grant to us a license to use the Submitted Materials on the terms provided below, but you otherwise retain all of your rights in your Submitted Materials." and "You grant to us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free right and license to use " Nobody Ent 7:26 am, Today (UTC−4)

If there's a good reason to believe the guy who submitted it here also submitted it there, you can just ask for it to be undeleted; if there ain't, the terms of the Amazon licence don't mean much. WilyD 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC) moved from DRV Nobody Ent 11:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We still require confirmation that the Amazon piece was by the same author as well (this appears likely, but it's precisely that lack of confirmation which saw this deleted in the first place). But we don't need to have this discussion in two places. It should continue on ANI at WP:ANI#Copyright and legal threats. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)moved from DRV Nobody Ent 11:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of confirmation is required? We accept photos/artwork all the time based on the simple assertion of the uploader. Nobody Ent 11:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that if it is discovered that images have been previously published online or in books without a compatible license displayed, they are deleted, regardless of whether the uploader took the picture or not. Previous publication automatically confers copyright. The procedure is explained in Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Note also Amazon's terms of use:

All content included in or made available through any Amazon Service, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, and data compilations is the property of Amazon or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content included in or made available through any Amazon Service is the exclusive property of Amazon and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

In other words Amazon has the right to relicense contributors' material royalty-free, if the want to, but that license has to be obtained first. We can only accept material released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not so sure, from that text. It says the copyright is owned by Amazon 'or its content suppliers -- and the terms I liked above indicate submitting content to Amazon does not give them an exclusive license. I wonder if this has come up before, and whether WMF legal has opined an opinion? Nobody Ent 12:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, that is not a compatible license. Johnson can release the material under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, but he must explictly do so following the procedures I linked here. Until then it cannot appear on Misplaced Pages. And all of this is assuming that the editor in question actually is Johnson. This is complicated by the fact that the material also appears at Bangkok Books. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also the normal procedure when copyvio is in an article, but there is a credible claim to ownership of it by the editor in question, it is blanked and must remain blanked until that permission has been received via the procedures at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Until that happens, the material cannot be visible on Misplaced Pages. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, discussions like this about copyright status of text like this amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Misplaced Pages and Amazon are websites with different purposes and different standards of how text should be organized and written. The real problem with nearly all text published elsewhere first isn't that it ends up being a copyvio, it's that it is wholly inappropriate in content and tone for Misplaced Pages. Once we get past the point where the text could be legally donated to Misplaced Pages, it ends up being rejected or gutted to the point of unrecognizablity because it's outlandishly promotional, lacks sources, makes ridiculous claims, presents an unbalanced or non-neutral viewpoint, etc. etc. So we spend all of this effort getting "permission" for a user to post text that, in the end, we exclude for other reasons anyways. That's why we actively discourage users who don't know Misplaced Pages rules and standards from posting WP:COI text: regardless of the copyright status, we can expect it to be next to impossible for the text they write about themselves, their employers, or their clients to have any resemblance to an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully concur. Even if it is eventually released under a compatible license, the text is basically unusable. It is unencyclopedic, promotional, and lacks reliable independent sources both for verification of a biography of a living person and to establish notability. Huon explained all this very carefully, meticulously, and patiently, going through each of the references here. This article would almost certainly be deleted at an AfD discussion if those references where all that could be found. and I strongly urge Rollingwagon to take the time to read what Misplaced Pages means by notability (simplified at The answer to life, the universe, and everything)—not what it means to him or what he thinks it ought to mean. A careful reading of Misplaced Pages:Autobiography is also recommended. Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I have read each one carefully. In order to build consensus, I'm going to offer a pragmatic solution that addresses the concerns of all parties.

First of all, let's agree that Misplaced Pages's core principals should supersede any attempt to use a narrow or strict interpretation of any one of the hundreds of countervailing or contradictory rules and policies governing Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is, above all other things, a non-profit organization supported by volunteers and amateurs, not a hedge fund, academic institution, or religious cult where superiors or hardliners have authority over newcomers or outsiders. As you all know, Misplaced Pages is a "free-content encyclopedia". Thus any unilateral or multilateral attempt to quash, delete, block, ban, prohibit, censor or restrict someone else's right to enter verifiable, accurate content, in good faith, goes against this core principal. To quote the About section of Misplaced Pages's main page: "Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time." Furthermore, since Misplaced Pages has an estimated 77,000 active contributors and 22 million articles, Misplaced Pages's ethos is based upon collaboration and cooperation across cultures, not a schoolyard bullying mentality where might makes right, or where one or two persons can interpret or manipulate rules to their advantage and conspire to quash someone else's good faith contributions. Though Misplaced Pages has Five Pillars, and an array of policies and guidelines, "it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing." All of this is clearly stated on the "About" section of Misplaced Pages's main page. "Misplaced Pages is written largely by amateurs. Those with expert credentials are given no additional weight." This means that no editor, whether Huon, Kelly Marie 0812, DGG, Jayron, Vocenitedore or others, have more weight than the newcomer RollingWagon. The policies pertaining to this principal are clearly stated in the section titled "Don't bite the newcomer." Thus there is a better solution than making hasty judgements to quash or delete an article without cordial, open communications and consultations with the editor who donated the content to the Misplaced Pages community in the first place. In other words, it's not in accordance with Misplaced Pages principles for editors to arbitrarily and swiftly delete my article without asking me directly for my input into the decision. RollingWagon will accept, in good faith, that this action may have been done in good faith, due to a misunderstanding or confusion about copyright and legal issues. RollingWagon will clear up these issues later in this statement. In future, if you have quibbles about RolingWagon's work, please feel free to discuss it with him directly, on a basis of equality and transparency, rather than taking unilateral decisions based on knee-jerk reactions or hasty decisions.

With these core principals in mind, let's build a consensus. Firstly, if you read RollingWagon's entry in detail, without prejudice or preconceived notions, RollingWagon did in fact follow Misplaced Pages's principals and policies by providing a neutral, dispassionate article with 53 references, containing hard, verifiable, well-established facts -- not opinions or exaggerations or self-serving ads -- that are truthful, accurate, and common knowledge, and widely available on multiple sites across the internet. There is no original research on the Misplaced Pages entry. There was no libel, vandalism, shameless self-promotion, advertising or any other infringement of Misplaced Pages's core policies of free-content. Huon, who started this discussion, originally praised the article for it's "above-average quality", and reposted it with more than 40 references. So let's all agree that Huon's initial sentiment is a good basis to build a more detailed and well-supported article.

RollingWagon's reliable sources include articles or mentions about Johnson in the New York Times, The Economist, TIME, Reuters, Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and many others. These sources are cited in millions of Misplaced Pages articles, without trouble. Any attempt to dispute the reliability of these sources, due to a personal bias or worldview, even if well-founded and well-articulated, will not serve to build a consensus in adherence to Misplaced Pages's core principal of "free-content." On the contrary, such arguments will only waste time, create friction, lead to censorship, and impede the flow of "free-content".

