Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)
Start a new discussion

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

User:FellGleaming

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is disruptively editing Challenger Deep and Mariana Trench in the middle of two different discussions about his poor use of sources, the first at Talk:Challenger_Deep, and the second at WP:NORN. Now, Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has showed up and started tag teaming for Fell and making blanket reverts.[1] After a discussion about Fell's edits began at Talk:Challenger Deep, I helped Fell find reliable sources for his claims because he was having trouble understanding how we use sources. No offense to Fell, but the user has a long history of misusing sources and not understanding basic policies and guidelines governing their use. It is not quite clear why this problem has continued for so long, but his poor use of sources resulted in an enforcement request warning in April.[2] The concerns expressed in that warning are the same here:

• Failure to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them.
• Failure to be scrupulous in the representation of sources and the use of purported quotes from them.
• Failure to respond directly to the substance of concerns about the use of sources and quotations.
• Continued aggressive posturing when asked the above.

In any case, Fell didn't like the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and took this dispute to WP:NOR/N. Not liking the responses he received there, he began engaging in extremely WP:POINTy behavior, and duplicated the same disputed content[3] that was removed from Challenger Deep into Mariana Trench.[4][5] The result, is that FellGleaming is ignoring the concerns raised about his misuse of sources on Talk:Challenger Deep, and disregarding the problems raised with his use of sources on WP:NORN, and has now managed to copy the same disputed content into two different articles for no reason other than because he can. This is extremely childish and disruptive and with the addition of Slatersteven demanding that I prove a negative, and with Slatersteven supporting FellGleaming's disruption with tag teaming over disputed content, I think it's time for administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

1. Viriditas blanked a section of the article: [6]
2. After talk page discussion, Viriditas allowed restoration of some of the material, but would not allow a Berkeley Law of the Sea Institute (a group of legal scholars specializing in international sea law) to support the text that "nuclear waste dumping is banned according to the UNCLOSIII treaty. As of September 2010, the US has not ratified this treaty". I gave some additional sources for this, such as a NYT article. He still refused, on the grounds that none of these sources "were about Challenger Deep specifically". He also began making threats and personal attacks on the article's talk page ([7])
3. To seek conflict resolution, I took the issue to the No Original Research noticeboard ([8])
4. Another editor (SlaterSteven) saw the issue there, and responded by restoring the text Viriditas removed. (I note that this editor, rather than being a "tag team" helper, is an editor who has actually conflicted with me regularly in the past).
5. Viritidas responded by attacking that editor as well, and posting snarky comments to the editor's talk page: ([9]). He also began canvassing other users to search for complaints to use against me (See links from Collect).

I believe Viriditas' edits to be disruptive, and his talk page activity to violate civility and harassment guidelines. I ask for no formal sanction against him, but do request an administrator acquaint him with basic policy in this regard. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep[10] and placed it on the talk page per best practices.[11] This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material,[12] adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source[13] and Fell was happy.[14] However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. CANVASS per [15], [16]. I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing, and MastCell asked me to "bring it up elsewhere" because he can no longer deal with FellGleaming on both a personal and administrative level. Screwball23 has nothing to do with this report. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CANVASS occurs even if the people CANVASSED do nothing. It is the contact which is the violation, not the result of the contact here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::

A simple question for teh alledged canvaser, did you ask anyone who has not been in conflict with fell? A si8mple question for the accuseer, has the user asked for comment or asked what he should do in both cases?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other [[17]]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And you blanket reverted my edits and restored Fell's. You tag teamed. And like Fell, you have not been able to answer the questions posed on the article talk page by myself, or on the NOR noticeboard by other editors. This is disruptive editing by the both of you. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers [[18]] (why this should be here) [[19]] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) [[20]] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have filed this ANI because both Fell and yourself have ignored concerns regarding your misuse of sources on both the article talk page and the OR noticeboard, and have now duplicated the same, exact disputed edits in two different articles for no reason, which not only doesn't make any sense, but is a good example of the disruptive, POINTY behavior going on here. You can't just ignore talk pages and noticeboards that question your edits. You need to stop adding the disputed material and work towards resolution and consensus. Neither of you seem able or willing to do this. I don't know where you stand at this point, but I do know that Fell has some kind of difficulty understanding basic policies and guidelines, and from what I can tell, has no interest in understanding them. That's a bit strange for an editor active since January 2008. I mean, he's had plenty of time to figure things out, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you care to check I have only edited the one articel. I ask you to withdraw the accustion I have done this on two artciels as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was presenting that finding as a total, not as evidence that you yourself edited two articles, but you are correct, you have only edited one, but two separate articles between the both of you now contains the same content. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also relevant, this discussion with FellGleaming about not so reliable sources for science articles on the Goddard Institute talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GISS is not a "science article", and the text being cited is not a scientific point, but simply that a particular person works for GISS. Even worse is the fact that Ibis himself agrees the fact is accurate; he simply wishes to use a separate source for the citation. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How can our article about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) not be a science article? --TS 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the statement "Steven Schneider once worked for GISS" is some sort of scientific method, theory or discovery that can only be verified by a Ph.D-authored science book is rather odd. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is different, i.e. that you don't want to use a source which, while verifying the statement, covers the science related to the article's topic in a way that makes the book not a good source for the other information it contains. There may be cases where such a book is the only source available and you don't have a choice but to use that book. I think there exists a special tag for such references that indicates that one would rather have another source. But in this case we already have a better source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case we have an apparently perfectly adequate source for the late Stephen Schneider's association with GISS. I agree that the source proposed by FellGleaming is a little odd for an article about a scientific institute. --TS 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The source was proposed by another editor, not myself. As for the other source being "perfectly adequate", multiple independent sources are often used. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the article at all? As far as I can tell he was at Goddard as a post-doc for less than a year in 1971-72? (according to his own CV). What particular relevance the GISS article has his brief stop there to do with anything? Put another way -- rather than argue about "what" source for this information, a more important question would seem to be "why this information at all?" (The place for it would seem to be the guy's biography, you know "Early career and education.")Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good point, Bali. I don't feel comfortable removing it myself because of this ongoing dispute, but if you (or anyone else) wants to excise it, I support the action. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from [21]. See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have encountered this editor before. He bears careful watching. Basically FellGleaming is so very strongly pro-nuclear power that he will bend or break WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR to get a pro-nuclear slant onto articles. Tenacious to the point of tendentiousness, this editor will likely require the attention of Arbcom eventually. A SPA with an agenda, who treats our project as a battleground. --John (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with John. For at least the past couple of years, Fell Gleaming has gone from article to article in an attempt to pursue a global warming denial agenda. See: WP:COATRACK. For example, see his recent deletions from this article: Anti-nuclear movement in the United States. He also attacks the biography articles of climate change experts such as Joseph Romm (full disclosure: I am a friend of Dr. Romm's). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A question Is this about this specific iuncident or about Fells wider actions=?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to Slater's question, but I do consider it pretty disruptive to copy-paste a hotly-contested section from one article into a new one when you're right in the middle of a discussion at WP:NORN about that section. And since FellGleaming will no doubt respond by informing the world of it, I'll mention that, like John, I've had my problems with this editor before, and that I agree with John's assessment. For example, I requested full protection for Linda McMahon a couple of days ago because FellGleaming, along with two others, was engaged in a smoking-hot edit war over that article. ( I wasn't involved. ) The article was fully-protected for a couple of weeks, but FellGleaming has been right back to the talk page claiming "consensus" with her his same-side edit warrior, to whom she he gave a barnstar for his part in that war after the article was protected, and suggesting they approach an admin to ask that an edit they'd been warring for be implemented through the full-protect. Not pretty stuff at all, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC) ( revised by Ohiostandard at 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC). sorry, FG, just habit from previous assumption, which I apologized sincerely for, as you know. this is the only time I've made the mistake since I was informed of it; you've no reason to think it was intentional: it was not. )

The "smoking hot" edit war consists of my making a total of 3 edits in the past week: [22]. Ohiostandard, by the way, has been following me from article to article, misrepresenting sources with his edits, just as he did in this one [23], where he claimed it for "fidelity with what the sources actually say". The only problem is, they say no such thing. If he continues this pattern of harrassment and source misrepresentation (and continues to misrepresent my sex as well, despite repeated corrections to the contrary), I believe action will be necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "smoking hot" was careless, and I'll retract the phrase. I was influenced, no doubt, by my great distaste for what you've been doing at Linda McMahon since the end of August. But anyone here can look at its history and decide whether you've been edit warring there, long-term, and whether the warring needed to stop. As to your claim that I have some kind of "pattern" of misrepresenting sources, people can take a look here for the facts, and refer to MastCell's enforcement remarks about your own "pattern" re sources. Further, I'm genuinely sorry if you feel "harrassed", but you're a very ubiquitous presence on boards like this one, I'm very familiar with your own "patterns", and I very strongly disapprove of them. So when I see you in places like this so often, up to your old "hijinks" (your word, since you like it so much), of course I'm going to comment. I'd rather not, actually; it's boring. But someone needs to. Anyway, my principal point in the post above was that I think it was disruptive to copy-paste a contested section from one article to create an identical new section in a different one, while you were in the middle of a discusssion about the section at WP:NORN. But as I said, this is boring; have the last word if you like.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had run ins with thism user in the past but am not sure how relevant it is. I will say this on the current case. No one, it would appear, on Mariana Trench appears to have objected to this material being added apart from an involved user on the related page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Challenger Deep is a particularly deep spot in the Mariana Trench. The two articles are so closely related that it is hair-splitting to distinguish between them in this way. In case anyone wants to know my opinion (as an involved editor) about FellGleaming: This user appears to be an expert on nuclear power with a very strong POV, and a will to push that through. The user seems to be generally operating right at the edge of what is tolerated here, not unlike the way that some other editors are acting or have acted in the past to advocate mainstream, sceptic or pseudosceptic positions on articles related to fringe or pseudoscience. The main difference is that this user is now advocating positions that are very unpopular, overall. The main problem at the moment is that we don't seem to have an expert who can represent the other side and prevent articles from being skewed through highly selective information. This is the kind of explosive situation that is bound to end at Arbcom. Hans Adler 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then (if they are that closely related) do a totaly different set of edds appear to edit one, but not the other, articel? With only a couple of edds on only one of those pages objecting to this aqddition? If the users actions are that out of order then would it not offend more then those with whome he appears to be (or have been) in content dispute with. I see this users actionsa as no worse then many otehrs who seem to enjoy huge amounts of indlugence, and I am operating from the posiiton of precidence. I agree that this users combative approach is problomatic, but no more so then (for example) the attitude of the accuser.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

After my agreeing to acompromise version of the text that did not state the US had not ratified the UNCLOSIII treaty, (his original objection) Viriditas has taken to simply repeatedly blanking the entire section. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming appears to be on some kind of campaign, going from article to article, making poor edits that distort the sources and push a single POV. For only one of many examples, today on endocrine disruptor, Fell made the following edit:

The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid.[24]

However, that is not what the source said. The source actually examined and presented both sides, not one side as Fell did. The source that FellGleaming cited said:

Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health.[25]

This is not a mistake on FellGleaming's part. This is part of a willful, purposeful campaign of misrepresentation of sources in article after article, and something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Note Viriditas already brought this issue to the NPOV NB [26]. The text Viriditas is complaining about wasn't even added by me; it simply was the prior version restored when I reverted out improperly cited material. Note that admin Mastcell at the NPOV NB agreed the claim was overstated. Further, given Viriditas has posted this to three forums, he seems to be forum shopping. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This example seems to fit very well into my overall picture of FellGleaming: An excellently informed editor who is pushing an industry POV vehemently and with a strong focus on results rather than interpersonal conflicts. If the public relations departments of huge industry associations ever start paying people for editing Wikipedia, we are going to get a lot of editors here who will be behaving very much like FellGleaming. Come to think of it, it's amazing that we haven't reached that stage yet. Hans Adler 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting data point: I asked FG here why he had added Being a subduction plate, the nuclear waste would slowly be pushed deep into the Earth's mantle. to the Mariana Trench article, as, quite apart from whether it belongs on the article at all (and I am officially neutral on the matter), it is somewhat poor English. He stated here that it is not his preferred version and I apologized for what I thought was my mistake, but then I checked and saw that he had indeed added the text. In fact he appears to have added this poor material three times to the article. Why would someone add text that they do not think should be added, then edit war over it? I am having trouble understanding what is going on here. --John (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• After reviewing his latest efforts, I now believe that FellGleaming should be topic-banned from anything related to nuclear power, in addition to his current ArbCom restrictions. This is a POV-pusher and a combatant in an environment which should be a civil and collegial one. At the very least we need a lot more editors watching him and his edits as I am now doing. --John (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To respond to John's many errors, (a) I am not under any "current Arbcom restrictions". (b) the grammatical error he refers to in Challenger Deep was not added by myself. It existed in the article prior to my first edit: [27]. In restoring a section which had been blanked, I merely did not take the time to cleanup the grammar. As to John's complaint on the nuclear article, I'm sorry I don't see it. I took a vague "scientists and engineers" statement and replaced it with the actual descriptions of these individuals, taken directly from their existing WP entries. Calling someone a "scientist" in a nuclear power article is not only vague, but somewhat misleading, when they are in fact a biologist commenting on nuclear issues. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But "restoring a section which had been blanked, ... not tak[ing] the time to cleanup the grammar." is the very definition of edit-warring. You should think about it; you are no longer a newbie and should not act like one. --John (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the policy as I cannot find this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring thanks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You just made a link to it yourself, so I'll assume it is a problem of comprehension rather than not knowing where to find the info. We have "However, situations will inevitably arise where editors have differing views about some aspect of a page's content. When this happens, editors are strongly encouraged to engage in civil discussion to reach a consensus, and not to try to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting. It is the latter approach which is known as edit warring."

Help:Reverting has "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously."

This is one of three key problem areas in this user's editing, the others being misrepresentation of sources and tendentiously pursuing what appears to be a particular agenda. As these seem like long-term problems, I would push for a ban, but a topic-ban or a medium-length block might be kinder in the first instance. We certainly cannot go on like this, in my opinion. --John (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but I cannot see the wording you have used in your comment of 16:02, 22 September 2010 so I cannot see how Fells action breach a policy that does not in fact exsist. Nor can I see how you above quotes can be seen as saying anything about restoing text or not altering bad grammer. So it would appear to me that you have mis-repreented policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you're still having difficulty with this. The solution may be in examining the word "restoring" (in my comment) and comparing it with "being restored to a version that existed sometime previously" (the language of Help:Reverting, my emphasis). Now look at "repeated" (from the policy you linked to) and compare it with my evidence that FG restored the sub-standard material three times. Can you see the similarity now? The grammar issue isn't that important, except that it shows an unsatisfactory combative streak; how easy it would have been for him to tweak the content rather than restoring a version he himself said was sub-standard, yet he didn't. The fact that he then lied about it when I asked him about it is cream on the pudding. --John (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

CForgi9ve me but teh grammer part is opart of your 'quote' so I fail to see how its unimportant. I agree that if he reveted to an exsisting versio that would be edit warring,, but there is nothing about not altering bad grammer so you did mis-represetn polciy. You claim he had breached a rule (or at least the way you interperate that rule) in a way that is not in fact aginst policy. Now if you are saing that he reverted text he should not have done (and that is all) then fait enough perhaps it might be usefull stike that part of your post.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • And this was the Arbcom "final warning" given in April for misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing. That was six months ago. Has this editor changed for the better? I would say not. Topic ban please. --John (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that it excuses anything, but the CC noticeboard is backed by the community process, not by ArbCom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I struck that part of the complaint. --John (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• The bad behavior has not stopped and a simple topic ban will not work. FellGleaming is an advocate of "ignore all rules", which is fine, but he expects us to agree to his ignoring of all rules, which is not fine. This is an abuse of WP:IAR, as any attempt to clean up after his mess is met with hours of wasted talk page arguments and edit warring. This needs to stop. It's a huge time sink, and the editor does not help build an encyclopedia, but destroy it. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have been trying very hard to work with Fell for some months now on articles relating to nuclear issues but recently had to abandon my efforts at Anti-nuclear movement in the United States, see [28]. This is the first time in my 3.5 years of editing that I have had to withdraw from an article because it became a battleground, see Talk:Anti-nuclear movement in the United States. I agree with John's thoughtful comments above ([29], [30]) and concur that something needs to be done. Johnfos (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can we consolidate this discussion and this one?: [31]. Here is my comment from that page: FellGleaming pursues a global warming denial agenda. He pursues his POV by attacking a series of related articles and, by removing support for a proposition in tangential articles, then go back to the main article and say that there is no support for the proposition in related articles. See also WP:COATRACK. For example, here is where he attempts to attack a bio article on climate change expert Joseph Romm by adding poorly sourced and unbalanced information [32]. He then tries to remove Romm's name from this article: [33] (see this: [34]) Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. That's why I noticed FellGleaming's behaviour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the disruption is not confined to climate change articles, but includes many topics that touch upon energy and chemical industry subjects, as well as the politicians who represent those interests. FellGleaming is an experienced editor who understands the policies and guidelines as well as any long term contributor. The problem at hand is that FellGleaming is using his understanding to game the rules, to obstruct discussion, and to push an agenda. How should Wikipedia handle editors like FellGleaming and why hasn't anything been done? He was already the subject of a severe warning in a climate sanctions enforcement request, and by that reasoning alone, he should already be blocked. What is interesting is that he's even managed to game that warning as well, by editing articles just outside the topic but engaging in the same bad behavior and disruptive edits. This is wasting a great deal of time and energy of good faith editors who would prefer to work in harmony. Please do something. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're actually trying to dredge up an edit [[35]] from more than six months ago into the current argument? And my "severe warning" was simply a no-sanctions message to "be more careful". I looked into a source already in an article, and used the exact phrase "leaked emails" from the source. Admin Mastcell decided it was "misleading" because I put the phrase half a sentence away from where the inline citation was, even though two other admins said it was without merit. In fact, the only reason I didn't appeal such a ridiculous conclusion was simply because there were no sanctions attached to it, just a warning to "be more careful" ... which I always am, anyway. And Viriditas is simply upset because he's taken me to three different noticeboards in the past week, without once getting the result he wants. On the first forum, he even went so far as to begin personally attacking editors who agreed with me. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My experience mirrors what several have commented on above. FellGleaming has an extremely aggressive editing style that makes it difficult to work cooperatively with him. He will argue a point over and over on an article's talk page, and when he doesn't get his way he deletes large swaths of material that he dislikes with a summary of "As per talk, deleting non-encyclopedic content."[36] His talk page discussions often employ an odd sort of circular logic that basically goes "the source that supports that statement isn't reliable, because a reliable source wouldn't say that" as in this example (note "BBB" should be "BBC"). This has been going on for too long, over too wide range of articles. Ideally FellGleaming would adopt a less aggressive and more cooperative approach on his own, but if not he should be given concrete incentive to do so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's evidence of clear POV pushing and wikilawyering. Compare here where, to prevent the Heartland Institute article mentioning that it's often referred to as "right-wing", he says

"The principle touchstone here, Mastcell, is accuracy. A source that states something verifiably inaccurate should not be used period, no matter how reliable that source is in general. Further, a source that describes the subject as "right wing noise" is clearly biased. Why are you trying so ardently to portray Heartland as something they so clearly are not? I'm honestly curious."

with this from an OR notice board, where, to get an organisation labelled "left-wing", he argues

"you're confusing WP:OR with potential WP:RS and WP:NPOV issues. If a source labels an organization liberal, then its not OR to provide that description -- though the source's description can still be shown to be inaccurate or non neutral."

These comments were made within a couple of weeks of each other. Either viewpoint might be valid, but not both at the same time. Technically, no policy has been broken, but it's things like these that stretch the AGF of other editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just came across this recent edit by FellGleaming; his talk page led me to this discussion. The edit is problematic on two levels:

• It uses a single painting to support a claim that a depiction was "common" among Medieval artists.
• The painting used is not medieval at all, but late 15th / early 16th century.

This edit from a totally different area shows FellGleaming's misuse of sources to push his own interpretations, violating WP:NOR and the specific warning that he is to "exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them.... These are final warnings and further violations may result in sanctions." SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking the archives I find that two years ago FellGleaming made similar edits here and here that were deleted after discussion. He's nothing if not persistent. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsuccessful enforcement request from April 2010

I append this which was rejected as being (just) outside the scope of the CC enforcement, as an illustration of the longevity of the problem, and in support of Viriditas' and Ssilvers' comments in the section just above.

1. User claims that this source states "the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were."

   After I challenge this,

2. he invites me to "click on the link" After a further challenge,
3. points out that "It says the largest problem is mental health...", which was not the claim.
4. FellGleaming then repeats the mischaracterization of the source.

   After my warning, below, then

5. accuses me of making a personal attack, at which point I give up and come here. --John (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

It seems as if an RfC concerning FellGleaming's POV-pushing and aggressive editing might be in order? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC to enact sanctions against someone whose conduct is so uniformly poor over such a long period of time, without any real sign that he learns from criticism, or even takes it in? He is currently blocked (his fourth block, and his second this year) for edit-warring at Christine O'Donnell, retrospectively claiming a BLP exemption (though he didn't mention it at the time he made the edits, instead using summaries like, for example, "remove pov presentation") I see he now has Mastcell down as being against him, the latest, presumably, in a long line of admins who have unfairly picked on him. When lots and lots of people tell you you are doing something wrong, it's at least worth considering that you might be doing something wrong. This obvious insight seems to be beyond the user at present and I contend that his next block should be for a 1 week - 1 month period and the next after that should be permanent. This modest escalation would give a fair chance for FG to reform, without binding us to wasting loads more time on him if reform proves impossible. --John (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He has now removed for the second time my notice to reviewing admins to look here before deciding whether to unblock. I won't edit-war but I strongly think this notice should remain as long as the unblock template is in place. I was sorely tempted to decline the unblock myself but will let someone else handle it. --John (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's run into the brick wall that is FellGleaming (on Indian Point Energy Center), I'm certainly not going to argue that any additional evidence is needed to show his obstreporous behavior pattern, but I'm also well aware that, with some frequency in the past, sanctions have been rejected if intermediate steps such as an RfC aren't taken beforehand. It's that auld demon process: some people just feel queasy about doing the right thing before all the T's have been crossed and the i's dotted. Me, I'm more interested in results, and see nothing wrong in sanctioning an aggresive POV-warrior at any stage if he or she is preventing the encyclopedia from being as accurate and factual as it can be – and that indeed seems to be the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Process isn't just that there for the sake of it (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), it's there because it serves a purpose. In this case, an RFC seems called for, (a) giving FG a chance to reconsider his behaviour and not view criticism as mere point-scoring by content opponents (b) allow others, especially those sympathetic to FG, to see that he is given such a chance before more drastic measures are taken, if it is at some point concluded that they are necessary. Rd232 ^talk 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If the date was April 2010 I would agree with this analysis. As the problem has been going on for several months since then, and the user seems to show no insight into the problematic nature of his edits after this time and after four blocks, I am struggling to justify the idea of an RfC. If that's the consensus I will go along with it of course, but I really don't see why in such an egregious case we couldn't just enact a final warning or a topic ban by community consensus right here, right now. --John (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban

I have been involved directly with this user in article having to deal with Climate Change. I'm surprised that this editor is also edit warring across numerous other articles. I just don't think he gets it. Are his contributions a net-benefit to the project? I don't think so. When that happens, it's usually time to consider a community ban. I don't think this is premature because I've looked at a lot of the evidence flying fast and furious through this thread and have also looked through his contribution history. I don't see anything redeeming. We've reached the last resort, IMHO.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring. I think the issues raised here require serious consideration (particularly in light of the repeated blocks for edit-warring on politically sensitive articles), but please consider that FellGleaming is currently unable to participate in this discussion. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As I've pointed out at his talk, he can post any response there and someone will copy it over here. --John (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban - The clever POV pushers who know how to manipulate language and sources are way more dangerous than the overt vandals. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no more depressing sight than an editor who has been in conflict with another try and use a separate incident as a chance to ask for a guy to get banned. This comment is aimed at the proposer, i do not know all those who are supporting this proposal and do not mean those who do support it are all in conflict with Fell mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support; I would have preferred a block or a topic ban before going to a full ban, but this is better than nothing. What we mustn't have is FG coming back in 72 hrs and continuing to disrupt. --John (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) see below
• Support - IMO, FellGleaming is been disruptive at Libertarianism in addition to Climate Change related articles. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - FG's has an extremely aggressive and confrontational attitude, but only has 4 total blocks, two in 2008 and two in 2010. FG also has a undeniable passion for some subjects which may be harnessed to benefit the project. Rather than a flat ban, put them on a civility probation, to be monitored by a few uninvolved admins. Any, and I mean ANY, slip, for ANY reason, is a week long block for the first, indef for the second. They've had more than a few warnings and comments, but maybe, just maybe, a blunt smack to the face will change things. And maybe not, but with a block on site for any slipup, damage to the project is mitigated. (And for the record, I find their general actions on WP reprehensible, contributing to several problem areas). Ravensfire (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Civility is not the main problem here; more a case of edit-warring, tendentious editing, and systematically misrepresenting sources. --John (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Yet another example of a civil-POV pusher, whose lack of a substantial block record is a result of gaming the system, and not because he or she is really interested in creating a NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does this editor pose problems? Sure. But I then conclude something differently from Ken's observation that the lack of a big block log is due to "gaming the system". If the system doesn't work properly, then that deserves more attention. Banning editors on an ad hoc basis is not a good thing. Ravensfire proposal makes more sense to me, but we also have to take a more general approach: Welcome the feedback that problematic editors give us here and adjust the system to deal with problems, instead of pointing the finger to the problematic editor and not fixing flaws in the system. For the problems in the climate change area, this means that Wikipedia needs to adopt WP:SPOV. Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the system needs overhauling, since it does not deal well with civil POV pushers, but to say that because the system is ineffective in fixing that proble, we should not take advantage of what mechanisms it does provide is just plain silly. I'd be all in favor of having a way that people like FG can be dealt with at a much earlier stage, without going through all the endless drama and disruptive palaver that CPOVs cause, but in the meantime, once things have come to a head, to back off simply because there's not a better method of dealing with them is harmful to the project overall. It's taken much too long, but a specific problem has been identified and needs to be dealt with, that's entirely a different proposition than fixing the system, which should be dealt with, but elsewhere, not here, and not as part of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I've tried to work with FG on many articles relating to nuclear issues, without success, and the POV-pushing and disruption has continued. Johnfos (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've seen plenty of caustic comments from this user. Enough. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature - RFC first, and see if FG can improve. Rd232 ^talk 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, sort of broadly per Ravensfire. The real danger here is that FellGleaming will see failure of the indef block proposal as vindication of his actions. Better to withdraw the indef block proposal and instead put him on notice that he needs to clean up his act, and that there are admins willing to step in if he continues on his current path. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As usual, draconian responses do not work. Moreover, the proponent is currently involved in an ArbCom case, and this may be seen as a way to sidestep the discussions there about both parties. Collect (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Editor has a poor record and does not observe neutrality, rs, AGF or 3RR, despite feedback from other editors and blocks. TFD (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, basically per Ravensfire. I do not think that the Wikipedia community has a great track record with civility paroles, though. I would support a global 1RR restriction with a discussion requirement (block length aggressively escalated) + sourcing probation (immediate indef if a source is substantively misrepresented). RfC/U might also help - I have seen editors recover from worse. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for a different reason. I do not know enough about this user to form an opinion of whether this editor is deserving of a site ban or not. I am opposing because they are involved in an ArbCom case. I think that the ArbCom case should be allowed to finish and see how any remedies and findings of facts which pass effect this user and whether their behaviour improves.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I am no fan of FG's editing, this is too much. A topic ban was proposed (below); the problem with that is that there are a number of topics where this editor has been disruptive. 1RR would be helpful, for instance, but perhaps an RfC is the way to go at this time. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Only recently experienced him as an editor. He appears knowledgeble on Wiki policy and open to consensus editing but can also comport himself agressively. Editing as an assumed "sceptic" CC editor, his survival skill alone probably warrants merit. Civility parole might help but a ban is, IMHO, way over the top. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - if he acknowledges there is a problem and comment. Wikipedia has difficulty with this kind of civil POV editor. In the debate we're having now, the struggle is to describe in concrete terms the behaviour pattern that would lead to a ban, although I think everyone more or less is agreed that he's been a net detriment to Wikipedia's processes, and with intention. I'm uncomfortable in this instance with a wholesale ban. FellGleaming is knowledgeable, and has forced some article writers to be very careful what they say about fringe theorists and BigEvilCorporations in a healthy way - in addition to blatant POV editing. Such subjects can be subject to attack, just as much as articles on Obama or Acorn. Of course, if he does not acknowledge that there is a problem with his approach, then I would reassess my view - and I would urge others to do so. That said, I think it's worth looking at this summary of his edits. Although the first two bans were two years ago, FellGleaming was not editing regularly again until April this year. Each time he has become more active, he's experienced blocks for edit warring. I support suggestions of an indefinite global 1RR, and, based on what I've seen him do, a warning about misrepresenting talkpage consensus (must not be done) and about his warning other users of breaking policy (wikilawyering) - only to be done in absolute cast iron cases (e.g. blatant vandalism (obscenities etc.), including both talkpages and usertalk pages. He can always ask an admin to take a case up for him if it's genuine. Looking at his edit history, I think it' a case of WP:ROPE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mild oppose I have had run ins in the past with Fell. I do not see his actions as much worse then many others (inlcuding in truth the origional ANI poster). If he can demonstrate that he is able to learn from this experiance then I will oppose a ban. If however evidacen comes forward that he will not moderate his activities then this would change to Mild support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mild Support I don't like to impose sanctions, but an editor who persists in pushing the same original research two years after it's been removed by consensus and two days after he's been warned to "exercise basic due diligence" in the use of sources, doesn't seem willing to operate within the Wikipedia framework. Given the scope of his problem edits, a topic ban won't suffice.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC); revised 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Edits like this one, demonstrating an apparent unfamiliarity with WP:UNDUE, followed by this one, showing that the editor has at least heard of UNDUE, are a serious concern that there's an underlying problem (either with competence, or, more likely, with POV-pushing) that needs to be addressed. But that doesn't necessitate leaping to a community ban. Let's press on with blocks - we're only up to the 72 hours block stage at this point. TFOWR 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Probably the most POV pushing wikilawyer I have known. I have known both wikilawyers and POV pushers but FellGleeming has taken these tactics across multiple articles and venues using every wikitactic available. To simply suggest there is a problem that needs to be addressed is an understatement and fails to look into this editor's history in a meaningful way. This editor is not here to improve wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Very belligerent user, and both competence and POV-pushing are issues. I encountered him recently on the CC case; see his defensive response to a warning I posted on another user's page (a user I see opposing a ban above; no surprise there, I guess), without even waiting for that user to do his own replying.[37] When I requested diffs for his accusations from FG, reminding him that "it is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation"[38], he fell unaccountably silent, so his character assassination had presumably been mere hot air. (I guess it's not only sources that he misrepresents.) I would like to see a ban, but one with a timelimit; sitebanned for three months sounds about right, IMO. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC).
• Not support, not oppose, but comment and learning toward mild oppose I had a very recent run-in with Fell where he passionately and belligerently pushed his point. He threatened to excise an entirely section (that was very well referenced) and clearly did not agree with the consensus. He brought the issue to another noticeboard without notifying anyone in the local discussion, despite being specifically asked to do so. His civil POV pushing is usually that, civil, but he sometimes makes accusations of bad faith, which is clearly against policy. I do not think Fell needs to be banned, but there ought to be an RfC/U on the issue to gain wider community input. Basket of Puppies 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Fell Gleaming is only one amongst many great contributors who have been shoved out of Wikipedia for not going along with the elitist majority POV that pervade Wikipedia's articles.--Novus Orator 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, for the sake of the timeline, this ANI report was precipitated by the failure of a previous report opened by FellGleaming at WP:NOR/N on 13:22, 17 September 2010.[39] "Novus Orator", real account name Terra Novus (talk · contribs), created their account at 05:26, 18 September 2010.[40] This noticeboard report was filed by me at 13:48, 18 September 2010.[41] Wikistalk results for the intersection of both contributors can be viewed here. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your point is? I can't see where these two edds have edited the discusion on the notice board (mentioned above) so I fail to see the relevance of this. Unless you are sugesting the Fell knew you were going to raise an ANI before you did so, so created an account for use here in advance.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My observation from being (unofficially) involved at SPI is that sockpuppeteers frequently create one or more account just before an administrative action, as insurance. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I may mis-understand the point your making bit this was not created before an action, this was created before a report (or even a warning of a report, indeed Fell was never issued with a warning that his actions might lead to an ANI). Thus its hard to see why he would have created an account 8 hours before he had any reason to think he might need one (rather then at a time when he actually was under threat, such as after the ANI started). Also see below, it seems that both these accounts have been used at the same time. Moreover I would like to see what Fell and the other account are in fact being accused of rather then some innuendo.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Community bans, IMO, are too often suggested and handed out before the escalation of blocks is properly implemented, and this is no exception. Doc9871 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I already had qualms about the idea of a site ban, and some of the opposes have swayed me towards a more thoughtful idea. I originally asked for a topic ban, something along the lines of Fell Gleaming is prohibited from editing pages on nuclear matters, energy generation or related topics. This includes talk pages and raising matters relating to such pages at central noticeboards. This to be enforced by one further block (1 week - 1 month), with the one after that being indefinite. Let me repropose this as an alternative to a site-ban. --John (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not nearly good enough as his edits cover a wide variety of topics, as his most recent 3RR violation shows, from energy to politics, from biographies to geography. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there are problems with FG's actions. But I think the first step should be "what can you do to help yourself?" See if FG is willing to commit to changes in his behaviour/restrictions that might solve this problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree also we should wait untill the end of the wider investigation. But I would suppoert a 1RR restiction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems difficult to enumerate the problematic areas, as they are too many, and too fuzzy at the edges, so might my suggestion above for a time-limited siteban (3 months..?) be a less complicated not-so-draconian alternative? What do you think, John? Bishonen | talk 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

An RfC/U needs to be listed for wider community discussion. Until then, I suggest his unblock so he can participate. It seems only fair. Basket of Puppies 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think not. See above for new evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s interesting that both of these accounts make different edits on different pages, at the same time [[42]] [[43]] that’s some clever sock puppeting. I sugest that the 'evidance' is re-examined.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just what I'd do if I were going to sock. I don't know whether FellGleaming and this new Terra Novus account are the same person, but the simultaneous edit is no argument against their identity, imo, none at all, and the behavior does seem pretty quacky. We need a checkuser's help here before we can reasonably proceed, imo: if results come back negative then I'd agree with Basket of Puppies (my vote for best username, btw) that FellGleaming should be unblocked to be able to participate here (if not elsewhere, yet) for the sake of fairness. Since some pretty serious sanctions are being spoken of here, I also agree with Basket and others that a RFC/U is called for, perhaps with with an interim 1RR until that process can be completed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

• Prior AN/I, from 2009, which failed in finding any error: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo
• Prior RFC, from August 2005, regarding problematic behavior as Administrator at the Vietnam War article, which became an Arbcom case and resulted in desyopping: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Stevertigo
• Prior RFA, 29 August 2009, which became an Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, which succeeded in sanctioning several editors on both sides, including Stevertigo, currently active (June 21, 2010), one year topic ban and editing restrictions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions

I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Stevertigo is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo continues a pattern of problematic editing across several articles. Furthermore, I state that this is not a content dispute. This is about replacing sourced, referenced, and cited material, with WP:OR. Stevertigo argues as if this is type of behavior (and this position) is valid on the talk pages of several articles. Several other editors are invloved. The articles involved are Time, Time in physics, Punishment, and, I think one other.

First encounter with Stevertigo, here: [44] where I removed WP:OR and replaced it with content supported by references already in place. Please see edit history statement. Next, User:Stevertigo, reverted this edit and replaced with the unsourced and unreferenced statement, [45]. In addition, it is mostly incomprehensible. Also, this part appears to be cited, but some other editor had placed the this template: {{failed verification|date=July 2010|reason=much of this, the part Stevertigo sourced to "moi" (himself) is very clearly not in citation}}.

On the talk page Stevertigo had created a new section, with my User-name as the section title [46]. He quoted my edit summary, and gave what may seem like a level-headed response. However, he just replaced my edit with original research and incomprehensible wording. Next, is my response [47]. Also I changed the name for the inappropriate section title. Using my name as the section title is an indication of focusing on the editor (me), and not on the content. It has the appearance of a personal attack. See edit history statement for my response.

My response on the article talk page has been removed, and the title reverted back to my user-name [48]. I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name, [49]. Notice my statement in the edit history.

I reverted Stevertigo's article-edit. [50]. Stevertigo reverted my edit with his WP:OR, while sounding insulted. [51].

I was unable to actually add my response to the section formerly titled with my user-name. I ended up placing my response in another section [52].

The lede is where Steveritgo desires to place his edits. In fact, in these several articles it turns out that Stevertigo desires to place his POV content in the lede:

Punishment ---- [53], [54].

Time in physics ---- [55], [56]

Physics ---- [57]

Human ---- [58], [59] (see also "Addtion to my complaint" below)

Time is illustrated by the above diffs.

This assertion is supported by the following statement on his user-talk page [60] "My focus has generally been on writing good ledes, which set the tone for the rest of the article."

Also on his talk page: I strive through a conceptually organised approach to craft language that deals with the essence and substance of ideas, [61]. This is linked to his own essay Wikipedia:Conceptualization. He created this page. The signifigance is that he has given priority to concepts which are not based on reliable soures or verifiablity, on article talk pages. Then the conversation can become mired in challenging his WP:OR conceptulizing with the need for deriving facts from reliable sources. Here, [62], he plainly states: "The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head)". Also, the section is entitled "Concept cloud".

There is also a collapsible info box which opens to reveal, a list of concepts, i.e.,

• reality
• physical, physics
• transformation, change
• etc., etc., with about 18 more "concepts" following these (inside the collapsible box).

Perhaps Stevertigo thinks editing is about gaining the high ground when insisting on placing unsourced and unverifiable material in an article, as he does here - [63], and here [64] It changes the intended dynamics of the editing process. This creates a battleground atmosphere.

Jim Wade removes Stevertigo's WP:OR statement. See edit history comments. [65], [66]. And I agreed with him [67]. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit [68], and then becomes argumentative on the talk page [69]. Notice how Stevertigo characterzes Jim's overall edting and attitude.

Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion [70]. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion [71]. He appears to be using a guideline to gain an advantage. However, editing is not intended to be about gaining an advantage over other editors to place original research material in an article. The original research material is not supposed to be there. And if it is, then the thing to do is to remove it, and it should make sense to all editors involved. However, over the course of three or four articles, where editing with Stevertigo is involved, it has been a constant battle. He is adamant about placing WP:OR in the ledes.

Before I came on the scene, this behavior appears on July 12, 2010. This lede is similar to his lede of August 2 and after. [[72]

On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row [73], cullimanting in [74] "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

Other relevant diffs: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81].

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history [82]. Outnumbered, Stevertigo finally moved on. To where? I don't know.

However, around this same time, other editors and I, had to deal with Stevertigo at Time in physics. It was another running battle of WP:OR vs. WP:V --- [83], [84], [85], [86], etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion [87]. However, on the talk pages of both articles Stevertigo was sufficiently informed about using only sourced material. From his responses and his editing he refuses to get it, figithing obstinately to have his WP:OR leading the articles. Once again he was outnumbered and he moved on.

In the article Punishment the story is the same (a running battle between WP:OR and WP:V) [88] , except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th [89]. I thought Stevertigo had moved on. Much to my surprise, I discovered that on September 16 he had obssesively edited the lede 16 times in a row, 15 of which were on September 16th [90]. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here [91]. Jim Wade stepped in after 16 edits, and began to counter Stevertigo's WP:OR edits. I noted on the talk page that "it appears to be the same situation as when I stepped in over a month ago - Jim Wade doing his best to counter Stevertigo's unorthodox editing style. By the third Stevertigo edit, two sentenes were added, which were a creation not supported by any added references or those references already part of this article." The next edits were Jim Wade diplomatically countering Stevertigos edits. Ultimately, I restored the consensus lede established on August 9th [92].

I was still not intending to go to ANI. However, when Stevertigo made an audio version of sometihing which he describes as "To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction" [93]. He is refering to me and my writing. I have no problem that he made an audio version of anything, and placed it on the talk page. The problem is this is the same old routine - WP:OR vs. WP:V - only with an audio device.

I also need to expand this complaint to show that Stevertigo is not likely to alter is behavior a result of normal sanctioning. He has had some issues (conflicts) all the way back to 2005. Yet, five years later he still operating as if guidelines and policies do not apply to him.

Apparently, in 2005, as an administrator he unblocked himself four times, threatened to block users who disagreed with him, reverted a protected page, blocked a user for reverting him, and blocked another user for blocking him. He also blocked an admin who corrected his revert on a locked page. [94], [95]. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, very recently, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year) [96]. With this Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Is this editing restriction applicable to only Obama articles, or to any article that he edits? Because, if it is general editing restriction he has violated this with this set of articles. I have a page that lists ANIs where some only mention his name, while others are issues related to his problematic type editing. Therefore, I will not provide that link, but I intend to go through it for a more complete picture. The 2005 incidents were started with edit warring in the Viet Nam article. So I would like to do a more complete investigation, including checking out some of his edit history.

Also, his most recent edits (2:37 September 19, 2010) were in the Physics article, Here he started the same pattern of inserting WP:OR material [97]. It was subsequently reverted within 24 hours. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I copied the following from an entry I created in the body of the article:

The following is a list of other articles, with diffs, where Stevertigo follows the same pattern delineated above. In other words, he comes along one day and inserts WP:OR into the lede. This is usually followed by a group of other editors having to contend with him to keep the original WP:V statement in place: ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: [98]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [99]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [100]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [101], and related discussion [102].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [103]. Reverted: [104] on the talk page a section entitled with one of his favorite concepts: Conceptualization.---- 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses

Its 2 am where I am so I'll keep this brief. I have not read all of the material that Steve Quinn has presented, and having scanned it, it looks substantial. At first sight, I am myself almost convinced of SQ's thesis that I am a "problematic editor" and should go somewhere else. However I've been a "problematic editor" for some eight years now, AIUI, five years longer than SQ. I note that I have faced ANI's from people before and they typically consist of the same generalisms and inuendo, always failing to substantiate the points expressed. Note that that after the two or three pages of comment above, SQ's way of informing me of this ANI note was "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: (edit conflict) As I state on my userpage, one of my main focuses for years has been on improving the ledes to articles. Examples from the last couple days include my my edits to the war, militarism and rights articles. My issues with SQ became centered at the punishment article, after my rewrite of the lede (the first edits there in months), another editor followed me there after losing an editorial debate at time, and SQ followed suit. I have been trying to get the point accross to SQ that his way of conceptualizing a concept and introducing the topic (punishment in this case) lacked the kind of cohesion and substance that I think articles require. He talks about keeping a fidelity to the sources, and I have no problem with this point. The problem is that he sometimes apparently parrots the sources such that what is being written doesn't actually make sense. I recorded a spoken audio file of SQ's introduction to the punishment article (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg) because I think when read aloud, the inherent inconsistencies (in SQ's conceptualization) become rather obvious, and this negates any value that blind sourcing brings. I was expecting SQ to respond on that article talk page, not here. I will of course substantiate my view of his writing with a point-by-point critique. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Two very quick points for Stevertigo - we don't rank editors by either edit count or time active on the project so that's not very relevant and the "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." is the standard notification template {{subst:ANI-notice}} so no foul there. One MAJOR point for Steve Quinn - admins are less likely to read long messages - can you summarise your problem here in one paragraph? Exxolon (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon, thanks for your suggestion. If I could I would. This complaint encompasses four articles, three talk pages, one user-page, and one essay page. Furthermore, there were three or four other editors involved. The admins are only human, like you and I, and it would be impossible, and time consuming, to sort through reams of editing, edting history, and talk page discussions. Hence, this compliant is like a road map. I use one article as an example of the editing pattern for all the articles involved. Then I briefly supply diffs for the other articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I interacted with user Stevertigo on Time in physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where, against talk page consensus, and against adequately sourced material, the user was pushing (in article and on talk page) apparent original research onto the lead.

The user's first edit on Time in physics was on 30-Jul-2010. At the point were Stevertigo had given up using the talk page (on (5-Aug-2010), he added his self-created nonce-template tag (Template:nonce), to the article, meaning essentially nothing more than "I don't like the lead and I want everyone to know." It was agreed on the talk page that this was highly inappropriate, so the tag was removed and the user notified. See also Wikipedia:Nonce_introductions and this request. Both comments were ignored without a comment a few days later.

A week later on 13-Aug-2010 the user made his most recent edit, essentially restoring his first edit as if nothing had happened before. This was prompty undone by Steve Quinn and nothing further happened.

In my opinion this was an example of problematic editing, and/but I assumed that the problem was solved at this point. I had not looked at the user's contributions since then, although it seems to me that this string of recent edits to Physics could be problematic, in the sense that they seem to be altering properly sourced statements with personal POV's. DVdm (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding to my complaint: On August 30th, in the article Human, Stevertigo began another campaign of inserting his WP:OR [105]. This was subsequently reverted two hours later, after five or six more Stevertigo edits, [106]. However, it did not end there. Within six minutes, Stevertigo reverted back to his version [107]. This was reverted by another editor eight minutes later [108]. As can be seen with the following diffs, an Stertivigo edit wars with at least four other editors, continuing until September 3rd anyway. It then appears to begin again on September 9th. Please see edit history. Also, a corresponding discussion took place on the talk page. I will send a notice to the editors involved in that recent edit war, so they may comment on this ANI, if they so desire. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved, in a minor way, in Stevertigo's changes to Human, I have to say that his edits resulted, on balance, in an improvement of the article. I haven't looked at much of the wall of text above, so I will note that Stevertigo does appear to have a communication issue - his original changes to the Human article were not clearly understandable, and his explanations of what he desired were also not clear enough. Nonetheless, he was correct that there was a subtle POV problem with the article, and his actions have reduced that problem, albeit with some difficulty. I would very much counsel Stevertigo to communicate his ideas clearly; the best exposition of your thoughts will be as plain as a grocery list and therefore just as understandable. I don't know how much of the above is caused by communications issues, but I hope that Stevertigo's ideas are getting a fair hearing regardless - though, again, I have barely reviewed the large amount of material above; it may be that Stevertigo is completely off-base and I simply haven't yet seen it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this. The issue here is probably best described as a personal dispute between SQ and I, motivated largely by my spoken audio file I made to clarify how unclear and unacceptable his writing is (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Stevertigo is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My association with JimWae was largely at the Time article, which he has shepherded for years. My issue was that his intro was too simplistic and didn't talk about the subject in its most general terms: Continuum, change. We debated it and worked it out, and though less than what I wanted, the article now has a proper introductory sentence. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Stevertigo has made extensive edits to Human generally against consensus and pushing his own, somewhat unclear, POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My issues with the human article largely dealt with its skeptical tone, which as Gavia noted above, amounted to a kind of systemic bias. My approach to that article began quite differently than the resulting compromise: I wanted a very philosophical introduction that made clear the distinction between human being and an animal creature/organism. This set up a rift between philosophy and scientific oriented editors. What resulted was that the article lead now includes a passage referring to "person." The human article had not even contained the world "person" until I came along. To further my point, I repeatedly beat people over the head with this basic fact that what they thought was a perfect article hadn't even made the connection between human and the idea "person." I continue to, apparently. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't watch him or those other articles, but I do watch Human pretty closely, where, it's no secret, I have come to the conclusion that he's nuts. I wouldn't mind, because I feel confident that he's under control there, so I don't think anything has to be done about him. But again, I don't know what else he gets up to, you might want to keep an eye on him. But so far as Human goes, as I see it, the answer is not to humor him on the discussion page. Stop entertaining his suggestions, and you'll stop entertaining him. Then he'll get bored and go away. Where he goes; I don't know, but someone (not me please) might want to follow him and revert every violation he does without discussing it with him any more than the minimum and he'll either eventually get with the program and become a good contributor or quit and go start a blog or some such. So I don't know what you're suggesting be done about the problem, but my solution for Human is for everyone to stop humoring him and he'll go away. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, the gist of your comment is: You think I'm "nuts" and that I should be stalked article to article (by anyone of your noble constitution) and my edits should be reverted "without [..] any more than the minimum" of discussion on talk. What part of WP:TRI don't you understand? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding OR is a long-term problem with Stevertigo. I can honestly say I have never seen him do anything else. There have been several discussions about this, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo, but it made no difference. He turned at Animal rights not long ago wanting to add his own opinions about sentience to the lead, though it was clear he had no knowledge of AR or issues surrounding sentience; no knowledge of the sources, no effort to find any; see here on talk. He kept the discussion going—a discussion entirely about his personal views, with not one reference to a source that I recall—from May 3 to May 24. His posts are often difficult to respond to, because it's not clear that they mean anything, e.g.

First of all there is a clear definition of sentience, that does not consider simply that sense = sentience. Yours is an argument that belongs at the sentience article, perhaps. To say that a major fulcrum of an animal rights argument, that sentience equals sense (why not just say "sensing"), and that all sensing creatures are sentient, is "taken for granted" is simply a POV. Animal rights activists have had a difficult time at the sentience article as well, where they argue for a lower consciousness definition of "sentience" that defies all other definitions that go beyond merely sensing. And yes, I understand there are some unusual scientists who argue for animal equality/personhood.

At some point we may need to bite the bullet and start applying blocks, or perhaps go to ArbCom, because he's harming quite a lot of articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This editor has been a problem for years, and shows no signs of improving. An arbitration case may be the best option. AniMate 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here since 2002. If someone has a problem with my edits, they can always put forth their best argument, and I am more than happy to put forward mine. If SQ and other's here want to sticky this ANI and keep it going, fine.

I've dealt with these kinds of things before (WP:ANI/SV), and I'll point out that these typically act as magnets for complaints of little substance, and ultimately end in failure to achieve their goal of limiting my editing. Ive said it before, I welcome any ANI, RFC, Medcom or Arbcom case regarding any specific edits I have made.

SlimVirgin, no stranger to criticism for her editing patterns, states that I am "harming quite a lot of articles." It should not be difficult for her to give us a list of articles which I have supposedly harmed.

As a final note, its usually quite clear that people who use the terminology of WP:DISRUPT such as "problematic editing" are using such terms as minced oaths in place of the word "troll" (now that "troll" is regarded as pejorative and unacceptable). Still, their arguments are generally baseless, and reduceable to namecalling. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with Stevertigo elsewhere, leading to a protracted Arbcom case, and this seems to fit an ongoing pattern of disrespect and poor interactions, and rather quirky content positions - basically iconoclasm with fangs - summed up best in the observation that this is not 2002. Wikipedia is much more consensus-driven now and gives deference to rules, process, collaboration, and civility, not the idiosyncratic efforts of groundbreaking editors to shape the Internet to their vision. If you're going to edit articles on important subjects like "time", "human being", and such, you have to respect that the many hardworking editors who regularly work on these articles have achieved a consensus as to the basic subject of the article, and not take it upon yourself to single-handedly reframe the article to fit your personal beliefs about the nature of things. Whereas deciding what time is may have been appropriate in the early days, today a bold edit is to add news of a labor lawsuit to an article about a local restaurant chain. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You know Wikidemon, that even though weve had our differences, I respect your opinion. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the goodwill is nice. There's no disgrace in being an early trailblazer having some difficulty adjusting to a later era of trail-minders. I would say the same of Jimbo. His infrequent edits sometimes create interesting conflicts. For what it's worth, here is the beauty article as of October, 2001. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I resisted commenting here for some time - Stevertigo will accurately say I stopped assuming good faith on his part some time ago. It did not start that way. When Tigo first started editing wikipidia I gushed good faith. That was a long time ago when he insisted that the article on antisemitism say that it is hatred of Arabs. everyone tried explaining that this was not so. This was long before NOR but his method of argument then was simply to use a dictionary definition that Arabic is a semitic language Arabs = semites, anti-semite = anti semites, anti-semite = antiarabs. Today tat would clearly violate NOR. After editors finally convinced him that the anti semitism article would not say that antisemitism = anti-arabs, he started to create articles on things that didn't exist except in his mind - editors had to explain to him what a "neologism" is and eventually we reached agreement that articles should not be on neologisms. A year or two ago I admit I lost all patience when he started editing articles on Hebrew names that indicated that he really did not understand Hebrew. His MO was: edit to install his opinion, wait to hear all the objections, and then start parroting the objections on the talk page, so editors who showed up late thought he knew what he was talking about. The fact is I have never seen him make a valuable contribution to an article. I admit/affirm right now that I am sure he has made valuable contributions to some article, it just is inconceivable to me that an editor can be active here for eight years without making at least a few good edits, if only the laws of chance apply some have to be right ... don't they? Nevertheless, the fact remains: Stevertigo is at best a nuisance and at worse an insidious POV pusher who thinks Wikipedia is his own little cafe table where he can bloviate with a couple of bottles of wine and a sophmore or two who might be seduced by his ignorant blather. I am not criticisimg Stevertigo, for all I know he is a swell guy, I am commenting only on his behavior. Once people catch on he just moves to another Wikipedia article. The more editors we attract, the sooner people at any given article figure out he is just making stuff up or really does not represent what he has read accurately. Alas, as we attract more editors, we also increase in articles, and there are more places he can run off to where no one knows his MO and he can push his POV or invent stuff again. I wish this would stop. But an univolved editor needs to do the right thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, he's plowed through animal rights and antisemitism topics as noted above, along with quibblings over Holocaust denial and the ever-charming Obama and socialism MfD. It's hard not to see a pattern here. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And Beauty and God and Time, and a host of other articles where he feels his personal opinions have to take priority. It has been going on for eight years, and I think we really need an admin to step up and be willing to act. I would suggest at a minimum a ban on changing leads; on adding content unaccompanied by a reliable source; and on adding sourced content that violates SYN. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this calls for Arbcom. Tigo is a classic disruptive editor. That is not name calling (although Tigo recently attempted to rewrite that guideline ... gee, I wonder why?) He boasts of having been the object of numerous complaints in the past, in his response to this thread. He mistakes Wikipedia's ample patience for encouragement. We should not mistake his smugness for righteousness.

Okay, I found the "neologism" my mind had blotted out. After days at the antisemitism talk page, with several knowledgable editors doing triple lutzes trying to explain again and again why his edits were what would later be called NOR, in error, and violating NPOV, Stevertigo wrote a whole new article here, on a term of his own invention, whether in spite or the product of a bizarre logic (HAL 0001 with some weird virus) I do not know. I invite - no, in this evening's loneliness, I beg - you all to take a stroll down wikiwackiness memory lane, and follow the link, and anostalgicize with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That diff was from Februray 2003, before the Iraq War got started. It was also before Arbcom and even the Civility principle were established - something that Anthere and I cobbled together. Remember that the Civility principle came about in large part due to accusations of "anti-Semitism." I can recount more of that history if you like. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But your editing hasn't changed since then, which is the point of this and previous threads. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my editing has improved. I think yours has also, as has Slrubenstein and others amongst us second-wave editors. Perhaps you can attempt to be objective, and give us a list of those articles which you say I have 'harmed' by editing them, along with a brief description of how I have 'harmed' them. Since this 'harm' is something you claim to be inherent to my editing in general, you can look at some of my most recent edits - in fact I will put forward an example: the War article lead is largely mine. You can compare the before and after versions and tell me what 'harm' I have done. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've been watching this unfold since SQ posted the link to here on Talk:Human, and I'm not really sure I have much worth saying since my impression of Stevertigo is pretty neutral... but I guess a neutral opinion will at least dilute all the negative some?

My interaction with Steve (hereafter meaning "Tigo", not SQ) has predominantly been over at Rights, where most of the talk page is our ongoing (on-and-off) discussion about revisions to the lede of that article from over the past few months. While I don't find Steve's contributions there to be especially productive, he hasn't been particularly disruptive either. His views do seem a little... I don't know if I'd say "idiosyncratic" since I'm not entirely sure what his views are, so I'll say "poorly formulated". He seems to strongly want to include something in the article, but it's often difficult to tease out what exactly that something is. But, he has been civil and respectful of my criticism of his edits on the talk page, and has not edit-warred about their inclusion, but rather refined his position and compromised, and the article has genuinely improved in some minor ways because of this process.

Over at Talk:Human I saw pretty much the same process play out, except that people's reactions to Steve were less patient than mine have been at Talk:Rights, and Steve seemed to respond understandably negatively to that more hostile reaction; and even that minor hubbub settled down quickly enough. So overall, I don't think he's a particularly problematic editor; any harm he does to articles is usually minor and easily corrected, and he seems to respond positively to people who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject calmly stating why his edits were reverted/adjusted and asking for clarification on what point he's trying to make.

