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. 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)

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)

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: [26]. 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)

• • 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)

User:AJona1992

Resolved

 – AJona1992 (talk · contribs) retains the privilege to edit (from a single account only) under the guidance of RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) and is to help identify (under safe harbour) and remove any and all copyright violations they may have introduced. However, if they introduce additional (net new) copyright violations, they may (and very likely will) be indefinitely blocked. There shall be little tolerance for further incivility, personal attacks, or edit-warring behaviour. –xeno^talk 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ajona1992 has a long history of copyright problems and personal attacks on other editors, not to mention WP:OWN issues on the Selena article. He was blocked from 3rr a few weeks ago, and he refuses to listen to other editors advise. Now comes this edit, in which me and SandyGeorgia agree he should be blocked for that. He's just going to disrupt even more, especially once the Selena article gets unprotected. A block is warranteed, and a topic ban as well. Thanks Secret ^account 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified him for you, Secret... Doc9871 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

She was attacking me. I only attack people if they attack me. First of all those pics belongs to my family and me just becuz u guys found 200 of the same pics on google.com doesn't prove your right. AJona1992 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"They did it first" i not an excuse. IMO there's an inferable WP:TOV in the diff provided, and would support a block at least. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a "threat of violence", I'm quite sure. It's a little "heated", but no way is it an actual threat. A block may happen for other reasons, however... Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly I do take other editors advice! esp when people wanted to help me I LOVED it I was happy that they wanted to help me on wikipedia I needed it after being attack by all you guys telling me that my pictures are in violation, my magazines are fake, etc, etc. Once someone asked me if I needed help I always say "yes" except to you becuz all you do is this, I add a source from a magazine and all you do is REVERT IT becuz YOU don't have it or know about it. AJona1992 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I am having issues with her on here (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Selena/archive1). So maybe this can help you guys decide weather or not I should stay here. Also you guys should look at my contributions as well. AJona1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes also she keeps talking about me and the magazine that is not currently listed as an unreliable magazine, that's all she AND you keep bringing up. AJona1992 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has come across AJona1992 more than I want to remember, I'm not surprised to see that his behavior hasn't changed a bit, nor his has his editing habits. His continuous addition of copyright violations text here on en.wiki and copyright violations in image form on en.wiki, Commons and throughout several other different language Wikis that have yet to be deleted is just the beginning of this user's edit history. His astounding immaturity and complete negligence of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as well as his overall intolerance to admit he can be and is often wrong on multiple levels with multiple issues, whether is being sourcing issues, categorization, policies, etc., really makes me wonder if he'll end up being blocked indefinitely before the new year. His claims that his grandmother took these pictures are utterly ridiculous, as many of the admins who work with images and copyright here and on Commons are well aware of (note in point, he claims this image was taken by his grandmother and the quality of the picture is attributed to being scanned, yet this higher quality, high resolution and uncropped version was somehow published before the supposed scan, huh). You can offer him all the help in the world, but once he disagrees with you, he resorts to naming calling, personal attacks, incivility and the typical "HAHA lulz". Even with all this problematic behavior, I still haven't even begun mentioning his block for sockpuppetry and 3RR, as well as his attempt of meatpuppetry and inappropriate canvassing to push his Selena WikiProject proposal through. The community is simply wasting far too much time on this one individual. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Sockpuppetry as well, and claiming copyrighted photos was part of her family collection wow I'll endorse a indef block of the user right now, he's more trouble than he's worth. Secret ^account 03:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:CHICOGAGA should be blocked indef as a meatpuppet of Ajona. Secret ^account 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I can say to you is "wow" I tried asking advice from you, yea I bet your saying again "stop the mellow drama" but I was really asking for some advice. Anyways I understand where your coming from but the thing is my grandmother/mother really did take these pictures I mean I am not going to let you guys get away with the comments you have said about it either. The sock thingy I only did ONE TIME and I didn't know about the rule to begin with. Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards. I do have anger issues and nor should I talk about my life here becuz it doesn't involve in this. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). AJona1992 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm another thing here the people who helped me and encourage me, I never disagree with them and even if I did we never argued! you can ask every person who was willing to help me and and I accepted it I got along with them very well, you know why? becuz they never talked to me the way you guys are, they are more calm and more pleasant to talk to they don't go around here sticking their heads up in the sky thinking they run stuff, no they actually, even though told I was trouble, stood by me and helped me. AJona1992 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in California Secret! And my IP address confirms that, so next time go do some research before accusing me of something that I didn't do. AJona1992 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards—please take a look at WP:POINT. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). Well, you're not banned. And if you do something wrong, there is a negative consequence. Your talk page shows that many people have tried to help, but yet you have continued some of the things they have asked you to stop doing, like posting copyvios. You *yawn* at it here and then again (bigger) here. That's just counterproductive. If you treat others like that, who are also here on their free time, you will not be helped and encouraged much longer. It's just rude. So yea… Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I read a little about it after my episode to prove that "Q-Productions" was a great external link. And what I was saying there was that I was banned from sock and 3rr and I didn't know there was a rule about socking I just only wanted to get my project approved. Yea I need to work on that but I don't want to abandon the Selena article because I feel that a "FA" should include and not limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a strong warning, such a strong warning that I had to break WP:CIVIL in order to tell him the truth, but a WP:IAR could be used in my case. But with it I think he understands the situation now. I'll work with him. Thanks Secret ^account 03:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Ajona: You don't seem to understand sourcing requirements for featured articles, as evidenced by a review of the Selena talk page and FAR, and there seem to be quite a few other problems with your Wiki editing. Your participation has been disruptive, and your post to the Selena FAR was certainly a breach of WP:CIVIL, if not a WP:TOV. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and we're here to collaborate to (hopefully) produce high quality articles; editors who don't understand that might do better to spend their time on the internet elsewhere. If you don't learn and follow Wiki policies, admins will help you find another place to spend your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, folks, WP:TOV "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." See WP:VIOLENCE - do you think the local authorities should be contacted because of this "threat"? "Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a 'real world' threat has been made with genuine intent, the best thing to do is to immediately report it to authorities." It's not a real world threat with genuine intent... Doc9871 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Doc, again SandyG I only edit the page Selena if I find something that should belong there (most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, Best Latin artist of the decade, best 1990s singer, now don't you think these belong on a article?) with sources from Billboard. If it's to revert to prove a point than yea I have done that but I was only doing that becuz I had sources and everyone was just dead against me expanding the article which is kinda dumb (in my point of view) becuz I believe that a FA article shouldn't limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines people have cited say otherwise; it's not just what you think is correct. Please understand that this is probably why you ended up here in the first place: not taking in others' advice. Airplaneman ✈ 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I left some "friendly advice" on AJona1992's talk page and he'll hopefully consider it: and he seems to be civilly working with the same editor who reported this thread (and who intially called for a block and a topic ban). Hopefully this should cool down quickly, and time will determine if they can't work something out. His userpage (if accurate) is very open about his RL identity, and he is a young editor who hopefully can learn policy. His bad behavior is noted, and if he's disruptive again at all it will be dealt with swiftly, I'm sure. One more chance, maybe? Just my 2p... Doc9871 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will suggest mentorship to Ajona1992. Perhaps that will help. It's a tool that I think sadly doesnt get used often enough, especially for those people who seem honestly desiring to contribute, but simply cant grasp that things on Wikipedia are different than how one would write about or discuss them in the "real world" (wherever that is). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992 has accepted my mentorship on 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC). He's got an article up for GA review (that he turned from a 3K stub into an article nearly GA ready), and I've spent a few hours tonight working with him on it (providing input here and there) and going over guidelines and such. A very productive night and I feel strongly that he'll turn out to be a valued editor. I've also written this for my adoptees (I've got two) and they are following along with it fine (anyone is free to comment or contribute to it. already made some revisions based on other editors and admins feedback).

Back to the ANI at hand, at this point, I cannot claim uninvolvement as I'm AJona1992's mentor, so my recommendation should carry less weight I would presume, but my feelings are this ANI can be closed as resolved with AJona1992 being mentored and productive with me available to help him avoid any difficult situations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Question: I have seen users banned for far less than what has been going on with this user and that somewhat troubles me. Not that this user has not been banned but how quickly other users are for doing far less. In general this user has consistently "threatened" editors with variations of "You better watch out". One perfect example is when an admin tried to explain about OTRS in relation to the Grammy photo, and how to include a scan of press passes that would have allowed their grandmother into the media room. The issue actually started earlier when the image in question (File:Selenagrammy.jpg) was tagged with an {{otrs pending}} and a search turned up nothing. (File permission problem with File:Selenagrammy.jpg) The discussion quickly saw AJona1992 re-purposing the header by renaming it to "This user who is deleting the photo loves it as a hobby", and resorting to statements such as And she's not going to that at all because that's her personal information, oh well I guess the photo is going to be deleted, such a shame that Wikipedia is so lame HAHAHAHA.; I gather that your stupid; forgive me if no one told you that if ANYONE dares to talk shit or says something to me that is offensive then I will attack back.; Oh well no one told you that I dont back down, if you want to talk things through lets do it other wise I'm not going to let some girl I don't even know talk to me like I'm a peace of shit.; I don't take shit from no one if you want to talk then talk, dont come on my talk page bringing your useless comments. and I have been trying to show proof but f*** this you was coming at me very rudely. I will just upload a new picture another day. (August 21, 2010) That conversation alone would have gotten most people blocked, but combined with repeated like comments such as Talk:Selena#Merge_discussion: Also YOU need to know that YOU should NEVER threaten me EVER because I don't play fair nor do I back down from ANYONE as you can tell on my old talk page. I know theres rules and stuff like that but once you cross me I can be just as mean as anyone maybe even worse *laughs to the floor OUT LOUD*.; Formal Copyright warning: *yawns bigger* well this is my talk page and I understand the poiclies that you guys made up but if someone is going to attack me, don't think for one second that I am not going to respond.; dont cross me DA:I want to tell you off so freaking bad but I am going to tell you this, I am the type of guy that you don't want to cross... and Review commentary: re:...if the magazine said the funeral held more than 100 million so be it, so argue with them and not talk s about me.) I agree with Explicts summary of the situation. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (Poss COI: I'm AJona1992's mentor). Hi Soundvisions1, you bring up some great points, and I probably should have addressed them in more detail above where others raised them. Apologies for not doing so.
    • Besides working on the article I mentioned above with AJona1992, we also discussed these issues in reasonable depth. I also created the "Adoptee" page indicated above with Wikipedia's Guidelines. In addition to those Guidelines, I also posted rules I expect all of my adoptees to adhere to for as long as they choose for me to be their mentor. In this particular scenario, since this is all part of the ANI, I think AJona1992 doesnt have a choice about having a mentor (involuntary mentorship as noted on the mentoring page) - at least assuming that this ANI is ended with that as part of it's terms. If that's the case, he's bound by (and very aware of such) the rules I've stated for him and my other adoptees. I know that Wikipedians are generally bound by mostly guidelines and policies, but there are some things I personally will not tolerate - and AJona1992 is aware of that.
    • While of course, I cannot guarantee that AJona1992 will not violate my rules (and thus not violate Wikipedia policies), I do believe it's likely he will not do so again.
    • As for the copyright issue, I am waiting on resolution to the satisfaction of the editor above. If it turns out AJona1992 was in the wrong, he's already been somewhat taken to task for that, and I will follow up with a stern reminder of the importance of not violating copyright law. I already did so last night. I've made it clear to him that he needs to come back here and come clean if anything he did in this nature was wrong. I think his response in this matter (or lack thereof) will be telling of a few things: (1) whether he truly understands the issue at hand, and (2) if we can have any expectation of him doing it again.
    • As for the comments made, I for one will not tolerate such, and I clearly state that on my Adoptee page. Yes, they should never have happened. Yes, some people get blocked for less. Yes, some people get away with a lot more and never get blocked. But just as in article disputes, "someone else..." shouldn't apply. Based on this situation, and this ANI, one should decide what actions should be taken. My suggestion is, as noted, that AJona1992 be required to be mentored for (a) a certain period of time or (b) longer if he chooses to remain an adoptee once that period of time has expired. And of course, the other alternatives (which I am not proposing) are a block or ban.
    • As I stated in my adoptee doc, if one of my adoptees violates certain of my rules, I may be the first one to request their block. And I meant it when I wrote it. And he's well aware that I cannot recall any of my block requests having been denied to date (came up in an unrelated conversation).
    • From viewing his contributions, it appears he has a very determined and passionate intent to make Wikipedia better - even if he was off to a rocky start with some of his comments and actions. Hardly the first valued editor who has started on poor footing.
    • Many new editors run afoul of various guidelines here. From my experience watching and using Wikipedia as an anon for years, followed by this stint with a username, it seems the more involved the new editor is, the more likely they will violate those rules until things are explained to them (or they gain a mentor). Of course, I cant justify his actions based on other's actions - but I can say (was trying to say) I do have some sort of an expectation that such will happen with such new editors. Part of the reason I jump on user creation log and send out welcome templates when I've got the time.
    • As noted above, he decided he really wanted a mentor as his disappeared, and agreed to have me as one (without it being because of any sanctions here).
    • Thus, my proposal, at this time, is still that AJona1992 be mentored for a set period of time to be determined by all of you. I would like to think that I am pretty levelheaded and good with dealing with such situations in a beneficial way - but I am biased on such matters, so, in this, please feel free to review me or discuss my level of competency in such matters with the other editors and sysops I have interacted with.
  • That's all I have to add. Also, if I am correct about AJona1992, I expect he will be making a post soon. You all can be assured I have conveyed the gravity of the situation, and taken him to task for anything he has done wrong. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Side note, AJona1992 has agreed to every term/rule in my Adoptee's page, without any qualms. We also spent time going over the importance of various ones of them (no copvio, no edit warring, no bad remarks to other editors). He's also agreed to my imposition of a 2RR rule. The only thing he asked in return is that I'd be available for any questions to help ensure he doesnt unknowingly violate any guidelines - to which I agreed. This was done via chat (my chat info is on my userpage), and I am freely willing to (with his permission, which I suspect wont be a problem) post the whole transcript if wanted. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for the rude comments that I have siad - I guess I let my passion ahead of my reason.