As for questions about whether Johnson is a notable living person, Google results for "Christopher Johnson Japan journalist" turn up more than 10 pages of articles ABOUT Johnson, not BY JOHNSON or his associates. These articles, in The Economist and others, clearly pass the threshold stated in "The answer to life, the universe, and everything," as pointed out by Vocenitedore. Johnson is not merely a passing reference in these articles. In fact, there are more than 50 articles devoted solely to discussing Johnson's work and actions.

Kelly Marie 0812, Vocenitedore and others have raised valid concerns about copyright issues, which are an important issue for all editors. Even if they are not indeed intellectual property rights lawyers, or Supreme Court Justices ruling on constitutional issues concerning piracy and freedom of expression, let's assume that these editors acted in good faith, based on what they knew at the time. Nobody Ent has also made valid points that "we accept photos/artwork all the time based on the simple assertion of the uploader."

Johnson or his representatives, agents or publishers have resolved this issue by making a clear, unambiguous statement allowing unrestricted use of material in his author bio on Amazon.com. "The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Misplaced Pages, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason." Indeed, Vocenitedore's research efforts have found similar unrestricted usage of this material by Johnson's publisher Bangkok Books. So, clearly, there is no longer any copyright issue, since the copyright holder has asserted his rights to allow everyone to use the material. This seems to be consistent with Johnson's longtime policy of allowing Misplaced Pages editors free use of hundreds of his copyrighted photos, as correctly stated by Chris Cunningham.

Thus, if we can agree to move beyond issues of copyright violations, let's discuss the issue of legal threats. Regardless of how some people might interpret various writings, nobody has made any overt legal threat on this issue. Having said that, we should all keep in mind that Misplaced Pages, though a prestigious non-profit with an estimated 470 million unique visitors per month, is not above libel laws designed to protect the reputations of persons. Disparaging, or disputing, or casting aspersion upon the reputations of Johnson, Cory Doctorow, Kenneth Cukier, Tom Standage, Urban Hamid, Daniel Pearl, or any other journalist or author does nothing to serve Misplaced Pages's core principals, no matter what can be found in forums on Misplaced Pages or any other website. We should assume, in good faith, that these are all hard-working people supporting families, and they do not deserve to have their names sullied in online media such as Misplaced Pages. If somebody wants to go online to "out" people, or vent their bigotry, hate or frustration with Big Media, indy media, self-promoters, artists, musicians, advertisers, agents, publishers, or whoever, they should take that to another site, not Misplaced Pages. I'm sure we can all agree on this point.

Chris Cunningham made the salient point that Misplaced Pages has used "a good number of high quality free images that we've grabbed from his Flickr account." Thus, a large number of Misplaced Pages editors have endorsed the credibility of Johnson as a world-class journalist and photographer. It seems that Misplaced Pages editors have used perhaps 100 or more of Johnson's photos on entries across several languages. Thus it can be said that Johnson has been contributing to Misplaced Pages long before some of our fellow editors have. We won't gain anything by a hostile, uppity, law enforcement attitude toward someone who has made significant donations, free of charge, to Misplaced Pages, and who may have a personal relation to the founders.

It also seems preposterous to suggest that Johnson's bio on Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, Globalite Magazine and other sources is anything less than credible. It seems implausible that a veteran foreign correspondent with a 25-year career, who depends on credibility to sell his or her work, would concoct a massive collection of lies, including about his brothers and sisters, in order to promote a book, an album, a photo, a t-shirt of something else. There is nothing wrong with amassing a collection of notable achievements over one's life, and listing those in a bio to reach mass audiences. Misplaced Pages editors should not misuse Misplaced Pages policies to vent their envy or jealousy at people who have worked hard to achieve some sort of notoriety or notability, whether in the media or other avenues. If you don't like how millions of artists promote their own work, in order to achieve some sort of name or fame, then you should take up these issues on other sites, not Misplaced Pages. Editors should also note that there is clearly a difference between teenagers using Misplaced Pages to promote their local garage band, and veteran journalists whose verifiable works have reached millions over decades, as there is also a difference between an unheralded amateur blog about salamanders, and a blog on The Economist that has editorial oversight, hundreds of staffers, and millions of readers.

There's also an issue about selective enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies. The fact is, Misplaced Pages.org editors have permitted the posting of thousands, perhaps millions, of entries about notable persons whose achievements are less than those of Johnson, and less supported with evidence and references. If overzealous editors were to enforce every rule, without regard for Misplaced Pages's core principals, then myself and other editors would have justification to remove millions of entries. For example, one could start with Johnson's peers in Asia. Alex Kerr, Christopher G. Moore, Richard Lloyd Parry, Jake Adelstein, Karl Greenfeld, and hundreds of others are all notable persons whose work spans the worlds of journalism and publishing. Their biographies on Misplaced Pages tend to cite their own blogs, or publishers, or their friends articles in newspapers or magazines, and little else. They cite fewer references than the entry about Johnson. The entry of Kerr, for example, derives information from Kerr's two blogs, and a magazine he edits. As far as I can tell, there are no references or citations. The entries for Adelstein and Moore appear to be directly supplied by their publishers, or the authors themselves. They site, as references, stories about themselves in their own books. Yet nobody is suggesting we tear down their Misplaced Pages articles, since Kerr, Moore, Adelstein and others are well-established writers, not teenagers creating hobby pages on Myspace. Nobody is suggesting that we delete the names of Adelstein's children, or Moore's list of awards, since they have no references from reliable, independent sources. We have no reason to believe that they or their representatives would publish lies in order to promote themselves, and we should assume the same about Johnson's life story as stated on his bio at Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, and other media. If anybody can successfully refute facts about the life stories of Johnson, Moore, Adelstein, Kerr, or others, I will stand corrected, and carefully consider their arguments, if based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Furthermore, if we did quash their sites, citing one of a large number of countervailing or contradictory rules or policies, it would clearly violate Misplaced Pages's ethos and core principals. It would also defy common sense, and create an atmosphere of retribution, not cooperation. So there should not be a double-standard applied to Johnson or any other person who has notable achievements in terms of creating books, photos, albums, news articles, TV reports or other works reaching mass audiences for decades.

With the spirit of consensus and collaboration in mind, I think we can agree that the best solution is to undelete the RollingWagon entry about Johnson, or repost Huon's well-formatted version, citing 43 references. Kelly Marie 0812 will surely agree this is appropriate, since she had originally apologized for rejecting the article in the first place, not for any questions about notability, copyright or other matters, but because of the formatting, which Huon has astutely corrected: "Sorry for any misunderstanding here. At the time I reviewed it, the repeated content, lack of section headers, and reference formatting combined led me to believe it was a test and not meant for submission."