The only real complaint I have is about his style of editing piecemeal (e.g. many edits to a single page in a row within a few minutes of each other, instead of previewing and rethinking the edits until they are to his liking), because I have my watchlist set to show all edits, not just the most recent, and that kind of editing floods my watchlist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Theres a wikien thread about "little edits or big edits" which relates to your issue. An interesting point someone made is that editing contentious articles is best done in small edits, with each edit labeled with a specific comment. Non-contentious articles can be edited in larger strokes. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to this at your (Steve's) talk page since it's a bit tangential from the subject here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment I have only met with Stevertigo a few times at Talk:Language and Talk:Linguistics. My impression is that he is a very creative person with a very wide scope of interests. Unfortunately his creativity does at times conflict with presenting data in a conventional and neutral way as Stevertigo seems more interested in reinventing and redefining the topics he work on - a process I believe he refers to as "conceptualizing". This often leads to Stevertigo introducing neologisms and non-standard terminology into the articles with the result of obscuring the topic rather than clarifying it as I believe is his intention. It can also be difficult to reason with him using sources as he seems to rely more on his own reasoning and intuitions of how best to define and describe topics. I don't know if this merits administrative action, but I think it would at least be valuable if Stevertigo is informed that his editing styles alienates other editors and is not generally seen as conforming to the desired pattens of behaviour in encyclopedia writing, the aim of which it is to present existing knowledge in a conventional form - not produce or redefine existing knowledge - If he chooses to change his behaviour as a result of being told of how others view his it that will be even more valuable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Maunus' comments, and I'll note here that in retrospect, looking at his version of Language (most of the current version), I have to admit his version is quite strong and in certain ways an improvement over mine (viewable here). But I think the point should be made, and I think Maunus will agree, that the article would not be what it is without my critiques on the talk, and my proposed version which attempted to be as high-level as possible.

It is moreoften the case however that my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition, as looking at articles like Punishment will show. In contrast with what Steve Quinn is doing, which is to try and make his editorial critiques into behavioural ones (ie. this ANI), Maunus stood his ground and kept putting forth incrementally improved candidates until I conceded that his approach to the subject was superior. I was more than happy to leave that article alone for the simple reason that it had been improved, through process of debate and refinement, to a satisfactory level far above what had been there before. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't share that understanding of how the language article developed, and I certainly don't think that the lead version currently there is mostly my version. I also remeber trying to stand my ground but failing - I became so frustrated with your way of arguing that I left you and Andrew Lancaster still going at it and finally nothing came out of it and the lead that was there to begin with was left standing. Trying to read the debateon the talk page archive 3 I can't even read what happened because of the way your formatted the discussion by cutting statements and lead versions into pieces and organizing them by numbered points in a very odd system. To me it was a very alienating experience - even moreso than reading the Human article.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• What about sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions, in June 2010, which appears related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. To wit (as they say): " Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Is it because of these sanctions that you are so adamant about having discussions pertaining to neoligms, and non-starters, which turn out to be generally WP:OR and WP:POV? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No Steve, its it not. It is my general intent to improve the quality of articles I encounter out of my own interest. What I do is actually read articles, starting at the top and working my way down until I'm satisfied I've learned something about the subject. If its acceptably well written, I leave it alone. If its not, I edit it starting from the top. Remember it was you, along with JimWae, who followed me to the punishment article after we had resolved debates at the time article (a debate in which JimWae notably lost to me, and in which you were of occasional help). If you (and JimWae) had not followed me around to punishment - an article you had no prior interest in (in fact it had been months since anyone else had edited it) - we would not be having this discussion. Since you did follow me there, going out of the way of your normal editing pattern, I was fully in my rights to react to your reverts and removals. It was you and JimWae who chose to make that article a battleground, and it is quite clear that you did so to be adversarial towards me. This is what we call WP:HARASSment. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other articles, with diffs, where Stevertigo follows the same pattern delineated above. In other words, he comes along one day and inserts WP:OR into the lede. This is usually followed by a group of other editors having to contend with him to keep the original WP:V statement in place: ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: [109]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [110]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [111]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [112], and related discussion [113].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [114]. Reverted: [115] on the talk page a section entitled with one of his favorite concepts: Conceptualization.---- 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo writes above that "my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition." This shows a lack of insight that explains why the problem persists. The fact is that all these topics (beauty, truth, rights, God) require research and education. No one can write about them off the top of his head, which is what Stevertigo tries to do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - that is very insightful. I believe you have described the issue in a nutshell. Bravo. Too bad this does not become an A-HA! moment for him. He's too busy starting from the top down, etc., etc.. In any case, if I have a reccomendation for sanctions, where do I communicate this? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This would be the place to make suggestions and ask for community support. Or there's WP:AE for ArbCom enforcement if you want to focus on the 1RR sanction or whatever it was. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: Steve Quinn wrote: "After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image" - The caption she mentions related to the concept of anthropomorphization. SlimVirgin happens to be an animal rights enthusiast who at times allows her biases to inform her editing of articles. See for example her edits to the Person article, attempting to overgeneralize the concept of "person" to include animals. She relented at the person article, hence that introduction is largely my own. I decided to give it up at the animal rights article, and it still I think bears the marks of pro-animal rights POV.
• Rights: As Pfhorrest said above, he and I are working at the rights article, and all of my edits to that article have been constructive and, to some degree or other, incorporated into the article. The current version is about 40 percent my own writing. SlimVirgin, once again, is talking about something she doesn't know anything about.
• "Holocost denial" [sic]: This was a heated debate over a technical issue with the definition and scope of "The Holocaust." I found it interesting to note that until the sixties, "The Holocaust" was not confined in definition to just Jews, but it applied to another 11 million non-Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, albeit not in the same systematic way. I simply suggested that articles that refer to the Holocaust not assume the more common definition. I argued that on any article that mentions the Holocaust, it was POV to promote the narrower definition to the negation of 11 million other victims. Incensed editors reactionarily slandered me as a bigot, and began an ANI as a referendum on my editing. It went nowhere, and instead of talking about recent issues editors started listing edits from 2003 and earlier - readers can look at the closing comments at that ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to step in, as a completely uninvolved non-admin who has never interacted with any of the participants in this thread, but who nonetheless reads AN/I avidly because it's entertaining. In my opinion you are going to find it almost impossible to effectively manage this editor. Any restrictions on editing the opening paragraphs of an article will have to include spelling corrections, punctuation etc, which would be draconian and wouldn't work. There would also be the problem of defining the opening paragraphs; everything before the list of contents, or including the list of contents and the first paragraph of the first section? The first paragraph of each section?

Any restriction to inserting original research will flounder on the definition of original research. A total ban would struggle to find broad consensus; and unlike the chap last month who communicated only in ludicrous hacker shorthand - I forget the name, he supposedly had RSD - this editor (a) engages with his opponents (b) does so within the boundaries of civility.

Selective blocking from certain articles will not work because the scope of the editor's genius is vast; he will simply go elsewhere. A ban on reverting will not work because the editor can simply rewrite his opinions in broader or alternative terms and present them as a fresh edit, rather than a revert.

The ideal solution would be to give the editor a Wikipedia of his own that he can edit to his heart's content; perhaps the big articles on significant topics could have a /stevertigo subpage that is only visible or editable to himself. Perhaps that would keep him happy. It seems to me that this is his ultimate goal; a world of his own. But of course this is not possible. It will be interesting to see what you come up with. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's problem editing is unfortunately not limited to opening paragraphs of either articles or sections. See, for example, this OR extravaganza, which he dumped in the human article with a cleanup tag. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Another comment. I just noticed this, where I asked SV about his using a second account Cymble (talk · contribs). He replied that he doesn't use socks in the sense that I should be concerned with, and pointed to WP:SOCKS#Legitimate uses. To my two followup questions I never got an answer. DVdm (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment To check how well the Obama-related sanctions have been working, I tried to check Stevertigo's edits since 2 August 2009, the date the amended sanctions went into effect. He's done almost no editing in Obama-related articles since then, so in that sense the sanctions worked, but it means we don't see how well he edits those articles within the constraints. From 21 June 2009 to 2 August 2009, when wider sanctions were in effect, he made just a handful of 30 mainspace edits (compared to 180+/month averaged over the rest of 2009). I also checked his most frequently edited articles in post-2 August 2009 period. Those are: Punishment (95 edits), Time (61), Zoroaster (50), Being (47), Human (44), Universal reconciliation (31), Person (26), War (26), Freedom of religion (24), Animal rights (23), False messiah (23), Time in physics (23), Claims to be the fastest-growing religion (21), Euthanasia (21), Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) (21), Sin (20), Abstraction (18), Fundamental rights (18), Many-worlds interpretation (16), Assisted suicide (15). I think it casts some light on the situation that these are mostly articles of rather wide philosophical scope, which can therefore be magnets for vagueness and OR. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

Other comments are still welcome above. In this section, I would like to begin proposing sanctions that are considred appropriate to the issue. Feel free to propose sanctions, and others may agree or oppose.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• The same disruptive editing has gone on for years (seven or eight years), without regard for guidelines and policies. This type of editing has created conflict, and edit wars, again for years. It has affected both editors and articles. I propose a total block from at least six months to one year. If when he returns Stevertigo picks up where he left off, then an indefinite block, would then be appropriate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support a block of any length for now to get the message home and prevent further damage. And when he returns I would suggest a ban on adding any content not accompanied by a reliable source that clearly supports the material he adds. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose that Stevertigo embark on an ambitious new project befitting of his big-picture thinking, with the resources and community support needed to pull it off. Further propose that Stevertigo and the rest of us do our best not to clash in parts of the encyclopedia where incrementalism is the norm. Isn't there a way we can stay out of each other's way? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest he voluntarily hold himself to WP:1RR, try harder to explain himself more clearly in discussions, and tone down the boldness just a tad. More than anything, the problem seems to be one of communication (based on my experience at Human). --Cybercobra (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Spoken Wikipedia|topicon=no|RD250XJZizp4.ogg|2010}}

• Response (to Wikidemon et. al.) - This is all really centered at the punishment article. Neither Steve Quinn nor Jim Wae showed any interest in that article until they lost a previous editorial debate with me (at the Time article), and followed me there. Its a clear case of harassment, and if we go to Arbcom that's one of the things they will find. I would prefer that Steve, Jim and I go back to the punishment article, assisted of course by others here, and work out our differences there. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, unfortunately, your problematic editing at Time, sometimes misconstrued as simply being "bold", drew scrutiny of your edits at the Punishment article by me and at Universal Reconciliation, where you recently added unsourced and dubious content, and yet kept reverting to keep it in the article despite my revert and the ensuing discussion. Apparently, this is a continuing and relentless disruptive pattern of adding unsupported original research on your part, and which has been done repeatedly despite protests on numerous pages for you to take care not do so. --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing "problematic" about it. The article lacked a generalized introduction, and I produced one that was sourced, and was accepted by the majority. Those that argued against such an introduction lost the argument. As for universal reconciliation, that article has suffered for a long time due to ambiguities about its meaning and scope. User:In ictu oculi has at least a good sense of how it should look, eventually, and I leave that article to him. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're being punished for editing the punishment article? This is rich. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I figured this is rich too, the irony of it all. --Modocc (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, unless I overlooked something in the history of the article Time and talk, your "generalized" versions that you presented (and placed in the lede) were repeatedly incorrect and unaccepted as anyone following that article could attest, so your claim that any were somehow sourced and supported on talk is a distortion. The only lede version that actually put your issue to rest was the sourced version I placed on the article, as pointed out by SQ at the beginning of this thread. If you have a problem with any lede, start a discussion by all means, but to repeatedly thrust unsupported content into article space to "fix" such problems can be disruptive, and is the reason why you have drawn attention elsewhere and here, as well as possible sanctions. Your "opponents" are only of your own making, and this is supposed to be a collaborative effort that is respectful of policies and editors and is not a battleground of wills, as you continue to frame this. --Modocc (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Modocc, the version people eventually agreed with was a single sentence that came before the previous introductory sentence, which was sourced to the American Heritage Dictionary entry. Even though that was the only dicdef, out of ten dicdefs cited, that mentioned "continuum" and "change", it was better by far than the others, because it was high level. I did not approach that article adversarially. JimWae had been sitting on that article like an egg and took undue offense at every suggestion to generalize the lede in the way I was eventually successful in doing. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the content of the "Punishment" article. This is not a content dispute. That is how a previous ANI got sabatoged, and the editors lost their focus. There were sanctions imposed on Stevertigo and the other editors, but nothing like a block. I will have to review it to see what the outcome was. However, keep in mind that is how a previous ANI veered off course, and Stevertigo would like to take us all there. For his part Stevertigo cannot back up a word he is saying with diffs that would demonstrate anything other than inserting WP:OR into any of the articles mentioned in this entire thread. The issue is his WP:OR vs. WP:V. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about the time article, Steve. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Stevertigo, far more than one dictionary mentioned the continuous nature of time, and a continuum is a gradual change. Thus the current lede is supported by most of the sources, but as far as I can tell, none of your suggested revisions and arguments prior to that addressed these sources properly and instead your edits were focused on your own misguided conceptualizations. I consider the lede improved now and you were instrumental in drawing the attention needed to accomplish that, nevertheless, that does not excuse the disruptive editing then or elsewhere as pointed out time and again. As such, everyone knows that this wiki is ripe for improvement, however it should be done with the available sources and not OR. That you continue to sidestep this problem of unsourced OR is in itself a sign that you still do not understand the consequences and harm done to both content and the editing environment, even if only temporary in either case, and why sanctions should be imposed. --Modocc (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will take your good advice to heart, and discard the accusation of original research. Original writing is not original research, and in fact its required of us. If an editor parrots the sources, often what happens is their writing is a mess. On the issue of CITE, some here rejected my edits to the human article, even though it was sourced in twelve different places. So, to the accusation of OR, I say 'false.' If people want to make this a referendum, I welcome a formal inquiry. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, at the very least, a formal ban, as suggested by SlimVirgin, on Stevertigo to not add significant content on any articles without supporting sources, as well as a formal 1RR limit. --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A "formal ban" would require going to Arbcom. Its not difficult to convince people of an informal ban, but it would lack the legitimacy or standing of a formal ban. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If consensus decides for a block that is legitamte and has standing. ---- 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't; the Community has imposed plenty of formal bans without ArbCom, and wouldn't hesitate to do the same here if it became necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we do not have to go to ArbCom. Stevertigo boasts he has been here since 2002, don't you think he knows about community bans? Of course he knows. The very fact that he pops up making this silly claim that we have to go to ArbCom is a good example of the kind of disruptive editing that justifies the ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose a complete ban on editing, but perhaps some kind of restriction or warning enforced by threat of temporary ban, e.g. after any one revert of an edit, consensus must be established on talk before any further edits to that article, else a temporary ban? (Perhaps with exceptions for typos/spelling and obvious vandalism?) Steve already seems to behave within those bounds where I've interacted with him, so I don't think it would be a problem for him to do so elsewhere if he hasn't been there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is a pretty bad WP:RANDY issue going on here. Stevevertigo's edit[116] cited by Mgiganteus1 was quite recent and is just ridiculous. I leave the question of bans to people more knowledgeable about the problem, but (as a separate suggestion), mentorship might be helpful if some qualified editor has any interest in taking it on. Another suggestion is to expand the existing arbcom restriction from Obama articles to all articles, as Arbcom originally considered (see [117] "superseded remedy"). Steve Quinn's edits to Time are not perfect either ([118] should use secondary sources instead of a dictionary, and should leave out the trademark symbol per WP:MOSTM if the dictionary is cited), but those are minor quibbles compared to Stevertigo's serious issue. Note to Stevertigo: formal bans are issued at ANI all the time.[119] All bans can be appealed to arbcom, but they don't have to be issued by arbcom. 71.141.90.138 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that "science" section was proposed by someone on the talk page, and I cobbled that together in 5 minutes just as a way to start the section with something. In no way did I expect that material to endure, just to put something on the page.

I don't know what you mean by "Randy in Boise" except to say it must be a pejorative. How much such pejoratives mean I will leave to the experts, but seeing as how you and I have never interacted before, such a comment is uncalled for and must be regarded as a DBAD violation. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That WP:RANDY is a perfect description. Thanks for that User:71.141.90.138. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• When you read what I have to say, please keep in mind that I don't watch any of those articles other than human, so everything I say is taken from the perspective of someone whose interactions with him are those you can see in the history and talk page there. If you check those, we've got it under control. His gunk gets reverted almost instantly and the article has improved slightly in how clear it is about things like it's relationship with the article person. Also, it gets more eyes on the article, which is a good thing. I think if certain others would just not drag out conversations with him past the point of realizing you're not talking to a rational person, then he's not dangerous to the article. Something less than banning him might be better, just a mentor to keep an eye on him and point out his logic problems in a short way, as I try to do, would be better if possible. Wikipedia can handle post-modernist babblers, no problem. At least the article Human can. If anyone wants to "mentor" him to see how other articles I don't watch react to him, that's not as harsh as banning to my mind. You can't fool Wikipedia when it's well-watched. Chrisrus (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was successful at getting "person" inserted in the lede - something you say is a "slight" improvement. Regarding the human article, I like what Maunus just said on the talk page about its current state: "I just came by here from the ANI thread and took a look at the article: A very alienating experience. Seriously. It looks likle the article was written by Aliens. I don't think I can think of a better way to do it right now though." Thanks. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, we noticed that; kinda wierd, isn't it. I describe it as a report by Dr. Phlox for the Denobulans. It's just the way an encyclopedia about humans ends up sounding. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose: a revert restriction of some kind (1RR/wk/article, unless reverting actual vandalism perhaps). From reviewing (don't think I've ever spoken to the chap) the thing that is causing the major problem is edit warring to keep the unsuitable/unsupported portion of his edits in articles. If he could stop doing that, it would be helpful. Others can then evaluate that portion of his edits that are actual improvements, as it does seem that some are.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose an indefinite block/community ban. He has been around since 2002 and his pattern has not changed at all in eight years, despite every other editor asking him to change and explaining why. He does not do research, his "conceptual" approach is a euphamism for his substituting his own personal logic for research, it violates NOR, it violates NPOV, the web of his interests have some clear focal points that suggest a mild but clear POV-pushing campaign. He is a bad example for newbies and suggests we have practically no standards. All evidence suggsts to me that Stevertigo deserves his own blog. No evidence suggests to me that he belongs at Wikipedia. Tigo, have a blog, and may you prosper in the blogosphere.Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Harsh but fair. It really is time Stevertigo learned, but he doesn't even seem to understand the problem. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block as in preceding proposal. While an initial three month block might be tried, we have ample evidence that only an agreement for this editor and Wikipedia to part company will be effective. Johnuniq (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Not sure of an indef but if that is the way this leans I wouldn't be too broken up over it. The last time it was a 2-week timeout, so perhaps one more escalation (1-2 months) before the big barrels hit? I don't know what this place was like in 2003, perhaps it was more of a blank canvas for original thought and concepts. If it was, it is not anymore, and this user is either unwilling or unable to play well with others. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't support any sanctions that involve loss of editing privileges for Stevertigo - I do think he is here to improve the encyclopedia. I'd support 0RR or mentorship if that was proposed. If Stevertigo were to wish a mentor to help him communicate better and move towards a kind of behaviour that is more within project norms, I'd be willing to attempt it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Where does Stevertigo acknowledge that he is doing anything wrong at all? He continues to defend his bahaviour. What good would a mentor do? --JimWae (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think he is actually receiving criticism gracefully in a few of the exchanges above (when its offered in the right spirit), but of course mentoring only works if the proposed mentee agrees that he would benefit from a mentor and takes menotirng seriously as a way to grow as an editor.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I can believe he's here to improve the encyclopedia but he may also have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Whether it's deliberate or not, he is unusually hard to reach. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose 0RR + mentoring. I've encountered Stevertigo here. He inserts himself here pretending to have more expertise than he in fact has. In itself that wasn't much of a problem (it happened there only once), but this AN/I discussion shows that there is a systemic problem with this editor. The mentoring agreement should be a flexible topic ban. The mentor allows Stevertigo to edit; in case of problems he/she can demand that he not edit certain topic areas. The 0RR can be relaxed for specific topic areas if the mentor feels that this is possible. Count Iblis (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• The only way mentoring would be useful is if Stevertigo were required to submit every edit in every namespace to said mentor and require approval before proceeding. Anyone want to take that on? *crickets*. Ergo, banning is the only real option here. → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I appreciate the fact that some here feel like I've stepped on their toes over the years. As I have done before, I apologize for any errors of my own fault. I appreciate Steve Quinn's request (on my talk page) that I be conciliatory here, and will consider any suggestions he has. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a good move towards reconciliation would be to also recognize that peoples feelings of stepped-on toes is due at least in part to aspects of your behavior that you can (and hopefully will) change so that they will not get that feeling again. Secondly stepped-on toes is not the biggest issue that is being laid out here, rather that the important concern is that people find your approach to writing articles to be detrimental to the encyclopedia. That is the concern that should make you concerned and ask yourself, 'what is it I am doing wrong?' and 'how can I change that?'. We have an encyclopedia to build and you have an important role to play in that project if you are willing to take advice from your peers when they express concerns about your approach.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and hope that they can be sorted out in arbitration. The fact is that Steve Quinn and JimWae followed me from the time article, where they lost the argument, to the punishment article, where their interest was not in the article itself, but in my editing. This meant:

1. that their issues with my editing were premeditated, coming from the time article,
2. that their interest in the article was fabricated, being interested more in me,
3. that because their interests were not in the article itself, their edits to that article were bound to be sloppy (as one can hear in the spoken audio version above)
4. their adversarial approach toward me on that article was harassment.

I respect the constructive opinions of everyone here, and will take any good advice to heart. But they were wrong to be adversarial and make our article disputes a personal matter, and other disgruntled editors from my past are wrong to come here looking for late retribution for past encounters. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask the person above to sign the post. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interested there is a request for arbritration initiated by someone else - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Stevertigo ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah. It was initiated by me. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Um, if the guy has been here for eight years and no one can recall a single constructive edit he's made, why is allowing him to stay even up for discussion? How will the project benefit from his continued participation? AGF has a limit, and it is surely less than eight years of disruptive editing. --LordPistachio ^talk 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know about edits, but I know at least three times where Stevertigo has identified problems with an article in that it was either badly written or did not do full justice to the concept it was treating. I think that is valuable.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe it's because most editors are more concerned with making constructive edits, & not with what other editors do? (I consider that a good thing, for the record. No one appreciates a busy-body looking over their shoulder.) If you define "constructive edit" as excluding comments on talk or policy pages, & WikiGnoming, then I admit that I wold be hard-pressed to come up with a constructive edit for countless editors whom I consider useful & vital to the project. And I write all of this without it being intended as a defense of SV's behavior, just an explanation why he's been tolerated for so long. -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• I made the WP:RANDY comment further up. I just looked at a random sample of 10 of Stevertigo's last 500 mainspace edits (as of earlier today). I would say 7 or 8 were constructive, 1 or 2 had good intentions but minor problems, and 1 (the second-to-last on the list) had significant problems (it was in the context of a small but bogus edit war). I don't want to take up a lot of space with a detailed analysis, but the edits I looked at were: [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]. From this I would say the majority of Stevertigo's edits are constructive and useful, though I haven't seen any that I'd consider great (e.g. edits that add high-quality content of substance, preferably with good sourcing). Of course this sample is inconclusive about the totality, since the issue (according to SLR[130]) is a long-term pattern of lower-intensity disruption. As an outsider never involved in those articles, I mostly see cluelessness in Stevertigo's interaction style with other editors. His edit warring today over the name of the arb case he filed is especially self-discrediting. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• I appreciate the comments. As far as the RFAR goes, it comes in large part due to the voting here, being based largely in hearsay and old grudges, in support of an "indef block or community ban." You on the other hand did something novel which was to familiarize yourself with my recent editing history. I greatly appreciate academic honesty whenever I see it, and I will take your cautions regarding the RFAR to heart. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block or community ban. I found Slrubenstein's argument above to be convincing. I believe it's possible that Stevertigo has been here so long that he has not kept up with the difference between the kind of material which might have been considered acceptable in creating an encyclopedia ex nihilo, but is no longer acceptable in shaping and molding a more mature product. (For instance, I recently came across this – not by Stevertigo – the very first state of the article on The Bronx; it stood for quite a while, but would be reverted immediately today.) His apparent inability to recognize that times have changed, and to adjust his editing to match, is an indication of a certain lack of Wikpedian competence. The editor should be blocked or banned until such time as he shows an appreciation for the policies and content requirements that have developed in the 8 years since he first signed on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• On what basis do you, someone whom has never encountered me in any editorial issue before, or any issue before period, come to the conclusion that I need to be banned? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, a quick look at the title of this section will verify that I am not the subject of this inquiry, you are. Rather than engaging in this kind of combatitive remark, you'd be best advised to put your energy into providing the community with some answers to the questions that have been raised about your behavior, something which you have, so far, managed to avoid doing. (Besides, if we had had previous editorial issues, I presume you'd be discounting my opinion because I'm "involved"; but here, you want to discount it because I'm not involved.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• And SV: this is rather nonsensical, don't you think? Since when do we evaluate editors on the basis of their edit counts? And what do edit counts have to do with one's ability to read complaints, evaluate evidence and make judgments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The current issue is the editorial debate at punishment. Any wrongdoing on my part there has yet to be discussed or established here. It is precisely because of the generic focus on my "behavior" here, complete with anecdotes from seven years ago, that I've had to take recourse at RFAR. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, your statement is totally incorrect, and rather disconcerting, in fact. The issue under discussion here is not the editorial dispute at Punishment, but your behavior, which is why blocks and bans are under consideration. Please stop attempting to derail redirect the conversation. As I told you on your talk page, your attention would be better put towards making explanations to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) Its quite easy to turn everything into a behavioral dispute, let ghosts from years past creep in with info, and take sides. Its much harder to look at things as an editorial dispute, and then regard the behavioral issues with neutrality. That's why I was one of the first to suggest the formation of an Arbcom back in 2003, and that is why, regardless of all the dirt you can find on me, I have referred to matter to Arbcom. This ANI is still at its core an editorial dispute between I versus SQ and JW, otherwise its just a bunch of senseless accusation. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose 4 month block Somehow Steve has to get the message that it is inappropriate to insert his own unsupported "conceptualizations" into wikipedia articles. I see no indication from him that he will not continue to insert his "conceptualization" (often incomprehensible) into lede paragraphs & lede sentences. I see no indication he sees any need to have use sources, nor to not misapply "supposed" sources. Some community response to his behaviour is called for. Making someone else responsible for him is not the answer - Steve needs to take responsibility for himself, so a block of some significant duration seems to be the most appropriate. If, during that 4 month block, he expresses a sincere intent to change his behaviour, the ban could be shortened AFTER other respondents here have had input. --JimWae (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support 4 month block SV's most recent behaviors do not indicate SV has changed his positon to any degree. I agree a community response is called for. I support a four month block with the above perscribed conditions.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment I think a 4 month block inadequate. I might support a four month block IF, upon completion of the block, someone took the responsibility of mentoring Stevertigo. Perhaps Maunus, who raised this possibility. Blocks and other actions are NOT punitive, they are rehabilitative. A block will give him time to study with some detachment how other editors work effectively, but mentoring is also necessary to help ensure he can function productively after the block ends. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions tally

Other comments are still welcome in any of the above sections.

Below is a tally of the proposed sanctions, supported, or opposed.

Should the community impose sanctions, or should the community simply allow an administrator to impose sanctions (based on the ANI thread). Please weigh in. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Total block (for a length to be determined) - 10 support; 4 oppose

I list the editors in support of a block for some length of time. User:Modocc, User:SlimVirgin, User:Steve Quinn, User:Slrubenstein, User:Johnuniq, User:Tarc, User:Roux, User: Beyond My Ken, User:JzG says harsh but fair.

• Editing restriction - 2 support
• Mentoring - 2 or 3 support
• 0RR - 1 or 2 support
• voluntarily hold himself to WP:1RR, try harder to explain himself more clearly in discussions, and tone down the boldness just a tad

Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the community has full rights to impose sanctions [131], and when determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not "support a temporary ban with caveats"; I oppose any ban at this time, and suggest in its place, if any action is necessary, editing restrictions/0RR backed by threat of a future temp-ban if he violates those restrictions. --Pfhorrest (talk)

Note that User:Pfhorrest is referring to an error in the tally above (no negatives?) and yet it was removed without indication, leaving Pfhorrest's comment orphaned. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Other issues

I feel that there are still several other issues, which have not been addressed.