I have to be honest, the Grammy picture was copyrighted. I'm really sorry about that and the problems it caused. My mentor has explained the importance of never doing those things again, and I promise I wont. If I cant prove the other picture(s) are owned by me to your satisfaction, I understand and wont post them again.

My mentor has explained what edit warring is. He's got his own additional rule (that I cannot violate 2 reverts), so I wont do that again, and will instead get him or someone else involved instead of edit warring.

I also would like everyone to give me another chance as I am only beginning to learn the guidelines and rule for Wikipedia and the causes that I have done, which I did not know of until now. I won't let anyone down! AJona1992 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good! You seem to be heading in the right direction. The offer for mentorship by Robert is extremely generous, and I hope this will have a positive impact for the encyclopedia as well as everyone involved. Airplaneman ✈ 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the other participants in this ANI that I have forwarded a proposal. (I did not think it fair for this ANI to be closed or sit without their opportunity to respond, and didnt want to take the chance). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding me to revisit and comment, RobertM. My experience with mentorship is that it only works (and still may not work) when there is a "good cop" and a "bad cop" on board. You can guide Ajona, but you can't block him when he ignores you or becomes disruptive. I applaud your effort, but in my experience, it won't work, and will continue to sap community time, unless an admin agrees to block according to a pre-defined plan. Good luck :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy, and yes, I think parameters need to be added (repercussions), but I did not feel I am the person to decide those (partially for the reasons you mentioned, partially because of possible perceived bias, and partially because it still hinges on supporters (other than me) willing to agree to the mentorship proposal). Hoping you or others can propose such (and as I let him know, I may be the first person to request the use of such sanctions if a violation occurs... and mentor (good cop) or not, I already took him to task over the copyvio issue). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You just have to find an admin willing to block, and ask Ajona to agree upon an escalating block schedule should issues recur (I see a suggestion below). It would be better if that admin followed his talk, so you (as the "good cop") don't have to "report" him-- your role is supportive. I was involved in one mentorship that turned a highly disruptive editor around, because I helped her, while an admin blocked her every time she backslid. I observed another mentorship that didn't work because the mentors were also the enforcers, no one would agree to block, and the mentee turned on her advisers, as their role wasn't well defined. It would also be wise to put an "end game" plan in place now, while everyone is cooperating :) What if the mentorship doesn't work? Cross that bridge now so you don't end up in protracted dispute resolution. Also, what if the mentorship does work? How/when do you end it? When do you decide the job is done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • AJona1992 has read and agreed to this (though I suspect it's binding even without that agreement). I am pretty sure that those admins I turn to for assistance for other things will be more than willing to enforce this if need be. In particular, I am sure I can count on User:Arbitrarily0 and User:Xeno and User:SarekOfVulcan in this matter. But as I dont want to speak for them with 100% surety, I will ask all three of them to review this and comment for themselves. Also, I've notified User:Explicit and User:Airplaneman about the proposed resolution and asked them to come here to provide their input. I'm guessing if they agree to these sanctions, I and others can turn to them for enforcement if needed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: I have some RL to take care of but I did want to make a note that I have received RobertMfromLI's courtesy notice and will respond here later today/tonight. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, so I have read through everything, including what is below and I agree with most all of it. And I agree with what Moonriddengirl said as well x10. I actually forgot to mention that element in my first comments but repeated copyright violations are very serious, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. I deal with images and find that a lot of uploader just assume that "personal collection" or "my family collection" means they own copyright. I understand that for a lot of people it is hard to fully understand, but in this case there is a track record of people actually making an attempt to explain why text and images are not allowed and yet the user still claims, very strongly, ownership and, now, the user is admitting that they were actually lying about it. That is a bit more than a simple misunderstanding. I think a 24 hour ban for the next copyright vio is extremely "slap on the wrist" like. If consensus agrees to that so be it, but I look at this way - as far as images go: User was notified once and still claimed copyright. User was notified twice and claimed copyright. User was notified a third time and claimed copyright. User was notified a fourth time and claimed copyright. These are four different images and each time it was claimed that the users mother and/or grandmother took the images in question. False claim(s) were also made via a {{otrs pending}} tag on being placed on image(s). I seriously feel between that, this discussion, and the mentorship, that if another blatant copyright vio happens a one month ban minimum should be put into place. And if there is another account doing it that comes back as a sock of this user the ban should be permanent, hopefully I don't need to explain that one. I take a much stronger stance with image copyright issues, more so with a knowingly false (repeated) representation of ownership. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on mentorship restrictions and consequences

Per the above, here are a few suggestions/my proposal on consequences for the user on violating any part of his mentorship:

• As mentor, RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) is free to ask for admin intervention at any time for any situation(s) he may deem fit
• Incivility and personal attacks will start at a level-3 warning (he's already been warned), with the next a level four warning. This provides a three-strikes-you're-out rule.
• Further incivility or personal attacks beyond that point will be met by blocks, starting at 48 hours and increasing.
• Threats of any kind, regardless of (lack of) prior warning, will be met by a 48-hour block, and increasing for more.
• Any more copyright violations found uploaded will be met by an upload ban, which if broken will result in blocks (starting at 24 hours and moving upwards). an indefinite block (added 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC) per rec by Soundvision1 --->) of no less than 30 days.
• Copyright violations in text, if any are found, will be met by a copyvio warning, with further violations resulting in blocks starting at 24 hours. an indefinite block (added 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC) per rec by Soundvision1 --->) of no less than 30 days.
• Per the deal of the mentorship, the user is restricted to 2RR. Should he break this or engage in otherwise nonconstructive long-term edit warring (say, over a few days), blocks should be applied starting at 12 hours (for 2RR) or 24 hours (3RR/edit warring).
• (Added: 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC) per rec by Soundvision1) If AJona1992 creates a sock account (or uses IP to perform similar), the sock account will be permanently blocked and the AJona1992 account will be blocked for a period of 7 days.
• (Added: 05:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)) Any block accrued due to the actions of a sock account get imposed on the main account (AJona1992) since the sock will be indefinitely blocked.

Seems fair to me, but comments? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support With involuntary mentorship (for 3 months?) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: By request of SandyGeorgia (who brought up a valid concern), I have asked Arbitrarily0, Xeno, and SarekOfVulcan to review this and let us know if they are willing to impose the proposed accelerated sanctions if the need arises. 03:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Airplaneman has agreed to impose sanctions on the accelerated time table proposed above if the need arises. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would support this. He's going to be watched carefully by editors both for and against his mentoring; and if he breaks the rules, he'll answer for doing so. I say move forward (not ignoring or "forgetting" the misdeeds) - and see what happens. If he's sincere, it will hopefully work, and if he can't abide by the rules, we all know what will happen. Doc9871 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing, since AJona seems eager to get things right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• xeno has added AJona's talk page to their watch list (in the event intervention or accelerated sanctions need to be applied). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm all for second chances and support this generally, except that I believe the copyright restrictions need to be considerably stronger. Please note that he has now confessed to copyright fraud in falsely claiming ownership of images (taking it so far as to write to OTRS with unprovable claims of ownership and to edit war on the now deleted image to remove evidence), and he has repeatedly restored copyrighted text in spite of warnings to stop. I support the mentorship for civility issues, but I think we need to take a harder stance on copyright violations than that. Copyright fraud isn't misunderstanding; it's deliberate disruption. Seriously, read his comments here. I think we need to make clear that this is not a wrist-slapping situation. Per the provisions of OCILLA, we are required to make, communicate and enforce a termination policy for repeat infringers. I think the next instance of copyright violation (text or image) should lead to a block, and any subsequent instances should lead to an indefinite block. Mentees need room to learn, as I know very well, but copyright violation of the sort we've seen here doesn't happen by accident. Other than the copyright situation, the rest of the proposal seems fine to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  I concur entirely. And I actually would not be as forgiving, I think that next instance of (net-new) copyright violation should result in an indefinite block. –xeno^talk 17:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: and explained to AJona1992. I've revised the proposal above. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly related note: I advised him (before his admission of guilt) that he needed to come clean, but that doing so may result in an indefinite block now. He chose to come clean anyway. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's encouraging. Hopefully the issues won't repeat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Just to make these "restrictions and consequences" complete I think there needs to be a specific "rule" about any secondary/sock accounts and attempts at gaming the system. (See User:Jonaboy1992, User:Jenna1996 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AJona1992/Archive for more information) Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Adjusted block to indefinite no less than 30 days for copyvio, and added sock (1 week, main account, perm block sock account) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think that is fine but rather than 7 days, if it is a copyvio, I think that same "rules" for the main user doing it should kick in. In other words if AJona1992 uploads a blatant copyvio claiming it as their own and that causes a minimum 30 day block than a sock of AJona1992 doing the same thing should also result in a minimum of 30 days for the copyvio *to* AJona1992. (plus the permanent ban for the sock). For other sock uses - 3rr, threats, deletion discussions, etc the same type of block that is already mentioned for those issues should kick in. If the user gets less of a block for being a puppet than they would doing it under their main account it kind of defeats the whole point I feel. Although, with the exception of the copyvio, 7 days is longer than what is already proposed. EDIT: Sorry that may not read correct - If the sock is doing copyvios the block for AJona1992 should be no less than 30 days, not 7. For the rest 7 days is fine because it is more than the 12/24/48. Using a sock to do any of these things should have more of a consequence. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree: claiming you (or your grandma) took a clearly copyrighted photo is not excusable, and even 30 days is hardly excessive when you know you're committing a copyvio. Socking should be punished by the proven socks being indeffed (unless they are IPs), and consequences are what they are for socking. If he doesn't immediately cease thoughts of socking, I'm gonna be pissed... Doc9871 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok first of all I never knew what socking meant at the time that I was doing it, now knowing about it I won't do it again 100%. Secondly, my first user name was Jonaboy1992 but I wanted a new one and choose AJona1992 so everyone seems to be upset about the socking thing, didn't know about it and how to "delete" (per say) so anyone can know that Jonaboy was me just only wanted a new user name. AJona1992 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me! You'll be fine: just listen to everyone and take it in stride... :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted above. I simply figured it was implied (one cannot impose a 30 day copyvio block on a sock that's blocked forever, so I figured it was implied that the copyvio block would be imposed on the remaining active account). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins willing to act if the need arises, and willing to impose accelerated sanctions

• SarekOfVulcan
• Airplaneman
• Xeno
• Moonriddengirl (copyright concerns only)

(I think three is sufficient?) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:35, 22 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: [27] 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, [28]. 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 [29]. 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 [30]. 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 [31]. I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name, [32]. Notice my statement in the edit history.

I reverted Stevertigo's article-edit. [33]. Stevertigo reverted my edit with his WP:OR, while sounding insulted. [34].

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 [35].

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 ---- [36], [37].

Time in physics ---- [38], [39]

Physics ---- [40]

Human ---- [41], [42] (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 [43] "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, [44]. 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, [45], 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 - [46], and here [47] 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. [48], [49]. And I agreed with him [50]. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit [51], and then becomes argumentative on the talk page [52]. Notice how Stevertigo characterzes Jim's overall edting and attitude.

Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion [53]. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion [54]. 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. [[55]

On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row [56], cullimanting in [57] "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

Other relevant diffs: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64].

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history [65]. 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 --- [66], [67], [68], [69], etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion [70]. 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) [71] , except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th [72]. 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 [73]. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here [74]. 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 [75].

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" [76]. 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. [77], [78]. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, very recently, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year) [79]. 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 [80]. 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: [81]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [82]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [83]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [84], and related discussion [85].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [86]. Reverted: [87] 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 [88]. This was subsequently reverted two hours later, after five or six more Stevertigo edits, [89]. However, it did not end there. Within six minutes, Stevertigo reverted back to his version [90]. This was reverted by another editor eight minutes later [91]. 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: [92]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [93]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [94]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [95], and related discussion [96].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [97]. Reverted: [98] 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)

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)

• 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[99] 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 [100] "superseded remedy"). Steve Quinn's edits to Time are not perfect either ([101] 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.[102] 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 ben 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)

• 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)

User:Herostratus

This is an odd one, User:Herostratus has recently made this edit [103] - basically adding a bunch of smiley faces to an image of a sex act. I can personally see no reason for making this change yet the user has attempted to justify the change on the talkpage Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image in what I read as a tongue-in-cheek post (with a sprinkling of maliciousness - the user dropped in a link to some weird wiki-like site). I was just wondering if I'm missing something here, maybe it's all in my head? At any rate, the user has reverted my revert and I'm not interested in getting in to an edit war so would like some sort of intervention, though I'm unsure what options are available. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's supposed to be a bedspread. I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't read the talkpage, though, so I'd say if Herostratus wants this image maybe he could try to draw it better and then start up the discussion on the talk page then. —Soap— 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How is a bedspread relevant? This is obviously an editor who is childishly trying to vandalize a sexually explicit article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think he meant well. There was also a similar discussion a few years back, anyway. I agree we should stay with the plain background image though; if someone wants to add a bed it should be in the proper perspective (which is not easy to do with SVG). —Soap— 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus seems to have issues with sexually explicit visual media on Wikipedia - this looks like another manifestation of this. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is this not an ANI matter. ANI is not generally used for discussion of details of article content, and ANI is not RFC for content. Don't you folks have enough to do? If not, I would be glad to direct you to some backlogs and stuff where admins are needed. I am surprised that you didn't direct the poster to the dispute resolution process (beginning with, say, a note on my talk page before going to ANI). I have responded to the poster on his talk page, and I would suggest that anyone interested in this article go to the article talk page.