In attempt to avoid a further escalation with an editor refuting dozens of his points, Huon has wisely offered to bow out and focus his energies on other entries. I believe this is a positive approach, since he has already stated his views in thousands of words, and spent more than enough time and energy reformatting the original entry and explaining Misplaced Pages policies and practices to a newcomer. As for myself, RollingWagon will continue to work hard to fill any holes in terms of references or citations, since the article is likely to evolve over time, unless the subject dies or abandones his career. It's a win-win situation for everyone. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding. Rollingwagon (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have the attention span of a sand flee. How the hell am I suppose to read that? --Malerooster (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See this. --Malerooster (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The essayist in question could be characterized as a megillah guerilla. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that my first decline of the article was based on formatting alone and belief it was a test submission, and did not represent any opinion of mine either way on the article's notability or copyright status. The second time I reviewed the article I noticed the text duplication. To my knowledge the standard policy is to immediately flag the article as a possible copyright issue, which blanks (not deletes) the page until an admin reviews and ultimately confirms/deletes or denies/restores.

Despite its WP:TLDR length, I have done my best to read through Rollingwagon's comments. Quite simply it seems he disagrees with Misplaced Pages's policies on both reliable sources and general procedures. He claims that there have not been overt legal threats, but also that Misplaced Pages is not above libel laws, and seems to be saying that the editors' concerns with his article are defaming the subject.

There is a lot being discussed here; even if the copyright issues were resolved, there are still issues regarding reliability of sources and/or notability, as well as general procedures. It seems it might be best to focus on those issues, as noted above, the copyright would be a moot point if the article was not to be accepted anyway. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kelly Marie 0812. Thanks for your comments, and for taking the time to read my statement. I would like to clarify some points. First, you decided to reject my article because you mistakenly thought it was for the sandbox, not for submission, when in fact I did intend it for submission. Together, we corrected that. Thanks for that. Secondly, you errantly, in good faith, flagged my article for deletion, and it was immediately deleted, without allowing me a chance to have any input or prior consultation. Now, we both agree that copyright is no longer an issue, so it would logically follow that you would reverse your decision, and undelete the article.

However, thirdly, it seems you are trying to find other reasons to reject my article. I question whether this is in accordance with Misplaced Pages's core principals, which I have noted above. Thus, I would like to know: how long do you intend to continue to block my submission, despite my attempts at building consensus? Could this go on for days, weeks, months, years? Since I am a newcomer here, I would really like to know more about how you operate, and what is considered normal operating procedures on this site.

I would also like to point out that I believe you are mischaracterizing or misrepresenting my position. I do not, as you have falsely claimed, disagree with Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures. In fact, my statement, above, goes to great length to quote directly from Misplaced Pages's "ABOUT" page. I have carefully read all these pages. Where do I ever disagree with Misplaced Pages's policies? If you are going to make that accusation, you should provide proof to support your claim. I have made no such accusations against you, and I do appreciate your assistance.

The length of my previous statement WP:TLDR is not relevant to the crux of the matter, which is the issue of copyright, biting down too hard on newcomers, and observance of Misplaced Pages's core principles. There is no question that Misplaced Pages, and every other site on the internet, are not immune from libel laws. There are hundreds of cases of online defamation, cyber-bullying, harassment, and being disorderly in public, which is an offense in some states. Thus, this should not even be an issue for any law-abiding citizen. Follow the law, respect your fellow netizens, and there's no problem.

Furthermore, though I have provided ample evidence, you continue to raise the issue of notability and reliability of sources. I will restate this: Google results for "Christopher Johnson Japan journalist" turn up more than 10 pages of articles ABOUT Johnson, not BY JOHNSON or his associates. These articles, in The Economist and others, clearly pass the threshold stated in "The answer to life, the universe, and everything," as pointed out by Vocenitedore. Johnson is not merely a passing reference in these articles. In fact, there are more than 50 articles devoted solely to discussing Johnson's work and actions.

As for your attempt to raise the issue about sources, my reliable sources include articles or mentions about Johnson in the New York Times, The Economist, TIME, Reuters, Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and many others. My article, which you rejected then flagged, had 53 links to verifiable online sources, far more than most Misplaced Pages entries. These sources are cited in millions of Misplaced Pages articles, without trouble. Any attempt to dispute the reliability of these sources, due to a personal bias or worldview, even if well-founded and well-articulated, will not serve to build a consensus in adherence to Misplaced Pages's core principal of "free-content." On the contrary, such arguments will only waste time, create friction, lead to censorship, and impede the flow of "free-content".

If this is simply about winning an argument, Misplaced Pages has instructions about that. I have spent considerable time and energy calmly and carefully dealing with a number of editors on these issues. I have tried to build an atmosphere of collaboration and mutual understanding. Thus, I am somewhat perplexed that you are continuing to take me to task on a number of issues. The fact is, you flagged my article for deletion, and it was in fact deleted, which is a form of censorship. I had no recourse or prior consultation. I do not accept that, and I don't think all Misplaced Pages editors will either, based on Misplaced Pages's core policies. To quote the About section of Misplaced Pages's main page: "Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time."

So please state clearly your position. Are you going to continue to reject my article for a third time, for a new host of reasons, or are you going to collaborate in good faith with my earnest attempts to build consensus and make a donation to the Misplaced Pages community? Please do not be vague and indecisive. Please be clear about your decisions, and explain them in detail this time, with verifiable evidence to support your claims, in order to avoid further problems of communication and misunderstanding. Please do not misunderstand me. I really do appreciate your efforts. Thanks again for your attention to my article. Rollingwagon (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to keep the discussion here and not at my talk page, especially with the claims you are making about my "censorship" of you. As I explained above, I flagged the article as a possible copyright violation, which blanks (not deletes) the page until an admin reviews. After which, an admin reviewed the article and deleted it, not me. An admin, not me, would have to reinstate your article, if it was approved for reinstatement. Whether or not the article was in fact a copyright violation (which I do not believe has been agreed upon in this discussion?), either way I believe my action of flagging it was correct, as any possibility of a copyright violation is to be flagged and reviewed by an admin. It is not standard policy to ask the editor's permission first. It was comments such as these, about wishing to be contacted first, that led me to believe you are disagreeing with WP policies. In an attempt to not get this discussion any further off topic, I am striking out my comments regarding your position so that we can move on.

For what it is worth, it is my personal opinion that editors have worked hard to explain WP policies to Rollingwagon without success. It is also my opinion that the earlier comments about the reliability of some of the sources used would be an issue if the article were to be submitted again. If the article was to be submitted again, I would not choose to review it, as I think it best to remove myself from the situation at this point. I think more experienced editors would be better at handling this. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything else will come of this coversation remaining open. The AfC was nuked for word-for-word WP:COPYVIO. The current state of the bio on Amazon has the following notice at the bottom "((The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Misplaced Pages, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason.))"; however, this disclaimer was not listed on the cached version from 13 October. I don't think this would end up getting overturned at DRV.