• One is the 1RR restriction imposed as a result of the Request for Arbritration/Obama articles. This a sanction for edit-warring. The limitation is to one revert per page, per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. (here) and (here scroll down the page). If this applies to articles in general then this 1RR rule has been violated.
  • Steve Quinn, the arb remedy says very clearly "Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles". The 1RR doesn't apply to non-Obama-related articles. The wider version under "superseded remedy" is, as it says, superseded.[132] 67.119.2.101 (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The sheer number of accusations that I violated a prior Arbcom ruling had almost convinced me. Thank you for getting the facts straight. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• The other issue, brought up by User:DVdm is sock puppetry. DVdm asked for Stevertigo's legitmate reason for using a sock puppet and recieved no reply. Link here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't use sock puppets. I may occasionally use a different name on Commons or another project, and if I forget to log out, my edits here will have that name. That's what happened here. Your deep concern for my alleged sockpuppetry should be commended. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I ran a checkuser and I'm following up with Stevertigo and ArbCom about any use of undisclosed accounts used by Stevertigo. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Another issue is the "NONCE" tag, which was applied to the Time in physics article [133]. This is a tag or template which has no standing on Wikipedia. It is a made up tag. The tag points to an essay WP:NONCE. An editor, User:DVdm removed the tag from above the lede of the article [134], with a message on Stevrtigo's talk page [135]. Both User:DVdm and I were misled into believing that this was an authentic Wikipedia tag. The WP:NONCE page is an essay, authored and edited by Stevertigo. The tag is still at the bottom of the page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I see other problems - how can you get a word like nonce and use it in a novel way, make an essay and apply it to and then make a template to tag articles in namespace? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out which articles are tagged with this {{nonce}}-tag? DVdm (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DVdm: Currently, there do not seem to be any articles tagged with that template, but you could have seen which ones were by going to Template:Nonce and clicking on the "What links here" button. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a comment here about this "Nonce" essay - that it is now up for deletion. In any case, yes it is now up for deletion. Is there a link to the deletion discussion or this up for "speedy" ? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment concerning uninvolved admin section below Only because some emphasis is being placed on Stevertigo's long tenure with the project, I think it only fair to point out that his time has not been without controversy, since he was the subject of an ArbCom case, as a result of which he was de-sysoped, and is currently subject to an ArbCom-imposed editing restriction. If his time with the project is a mitigating factor -- and it should be -- these should also be considered as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to repeat my general apology to all concerned. I have been contributing here for eight years in good faith to the mission of Wikimedia's projects, and I understand that everyone else here does as well. But please do not fault me for not accepting all the accusations thrown my way. I appreciate the good work that Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and others do. But this ANI should be a way to solicit help in resolving an editorial dispute (at the punishment article), and should not be some general kind of referendum on my so-called "behavior". Again, I express my wish that we resolve this matter without going toward extremes, or by expressing any more bad faith than we already have. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As long as you refuse to acknowledge that the community has moved well past the specific editorial dispute on the Punishment article to a general appraisal of your editorial behavior overall, your "apologies" are hardly going to ring true. After all, you can't apologize for what you don't even admit is under discussion!! This matter is not going to be resolved on the basis of one article, it is only going to be resolved on the basis of your recognition of the community's concerns, and some assurance from you that you understand those issues and are resolved to change your way of editing. Failing that, the likelihood is that there's going to be some kind of sanction against you, either from this discussion or from the ArbCom case you opened. It may be a topic ban, or a reversion restriction, or a block or a ban, but there's clerarly going to be something come out of this, and you will not make it go away by waving your hands and pretending the discussion is about something else.

Please show us that you understand what is happening here, and that you are willing and able to deal with the problems that are being brought to your attention, and stop maneuvering around trying to manipulate the situation to your advantage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, you said earlier that you based much of your "ban" vote solely on the recommendations of Slrubenstein. Is that true? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that, and, again, this is not about me, this is about your overall behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You said you found "Slrubenstein's arguments above to be very convincing." Given that you and I have never run into each other, I took this to mean that much of your view was shaped by Slrubenstein. Note that his comments do not come in a vacuum. Slrubenstein on occasion has a problem with making pejorative remarks toward me, and I was wondering if these would be "very convincing" in a different way. Do these kinds of things contribute to his "overall behavior?" And does not his "overall behavior" have something to do with how you regard his opinions? Does the fact that I did not pursue formal action against him mitigate your concept of my "overall behavior"? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have never had any problem at all making pejorative remarks towards you. I have however criticized your editing whenever it has violated NPOV or, more often (and almost universally) V and NOR. As you admit, you have been doing this for eight years. Fortunately I am able to describe a sonsistent pattern to the many who have not been around as long (and yet somehow have contributed far more than you). But I think I am just summarizing; many others have commented on different examples of your tendentious editing and contempt for research. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) I have you on record referring to me as an "antisemite", among other things. Such pejoratives cannot be tolerated. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Stevertigo: I suggested last night on your talk page that you should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- have you had a chance to do that yet? If not, you should probably do so.

I don't believe the community is interested in your attempt to probe my thought processes – except in so far as they may shed light on your behavior and your attitudes – the community has raised questions about your editing behavior, which you have managed to dodge and weave around, instead of providing straght-forward answers. In as much as your attempt to muddy the waters by making this about me, rather than about you, is a distraction, I'm going to withdraw from the discussion, in the hope that you will take the opportunity to do the right thing, stop maneovering and manipulating, and answer those questions. Given your comments in the past 24 hours, I'm not optimistic about that happening, but perhaps you'll see your way clear to doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand you want me to be conciliatory. I appreciate that, and I am. But consider also my point of view: One day SQ, JW and I are working together on an article - agreeing even on a merge between my version and theirs - and the next I find they've opened up an ANI page. At the same time, they don't want to

confine the discussion to the article at hand, they want to open up a referendum on my "behavior" at which any old editor can interject with commentary, tidbits from years ago, or support for some draconian measure. Consider all that. Now tell me what must I do to prove that I am sufficiently conciliatory? How can I do so in such a way that would overcome the negative votes from those editors who are here only for one purpose only. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Being conciliatory would include 1. recognizing that aspects of your behaviour has estranged a rather considerable number of editors with whom you need to be collaborating. 2. stating that you will take steps to change your behaviour to minimize this problem in the future. 3. stopping trying to defend or justify your past behaviour and attacking other editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator reviews of Stevevertigo community responses

I am creating this section for uninvolved administrator reviews of the Stevevertigo community discussion above. Please see WP:AE for examples of how this is typically used. Please do not comment here if you are either involved (and commenting above counts) or are not an administrator (though, you are welcome to comment above if you are not an admin).

On first review, Steve Quinn seems to have counted accurately and established that there is a numerical ( 10 to 3 ) support and qualitative support for some sort of block or ban, plus support for other alternate sanctions as second or third choices. We have had 72ish hours for the discussion to run if I am counting correctly. Under our normal community sanction process any uninvolved administrator could now step in and decide the consensus.

With that said - this is a longtime contributor, we didn't have that many people respond, and there seems to be some significant dissent as to whether Stevevertigo's contributions are hopelessly and irredeemably not OK within the Wikipedia framework or whether some form of limitations or mentoring or some such may preserve his ongoing positive contributions while mitigating or eliminating ones seen to be negative.

I am creating this section for uninvolved administrators to consider and work on seeing if we can determine a good way to resolve the question of irredeemable or not.

Pursuant to that question, I have asked Steve on his talk page to comment on his thinking behind one of his recent article forks ( Human being forked off a former redirect for Human ). If there are other examples people would like to focus clarifying discussions with Steve on, please post the articles or diffs (recent preferred, 3 months or less) which you think illustrate problems with Steve's behavior. We've seen some of those above, which Steve has partly discussed above. If uninvolved admins want to follow up more on any of those, please feel free to list them.

I am aware that another uninvolved admin could chose to short-circuit this given that we've passed the minimum threshold for doing so; I would like to request that people inclined to do that give us some time to work on the questions first. He's been here for years and years. If you feel that he's doing something disruptive right now, feel free to issue a short term sanction while we ponder longer ones. If not, more discussion here will not hurt. He's not setting the encyclopedia on fire. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevevertigo response to uninvolved administrator section

Your rational approach is appreciated. To comment a bit more in detail, the human being stub I created in the context of editing the human article, as a workspace for a philosophical rewrite of the article. I did not suggest it as a fork, nor did I expect it to stand for more than a few days, rather I kept it as an example of what an article on that subject might look like if taking a general, philosophical approach (Wikipedia is a work in progress). The human article is not necessarily about human beings but about the human species as a scientific concept. One editor remarked that reading that article was like reading something written by aliens. I happened to agree: Taking an anthropological view of the subject human only gets us so far. For example, the article didn't even mention the word person before I came along - a fact which alone was enough to discredit the views of editors who had rejected my proposed changes outright, or else had considered the article to be pristine. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is "enough to discredit the views of editors who rejected your proposed changes outright", Steve. You seem to be indicating a profound lack of understanding for and respect for Wikipedia's core value of consensus, here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hounding and off-wiki harassment by a WP admin? (User:KimvdLinde)

I have seen editors of sexuality pages receiving off-wiki harassment before, but I have never seen it coming from an admin, especially during a content dispute in which the admin is currently involved: http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/ .

I am no stranger to controversial topics in sexuality, and I appreciate that there will always be editors and admins who disagree with me on one issue or another. However, for an admin to be reverting edits and issuing warnings on the one hand and then attacking me (and other editors) off-wiki is a clear example of what “creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith” (i.e., WP:HARASS). In fact, giving into one’s POV while editing and intimidating editors with admin authority behind it suggests grossly poor judgment.

I have had no prior interactions with User:Kimvdlinde, until this AfD discussion. She then began sending me off-wiki emails regaling me with her off-wiki experiences as a scientist becoming embroiled in academic disputes. She then began reverting edits of mine, but left unanswered my request to untangle a problem she had with the content versus me personally [136]. Still participating in the content dispute at pedophilia, she is now making off-wiki attacks against me and the other editors participating in the discussion.

(We can, of course, discuss the content of the relevant edits, but to avoid TLDR, I will hold off unless asked. For the record, however, the statements User:KimvdLinde makes in her off-wiki attack are inaccurate. Two final notes: I have acknowledged my off-wiki identity, so I do not fault User:KimvdLinde for using it in her blog. Second, although User:KimvdLinde uses a pen name in her blog, she also acknowledges her identity: She link’s her userpage to her personal page, http://www.kimvdlinde.com/, where she acknowledges that the heathenscientist blog is hers.)

— James Cantor (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The pedophilia article is suffering from serious issues, and in my frustration dealing with it, I wrote a blogpost explaining my feelings about the article. I have reproduced the blog post on wiki, because I stand by what I wrote. I will answer the unanswered question so we can take that one out of the equation.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pedophilia article is only suffering from "serious issues" according to KimvdLinde and another editor. Sticking mostly to authoritative sources on a medical issue is not a "serious problem." Pop culture calling a sexual interest in everything under 18 "pedophilia" and people wanting that in the article as if it is a valid definition of pedophilia is the serious problem. As long KimvdLinde doesn't start sending me emails, I really don't care what she writes on her blog about that article or me. I am sorry that James feels harassed, however. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not harassment; it's the views and observations of a person. There isn't anything harmful or demeaning in the blog, and I speak as an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Kim redacted her original post, the "worst" I see that she said was that you do "not always know the limits of self-promotion", a statement she makes an effort to back up. That is mild criticism, not harassment. If I were you I'd either take it constructively or just ignore her and move on. She is just one person (admin or not) and if you feel her off-wiki criticism has no value, you are free to pay it no heed. -kotra (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether I believe her off-wiki attacks have any value; the question is whether editors/admins who feel frustrated enough lob off-wiki attacks is editing in good faith. A administrator acting in the best interests of WP would not intervene herself, but ask another admin to intervene; and would be answering questions on wiki about official warnings given on wiki rather than ignoring them and instead writing attacks about the warnee off wiki.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• - User:James Cantor should stop immediately adding his own self promotion conflicted articles. - I have watchlisted the user. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to invite anyone who wants to to watchlist me. However, by reading the pedophilia talkpage and its archives, for example, one will find that my suggestions for RS's that KimvdLinde faults me for providing were indeed posted on the talkpage and not the mainpage, and that the majority of my input for many months has been limited to answering questions posed specifically to me or referring specifically to me.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You added an external link to the sexual addiction article on the 11 September, to an interview with yourself,please don't do this again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You leave out that I indicated my association with the EL on the talkpage, inviting others to review it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_addiction#Disclosure.). You also leave out that I have made 100's of non-controversial edits to that page itself, not a single one of which has anything to do with me personally (I have not published any research articles on the topic), and not a single one of which has been contested by any other editor in the many months since I made them. (If my goal were to for self-promotion, I would not be using a very efficient method of going about it.)

Despite my asking it several times, no one has yet said that there is any problem at all with the content of the EL in question. The productive thing for an editor to do is read the EL, and either decide that the EL is relevant, informative, etc. and support it, or decide that the EL is irrelevant and delete it. For an admin to delete it and refuse to answer questions about the deletion, responding only with an off-wiki attach is not, in my opinion, appropriate (regardless of whether one believes that my own behavior was appropriate).— James Cantor (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not leaving anything out, you added it and that is unacceptable, as I said don't do that again, If you have the idea to add a self promotional external link to content conflicted to your editing here, open a discussion and allow consensus to arise and if there is a consensus on the talkpage to add your desired personally related interview then please do not add it yourself, allow an uninvolved user to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COS says simply "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest." 24.205.45.49 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for the link, personally in this case it doesn't appear to cover the issue, as cherry picking your own interview as an external link is not actually covered by that. Wikipedia is not written by experts and not read by them either. If users want to add their opinions and cites about themselves they would do well imo to discuss it well on the talkpage and as I said it would be a stronger position if they did not add it themselves. So called experts would do better by not editing in their field, they have a mountain of conflict of interest and as such are so involved to be unable to edit in that area in a neutral manner.Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

At least that clarifies that the disagreement is not about page content, but about one's POV about expert editors.— James Cantor (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave my thoughts on this above in this section. Really don't have much more to say about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider the comments in the linked blog to constitute either hounding or harassment, and I don't believe that admin interaction is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blog post does fall within Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks, and does a great deal to drain credibility from KimvdLinde. It is an incredibly petty thing to do. I have been driven to distraction by other people's behavior on WP, but I feel no need to do such a thing as create an attack page. Regarding alleged self-promotion James Cantor, I have always known him to ask first before incorporating any source he is an author on, and he has never added one over the objections of other users. When he one such suggestion], I suggested an alternative textbook source that fulfilled the same purpose, and we went with mine instead without any heated argument needed.Legitimus (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, everybody his opinion, but the facts show he inserted an external link of an interview of himself to an article, so your assertion that he always ask is incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed true that for that article (sex addiction), which is only infrequently edited, I put the EL in myself and disclosed all the information on the talkpage, whereas for highly followed or disputed articles I do exactly as Legitimus describes. (And no one is saying that the actual EL I added was at all problematic.) If Kim (or anyone else) would like to start an RfC on me, then we can have that discussion properly. However, the question here is whether it is appropriate for an admin to disparage an editor off-wiki while engaging in content disputes with that editor on-wiki and while acting in her admin role on-wiki with the same editor (rather than ask another admin to intervene).

1. In fact, when I was asked to provide an opinion at the AfD, my very first comment included the disclosure of my relationships with the topic and with other editors. However, Kim immediately opined that I should not have revealed those conflicts/interests[137], only to have another admin opin that I was correct in including the disclosure.[138]
2. When I updated an editor's comment on behalf of that editor [139], Kim intervened to say I should not [140], again only to have the original editor say I was correct [141].
3. Moreover, Kim's not answering questions from me on the topic was not an isolated event: e.g.: [142].

So, after each of the above, when Kim decides to write an off-wiki attack about me at the same time as engaging me in content disputes on-wiki, and at the same time as refusing to answer questions about her admin actions on-wiki, it is perfectly reasonable for me to question Kim's decision not to pass off her admin role. That Kim faults me both for overhandling COI and for underhandling COI makes it reasonable to question if the goal here is really about COI at all or about an opportunity to just fault me for whatever she can find. It is not unreasonable for me to indicate that the appropriate thing for Kim to do is to let another admin handle issues she perceives with me.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

James, as off-wiki attacks go, it was unusually temperate. There's been much worse behavior in comments on this range of topics on-wiki also. We've enough problems with these articles without going into side issues that can only exacerbate things. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

James, let me be blunt about things:

1. Adding links to interviews with yourself about a specific topic is not okay; it is blatant self-promotion.
2. Importing your off-wiki dispute with Andrea James is questionable, especially when you paint her as the attacker and yourself as the victim, while, after reading many of the webpages devoted to the dispute, it is not that clear who is at fault. Instead of immediately attacking her, you could frame it as a conflict or a dispute and leave it in the middle who is at fault. That would suffice for a disclosure, and leave the off-wiki drama off-wiki.
3. Removing external links to Andrea James pages when you are having such a high off-wiki conflict is really not okay. You berate me for things that happened before this blog post and when we did not have a conflict yet, you are in a full conflict with her for a long time, and yet, you think you have the right to remove external links to her webpages? I smell hypocrisy.
4. I work as a biologist, and if I edit pages I am an expert on, I take care that I first use sources that are from other people, especially those that have a different opinion from me. Why? Because I think that is the proper way to go. Only when there is NO other source then my own stuff, I will add it. I would expect from an expert like you that you could drum up at least a dozen reliable sources other than your own articles. But no, you had to promote your own article.

Anyway, I think you regularly skirt the rules of what is acceptable, and I am glad you brought yourself to the attention of the admins. Next time I find something that I consider inappropriate, I will contact an uninvolved admin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my only request.— James Cantor (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two longish observations to make:

• Encyclopedias traditionally give the more precise, and often more restrictive, definitions of terms that are used by experts, rather than those that are in use in the general public. That does not imply that these definitions must also be adhered to elsewhere in the encyclopedia, unless it is done with a potentially misleading link. Sometimes we seem to be overdoing it, as in the case of influenza, where a reader who is not aware of the distinction between influenza and other influenza-like illnesses could easily come away with the wrong ideas. When editing in a problematic area such as pedophilia, it is extremely important to keep in mind that conflicts about definitions are very common in Wikipedia, even if the term in question is totally harmless. (I have myself been involved in long discussions between many editors about the meanings of the words Leeds and city, for example. See the archives of Talk:Leeds.) It is easy to miss this and make incorrect assumptions about another editor's motives in such a context. This is only one of many typical scenarios in which we tend to jump to conclusions about someone else, and which make the guideline WP:AGF necessary.
• Reading KimvdLinde's user space essay, I had a trivial problem that turns out to be rather serious in this context. The second sentence of the second paragraph says this: "If you have to believe the people of the Clarke Institute, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because the child is too old." (My italics.) This is very odd, because there is no real referent for "he" in the preceding. Someone with disturbingly inappropriate sexual fantasies was introduced in the previous paragraph as "[f]or example, if you have many sexual explicit fantasies about [...]", but that doesn't really fit. This creates confusion in my, and presumably many readers' mind: Who is this he? Is she talking about someone in particular? And precisely at that point follows this sentence: "James Cantor, an active wikipedia editor who not always knows the limits of [...]". The sentence continues with "[...] self-promotion [...]", but at this point this particular named Wikipedia editor is already a pedophile in the reader's mind. This is not appropriate at all and needs to be corrected pronto, even though it is probably just an innocent oversight. Hans Adler 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I am still trying to assume good faith, but now that I have realised the title of the original blog entry was "Pedophilia whitewash at Wikipedia", this has become significantly harder. The choice of words clearly implies an assumption of bad faith. It must be possible for a scholar on a criminal topic X to contribute to this encyclopedia without being accused of being a supporter of X merely for daring to promote the scientific lingo to which they are used. Hans Adler 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring

A new editor

, whose username could be interpreted as "Dc" (the initials of my username) + "ahole" (asshole), is edit-warring about the conflict of interest tag I added to Men's Health (magazine). The magazine is published by Rodale, Inc.. One of the main editor is a Rodale Inc IP, so the connection seems somewhat obvious (as does the required clean-up). I have opened a sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. If an admin could take a look at that, I think several issues could be addressed in one fell swoop. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the conflict of interest tag because this editor won't specify why it is needed, what clean up has to take place, what is wrong. I'm adding some sources myself which do support the content. I don't know know who the other editors are but the content they are adding looks like what should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, it looks like you just created your user account today. Can you explain the meaning behind your username? Also, can you explain why you created a username today and then made your first edit to remove the COI tag on Men's Health (magazine) one minute later? Have you edited this article as an IP before? SnottyWong ^comment 21:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this situation highly suspicious, on the edge of breaking WP:AGF, but not quite yet.

I have endorsed the SPI and running a checkuser (though that's just advisory, random admins don't have authority to order one done).

Dcahole, I second Snottywong's questions. Please clarify your username, and your connection to the article.

If you are at the magazine, and disclose it and agree to work within our conflict of interest policy and avoid personal attacks on Delicious carbuncle in the future, we can probably avoid serious sanction. If that's the case, I urge you to self-disclose soon.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cahole is an Irish name and i have only read the magazine a few times. Dcahole (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My yahoo user acct is nycahole171. Having lived there and been one. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cahole is indeed an Irish surname. Thanks for clearing up that potential source of misunderstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, what brought you to the Men's Health article, and why do you feel so strongly that the COI tag should be removed? SnottyWong ^spout 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am Irish, lived here all my life, and I've never come across the surname Cahole before. Neither has the phonebook for Dublin, Ireland's largest city. [143]. Just sayin' Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my name is not popular enough, it works fine for the purpose and no one in my family has ever complained of it. I have never contributed to this article before and was looking at it - refreshed my screen - and the Conflict of Interest notice splashed across with nothing in the article suggesting any problems. At invitation I asked the editor to explain what was wrong with the article and they threatened to open an investigation. Go the f%^$ ahead. I am gobsmacked at the hostility shown both towards myself and the other editors accused of somehow causing problems. If they are associated with the magazine they are adding content that would in every way help an encyclopedia, I am stunned at this progression which feels much like a witch hunt. I have no clue who they are and I have no association with them. I do have a problem with self appointed guardians of knowledge beating away those who are here to explain more about the subject. Do you want people to improve articles and update them or does hostility and suspect of every new user help things? Sorry for the brashness however this whole turn is upside of reality and hostile at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been adding sourcing as requested on the page and I think it has helped, am I forbidden now or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

hi dcahole, as an independent observer, i can assure you that not all new users are "picked on". there are just some pertinent questions which people would like answered, don't take personal offense to the questions. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, let me apologise if you have been offended by any of my actions or words. And let me say that I am sorry for your unfortunate surname, which has doubtlessly made you a target of ridicule and the butt of jokes. I added the COI tag at 19:08 23 September. Your first edit was at 10:45 24 September. It is odd that you "refreshed your screen" and that notice appeared. Similarly, the message I left on the talk page was well before your first edit. I fear that there may be caching problems involved and will be contacting technical support. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My name is not unfortunate nor has it ever been ridiculed. Cheers for the new set of assumptions that are also insulting. Now that I've asked you several times to clarify what if anything is conflict of interest in the article please explain what you thought was conflict of interest and needed all this? Dcahole (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, sorry, I thought I had answered your question in as much depth as necessary at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. Again, I'm sorry if you found anything insulting in what I wrote - I was only trying to be sympathetic towards someone with an unlikely surname. I think you may have misjudged my assumptions. I try to assume good faith with experienced editors (say, just for example, User:Tastes bad actually), new editors like yourself, and even with IP editors, like User:71.139.5.184, to pick one completely at random. Happy editing, as they say! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory conclusion?

Without meaning any disrespect to User:Timotheus Canens who closed the sockpuppetry case, I don't think we have addressed any of the issues which caused me to bring this here in the first place.

• The COI tag is no longer on the article despite a Rodale Inc-controlled IP making promotional edits such as this.
• The Rodale Inc IP remains unblocked despite, in my opinion, some fairly overt promotional editing. As is customary, the checkuser involved did not explicitly connect the IP to the other two accounts, but the behavioural evidence should have been enough to connect them (again in my opinion).
• The article is worse than it was when this started, thanks to the efforts of Dcahole, who has added more drek to the article rather than remove bare links in the body or trim the external links. There are currently 22 external links and 48 references.
• Dcahole is yet another sockpuppet of an experienced editor who has a grudge against me. I have tried to deal with this through private channels but the results have been less than satisfactory. A rangeblock of 71.139.0.0/19 would put an end to this with minimal collateral damage, should anyone be interested in resolving the issue quickly and quietly.

Perhaps someone would like to take a second look at any or each of these issues? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is dire, reads like an advert - I've made a start, some additional hands would be useful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006

No idea what to do with BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) anymore. He is continuing to add unsourced chart positions, even after a final warning that his content is unsourced. We had an ANI thread about him only 8 days ago and it went stale. I think we've reached a breaking point with this user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) has been warned 7 times by 3 different editors regarding adding unsourced/unverifiable content to articles, and even after receiving a final warning this user still refusing to abide by WP:CITE & WP:VERIFY. I think a temporary block is warranted to demonstrate that Wikipedia policy is not a joke and must be obeyed. Nowyouseemetalk2me 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

• I admit that I have not gone through this exhaustively, but while the editor's talk page has warnings and threats of blocks for adding uncited content, there are also posts from numerous other editors thanking BravesFan2006 for making the updates. After reading the old ANI discussion, his talk page, and some of the articles, it looks like: 1. The editor adds chart positions with citing them. 2. The editor leaves an edit summary that tells from where the position came 3. The references, when checked, do in fact confirm the edit 4. Other editors then come in and add the citations. Assuming all this is right, while the behavior is not ideal, and probably a bit frustrating for others working in the area, I don't see it as any to block over. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's not the country music peaks that are the point of concern, but rather the Bubbling Under Hot 100. He has never revealed his source for those. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He in fact does not say where the information he adds is from, and half the stuff he adds (including the 4 examples TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) just gave) cannot be confirmed and are unverifiable. Nowyouseemetalk2me 19:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, have asked him maybe on different occasions on where he gets the Bubbling Under peaks from, however, he either never messaged me back and let me know, or he pointed to some forum thing that had nothing to do with charts that I could see just by glancing through it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What, doesn't anyone have access to the chart? Our article states it's still published weekly. I understand it probably requires a subscription, but nobody has access to it? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you need one of their $9,001-a-day subscriptions to see the thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to drop a calm note on the editor's talk page, and will wait until they log on. I think the tone there has gotten a bit shrill. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck - he completely disregards his talk page. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good luck with getting a response. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bump; I really don't want this to go stale again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. Why isn't any other editors saying anything here? It's just myself, you (TPH), and Nowyouseemee. Only a single admin has voiced their concern on the situation...EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked through is talk page and he has stated once before the peaks come from the Pulse Music Board, which is a forum and can't be used as a source. Even another user has told him that he can't use that as a source. I do agree with everyone that something should be done so this doesn't keep on being an issue. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to look into wether I need to take admin action. Stay tuned. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I've applied a short block (31 hours). Since xe's fairly active, that should have quite an impact and I hope that will help the message sink in. If there's any further issues, feel free to drop me a line. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blocking actions with regard to this user are completely inappropriate. By policy, blocks of this nature are to be imposed only when the editor's conduct "severely disrupts the project" by being "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interfer[ing] with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." I hardly see how adding imperfectly sourced information, whose accuracy no one has disputed, by an productive editor with a extensive track record of useful contributions, clearly acting in good faith, is "severe disruption." I hardly see how blocking such a user has any constructive impact on the encyclopedia-creating process. I certainly don't see how blocking such a user without even waiting a reasonable period of time for his/her response makes sense. Had the editor simply footnoted his postings with the chart name and the date, the practical verification problems would be the same, but the sourcing policy would be satisfied. This is really an issue over the form of sourcing, not the substance, a minor matter to which this response is plainly disproportionate and, in contravention of policy, punitive. [I originally posted this to Blood Red Sandman's talk page; at his suggestion, I've posted it here for broader discussion. I believe that Xymmax's initial position/actions, as described above, were more than sufficient to address the matter as it now stands.] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been over one month since he was first warned, and over one week since his last ANI, which is more than a reasonable period of time to respond. I believe this block is completely appropriate and justified, the only problem is I don't think 31 hours is long enough, he won't be on to update positions until they are released Monday afternoon. Nowyouseemetalk2me 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I promise you the block is intended to be preventative, not punitative (which is why I kept it short in the hope that nothing longer was needed). I won't comment on the rest, at least not for now; consider this a block review. I always welcome review of my actions here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this block may do some good. However, I think we will have to wait until somewhere between Monday and Wednesday to see how things shake up. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 03:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, as I said on your talk page, please reduce your signature size. Signatures are not supposed to use big tags, or something equal or larger.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Protector of Wiki

Unresolved

 – No admin action required. However: POW, tone it down - your reply to Michael Hardy was inappropriate, and comments like that are likely to result in a trip to WP:WQA. (And on a personal note: can you start referring to admins as either "admins" or "sysops"? "Mods" is just wrong). TFOWR 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Still an issue --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen in his notice at the top of his talk page, Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs) migrated to the English Wikipedia only a month ago, after being blocked indefinitely from the Simple English Wikipedia for incivility (contribs log). Since September 10 this year, he has (mostly) been writing ALL CAPS in his edit summaries. He responded by telling that he will "[...]try to tone down his comments where possible", but yet after that he simply continues using all caps. He has attemped to spam his own talk page by putting a 1000 px large smiley image (reverted). Today, he wrote in an edit summary that Alpha Quadrant is rude. Only two days ago, he received an only warning for posting this comment. As can be seen in his block log at enwp, he has already been blocked one time, for posting this comment. I think all of this are cases of either disruptive editing, intentioned trolling, or he simply has massive temperament problems.