Thanks a bunch for the dig, Exxolon. I would ask you to explain your remark, please. Can you show me a diff that supports your remark? Of course you can't. In my opinion, the fact that the admins let mooks like you hang around here and pollute this board -- and render it practically useless for its intended use -- is beyond my understanding. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please knock it off, "mooks like you ... pollute this board" is a personal attack, and any editor may post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll knock it off when he knocks off uncited remarks like "ha[s] issues with sexually explicit visual media", OK? Yes any editor may post here. That does not mean any editor can post anything here. I hope. If you people were doing your job you would have told the original poster to at least, I don't know, drop a note on the article talk page (or my talk page) first, maybe? Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Herostratus...I'm going to ask, then, what are you at here? First you change it to what really doesn't appear to be anything that's particularly relevant, and then when someone objects, you remove the image entirely, claiming it's in "dispute", though you never really did seem to dispute the original image (just changed it some). It does seem very odd, and it does look like it's already been discussed on the talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove the image, another editor did that. I agreed that while the content of the image is in dispute this seems like a reasonable move. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the image, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the ersatz "dispute" created by Herostratus' disruptive behavior. I removed it because the quality of the image is poor, it does not adequately illustrate the act involved, and it adds nothing to the text, which is more than sufficient for the reader's understanding of what is meant. This was not done for the purpose of censorship, another image could well enhance the article in a way this one did not. Thus, the basis of the removal for me was strictly editorial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to explain my remark Herostratus - your recent posts on Talk:Gokkun on the RFC about using an image on the article where among other gems you called me "catspaw for this ongoing campaign to disgrace and degrade and the Wikipedia and damage its reputation (and drive away women and young people to boot" because I supported having an image in the article (and linked catspaw to useful idiot as well in a veiled attack), cited Wikipedia:If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas in your argument and accused me of bad faith by wanting the image there. "Mook" and "polluter" now - that's nice too. Given your stance on Talk:Gokkun and your strange edit to the image discussed above I think it's certainly arguable you have issues regarding sexually explicit media here. Exxolon (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's you. You are still mad that the RFC you initiated didn't gain the result you wanted? It happens. You have to move on. As to the rest... look, let me give you a bit of advice. It's a free world and free internet, and we have freedom of speech (and, in America anyway, the First Amendment), and the Wikipedia is not censored. However. None of that means that normal people are going to like you if you are a pornographer. I mean, you certainly wouldn't be welcome in my home, and you probably wouldn't be too popular in my town generally. But that's OK. I'm sure I wouldn't be welcome with the sort of people that would find you admirable. That is called "life". If you don't like being called a pornographer, the solution is simple: don't be one. But if you want to be one, don't worry about people like me. You're free to revel in it if you like. Get a T-shirt, whatever. You are never going to get the approval of everyone in this life. Choose whom you do want the approval of, and act accordingly. I'm sure that users 75.88.127.62, 24.143.15.253, 68.34.31.108 and so on would think that you're a fine fellow. You're never going to be short of friends like that if you push stroke pictures at the Wikipedia. So don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Raises Eyebrow* - The RFC is still running, and I'm quite happy to abide by the result so that charge is spurious. The images is question are not for titillation but are designed to aid understanding of the subject - they support our core aim of encyclopidic articles on all relevant subjects. Trying to sidetrack the issue by suggesting I'm a pornographer is poor form. Maybe I do work in that industry, maybe I don't but it's not relevant - my aim is to have illustrative images on sexual topics that help understanding of the subject. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Exxolon (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The image activity and comments on the article talk page and here on ANI constitute disruptive behavior - disrupting Wikipedia to attempt to prove a point. I AGF that Herostratus didn't intend to push to the point of blockable behavior, but he's bordering on that at the moment. I have left him a final warning on his talk page. This needs to stop. Activity like this is supremely disrespectful to the other editors around. One can argue the points of whether the image is appropriate or not and useful or not without playing silly buggers with content or with other editors'. Chosing to make the point disruptively is not OK, and has never been. If it happens again I will issue a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also warned Herostratus for violations of WP:NPA both here and on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I can't believe that anyone is even arguing with Herostratus about this. It's so stupid. What relevance could a bunch of pixellated smiley faces possibly have with respect to an illustration of semen leaking from a woman's anus? It's clearly vandalism, and I'd suggest ending this discussion, so as to not feed the trolls. SnottyWong ^prattle 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I also can't believe anyone is arguing about this. The (original) graphic is being discussed now at the article talk page, and here's a couple of different editor's takes: "...looks, quite literally, like it came from a 7th-grader's sketchbook..." and "...image is of exceedingly poor quality (like something off a men's room stall)..." I'm a big boy and can certainly take "Your graphics skills are not up to Wikipedia standards" or "Your graphics skills suck" if you prefer, but It's not like I was trying to improve the Mona Lisa for chrissakes.

Anyway, just to finish of, three things:

• I wanted to get clear in my own head the sequence of events preceding the ANI post, so I picked through the diffs. They're here with my comments, If anyone cares. Which I doubt, which is OK, I wanted to get this clear in my own head.
• As to the events (and my behavior here) following the ANI post, well, obviously I lost my temper. I am overly sensitive to allegations that I have "sexual issues" since I do get that from time to time and it does push my buttons. However, Exxolon didn't say that (although what he did say was bad enough) So, utterly inexcusable, and I am ashamed of myself.
• However... In my opinion there is a problem (sometimes) with this page. A user came here asking for advice and assistance ("I'm unsure what options are available") and the next thing you know we're gossiping about "Herostratus seems to have issues with sexually explicit visual media". And this is allowed. So let me set this off in bold type:

If this page is going to be run like an unmoderated Usenet forum, then people are going behave on it like people behave on an unmoderated Usenet forum.

If no one is going to chastise users like Exxelon, then their targets are going to have to defend themselves, and maybe it won't be so pretty. It's pretty much human nature to defend oneself.

Meh. I have more to say on this, along with a specific proposed solution. I'll take it to the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, I'm going to offer some advice as an impartial observer. You already know you have a "button," so you have to expect it'll be pushed. Especially when you keep involving yourself in the same material that pushes said button. Even if you feel attacked, you can defend yourself politely, or at least in a restrained manner. If you keep flying off the handle, you're only punishing yourself. These pages are moderated, but it won't always be moderated in a way that you would like if you keep responding like that.

I'd suggest taking a short break for a few days and letting this subject go. When you come back, consider if you really want to keep editing materials that make you so upset. I've had to leave a few articles because of that, myself. It's not a pleasant feeling, but it's better than constant stress and risking a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sage advice, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson and Civility, Again

Last week I posted this complaint about User:Pmanderson's incivility at Talk:Aorist. He was warned by admins User:Georgewilliamherbert here and User:Maunus here. While every other editor is being careful to avoid incivility (as here), PMAnderson is diving right back in as here and here. I politely warned him again here, but I would appreciate if the admins pay very close attention to him at Talk:Aorist (which, according to his contributions log, seems to be where he spends most of his time lately.) --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt to settle a content dispute by a factitious civility complaint.

Taivo is one of a pair of -er- enthusiasts who have pushed a point-of-view for weeks now: that their pet field within linguistics includes all others (including poetics and rhetoric); that it has the only correct terminology; that all others must defer to it whether the readers will understand it or not. . Follow the links and see if I could have described this point of view any more temperately than I have.

I have offered to leave the article as long as the two of them will; I have offered space for their preferred mess of obscurities at aorist (general linguistics); neither is acceptable to them.

They are two editors; their ideas are opposed by Radagast, Akhilleus, Dbachmann,Wareh, and Cynwolfe. They now seek to equalize numbers with this bogus complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only diff that concerns me at all is this one, where PMAnderson said, "It is quite true that Taivo and Kwami revert-warred against the clear statements of a source they have not consulted - because it did nbot support their point of view." Is there evidence of this behavior? Unfounded allegations of misbehavior can be construed as personal attacks. -- Atama頭 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly true, only allegations not made in good faith cold conceivably be considered disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That kind of philosophy works for vandalism but not for personal attacks. Personal attacks can be made in good faith; you might really feel, sincerely, that another editor is a complete and utter bastard and you're being sincere in saying so. That doesn't make it less of an attack. Regardless, accusations without evidence are defined as personal attacks (read the link I'd provided) and it's hard to call an allegation "good faith" when it's made of whole cloth. I digress, but I felt the need to respond. -- Atama頭 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit is one of a series of such edits; since this one put the reverter beyond 3RR, it was self-reverted. But this was one of several efforts to remove sourced material because the two editors disagreed with it. There are more reversions listed here, ending in the latest of several protections arising from their behavior. That has largely stopped; but the comment in question was a response to the suggestion that the respected linguist in question had been ejected by consensus - which is only true if the two of them are consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that the alleged edit warring was responsible for the protection of the article is a falsehood. The article was protected by Maunus because PMAnderson three times moved it without getting consensus, twice against the express warning of the admin User:Maunus. It was PMAnderson's move-warring that led to the locking of the article. My recollection was faulty. --Taivo (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, as you are alleging "falsehood", here is the diff for the relevant protection, which was not the one arising from the move war. David Biddulph (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my recollection placed the move war immediately before the protection--all these things were happening very close together. But this present complaint isn't about the edit warring or the protection or what happened to initiate the protection, that is just PMAnderson's attempt to deflect attention away from his incivility and place the blame for the discussion problems entirely on others and not shoulder any of the blame himself. This is PMAnderson's usual method in these AN/I complaints--take no responsibility for his own incivility and blame others for all the problems arising in the discussion. Notice the progress of this AN/I complaint--I documented nearly a dozen instances of his incivility in a 24 hour period, but his comment in defense was "It is true that I tend not to back down when faced by revert warriors with an agenda" after which he listed his charges of edit warring. He later pulled up two examples over the course of two weeks of my incivility. This is PMAnderson's way of defending against incivility charges--to deflect. --Taivo (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to PMAnderson's previous complaint about Kwamikagami and myself. Note that the complaint was deemed "frivolous" by the admin User:Maunus and that PMAnderson's claims were false. This complaint isn't about edit warring, but about PMAnderson's continued incivility. Note that after this stern warning from User:Georgewilliamherbert, PMAnderson offered neither contrition nor apology for his uncivil actions and personal attacks. This AN/I is not PMAnderson's first. Here he was warned that future incivility would result in penalties. This is not a content dispute, as there are editors that disagree with me on content. But only PMAnderson crosses the line into incivility and personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have not been uncivil - except in the view of an editor who thinks blocking me will reduce the opposition to his exaggerated claims for his obscure subfield. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I truly believe that you don't recognize incivility, PMAnderson. Accusing me of edit warring when the claim had already been called frivolous, calling me a pedant, and labeling my opinion as blather, are all cases of incivility. If you are unable to recognize incivility or couch your comments in a polite way or show contrition when two different admins sternly warn you against incivility, then perhaps your presence in Wikipedia is inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is uncivil to mention your revert warring against Rijksbaron's Syntax and semantics of the verb in classical Greek , when this edit from last week shows your exact reversion removing a mention of the book in question? Are you pleading in Wonderland? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When your unjustified claims of edit warring were called "frivolous" by an admin, then continued reference to your accusation as if it were relevant can be considered uncivil when it is used as an ad hominem argument, as it was in the case I cited above. The point here is that among all the problems that the previous discussion at Talk:Aorist ran into, there were only two specific warnings issued by admins directed at an individual for their actions--both were directed at you for incivility. Everyone else has been able to discuss the issue civilly. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) All due respect to Maunus (and I really mean that) the interpretation of WP:3RR in the report linked above is flawed. As stated in our policy, "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." Having said that, the overall determination of the situation seems solid, and the decision to just protect the page rather than to block is one I agree with. So it looks like my question was answered; yes, there is evidence of edit warring behavior. There doesn't seem to be any personal attack, but just the same I still see too much of a focus on what other editors are doing or have done wrong, and not enough attention to the content. Whether or not a person has edit warred in the past, yes it is uncivil to bring it up.

PMAnderson, I have another question for you... You've claimed that in this dispute there are only two editors with a particular viewpoint, who are countered by more than twice as many other editors who disagree. Why then is it necessary for your language to be so aggressive? They are at a disadvantage, so is it necessary to belittle them? Generally, in a content dispute if one "side" is in a disparate minority then they have a greater hurdle to clear in order to convince a reasonable number of people in order to achieve a compromise that satisfies their viewpoint. It shouldn't be necessary for you to criticize them personally if you already have overwhelming support. Is there a reason why you need to respond as you are doing, especially since it is bringing such negative attention to yourself? -- Atama頭 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Because extraordinary conduct requires extraordinary measures. These two (what shall I say?) unhelpful editors took over an article that was developping peaceably and more or less successfully up to August 16th last (the version to which Maunus reverted for the protection). They ignored the two then active editors, who protested on the talk page and went to the point of reverting (in an effort to invoke BRD). Their response was to launch a revert war. When third opinions were called for, they proceeded to attack Wareh (a scholarly editor, and even a scholar in their field) for suggesting that the situation was more complicated than they allowed the article to say.

All this was before I arrived. Since then they have ignored the advice of about five or six editors that the language of the article should be less dogmatic and more accessible to readers who haven't studied their particular school of linguistics - and they have consistently revert-warred with any and all efforts to make it so.

If the five or six objectors were a nationalist faction, this would resolve itself in the normal unpleasant but decisive manner by outreverting the two determined editors - but they aren't. Therefore we have an article which is seriously flawed, in the opinion of most observers - and on which the only active editing is making it, in the same opinion, actively worse.