Christopher Johnson has a very diverse career and notability may very well be proven, but at this point the best bet would be to start from scratch and work on a new article in your userspace. Ishdarian 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The latest lengthy screeds above indicate that Rollingwagon has either not read our policies, which have now been pointed out to him multiple times, or has chosen to ignore them. While previously published material can be re-released under a free license and potentially used here, the notice on Amazon is not sufficient in any way for Misplaced Pages's purposes. It must specifically state that the material is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License which of course allows the re-user, i.e. Misplaced Pages's editors, to "censor" it as much as they wish. They can and indeed must delete anything which is not verifiable and rewrite it so that it adheres to a neutral point of view. Those are two of the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages and they are non-negotiable. Rollingwagon has to understand that if he eventually releases the text under the proper license, it will be changed beyond all recognition. The article should be re-written from scratch with references from reliable sources entirely independent of the subject which discuss him and his work in depth (if such references can be found). Those are our policies and there is little point in arguing them further here or continuing to give this editor a platform for his (not so thinly) veiled legal threats against any editor who criticises the quality of the article or the quality of the sourcing. Voceditenore (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Amazon biography, assuming the basic info checks out, I'd say Johnson is probably notable by Misplaced Pages standards, so Misplaced Pages practices support our having a biography of him. Per WP:AUTOBIO it's best if the biography is written by people unconnected with the subject. The Amazon page has a lot of interesting material that's a good starting point for research, but most of it can't be used directly in Misplaced Pages since it doesn't have RS citations. I tried Rollingwagon's suggested google search "Christopher Johnson japan journalist" and did find a bunch of material, a lot of which is pretty contentious. (from a blog hosted on economist.com) is an example. I'd be ok with our citing that piece for some point in the article per WP:NEWSBLOG, but for backing the main shape of a biography, I'd prefer regular economist.com editorial content (especially from the print edition of the magazine) to a blog on the site. Maybe something like that exists: I didn't search extensively.

On another issue: Rollingwagon, I'm sure you know that all professional writers have had to learn how to express themselves concisely. Could you please be more concise here? Your posts are so long that it's difficult to find the points they are making. Thanks. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading further in the Google results, I now have doubts about our ability to write a neutral article about Christopher Johnson that presents all relevant points of view while living up to our sourcing standards for biographies of living people. So I'd want to use a heightened notability standard (or anyway a rather strict interpretation of the usual standard) that is in my view appropriate for contentious BLP subjects. There might still be enough secondary sourcing to write an article and it may be better to look in news databases rather than Google. In principle I'm willing to help with this, but I have limited wiki-time over at least the next several days. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice. I will try to keep this more concise, as per your requests.

I have never made legal threats against anyone at Misplaced Pages. As a newcomer, I simply asked questions about policies regarding libel, harassment, bullying. This does not constitute direct or veiled legal threats, and should not be interpreted as such. I hope it's evident that I'm trying to work with a spirit of collaboration and cooperation, despite the frustration and hassles of waiting for weeks for an article to clear the backlog, only to find it rejected and quickly deleted.

I have indeed read through Misplaced Pages policies, in addition to "Don't bite the newcomer", which seems particularly relevant in this case. Please note Pillars 4 and 5: "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner," and "Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules." I did not find anywhere that says that rules or pillars are "non-negotiable." Could Voceditenore or someone else kindly send me the reference?

I believe my new article is written with balance, the best and most authoritative sources available, an impartial tone, and a NPOV. Nearly every line is based on verifiable facts with multiple references, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Thanks to your advice, I did not include references from unreliable blogs such as Japan Probe, which has done at least 7 articles about Johnson. The articles lack bylines, and the site is run by unnamed persons using pseudonyms only. A number of sites have criticized those Japan Probe articles as being libelous and malicious, distorting facts and fabricating passages. Google search results show removals of some of these Japan Probe articles in Canada, the UK, Japan and other territories. Also, articles by Jake Adelstein about Johnson have been removed due to defamation concerns. Thus I haven't cited Japan Probe, Jake Adelstein or other potentially libelous articles. But, for balance, I have cited articles critical of Johnson by US-based lawyer Rick Gundlach, who uses his real name and writes reliable commentaries based on verifiable facts. There are a number of academic forums that write and discuss about Johnson, but I can't seem to access them.

In addition, I have added references from the BBC, CNN, UNHCR, Gulf News and others. I've been unable to find several important articles by or about Johnson from the 1980s and 1990s, perhaps due to lack of archives then. Could somebody kindly offer advice on how to find these? For example, archived reports in the BBC, AP, Ottawa Citizen, Globe and Mail, New York Times and others would be most helpful. Please note that due to my inexperience with formatting, a number of formatting errors still exist, such as red lines under references. Could 67.119.3.105 or somebody else kindly help me with this?

In the Misplaced Pages spirit of collaboration, I'm wondering if Voceditenore could kindly help me work on the Misplaced Pages entries about Alex Kerr, Jake Adelstein and others authors and journalists, whose entries seem to fall below the standards you mentioned, such as NPOV, reliable sources and other issues. Am I allowed to do this, or do newcomers have to wait for a longer period? Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to edit articles here apart from a few articles which are sometimes protected or semi-protected for brief periods, usually due to persistent vandalism, copyright violation, edit-warring, etc. However, I strongly suggest that you not edit articles on living people with whom you are in dispute or ones who are friends of yours. WP:COI and WP:BLP has further guidance on these issues. If you have serious concerns that an article here may be violating our policies on biographies of living persons, you can bring them to the attention of the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. My intervention here was to elucidate the copyright issues, stress to you that you will not be able to control the use of your text once it is published here, clarify what sorts of requirements will need to be met to establish notability of the subject and to verify claims made in the article. That's where my involvement with you will end. Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the submission and as it stands I don't think it meets our standards. Most of the sources either do not mention Johnson directly (much of the article goes off at tangents, which those sources support, it's a sort of history of journalism as experienced by Johnson rather than a biography) mention him only in passing or are written by him (none of which helps establish notability). A number of sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable. Of the content; much is, unfortunately, uncited or synthesised from sources - a lot of it relies on the Amazon biography which is not a reliable source (because it is submitted by the author or his publisher). So even licensing issues aside this article needs significant improvement to be moved to article space. --Errant 10:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing

I suggest tackling the licensing issue first, then handing the rest per normal editorial processes. I note that the amazon biography now explicitly mentions Creative Commons and links to our article on CC-BY-SA, however, the last sentence on the bio's licensing statement prohibits, in practice, the creation of derivative works: No other party has the right to make claims about copyright issues regarding this material for the purpose of censoring, prohibiting or blocking use of this material for any reason represents a limitation to the CC-BY-SA license that we cannot accept, as it essentially requires the text to be reproduced in its entirety and prohibits editing.