I honestly think at least a(nother) block is in order. HeyMid (contributions) 08:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties/admins may also want to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer#User:Protector of Wiki. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer request and some of general demeanour reminds of the "SMASH ALL VANDALS MUST DIE DIE DIE"-type vandal fighters they have sometimes around here. WP:AGF and WP:CIR are all very well, but perhaps PoW needs to take the initiative a little less easily and gel a bit more around here? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe PoW needs encouragement to be a little more collaborative and a little less abrasive, but I honestly don't see that they've done anything actually disruptive. The ALLCAPS is mildly irritating, but it does not appear to me to be hurting anything. Same goes for the ginormous smiley face. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"not your talk page! not rude at all! you are the one being rude!" It does seem a lot less "rude" without ALLCAPS, doesn't it? Edit summaries should be no exception: type like every other editor when composing them. He can "shout" in lowercase all day, and it's far less disruptive. It's one keystroke... Doc9871 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I just don't see the big deal. This is not worth sanctioning someone over. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If that were the only issue sure, but users banned on other projects should be on a very short leash and should not engage in behaviour that winds other users up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal with just turning capslock off. That said: I'm quite surprised to see this up now, because he actually seems to be making a decent effort at being, well, tolerable. (Despite the "well, I'm still not going to play nicely" edit summaries.) Take for example, the AfD notification on his talk. I was suitably impressed by his response to it. To be honest, I think that he does have good intentions. This community attracts all kinds of temperaments who are just trying to help, and the most harmful of these aren't the kind like him. He doesn't need another block at this point. Just as long as he can start making less drama, he'll be a good counterbalance. sonia♫ 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty well sums up my impressions of this user. Reyk _YO! 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sonia as well. In his defense, PoW was bitten by an admin no less before his arse comment. I've reviewed the article in question and found that PoW was clearly correct while Michael Hardy violated numerous policies in his defense of the article. Nevertheless, I'm troubled by PoW's ongoing defiance of all requests to tone down his/her behavior. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is completely unnecessary. So he uses some caps, which I admit are annoying, but not block worthy. I see no reason for a block; agree with Sonia. Tommy! 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/Heymid

"Mod" lesson not learned — see this diff. Note that I now have warned this user about this concern, hoping that he becomes/is aware of this concern. It turned out to be relatively pointless; he responded by refactoring the headline and saying that "Mods are mods" (the opposite). He apparently believed I wanted him blocked (which was not the case).

I'd like to point out that his constructive comments (and mainspace edits; excluding his "shouty" edit summaries and comments) suggest that he may have good intentions of being an active user at Wikipedia. He is still a relatively new user though; he has been at the Simple Wikipedia only since July 19, 2010, as can be seen in his prev contributions log. He probably just needs more time and experience. I don't know. HeyMid (contributions) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, "mods" is just a personal peeve of mine - if POW, or anyone, really wants to call admins "mods" there's nothing to prevent POW doing that. The real concern is civility, but that's not - at this point - a concern for ANI. TFOWR 08:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

He has also asked User:Armbrust questions about what he would do if he were a "mod" on his RfA; this is just a misnomer though: he's not breaking any policies, it's just mildly annoying that he's using an incorrect term. This doesn't really have any further relevance to a now-resolved ANI thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Maybe he needs a mentor? HeyMid (contributions) 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried that informally on his talk page and finally gave up. He may have taken a few of my suggestions, but it's clear that he's not budging on the remaining issues. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually while on the topic of questions at Armbrust's RfA; it seems that PoW essentially asking for a second opinion on a personal attack for which he was blocked previously, and suggesting that a sysop making the same comment would have been treated differently. Does this strike anyone else as rather WP:POINTy and possibly forum shopping? It's particularly disruptive that the user has chosen to add such questions to a user's RfA for no apparent reason other than to make a WP:POINT, imo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is definitely a point issue that he is having. As for his previous block, is amusing he still thinks its not appropriate now that another user is complaining about some of the issues he was blocked for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  For completeness, I will mention that he did the same thing at Ron Ritzman's recent RFA. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalking?

It would appear from his talk page that Clementina (talk · contribs) is growing uncomfortable with Protector of Wiki following her around. I only noticed this following his approval (again, all caps edit summary) of an article she nominated at T:TDYK. This is slightly worrying. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears that POW has read this thread — see this diff. HeyMid (contributions) 07:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User warned and directed to WP:HOUND. Let's try not to use "stalk"... T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has complained about being uncomfortable about his hounding on IRC to me as has Griffinofwales, however I haven't heard that he kept hounding griffin since I warned him. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ALL CAPS

User:Protector of Wiki has continuously used ALL CAPS in all of his edit summaries. He has also used exclusively, the Only Warning template when a new editor vandalizes or makes a inappropriate page along with a ALL CAPS edit summary. Eight editors, User:X!, User:UncleDouggie, User:Lothar von Richthofen, User:Airplaneman, User:Heymid, User:Sonia, User:Trusilver, and myself User:Alpha Quadrant have asked him to stop using ALL CAPS, as it is considered shouting and biting newcomers and is therefore disruptive. Protector of Wiki has told us that he wishes to emphasize by using all caps. We have suggested using bold text instead, as it is not considered shouting. However he continues to use all caps as well as the only warning template. According to this he has been blocked from Simple Wikipedia for incivility and also recently blocked here for 72 hours for incivility block log. Can someone else please try and talk to this user? Thanks --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I give up. That basically illustrates that he's not willing to cooperate with little things like fixing "mods" or capslock, and that he's being pointy. My tendency to err on the side of good faith only goes so far. sonia♫ 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think that his behavior is worthy of a block at this time. He's going to either get his act together or land in more hot water soon enough that will make the course of action clear. I am impressed with his content edits and logic in article discussions. He has been a benefit to the project, but at the cost of some upset editors. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a 'Country'

Resolved

The Giant's Causeway is in the country of Northern Ireland, a consituent country of the sovereign state known as the United Kingdom. Regardless of these well-known facts that are used in very many articles, a hard-core group of editors are currently intent on changing this basic geography within the Giant's Causeway info-box such that the country is given as the United Kingdom whilst Northern Ireland is relegated to a region. In no sense of the word is Northern Ireland a region and I have never heard it described as such. I cannot understand the motivation of the editors who are pushing this POV contrary to policy. I thought it was Irish nationalism, but this doesn't really fit the bill, other than to deny the existence of Northern Ireland as a country (not a State) in its own right. Could an uninvolved editor please look at this, and I would strongly urge editors/admins from within the British Isles to leave this one alone. Thanks LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.140.16 (talk)

Please could someone block this IP as a block evading sockpuppet, it is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Outrageous attack and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So this is either block evasion by or blackmail of LevenBoy. (?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Or it's entirely possible than an IP saw a request on an editor's talkpage and assumed the best. A checkuser might be useful, but simply ignoring this might be even better. TFOWR 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe it is not LevenBoy, merely someone posting this message on his behalf as he requested on his talk page. You will see the involvement of similar IPs in the sockpuppet report. As for LevenBoy's message, this is merely forum shopping since discussion is going against him at Talk:Giant's Causeway#Northern Ireland is a country, where his inflammatory rhetoric has come up against many reliable sources refuting his claims. O Fenian (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's an IP sock of a different editor, and have blocked the IP. TFOWR 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have revoked LevenBoy's talkpage privileges for the duration of the block, since such santions are intended to stop accounts being able to contribute to the wider project and LevenBoy's request was a clear attempt to circumvent that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Spinoff question

Resolved

The UK does not have "provinces" as such. But in a general sense, what is the practical difference, if any, between the four countries in the UK vs. "provinces"; or "states" as the term is used in the USA? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well this is not necessarily the place.. but I'll try for a brief answer. The four countries have levels of independence - particularly Scotland - but there is still a lot of control from central parliament. In practical terms laws and legality are the same, taxation and public spending tends to be the major difference (to pick a random current example the Scottish parliament is apparently pushing for higher taxation on Alcohol) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Scotland has a completely different legal system than England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament has only existed for a few years now, but Scotland has always had a separate legal system. Not sure about Northern Ireland. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a historical nation, as it was part of a seperate kingdom/state that encompassed the entire island. Nor does it have a parliament, only the United Kingdom plus Scotland and the Isle of Man has those, but an Assembly as does Wales (which is a Principality - although it has had Kings, but so did some of the constituent Kingdoms that formed England. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

American states have far more autonomy than the countries of the United Kingdom (that article explains the situation well). The UK parliament has the ability to abolish or suspend devolution and restore all power to the centre if needed or simply over rule the devolved parliaments/assemblies, although such an act would sadly be politically difficult now. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that calling Northern Ireland a country is comparable to calling Florida or Bavaria a country (German and American states ('lander') have considerable rights of their own, comparable to NI, Wales, etc). I can't get my head around it. Florida, possibly Bavaria also, has inalienable powers that the US federal government can't take over, its own justice system, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty insensitive remark. I think you should think that through once more. There is some historical issues that you seem to have forgotten about. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Government in its wisdom describes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as Countries of the United Kingdom. When i first arrived on wikipedia i was not a fan of such a description, but they are very well sourced and today country is used more than province by many reliable sources for NI, although the case for using it for NI is obviously weaker than the other 3, but if they are countries today there is no reason Northern Ireland can not be described as one. Countries are not always sovereign states which is what most of us think about when we say country. This whole issue has been plagued with controversy, for example because of some insisting England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland be added to a List of countries which caused instability, the list ended up having to redirect to the sovereign states page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Province" implies the Province of Ulster, which is not the same as Northern Ireland, although there are obviously major overlaps. "Country" is problematic for Northern Ireland, too, though; before 1922 it was certainly all of Ireland which was a country, and to some extent it still is. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the way it's described by HMG, that's the way it's described and we use the word. Maunus, I think of Wales and NI as nations, not countries. I don't think that's insensitive or forgetting the history, but I'm clearly wrong about it. (I wouldn't call Texas a country even though it was an independent country at one point.} Whatever the words, the governmental structures are not that dissimilar. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not the choice between county or nation that is insensitive but the comparison to Florida and Bavaria. Florida and Bavaria are not historically parts of different nations that have been forcefully incorporated into empires inspite of widespread resistance from the inhabitants and that have violently opposed their inclusion into the state they are a part of as recently as twenty years ago. I know you were only referring to their similarity in degree of autonomy, but the historic context of the relative degrees of autonomy are very different and hence makes for an ill comparison.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that Northern Ireland is a country is not particularly congenial to either Unionists or Nationalists, as I understand it. Nationalists consider Ireland to be the country, not Northern Ireland; Unionists generally view the United Kingdom as the country and refer to Northern Ireland as a province (referring to the Province of Ulster). I'd add that Bavaria's incorporation into a united Germany was quite analogous to Scotland's incorporation into Great Britain. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside from gentle suggestion to read up on the history of Florida, I can only say that this is definitely not the place for a continuation of the same argument that is already found everywhere the word "Ireland" is. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The majority in each "nation" of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland supports the continuation of the union, that is what counts. You talk of forceful incorporation, but those "nations" forcefully incorporated too. The people of what is now England never voted for England to become a country, same goes for Scotland, Wales and yes there was not even a vote for a united Ireland. Most Nations in europe were all created through conflict or annexation at some point in their history. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that with the creation of Countries of the United Kingdom article, it was agreed that Northern Ireland was a country. It's been so long now, that I can't remember all the related discussions anymore. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That article explains the matter well. To me, it's fairly clear that from a practical standpoint, the four UK countries are "analogous" to states or provinces, in that they have separate governments and they are also under the "federal" jurisdiction of the British parliament. As far as Florida, etc., most any piece of land on earth could be said to have been obtained by conquest, so that's not really the point. Thanks for the info. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no comparison to the State of Florida, Florida was never a 'country' in the same way Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. Ever listened to an American talk about the UK? It is England this and England that, apparently they don't even know that England does not represent the UK. The previous poster is correct when they state that the UK is a State within the European Union. The State is comprised of 4 countries just as the USSR before Russia was a State comprised of many countries which now have independence in many cases. Yes, Northern Ireland is a country and has been since 1921. Prior to that Ireland (as a whole) was a country within the UK having been annexed in 1801.--87.113.65.161 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Florida has reserved sovereign powers that even Scotland does not, and the powers of the separate governments in Northern Ireland and Wales are even more limited. Texas was an internationally recognized country, so if you'd prefer to substitute Texas, we can do that. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute has escalated into tendentious editing

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) wants to add trivial, and he hopes defamatory, content to the Katie Couric BLP article. His attempts were reverted by several editors. In talk page discussion here, the vast majority of editors rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the NPOV Noticeboard here, where all but one editor also rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the WikiQuette Noticeboard here, where he was again informed that his proposed content was trivial, undue weight and tabloid-ish. Now he is dismissing the consensus input from numerous editors, calling them a "mob" (see this edit summary), and he has chosen to edit war instead. His comments in his edit summaries, (...I am not going to repeat the explanation. Find it.) and (Discussion is over, no one contested my last statement for over a MONTH.) indicate a reluctance to resolve the dispute through discussion. A bit of help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:Hearfourmewesique notified of ANI discussion involving him.

OK, let's put this in proportion:

• Trivial – this word is being flung around like monkey feces, with no actual solid proof to it.
• Defamatory – it's a video depicting Couric making fun of the Palin family, as reported by multiple reliable sources, not a picture of her breasts exposed in a third world tabloid.
• Vast majority – this article is a fan club; there is not a single entry that counters the constant appraisals of her character and work that this article entirely comprises of.
• Mob – it's wikilinked to WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, again with the fan club issue.
• Undue – we are talking about one sentence of somewhat negative reporting within an article that's entirely biased in Ms. Couric's favor and tenaciously guarded by the "mob" I was referring to earlier. This is a technique that seems to have been well developed on Wikipedia: get enough supporters and anything can be achieved under the pretense of consensus. Luckily, User:Drrll (the one in "all but one" that Xenophrenic mentioned) has enough common sense to understand my point, as opposed to any other editor that has been "swarmed" by the myriads of comments that were intended to flood mine and Drrll's.
• My comments – those are my two final comments after sweating bullets over extensive explanations of the validity of my point, being repeated over and over again until I got to that point (of simply instructing Xenophrenic to start listening to me, instead of exhausting me with these techniques). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is strong support on the talkpage that the content has no actual value in her life story, user Hearfourmewesique is not listening and has been replacing the addition anyway, this has resulted in the article being locked. There is a consensus against the user and he should listen to those voices and when the article is unlocked in a couple of days if he again readds it against consensus, that would imo be disruptive editing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A look through Hear4's contrib list indicates that when he veers into political articles he's trying to paint certain people a particular way, and his "fan club" comments above are par for the course when it comes to editors who want to violate the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and here we are with the politics: you find whatever you can to try and make me look bad at any cost. Your "look" can be summarized in Couric and Michael Moore, to the latter's article a concise and neutral paragraph being added, with multiple reliable sources, on an issue that wasn't covered before I added that paragraph. Unless you can prove that I want to violate BLP intentionally, I will interpret this as a personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So just what was the point of adding a lengthy blurb about how Michael Moore supposedly supports the idea of a mosque on Ground Zero? Do you think his article also reads like a "fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly??? Wow man, I though you'd be wiser than that, being a veteran here and all... read the sources, he's proudly "shouting it" on his website! Having said that and the issue being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, it should be in his bio. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, does the Moore article read like a fan club article? I don't think so. And like pundits such as O'Reilly and Hannity, he thrives on controversy. Meanwhile, your continued attempts to make a mountain out of the Couric-Palin molehill skew the matter. That video didn't come out until long after the election, and there is no end of people who made fun of Palin in public, at the time, so the fact that she did so, in private, is nothing unusual and is undue weight in the article. As far as a "personal attack"... well, I merely read what you wrote earlier, and as a "veteran", I saw that it fits the pattern of many, many editors I've seen here who complain when they aren't allowed to put their negative trivial stuff into an article - for example, as with the siege of the Palin article during the fall of 2008, which I helped to defend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your position that you can add anything you want that you can find a citation for it the problem you are having. We are writing the life stories of living people and we should use editorial judgment as regards what has value in their life that is worth adding, if you find yourself in a minority that the content you desire to add is worthwhile and noteworthy that is the time to start listening, not the time to suggest all the people that disagree with your position are members of the article subjects fan club. Off2riorob (talk)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Far more important in the grand scheme of things is that despite all the initial hype, Couric and CBS News have yet to make a dent in their ratings deficit - a fact which actually is stated in the article. I wonder if a "fan club" article would be likely to mention that fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "lengthy blurb" is a short four-sentenced paragraph (just finishing the Moore thought). As for Couric... this might seem trivial, but none of you are considering that it's an indication of her being biased against Palin, a fact which influenced the interviews, prompting Palin's supporters to see it as being from the most negative perspective ever. Declining ratings are nothing compared to that. Nowhere is Coric's personal agenda mentioned anywhere in the article. She's not a neutral reporter and this is a clear influence on her work, which is seen by millions of people on a daily basis. Is any of that mentioned in the article, even when supported by multiple sources? No. So... yes, it's a fan club that happens to mention poor Ms. Couric and the declining ratings she can't raise... sniff sniff and sad puppies.

P.S. Just for the record, I happen to agree with her on the Palin issue; I believe Palin is one of the most incompetent political candidates the US has seen in years. On the other hand, I'm not a TV reporter and I'm not influencing masses of people based on my wording. Again: all I want is for the article to be a bit more balanced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. If you don't understand that, or cannot understand how your editing has taken on that quality, you should not be editing the article at this time. Please consider this a final warning from an uninvolved administrator to cease and desist. NW (Talk) 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:GREATWRONGS is a specific instruction to "only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources". I have supplied seven, and Drrll supplied one more, making it eight. Final warning? It's the first time we interact, pal, chill out.

To BaseballBugs, per WP:OSE, the fact many others were making fun of Palin at the time doesn't make it OK and/or trivial for Couric to have done that as well. Besides, she didn't do it in private, she was reading the script at her stand, with the camera being aimed at her; she just thought the camera was turned off. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear what Palin had to say about Couric also, but that wouldn't mean it belongs in the Palin article. Also, a fact being verifiable is not a ticket to inclusion in an article, it's merely a minimum standard that must be met before it can be considered for inclusion, especially on a BLP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Hearfourmewesique actually believes he has some damning "gotcha" content here, as evidenced by his mistaken assertion that Couric "thought the camera was turned off". In fact, Couric asks and is told that they are filming during the first 24 seconds of that video footage, and she even does the customary 3.. 2.. 1.. sound-check countdown before launching into her read-through, which she promptly interrupts with the exclamation, "Where the hell do they get these names?" There is actually nothing defamatory about that video footage, and Couric wasn't "caught" doing anything other than learning for the first time about people with names like Trig and Track that live at the far fringe of our nation, eat mooseburgers, hunt caribou, and leave 90% of Americans scratching their collective heads and asking: WTF?

When, in an effort of compromise, I left the trivial content in the article, and expanded it a bit to describe just what Couric was making fun of, Hearfour reverted those edits, too. Apparently, too much information for the reader ruins the "we caught Katie doing something baaad" aura he was trying to push, and shows it as trivial. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountain-out-of-molehill stuff. A lot of Americans wondered the same thing. Maybe she could have asked a softer version of that question during the interview. Like the time Jay Leno asked Frank Zappa why he named his son "Dweezil". Frank's answer was, "Because I wanted to," and that was the end of that discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to reply to a point made by Hear.. It appears he is claiming that the incident shows Couric's bias and provides context for the infamous Palin interviews that came after. The sources do not support this -- they merely remark on the trivial details already mentioned. Anything more is from (unreliable) Palin supporters with a grudge. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not stopping

We could do with some eyes on talk:Michael Moore#Religious view missing, where the same editor is having difficulty understanding basic guidelines. Wikispan (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring on multiple articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Any Pakistani admins?

I just blocked Tariq babur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24h because he keeps creating content and articles about himself and his family members, and has not acknowledged or responded to numerous messages on his talk page or discussed any edits on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Oh, and there was the incident of removing the images from Muhammad, but that is normal. Perhaps someone with a language in common could have a chat with the user? Guy (Help!) 11:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left him a message. Its in Hindi, which is very similar (especially if u are writing in English script :) to Urdu, the national language of Pakistan. It basically just explains that we have tried to make him understand that it is not appropriate to make articles on family members; I told him we are sorry to have blocked him, but as he did not respond, there was nothing else we could have done. I told him his block is only for 1 day; but emphasized that it is vital that he responds, in English or Urdu, whatever works, or else he may be blocked again. I recently encountered a similar problem with Shopnomukarji (talk · contribs) - no response whatsoever. I guess it really can't be helped, since obviously they must be understanding English to contribute here. Shiva (Visnu) 00:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty of copying the translation kindly provided above to the talk page. It will assist anyone who is checking that page who does not know about the posting here, and who reads neither Hindi nor Urdu. If this is a problem, feel free to undo my cut-and-paste. Bielle (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No pakistani admins YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he can be contacted here:

http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/صفحہ_اول

Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior at AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House), where User:Colonel Warden took it upon himself to revert my bundling of 24 episodes of plot summary. On the talk page, they claim confusion and the appearance of impropriety; if you look at the AfD, you see that the request for bundling these articles came from participants in the discussion. The good Colonel is already accusing me of edit-warring after I reverted their changes once, so I don't feel so bad about coming on this board crying like a baby. Seriously, I need someone with more weight than I have to judge this: I don't see how an editor should be allowed to disrupt an AfD process in this fashion. Drmies (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• The matter is explained at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House)#Scope. Adding numerous articles to an AFD partway through seems improper and so I reverted. Drmies just repeated his bold edit. I started discussion on the relevant talk page. Bringing the matter here now forks the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the solution is pretty obvious. Let the Hunting one run its course alone, meanwhile nominate the other 23 articles as a mass nomination. Reyk _YO! 11:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• It might be more sensible to wait for the first discussion to be completed so that it would form a useful precedent for the other cases. Multiplying discussions so that they take place in parallel is not efficient. Do I now have to repeat this comment at the first discussion which was started at the talk page. You see the problem? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• You said yourself that the first discussion was tainted by a sockpuppet, and yet you want to use it as a precedent for the others? Nah. Bundle them all and discuss them properly. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. It is clear that some participants wanted the bundling, and just as clear that the editor objected. It is reasonable to want the full period of time if one is going to look for sources in an attempt to save individual articles. I'd see how this one plays out, find out if others accept the book as a reasonable source, and nominate the others if it appears the community agrees in the deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • And the objection by this one editor, their unilateral action, is OK, and undoing the work I did--which I was asked to do--is just fine? Drmies (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say it's "just fine" - there's a battlefield mentality revealed that I'm not keen on - but I would say that it very much is the nature of a wiki to have one's work undone by others. The editor has a tenable reason for his action, IMHO there's no admin action needed here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's precisely that battlefield mentality that brings me here. I did not think that such an edit would be OK in the first place, I did not think that someone could mess with and disrupt an AfD discussion like this. I am disgusted by it, but I seem to be the only one, so go ahead and close it. Colonel, nice work. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • To be honest, I kinda get where Colonel is coming from. Adding other articles to a nomination once the discussion is already underway is a little bit dubious because someone acting in bad faith could easily do that with a discussion that's heading for an overwhelming delete on the last day, and get stuff removed on the sly. It does seem pretty unfair though that you are copping all the criticism for doing what several other editors asked you to do. Look, most of the work of setting up the mass nom is already there in page history so you can quite easily create a bundled discussion for the other 23 articles. I don't think we'll see any procedural objections to that. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Realizing I'm going to get in trouble for this, I find some significant irony in someone complaining about their work being undone when the work they did was trying to delete significantly more work from others. Maybe it's just me that finds that irony verging on being worth a giggle. On the more substantive matter, I agree that bundling after a discussion has already started is inappropriate in general. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
          • What's ironic is that I have over 21000 edits in article space (you have 700). I know a thing or two about creating content. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Don't think that's ironic. Sad on my part I'll accept. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well... as an AFD is intended to run 7 days, there is a sense of "rush to delete" when other articles are bundled into a discussion after it has been going on for a few days... and specially after editors have already commented on the one original article nominated. And too, editors trying to improve the one, might now feel besieged by the many. Best to un-bundle, and let the AFD on the ONE run its course, and bundle the others (as they are late-comers to the table) in their own AFD. Or too, there might be a gentlemen's agreement to extend a mass-bundled AFD for an additional two weeks to allow good faith addressing of issues in so many articles at once. Always a tough row to hoe, with mass nominations, no mater what the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• I already !voted at the AfD, so I'm involved, but I agree that bundling mid-AfD is not OK. If you want to bundle a nomination, do it properly. But... what about a selective merge to the episode lists? Did you even consider this, per WP:BEFORE? Deletion is a blunt tool to be used as a last resort. And have you done a check for sources for these episode, to see if they really are not notable? As I commented at the AfD, the fiction deletionists are Wikia's best friends. Jimmy'd be making much less money without their dedicated work to drive readers that way. Fences&Windows 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 blocked for reverting copyvio removal

After warning Radagast3 (talk · contribs) twice ([144], [145]) to stop reverting me when I replaced copyrighted material (specifically, quotes from the New International Version of the Bible) with public domain equivalents (specifically, quotes from the World English Bible and the King James Version), I have now blocked him for 1 month. The article primarily affected is New Wine into Old Wineskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it's happened today now at all the articles in the "Canonical/New Testament" section of {{Parables of Jesus}}. —Angr (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked. As far as I can see, you've edit warred to use quotes from your preferred version of the Bible, and then blocked your opponent. That's appalling behaviour. Copyrighted material is allowed to be quoted in Wikipedia: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." (Wikipedia:Non-free content). I can see from your user page that you don't like fair use, but your preference for public domain doesn't give you a right to force the debate by blocking your opponent. I will leave it to other to consider sanctions against you. Fences&Windows 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor form this. Using admin tools to advance one's own agenda. Should this person continue as a sysop? MtD (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the user had been blocked by an uninvolved admin, a month block for edit warring (which usually warrants a 12- or 24-hour block), is like shooting a gnat with a railgun and with the additional context, it seriously calls into question whether or not User:Angr can be trusted to use the bit responsibly and constructively. I'm inclined to believe that this user should be desysopped. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

F&W, it's allowed when we can't use free content to do the same thing. The quotes serve the same purpose and are unencumbered. While the unblock was a good idea, id like for you to clarify to the user a bit here if at all possible so they dont dive back into the same dispute. -- ۩ Mask 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you're confusing image policy with the general policy for text. Any text, copyrighted or not, can be quoted in small amounts, as long as it's clearly indicated that it is a quote, and the source is clearly identified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. its NFCC, Non-Free Content Criteria, not image criteria. We pull excerpts of song lyrics off userpages all the time because we dont allow fair use in userspace. We trim quotations frequently to qualify in articles. We dont really argue whether they deserve fair use status because there aren't alternatives to be used. There no freely-licensed Harry Potter to quote from, just the copyright-encumbered edition. There is a free alternative in this case. Please read through our policies as well as Foundation Directives. -- ۩ Mask 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how Angr's clearly corrupt behaviour is dealt with. My guess involves carpets and sweeping. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This probably wasn't the best way to have approached things, but calling for a desysop is a bit over the top, and Fences&Windows unblock was inappropriate. This use of copyrighted material is not permissible, because copyrighted material can only be used if it is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material, which, since there are public domain translations of the Bible available, can only be held to be true if the discussion is specifically about the copyrighted text.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An admin edit wars on a grey area of policy and then blocks his opponent for a month - that's a bad block, full stop. Any block by an involved admin is a bad block and should be reverted. My unblock was entirely appropriate, we should never excuse abuse of admin tools. I'm not calling for desysopping, but at least an acknowledgement of why Angr should not have blocked Radagast3 is required. Fences&Windows 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The New International Version translation of the Bible is one of the two most common Bible translations used in English, along with the King James Version. Using a less-common translation is a POV issue; so is universally preferring the King James over the NIV, even if done with the best of intentions. In a great number of cases, discussing the actual text given in the NIV is going to be a part of a proper encyclopedia article. So long as it isn't gratuitous use of copyrighted material, limited fair-use quotes are not only acceptable, but encyclopedically essential. But in any case, blocking with instructions to prefer a Bible translation that nobody actually uses for religious purposes over one that they do is a serious, serious matter. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Its needed when illustrating differences between translations, not for general use. Please see The Five Pillars. We are Free Content. Anytime we add content encumbered with restrictions it represents a failing of our goals and needs to be done only when there is no possible way at all to give the information BUT with encumbered content. -- ۩ Mask 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course - we are a free-content encyclopedia. However, in order for use to fulfill the "encyclopedia" part properly, we need to reflect the texts that are actually being used. It's profoundly unfortunate that the NIV is not free content, but in many cases it can't be substituted for, because choice of Bible translations can be a serious POV issue, and the sane way to avoid the issue is to use a common translation, and preferably more than one, rather than using one translation or adding an obscure one that happens to have nice copyright terms. It's not an easy issue, by any means - but he original block under discussion was very poor. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The important thing to note here, is that whether to use a very relevant, non-free source, or a less relevant free one, is a matter for discussion, and edit warring was inappropriate by both parties. But what was vastly more inappropriate, was that one of the parties to the edit war abused their admin tools to remove the opposition, and giving a completely disproportionate block in the process. This isn't the place to discuss the content issue; the issue which concerns ANI is the behaviour of the involved parties, including the misuse of the admin tools by User:Angr. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When Angr first raised this issue (and I didn't realise he/she was an admin until I was blocked), I encouraged a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. I'm not sure there really is an issue here: most Bible publishers allow "fair use" quotes (the practice to date, which I've been following, has been to quote a range of different modern versions, and to restrict the amount quoted in any one article -- my belief is that use of, for example, the NIV across the whole of Wikipedia falls within Zondervan's limits for non-commercial use without written permission). If there is an issue, we need a centralised debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible covering (1) under what circumstances copyrighted Bible versions can be quoted, (2) how many verses can be quoted in an article, and (3) which are the preferred Bible non-copyrighted versions to use. Such a debate should lead to a clear "Use of the Bible on Wikipedia" policy, which editors could then be pointed at and encouraged to follow. In this case, Angr appears to be advancing a strong pro-WEB agenda (and to a lesser extent, of the KJV), which also includes changing standard templates leading to the multi-version BibleGateway site, and using Argumentum ad baculum fairly forcefully. Like Gavia immer, I'm concerned about the single-handed conversion of the whole of Wikipedia to a version which is not widely used and which is not respected by scholars. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If they allow people to use it for some purposes its no dice, generally. We freely redistribute for any one to use for any purpose. Putting restrictions on that means we dont use it except under fair use, and we dont use fair use when a freely available alternative is available. It can even be a crappier illustration of the concept then the encumbered one so long as it still allows understanding. -- ۩ Mask 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For anything other than brief excerpts, we use a free version. Because this is a free encyclopedia. See WP:NFCC#1. Block was poor, but Angr is correct in his viewpoint about which should be used. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edge back into content matters, but I think that actual usage outside Wikipedia is the best possible neutral measure of what "allows" understanding, and so the invitation to use a particular, uncommon translation as a way to avoid being blocked is a big part of what's wrong here. The King James Version, of course, is out of copyright and in common use, but relying on only one translation when others are also common can violate neutrality. I would much rather see a guideline on how and where to make minimal use of copyrighted Bible quotes than a ban that hurts our encyclopedic purpose. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to us, this is a Foundation Directive. From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy :

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"

1. All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.

2. In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

Bolding is mine.-- ۩ Mask 00:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to say that the World English Bible or KJV serves the same educational purpose as a Bible translation that scholars actually use? john k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One topic of debate is what constitutes a "brief excerpt." That's currently accepted, but Black kite appears to be suggesting that the brevity restriction should be interpreted more strictly. I'm fine with that, in principle, but any change to Wikipedia practice needs to be discussed and communicated. Any necessary changes to Bible quotations need to be done carefully and with regard to context, not in a single-handed sweep. The existing sweep has caused all kinds of problems, such as in Parable of the Leaven, where the quotation from the inaccurate WEB translation (using "yeast" rather than "leaven") contradicts the (sourced) explanatory text of the article, and indeed also the article title. I would appreciate some clarity as to whether I'm going to be blocked again if I fix that problem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast, read my comment above for depth, but the quick version is no community discussion will change this. With a work like the bible, which has versions both under copyright and free from it, we have a directive, from the foundation, that simply does not allow us to use works under copyright when a free version exists. Period. End of story. This is one of the few things that the guys who run this show actually felt the need to lay down the law on. -- ۩ Mask 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, there are some cases where copyrighted versions must be quoted, such as when discussing differences between translations. We need a policy that articulates the limits on such uses. If there is a directive to apply "fair use" guidelines more strictly (and I think, given the wide interest in this topic, that clarity on this would be a good idea), then we need discussion on which public-domain translations to use. Again, I am concerned about errors being introduced into articles by an administrator advancing an agenda for one particular translation. I'm also personally concerned about the question: will I be blocked for fixing article errors, even where that involves replacing one public-domain version by a more accurate public-domain version, given the context? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly your first example is one where fair use is reasonable (as long as the excerpt s minimal), but otherwise WP:NFCC#1 is very clear - "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." So if you're quoting from an unfree translation where the free version communicates the same content, you need to use the free one. That's something that isn't negotiable. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC x3)We agree! Looking at differences between works derived from the same source, regardless of the copyright state of the works, would not be possible without excerpts. You wont get any arguments there. What this whole thread is about though is if the point of the section or article isnt about differences, but just the thing itself, you just flat out can not use the copyrighted work. If the article needs the parable, you get it from the free work. If differences between translations is a major bone of contention in the academic world for a particular story or parable, and there are reliable sources that discuss the difference and commentary about why and what the differences mean, then by all means use both, and illustrate why that is important using said sources. I'll be the first one to thank you for improving the project and I imagine every else will join me. -- ۩ Mask

This is a policy discussion and does not belong on ANI. Please take it elsewhere. Note also that NFCC says: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." That is, NFCC#1 would not appear to apply to text. But again, that's a debate for elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

-

While I disagree with your reading of NFCC, I just want to point out that NFCC is our mirroring and explanation of the Foundation's directive. It's useful in the abstract but go read the Foundation Licensing Policy I linked earlier for the authoritative text. -- ۩ Mask 00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is the policy you meant, I still disagree. They speak of uploading files, not quoting text. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think you do when you save an edit on the wiki? You're uploading a file. Thats why we can use diffs, it looks at the difference between the two files. You dont think you just magically think of what you want to contribute and the computer displays it for you, do you? -- ۩ Mask 00:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's what they mean, the policy is vague to the point of being useless. It's certainly not a file before you upload it, so you could argue it's not "uploading a file" even with that reading. They mention media several times; they never mention text. The summary is clear that it's not text. If they mean text, they should say text. Until that happens, I will continue reading the policy as if I were a human being and spoke English. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content about this issue. Evil saltine (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask that again: for the two verses quoted in Parable of the Leaven, the public-domain KJV is a more accurate translation than the public-domain WEB, according to the scholarly sources cited in the article. Will I be blocked for replacing one by the other? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing? Yes. Yes you will. Comparing and contrasting from both editions, with commentary in the text, cited to reliable sources? No. -- ۩ Mask 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, missed the switch from NIV to KJV. KJV is unencumbered (in the US anyway, where our servers are. I believe there's still a Crown Copyright on it in the UK). That would be fine. -- ۩ Mask 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly something that needs debate and consensus, but accusations of bad faith on either side are unacceptable. It's reasonable for an admin who sees edit warring on copyvios to block, though of course it should normally not be someone involved in those edit wars. But we have claims above that it would be appropriate to desysop even if he were not involved, so what's going on here? A month is extreme, I agree, but blocks can always be lessened or lifted, as this one was. I'm not familiar with block policy for copyright violations; if the general consensus is that this was out of line, then proper procedure can be explained to Angr. But the accusations that he is pushing some sort of sectarian agenda are baseless: There's no reason not to take him at his word that his choice was motivated by the KJV being dated and the WEB version being free and convenient, and that the block was to protect WP against copyvios, which many of us here see as a threat to the integrity of the project. (Though I agree with Radagast in this case.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The blocking admin was clearly in the wrong and as far as I can tell has not apologized. First he was involved, second this is a gray area of NFCC (what makes for a "brief verbatim textual excerpt" is unclear) which makes the block highly questionable, and third the block was way too long. In all seriousness at the least that acknowledgment of error is needed. If that's not forthcoming I'd say a desysop is appropriate as it implies Angr doesn't think anything wrong was done and that is uncontroversially not the case. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My own view on the underlying matter is that all short bible quotations should appear in at least the KJV as well as the most accepted modern translation. All discussions of translated bible passages inherently involve the question of the accuracy & intent of the translation & so will always meet the NFCC criterion for being essential to the discussion. A stricter interpretation of NFCC in this particular context is inappropriate to the fundamental mission of both NPOV and WP:V. Verifiability can only be attained by using the most accurate version available. (And the intent of the copyright on the NIV is a special case, intended to protect the right to publish the Bible as a whole or substantial part, but to encourage its use otherwise--not considering it in this instant is unwarranted hype-legalism. But this is really for elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The necessary action here on this board is how to deal with the inappropriate block in an ongoing interpretation dispute. This is a debated copyvio at worst, not an unquestioned copyvio where an admin can use his tools even if involved. The proof that the block was inappropriate was, as mentioned, the grossly excessive length. there are always dozens of tother admins available, and I don;t think any other would have blocked for such a period. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR, but I think it's clear that: a) the blocking admin was an involved editor, and should not have been the one to make the block. It should have been discussed here first. b) A one-month block for edit warring by an involved editor is clearly wrong when a regular warring block is 24 hours. This is unacceptable, and is using a block to further one side's position in a content dispute. c) NFCC applies to all content, no just images; it is however a grey area. d) The unblock was correct, and does not constitute wheel warring since the blocking admin brought it here for discussion — which, albeit late, was the right thing to do; and e) calls for desysopping are a bit far-fetched at this point, unless this has occurred more than once. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Short short version: Bad block, good unblock, no desysop (live and learn). Policy and guideline discussion elsewhere. Saionara. --Jayron32 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assuming the blocking admin acknowledges the issues and ideally apologizes. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• It may have been in error, but the original block was indefinite. In other words, banning someone from Wikipedia. This is not just a bad block, it's an appalling block. We could have lost a good editor, and I hope Radagast3 isn't turned away by all this. Please don'tsweep Angr's poor behavior under the carpet. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't quite understand how one can have a copyright on what is supposed to be God's word. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The copyright is on the translation into English, not on the original biblical text in Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, it is impossible to apply the non-free content criteria to text in exactly the same fashion as to images. Apart from the issues raised by (for example) quoting a line of poetry or prose, one must bear in mind that even in summarizing the plot of a copyrighted novel or play or film, we are making an implicit fair-use claim. In doing so, we hardly ever think that we are using non-free content, much less apply the NFCC to such content, but that is just what we are doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NYB: Your general comment is spot on, but I don't believe that the specific instance you cite, i.e. summarizing the plot, actually involves fair use. Copyright covers the specific implementation of an idea -- the actual words used, in the case of text -- and not the ideas themselves, including the plot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, copyright does not only cover "the actual words used". Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear ("non-literal similarity"). See our article on substantial similarity and its sources for more. In terms of plot summary, these are indeed derivative of the original under U.S. law. See here for more. But I'll leave it at that, as this is wandering afield. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And back to the topic, this was a very bad block. I see it was originally indefinite, then half an hour later it was changed to a month. It was against an editor who has never been blocked before. There was no emergency that I can see requiring any kind of block. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The block was terrible but if it only happened once, desysopping is excessive. Admonishment about WP:INVOLVED is more standard. Desysopping is for repeated, persistent cluelessness, or (in some cases) really over-the-top breaches that this doesn't reach. Re NIV: that is not a free license. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Welp, Malleus was right once again. Admin abuse gets swept under the carpet and ignored. Good job, everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and sarcastic comments are considered very constructive on ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't being ignored. It's being called 'terrible', 'a bad block', etc.. Do you really think one bad block is enough to de-sysop? If it turns out to be part of a pattern from Angr, then he probably will be desysopped. What do you want done? Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the "admin abuse" characterization completely. I don't know Angr's full history, but I have been involved in a recent and continuing content dispute with him over an image I uploaded... and he has been nothing but courteous, even when I boldly reverted him, knowing full well that he was an admin and could have blocked me because I'm just a regular editor. He could have reverted me, but he assumed good faith, and we're still in negotiations. I think a reprimand of some sort is in order in this case: but consideration of desysopping is premature, IMO. Angr: please speak up again here, since the boomerang has come back from your filing this report... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The stylish way forward would be for Angr to voluntarily resign his admin status and ask for community reconfirmation via WP:RFA. Groomtech (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the silliest thing I have ever read on here. And this is where I read the Starr Report, so that's saying something.-- ۩ Mask 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If Angr honestly believed that there was a copyright issue, then he had a responsibility as an admin to revert it. His better choice would have been to ask another admin to look into it. But editors like Groomtech, who apparently think there is a constitutional right to edit wikipedia freely and without any rules (as suggested on his user page essay), are way over the line in calling for Angr to give up his adminship due to one mistake. (It had best not happen again, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all what I say, but scarcely relevant to this discussion, so if anyone is interested they should perhaps read it for themselves. Groomtech (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to think it was inappropriate for me to be the one to block, because I was somehow "involved". My only "involvement" was to remove the copyvio and replace it with a free equivalent. I only "edit-warred" because Radagast3 continued to revert my removal of it ([146], [147], [148], [149], [150]). If this had been a content dispute, of course I wouldn't have done the block myself. But it wasn't a content dispute, it was a matter of a user clearly, flagrantly, and shamelessly reinserting a copyvio into an article, even after having been warned not to. It is no different than if I had replaced a copyrighted publicity photo of a living celebrity with a freely licensed photo, and he had persisted in reverting to the copyrighted image. I have no problem with the unblock as long as Radagast3 understands and agrees that quoting from the NIV (or any other copyrighted Bible translation) is unacceptable at Wikipedia, except in places where the specific wording of a particular translation is what's being discussed (e.g. at Isaiah 7:14). —Angr (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it was a bad block; blocking by an involved admin is always bad, and an indefinite (or even month long) block is way too long for what's essentially an edit war over a gray area in copyright policy. Buddy431 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of short passages from the NIV in Wikipedia is not a copyright violation. john k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

However that may be decided, it is clearly not indisputable copyright violation--as is proven by the fact that we have here editors in good standing disputing it. This is not like vandalism--there is no immediate harm in asking someone else to look at it. You may have thought at the time it was indisputable, but do you now understand that it was not? Do you now agree in like circumstance where your interpretation of content may be reasonably disputed, you should not be the one to block? DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if when people are talking about a "copyvio" they mean "copyright violation under U.S. law" or "violation of some rule made up by wikipedia which has little to do with copyright law." If the latter, I have no idea if it is a violation of a wikipedia rule. It may be; in that case, the rule is stupid, and ought to be changed. I think that, in general, the rules have not been interpreted in such a rigid manner, but that used to be true for pictures too. I suppose it was inevitable that a rule designed to stupidly prevent us from using pictures we wouldn't get into legal trouble for using is now being used to argue that we should be stupidly prevented from using fair use quotations from a copyrighted work that won't get us into legal trouble. Angr: on what basis is it up to you to judge that Bible translations are interchangeable and that one version will do just as well as another so that fair use isn't in play? This is a judgment call, not a cut and dry rule, or at least it should be. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's clear now that Angr refuses to acknowledge his error. I don't think he should continue as an admin. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Actual NIV license...

Since I happen to have one handy, it says:

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses, without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."

No claim of fair use applies: any reasonable (as per above permissions) NIV quote in Wikipedia has the express permission of the publisher. The vast majority of other Bible translations have similar clauses. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for the discussion, but I don't see how you can claim that's a free license Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• JClemens, don't forget that we require more than that from our content, and it needs to be available under a compatible license or it'd be considered non-free: our content, given correct attribution, may be used or refactored by anyone, for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. The NIV license doesn't permit that, so it's not free. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the King James version is subject to a perpetual Crown copyright in England. Groomtech (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But not in the US, where the wikimedia servers are and whose copyright law Wikimedia is subject to. -- ۩ Mask 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not what the Foundation resolution says. " in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed " 92.233.49.8 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That 'predominantly' means something like this. The US has more then 4 times as many pageviews as the next highest country (which isn't England. It's Germany. England is number 4 on the list. The note is primarily for informing users of other language wikipedias that the servers are in the US and must follow that law, not just (for example) the user having to follow Romanian law, which they presumably know. Thats why the US is explicitly mentioned. -- ۩ Mask 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

92.233, note that in your own quote, it says and, not or. As the servers are hosted in Florida, US copyright law must be followed. In addition, copyright law for countries where many users view the material are also important. That means if it's permissible under the copyright law for one of these countries but not the US, it's not permissible. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what I'm pointing out. In addition, the law of England imposes a copyright on the King James version. (Logical and is symmetric.) So it's not permissible. 92.233.49.8 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got logged out there. 92.233.49.8 was me. Groomtech (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Per WP:C: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." (Though it notes there as well that we try to respect the laws of other countries, so German Wikipedia follows Germany's more restrictive standards--what the "Exemption Doctrine Policy" being quoted refers to--and we don't hold all content from nations with which we have no copyright treaties public domain.) Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the US federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States." Wikipedia:Public Domain: "Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal body, are based in Florida, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States. For re-users of Wikipedia content, it is the laws of their respective countries. In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."(footnote omitted) We try to note content that may not be public domain in other countries (for instance, see the image templates Template:PD-old and Template:PD-US), but we do accept them if they are PD in the U.S. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to treat this text like any other non-free text content. The danger of operating under that permission, were we so inclined, is that we are not publishing one article, but a collection of millions of them, and the risk that we'll go above 500 verses seems high. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that each page is a separate publication. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we are a compilation, just like any other encyclopedia. (And in terms of practical reality, we are a single website, in spite of multiple subpages.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using the NIV at all, and we should only use the KJV for its importance to the English language. If we want to discuss what the Bible actually says, we should use the NRSV or a similar scholarly translation, and such usage ought to be valid under fair use. john k (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV and you're welcome to it. The NIV has been the predominant translation in protestant America, and probably some other English-speaking countries, for 30+ years. A lot of Christian homiletics, hymnody, and other related disciplines have been directly tied to the NIV over that time, and replacing the specific translation with a different one is simply not equivalent. There was a bigger fight over proposed inclusion of gender-neutral language in an NIV revision than there ever was in the NRSV--why? Because by and large, people who have a "high view of scripture" don't use the NRSV. It is absolutely a scholarly translation--it is commonly used in Biblical Studies, but rarely or never in Evangelical worship. Each translation has its place in Wikipedia's coverage of Christian topics. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NIV loses to KJV on cultural impact, and loses to NRSV on scholarly credibility. If we want to talk about what the Bible is actually saying in the original language, we should use the NRSV, which is about as close as we have to a translation that tries to do that (it is not completely successful in that, imo, because it has a pastoral purpose as much as a scholarly one, which is why you get stuff like the gender neutral language, but it's still better than any other major translation). If we want to talk about cultural impact and that kind of thing, I'm sure there are contexts where the NIV would be useful, but the KJV is more influential by a level of magnitude. NIV is kind of a distant second in both categories. john k (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that on the larger issue, I don't think that copyright issues should prevent us from using the NIV or NRSV when appropriate, that I think it is usually appropriate to use a more recent translation than the KJV (although in many cases we will want to give the KJV as well), and that I think that a translation of such dubious provenance as the World English Bible should not be used at all unless reliable sources can be found which vouch for it. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kumar ldh

This is first time I m adding/notifying here. From last 2-3 days there is disagreement between me and user kumar Idh on Sabudana_Khichadi editing, can be found on my talk page User_talk:KuwarOnline#Sabudana Khichdi, I trying to explain him with wiki guidelines like WP:Original,WP:RS,WP:Verify, WP:NICE etc, while replying to his comments. He is reverting my edits see 1, 2, so I did 2-3 time(reverting his edits) but I dont want continue doing that as we all know what is 3RR. He is removing all the reference and adding his own personal view(without single reference) which clearly violates WP:Original, now the article not having a single reference, I added some reference like expressindia,dnaindia which can easily qualify WP:RS and prove that Sabudana_Khichadi is usually prepared in Maharashtra ref1,ref2, I dont have any problem if he provides good reference to his claim made on article. I tried to explain him and even ask to read WP:Original, I thought it will help him but now he it taking personally see his comments on my talk page. Well I dont have any problem if somebody points my problem, I will happily correct it, but he is taking it personally, and following my past edits to point of problems some time foolish like this one history1 history2, just to show me wrong he is adding template COI to category template, I wasn't aware of creating categories will ever qualify for COI, even the template says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Still he added to Category:Companies based in Gurgaon which was created by me. see kumar contributions which can show he is targeting page created by me, I would apologizes if I posted this early to notice board, or I should have wait for more or something but I just wanted not to go for edit war. My concern is just that revert his edits unless his provides reference to his edits. thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I have been invited here I would simply like to present my point of view. Here are few of my observations:

• There is no credible/authentic information that proves that recipe in question is exclusive to Maharashtra. Citing numerous references doesn't prove this. I have provided the user links which can prove that recipe is not limited to Maharashtra but to other parts of India too. A simple Google search is sufficient.
• The user have been simply copy pasting information from websites. Just one example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GTL_Ltd&diff=prev&oldid=386986130. User has simply copy pasted content.
• When there already exists a page "List of companies in Gurgaon" with much more exhaustive information then why is there a need to have a separate page "Category:Companies based in Gurgaon"?
• The contributor has never paid attention to grammar.

If all of above qualifies as quality contribution to Wiki, I will be forced to question Wiki policies. If I had taken all this as personal, I would have been the first one reporting KuwarOnline. In fact I left message on user's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KuwarOnline#Grammar_.26_content_copying) asking him to pay attention to what he contributes. The content posted by user has also been questioned by other contributor and user's response shows his arrogant behavior. There is no rule on Wiki that says I need to provide references to prove that sun rises in east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have added "Sabudana khichadi is an Indian dish. It is usually prepared in Maharashtra and as well as state like Gujarat, North Indian states" to article see old version I don't know how kumar is interpreting to what he says that only/exclusive to Maharashtrian dish?. The sentence I have added clearly says its Indian dish and usually prepared in Maharashtra and other states too. Again I say if kumar has good reference to article, I dont have problem.
• About copy pasting, I still not able to understand may be some admin can explain me. As every sentence of the GTL Ltd has its own source.
• About category I dont want to explain may be some admin/editor explain him, As I m tired being explaining. He simply dont understand difference between category and article.
• About grammar, see my talk page he is accusing me for grammar mistake e.g "its not chilli its chili", "there is nothing as chilli powder\green chilli pieces, it is red chili powder", "in "chilli powder\green chilli pieces" isn't correct, it should be "chilli powder/green chilli pieces" etc see history author of the article added it, still he blaming to me, this shows that how he desperate to prove me wrong, now he is making false claim to just show me wrong?
• About my behavior, please go through my talk page, let me know how it qualify for arrogant behavior. I will surely comply if I got genuine inputs from editors/admins.
• Kumar says that other editor also pointed about my grammar, e.g. "you wrote "sentence" as "sentance" " but the editor didn't know that how to see history of page before blaming to someone. see DLF History, which shows what I did. for more please see my talk page and DLF Limited history.
• Again, the whole point is just revert kumars edits (history) and let him know where he can improve on editing(follow wiki guidelines), so future edit wars like this wont happens. KuwarOnline ^Talk 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to cover both points of view on Sabudana Khichadi is to keep the first section just about what the dish is and then include a sub-section about preparation in Maharashtra without mentioming the word usually. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

hmm sounds good to me. KuwarOnline ^Talk 16:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No one would have been bothered if KuwarOnline had paid attention to what I have been saying. Secondly, I will not take blame about getting personal. Its really saddening that a bit of advice, I have been very polite to KuwarOnline, to polish his skills sounded him insulting. I am not interested in wasting my time here but I would like to ask KuwarOnline to

• pay attention to whatever he is contributing, specially grammar, it is only going to help him.
• must talk to other users before reverting changes that if there was any specific reason for changes
• its OK to accept your fault, in fact only brave has heart to accept fault

Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• About grammar, I already explained in my above comment, now I don't have any simple world to explain than above comments
• See the comments on kumars talk page User talk:Kumar ldh#Sabudana Khichadi‎‎, didn't I notified with reason why I reverted? with wiki guideline. I dont know how people can lie to this extend.
• fault? I already commented above if any genuine comment received I will comply. But till now whatever kumar said is all lie, you can follow my above comments where I given all links which can prove how kumar is lying and diverting topic nothing else, we are discussing here about edit on Sabudana Khichadi‎‎. KuwarOnline ^Talk 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two politician pages,.....in WP? Its out.

Resolved

 – Neither a copyright violation with text or image nor are hatnotes pointing at a politician or interwikilinks a problem. A 3rrr report has been declined as well. The only thing to see here is that User:Alpha30 is indef blocked at the Italian wikipedia because of copyright problems and attacks, and has brought similar edits and accusational tone here. I'll drop them a note.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The files Nicotera and Gerace are two pages in obvious copyvio from this websites ,with Political advertising .We see also that Wikipedia has a neutral position, the phrase "For the Italian politician, see Giovanni Nicotera" is out of WP:Project.The two pages have photos in infrangement of copyright [151] and no source loaded from it.wiki.The pages publishers are IP 79.43.196.128 and User: Vituzzu (a burocrater-problems on it.wiki) that are vandalism and IP blocking for User-problems.This is a very "serious problems". For they are request the infinitive block, for copyvio ,copyright infrangement ,unneutral ,false edit,false check-user,false admin in en.wiki as by IP as by the User.For these AIN , We see them in this discussion.The newpage patroller - --Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 22:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand the report, and I don't see any copyright infringements related to the site provided; am I missing something? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i required the copyright infrangement..but the edits pages are out.--Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost too. I'm assuming something was lost in translation. Grsz¹¹ 22:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is an attempt at retaliation for Vituzzu's having pointed out that Alpha30 introduced copyvios in two other articles. I only suspect it, though, because I can't quite be certain what Alpha30 is saying here. I'll notify Vituzzu, though, since Alpha30 didn't. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ec - Edits to this article suggest there may be some cross wiki issues which include copyright and Administrator Xymmax may have some more details. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If anyone speaks Italian, perhaps we can ask the user to explain their concerns in Italian and have someone translate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

the report in here is " no violation " for edits page .If it is right for you , the discussion will be closed now. Many thanks for your partecipation --Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alpha, che cos'è successo di preciso? Se vuoi scrivermi in Italiano, sarò felice di tradurre per te. (Alpha, exactly what happened? If you wish, you can write in Italian and I'll be glad to provide a translation). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IP adding broken interwikis

121.54.29.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked a few times (twice by me, once by Rich Farmbrough) for various disruptive edits, mostly addition of bogus cleanup tags and addition of interwiki links to articles that don't exist. He has lots of warnings on his talk page but doesn't respond to them, and the moment his blocks expire he starts up again. He just got off his most recent block and again added a bunch of links to nonexistent interwiki articles. (The bulk of his other edits in the time since his block are annoying but not disruptive: adding {{Persondata}} with linked dates that shouldn't be linked.) Anyway, I blocked him for now just to buy time to discuss this here and not have another big mess to clean up later.

Any suggestions on what to do about this IP? Would just a really long block be sufficient? I'm not going to put a like 6- or 12-month block on him myself as I'm already involved enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

After his block ended he came back and rapidly screwed up over 50 pages, mostly replacing redirects with entirely unrelated articles (here is an example). Since no one responded here, I assume no one cares, so I went ahead and blocked him for a year. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed for RfC closure

Resolved

 – Closed. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't for a second pretend to be uninvolved/neutral in the matter, but WP:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has run for more than the customary 30 days, the discussion seems (at least to me) to have slowed, and some other users have suggested it's time for closure. Therefore, I would suggest an uninvolved admin examine the RfC and determine whether/when it should be closed (and if it should be closed, obviously perform the closure and determine what the outcome is). Cheers, --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

EaglesGolden changing "gay" to "homosexual" everywhere

Blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After some homophobic posts on Talk:John McCain, EaglesGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now changing all references of "gay" to "homosexual" in various articles. The sooner he's blocked, the less reversion work there will be. Also look out for sock StevenShowers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I see that, as of this posting, no one has attempted to discuss this with him: his talk page history shows that no attempt, beyond the initial welcome template, has been left on his page. While his edits are troublesome, we generally don't instablock unless there is obvious sock behavior or something like that. Any evidence in that direction, or another reason to block before even attempting to discuss the matter, would be helpful. --Jayron32 02:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Two experienced editors have tried to explain to him on Talk:John McCain that WP and the mainstream world use "gay" and that his reasoning is baseless. Repeating all of this on his talk page seems like an exercise in uselessness to me. But it's your call to let him carry on. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I didn't say he should be allowed to carry on. Other attempts to stop him should be used before being blocked. He has not, even yet, been notified of this discussion. Generally, it is a good idea to let users stop their own behavior. Lets try other methods to get him to stop before blocking, such as telling him that his behavior is being discussed at ANI (this is NOT an optional thing, and should be done by the OP if possible) and to allow him to answer for his actions before blocking. He should not be allowed to carry on, but that doesn't mean that blocking is the way to go at this minute. --Jayron32 02:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Remember you must notify users when reporting them here. --Stickee (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I did state at Talk:John McCain that I had taken this to ANI. I didn't do it on his talk page (my bad), but I see Stickee now has. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Here's some choice comments from only his last post: "I have never been to a homosexual pride parade, which is certainly an oxymoronic configuration of principles." "As soon as they return home, where they must live the other 364 days a year, away from this grand-standing support structure, they fall back into the thorn-like embrace of their guilt and shame ridden inner world, where they know they are different from the vast majority of people on the planet, and they are angry about it." "If they were told that there were a magic wand that could instantly turn them into a properly functioning heterosexual, without any effort on their part, and you asked them if they would want that magic wand to tap them on the top of their head, I believe that 99% of all homosexuals would say "yes". This is just common sense." This guy clearly is heavily homophobic (with the baggage that usually implies, considering how well he apparently knows the homosexual mind) and is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC) User warned that the next act of disruption will result in an indef block; StevenShowers blocked indef for socking. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Why is the act of changing the word "gay" to "homosexual" in the appropriate places considered an "act of disruption" by these administrators? By changing the word "gay" to "homosexual" is anything inaccurate added to the article? Is any error introduced? I don't think so. But if you change the word "homosexual" to "gay" you are adding a layer of propaganda fluff to the article, hiding the true nature of the movement behind a pretty mask, and that should be obvious. My actions go towards clarification and truth. Though perhaps it might be a little bit disruptive to the homosexual zealots who believe they own wikipedia, and can use it at will as their propaganda trumpet. From a larger perspective though, perhaps this kind of disruption in the patterns of error and deception, is a useful thing once in a while to raise the wikipedia standards up out of the rut of homosexual partisanship EaglesGolden (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC) You appear to be doing this intentionally just to make a point. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Having only come across this after seeing the edit summary on my watchlist, can I please state how offended I am by EaglesGolden's comments. Timeshift (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC) He's an ignoranimous. As I tried to explain to him on his talk page, "gay" is a slang term that's been around for at least a century. As for the magic wand, what most of them would probably wish for is to not be hassled by ignoranimouses. As for me, I'm already straight, so if I had a magic wand, I'd wish to find a wallet with a million dollars in it. Preferably just before meeting a supermodel or two or three. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I do not believe that Wikipedia is a place that should indulge bigotry of any sort. Why are we keeping him here? Yes, obviously I am biased because of the specific subject matter; I would say the same of anyone who was treating e.g. Jews, Muslims, atheists, or people who like the colour blue in this manner. Ban. → ROUX ₪ 03:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Apparently he hasn't technically broken any rules yet, although he's one step away from an indef. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Pardon my French, but fuck the technicality. Nobody should have to come here and deal with that level of repellent bigotry. If he were saying 'Heil Hitler' and 'we must fight the ZOG,' I would be saying exactly the same thing: Wikipedia is not a place that should be enabling, even if only tacitly through inaction, this kind of filth. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC) He's a troll. He won't be around much longer, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Whether you describe the word as slang or whatever, the bottom line is that the term "gay" inaccurately characterizes the underlying nature of the population in question. The only word that accurately characterizes the homosexual community, is homosexual. In terms of accuracy and truth, this is the term that should be used in any publication that has an interest in truth and accuracy. The firestorm that was brought on by changing this word "gay" to "homosexual" proves my point, that it is a propaganda implant, and that it is emotionally guarded by those who have a vested interest in seeing the homosexual agenda succeed. EaglesGolden (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I am going to hate myself for asking this, but how on earth does the word 'inaccurately characterize' anything? → ROUX ₪ 03:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I don't appreciate you speaking on behalf of my community, bigot, and your ridiculous conspiracy theories and "homosexual agenda" nonsense (let's not mince words; bullshit) only serves to expose you as the rampant troll that Bugs called you out as. Get a life and do something constructive rather than waste your own time and the time of everyone here. KaySLtalk 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Indeffed. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed what may be a sock at Special:Contributions/Twistermister. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Brucejenner, or "BJ" as I like to call it. It should have been obvious to us all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing

In Talk:Libertarianism, Xerographica has been asked not to soapbox by User:Born2cycle, User:North8000, myself and others.[152] Despite this, Xerographica posted the following on Talk:Libertarianism:

Request for Critical Thinking

1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?

Xerographica (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor collapsed this discussion but Xerographical opened a new thread.[153] This is disruptive editing and I request escalating blocks to put Xerographical on the right path. TFD (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite repeated general, personal, page wide and mediator given warnings the disruptive effect of soapboxing continues, it has continued despite deleted and hidden threads. Administrator intervention is required to enforce basic elements of NOT where community discussion, warning and informal mediation are not working. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the primary soapboxer has also been extremely uncivil and has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks. This user has been warned about their attacks no less than 13 times without any blocking action having been taken. Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe's continuing incivility

Resolved

• BlueRobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite a week long block following an RfC/U for incivility, BlueRobe continues with incivility and personal attacks, even after receiving multiple notifications and warnings.

Here are the recent notifications and warnings, which have just been removed by BlueRobe without reply. (I'm told this is not accurate, they did respond to some... to reject them).

• 19 September
  • warned by myself
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
• 23 September
  • warned by myself
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley
  • warned by FellGleaming
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo
  • warned again by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle

Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a second RfC in progress at the moment. However from the comments on BlueRobe's talk page s/he is not actively seeking a block --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" [154] when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" [155] instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article [156]. I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at those warnings tells me a long block is needed; BluRobe simply refuses to listen despite over 9,000 warnings. Some might try a month but I really despair. That's not on, and I don't think this user will ever learn to control xyrself or cease trolling, whichever it is that needs to happen. I therefore propose an indef block of BlueRobe. Who's with me on that? Shall I get blocking? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Only two prior blocks, with the longest one being for a week? A month next, and no indef yet. He's arguably acting like a "dick", but escalating blocks are preferable, IMHO: at least to demonstrate to everyone that blocks are meant to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well. This is why I raised it first. I don't see any danger of this not repeating, but ho hum. Month-long block coming right up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an involved user on the receiving end of personal attacks; can we list compulsory counselling/mentoring after a block as an element of the block? I don't see why we should lose the editor. Individual oversight and interaction training may save the editor for the betterment of the encyclopaedia in the long run. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can find someone willing to volunteer, that's fine by me. If it does no good it can do no harm. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we wasting our time with incremental blocks? There is no requirement for it. It's not like this is a long drawn out problem that has cropped up from time to time. This is an on-going escalating situation that only started a little over a month ago and he's already got his third block. This user has had plenty of chances in the last 37 days to change his behaviour and hasn't shown one ounce of interest as far as I can tell.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that incremental blocks not only show a measure of fairness and procedural precedence that should be applied to all blocking situations, but also helps gives less "leeway" when editors go for "blocking from the hip". There is no requirement for it, but assuming good faith in a broader sense is a policy. I'm not a huge fan of "one short block ---> community ban". There is a measure of justice, even on WP ;> Doc9871 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consideration of context should be a significant component of a fair process. Randomly shooting somebody on the street is a different situation than shooting an intruder. The context of the libertarianism talk page is not the same context as nearly every other wikipedia article. This is readily discernible by the fact that among all the incidents reported on this page, only one is for soapboxing. BlueRobe's behavior was merely a reflection of numerous underhanded tactics that certain editors have used to suppress opposing viewpoints. Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly when there is evidence to the contrary. there is plenty of evidence to support him not changing at this point. Plenty of users have attempted to get through to him and he hasn't changed his behaviour. He's had 2 blocks already and an RfC, so there is no "blocking from the hip" here. plenty of time and effort has been wasted already and he's thrown in back in the faces of everyone. This wasn't one short block and then a community ban. There were 2 blocks, an RfC, and several AN/I threads.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PROD nominations by Are You The Cow Of Pain?, sock of indef-blocked user

Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been identified as the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and the account has itself been indef-blocked. The account's contribution history shows a number of active PROD nominations. Several of the nominations appear to be sound, and at least one has been prod2-ed. On the one hand, contributions to deletion/DRV debates by such block-evaders are typically struck; on the other, if the PRODs are removed, the process page states they cannot be replaced by other users. Should the nominations be allowed to remain? Is it worth tweaking the PROD process to allow renomination in this circumstance? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If you object to any active PROD, no matter whom originated it, remove the PROD tag and give an edit summary explaining why. AYTCOP has been a prolific abuser of the PROD process, flagrantly PRODding things where similar PRODs had been contested in the past. It is entirely reasonable for you to go through and object to a PROD as "proven sockpuppet with an agenda", as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be keeping an eye on this. Sockpuppet or not (and I'm curious because I don't see an SPI case anywhere that mentions Cow of Pain's name), this user had pretty good judgment when it came to nominating articles for deletion so I might just go and AfD the one I agree should be deleted if they are dePRODded. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cow of Pain has been confirmed as a sock of Otto4711 by checkuser evidence, per Rlevse. A previous sock case is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

... and that is entirely proper process, Reyk. One sockpuppet doesn't prohibit other editors in good standing who happen to agree with him from endorsing actions that they find objectively reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs) contributions they seem mostly fine to me. The otto sock-puppet case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive refers to action in 2007 and ended with , so I am going to let Otto4711 off with a firm warning. I'm not seeing any reason for given for yesterdays block of Otto is there evidence of recent abuse of sockpuppets?--Salix (talk): 07:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah all is revealed on Rlevse talk page. [157] editing each others sigs.--Salix (talk): 07:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned edits are supposed to be reverted. I'd remove the prods and note in the edit summary that since they were not legitimate to begin with, renomination is allowed. That could also be mentioned in the process page, but it should be obvious anyway; WP:BURO and all that. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the sockmaster is indefinitely blocked however, not banned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems correct. Doc9871 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, if you agree with the PRODs, perfect; let them stand. A blocked user's edits (as opposed to those of a banned one) are not entitled to be rolled back / undone for no reason. A prod can be removed for any reason at all; if you disagree with a PROD nom, it can be removed regardless of who placed it there. If you agree, prod 2 it or just leave it. No special procedure applies to prods from blocked users. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cow of pain is/was a sock; the sockmaster block log is here. My advice is the same as before: the prods were not legitimate (block-evading socks should be considered banned the instant they are created, even if the sockmaster is not formally banned), so reverting them is not the same thing as contesting them. Therefore renomination is allowed. The reversion restores the status quo. You can even say "I'm removing this prod without objecting to deletion, so you can renominate per WP:CONTESTED" (which says "This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion"). Unless there's serious doubt that this is the right thing to do, then don't worry about parsing the rules too closely. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "parsing" the rules would also mean "block-evading socks should be considered banned the instant they are created, even if the sockmaster is not formally banned." Where is this stated in policy? WP:BAN would include ban-evading socks, not block-evading socks (see WP:BLOCK as well). Where is the ban (not block) for this sockmaster listed? If he's just blocked (even "indef"), editors can't revert the socks like you could a banned user's socks. I could very easily be missing something, of course... Doc9871 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AndresHerutJaim and images

User:AndresHerutJaim continues to add nonfree logos to articles. I left a message on the talk page but realized it was attempted once already User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons. He even reverted a editor who left a perfectly reasonable edit summary. This has been ongoing at Operation Rainbow. Other articles include[158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165] and multiple others. See Sep 25ths edits alone[166].

I do not know if the green flag is a fine replacement or not but it is not marked as a nonfree image. He has been given sufficient instruction and a warning on this and it needs to stop. It sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and puts an undue bureden on other editors to clean up.Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One admin has made a revert at one of the articles. Any of you guys feel like giving a warning or is that not the way it works?Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by anon user who changes IP adresses

After the first entry of this topic here, that nobody paid attention to, the same anon user with one more IP address began his disruptive editing in more articles than previously. His new IP address is 79.107.12.248 (talk · contribs) and the articles of his interest are Piraeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ISAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Port of Piraeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Attica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Salamina (city) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Basketball in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His edits are always the same. Any help with this? - Sthenel (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If they see you referring to them as a manic in your edit summaries that probably doesn't help. I have reverted them all apart from the one on the basketball article at the moment, though admittedly I don't understand the content dispute we nevertheless shan't have an edit war. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The content of the dispute is described in the old entry. He constantly renames the Athens urban area to Athens-Piraeus urban area. He cannot admit that the urban area of the capital is called "Athens" and not "Athens-Piraeus". His main point is to present Piraeus as a separate city, a separate urban area, totally distinct form Athens, thus the urban area of the capital should be called Athens-Piraeus. Reverting him isn't a solution, btw he has already reverted you. He is the Pplatis (talk · contribs), edit warring as anon user to avoid being blocked. Could I list him for suck puppetry? Could it help since he changes IP addresses every two days? - Sthenel (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, if by using these IP addresses he or she is creating the illusion of added support for one particular argument. He or sheis not circumventing a block because the main account is not blocked. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

SGGH Continuously Sthenel and his friend (Sv1xv) breach the rules and repeatedly we have discussed for this problem without can refute my ringing arguments and the official references. There isn't Athens urban area, Athens metropolitan or Athens urban area of the capital etc where included Piraeus urban according to laws (ΣΡΑ, ΝΟΜΠ, 3852/10, 21/1987 etc) of Greece State.--79.107.12.248 (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what "(ΣΡΑ, ΝΟΜΠ, 3852/10, 21/1987 etc)" means, use something more easily understood. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Laws, decrees of State and sources from official website of Prefecture Piraeus etc with regard to Piraeus urban area, Athens urban area, Athens-Piraeus urban area etc. Sv1xv creates problems in the Greek wiki to other authors from his behavior often. --79.107.12.248 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot call "friends" the editors that don't agree with you. Secondly, don't take segmentally texts that serve your opinion, since the official state defines the Athens urban area and doesn't include any separate Piraeus urban area in the censuses. - Sthenel (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put him in inverted-commas. Νot precisely, the official state determines according to laws, the double name Athens-Piraeus when he makes report in the basin Attica. --79.107.12.248 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can avoid an edit war in the mean time, ask WT:GREECE to weigh in with a judgement, or WP:RFC if you want to. I would advise the WikiProject first. Don't edit war in the mean time or an admin will just deal with that for what it is. Seems fairly clear cut to me. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added an official source (National Statistical Service of Greece (2002). Στατιστική Επετηρίδα της Ελλάδος 2002 (PDF) (in Greek). National Statistical Service of Greece. p. 54. The table includes the urban areas of Greece, officially defined by the National Statistical Service of Greece, powered by the Ministry of Finance of Greece. The municipality of Piraeus and its greater area belong to the Athens urban area or Greater Athens (Πολεοδομικό Συγκρότημα Αθηνών).). This government agency is responsible for the Greek census, and it's the only service that defines officially the urban zones of Greece and their components, to perform the statistics accurately. I'm pretty sure that he's gonna revert them. He won't discuss anything, he has a long history of edit warring, he is the only one who supports his POV, and he doesn't accept either plain facts. He did the same in the Greek wikipedia, until he was blocked. - Sthenel (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless he can quote and link from this law he cites, that seems fairly conclusive. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Other names are also used to refer to the Athens urban area from time to time, but he uses the one version he wants in order to stress that Piraeus shouldn't be treated as a suburb of Athens, since he lives in Piraeus. Additionally, he refuses that Piraeus is the port of Athens since the ancient times (a plain fact), he tries to favour his town Piraeus and his favourite team Ethnikos Piraeus in the A1 Ethniki Water Polo. All these versions of the articles are sourced, stable and have never caused any problem since they are widely accepted. He is the only editor who causes so many troubles in these articles. He did remove for one more time the sources describing it as vandalism. - Sthenel (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Law 3852/2010 The regions and municipalities of State reports:

The Periphery Attica (does not says Periphery Athens or Periphery capital) includes 8 sectors: Prefecture Athens has the regional unit Athens where included from 4 units Athens, central unit Athens, south unit Athens, western unit Athens.

Prefecture Piraeus has the regional unit Piraeus includes 2 sectors the regional unit Piraeus included municipalities Piraeus, Nikaia, Rentis, Agios Ioannis Rentis, Keratsini, Drapetsonas and Perama and regional unit Islands Argosaronikou.

Prefecture Anatolikis and Ditikis Attikis.

Η μητροπολιτική περιφέρεια Αττικής και...Metropolitan Periphery Attica (does not says Metropolitan region Athens) as Metropolitan region Thessalonikis, Metropolitan region Patras etc.

It was published FEK 26 - 06.03.1987 Law-Determination of regions of Country and Presidential Decree (51) Periphery Attica

MINISTRY OF LAND PLANNING OF ENVIRONMENT

Land-planning Organization-article 11-5/2009:...Χωρική Ενότητα Λεκανοπεδίου / Πολεοδομικού Συγκροτήματος Αθηνών–Πειραιώς - Territorial Unit of Basin/Urban Athens-Piraeus urban area or Greater Athens-Piraeus.

article a 5/2009:

3.a) Metropolitan Centres:

• The central region of Athens
• The central region of Piraeus.

...The metropolitan region of Piraeus recommends the Southern Gate of Urban of Attica.

--79.107.12.248 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't mess the administrative divisions and terms such us the Periphery of Attica, Athens Prefecture, Piraeus Prefecture or any other regional divisions, different names (Urban Athens, Urban Athens-Piraeus, Urban Attica), false and incomplete translations, in order to arrive at the conclusion you want. The State and their services don't recognise any Piraeus urban area as a separate entity either in your sources (you just play with the names), or in the official census results where the urban zones are clearly defined, listing the cities that belong to each of them. So stick to the official statistical source which lists the urban areas and their population and don't try to perform the original research that you've made as a fact. - Sthenel (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You interpret as usually error and remove rules. Find sources and proofs for those you say! Metropolitan Centres(Μητροπολιτικά Κέντρα), Χωρική Ενότητα Λεκανοπεδίου / Πολεοδομικού Συγκροτήματος Αθηνών–Πειραιώς - Territorial Unit of Basin/Urban Athens-Piraeus urban area or Greater Athens-Piraeus. --79.107.12.248 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who misinterprets. I've tried to explain to you privately what your sources say, and it's not close to what you wanna prove. I use official data, an official document provided by a public service which proves exactly what I'm saying. I'm not trying to find a way to contradict it and make new agglomerations which are not listed in the state's statistical archive, by collecting scattered stuff. When in the census results there are 2 agglomerations, I have no reason to make a third one because it's my town. - Sthenel (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Devansh.negi flooding my email with spam

Resolved

Devansh.negi (talk · contribs) was indefblocked in April for repeated spamming. While I was still an admin (and I plan to go for my tools again sometime in the near future), I originally offered him {{2nd chance}}, only to retract the offer and shut off his talk page after he used a sock to insert similar spam. Well, today I wake up to find a large number of spam messages in my inbox from him. If someone would be so kind as to tweak his block to disable email, it would be much appreciated. Blueboy96 11:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 again

Resolved

 – cluebat applied by User:King of Hearts. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Said user is at it again - having evaded a ban by the skin of his teeth. [167] has him accusing an editor of "telling lies." [168] has him readding material which is contentious to a BLP against consensus clearly reached (he is the only one seeking to ad the dirt). Seems the clear warning shot across the bow was not going to affect this one. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I disinvited him from my talk page at [169] so he decided to test the WP rules about this almost immediately at [170] with a quite argumentative post. Since he had been clearly disinvited, I suggest that a major behavioural issue exists. Collect (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• One thing - your last diff is by User:Viriditas, not Screwball23. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Two very similar behaviour problems at one time gets confusing. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• - user notified - Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Several complaints have been brought to ANI about this editor in the past and he has been offered advice which he has chosen not to follow. I would recommend a block this time, since other approaches have proven ineffective. TFD (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support an editing restriction at this time, his repeated additions that all portray Linda McMahon as negatively as possible are clearly disruptive and against consensus at the articles and he is constantly being reverted and edit warring against multiple users. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Did'nt we have one of these archived (without action) only a couple of days ago?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was this ANI thread I think from seven days ago, same issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso

User Jrkso keeps edit warring at. He has been blocked for edit warring recently and just removed that from his talk page. I have ask him multiple times to make his point through discussion not to edit warring but he keeps going with misleading edit summaries for the last reverts. I am stopping here and i am soon offline so i would appreciate if somebody could have a look at it because i think the article Afghanistan should doubtless have a section about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). IQinn (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Both have violated 3RR. Jrkso's been blocked for that before. I cannot find a diff of Iqinn being told about the 3RR rule. Anyway, both editors have stopped edit-warring and are now discussing on the talk page, so a block is not warranted. A neutral voice might help.--Chaser (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I have not violated 3rr. That's ridiculous, not all of my edits are reverts. Please have a better look before you throw false accusations.--Jrkso (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have. From WP:3RR, "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." Without looking too closely, all 4 of your edits today at least removed the same information that begins with "These steps have been reciprocated so far with an intensification of bombings..." You can argue that the first was simply an edit, but the next 3 edits "reverted" the restoration of that material. --Onorem♠Dil 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I find IQinn as the trouble maker who is focusing on me rather than the changes he/she wants to make in the article. BTW, I got blocked for reporting someone at 3rr. Anyway, the above person is making very biased and controversial edits. I have explained that since 2001-present, Afghanistan was re-shaped by the help of USA and other NATO nations, as well as by some non-NATO nations, in which so many billions of dollars were spent to modernize Afghanistan and help it on all fronts. While all this was happening there was also a US-led war against the Taliban militants, a group who are blamed to be trying to stop the development of Afghanistan or at least slow it down as much as possible.

So, IQinn is trying to ignore the positive things that has happened in the 2001-present history of Afghanistan but is determined to give a war image to Afghanistan, you can even see this by the photo he is trying to insert in the section which shows a Dutch tank shooting. The US has over 100,000 soldiers and every month over 50 of them die (according to news) so at least we should put an image showing Americans. I'm a very neutral person in my edits, I don't have time for POVs and nonsense. Sure there is a war fought with rebel militant groups but that's only part of the history of this nation, the other major part and most important one is the nation was introduced to modernization and lots of developments took place on all fronts by the world's leading experts. This is an important part of the Afghan 2001-present history and that should be included. I'm a small time anyalist on Afghanistan.--Jrkso (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Newton

I've made quite a few reverts on Terry Newton, and thought I'd ask for help and take a step back. This afternoon, Newton was found dead, but no source has yet been given for the actual date of death. Despite this, a number of editors have added today's date to the article. Could someone else (uninvolved) take a look at this? I've left messages on users' talk pages – as well as the article talk – but now anonymous users are starting to add the unverified date. Regards, matt (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's customary on Deaths in 2010 to add "body found on this date", and I see no reason why a footnote in the article could not make this clear until a DOD is established. Rodhullandemu 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The tag {{recent death}} is self-explanatory: information will flood into this article until it is "stabilized". Anonymous users have just started here, I'd wager... Doc9871 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1

T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1 (talk · contribs)

Could someone give this guy a sharp nudge with a cluestick, please? He's been uploading pictures since about the end of March with no free-use rationales whatsoever. He has at least a dozen warnings on his page about this and he's just not getting it. HalfShadow 17:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Gave an {{uw-ics3}} warning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism rollback

Resolved

 – Blocked by Cirt, Rollbacked by Cirt and The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Could I trouble someone to hit the rollback button on 64.34.172.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? They were blocked as another proxy being used by Lysdexia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but were prolific enough while active that I'd really rather not revert everything by hand if a one-click solution exists. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Of the ones that can be rolled back, only one was actually a bad edit and had already been rolled back or reverted. All the early ones on there are just sensible typo fixes and the like as far as I can see. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that user banned from wikipedia, or only indefinitely blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that's really her? I don't think there was a formal ban, anyway, she just sort of disappeared. —Soap— 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous IP (72.254.128.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), in use yesterday, had signed as "lysdexia" in several talk page edits before being blocked as a sock and open proxy by an administrator. This one showed up several hours later and reverted cleanup on a dozen or more articles the previous IP had edited (and only made edits to those articles). I'd argue that passes the duck test for being the same user as the previous IP, at minimum.

Cleanup already seems to have been done, so rollback at this point is a non-issue. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Spoken version of the article Punishment.ogg

Why is File:Spoken version of the article Punishment.ogg located in the upper right hand corner of this page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg that's linked, which is a redirect to the file you mention. It appears to be related to the sprawling discussion about Stevertigo above; probably someone needs to use an inline audio template instead of whatever they're presently using. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Or just put a colon before the "File" portion of the name. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate template. I have put {{tlx}} around it. Hans Adler 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:M12390's personal attacks, bias and racism

The user User talk:M12390 has been repeatedly warned on his pages on issues concerning MQM, Altaf Hussein, and Imran Farooq. It seems he has an agenda he's POV-pushing. On the page I fould him on for a recently deceased person (Imran Farooq), 2 editors (one of which was me) have inserted content that is sourced (after a discussion with another fellow who considered it uncited, but we duly found sources) and he removes it saying it is "irrelevant." In addition to his bias he has gone and first WP:NPAed the other editor (User talk:Saqib Qayyum#Why are you hell bent in highlighting the "Muhajir" background of Imran Farooq?) and then at my own page (User talk:Lihaas#A Lahori CANNOT be neutral about Karachi) (which came AFTER i warned him about personal attacks). He once again resorted to the same behaviour when I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (this after plenty of notices on his page and he still doesnt seem to understand):

"Any unbiased researcher would soon learn that Lahoris in particular and inhabitants of cities on the GT Road (Peshawar -> Islamabad -> Lahore) cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Check this out. According to the Daily Mirror "Within minutes of the death of Dr Farooq - a leading member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement which means United National Movement - websites in Islamabad were awash with claims he had been assassinated or killed by his own bodyguard.""

And yet again the user has continued to resort to ad hominem attacks and inserting his POV as to why something should be in or not: [171] and [172]. And more Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_talk:M12390. These threats to refrain from editing a page because a user is from X or Y is racism by any stretch of the imagination and certainly doesnt foster a positive atmosphere on wikipedia.

Furthermore, he has also removed all his previous warnings, in case they are missed: [173](Lihaas (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

Lihaas you ARE a bias contributor. For some crazy reason Lahoris just cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Some downright hate it (except for the money, of course). It is a sad and unfortunate truth. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Lahoris injecting their totally biased angles and conspiracy theories on Karachi-based people and entities. However, it is not acceptable to pass yourself as an unbiased contributor. You are not!!! M12390 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable ad-hominem attack here. Can we get a block? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART

Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) User notified.

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. Please see the following fact pattern.

User's account is an alternate account

• The user's first edit summary supports: [174]
• At least one involved Check User has confirmed that this is an alternate account (though not directly but by second-hand): [175]
• The user admitted this is a secondary account in a self-filed RFCU: [176]

User's edits are disruptive

• A cursory look at the user's talk page [177] shows multiple cautionary notes and warnings starting on September 14 [178], which began a mere 20 minutes following the new account creation [179] and an abundance of good faith has already been assumed.

• The user did not heed any of these cautionary notes, requests, or warnings until the user was blocked on September 23[180] after receiving numerous "final warnings". AIV report can be found here
• The locus of the disruption was the the user was failing to provide proper and accurate userspace warnings to other users following reversion, deletion nomination, etcetera. Additionally, the locus of the disruption was that the user failed to use proper English and grammar which led to a number of confusing situations due to bad edit summaries and messages on relevant talk pages. [181] [182] [183]
• The user showed a willful disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines up until the point that they were blocked.
• The user's disruptive behavior has generated much editor attention to the point that their talk page garnered nearly 300 hits on September 23. [184]

User demonstrates a willful intent to disrupt

The user's disruptive behavior continued despite having been informed that it was disruptive and a request for it to desist.

• The user was asked on September 19 to refrain from using poor English when communicating. See: [185]
• The user's poor execution of proper English and grammar is purely by choice. The user has demonstrated full-well the ability to communicate eloquently and without the use of the borderline nonsensical, idiosyncratic, and highly-questionable communication. See: [186] [187] [188]
• The user's behavior therefore can be categorically characterized as trolling under WP:TROLL.

User ignores offers for personal mentoring

In order to help show a good-faith intent to improve their own behavior, several offers for adoption were offered to the user, which were each rejected:

• User:MJ94: Adoption suggestion, Mentorship decline and accusation of "being mean to Bad edits r dumb.
• Rejection of User:RobertMfromLI: [189].

User's disruption continues

• The user contradicts his or herself, sometimes acknowledging their behavior as constructive, and sometimes as disruptive. [190] [191]
• Cursory look at today's edits: [192] [193] [194]

Conclusions

Under WP:CLEANSTART, "...the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities." I respectfully suggest that given all of the activity since this new account was created that the behavior which likely led to the setting aside of the original account has clearly resumed. Further, even if that behavior pattern is not matching precisely with the original, I further respectfully submit, that whereas editing Wikipedia is a privilege not a right, that it is incumbent upon the relevant administrators and checkusers involved to ensure that NO disruptive behavior recurs under a CLEANSTART account. This user's behavior has garnered significant attention of a large number of editors. I submit that there can be no argument as to the disruptiveness of this user at this point.

Respectfully submitted,   Thorncrag  22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved Editors' Comments

Hi I cannot type a lot of stuff write now because I am on my iPhone but I would just like to say that I acknowledged (see the infobox on my talk page) that my behavior PRIOR to my block was dumb and it was a disruptive thing and I am sorry. However AFTER I got unblocked, my vandal fighting and new page patrol work has been very good. I cannot link to it right now becos I am in my iPhone but pls review the comments in the MfD discussion pertaining to the deletion of my barnstars. Users praised my contributions and noted my improvement. I feel I am being endlessly nitpicked AND unappreciated and maybe even wikihounded. Maybe i will write some more comment when I get home tonite unless I am TOO SLEEPY :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• User thanked you for trolling - I suspect that was not a compliment. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I am not talking about the barnstar itself i was talking about the MfD disussion about the deletion of said barnstar. If someone could provide a link that would be appreciated. In that discussion I was not thanked for "trolling", but rather. My contributions were praises and I was called a NET POSITIVE.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link: [195] - nor does it state what you claim. Quite the opposite for the most part. The closest thing to what you claim is that if this is behind us, then let's let it drop. Sadly, you are the subject of the AN/I because it is not behind us. In addition, you may wish to try not to mischaracterize other's statements to form your defense. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And one vote of support as a net positive. Dont confuse one such vote as consensus (hence my comment about misconstruing the statements as a whole based on it). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

as a sidenote, CLEANSTART doesn't exactly apply here. Clean start is for problematic editors who wish to return and contribute positively and avoid the baggage and scrutiny of their problematic account. My old account is in good standing but I don't wish to use it for privacy reasons and for various other reasons I dint wish to discuss. --Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to further suggest, that CLEANSTART users must be fully cognizant of the fact that they are being given a second chance, and thus, they should be well-aware that their behavior should be top-notch and practically above reproach. Furthermore, it logically follows that a CLEANSTART user should painstakingly take into consideration the suggestions and warnings issued to them and have a desire to act on each and every reasonable request imposed upon them instead of continuing their perceived disruptive behavior. This user has—if even at all—only very weakly done so, and instead assumed a default position of arguing with and biting those who offer them advice.   Thorncrag  23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The rest of my (involved editor) comments:

• Continuous disruption, starting 20 minutes after creating a new account, will indeed bring attention to you. Numerous repeated disruptive activities will continue that attention. That is not wikihounding - that is the consequences of your own actions. In these instances, your responses have even sometimes been to tell the people (either directly in text or in edit summaries) to leave you alone. One cannot pretend their bad behavior did not occur by simply trying to prevent those who notice it from pointing it out.
• You claim or imply more experience than very experienced editors, admins, abusefilters and more - yet your actions clearly indicate otherwise.
• You claim admins and abusefilters (as well as editors, who through their track record, prove to be more experienced) are wrong - as one example: [196]
• You have implied or stated that it is we who need mentoring and that we/others should approach you for assistance instead of the other way around.
• You repeatedly try to push the limits and even ask (repeatedly), if you do (disruptive behavior) again, will you be blocked. You've been told yes, then proceed to do so anyway. [197]
• If you are an experienced editor with a previous account in good standing, you should know better than to be disruptive, and to troll.
• If you are on a cleanstart, then you should know better than to violate it's terms (much less in 20 minutes)
• If you are an admin, you (all accounts) should (IMHO) be banned for life. Wikipedia editors are not such a person's personal plaything to be toyed with and tested in such a fashion. If that is the case (you are an admin), this is very disingenuous and a betrayal of the trust granted you when the community gave you the additional tools/powers granted (to me, that such tools are not linked to this account is irrelevant - all behavior on every account should be to the same or higher standard that they expect of every experienced editor and admin).
  • Of course, this last one may not apply, but as the nature of the previous accounts are hidden to the rest of us, I bring it up solely because it is a possibility.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have been involved with BErD since I first noticed him. Throughout his time here, as this report says, he has been disruptive. After I posted a report at AIV regarding him and he was blocked, he came back. Although he is now (seems to be) using proper templates, he is still using "textspeak" after saying he would stop, then claiming everyone talks like that, and loves it. Then, he responds to a comment, not with an apology, but with this. The cycle just keeps going. Why are we letting him do this? It's crazy. He's clearly and blatantly trolling. I say, no more chances. He's stopped listening to us. This is his game. If he wanted to be productive, he would listen to everything mentioned here. MJ94 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Aw, what the hell, I'll wade into this too. I'm the one who made the comment that at MFD user:Bad edits r dumb is a net positive to the project, and I'm standing by it, for the time being. He appears to be using the proper vandalism templates now, which is good. God knows that I'm no fan of text-speak, but I also acknowledge that I can generally understand it, at least as Mr. r dumb applies it. There's really no reason for anyone to get their panties up in a bunch over this editor's behavior. If you don't like talking to him, don't talk to him. Buddy431 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• With respect (to both you and your opinion), I wish to make the following points. That you understand textspeak does not apply to a large majority of Internet users, nor does it properly portray (in any fashion) the severity (or lack thereof) of warnings given or edits performed. Also, I would surmise that since numerous editors have problems with such, there is reason for concern. Consensus and all, and the way such actions are perceived and all. Additionally, there are guidelines about making one's edit summaries accurate and understandable - and since we can clearly say that not everyone understands textspeak, such should not be used in edit summaries. While (outside of this AN/I and notifying them of the decision at the MfD) I have stopped talking to him, that too does not end scrutiny (or consequences) for disruptive behavior. Nor does the implied "if you think it's disruptive, which I dont, then dont talk to the user" fit this scenario. If that were the case, we'd all simply have to ignore everything (and everyone) who we thought was disruptive. Thus, while you are entitled to your opinion, there are those who thing BerDs actions are disruptive and/or trolling - who should not simply be told to pretend it didnt happen or "go away" (as the editor in question has, on multiple occassions, responded with some form of). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Additionally, all the things he listed at a self request for CU for leaving his old account, he has done under this account. MJ94 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• This also coincides with BerD mischaracterizing my statements and concerns, even after I went to great lengths to explain them. I do not dispute the validity of the additional (2nd? 3rd?) account. I wished to request clarification that (1) this was not repeat of previous bad behavior trying to be hidden by no longer associating with the earlier accounts, and (2) this was not something more egregious than that, and thusly (3) the severity of the repercussions were warranted (or should have been more extreme). As explained to BerD, (assuming good faith) and doing so would end the continued speculation they opened the door for by publicly admitting to multiple accounts right after others accused them of possible sockpuppetry. I did explain I did not like the fact that they grossly mischaracterized my statements and actions. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• In BerD's defense (as the situation(s) behind the previous account(s) has not been made known to us), though there may be an implication made in their statement that supports previous "bad behavior", I do not see them clearly stating such, and thus cannot act upon/comment on what I see only as an implication - thus, as noted before, I hope for clarification by those with the ability to do so, to confirm or deny previous bad behavior as it applies to current activities. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editors' Comments

• Obvious solution is obvious. Ban/indef block this disruptive user. MtD (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• (Clarify (at 00:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)): Involved Editor's resonse (against at this time)): Without further information regarding (without outing, unless required) this user's previous activities, I would not and could not support an indef ban/block. I believe the only event (at this time) that would allow me to support such is if the editor in question's other account(s) are/were admin (or similar) accounts, in which case, I would fully support a permanent ban of all accounts for the reasons I stated above. Furthermore, at this time, without more information on how either (a) past behavior should/should not be a contributing factor in this or (b) whether or not the user's other account is a special status/rights account, I think it is too early to make any proposals of the sort. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Robert. The next time he is disruptive, I say we block. If, after that, he ocntinues, indef block. He obviously did this disruption under his old account also, or he wouldn't have left it. MJ94 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've been watching this unfold since his block, so I'm thinking around the same thing as MJ94, but with trying to persuade him about adoption and how that is the right way to go. Buggie111 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but even if we were to lay to rest entirely the question of this users multiple account activity, which in my mind still remains highly suspicious, the trolling here is so painfully obvious (note the "nagging busybodies") that it frankly surprises me that we would give the user any additional leeway whatsoever. The atrocious use of grammar which we have already established is purely by choice, which behavior continuing after having been politely requested to be corrected, COMBINED with the faux portrayal of child-like thinking clearly contradicted by some of the users actually eloquent and intellectual postings, can now only be attributed to be clearly trollish behavior. This charade, in my opinion, needs to end.   Thorncrag  01:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Buggie111: Adoption has been suggested multiple times and refused. Mentorship has been suggested multiple times and refused (because, BerD (or so he claims) is more experienced than all of us). In addition, BerD has made it very clear on their talk page as currently formatted that: "i do not want to be adopted, i do not want you to be my mentor, i know a lot of things about wikipedia so if u want ME to help YOU i can do that because i am nice, except when i am grumpy and mean (i will try not to edit when i am grumpy and mean)" thus I think that option should be removed from any proposed remedies, as I truly believe, even if a mandatory mentorship is proposed, BerD will fully disregard any advice given. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

At some point this user will be flushed down the dumper. The real question is how much time should be wasted before the inevitable is realised. MtD (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Hopefully never. Though their own actions will determine that (and the results of the checkuser and more info I requested below, if honored and acted upon). One of my adoptees was recently here (before I adopted him). He willingly confessed to his actions, promised never to do them again (and has been living up to those promises), accepted very strict sanctions, accepted me as his mentor (before having one became a mandatory requirement even) and has turned a stub into a GA article. Only BerD's contributions will determine which path they take; the proverbial dumpster or a contributing editor with no future incidents. I will not and cannot predict their future actions, so, will not make the assumption that they are "irredeemable" until they prove such - or a consensus is reached indicating the community (or portion thereof that responds here) believes such is true. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Rob. I didn't meen flat out offer it now, I meant offer it when more blocks and warnings have been issued. This is a bit of a gruesome example, but think of how the terrorists act in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film), with demands being shown as the better option as each hostage dies. But, your comment about him refusing to listen is also wierd. I might ask for some offline help to aid me. Buggie111 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only annoying thing this guy has done (since being blocked) is to use abbreviations on his own talk page, rather than spelling all the words out in full, and delete comments off his own talk page. I think that's really stretching the definition of "disruptive", although clearly it annoys some people. I really, really don't think we should be excluding people from Wikipedia based on the dialect of English they write in, unless they're writing stuff in the articles that's hard to read. I suggest an alternate solution: the editors who find his manner of speaking annoying should avoid him, as he is doing his best to avoid them (up to the point of deleting their comments from his talk page). Otherwise, his editing seems to be entirely constructive. Almost all of us were twelve years old once. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal so Further Informed Discussion can continue

At this point, I would like to request that an uninvolved checkuser verify/eliminate/elucidate on the following (each individually to ensure each is covered):

• This editor is not part of cleanstart (and thus has violated it's meaning/intent)
• This editor is not trying to hide previous bad behavior by deciding to utilize this account to hide actions under the previous account(s).
• This user is not (nor was) an admin or has held any other position above standard editor.

I do not believe proposals of sanctions/repercussions can be fully determined in a fair fashion (for any party involved) without the answers to those questions. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: as proposer, with it clear that WP:OUTING (IMO) need not occur during this process unless a certain procedure or guideline requires it. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. Quite sensible.   Thorncrag  01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. It's the right thing to do. Buggie111 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support I agree completely. If he's abusing cleanstart by hiding past bad behavior, that's obviously not acceptable. Sounds good. Didn't MuZemike already say it was an okay cleanstart, though? MJ94 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am looking (cant find it, but the page has changed more than once), though I do recall BerD making some claim on their behalf. As he was brought up more than once (and notified by me via email of such before this AN/I), I will ensure he has been notified about this AN/I so he can speak for himself. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rationale behind this proposal

It is my belief that appropriate "sanctions", if any, cannot be determined without the community being aware of the information requested above. If BerD is not as experienced as he states, then more strict sanctions should probably not be requested (regardless of the falsity or misleading nature of such claims, I do not believe they should suffer greater repercussions for something not true). If they are, then somewhat more strict sanctions should be considered. If they are, and have shown a pattern of such behavior in the past, then I believe even more strict sanctions should be considered as they are possibly violating an official or unofficial cleanstart attempt, as well as actively and misleadingly attempting to hide such behavior (which my interpretation of cleanstart indicates is not the purpose of cleanstart). If they do have userrights (on their other account(s)) greater than that of a standard editor), then I believe their actions under this account should result in the strictest of sanctions for so grossly betraying the community trust and trying to hide such actions by doing them in a new account.

Inotherwords, cake, and eat it too. The editor has claimed they have nothing to hide (re: their actions on their previous account - see their "archived" talk page and the SPI that they initiated), thus (along with my rationale above) leaving my proposal as an opportunity that serves both the community as a whole or the editor in question; in a fashion entirely dependent on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on such repercussions while protecting the user from any false claims (if any) of experience they have made. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement from User:MuZemike

I have already ran a CheckUser on the user upon suspicions that were brought up by other users, and I know who this user is an alternate account of. Instead of blithely blocking for what would be extremely weak socking reasons (which I thought would have been more "abusive" and would not helped), I contacted BErD via email and asked what is going on. As he said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bad edits r dumb/Archive (diff), he is an alternate account, but for reasons of privacy, he wishes not to have disclosed of whom. Moreover, I feel that it would go against my ethics as a CheckUser to disclose that myself publicly and without his consent.

That being said, this does not mean that I condone BErD's disruptive behavior as of late; I already contacted the admin who first blocked BErD for disruption, and I completely agree with the block. As far as WP:CLEANSTART is concerned, I felt that it was OK for him to edit with the BErD account. Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny, I certainly understand that, and that is a valid point. Having communicated with BErD privately, I feel that I am not in the position to make that assessment and most certainly not to take any administrative action over. –MuZemike 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Protector of Wiki and use of ALL CAPS

User:Protector of Wiki has continuously used ALL CAPS in all of his edit summaries. He has also used exclusively, the Only Warning template when a new editor vandalizes or makes a inappropriate page along with a ALL CAPS edit summary. Eight editors, User:X!, User:UncleDouggie, User:Lothar von Richthofen, User:Airplaneman, User:Heymid, User:Sonia, User:Trusilver, and myself User:Alpha Quadrant have asked him to stop using ALL CAPS, as it is considered shouting and biting newcomers and is therefore disruptive. Protector of Wiki has told us that he wishes to emphasize by using all caps. We have suggested using bold text instead, as it is not considered shouting. However he continues to use all caps as well as the only warning template. According to this he has been blocked from Simple Wikipedia for incivility and also recently blocked here for 72 hours for incivility block log. Can someone else please try and talk to this user? Thanks --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is already a topic about this a few threads up. -DJSasso (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nair

User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar and few others are removing link to polyandry among Nairs. The historical practice of polyandry among Nairs is a widely notable issue and please see the discussion page for a number of highly reliable references I have put forward. These users dont have an argument why this link shouldnt be there, they just remove it without explanation. I have added the link back in. I am just drawing the attention of some responsible users. Thanks. --CarTick 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

A while back, someone created a blog on Blogspot under my name, in an attempt to discredit me by linking me to NAMBLA and communism: [198]. I informed the administrators about it, and we decided that the best solution would be for me to post a disclaimer on my talk page, which I did: [199].

Now, however, a newly registered user (User: Fairness4all, who is also a possible sockpuppet of User: TPCFanFor Facts, User: Sinekyre or User: FactsRFun2, all three of them being single-purpose accounts that have identical POV and editing styles, and only edit Political Cesspool-related articles), has posted a snarky comment on Talk: The Political Cesspool in which he asks me "By the way, "Mason", when are you going to update your Blogspot blog?" [200]

This leads me to believe he is probably the person who created the blog in the first place; the blog itself is so obscure that I doubt anyone but its creator (and me, of course) is even aware that it exists. Since the blog itself is a blatant, severe personal attack, I think an admin ought to block Fairness4all until he takes the blog down. Perhaps someone should do a checkuser on him to see which of the above accounts are sockpuppets of his, so they can be blocked too. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens outside wikipedia is not wikipedia's problem. That said on the grounds of being sockpuppets they could/should be blocked after due wikipedia investigations. (and not to mention, a warning/block for personal attacks)(Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

Expansion of sanctions at WP:GS/BI

The area of the British Isles naming dispute is under probation as per WP:GS/BI. After numerous attempts, over a period of months, to get the message to User:Triton Rocker[201] (who is serving a topic banned from making edits in this topic area) and User:LevenBoy[202] (currently blocked for the second time for breaches of WP:CIVIL in the topic area) vis-a-vis appropriate conduct. For this reason I have decided to issue a six month civility parole (beginning at the time of their return form their current blocks) to both editors. I am taking this here for outside review.

For further reference this SSPI report alleging tat LevenBoy and Triton Rocker are socks [203]- shows a high level of 'editing in concert' to make a point by these two editors as do their posts to my page[204][205]. I believe there is a WP:TAG/WP:NINJA issue here.

In the last few weeks two long term sock-puppeteers have popped up once more. First User:Aatomic1 [206] and in the last few days User:The Maiden City[207]. These users are bringing there disruption from areas covered by 'The Troubles' RfAr resolutions to the British Isles naming dispute topic. Other sock-puppeteers such as User:MidnightBlueMan (aka User:Mister Flash[208]) have been working in this topic area already. These users are both encouraging and involving themselves in disruption of both enforcement threads and the topic in general. In the light of this higher level of disruption I believe we need to adjust our remedies to deescalate this situation.

Therefore I am bringing this here as I wish to add the issuing of 3 lesser editing restrictions to the current probation system, and to add a full topic ban to the list of remedies at WP:GS/BI. The lesser restriction are as follows:

1. Civility Parole: a strict enforcement of WP:TPG, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS.
2. Interaction bans: editors are banned from editing with, reverting (in any way), commenting upon or to, or in any other way interacting with a defined other user or users.
3. Revert parole: editors are restricted formally to 1RR in relation to all Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics - with the exception of obvious vandalism and reverts of proven banned users.

All to be enforced by escalating blocks. (eg. 24 hours, 48 hours, 5 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year/indef) I'm suggesting we add these as discretionary sanctions for use before we jump to topic bans in the hope that said users will adjust their behaviour. I have already informed the patrolling admin, User:TFOWR[209], of this and they fully support these sanctions[210][211].

Also I'm suggesting we add "TB02: Topic banned from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics widely construed. Banned from commenting upon or otherwise discussing this topic."

Finally I'm also suggesting we add time limits to all current and future restrictions. Triton Rockers current ban has no duration and is to best of my knowledge indefinite. I'd suggest we add 6 and 12 month periods to all restrictions and then go to indefinite if necessary.--Cailil ^talk 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re civility paroles

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re expanded sanctions

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. The community needs to recognize the disruptive editors and take firm action, and allow editors wishing to collaborate to get on with it. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been causing some controversy with the WikiCup. It's kind of a complex situation, but basically he's been borderline uncivil these past few days. Here is one of the gems [212]. You can find more at WT:CUP, WT:DYK#Michigan basketball overload, part 2 and User talk:White Shadows#Where you at. Hit me up if you need more. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I is the Wiki equivalent of 911 (or 999, whatever). I can't get very excited about borderline uncivil. Talk to the guy, if you think he is out of line.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My Michigan basketball overload outburst was related to misreading a response, for which I have already apologized.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Was the nasty e-mail days later also an "outburst" as a result of "misreading a response"? The issue at hand is that your drive for "rewards" seems to be impacting negatively upon many content review processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking to him seems to produce only rather nasty e-mails.[213] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of racism are hardly "borderline uncivil", but whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Would have to agree. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuck that part. My bad. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to delete the cup I think, or change it to prose kb so that microslicing stub GA/DYKs won't get anywhere. In any case if this continues people may take it as seriously as a golde medal won by an East German/Communist Chinese "female" swimmer YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the "reward culture", but one editor should not bring the entire program into disrepute, while tying up content reviewers with ill-prepared noms, and then disparage the very people who have to review the excesses. It's disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting rather tired of him coming to my talk page and raising hell just because I disagree with him. (Excuse my French) I don't think we need to delete the Cup just because of one editor though.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows, there's really no need for such intemperate language. I'm so shocked my fucking monocle fell out. Nev1 (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just not that used to cussing. I felt I needed to justify my use of the word as it's very rare for me to do so on this site.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for a doping ban then, or underarm incident YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, he took the drug indadvertedly. Perhaps it was in his asthma medication?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a RfC like the one proposed on the WikiCup talk page is the best course of action. However, I may very well be wrong....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony is a great contributor, but when I've handled GA noms he's put forth, he seems to lack time to actually make non-trivial improvements when they are requested. As long as he's not harassing other editors or harming the processes, his rewards-orientation is fine. When Sandy says there's a problem, I'm not convinced that everything is OK with his drive. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• While there was indeed a serious problem with Tony's editing, a lot of that is already a few days past. I fail to see how an ANI post by someone who (as far as I can see) has had no involvement in the actual disputes is helpful in resolving these issues. In fact, it has probably only provided a venue for people to repeat the same points they already made. DC's way of notifying Tony also leaves something to be desired. Ucucha 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Those comments on my talk page are only a few hours old Ucucha.....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There is a problem here, but it needs to be dealt with via an WP:RFC/U (unless the disruption continues, in which case, admin intervention may be needed since it seems TTT is driven to win this "competition"). It seems TTT has caused similar issues at FAC, GAN, DYK, and possibly other content review processes as well. I also suggest that WikiCup needs to find a way to discourge this kind of reward-seeking disruptive competitive behavior. FAC addressed the problem by changing the nomination instructions to prevent multiple, ill-prepared nominations [214] [215][216][217] (TTT frequently brought back the same nominations after they were archived, without making changes, was combative with reviewers, and his nominations have recurring issues [218]) that were adding to the backlog and reviewer burnout, but every content review process should not have to adapt processes to prevent abuse of reviewers, who get nothing for their work. And, when we have a "contestant" alleging that a FAC delegate is "putting people up" to things, FAC's reputation is tarnished by this competitive drive. The kinds of behavior TTT is showing have no place on a collaborative project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • SG, I rarely if ever agree with you but I think that RFC is the best option, for the whole of the Cup. I don't want to see it deleted but some major changes need to take place to keep this from happening.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • @Ucucha: I'm not sure why me posting here is a bad thing (besides my notification, which was borderline). I haven't been libeled or harassed like Sandy and WS, but I still feel his actions have had a negative impact in several areas. I also did the GA review of one of his articles and like Jclemens noted, he left me to make minor changes I requested, without even responding to them. @Sandy/WS: I'm not sure what an RFCU would hope to accomplish, besides an admonishment. I would support an RFC on the WikiCup itself though, after this one finishes. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • If TTT is causing broad issues at a number of content review processes, and an RFC/U supports that, his participation in those processes could be limited or restricted. (We've never had to do this before, but I've never encountered issues on this scale.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A new problem, that requires a knowledgeable image person. Just as DYK was flooded earlier, there are now numerous "Valued Picture" awards on TTT's talk page, but when clicking on the "Source" URL for several of those images, I get dead links. And, due to lack of reviews and the process being flooded, Valued Pictures is passing them with lower consensus than in the past. There may be image policy issues there, but we need an image person to look at them. TonyTheTiger has flooded the Valued Pictures Candidates page (I stopped counting at 30), as he did DYK with substandard nominations, and it doesn't appear the images are being thoroughly checked for conformance with image policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They give points just for freaking nominating them, you've got to be kidding! Grsz¹¹ 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And one editor is pushing them through; could someone look at them for compliance with image policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You know...points for nominating. What utter bullshit. I uploaded File:BarbaraGittings in Phaldelphia 1969.jpg (clearly not spelling it right when I did) after several communications with Kay Lahusen and the Lesbian Herstory Archives. I'm the one who got permission to upload it and did the OTRS legwork. Oh, screw it. Let's just create some stupid ugly award and put it on his talk page. Let's just band together and say what a superior human being TonytheTiger is and never question his prolificness in editing ever. Let us stand in awe of his mighty testicles and wait for him to bestow drops of wisdom upon us, because only someone so showered with so very many points from the WikiCup and awards could be such an honorable human being with integrity far surpassing the sour lot of the rest of us. That is clearly what this business means to him. If we acknowledge it, maybe he'll stop. --Moni3 (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnadonovan making legal threats

Resolved

 – Blocked. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnadonovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making legal threats (all in caps) on his talk page and on the talk page of Royal Dutch Shell which is in the breach of WP:LEGAL. Bidgee (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess this is the guy who created Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns and the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell and similar one about enviormental concerns with Royal dutch shell? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep its him, appears to be several more article he has created that I was unaware of. I dont see much hope for this guy, POV warriors are never good for business add the copyright infringement on top of that and its clear this guy is not here to work on a neutral collaborative encyclopedia. Support an indef-block or an RFC/U to further evaluate wider conduct problems The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

Re:Talk:John Birch Society: The following comment by User:Viriditas appears to be a personal attack on another editor:

Collect, that source does not say what you say it says, and I think you know this.... To go to such extreme, convoluted distortions of a reliable source, tells me that there is something wrong with your ability to read and comprehend, Collect. I want to apologize if you have special needs, perhaps you could request the help of another editor who can explain this to you. I hope Collect is mature and sensible enough to recognize that he has made a serious error in judgement and now needs to concede this point.

This is not the way to discuss content disputes and I think Viriditas should withdraw these comments. It is also offensive to people who have special needs.

TFD (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any attempt from you to discuss this on Viriditas' talk page. Why are you bringing it here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's complaining about the content dispute ... but about the somewhat unparliamentary language (your parliament may vary).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, so why hasn't he discussed it on Viriditas' talk, which is the first step in dispute resolution? Particularly since a read of that discussion shows Viriditas trying to patiently push water uphill vs. Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Viriditas presents a clear reliable source on talk, and a long discussion ensues, in which it appears Collect doesn't comprehend. Bringing this one incident to AN/I, without talking to Viriditas about the language used on Viritidas' talk, isn't the most effective use of dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)