Protests are continually met by these claims, quoted above, that their pet school of linguistics is the only science, all of linguistics, and the rest of it - and therefore the other editors should be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not deem the complaint frivolous because it was not true that Taivo and KWami had reverted more than they should according to the letter of 3RR - but because they had clearly been put in that situation by deliberate gaming by the complainant who instead violated the spirit of 3rr by repeatedly intorudcing edits that he knew would have to be reverted.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I totally agree with. It's easy to count reverts and block, but to look at the overall situation and make a judgment takes a lot more wisdom. My only complaint was in the suggestion that for 3RR to apply, the same information has to be reverted, but our policy clearly states otherwise. Again, I agree that the edit war was a two-sided one even if one side was clever enough to avoid the letter of the policy. One thing to remember is that even though the policy states 3RR as a bright-line rule, it's not an entitlement, edit wars of any kind are discouraged and administrators will do whatever is prudent and necessary to stop them. Provoking someone into 3RR is as bad as doing it yourself. -- Atama頭 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for sake of completeness, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson is a relevent read. I am officially neutral on this issue. --Jayron32 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion: I don't see incivility in the two diffs in the complaint. In one, The use of terms like 'provincialism' and 'blather', while harsh, are fair use as rhetorical devices. Democracy in Britain would be long gone if such terms were considered uncivil. In the second diff, Pmanderson states his belief that the two editors have not read the source. Again, it is up to those editors to show that they have read the source, perhaps by quoting relevant sections from it, rather than bringing this up on ANI. Repeatedly accusing an editor of incivility does not incivility make but does lead me to question the purpose behind these accusations. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that they haven't read Rijksbaron is based on their own statements; one of them has an (uncited) quote of a second-hand account of Rijksbaron saying something different from - but compatible with - the sourceable assertion - and nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This process began with others here and is an ongoing examination of PMAnderson's behavior in Wikipedia. There he was warned that his behavior would be subject to very close examination in lieu of sanctions at that time. He has since been warned by admins of his uncivil behavior at Talk:Aorist here and here. PMAnderson has neither shown contrition in the face of these warnings, nor taken responsibility for his part of the negative aspects of the discussion at Talk:Aorist. His behavior at Talk:Aorist is in very sharp contrast to all the other editors there, no matter what position they take in the content issues--all are civil and strive to keep the discussion at the level of the issues without making personal attacks or implications. Unlike Parliament, incivility in Wikipedia cannot be tolerated or else the discussion devolves into a polarized quagmire without the possibility of consensus-building. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, it's funny because my first reply to this thread was originally going to be exactly what you said. On the surface, the diffs provided didn't appear unduly uncivil. My only problem was the accusation of an edit war which the other side denied, and I questioned whether it happened (it did). But while not the kind of diffs I'd usually look twice at, they are antagonistic and not helpful. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, because a democracy thrives on conflict. Opposing sides keep each other in check, and it works because most decisions are decided with a vote. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, voting is very rarely used anywhere, and conflicts can only be decided when people agree, not when one side "defeats" the other. Language that works in a democracy doesn't work here, nor do tactics like trying to belittle someone you disagree with.

All that aside, though, ultimately I think this post on ANI is premature. I do think that commenting on another editor's perceived flaws is at the least not civil, if not entirely uncivil, and PMAnderson should make a better effort to compromise. But I also think that there's nothing actionable here, and there already seems to be eyes on the conflict, and I've probably already spent way too much time talking in this thread. :P -- Atama頭 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Atama that Pmanderson does come across as unduly harsh. However, clearly this is an ongoing content dispute, and in the context of an ongoing dispute, these words, while harsh, don't, I think, constitute incivility. My larger concern is that, even though this is a clear content dispute that should be resolved in other channels, the matter is repeatedly being brought to ANI. Along with statements like 'Civility, Again', they appear to give the impression that pmanderson is a problem editor. Which, I don't think is borne out on an examination of the diffs in this report (as also in the previous report). Not that I'm implying that Taivo is such an editor, I don't know enough about the dispute itself to do that, but this ANI bombardment is a common tactic used by some editors when they fail to get traction in the content area. I think Taivo would do well to take this dispute elsewhere and, perhaps, open an RfC if he/she feels that there is a pattern of hostility in Pmanderson's editing behavior. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's always difficult to know when the time is right for X action or Y action regarding civility issues. One person's outrageous incivility is another person's acceptable behavior. PMAnderson has already been the subject of another RfC (cited above) from the early summer so the time is probably not ripe for another. The difficulty in discussions on Wikipedia, as alluded to by Atama, is how quickly a discussion can become hopelessly polarized when one party becomes uncivil, as it did at Talk:Aorist. PMAnderson reaches for the sarcastic remark, the cutting innuendo, the personal accusation too quickly. This AN/I wasn't intended for action or decision (see my first post above), but more of a request that senior people keep an eye on Talk:Aorist to nip any further incivility in the bud. User:Maunus is already looking in, but more than one pair of clear eyes is welcome. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you're acting in good faith here. But, repeatedly posting incivility notices on ANI is probably not a good idea. It gives the impression that you're unable to deal with content disputes and that you might be attempting to create a negative aura around the editor you have a dispute with. You might want to consider taking the content dispute to WP:3O or opening a WP:RFC on the dispute itself. Attempting to get more eyes on content is always better than attempting to get more eyes on an editor. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't sidetrack this into a content issue. All I care about here is getting PMAnderson's behavior under control. PMAnderson has been reported before from other articles so that is evidence enough that content is not the issue. Indeed, the behavior issue is often the cause of not getting to consensus or developing compromise because of its polarizing effect. --Taivo (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sidetrack anything. Just suggesting that repeatedly bringing civility accusations up at ANI gives the impression that you're trying to sidetrack a content issue into a civility issue. Again, I'll reiterate that it is a far better thing to get more eyes on content than it is to get more eyes on an editor. Unless you believe that the content issue won't stand up to scrutiny, of course. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I have to side with RegentsPark on this. You're really shooting yourself in the foot by trying to force this into a civility issue. Yes, PMA has had civility problems. But this is not one of them. He was blunt, but not incivil. If you keep pushing this point, it looks like you're just piling on, and trying to shut down another editor by crying wolf. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Interactions between User:SlimVirgin and User:J Milburn are getting out of hand.

{{resolved}}Users have reached an agreement not to interact with each other anymore. As such, admin attention is not necessary. If interactions resume and get testy or out of hand, bring it back to ANI. Otherwise, move along folks, nothing to see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Struck/reopened, see below-DePiep (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Interactions between these two administrators are getting out of hand. There's a hell of a lot of heat developing here, and it's boiling over. Threats to report, personal attacks, accusations, you name it. This has spilled over into several places:

• User_talk:SlimVirgin#Your_campaign
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/J Milburn Bot 4
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_September_14#File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Fair-use_images_of_the_Holocaust

and probably a lot more. I'm not recommending an interaction ban at this point, but it might be a good idea to ask both administrators to undertake efforts to avoid each other, at least for the time being. Would some other administrators please take a look at this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am talking to SlimVirgin on her talk page about our interactions generally. I would be happy to keep this between the two of us, if she is. I don't think either of us want this here. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, what goes on between two consenting administrators need not be brought into the public spotlight unless dialog breaks down and they start flinging bodily excretions at eachother. –xeno^talk 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that picture in my mind, Xeno. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we've reached a conclusion of sorts- neither of us has any intention of interacting with the other any more, and we have had some discussion about the underlying issues. Perhaps this thread could be closed? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeno agreed above that no admin attention was needed, so I will close it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The underlying dispute (on fair use) is generating a lot of heat, as seen in Talk:Battle of Berlin#Free equivalent of the Reichstag photo. I think if J Milburn or someone should open a centralized discussion on fair use of historic photographs. With all the concurrent discussion going on, each with only a few participants, it is likely to turn personal. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure how an intention to avoid eachother will help if the underlying dispute continues. –xeno^talk 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need some central discussion about Holocaust images. They are almost never free. Even when on the Commons, even when given us by the Bundesarchiv, they are not free because of their age, and because we almost never know who the authors were, or if we do know, releases aren't possible. Every so often an admin with strong views about non-free images will pop up (Rama last time, J Milburn this time) and try to have them deleted, always unsuccessfully so far as I know, leaving long discussions, RfCs, AN/Is, and so on in their wake. It would be great to get it resolved in general terms without the personal issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a general discussion about WWII images. Far fewer of these are free than people think, because changes to copyright laws in the last 60 years has generally extended copyright for everything. Having at one point had an interesting discussion with one of the guys who was originally involved in the policy (or so I believe), it is not meant to prevent the use of historic photographs because of copyright issues - something Paul Seibert has also picked up on in the Battle of Berlin discussion. The aim was to restrict the use of commercially available images of current events/people/objects by encouraging people to go out and make free alternatives - something that cannot be done for photographs from WWII.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the potential dispute is related to images of the Holocaust. While I appreciate the copyright related work J Milburn is doing on the 95% of Wikipedia content that is not included in the "actually usefull stuff", I can see problems arising on all images that are or could be labeled as {{Non-free historic image}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, Elen, as someone involved in the Battle of Berlin discussion, I'm going to totally agree we need some type of centralized discussion if that's the current thinking on things. The idea of NFC is to minimize the amount of nonfree content we use altogether, not only to encourage free photos of current things. This is a free content project, so we should always look to any possible alternatives (including prose alone with no image, existing free alternatives, etc.), before concluding that an image is so essential to comprehension of a subject that it's worth compromising one of our core goals (being free content) to include. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that many editors would find the position that we can't use Holocaust images because they compromise our non-free status to be a reductio ad absurdum of the non-free stance. What use is an educational project that won't allow itself to educate? Hence the need for the discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I struck the "Resolved" since the talk is continuing here afterward.

Which gives me the opportunity to chip in two questions, back on-topic. First: OP by Hammersoft: two administrators are getting out of hand. Why is it relevant that they are admins? Second, maybe they can do this among each other, but the list Hammersoft mentions has three out of four debates not in Userspace (And indeed, there are more). I recall describing how a discussion was spoiled by this. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do see some substandard cluefulness in some of J Milburn's participation, such as the BRFA (CBM's comments in it are correct) and that pedophile thread. J Milburn is certainly entitled to form any opinions s/he likes about pedophilia or any other topic, but per NOTFORUM and NOTFREESPEECH, Wikipedia is not a venue in which to debate those opinions. Re the WW2 images, SV is being a bit heated, but if she wants to propose adjustments to the NFCC policy regarding them, she's entitled to do that (I'm not convinced it's advisable). Re the SV-JM conflict, voluntary disengagement for a while is surely the simplest thing. If SV really wants to pursue dispute resolution she's going to need more evidence than I've seen so far (not that I've looked very hard, but I did click the diffs and looked over the BRFA). Anything like that should be done in a central place like RFC, not multiple arguments scattered all over the wiki. Right now what I see doesn't warrant formal remedies, but is enough to express a general view that both should ease up a bit. 66.127.54.226 (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that SV or anyone here wants to propose adjustments to the NFCC policy. What may be happening is that J Milburn is shaking the established status quo on historic photographs. What makes this worse is that the discussions are continuing on an on, as if one or both sides were stonewalling. In the protracted cases, I think that in the protracted cases J Milburn should just step away. If his point-of-view needs defending, I am sure Wikipedia has other editors that will defend it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, you have made it quite clear that you do wish to change the NFCC, as you seem to be of the belief that "historical media" (whatever that means) is exempt. That's simply not the case. There is no reason "historical" media should be treated any differently to the things you don't care about in terms of non-free content- our policy applies to all non-free content. You sitting here and accusing me of "shaking the established status quo on historic photographs" is a little rich. You may not like it, but we do actually have a policy on non-free content, and non-free content is non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, would you look at that?

As I made clear, I do not make a habit of watching this board, so, please, whether you're opening or reopening or whatever, notify me. I think this has to be said- SlimVirgin is a drama lover. She's not happy unless she's in the middle of a fight. I am very much the opposite; I do everything I can to avoid a fight, despite what SlimVirgin would have you believe. SlimVirgin's love of drama can easily be observed by her interactions with me- immediately after saying she wants no further interactions with me, she comes to this thread and talks about me (so, I guess that's our mutual no-interaction idea out of the window...). Despite being a long-time very active editor working in often controversial areas, you'll note that my appearances on the noticeboards have been very few and far between- yet, since starting my interactions with SlimVirgin, I have found myself here twice. SlimVirgin has made it quite clear that her issue is with me, personally, and not with my conduct- take for instance, her first reply to that damn deletion nomination, here. She for the most part completely ignored the NFCC, instead implying that I had an issue with, or was part of some campaign against, "Holocaust images". She also couldn't wait to bring up my participation in the discussion on paedophilia, because, obviously, that was so relevant. Take the bot discussion- she opens with "I don't understand bots and bot approval" and then goes on to oppose purely because it's me. She later used it as yet another place to attack my character, despite the fact I had just invited her to discuss it with me privately. She felt the need to bring up paedophilia and the Holocaust. I wonder if she could have thought of any worse things to imply? I think "private discussion" is a little boring for SlimVirgin, because where's the drama in that? SlimVirgin has a ridiculously jaundiced view of me, and she has made clear that it is her intention to wander around slandering me whereever I go, repeatedly threatening me with "taking it higher" unless I "change" to be more like her. She has even criticised me for not taking part in ANI threads and taking time off Wikipedia (something I did once) when, in the same breath, she accused me of seeking out drama and being the cause of a lot of it. (In response to some points made in this thread- 66.127.54.226, the paedophilia issue was relaated to Wikipedia, it was a discussion about Wikipedia policy, not some kind of discussion about paedophiles generally. Here is absolutely the place. Petri, the non-free content criteria, it may alarm you to find out, applies to all non-free content. Not non-free content in articles that Petri has not determined to be "actually usefull stuff", and not non-free content other than non-free content that someone has decided is "historical"). J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Milburn is a nice person. I can attest to that. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "historical" – Hmm, I do understand why some people may think they are speaking to a wall. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this a good description, concurring with what I've read from SV lately. Astonishing news to me is, that SV is an admin (SV can revoke me rights?). And in these elaborate discussions, no admin stepped in to restrain such a noise maker. Now, working forward constructively to improve Wikipedia, I propose a policy that can block a User (admin or not, but there might be levels), a User distrurbing a discussion from that discussion. Especially, since decisive discussions might be only seven days. Let's not reward the disruptors with a victory-by-distractions. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Block a user from disturbing a discussion from that discussion. Who gets to decide what "disturbing" a discussion actually is? And who gets to block them based on that decision? We don't block editors for civilly discussing an issue (devoid of personal labels like "noise maker"), even if they choose to filibuster. Seven days is too short, so silence the "noise makers"? I think not, good sir... Doc9871 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution here is to ban Slimvirgin from interacting with or commenting about J Milburn anywhere on Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's far from the "obvious solution" to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jtrainor - that's not going to work, as it would prevent SV from participating in the very image deletion discussions that kicked this off. Although I do agree that walking away from each other now would help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this ANI thread with interest, but I am not familiar with the background discussions of the image files, and I am deliberately not going anywhere near them. So I have no knowledge of the merits of the arguments. I also haven't crossed paths with J Milburn that I can remember. But, having read J Milburn's description at the top of this sub-thread, I have an intense feeling of recognition. It matches exactly the pattern of SlimVirgin's conduct towards me, ever since I was a newbie editor and committed the apparently mortal sin of editing some animal rights pages in ways with which SlimVirgin disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Doc9871: who gets to decide on disturbing -- well, such decisions are made daily, e.g. by admins. Disturbing edits, texts, behavior, you know. We don't block editors for civilly discussing an issue -- is what I said. Actually, I said it mirrored: block those who don't. Ah, and didn't I smell that good old you too argument. Always useful, I should note that one. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the situation, but I think Jtrainor's solution might be the best, or at least for a little while until things calm down. Elen brings up a good point, but there are other things SV can do in the meantime. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Carrite

Is something like this acceptable? Just a few minutes ago he blanked his talk page and replaced it with "Due to ongoing harassment by Trolls and their Minions, I will be neither reading or responding to User talk messages. Those with Wikipedia business interested in contacting me may do so directly at MutantPopaol.com" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• He's free to blank his talk page, although I do agree it's not conducive at all. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He's not free not to communicate on-wiki with other editors. Such behavior has gotten others blocked in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And similarly, others have been allowed to blank their talk pages in the same vein without getting blocked before, so... I think it's fair to say it's not conducive to the wiki to do so, there's no consensus on whether or not to act on something like it. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was unclear. Carrite has every right to blank his or her talk page, that's true even of IPs (although I don't agree with policy in those cases), but if an issue comes up, and an editor tries to communicate with Carrite, and Carrite refuses to answer or insists all communication has to be off-wiki -- that kind of behavior has gotten people indef blocked in the past. So, there's nothing for admins to do here, there's been no breach of policy at this time, and quite possibly by the time something comes up, Carrite's attitude about communicating on the talk page may be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is concerning is that Carrite is basically refusing to address any concerns on-wiki. This also goes against the open nature of the wiki to refuse to address any concerns anything on-wiki (that is acceptable to discuss on-wiki, that is, to separate from privileged communication between two users via Special:Emailuser or other sensitive information). –MuZemike 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • • • And others have been blocked for it. You have a problem with individual editors and don't want them on your talk page fine, closing your talk page to everyone is a no-no.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• This approach clearly didn't work the last time that Carrite tried it. So stop worrying about it. This isn't what this AN/I report is really about, anyway. There's an unstated core to this report.

  This just isn't pretty in any way. The personal attack in the edit summary by Carrite is not good. But your part in it wasn't good either, TenPoundHammer. Yes, there are people with bad rationales at AFD. That's not the way to go about changing their minds. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict times about 50) I let Carrite know about this discussion on their talk page. As Ken says, though, it probably isn't something to worry about now, but if later this user needs to be discussing and isn't, blocks may be in order at that time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess he can be blocked without any warnings then, since it's pointless giving warnings to someone who has said they won't be reading them? (a bit tongue in cheek, but still...). And last time he didn't flat out say he wouldn't read his talk page, he said it would be quicker to email him. I'm not emailing warnings to anyone. Normally of course we escalate warnings, but that wouldn't work here. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that reading this as we-can-now-block-without-warning, just to make a point, wouldn't be the best course of action. The request was ignored last time. It will be ignored this time, and already has been once. If Carrite decides to cut xyr nose off despite xyr own face if it should ever come to the point that interaction via xyr user talk page is warranted, then the outcome is fairly obvious. But this isn't really the meat of the issue, here. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#AMuseo, this, this, this, and (now) this. (I'm particularly drawing attention to the contents of the discussions.) Carrite obviously feels beleaguered. (If xe thinks that that's bad, though, xe should stand in some administrators' shoes some time.) Carrite's response is not the best response in such a situation. We all know that it's not going to be an effective one. Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I stopped short of leaving any templated warnings on Carrites talkpage, preferring instead to remind him about civility (here and here ). One reason for this is that I don't like to template regulars. Another reason (the second time) is that TenPoundHammer isn't exactly the least confrontational person on wikipedia in the first place. Trouts all round if you ask me. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I find the complainant's conduct here far more deserving of censure, if not sanctions, than the target's. TPH announced rather clearly a few days back that he's ready and willing to defy policies like WP:CIVIL when editing disputes aren't going his way [104], and this appears to be nothing more than a case where TPH deliberately, even petulantly, annoyed a user he was in conflict with until he succeeded in provoking an untoward response. It's certainly also relevant that TPH refused/failed to notify Carrite of this discussion as required, but shortly thereafter restored a deleted post to Carrite's talk page with a profane, uncivil edit summary. I have great doubt that the complaining editor's recent behavior genuinely complies with our good faith standards and note the repeated number of warnings and cautions from experienced editors posted recently on his talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Like it's any frakking better to IGNORE ME OUTRIGHT when I ask you a simple question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In passing...

I thought Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and under some kinfd of injunction against pages like User:Abd/Sandbox where he constantly restates his side of everything as fact and refuses to accept anyone else's POV as valid? Guy (Help!) 07:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his topic ban expired earlier this month per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_banned_from_cold_fusion_article. AniMate 07:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No ban (expired). No injunction relating to this. User:Abd/Sandbox? Eh? That page was used, and stands since Sept. 18, as a copy of Talk:Cold fusion, with all of my prior comments removed, and those of another editor, to measure edit volume in various ways. JzG, if you want to edit my Sandbox, fine. Say whatever you want! Permission granted. But bringing this to AN/I? --Abd (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI is an appropriate place for allegations of ban violations. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not for a ban placed by ArbComm. It would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. There, one is required to cite the ban, so time wouldn't be wasted with an expired ban. You can also look at WP:RESTRICT and see almost all current restrictions, normally including expiration dates. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But it remains inappropriate for you to be editing a restriction that was imposed on you by ArbCom (example). You should've left it to someone else who is not involved and specifically not the subject of the restriction - even if it was no longer in force. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Eversman

User:Jayjg suggest I post a notice. I'm following up on User:Eversman, whom I understand has a long history of mal-edits, his talk page regularly blanked, multiple blocks and much disruption. Since April 2010 at least he's been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics and adding a "Roman Catholic" categories, based on their parent's religion, misquoting sources. Most of these hundreds of edits stand unamended, as far as I can see. He is still reverting attempts to modify or balance what is written as at Pierce Brosnan. He is still going strong. Please advise. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified him, but I've done that, and noted on his talk page that he never responds on his talk page. You might want to see WP:BLP which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This bothers me a bit coming so shortly after the notice, but it's hopefully a coincidence. 115.164.72.70 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User Spanglej should have responded the issue of Pierce Brosnan on his talk page, where I have posted a message. And it is not true I have been adding a "Roman Catholic" categories based on the parent's religion, anyone can see that in every article I've changed. Also, I have not been been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics, I have been adding info that they where raised Catholics and every time I have provided reliable reference. So, it is not nice that Spanglej is misleading the admins in hope that they will take actions against me. P.s. I don't have multiple blocks set against me, only 2 which all where made by User:Jayjg to whom you have made a complaint. So, another lie you have told. With regards --Eversman (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I think it is only to my concern what I do with my talk page. Anyone can see history edits of my talk page, so It is obviously that I got nothing to hide, but why I do it is only up to me.--Eversman (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes it is--but it's not in the cooperative spirit of the project. I've edited the article and explained myself in my edit summary and on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I have moved through the incidents procedure in the wrong order. I am new to this. I pursued the question too hotly, no doubt. I did raise this on the Brosnan talk page and other pages where edit wars are going on. My intention is not at all to mislead but to flag on-going conflicts and unremitting contravention of policy that is, in my view, compromising, hundreds of articles. From Eversman's talk page history it is clear that the issue of controversial religious classification has been on-going for years. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What issue of controversial religious classification that has been on-going for years? Every article I've changed has been reliable sourced and that is a fact that anyone can check. Please STOP with misleading the admins about my contribution to Wiki, it is not nice in anyway.--Eversman (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to evaluate and close a merge request so we can begin to move on an issue

For those who don't follow Twinkle and Friendly, there has been discussion of a merge between the two tools lately, with the proposal being to merge the two tools as Twinkle. Discussion has been going on at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Merge Twinkle and Friendly into one tool? for more than a month. At least to me, the result seems fairly straightforward, but as the initiator of the request, it would be somewhat untoward for me to close it. Would someone please evaluate the discussion and close it so that, if the result is to merge, we can start making the necessary changes? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no input from those who have developed and maintained those tools. Could that be gathered please? NW (Talk) 13:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Ioeth/Archive 7#Twinkle merge for discussion between Ioeth and myself about the technical bits of the merge. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulate (song)

Someone has created a "hip" plot summary of this song, full of inappropriate language and original research. The "summary" is thought of as hilarious by various external websites who keep linking to it, and every time the non-encyclopedic material is removed, some "helpful" editor restores it again. The issue has been brought up repeatedly on the article's talk page, but the advocates for the removed language just dismiss the rest of us as tired rigid oldsters who are against "fun" edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was linked to this on one of those said external websites, and my response was, "On the one hand, I want to delete it because it's unencyclopedic; on the other hand, I don't want to destroy something beautiful." (Though, I'm not seeing any inappropriate language. Verbose wording, too much wording, but nothing inappropriate...) --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I consider "verbose meme" style grossly inappropriate, as being totally non-encyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not The Onion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• While the other concerns raised may have merit, I don't think it's original research as it does not "[advance] a position not advanced by the source". It's simply an explanation of the lyrics in (frankly hilarious) verbose meme style. –xeno^talk 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of unsourced assumptions about plotline, character motiviation, etc. in the summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Did this editor write those "unsourced assumptions" himself, or do they come from the cite he references? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The "references" are primarily to the lyrics themselves, and to a footnote in which he explains the reasoning behind his original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is "someone" Cander0000 (talk · contribs)? Because xe's done the same thing at Boyz-n-the-Hood (edit, from a draft at User:Cander0000/Boyz). Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It's clearly intended as a joke. The old "let's apply clinical/academic language to the analysis of a gangsta rap song! Lots-o-laffs" bit. Cander0000 has been given a final warning for creating and restoring these synopses. Regulate has been protected; will protect Boyz in the Hood if the meatpuppets descend upon it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • A straight-forward non-interpretive plot summary does not require any additional references, as the song itself serves as reference. However, in this case, although labelled as a "synopsis", it's actually an interpretation of the lyrics, and, as such, requires a citation from a reliable source to be included in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Quantum666

Quantum666 (talk · contribs)

I've got two conflicts with this user and if we not decide them now, there will be much more conflicts.

First conflict is not hard. In the article about the city Karvachar (recent name in enwiki Kalbajar) he is deleting images, making vandalism and violating a rule of Wikipedia:Edit warring and 3RR, making three deletions: 1, 2, 3. This conflict is the easiest one.

And now about the more harder conflict. The conflict is really more wiser than one article about the Agdam Rayon, where have took place a conflict. There were a discussion in the my talk page, but as I see he don't want to gain a compromise. He repeats his arguments on which I've already answered and don't give new arguments repeating old arguments. I think that the discussion is at a standstill as he is not going to have a compromise.

About the problem (shortly). From the 1991 there are an independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), while Azerbaijan things that it is their territory. Azerbaijan doesn't control a majority of the territory of the NKR. According to the legislation of the NKR there are one administrate divisions, while according to the Azerbaijan legislation there are other divisions. Here is a conflict about the quantity of the population. In this territory before the last war was an all-Soviet census in 1989. Results are available in Russian in the official Russian web-site. There were also two other censuses. In Azerbaijan was a census in 1999, but as Azerbaijan don't control Nagorno-Karabakh, there were no census at those time. Other census was in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the 2005. The results can be found in the pdf file from the special web-page of this census (census in NKR in 2005) from the official web-site of the National Statistic Service of NKR.

Three quarters of the Agdam rayon since 1993 is under the control of the NKR, while one quart is under the control of the Azerbaijan. According to the legislation of the NKR, Agdam rayon was abolished and included to the territory of three other districts: northern part to the Martakert district, western part (with Agdam) to the Askeran district and southern part to the Martuni district. Eastern part is under the control of the Azerbaijan.

The problem is that Azerbaijan try to increase a number of population of the regions which has loosed in the war. They make falsifications for artificial increase a number of refugees. For this they are saying about a million of refugees and making falsifications on the state level. For example on the official Azeri web-site You can find an information about the population of this regions for 1993 which is more than during the census in 1989 from 20 to 30%. There were no any census in 1993 in this region at all and more than that there was a War and for 4 years of war it is impossible to have growth at all, especially in a quart. Even in the best region of the world it is impossible to have a growth of population for 4 years in 20-30%.

According to his contributions he is actively making edits in disputed articles mostly having a conflicts with other users. He already has got warnings on his talk page but he continues his behavior. Please make something as he is not going to reach compromise and I don't want to participate in edit wars with him. Also I want to add that in ruwiki he has been already indefinitely blocked. I'll notify him just now. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first incident of edit warring is from before my block of Quantum666 for another incident of edit-warring and is therefore probably not actionable at this point. Should edit-warring reoccur, please use WP:AN3.

The second incident is a content disagreement that cannot be resolved by administrators, or on this board. Plese see WP:DR for several ways that you can take to resolve this disagreement.  Sandstein  19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to be patient and do not react to his actions, but if his contribution would not be more constructive I'll have to take the necessary measures. He spoils the articles relating to Armenia, adding a variety of dubious material which detracts from the appearance of article and I am very worried. Moreover, in recent years he had many conflicts with other users. I'm not going to pass other request on him now. Thanks, --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be mindful of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions, especially in view of your previous sanctions in this topic area.  Sandstein  19:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Quantum666 comments:

1. I made a mistake when was engaged in edit warring. As I have already explained I understood that it was wrong and I am not going to repeat my mistakes. Thanks Sandstein for explanations about my block.

2. I don't think that using words like making vandalism, he don't want to gain a compromise, They make falsifications, he is not going to reach compromise in Wikipedia is a good idea

3. Lionking hasn't answered none of my arguements and stopped the discussion at all. You can see it at his discussion page. And you will see that his description differs from the real matter of our dispute.

4. It's better to discuss disputed articles in details instead of saying he is adding a variety of dubious material. What exactly do you think dubious? I am ready to give you all necessary sources and explanations.

5. Lionking is givin only a part of information. I was blocked indefinitely according to my wish as I had decided to continue editing in English Wikipedia and to leave ruwiki. However I don't think discussing it here is a good idea. --Quantum666 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, really? I have waste a lot of time trying to get a compromise with You while You have done nothing. You repeat old arguments on which I've already give answers. I'm not going to repeat them You are able to read them by Yourself in the discussion. You've deleted all gallery of images from the article and You don't want to hear from me that it is a vandalism? At least it is very strange. Anyway everybody can read my talk page to be sure that I've answered on Your questions and You're repeating them. You're adding a templates about violating of NPOV to the Armenia-related articles if there are not enough about Azeri POV while You don't do the same with Azeri-related articles when there are nothing about Armenian POV. It is double standards.

About Your block:

"The Arbitration Committee took into the mind that a substantial proportion of the contribution of the participant in the space of articles represents the introduction of controversial changes or the conduct of war update. Given this, the Arbitration Committee decided to keep a perpetual lock on the account Quantum666 valid justification for the change to violation of the rules of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and account Absolutetruth block for 3 months. After leaving the lock on the party imposed a ban on the editing of controversial articles and restriction on editing the Wikipedia space for 6 months, as described in paragraph 3 of this decision." [105] So after a block in Russian wikipedia You are continuing Your contribution in English wikipedia testing Your luck here. So Your goal here and Your activity is understandable for me. I'm not surprising why You're deleting images from the article, avoid compromise and filling only one POV to the articles. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I have already written about your understanding of "compromise" and I can repeat it again. The "compromise" you were offering is not a compromise. You cannot "exchange" edits that have no relation with each other (except their authors). You cannot write "the Sun is rotating around the Earth" reasoning it like this "my compromise is to let you add information about the Sun's temperature".

2. Once again: you haven't given any answer to my arguements

3. Deleting the newly added photos was reasoned and the real compromise is about to be reached after the discussion in which you unfortunately don't take part. However you reverted my edits twice without participating in the discussion and even didn't answer my request about your reverts at your discussion page. At least it is not polite.

4. Show me any article that you think violates NPOV and I will add the template if it really does. All my addings of NPOV flags were reasoned at the discussion pages but I heard no answer from you. You cannot solve the problem of POVing writing requests here. The only way is discussing and getting consensus.

5. Are you trying to prove that 3 months="indefenitily"? Or are you trying to say that I'm "a bad user in Russian Wikipedia"? None of these tries will help you to defend your POV in our discussion about Agdam rayon. As well as discussing the sanctions against you will not help me to defend mine. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1.In my talk page I've written about compromise. I've proposed You some variants while You have chosen none of them and not proposed any real variants. I'm repeating that I can agree with You with deletion of Armenian name from the chapter while we should delete misleading information about the population in 1993 from Azeri unneutral source to the number of population according to the official all-Soviet pre-conflict census in 1989. You disagreed with me and continued Your behavior saying old arguments. We can't move forward if You don't agree with compromise and don't propose smth what can be acceptable for both POV.

2. You can read them on my talk page in some rows up of Your arguments.

3. It seems to me that You don't understand. Not polite it is when smbd delete all 8 images from the article without any discussion. And when smbd delete all images from the article - it is vandalism. I'm an author of those images but to the article added them other user. And by the way the discussion started user who added images. You continues deleting them.

4. In wikipedia there are a great amount of articles that violates NPOV, but You chose only Armenian-related articles.

5. Sorry, but unfortunately I know Russian not so bad and I understand what is written:

ru: Арбитражный Комитет постановляет оставить бессрочную блокировку учётной записи Quantum666 в силе

en: The Arbitration Committee decided to keep a perpetual lock on the account Quantum666 in force

so it is not a problem for me to read what is written there. If You were a good user there You can not be blocked. And if You assumed good faith now You would work in ruwiki, but as You was blocked indefinitely You try to continue Your anti-Armenian contributions in English chapter of wikipedia, filling templates of violating NPOV, deleting images and filling anti-Armenian information to the Armenian-related articles. By the way, for a short period of time You've got here a lot of conflicts with other users. --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Well, if you really don't understand that exchanging "name" with "population" is not a compromise you can ask someone else because being "anti-Armenian" I cannot convince you about anything.

2. Using colons doesn't mean answering. Read my arguements once again please.

3. Before accusing me of vandalism please read WP:CONSENSUS and write all your disagreements at the article's dicussion page. Reverting without discussion will never help you to prove anything.

4. They are also Azerbaijani related articles. Am I anti-Azerbaijani?

5. It's not necessary to apologize for your Russian. Could you please translate this text: Прошу бессрочно заблокировать данную учетную запись в связи с уходом из проекта.

Сделано. Разблокировка возможна любым администратором, но не ранее 1 октября 2010 согласно решению Арбитражного комитета по заявке 589. Артём Коржиманов 20:40, 4 июля 2010 (UTC)

I hope now you will stop discussing ruwiki here as you know very little about the matter and it has no relation to our dispute. If you won't we can continue discussing the sanctions imposed on you due to your contribution in AA topic. Should we? --Quantum666 (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. We are speaking about one article and there are two questions. As a compromise, in the first I agree to use only Azeri name and in the second to use only neutral number of population. I don't speak that in the first we should use only Armenian name and in the second also only Armenian. I purpose You a real compromise to gain a consensus, while You purpose to use in the first disagreement only Azeri name and in the second disagreement two databases: Azeri politically wrong number of population and a real number according to the census. If You want to gain a compromise, You should make assignments while now only I make assignments.

2. Ok, I'll do it again if it is really hard to find answers on my talk page.

2.1.Q:"The official site of Azerbaijani authorities is a reliable source to represent their opinion."

2.1.L:"there were no any census in Azerbaijan in 1993 this information can't be used. Azerbaijan just try to falsificate the real number of refugees, so after 4 years from the census the have added 20-30% of population to all regions which they have lost. Compare: in 1989: 131,293 inhabitans according to the neutral all-Soviet official census and in 1993: 158,900 (!) according to the unknown Azeri source. I'm sure that we shouldn't mislead the reader as the second data is very doubtful, it is unavaible to have such growth in theory and in practice."

2.2.Q:"You haven't shown any source confirming equality of territories of the rayon in Azerbaijan SSR and in Azerbaijan Republic."

2.2.L:"As I know a part of the territory of Agdam rayon is under the control of Defence Forces of NKR since 1993. But smaller part is under the control of NAA. According to the administrative division of NKR Agdam rayon was included to the Martakert, Askeran and Martuni rayons, so according the legislation of NKR there are no Agdam rayon. However a smaller part (without administrative center) is under the control of Azeri forces, if You're not sure, confirm it please."

2.3.Q:"We are editing differnt things. One is about name and another is about population. Don't try to axchange them. It is not a compromise. The only important thing is Wikipedia principles."

2.3.L:You can see an answer even here in the p. 1.

2.4.Q:"The article is not about the disputed territory but about the administrative division of Azerbaijan. Since Armenian is not the official language Armenian name has to be removed."

2.4.L:"partly it is under control of Azerbaijan, while the biggest part (including Agdam city) is under the control of NKR."

If you would have even the slightest doing, you could read again my answer, but you decided to just talk to me about their case every time again.

3. I would not do it. It is the equal if I delete now all images from the article about New York and somebody else will be obliged to write on the talk page why this images shouldn't be deleted. You have no right to spoil the article or delete images from the articles, especially to do it without discussion.

4. No, You're not anti-Azerbaijan as You spoil only Armenian-related articles. For example You fill a template of NPOV to the administrative division of NKR (which don't recognize Azerbaijan) and never filled such template to any article about any administrative division of Azerbaijan.

5. Stop misleading. I've wrote already everything. If anyone want to check, they can look Your block list.

(ru)"Yaroslav Blanter изменил настройки блокировки для Quantum666, истекает бессрочно (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) ‎ (учётная запись для обхода блокировки: Согласно решению по заявке 589)"

(en)"Yaroslav Blanter changed the settings for blocking Quantum666, expires on indefinitely (it is forbidden registration account) (account to bypass the lock: According to the decision on the application 589)"

--Ліонкінг (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1.Once again: ask someone else uninvolved in AAconflict to explain the difference.

2. We have already started the discussion at your page so please continue there. Or you can go to the article's discussion page. I am not going to discuss it here.

3. Please go to the article's discussion page. I am not going to discuss it here

4. Please write your disagreements at the articles' discussion pages and I will answer. I am not going to discuss it here

5. So you cannot translate it? Good. Then I finish the discussion to avoid wasting of time. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I ask administrators to close the discussion as it becomes more and more absurd. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ліонкінг's signature

Resolved

 – Request made & declined. –xeno^talk 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if, in line with the relevant guideline, the OP could be requested to modify his signature. It's quite awkward when reading, if you don't automatically know how they're verbalised, to run across words like "Ліонкінг", i find; it slows down the process. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 03:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The signature complies with WP:SIGNATURE. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to force a change. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In my main page there are written that in English I'm Lionking. It is not principal for me in which language smbd apply to me. For example Quantum666 use English version Lionking and it is OK for me. But I use original Ukrainian Ліонкінг in all chapters of wikipedia and I'm not going to change this name. I think that it is better if signature and a real name's are equal, so I don't want to change my signature to not mislead other users who can mix up me with anybody else. For example, there are: User:Lion King, User:LionKing, User:Lionkingfan3, User:Lionkingmoviefan and others. Wishes, --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbalisation doesn't matter. There is no reason for it especially since reading is a visual activity and Ліонкінг is visually unique enough and distinguishable from any other sig. To communicate, if needed, copy and paste the sequence of the letters and reply to the editor. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, verbalisation does matter, very significantly, since we process things that are purely visual differently from things that we can speak. It's one reason why it's so very difficult to distingish one IP address from another and provide them with "identities" the way we do with account names. I understand why policy was changed to allow non-roman-alphabet account names, but for me, and obviously for LindsayH, dealing with them is quite a bit more difficult. Those with non-roman-alphabet-based IDs might think about altering their sigs for editing here to help others to "latch on" to them more easily, and vice versa for those with roman-alphabet-based IDs when editing in Wikis which use other systems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There are users, even admins, who sign using Chinese and Japanese characters. There are also others signing in Arabic and they never have been a problem for me. Same goes for those who use symbols in their usernames. The Artist formerly known as Prince did the same with apparently no problems. I don't see the issue really but I can't speak for everyone. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The guideline quoted in the OP says editors are encouraged to use latin characters in at least part of their sig. They are not forced to do so if they don't want to. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. By the way what is the OP? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 09:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OP stands for "Original Post," usually meaning the first post in a discussion. In this case, referring to Ліонкінг. I suspect this was supposed to be a sub-heading for the previous discussion, so I've modified it to be such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got much more of an issue with some editors whose latin character signatures are gibberish. This isn't a terrible problem although it can make it more difficult to distinguish signatures from those very similar. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This will be a problem for people who process written information by verbalising it, as they will indeed come to a screeching halt when they see a signature in a non-latin alphabet. I'm afraid unless someone tells me another designation, they all get thought of as "bleh" in my little brane (sorry, not very helpful I know). Not sufficient of a reason to enforce Latinisation, but it does make it worth putting a translation/transliteration on one's userpage, as Ліонкінг has done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reads like "Nioh-kihr" (neo-kerr) to me. Problem solved? –xeno^talk 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for me, yes. If I can associate that visual pattern with the sound "Nioh-kihr", it makes things much easier. And I agree with those above re: gibberish names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it helps. Thank you, Xeno. May i just point out, gently, and leaving, that i didn't try "to force a change", nor did i mention that i didn't like the signature ~ actually i quite do; thanks for the feedback. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Jillian Hall

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at the edit history for Jillian Hall. For a GA article, there is a lot of activity. I only noticed this because a link to a dab page keeps getting added, I fix it, the material gets deleted and then re added with the bad link. Since I have edited this, probably best if I don't deal with the warring going on. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The massive edit warring appears to be between WWEsnoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SpeakthTRUTH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and what are probably their IPs). Both accounts are exclusively dedicated to adding or removing dubiously sourced biographical details to Jillian Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of WP:BLP and WP:EW. Since neither account is doing anything remotely useful, I am blocking both indefinitely. They can be unblocked if they convince us that they understand the applicable policies and want to do something useful on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP User:79.106.109.119 v

User:79.106.109.119: see their recent edits in Tomori. User:Kedadi already did bulk-rev earlier, but I cannot. Sorry for not using the bigger linked template and so, but it seems clear cut to me. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Notified the IP by non-template. There is a last warning already, btw. The Tomori-disruptions are older (>1 week), I missed that. Just wanted to be a first OK? I was triggered by this single [106], already reverted. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait again. It's about 79.106.109.xxx. Is why I mixed up things.

rv in Unicode: -.33

Bad behaviour in Tomori: -.110, -.115, -.119. -.114, and more

I'm lost from here, but a look from someone else might be needed. -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more clear what exactly the problem is and which action you request. It's not apparent to me. 79.106.109.119 has an empty talk page.  Sandstein  19:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I'll be back. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what happened.

• 79.106.109.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did a v. This single edit I reversed.
• When checking Xis other edits, I saw this history. There was a bulk-revert by User:Kedadi today.
• My eyes missed the difference in IP's: it is 79.106.109.xxx allover. I have checked one more IP (unknowing I clicked a diff one), and saw a sad contribution history. Is how & why I got alarmed. I wanted to report a big fish here once. Well.
• So, no fire burning, I misread the IPs. Unless a more IP-savvy admin wants to take a look at it (not too many warnings in this IP-group?), no big deal. We could close & go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

AlMaghrib Institute

There is an editor, User:AlBaraa who keeps removing referenced material from the above article, although objections to his edits have been raised at the article talk page Talk:AlMaghrib Institute#Recent edits and consensus on how to proceed has not yet been achieved there. The last such edit is here[107]. He also tried to remove the discussion thread from the talk page itself[108]. I am already at three reverts in relation to his edits and do not want to break the 3RR rule myself. However, I'd like a previously uninvolved admin to take a look at the matter, talk to User:AlBaraa and see what could be done about the material he removed. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible RevDel material

Resolved

 – thanks --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted these two edits. I'm not sure if they warrant revdeleting or not - the second strikes me as a pretty strong veiled suggestion, while the other is pretty rude (I'm not sure that is a revdel candidate). Just throwing them out there (as they are BLP's) for someone else to decide --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first diff is content that, if it were supported with solid reliable third party sources, would be discarded as not germane to the subjects notability. The second is simple bad mouthing, with perhaps an attempt at humour thrown in (though it is so unfunny I cannot be certain). Your actions in reverting and warning is all that was needed in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

well I wasn't sure if the first one was making a not so nice suggestion about the guy, usually i wouldn't have thought so but in the context of the second one it seemed good to double check. Fanks :)--Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LessHeard vanU; definitely not a candidate for RevDel. Also, the first one doesn't seem contentious: it mentions that he made a cameo appearance for a local drama club. The second is a WP:WEASELly BLP violation, but not worth revdel, just reversion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also agree; RevDel is surely intended for gross material rather than merely unsourced drivel; the test I apply is "could they sue for this?", and if I think it's a contender, it goes. Let the editor seeking to include it justify it. Rodhullandemu 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I was concerned that given the context of the second edit the first was making a stress on the word "kiddie catcher" (I was trying to avoid explaining it :D) for.. well.. the obvious connotations. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Need a DRV to be speedy closed

riffic (talk · contribs) has started the seventh DRV on Gay Nigger Association of America, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 22. The previous DRV on this article (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 6) closed about a week ago (13 September 2010). Since that time, there has been one edit to the userspace draft referenced in the DRV (User:Murdox/GNAA), which added a wikilink. Clearly, this DRV is frivolous and riffic is wasting everyone's time. This should be closed before it sucks anyone else in, and before the trolls catch wind of it and start commenting. SnottyWong ^converse 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that administrator Hoary (talk · contribs) may have gloated riffic into starting the DRV. riffic was a part of past conversations on Talk:GNAA and may have been encouraged by Hoary's statements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the background, nothing much had changed since the last discussion, so I have closed this. At some point these repeated nominations will be disruptive, indeed that point may have been reached already. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:RL0919#just_a_heads_up – riffic wasn't being disruptive. He discussed this with another administrator beforehand. riffic was cautious. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Which administrator? (Not me.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RL0919. That particular comment doesn't have anything to do with you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in any so-called "Gay Nigger Association of America", but GNAA is on my watchlist. I'm aware of the long and tedious series of AfDs on the former, but not of subsequent DRVs. What I wrote was: you are free to [...] appeal for permission to create an article about "GNAA" the troll group that's sometimes said to exist: first read about the process at WP:DRV and then do it there [...]. (I don't know what "gloat" means above, but there was no gloating" in any sense of this word that I know.) When I wrote this, I didn't know that "Gay Nigger Association of America" was an item within Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests; I think my ignorance was excusable as it's been there less than a month and nobody had mentioned at Talk:GNAA that DRV wasn't possible. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're taking your own comment out of context. Here's what you said ("gloating" in bold text): So you are free to do either or both of two things. First, appeal for permission to create an article about "GNAA" the troll group that's sometimes said to exist: first read about the process at WP:DRV and then do it there. Secondly, appeal for the deletion of every article on an episode of any obscure Japanese cartoon: the recipe for this is here. You were making a point while mocking an anonymous user's opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't explain your use of "gloat". (If I think that some young heir to a Russian oil fortune is a dickhead, I'll gloat at news that he has totaled the Lamborghini that papa gave him.) I can't prevent anyone from fantasizing about my motives, but I had thought that "AGF" was a WP watchword. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're accusing me of "fantasizing". Isn't that bad faith? Shouldn't sysop have higher expectations for themselves than the standard guidelines? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez clearly meant "goaded" instead of "gloated". Let's not get distracted please. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, goaded, yes. (But no, I didn't goad anyone to do anything.) And your main point is a good one, Looie496. With it firmly in mind: Michaeldsuarez, if my conduct is an issue, then create a new section on this page about my conduct. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor English vocabulary; it comes with my Hispanic Queens, New York background. I rather drop the issue; your conduct isn't harming anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, no harm done. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like this DRV to be re-opened and have it stand the full course (seven days) so I can gain the consensus required. The fact the user draft received one edit since closure is immaterial, I point out in the latest Deletion Review argument that the opposition arguments were in error and the merits of this new DRV should be based solely on that. By the way, my burrito was delicious. riffic (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request – If it's appropriated, can a sysop please list Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 22 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) as the past DRV's were? The page is protected. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Yes, I've just now done this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Riffic may indeed have a point. I don't say that his reasoning is valid, but it's not obviously invalid, and the statement at the head of this section that Clearly, this DRV is frivolous and riffic is wasting everyone's time seems harsh. ¶ But yes, it is unusual at best for a DRV to be started a mere week after another has closed, and cumulatively these discussions of this GNAA are tiresome. In the spirit of reasonableness (whether or not there's a relevant WP guideline), could a condition of the current DRV (if it's reopened) or the next one (if not) be that if it's unsuccessful there will be no further DRV, and if it's successful there will be no further AfD, for six months thereafter? ¶ We read at the head of this section that This should be closed [...] before the trolls catch wind of it and start commenting. I could guess the kind of thing this might refer to but took a look anyway. However intelligent or unintelligent the discussion within it, the previous DRV was not obviously marred my trollery, puppet accounts, etc. One person identifying himself as part of GNAA participated, but (as far as I noticed) did so reasonably and politely. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out why there was a burst of new DRV's for the GNAA after June 2010. In June, GNAA front Goatse Security gained major media attention for exploiting a vulnerability with the AT&T website. The new DRV's are a symptom of the media hype. I believe the hype will fade (unless GoatSec hack another site) and the amount of new DRV's will naturally decrease. I doubt that the current rate of new GNAA DRV's will remain constant. I don't believe that the restriction is necessary since the rate of new GNAA DRV's will decrease as the hype fades. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of "too soon" arguments when the prior close was No Consensus, and I said as much to riffic, who seems to have taken my comments as an endorsement of his plan to rush to another DRV. But what happened is essentially what I predicted: that another nomination so quickly would be decried as too soon. Out of 25 AFD and DRV discussions about GNAA, only a handful have been completed normally, mostly the early ones. Then for a long time every AFD would be closed as speedy keep because even daring to nominate it was "disruptive"; surely it would never be deleted. Until one day an AFD was closed as Delete. Then suddenly DRVs about it became disruptive and had to be speedy closed. It is as if whichever side has the default position at the moment is deathly afraid of letting a discussion run its course, lest there be some risk of the other side winning. That probably isn't the motivation in most cases, but that's the impression it gives off. --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to let this one sit in userspace for an indeterminate amount of time (say 3-6 months) before any future attempts to bring it up for review again. Again, I am willing to wait until any significant changes are made in the subject article so any future review can be closed with a clear final and determinate consensus. The reason I brought this forward for review today is because I felt that at the time of the previous review's closing, the theories presented by the opposition were invalidated by the state of the article at that time. riffic (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still arguing over GNAA after all this time. If they were anything like significant enough to justify all these arguments, we wouldn't even be having them! Guy (Help!) 10:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I already explained why the summer 2010 GNAA DRV's appeared in my last post. Look up Goatse Security. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion of email from history

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted AniMate 01:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A piece of minor vandalism at Imperial cult (ancient Rome) leaves an email address in the article history. Could an admin please conceal the offending diffs? Thanks, Haploidavey (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bolitas's removal of speedy tags

Resolved

 – User:Bolitas blocked for 24 hours. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bolitas (talk · contribs) has continued to remove speedy deletion notices from articles they have created [109], after multiple warnings (including two "final" warnings) to desist. However, this is not really vandalism as the user has made attempts to communicate [110] and appears to generally be editing in good faith. Is there anything else to be done to get this user's attention? VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed url to second link, sorry. VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an update. After user deleted the speedy tag 6 times at Luzon Moo Duk Kwan, 3 times after final warning, I have removed the last speedy nom and started an AfD discussion on that article. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough - I have re-tagged for speedy deletion and reported User:Bolitas to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal returns

For about a year now, following a BLP-related dispute leading to the elimination of the freestanding "Sal The Stockbroker" article (see Talk:Sal_the_Stockbroker for background), a determined Howard Stern fan has returned from time to time to harass editors involved in that dispute, of late mostly me (see this charming post on my talk page [111] as well as the edit history of my user page). Over the last week or so, beginning, it appears, as User:Perthmonsit, more recently as a string of IPs, the user has been periodically following my edits, and reverting a large number of generally uncontroversial ones (mostly adding inappropriate content back into BLPs). Admin Barek, who's done a lot of the heavy lifting over the last few days in dealing with this, recommended that I bring the matter here and ask whether it's appropriate/useful to impose some rangeblocks to put a halt to this, so I've taken his advice. The user/vandal seems to have a habit of using User_talk:98.117.34.180 as a test page; the edit history there gives a lot of examples of IPs involved, as well as indicating just how long this vandalism has been going on (I'm hardly the only target). What should be done next? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing this thread I had already placed range blocks against this vandal. I have placed two-week blocks on 98.143.146.80/28, 96.44.132.0/27, 96.44.133.0/27 and 204.152.215.96/27. Two weeks is an arbitrary time. At the time I placed the blocks I was only aware of vandalism over a fairly recent period, but since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reckons that the problem has been going on for about a year, more may be needed. However, I am always reluctant to place long term range blocks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Alleged admin abuse: EdJohnston

Resolved

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Edit warring over cleanup templates|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Edit warring over cleanup templates]]

Though it seems rather surreal to have to do so I am obligated to register a complaint against an administrator for abuse of his role. For the record, the following was the basic sequence of events:

• Last week I added the cleanup banner {{globalize}} to Ancient Greece and posted my concerns on the talk page. To be clear my concern was that the article should avoid biasing itself toward the influence of this culture on any particular segment of the world population. From previous experience on this article I was prepared for an ugly response but I tried to be optimistic. When the issue had been briefly discussed many months back there was some support expressed for making a change (at that time I did not pursue it further as two editors at that time had turned the discussion immediately ugly). Mind you, I used the cleanup banner rather than editing the prose to avoid triggering any sort of reversion controversy.
• Almost immediately another editor removed the the banner against Wikipedia policy and posted an ugly response. The response did not address the issue I had raised at all.
• I restored the cleanup banner asking the editor not to vandalize leading to a back and forth on the banner.
• I filed a request for mediation to help in stopping the edit war and asking that we actually discuss the issue.
• Another editor suggested using the {{dubious}} tag on one particular statement in place of {{globalize}} on the whole article. Though this was a less accurate characterization of the issue I accepted it as a compromise. The first editor rejected this compromise so I returned to using {{globalize}}. The edit war continued.
• I placed an Rfc to try to attract editors who might actually want to discuss this issue. The two editors dominated most of the talk page arguing about templates. I tried to avoid addressing debating about templates and tried to return the discussion to the issue. Still the issue was almost never discussed nor was even one source offered in support preserving the disputed wording. From previous experience on other articles I knew the ugliness of the discussion was likely frightening away editors with a scholarly interest in the topic. I hoped the mediation request might kick in before the situation got any more out of hand though my hope was fading.
• One of the editors filed an ANI seeking to try to close down the discussion (mind you this editor explicitly refused to discuss the issue I raised at all).
• Administrator EdJohnston decided to get involved and attack me claiming I had violated reversion rules. I reminded Ed that the 3RR is intended for content reversions. Cleanup banners, Afds, and the like cannot be arbitrarily reverted until there is consensus on the issue raised (or it becomes clear that there is no good faith reason to continue). Given that this issue was only a week old and virtually no actual discussion of the issue had taken place, there was no good faith argument that the banner had outlived its usefulness.
• Despite my request for Ed to explain himself he chose to abuse his authority to bar me from Wikipedia.

I honestly don't know the reason for Ed's behavior, be it a personal relationship with some particular party or simply being swept up by mob mentality. As Ed is an experienced editor I think a misunderstanding of the policies can be ruled out.

I am not requesting any particular action in this matter; I am only providing notice. The damage is done insofar as it is unlikely that any serious scholar will want to get involved in the discussion (or perhaps even the article) at this point. I don't know anything about Ed's past behavior but certainly this can't be allowed to continue in the future.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Though these are technicalities it should be noted that:

• At the time Ed barred me the banner was not present on the page. He claimed that he was waiting for me to remove the banner which obviously can't be true.
• At the time Ed barred me I had already shut down the discussion including the Rfc since it was clear to me that editors who might have a serious interest in the topic were almost surely frightened away by that point.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• You said... "I reminded Ed that the 3RR is intended for content reversions. Cleanup banners, Afds, and the like cannot be arbitrarily reverted until there is consensus on the issue raised (or it becomes clear that there is no good faith reason to continue)." which I find to be interestingly at odds with what I understand of 3RR. Can you please cite a policy or guideline that makes tagging or detagging an exception to 3RR? Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• You have nobody but yourself to blame given that you consciously chose not to self-revert. The issue is you misunderstood the reversion rules so your reminders were not in synch with policy that was enacted by the Community. In other words, the issue isn't EdJohnston. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to note that I was one of the many editors who removed the globalize tag from the article, as it wasn't applicable and there was clearly no consensus for it to remain, and that when Mcorazao reverted my edit, he labelled it as "possible vandalism", which, of course, it wasn't, and which, I believe, he knew to be untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I have read extensively on various pages relating to this incident. There are numerous issues in the editing concerned, but as far as this discussion is concerned the issue is whether or not EdJohnston was abusing administrators' powers by placing a 24 hour block on Mcorazao for edit warring. The reason advanced for suggesting that there was abuse is that Mcorazao suggests that edit warring applies only to textual content, not to "cleanup banners". Mcorazao has also expressed various other grievances, including questioning EdJohnston's motives, but these are irrelevant to the issue in question. I find no basis whatever for the idea that these templates are exempt from the prohibition of edit warring, nor has anyone else supported this view, and Mcorazao has produced no justification except his/her own assertion. The error in understanding WP:3RR was pointed out, but Mcorazao persisted in their belief. I have no reason to doubt that Mcorazao was acting in good faith, but there is no basis at all for the view that their action was exempt from WP:3RR, and so there is no case at all against EdJohnston. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Got up too early, need a block review please

I woke up far too early this am and blocked Nfli3596 (talk · contribs) for an obviously misleading edit summary [112], where he made substantive changes, marked them as M despite warnings about that, and described them as "punctuation, grammar, syntax". But I've been editing the article so am obviously involved. Could an uninvolved Admin please review this and take appropriate action. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good block. --John (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, though I'd suggest that the more significant issue that warranted the block was what it was he did in those edits (the edit summaries were a secondary issue). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Marking all edits as he did as minor is very much disruptive. That prevents users who have the ability to track minor edits disabled on watchlists from being able to see such changes. Good block. –MuZemike 06:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will add that this is the prime reason why we need to have "mark all edits as minor" eliminated under "My preferences" for reasons just like this. –MuZemike 06:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although he evidently didn't have it set as two of his edits aren't marked M. There was a discussion maybe last month about eliminating it but I didn't see what happened to it. Shall we start it again? I also agree with Ncmvocalist. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24313 I would recommend and suggest not having a billion new comments on the bug, but it wouldn't hurt to vote the bug up.   Thorncrag  07:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. According to {{CURRENTVERSION}} we are running 1.16wmf4 (r73534), but this interface feature was supposedly removed in 1.16wmf4 (r69338). I am not sure if the change happened in a side branch and never reached us, if it was undone later on, or if the change only affected new installations and we must implement it manually by updating a configuration file that was already customised in different ways for this site. The most important thing now is to find out which explanation applies so that we can address it. Hans Adler 11:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bitey block. User account has been around for a while but used very lightly. User has total of 47 edits, to just a few articles, and is obviously inexperienced. Talkpage engagement with the user before the block was decidedly un-gentle. "Don't template the regulars" should really be replaced with "don't template anyone". I don't have the energy right now to try to talk to the person, but those who took it on themselves to template and block should try writing in english instead. 64.160.39.36 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No it's not, the edit summary plus minor flag amounts to deliberate misinformation and he had been warned. Funny, though, that this IP suddenly pings up to comment. It's starting to look like the original account might be a sock... Guy (Help!) 10:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Guy on all accounts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:POINT violated, block in order. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There can be no reasonable doubt that a block was in order. Indeed, my one issue with the block is that it is only 31 hours. The editor is clearly only here to try to impose a particular fringe viewpoint on articles, and has a significant history of trying to hide the nature of their edits. Consider, for example, this edit, with the edit summary "Capitalization". Here the editor does indeed add capital letters in numerous places scattered over many paragraphs. In a case like this it takes an enormous amount of effort to search through large amounts of text containing innumerable tiny changes in order to see exactly what has been changed. however, doing so is rewarded by finding addition of POV, as in the section headed "Lack of scientific acceptance". If this edit were the only such case i might be prepared to AGF, though I would be very doubtful. However, it is by no means the only case, and I am confident that this was a calculated method of trying to hide the real purpose of the edit. here is one more example of an edit which made a more significant change than the edit summary suggested. It is clear that this editor makes regular and systematic use of at least three techniques to conceal their actions: (1) marking significant edits as minor, (2) deliberately misleading edit summaries, (3) hiding single significant changes some distance down the same edits as numerous minor ones. I think, under the circumstances, a 31 hour block is on the minimal side. I also wonder how much experience of Wikipedia it takes to be sufficiently aware of how things work to think up such a set of techniques, which encourages me to wonder about Guy's suggestion of sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree entirely with JamesBWatson. These are clearly very deliberate attempts to escape detection while pushing a POV. A block was certainly warranted, and I wonder whether a 31-hour block will really be sufficient to discourage someone who's employing these tactics? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thinking about the possibility of sockpuppetry, I have checked the history of the account. The account was created 9 January 2006, but did not edit until 12 September 2009, apart from 2 edits (both deleted) on 12 November 2007. This is an unusual pattern. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I don't know; that's not too much different from my own account. It might be a sleeper, but without a suspected sockmaster account this is little more than speculation, I think. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree. I wasn't trying to suggest that the account history was in itself suspicious, but just that, for an account where doubts had been raised for other reasons, that was interesting. I really wouldn't put it any stronger than that. I have also checked all the pages that this editor has edited, looking for anyone else that it might be a sock of, and found nothing suspicious at all. Also, the methods used to try to hide what is being done are rather crude, so maybe a new user would not find it hard to think of them. I actually think the reasons for suspecting sockpuppetry are not very substantial, but just enough to be worth mentioning. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

code or tag problem: The Chocolate Soldier

Resolved

 – turned into a properly archived link. Amalthea 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This page won't let me fix the ref tags because of an oocities link (note that the oocities page linked is a good page transferred from geocities). The software won't let me fix the ref tag, even when I try to delete the external link first. Can someone please fix it? Thanks! The Chocolate Soldier. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I closed the ref tag and commend out the oocities link that is blocked. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Geocities for background and what to do about this sort of thing. Uncle G (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Intention to mass-revert edits that changed geocities to oocities

Since this request is still making its way through the BRFA process, I intend to mass-revert the semi-automated edits made by Updatehelper (talk · contribs) shortly (having the net result of restoring the original Geocities links ahead of the Anomie's bot providing the waybacklink), to prevent the spam blacklist tripping up editors which potentially results in the loss of possibly useful source material. I will be marking the edits with the bot flag to mitigate the impact to watchlists and recent changes. If there are any objections to this, please make them known. –xeno^talk 15:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I recommend advertising this at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Dropped a pointer there. –xeno^talk 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move after discussion

Just a quick one, I'm a little out of my depth I think! I started a "movereq" discussion here. The general consensus is that the page should be renamed from Birmingham derby --> Second City derby per WP:COMMONNAME.

Is anyone able to close the movereq, and action the moving of the page, as the destination is currently a redirect and requires an admin. I don't want to mess any of it up! Thanks, _Will^Dow (Talk) 09:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's an redirect with 1 revision, that points directly at the source article. Administrator tools are not required in order to enact such a move. Uncle G (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not that this is part of the ongoing Birmingham v Manchester "second city" war or anything... Guy (Help!) 10:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Despite living less than 20 miles from Birmingham, I can count the number of times I've heard "Second City Derby" on the fingers of one hand. "Birmingham Derby"+"Birmingham City"+"Aston Villa" as a Google search term return five times the hits of the similar Second City one. This is a very dubious move, and appears somewhat WP:POINT to me. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • See Talk:Second City derby#'Better known' and 'Also known'. I don't see much evidence there of disruption to prove a point; but there is evidence there of editors trying in good faith to make a decision as to what common name something actually has, by researching it. Perhaps the people stepping in with the "second city wars" prejudices would do well to look at the actual talk page discussion that was had, where good faith and attempts to actually research the issue, as well as acknowledgements of the limitations of their research, by all participants, seem abundant. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
        • To be honest, there wasn't much of a discussion, really. The main point is that someone has cherry-picked all the refs for this particular match that say 'Second City'". Of course, the editor didn't go and look for links to that match which said "Birmingham Derby" - for obvious reasons, because there are hundreds - Times Sky Channel 4 AFP Scotsman Sky Sports The Hindu Telegraph Fox etc. The "second city wars" thing is rather WP:LAME, and I really don't see the point of this move outside that particular rather silly little battle. "Second City Derby" clearly isn't the common name, as pretty much any search criteria will tell you, so I'd have to assume that the reason for the move is part of that battle. If I'm assuming bad faith unduly, I apologise, but I'm very familiar with that part of the world, I don't have a dog in that battle (indeed, if you asked me which is England's second city, I'd say "Birmingham") and so I can only assume what appears to be obvious... Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• As an aside, as initiator of the discussion, you probably should not have been the one to close the discussion and make the move, just to avoid any appearance of COI. As it is, for someone outside the UK (like me), I'm much more familiar with "Birmingham derby" referring to Birmingham v Villa rather than the "Second City derby". Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Asarlaí at Eglinton, County Londonderry

Resolved

 – IP blocked and page semi-protected. GedUK  13:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

EditorUser:Asarlaí continues to revert agreed version of the Eglinton, County Londonderry page contrary to the 1RR rule. Discussion has taken place on the Talk Page but this user continues to push their own POV contrary to the rules. --87.113.24.44 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored this thread, and temporarily fully protected the article while I wade through it and try to work out what the consensus is. GedUK  13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is clearly an attempt at "revenge" by this IP, who is currently under sockpuppet investigation — see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. The IP's edits to Eglinton are against WP:IMOS and against the agreement on the article's talkpage. They have thus been reverted (by myself and others) as vandalism. ~Asarlaí 13:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with Asarlaí and it was I who requested the protection of the article from the disruptive (and suspected socks). Bjmullan (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article doe not comply with WP:IMOS. The editors above named refuse to discuss the issue since they are clearly in the wrong and have reverted to making malicious allegations about the IP. They are typically editing contrary to NPOV policy. It is quite obvious that Asarlaí and Bjmullan are in collusion over this article. --87.113.24.44 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User:76.3.211.68

This IP is being used to communicate threats such as "I want to kill you", and specific threats such as "You will not remove my crap again. If you do, I will find out who you are, go to your house, and kill you!!!" Likely a sock, and IP has received "final warning," but I am reporting here because the nature of the threats go beyond simple vandalism. -RoBoTam^ice 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that these edits were made five days ago. I'll leave the block up for now, but if someone feels it's unnecessary at this point, then go ahead and remove it. I'll go about revdeleting the threats, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Content of the three edits specifically noting death were deleted. I left the others as they seem to be your regular run-of-the-mill vandalism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think two weeks is fine, even if the edits are five days old. Shouldn't be too much of a problem for anyone, really, especially if it is a sock IP. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a prude, but such death threats are normally reported to the authorities, trolling or not. Such stuff should come to the attention of law enforcement. –MuZemike 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

24.180.106.119

24.180.106.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be on a wiki rampage. I have warned him about his conduct, but he insists on removing Nazi allegiance flags from WWII articles. I suspect it is blocked user JKGREINEDER who has been blocked for this and other things. Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've explained the situation to the IP, and informed them of the consequences of continuing to remove the flags. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Traffic congestion

Resolved

• Traffic congestion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a really odd place to place this, but I feel it needs to be addressed right away. I just blocked an editor for violating 3RR on this article, so I don't feel comfortable reverting. However, the additions were blatant spam and blatant WP:OR; can someone take a look at the article and revert if it's warranted? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The spam has been reverted by Qwyrxian.[113] I've added the page to my watchlist, and perhaps other admins can do so as well.   Will Beback  talk  18:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

John J Bulten violated the 3-reverts in a 24-hour period rule

Greetings,

Based on the below edits, editor John J Bulten should "technically" be blocked.

1. (cur | prev) 18:36, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386588496 by Ryoung122 (talk) You will be blocked next time. This is your final warning on this article.) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 18:33, 23 September 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386588157 by John J. Bulten (talk)this is an improvement) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 18:31, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386586515 by Ryoung122 (talk) Don't grandstand, you could lose a lot.) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 18:23, 23 September 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386585514 by John J. Bulten (talk)undid God-complex edits) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 18:18, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (As I told you last year, wholesale reversion to the likes of 10:45, 18 September 2010 DerbyCountyinNZ is not how WP runs. State what concerns you see.) (undo)

I find it incredulous that he threatens me with a block, when he's the one reverting 3 times in just a few minutes.

I suggest an admin look into this further.Ryoung122 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Longevity myths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm seeing three reverts each, three for John J. Bulten (talk) and three for Ryoung122 (talk). That's far from ideal, and I'm minded to protect the article, but it's not - so far as I can at this point - a violation of WP:3RR, because neither editor has exceeded three reverts. TFOWR 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've warned both editors. Also of note is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. TFOWR 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ryoung122, you should have notified John J. Bulten when you raised this matter. I've done that now. TFOWR 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting ready to report Ryoung122 when he made the fourth. However, Ryoung122 has agreed to mediation as TFOWR says and let's hope and pray that works. Also, User:NickOrnstein has now reverted to Ryoung122's version, and I have asked the mediator for input on that, because it reverts many new sourced comments and other editor's improvements also; but further thoughts on that would help please. Ryoung122's block log is also of note, thanks. JJB 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)