The subject has to understand that once there is a biography on Misplaced Pages, there will be no recourse to limit the editing to coverage he agrees with, as the license is irrevocable. Assuming for a moment that the subject were exposed to significant negative press coverage that would be reflected in the article, he would have no recourse, legal or editorial, to have it removed from Misplaced Pages. MLauba 08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MLauaba here. The license asserted at Amazon is not sufficient for several reasons. First, the last line is problematic. Second, earlier the text says, "on all websites worldwide". That's a restriction on where content can be reused. We don't accept restrictions; our content may be used in print sources as well as websites.

Additionally, even if the CC-By-SA license were clear, we cannot accept content licensed under CC-By-SA only when the sole author of that content himself puts it on Misplaced Pages, in accordance with our Terms of Use, which says, "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." If the content is co-authored, CC-By-SA is sufficient.

There is very specific language recommended for releases at WP:DCM:

The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

This language doesn't have to be used verbatim, but the terms - without additional restriction - must be specified. --Moonriddengirl 10:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Leblob

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

If I refer to its four edits that mainly consisted in vandalising my user page and my discussion page i do not have the feeling this account has been created to make any serious cntribution to Misplaced Pages. I do not know what is the use on WP (en) in such case and I rely on the admins to take the appropriate decision. Best regards. --Lebob (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indefinitely for harassment and impersonation of your account (by the close name). In the future, you can also use WP:AIV for this. Normally, we require some warning before blocking, but this behavior was beyond the pale, and no warning should be needed to let a person know that harassing other users is wrong. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they have something serious to contribute to Misplaced Pages with this account, which I doubt. --Jayron32 13:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was not sure if which page was the be suited for this claim and I have finally chosen to post it here. Anyway thanks a lot for your swift reaction. --Lebob (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA dedicated to insulting me

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

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

Bekaro's only edits are:

• Insulting my religious affiliation and making bad faith statements about me, out of the blue, despite me never having said anything to Bekaro before
• Refusing to acknowledge his attacks while continuing to misconstrue an inexperienced editor's disagreement over Jason Sosa and my corrections to an article as evidence that we're bullies
• Insisting that the SPI I filed (based on him having the same writing voice as prolific sockpuppeteer who has a grudge against me) was in bad faith
• Accusing me of making more personal attacks for a statement that commented purely on his actions, not on him.

This guy comes out of no where, slanders actions I've taken that no editor who knows anything about this site can argue against by insisting they're bad faith attacks, accuses any defense I make of being bad faith, and provides no evidence that I've taken bad faith actions.

Please do something about Bekaro (and his confirmed sock User:Ransacktheplace), he is nothing but an obvious troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This user seems only seems to attack me on my page instead of fixing his extremely bad faith which he did here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josh24B#Comments_by_other_users

already on me. As per history personal attacks against administrator ched here

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ian.thomson&diff=prev&oldid=510993512

it seems he started to be hostile to people who point out his personal attacks, bad faith and thinking other users are certain socks because they dont capitalize their I. checking what the ACTUAL admins said in the investigation, I had NOT used anything else for said account.

admin said clearly "Closing this section with no action. While they may be linked, I don't see any evidence of abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)"

So it seems ironic that he made personal attacks and bad faith not only against.Barnabywoods, but as me aswell. checking Ians history seems true he is indeed to much focused on attacking when others like said admin as example pointed him out to stop. Would you kindly instead give him a simple warning? thank youBekaro (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bekaro (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of WitsBlomstein (talk · contribs). Therefore, I've just indeffed him. Cheers. Salvio 15:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. His lying was just so nerve grating. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:COI

Billt88 (talk · contribs) appears to be closely affiliated the restaurant FATZ either as an employee or owner. The same user has already twice created an article on another restaurant called Tavern 24 owned by the same company but was speedily deleted due to lack of notability. The same user only has edited the FATZ article and the since deleted Tavern 24 article. Anyway, I put up a tag on the FATZ article that a major contributor to the appears to have a close connection to its subject and that the article appears to be written like and advertisement. Billt88 reverted those tags without discussion or improvement in the article and without an edit summary here. I undid the revert and placed in my edit summary to not remove the tag until the outstanding issues have been resovled. However, not long after this the tags were undone again without discussion as seen here. This time I left a message on his talk page telling him he may be in violation of WP:COI and I put the tags back up. However, Billt88 has since removed the tags again as seen here. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Holyfield1998 (talk · contribs) Why are you making an assumptive accusation and penalizing the articles I'm writing? I'm not writing anything as an advertisement. If that was the case, you should go ahead and make the same charge against all the other company articles on Misplaced Pages which simply provide a source of information on said companies. Also, the WP:NPOV policy you quote because I "appear to have a close connection to its subject" has nothing do to with having a close connection; it is about "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" which is exactly what I'm doing. And frankly, if someone is writing about a subject they better be close to it to know what they're talking about. The point is that the two alerts have no merit; there is no need to malign or delete my work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billt88 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I made the correction to your talk page not long after I posted that, it is WP:COI I was referring to, not WP:NPOV. Anyway, as closely connected to the subject of the article as you are, you can see my concern, especially with removing the COI template. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Holyfield1998 (talk · contribs) I removed the COI template 'cause I was annoyed. Simply because I'm contributing to multiple related articles does no mean I'm "contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." You are assuming an authority on a subject matter, someone "closely connected to the subject" as you state, must have a conflict of interest if s/he writes about it. I am providing true and verifiable information, curated from 3rd party content and verified by my personal visits on a company of interest to me. Again, there is no reason to malign or delete my work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billt88 (talk • contribs)

The company is notable, but the article is much too similar to a press release, and I have so tagged it. Furthermore, some of it is directly copied from ref. 3, I do indeed question COI, for I think it unlikely that a non-affiliated editor would have included the names of the vice-presidents of this fairly small company in the infobox. Many other restaurant articles are too promotional, but very few attempt to include the articles in the category for restaurants in every state in which it operates! I just examined 25 random articles in Category:Regional restaurant chains, I found reason to edit about one-third of them, but this is the most promotional. I thought I would find worse, but we seem to be improving. I shall make some necessary improvements here also. You would have done better to improve the article yourself with the appropriate criticism you had earlier received, than to complain about it. Unless you wish to prove your main purpose here is promotion, I advise you not to restore unencyclopedic material DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Holyfield1998 (talk · contribs) Boy, I can't believe this. I can't help but take exception to everything you say. Defending my articles against unfounded claims is complaining? And what kind of reasoning is it that says I can only provide the names of officials only if I'm affiliated with a company? Each of these persons has appeared in press releases at one time or another either for being hired or for being interviewed. Their names & titles are out there in the public record. I also can't see why you would say that my content is the most promotional you've seen. I too researched articles, not just of restaurants, before I started this and my content is as informational as what's out there. Seems to me that Misplaced Pages needs to evaluate the critical thinking skills of it editors as they are interpreting policy inconsistently and holding different publishers to different standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.202.43 (talk • contribs)

I'm assuming you meant to direct that to DGG although I do agree with everything that he wrote. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What else can I say? Y'all have the power and I don't. Billt88 (talk · contribs)

User ZomRe at Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria

ZomRe (talk · contribs) has engaged in repeated edit-warring and move-warring at Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria, in an apparent attempt to remove the word "conquest" from the article. He is repeatedly on record in the article talk page as stating that Bulgaria was not conquered in 1018 because the Bulgarian nobility surrendered, all the while refusing to make the connection with the 40+ years of war that preceded this event. In the process, he has moved the article to some weird forms like "45 years war" (even though he himself sometimes rejects the continuity of events from 970 on), "XI Century Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars" etc. He has been repeatedly warned to stop his WP:FRINGE interpretation of events, as well as to await actual consensus in the talk page before making moves. His behaviour is typical WP:IDHT and approaches trolling. Constantine ✍ 18:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Was this intended to be on WP:ANI or was it just an announcement? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was posted by mistake at WP:AN, it was indeed meant for here. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Basically, in 1018 after the dead of Tsar Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria, Basil II of the Eastern Roman Empire met with Bulgarian nobility and offered them to keep their own, to reorganize Bulgaria into a theme within the Eastern Roman Empire (which he did), to keep the Bulgarian church as an Archbishop of Ohrid with Bulgarian as its head - John of Debur (which he did). On top of this Basil II was related to Tsar Ivan Vladislav. As a result the Bulgarian nobility joined the Eastern Roman Empire. There were no battles in 1018 or sieges. In fact the last battle of significance was 4 years prior! That is why my suggestion is to tone down the article, and to have a more appropriate title. ZomRe (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't permit you to move articles without obtaining WP:CONSENSUS or edit-war. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The factological accuracy of the claims above, made by ZomRe, are manipulative, or simply said, they are not true. Jingiby (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like pretty blatant POV pushing by ZomRe. It probably falls under WP:ARBEE. The best title for the article should be discussed on the talk page with sources. E.g. I found "The so-called First Bulgarian Empire reached its political and cultural zenith in the late ninth and early tenth centuries, immediately followed by a period of fragmentation and political weakening when it was conquered by the Byzantines." "Around 1000, in the last of many brutal wars, Byzantium finally conquered Bulgaria, though in language and culture the Bulgarians remained Slavic." If the period/event is known by other names those should be added to the lead as well. The article should be titled by WP:COMMONNAME assuming that can be determined. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:CO MEIJER contributing articles in Dutch

User:CO MEIJER is contributing a steady stream of articles in Dutch about tennis players. S/he has been asked twice to contribute in English, but continues to add new articles in Dutch. So far, these have all been translated into English by a hard-working editor, who is among those asking him/her to stop. I said a week ago that I would raise this at ANI if the Dutch contributions continued, and they do. Example, and another. Also unsourced, unlinked, unformatted, though not copied from Netherlands Misplaced Pages. What can be done? PamD 21:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a competence issue to me. The user has not made a single edit to any talk page despite having received loads of comments at his user talk, including a detailed explanation in Dutch by Drmies. A temporary block should be in order to avoid further disruptive editing and hopefully make him discuss his contributions. De728631 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• User also creating BLPs without any references in English or Dutch, meaning that every single one has been PRODded prior to rescue by PamD or other translators. Blocked until he discovers his talkpage - which so far he has not edited. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not necessarily known for razor-sharp intellect. Thanks Elen et alia. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugly banner ad at the top of the page

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

Forgive me if this is the wrong venue, but what is with that? It appears on every page I load. As I often use the top-of-page buttons, it's a bit of a pain.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. They actually made a banner that can't be permanently closed...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely dreadful! >.< css workaround in 3 .. 2 ... 1 ... - Alison 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for a donation drive, but... Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper... --Kinu /_c 21:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything new: no ads or banners. How did I get so lucky? Bielle (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added this to my personal vector.css and it seems to have worked. YMMV and all that - Alison 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It should stay away once it is cleared. This thing of reappearing in their face with every new page is going to piss off people to the point of reducing donations. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 :There's an option in preferences to make it go away. Secretlondon (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ec*3: I had to click on the pull down tab once, the X only hid it temporarily. a13ean (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you go to Preferences → Gadgets and uncheck "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" under browsing the banner will be gone. Ryan Vesey 21:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any banner even with cookies cleared and adblock turned off. Normally I block bits.wikipedia.org/geoiplookup for privacy reasons and that has the side effect of stopping most banners, but I unblocked it temporarily and still don't see banners. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, guys. There was a mixup in the fundraising department. :( See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Fund-raising (and, if context is needed, the section immediately above). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

repeated AfD tag deletion

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

User:Aimeecowellfc has deleted the AfD tag from Destiny: The shadow of tear at least three times now (first, second, third), the last after having both level 1 and level 3 warnings placed on her Talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• dropped a final warning. Enough is enough. StarM 01:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  I've closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Destiny: The shadow of tear as delete, per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war on Berber people

I am not sure whether this requires administrator intervention, but if someone feels motivated to look into it, there appears to be a slow motion edit war on the Berber people page, with minimal talk page discussion. A case was filed at WP:DRN n this but I closed it because of lack of participation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism - request for page protection

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

My apologies if I'm requesting this in the wrong area. Rather than constantly revert vandalised edits to the page for Michael Bichard, is it possible to request some form of short-term page protection? Hopefully whoever is doing it will see they're no longer able to edit there and then give up and go away. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct venue would be Requests for page protection, but I've semi-protected the page for a couple of days anyway to save you the trouble of filing there. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indef block of an IP address

I have blocked 167.102.157.65 (talk · contribs) indefinitely because each time a year long block expires the (presumably) children return to vandalise more. I'm posting this here to see if there are any objections to the indefinite block of an IP address. James086 15:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, IPs that have multiple year-long blocks are not all that uncommon. As an admin highly active at AIV, I see it often. In these situations, I normally block 2-3 years. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the indeffing of any IP. This IP is registered to a school, any way of identifying which one and contacting the administration to advise them of the naughty kids? GiantSnowman 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to 3 years, I suppose the IP address could be reassigned at some point in the future. I'll email the abuse contact and see if they are able to identify the offending school. James086 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ip User 64.134.134.64

This IP has on many occasions attempted to add uncited original research to the article United Federation of Planets. Attempts have been made to engage the IP editor, including discussions on his/her talk page and, as far back as August, an attempt to start a discussion on the talk page of the article: . The user has been blocked for edit warring yesterday. (S)he has continued to post to their user talk page with personal attacks against any editors who disagree with their additions. We have been called sympathisers with the KKK, for example, on a number of occasions (see the user talk page). I have tried to rationally and calmly inform the IP of how things work around here with little success. I am not sure what the remedy is here, but we have a long term edit warrior (who seems to jump IPs as can be seen from the history at the UFP article and who has now taken to personal attacks. I am at a bit of a loss, which is why I am bringing it here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked talk page access for now since clearly his use of the talk page wasn't to request an unblock. I would have no problem extending the block if others feel that is necessary as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncooperative user

Hello. The user "Seb az86556" has reverted some work (here) then twice deleted requests for clarification on their talkpage (here and here) without acknowledgement, response or explanation. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally when you make a change and it's reverted, you begin the discussion on the talkpage of the article in order to obtain new WP:CONSENSUS to include your changes (see WP:BRD for more). That said, Seb's actions strike me as a little ruder than normal ... he has removed your ANI notice, but I've poked him for a response (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I remain puzzled as to why my work prompted a reversion, as it was cosmetic (tidying-up/regularizing the infobox) and involved neither the addition or subtraction of information (the rephrasings in the first paragraph). 213.246.88.102 (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The changes look to me to be slightly more significant that you're suggesting. Infoboxes tend to be fairly stable - personally I can understand a reversion when so much was changed in a single edit, some of which had never been there before. His edit-summary - which I'm sure you read before coming here - said "unsourced" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't see the "unsourced" summary -- but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place..?

And the reasons why I tidied-up so much in one edit were (a) there was a lot to tidy-up; and (b) I've had automated messages telling me I'm vandalizing Misplaced Pages when I've submitted smaller edits. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The very same link you provided ... says "unreffed" ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, okay -- although that refers to an edit I didn't make! In any case, why revert everything rather than that one issue? Laziness? And why am I asking -you- these questions? Thanks for your patience. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bots did not pickup extremely blatant blanking vandalism to Haunted House in over a day.

I've just restored this.

Bots did not pickup extremely blatant blanking vandalism to Haunted House in over a day. Furthermore, neither did any humans on RC/Stiki patrol. Also, apparently either no readers reported it, or if they did then their reports went unheeded.

It's had THREE THOUSAND views in that time.

That is very disturbing for an article like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egg Centric (talk • contribs)

It happens. Never rely on a bot - after all, the damage would not have tripped any bot to act. Yeah, whoever watches the article was asleep *yawn* That happens too (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As Bwilkins said — it happens... everybody needs to sleep. Sometimes. Theopolisme 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Even the bots. --Jayron32 22:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Theopolisme 23:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like another instance of corrupt Wikipedians sweeping their abject failures under the rug. It's an outrage, and heads should roll. Jayron, did I hear you volunteer? Drmies (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeated violation of RfC restrictions - site ban proposed for Youreallycan

Please see the user talk page at Youreallycan (talk · contribs), where the history shows an on-going edit-war conducted by this editor to restore details of the alleged RL identity of another editor. This needs intervention now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The edits have been suppressed by Oversight. However, this is a very clear violation of the restrictions under which YRC is currently editing. At Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal, the following restrictions were applied, with his agreement:

1. - Three month BLP topic ban
2. - Six months 1RR restriction
3. - Six months strict civility enforcement.
4. - One month voluntary total editing restriction.
5. - Site ban if any condition violated.

He has violated item 2 with at least 5 reversions of 4 editors to restore the oversighted material , and item 3 with his repeated posting of the oversighted material despite 3 requests from 2 editors to desist. I am therefore proposing a full indefinite site ban for these violations, in accordance with the terms of the RfC. Youreallycan has previously been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations and 6 times for civility violations. Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• YRC's user-talk page is currently under full protection. Can someone with the requisite permissions please inform him of this thread. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• User:Alison has done this at my request. Prioryman (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since admins can't see the material it is difficult to judge this. We have to trust our oversighters (indeed that's why they are chosen). However, in the interests of not having arbitrary sentencing, would it be possible to get one or two other oversighters to review and endorse the proposed ban? If so, I'm happy (well happy isn't the word) to support.--Scott Mac 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility. I would be content to uphold an indefinite ban on these terms. James F. (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Considering that this editor has been blocked nineteen times before, and narrowly avoided a community ban by promising to kep his nose squeaky clean, a community ban is the only option. It was a condition that he himself agreed to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the edits were bad enough to be oversighted, they're clearly major violations of the principles they agreed to. The next step is unfortunately site ban, but he should be indeffed for outing in the meantime (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I have indefinitely blocked the user in question. Whether or not the community decides to enforce a ban for his behaviour overall, this individual incident is simply unacceptable. There is no excuse, no string of content citations, that justifies outing another editor. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Just wondering... is the editor he's allegedly trying to "out" damaging wikipedia in some way? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Is the "outing" of a person whose identity is already widely-known and used by the person himself, though? That is usually the sticking point when the collection of WR/Wikipediocracy/WMUK luminaries gets into a spat for the nine-hundred-and-thirty-third time. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That point is indeed an issue from time to time. If an editor has made his identity known, he has no basis for crying "Outing!" No way for us peons to tell in this case, of course. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:OUTING is clear: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." Mentioning old usernames is fine, mentioning non-voluntarily-disclosed full real names is not. Prioryman (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Precisely. So how do we know this was non-voluntary? And was the alleged "outee" engaged in damaging wikipedia? Not that that justifies public disclosure, though. Things like that should be handled behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• So in the hypothetical scenario of an old username being the person's actual name, or a reasonably close approximation thereof, said hypothetical person gets perpetual immunity from anyone ever pointing that out? Tarc (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• The username didn't include the surname, which is, obviously, much more identifying than a first name.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Was the outing for some greater purpose, i.e. to prevent damage to wikipedia? Or was the alleged "outer" just being a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Full Ban - He had his chances, he blew it. He's been highly combative and I doubt that he will change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I saw the edit that has been revdeled. I would feel more comfortable if an admin (besides me) who either saw it or who has oversight capabilities would comment on whether what YRC put on his talk page constituted outing. With the exception of one piece, which may or may not be known, the material seemed public to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • See Jdforrester's comment above. --Rschen7754 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thanks, Prioryman (for above). So, let's be clear. We are proposing a full indefinite ban for the outing. We certainly wouldn't ban YRC if he edit-warred on his own talk page as he has the right to control his own talk page (with very limited exceptions). So, my next question is which condition does outing violate? We should be precise in these things, and we shouldn't rush to judgment, even if the ultimate decision is for a full ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, the 1RR restriction from the RfC is a universal one - it's not limited to any area of Misplaced Pages, whether article space, talk pages or user talk pages - so the edit-war on his user talk page would indeed count as a violation. Further, the normal 3RR does not apply when reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines. One form of content that breaches those guidelines is "Personal information of other persons without their consent." YRC reverted to this at least five times, violating both the universal 1RR and 3RR, which applied because the content being reverted breached the guidelines. Prioryman (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        • That's extremely helpful, Prioryman, thank you for taking the trouble to connect the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full indefinite site ban for violating first, second and probably third condition from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal.--В и к и T 23:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full ban and since there's nonpublic information involved, appeals should go right to WP:BASC. --Rschen7754 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I looked at the edits in question, and I agree that they were utterly inappropriate. YRC knew that and didn't care. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sheesh. What happens when you throw Prioryman, Jayen466, and YRC into a discussion? One ban, for starters, a bunch of fire and brimstone stinking up the place, and bad press coverage. You all should group yourselves under the user category "Misplaced Pages crusaders", and for practical purposes we should assume that in any given discussion you are all wrong. I had a look at this Wikipediocracy site, for the first time--holy shit, what a crock. "To expose the corruption!" Onward, soldiers of the truth. BTW, I support the ban for YRC--enough is enough. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I saw part of this in real time on Jimbo's talk page. YRC was edit warring to repeatedly insert an editor's real name against that editor's will. Personally, I don't really care whether or not said editor's name had already previously been revealed - and I don't know whether that is the case. It was a clearly antagonistic action that served no benefit to either the discussion or Misplaced Pages. So, per YRC's own proposal in their RFCU, I've little option but to support. Resolute 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban - As Drmies says, enough is enough. Jusdafax 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is not how I would have envisioned YRC's tenure ending at Misplaced Pages. I would have expected him to go out in a blaze of self-righteous BLP glory. Instead, it comes down to a personal feud with another editor. I suppose the symptoms are the same (YRC's inability to control himself), but it still saddens me. What a waste.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the moment, I am striking my vote, partly per Wehwalt's comments below and partly based on Andreas's diffs. I can't sort out the diffs, frankly, i.e., whether they are enough to constitute voluntary disclosure, but at this point I can't support a ban without the outing being clear. Everything else, in my view, is derivative of the alleged outing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ban per Resolute (i.e. given all YRC's past history, the ban is justified by the edit warring to re-insert the person's name even if the name was already known). YRC clearly hasn't let go of his drama addiction and we have to face that he is doing the project more harm than good. That said, the other person has also been something of a dramaphile in multiple conflicts recently, and should tone it down. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Outing = Ban pbp 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question Who is YRC supposed to have outed? If it was Prioryman, then please bear in mind that Prioryman has revealed his identity here on Misplaced Pages, on at least two occasions, and so did arbcom. These edits are live today. His name can also be found on a fair number of talk pages where other people have called him by his real name. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• This bears looking into. If Prioryman himself has disclosed his full real name ("unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information"), then I don't see how this constitutes outing. Also, per policy, if Prioryman disclosed his full real name but later redacted it, then what YRC did would still be outing ("If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Misplaced Pages").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman redacted it on YRC's user-talk page, today. It was a violation the very first time YRC restored it there. The subsequent edit-warring he conducted was absurd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Until someone gives a real explanation instead of this tip-toeing that's going on. It's now provided, and demonstrates that the "outing" claim is false. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Prioryman's name was revealed by arbcom in the findings of fact here and here when it was noted that he had cited self-published materials. ChrisO confirmed that he was indeed the author on the talk page. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• His name is also mentioned in full by Tony Sidaway for example on Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1. And a number of other talk pages. So why was Tony Sidaway not banned? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Very good. You have demonstrated that the outing claim is thoroughly bogus. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems an entirely opportunistic use of WP:OUTING. Say nothing when a friend (or arbcom ...) uses your name on wiki, and clamour for a ban if it is an enemy. Prioryman knows full well that his name is on this wiki, and that he owned up to it. Is is not the sort of thing you forget. What his conduct reminds me of more than anything is Fair Game (Scientology). Which is really ironic. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • YRC made the false claim that I had edited on Misplaced Pages under my own real name, which I did not do and have never done. Arbcom did not post my real name back in 2006. It posted, without my consent, links to off-wiki writings which other editors - not myself - had added to Misplaced Pages articles to use as sources, again without my consent (I have in fact removed such links where I have found them). I have not at any point voluntarily disclosed my full name on Misplaced Pages. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Did arbcom have you in a room with thumb screws? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support for editing in violation of voluntary restrictions -- that's a breach of trust issue, as well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose At this point, it no longer looks like a clear-cut case, which means I won't vote to support based on evidence not available to me. Suggest a case at ArbCom as they are better suited to deal with this then a bunch of people wondering if they should take each other's word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do please note that whether or not this constitutes an outing violation, it is most definitely a civility violation and a 1RR violation, and as such YRC is still in breach of his restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't be bound by the dead hand of a RfC I took no part in in deciding my !vote on a ban. Unless I am convinced the community is better off without the person, and that is very clear to me, I will withhold my hand. I don't do "ban-of-the-week", either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've long supported YRC for his earnest and genuine efforts, in the past, to protect the interests of living persons unfairly damaged by inappropriate behaviour on Misplaced Pages. For some time now he's lost his direction in that, and this is beyond the "final final" straw... his actions appear to be a projection of the boxcutter brigade who are taking every possible desperate measure to act against those who defend the freedom of Misplaced Pages's main page. Let it be said again - there will be no political censorship of the Misplaced Pages main page - not for the boxcutter website and not for anyone else - no political censorship, not now and not EVER. I support a ban for this gutless and contemptible conniving with the boxcutter maggots. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What the %$*# have boxcutters got to do with this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Prioryman is gaming WP:OUTING policy when it suits his needs. When it has been any number of other users or admins who have used the full name in a discussion (there are examples to be found via simple search of the project), there has been none of this gasping, hemming, hawing, or wringing-of-the-hands; it was just stating whatever one already knew, much like the whole Fae/Ash crap earlier this year. But as soon as YRC does it, out come the tar & feathers? No. You don't get to set up "for me but not for thee" bullshit. Prioryman should be grateful to get out of this with out a king-sized WP:BOOMERANG upside his head. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear. YRC is charged here with doing three things:

• A repeated WP:OUTING violation;
• A 1RR violation;
• A repeated civility violation.

All three of these things are violations of his restrictions. Whether or not you believe the outing violation stands up, there is no doubt whatsoever that he engaged in repeated incivility and edit-warring. So even if you dispose of one violation, that still leaves two more. That's indisputable. Prioryman (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless I am mistaken, the whole "outing" issue is that YRC just said what the "O" in ChrisO, Prioryman's previous account, stands for and Prioryman cried outing even though he knows full well that this is widely known due to the fact that he has been terrible at hiding his real-life identity. Hell, anyone who googles his prior user account and "Scientology", a subject in which Prioryman has edited heavily, will be able to find out his surname in short order. If he noted something more obscure that would be another thing, but if it is just Prioryman's last name then this is just an exercise in pointless drama.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards