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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsuccessful enforcement request from April 2010

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

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

   After I challenge this,

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

   After my warning, below, then

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. Community bans, IMO, are too often suggested and handed out before the escalation of blocks is properly implemented, and this is no exception. Doc9871 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• oppose Mob mentality manifesting. This guy can be dealt with a topic ban. Community ban is overkill The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose In the one article I've been working with FellGleaming on (The Great Global Warming Swindle) he has eventually shown himself amenable to reason. It's been time-consuming, sure; I've occasionally found him arrogant about a subject he hasn't done enough research on; and I think he should edit (and especially revert) with more care, particularly on controversial subjects. The article in question is definitely better for having someone questioning the previous balance in it though. I would support a 1RR, with warnings of more drastic action if he doesn't stop edit-warring; I would not support a community ban at this stage. --Merlinme (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- Let's wait a little longer and try RfC. Tommy! 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have had problems with this editor in the past. Does not seem to be able to work collegially. Jack1956 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A semi=technical question, how would you be able to do two seperate edits at the same time? its not imposible, but a lot of work to do (if the way I have figured out is true). Can a user log on with different accounts at the same time?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably with two different browsers, or very easily with two different devices - a computer and iPad/iPhone combination. Another example of Terra Novus' edits here (three diffs in a row combined) - which are clearly POV, and even include a conservative/libertarian motif. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous ways to do this: two computers, signed on to different IDs, for instance. But also, a reminder that WP's time stamp does hours and minutes, not fractions of minutes, which means that two edits done within 59 seconds of each other could be time-stamped with the same time. 60 seconds should be sufficient time, depending on the computer and the speed of the connection, to log out of one ID, log into another, and make an edit, but if the data is actually evidence of sockpuppetry (it seems interesting, but not overwhelming compelling to me), it's more likely that 2 devices were used.

I agree that a CheckUser should be run, but I'm not certain the results will necessarily be decisive – for instance, if two different connections were used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The two editors have been editing with the opposite point of view on Heim theory, see also the talk page of that article and see the Wiki-project physics page for details. So, if one is the sock of the other, then this must have been a deliberate attempt to create a cover. But that's a bit of a stretch to assume without strong evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Thanks for mentioning it, though. I looked at the pages you pointed out, and I can't draw the same conclusions you do; I could easily believe the one revert was staged, for example. The concordance of interests in an obscure article like Heim theory, the same political bent, the new account showing up to support FG so strongly; the chances of that occuring without intent driving it are just far too low for me to dismiss the idea of a blind. FG's an extremely bright chap, after all; if he were to undertake to sock let's give him credit enough to assume that he'd be very much more sophisticated in doing so than your average 14-year old who wants to get his bandspam to stick. I'd be pleased to be wrong about this, but I still think we need a checkuser's assistance before we can go forward.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The two edits were made 16 seconds apart, at 2010-09-19T04:41:14Z[44] and 2010-09-19T04:41:30Z[45]. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all humorous!! I never guessed that I would be involved in something as silly as this. (They must think Fell Gleaming is superman if he is able to simultaneously edit and argue with himself! Here is an example of how close this supposed sockpuppet is editing with himself:

04:39, 20 September 2010 (diff | hist) Challenger Deep ‎ (compromise text as per talk.) Fell Gleaming

04:40, 20 September 2010 (diff | hist) Heim theory ‎ (We already mention that it was not published originally, and a search in Google Scholar does not determine the status of a theory. The proviso is welcome, it just needs to be more documented.)Terra Novus

' PLEASE run the Check user on me and him to show that I am not Fell Gleaming (though I sincerely sympathize with him, we have way to many editors on Wikipedia who think they can do whatever they want, and when they are caught they just initiate a ban..) and PLEASE turn this discussion into an objective analysis of both sides of the story (Fell Gleaming isn't the only editor with POV issues). If you don't, I might consider running an ANI on certain editors who are abusing Wikipedia's banning policy...--Novus Orator 04:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming no evidence of sock puppetry is found, I would support a 1RR restriction with a clear warning that further edit warring may result in a long ban, up to and including an indefinite ban. --Merlinme (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

About Fell showing up at Heim theory, that could be explained by Fell following me after Fell, I and others were discussing the appropriateness of (i.m.o. problematic) sources for articles related to climate change. Cla68 was adding books written by sceptics as sources for rather trivial facts in science articles (e.g. in the article about the Goddard Institute). Around that time Terra Novus started a rewrite of the Heim theory article and that deserved some attention from me and others. So, Fell may have seen that I was also active on that page and noted that an issue about sources/fringe science was also being discussed there. Count Iblis (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Terra Novus has said that he's a former user who has a new user name, per "Clean start".[46] However he seems to be engaged in contentious issues. Perhaps it'd be helpful if he'd share his former username with a Checkuser or ArbCom member to make sure that he is following best practices.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to share my former name with a qualified Checkuser or Arbcom member..--Novus Orator 05:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Then please go ahead and do that, and ask the person to publicly confirm that you've done so. Rd232 ^talk 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

Comments seem about done, so a tally of the above might be helpful at this point. There were a lot of multi-option and not-very-specific views expressed, so it's hard to be exact without doing a very painstaking analysis, but here's an approximate count:

• 4 users appear to oppose any action at all
• 1 wants to wait for a different case's outcome
• 2 want only an RfC/U at this point
• 24 want sanctions of some kind now

Of the 24 users who have called for sanctions to be applied now, seven want a community ban, and the rest want 1RR, topic bans, or blocks ranging from one week to three months. Four of these 24 users also appear to be in favor of an RfC/U. The desirability of an admonition for a (really) final warning about exercising care in selecting or representing sources was also mentioned.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nice summary. I concur. I think we have community consensus for WP:1RR and a serious final warning about tendentious editing and misrepresenting sources. --John (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have refrained from commenting, because I've been involved in several disputes with FellGleaming and have formed a fairly strong opinion about his editing on that basis. I wanted to hear from uninvolved editors. That said, I think 1RR across the board is a reasonable start, since edit-warring is clearly a central aspect of the problematic behavior.

    Mostly, I'd like some follow-up. I don't expect FellGleaming to change his ways, given his aggressive responses. Much, if not most, of FellGleaming's editing seems motivated by a partisan political agenda, and the upcoming US elections will likely provide fodder for that agenda. It would be nice not to have jump through dozens of hoops to get clearly abusive editing handled if/when it recurs. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever his past behavior seems to show, always assume WP:Good Faith until his future conduct tells differently...--Novus Orator 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, TN. FellGleaming has exhausted the patience of many editors here. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK, then, suggested outcome: impose 1RR now (indefinitely, or at least til end of calendar year), and have an RFC/U later on, maybe in late October or November sometime. RFC/U outcome can then take into account FG's behaviour during 1RR restriction. The assumption remains that FG can improve, otherwise a community ban would have been passed. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support That seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I remain hopeful that FellGleaming can make a useful contribution to the project, if he learns to discuss things first, and gain consensus before making changes to controversial articles. --Merlinme (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, especially if someone initiates a RfC/U. I would prefer a time-limited restriction, and three month sounds about right. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: 1RR now (at least until the end of December), and an RFC/U (in Oct or Nov) sounds fair. Johnfos (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support a reasonable 1RR until December (excluding legitimately minor edits to prevent inadvertant crossing the line) - as not being draconian at all. The RFCU is, however, moot as to desireability - letting things calm down is not aided by an incipient RFCU by any means. Collect (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it can be taken as read that if an RFCU becomes moot through FG improving then no-one will bother. It should be left a while, so there is a sufficient opportunity for FG to make it unnecessary. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Collect; 1RR until 1/1/11; no more monkey business with misrepresenting sources; no need for an RFCU because by January 2011 this user will either have reformed or be indefinitely blocked. --John (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • FG's interest in the upcoming US election makes end December (3 months) a better choice. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support as the best current chance of sending a message to this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

Unresolved

Moved entire section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2010 to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page. Do not add a timestamp until this has reached the top of the page. –MuZemike

Timestamping, as this is now an ArbCom matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

I've removed the time stamp, as discussion on that page seems to be continuing, and there's no reason that the community can't consider sanctions while ArbCom is considering the case. If the community decides to do something, then reviewing that sanction will become part of the ArbCom case; if they don't, ArbCom will conduct its own investigation. Either way, there's no particular reason to let this pointer slip off the board until the community discussion is well and truly closed. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Re-timestamping: arb case is now open; further discussion should take place in the arb pages. 67.122.209.115 (talk)

No, this is not resolved until the consensus is enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Hmm, I thought usual practice in this situation was the venue changed to the arb case, with sanction proposals and whatever else going to /Workshop. As GWH put it (re arbcom) "if they're going to take it then they preempt."[47] My bad if I closed that page improperly (I see you have reopened it). It's certainly inappropriate to act as if there is some kind of turf battle between ANI and arbcom, if that's what you're thinking. If they're willing to handle this thing, it has structural advantages, and I don't see any problem with moving it there. They arbs are themselves, as the saying goes, uninvolved admins; they can handle it just fine. 67.122.209.115 (talk) —Preceding undated

Yes, the closing summary of the discussion will include a link to the case, but it should also include the enactment of the current community consensus. The community isn't about red tape; when it comes to a consensus, it enacts that, and discussions tend to close without an outcome if there is no activity or no consensus for anything. Was there a community consensus to do nothing? Was there a community consensus to ban? Or, with the exception of about three users, did every editor (who participated in that part of discussion) consent to the revert restriction for now (be it as an alternative to something harsher, or as an alternative to nothing)? Especially if it's the latter, I don't see a reason why it should not be enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk)

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

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

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

I have had no prior interactions with User:Kimvdlinde, until this AfD discussion. She then began sending me off-wiki emails regaling me with her off-wiki experiences as a scientist becoming embroiled in academic disputes. She then began reverting edits of mine, but left unanswered my request to untangle a problem she had with the content versus me personally [48]. Still participating in the content dispute at pedophilia, she is now making off-wiki attacks against me and the other editors participating in the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. In fact, when I was asked to provide an opinion at the AfD, my very first comment included the disclosure of my relationships with the topic and with other editors. However, Kim immediately opined that I should not have revealed those conflicts/interests[49], only to have another admin opin that I was correct in including the disclosure.[50]
2. When I updated an editor's comment on behalf of that editor [51], Kim intervened to say I should not [52], again only to have the original editor say I was correct [53].
3. Moreover, Kim's not answering questions from me on the topic was not an isolated event: e.g.: [54].

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

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

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

James, let me be blunt about things:

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

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

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

I have two longish observations to make:

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

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

• • I disagree with your first point, and don't care to comment about that essay myself because the issue is addressed in reliable/academic sources. I gave my reasons on the article's talk page, but since you repeat the matter here, and you love analogies, assume for a second the year is 1970. Our homosexuality article should read, according to you, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder defined in the DSM-II as ..." Do you not see problem with that? The points that KimvdLinde raises above (and in his essay) reflect wider society use of the term pedophilia, and there is academic commentary over such (mis)use. Did you ever see a media article titled Ephebophile Priests, for instance? Me neither, and neither has Thomas G. Plante or Philip Jenkins both of whom discuss the use of the term in society [55] [56] [57] Excluding such discussion from the article because the word has a narrow definition in the DSM, which declares it a mental disorder, thus (according to some, including yourself) making it the exclusive domain of psychiatry and psychology, is obviously not neutral. You might have heard of political discourse purposefully conflating pedophilia and homosexuality, in part playing on the difference on the age of consent for homosexual versus heterosexual acts, in the UK for instance: [58] Even in the US, religiously or politically biased books trying to prove a link are not uncommon. (Here's one by Jim A. Kuypers [59]). These are issues that should be addressed in the article. Just because some word is given a specific meaning in the DSM, it should not preclude other discussion about its uses, especially when the editors that do not agree to have those viewpoints discussed (and by that I certainly do not mean endorsed) in the article, also reject a separate article discussing these wider issues as "POV fork". Finally, it should be obvious now that your analogy with influenza is weak, because nobody uses influenza in a derogatory fashion. It might get you in trouble at an airport, but otherwise saying that "X has a flu" instead of "X has a common cold" is no big deal in layman contexts. Declaring someone a pedophile is an entirely different matter, and it's sometimes done for ulterior motives. Merely dissing this aspect in one sentence at the end of the article as misuse of scientific term is obviously ignoring an elephant in the middle of the room. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Declaring someone a pedophile is an entirely different matter, and it's sometimes done for ulterior motives." At least we agree on that. I am astonished that apparently User:KimvdLinde is getting away with insinuating, apparently without any evidence, that a named Wikipedia editor and scientific researcher on the subject of pedophilia is pedophile himself. She has been editing since I explained the problem above, so presumably she knows about it. In fact, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't deliberate in the first place. There are only two possibilities: Either she knows something very important that I don't know, or she doesn't. In the first case she would have an obligation to notify Arbcom so they can deal with the situation. In either case she had an obligation to shut up. Hans Adler 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Tijfo098, it is not only the DSM which calls pedophilia a mental disorder. It is generally considered a mental disorder among all of the medical community. And this should not be equated to what went on with homosexuality, as if pedophilia has any chance of never being considered abnormal. Again, I am not calling you a pedophile, but pedophiles are always comparing "their hardships" to that of the LGBT community, especially gays and lesbians. Every LGBT person I know or have known has passionately objected to this comparison for many reasons. And regarding the article, it is not as though compromises have not been made. I have no problem discussing other uses of the term in the "Other uses" section or the "Misuse of terminology" section. But the editors arguing for inclusion of the general/wrong use seem to feel that it should come first in the lead because it is the more popular use among the general public and that the article should be half about the general/wrong use as well. That is what I disagree with. WP:UNDUE has something to say about what the general public thinks. The general public needs to know what pedophlia truly is first and foremost, not walk away from the article thinking they are right in their misuse of the term. And the media has sometimes made the attempt to distinguish between misuse and correct use of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Flyer22 writes: "It is generally considered a mental disorder among all of the medical community." Medicine outside psychiatry does not deal with issues like paraphillias or mental disorders unless they have a well understood etiology, like Parkinson's disease or Huntington's chorea. If you can cite a survey of the opinion of the general medical community on pedophilia in relation to medicine, it would be good addition to the article.

• Flyer22 writes: "And this should not be equated to what went on with homosexuality, as if pedophilia has any chance of never being considered abnormal." Mental disorder and "abnormal" (which is just as imprecise the layman's use of pedophilia) are two different notions, otherwise homosexuality would still be a mental disorder today. You don't seem to have much background knowledge on the paradigm used in classification of mental disorders, so here's a quick review from Robert Spitzer, the guy that wrote the first DSM(-III that is) def for it: [60], "... it will be apparent that the question 'Is condition A (whether it be homosexuality, schizophrenia, left-handedness, or illiteracy) a disorder?' is more precisely stated as 'Is it useful to conceptualize condition A as a disorder?' or 'What are the consequences (to society, the individual with the condition, and the health professions) of conceptualizing condition A as a disorder?' [...] It became clear to me that the consequences of a condition, and not its etiology, determined whether the condition should be considered a disorder." There's no deep biomedical insight about pedophilia that makes it a mental disorder, but the obvious observation that these individuals might act on their impulses with very bad consequences for the children involved. And if you think homosexuality was removed because of some great biomedical discovery, that's not the case either--it was put up to a vote by entire APA membership, something unprecedented before and since. Although officially the failure to change homosexual orientation by medical treatment officially had nothing to with this, Spitzer writes: "If there were a 'treatment' for homosexuality (I use quotation marks because the term presupposes pathology) that was available and effective in most cases, I very much doubt that there would be much objection to classifying it as a disorder." Ouch.

• Flyer22 writes: "pedophiles are always comparing [...]" I suppose you don't want to make the same correlation about Richard Green for writing this paper, questioning the validity of pedophilia as a mental illness. I don't even embrace his position, but I do find it strange that it's not even mentioned in the article, given that he is a prominent academic. And by the way, he finds the same flaw in the DSM-IV-TR definition as Kim did: "So what then of the pedophile who does not act on the fantasies or urges with a child? Where does the DSM leave us? In Wonderland. If a person does not act on the fantasies or urges of pedophilia, he is not a pedophile. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder."

• Flyer22 writes: "The general public needs to know what pedophlia truly is first and foremost [...]" You realize you're talking about an operational definition, right? So, "truly is" is meaningless in such a context. Introduce yourself to the next variation (from the current DSM-5) pedohebophilic disorder. Speaking of DSM-5, they also make a distinction between "abnormal" sexual orientation (paraphilia) and a level of that which causes harm or disstress. In part, we can thank our esteemed editor and psychiatrist James Cantor for that distinction. You can look it up on the rationale page of any paraphiliac disorder: "The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-V make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder."

• I hope I didn't waste my time typing all this, and you'll be more informed and less combative in the future. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am already thoroughly informed on the topic of pedophilia. And just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean they are being combative; it is not as though I gave you attitude in my initial reply to you on the Pedophilia talk page. You came back at me with attitude. Moving on:
• "Medicine outside psychiatry does not deal with issues like paraphillias or mental disorders unless they have a well understood etiology, like Parkinson's disease or Huntington's chorea. If you can cite a survey of the opinion of the general medical community on pedophilia in relation to medicine, it would be good addition to the article." ...I don't even know what you are trying to get at here. Goodness. Maybe I should have phrased it as "most researchers in this field" for you to get the point. I shouldn't even have to provide a source for you on that, if you are well-versed in this topic at all.

• With Mental disorder and "abnormal" being two different notions, it has nothing to do with my background knowledge on the paradigm used in classification of mental disorders; it has to do with my personal belief...which is that pedophilia is a mental disorder and is abnormal. I don't need a quick review. There's no deep biomedical insight about pedophilia that makes it a mental disorder, you say? James and other researchers would disagree with you on that. James has tackled much of what you address already. And I know why homosexuality was removed. I am saying if you think pedophilia has any chance of being removed, think again; it will always be considered a mental disorder...and abnormal.

• So what then of the pedophile who does not act on the fantasies or urges with a child? Uh, he would still be a pedophile. The act is not required for diagnosis. Distress is. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder? No, they have a disorder. How can one who has a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children not have distress? It's distressing not getting to act out those fantasies. This is further addressed below in my comment (where James touches on this). And again, the DSM is not the only layout we follow.

• Yes, I realize I am talking about an operational definition. Do you realize that the operational definition of pedophilia is the authoritative definition of pedophilia and if the common use definition (a sexual attraction to everything under 18) were pedophilia, then everything would count as pedophilia (even attraction to adult-like bodies)? Therefore, there is nothing meaningless about wanting people to stop conflating a sexual attraction to an adult body (17) to a sexual attraction to a child's body (7). 17 is a long ways away from 7, and those sexual attractions are completely different; they cannot both be pedophilia. That is my point. Further, I am not sure how what you stated in your most recent reply has anything to do with common use of the term, since pedophilia by itself in the above link is still only speaking of a sexual attraction to prepubescent children -- unless you were trying to say that pedophilia should not be defined as a mental disorder first and foremost because the disorder part only applies to pedophiles who are distressed by their sexual preference, which it seems you were -- but James already addressed that on the talk page, at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 14#Blatant Bias, and explained it this way: Not exactly: Pedophilia (and hebephilia) would remain classified as mental illnesses in the DSM if the current proposal is successful..... I can certainly appreciate the question about how one could be primarily attracted to children and NOT be concerned about it. In practice, of course, it nearly never happens: The very fact that the person is coming to see a professional qualified to apply the DSM (physician or psychologist) denotes that the person is distressed (or was sent by the legal/correctional system). However, there is certainly evidence that there exist "gold star pedophiles," as Savage put it, and there exist research projects attempting to study them. The largest one I know of is in Germany, called the Dunkelfeld Project. In my opinion, pedophilia NOT being a disorder is indeed a fringe belief. Personally, I have a more middle-of-the-road view: Pedophilia IS a disorder, but the central feature of pedophilia is its sexual (paraphilic) aspect, not its mental illness aspect.

That is what James had to say about the matter you just brought up. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously here to advocate your POV rather than reflect what reliable sources write about this. You wrote in the thread you linked above: "Psychiatric disorder" to describe pedophilia is not outdated; it is described that way in every instance by authoritative sources. Being sexually aroused by urine, being beaten, and animals is no better in my eyes. Though being "turned on" by statues and mannequins is not as "ugh!" as far as I see, considering the large number of normal people who are "turned on" by blow-up dolls and sex toys. [...] Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Basically, the paraphilias you don't personally approve of are to be described as mental disorders in Wikipedia regardless of distress or harm, even though the experts delegated to ponder on this did not come to that conclusion, even in the current authoritative version, DSM-IV-TR. The DSM-IV-TR fails to make distinction at the nomenclature level between disorder and paraphilia, but does make one at the conceptual level. This is what prompted the caustic criticism from Green and others, which is acknowledged by Ray Blanchard] [61], whose paper is cited among the reasons for making the (proposed) naming distinction in DSM-5: This approach leaves intact the distinction between normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word “Disorder” to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on. This explanation is from the DSM-5 pedophilia rationale page, so it's not my WP:OR that it applies to it. (click 'Rationale' tab). Whether this language change in DSM-5 will be approved or not, the conceptual distinction in DSM-IV-TR remains, and is discussed in reliable and sufficiently authoritative sources, like Blanchard' review. You, Flyer22, are simply exploiting the language mishaps in the DSM-IV(-TR), which are acknowledged by the experts, in order to preach your POV here, which you have stated clearly enough. (For background: this is not the first mishap of this kind in the history of the DSM re pedophilia. The DSM-IV had an even worse language slippage, which was fixed in IV-TR. Basically, the way DSM-IV was written entailed that unless a child abuser was distressed about his pedophilia, he could not be diagnosed with a mental disorder! Spitzer and Hillard gave it a little trashing see p. 1249. Official explanation from the IV-TR guidebook [62].) What's more telling in all of this is that you don't provide any references for any of your statements, and just resort to emotional arguments and reiterate your gut-driven POV. And since you like quoting James, this is what he had to say: The lede sentence referring to pedophilia as a paraphilia rather than as a disorder and then noting pedophilia's status in the DSM would not (to my ear) significantly downplay or overdue it. [...] I cannot say that I feel strongly, however; [...] it isn’t such a horrible skew (if a skew at all) to include the DSM status in the first sentence [...] James Cantor (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC), and then goes on to say what I said above about the distinction in DSM-5, etc. Apparently, you've seen this before, just don't agree with it. James is nowhere near as intransigent as you're trying to portray him: It is, however, possible to write perfectly good definitions of pedophilia without mentioning that it is deemed a mental illness. To me, both of these are reasonably accurate and NPOV: "Pedophilia is a paraphilia involving the sexual interest in prepubescent children" and "Pedophilia is a mental/psychiatric illness/disorder characterized by having a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children. In my opinion, pedophilia NOT being a disorder is indeed a fringe belief. Personally, I have a more middle-of-the-road view: Pedophilia IS a disorder, but the central feature of pedophilia is its sexual (paraphilic) aspect, not its mental illness aspect. James Cantor (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) If you insist on having James' expert opinion in the article, I'm sure we can cite some WP:RS in which he writes the above, rather than the article's archived talk. But he's not the only expert to have written on this issue. I think I've said all I have to say about this. I ended up commenting on this whole matter because it was listed on the RfC page, FWIW. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not here to advocate my POV; I am all about the reliable and authoritative sources. Every editor who has worked on the Pedophilia article with me for years knows this. You say, basically, the paraphilias I don't personally approve of are to be described as mental disorders in Wikipedia regardless of distress or harm? Nope. Basically, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and that editor was not making a good case for BDSM being a mental disorder, as if it is always considered one. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is always considered one (by most experts anyway). You say even though the experts delegated to ponder on this did not come to that conclusion? Most experts call pedophilia a mental disorder; that's a fact. I also remind you that pedophilia is not considered normative sexual behavior at all, even if you want to say it should only be classified as a disorder by distress. You keep bringing up the DSM, as if that's all we go by for defining pedophilia. Just because we do not favor popular cultures sources for the article, it does not mean we disregard all other sources and only regard the DSM. You say I am simply exploiting the language mishaps in the DSM-IV(-TR), which are acknowledged by the experts, in order to preach my POV here? Nope. But you are welcome to think so. You say unless a child abuser was distressed about his pedophilia, he could not be diagnosed with a mental disorder? I, and reliable sources, say that not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Read that article and the Pedophilia article. There's a reason not all of them would be diagnosed as pedophiles. But constantly thinking about having sex with a prepubescent child...knowing that you cannot legally engage in such acts with that child...is distress, and nothing can convince me otherwise. James was also clear about that. Why do I need to provide references for these statements, when all I say is either backed up in the Pedophilia article or on its talk page somewhere? Yes, I have seen James's take on the lead, but I have seen his other takes on it, where he stresses that pedophilia is about the preference. In his suggestion for the lead above there, he left that out. By accident, I am sure. If you were to ask him, he would still stress "primary sexual interest," not just "interest" in relaying pedophilia as a paraphilia. He also said that "mental disorder" should remain in the lead, just that it didn't have to go first. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And as for Richard Green being in the article, that was brought up, at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 14#"Is pedophilia a mental disorder?" ... I stated Oppose for the very valid reasons given for not including it. But as can be seen, James was okay with the inclusion...as long as it was correctly labeled. I also would not care if it was included or not...if WP:Consensus was for it. But the main topic going on at the Pedophilia article right now is not whether or not pedophilia should be considered a mental disorder or whether we should mention "mental disorder" in the lead. It's whether or not "mental disorder" should come first in the lead and if the lead/article should give more weight to the layperson definition of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, if Ray Blanchard cites the paper in quesition for specific concerns, in the DSM-5 literature review nonetheless, but the esteemed expert Flyer22 votes oppose, then the rule of the mob on Wikipedia dictates that we could not possible use that source for anything. James Cantor did not oppose, by the way. Just another example why the wiki article is so lame. Never mind that Richard Green's bio was a blatant WP:BLP violation until I fixed it. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one who voted oppose to including Richard Green. In fact, I was not the first, as can be seen in that link. And I already mentioned that James was not opposed, provided some clarifications. Unlike some others, I simply respect WP:Consensus, though I may often disagree with it. I do not feel as though I am the leader of the Pedophilia article. I really have no WP:OWN issue there, no matter what you and two others think. The only reason I am the main one speaking out for what has been gone over time and time again at that article, mainly with pedophiles who have now been blocked or banned, is because Legitimus is trying to take a break from that article, Jack-A-Roe is too busy these days, SqueakBox is hardly active on that article anymore, and MishMich is completely missing in action. Sniping at and attacking me is not going to solve anything. I don't suspect you are entirely new to Wikipedia, but you don't see me calling you a WP:SOCK. Instead, I am actually willing to work with you. And, again, the issue is not whether or not to include mental disorder in the lead, first or at all; that matter has already been solved on the talk page (recently). And a new lead will be up in according to that, with more emphasis on the popular culture usage of the term. Like Kim van der Linde, I also expressed frustration at pedophiles possibly getting away with not being called pedophiles simply because a child is a little pubescent. This can be seen in the past archive discussion in the current Globalize section on the talk page. I stressed that it's still pedophilia if the child looks prepubescent; it does not take away from the fact that the pedophile is still primarly sexually attracted to prepubescent children. James has also stressed looks. As for the overall article, I do believe that it sould have some sort of Criticism section about the DSM definition and being defined as a "sexual preference" or by simply "distress" and not simply by acts or desire. I will start a brief Criticism section, and you are more than welcome to add to it. Just make sure you have consensus before adding Green. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • My bad, I made a jump between second person and third person. I fixed my essay. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes

Template:Formerly

Further information: [[:User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Reflinks conflict of interest with other bots|User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks § Reflinks conflict of interest with other bots]], [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot]], [[:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Filling recent changes with pointless changes|Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard § Filling recent changes with pointless changes]], and [[:Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#Template caps: "Cite" or "cite"?|Wikipedia talk:Citation templates § Template caps: "Cite" or "cite"?]]

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Recently, the AWB bot has been making totally unnecessary capitalization changes. These were being "discussed" on Rich Farmbrough's page, here and here. He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back. When brought up again, his response was to blank (archive) the page. Therefore, I request immediate halt to this use of this bot until this issue is addressed. Q Science (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that so many have complained to Rich about pointless template capitalization changes and other sundry changes such as == spacing around headers == makes it clear that these are not uncontroversial edits. As such, they represent a violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use #3. I had laid off complaining about R.F. botting from his main account, but only because the edits were by-and-large useful and uncontroversial. This is no longer the case. These types of edits that change articles from how they were intentionally set by other editors to suit one bot-op's personal preference should stop unless they are approved by BAG. –xeno^talk 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Would there be any objection if a regular editor simply hit the big red button on SmackBot's user page until an admin deals with the matter? Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that Rf is blockable about this, but we can stop the bot if we feel there is a problem. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × >9000)  Done... about a minute after you did. Never mind. I left an informative message about this thread though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've blocked him until this can be resolved. This is clearly causing disruption. In addition to this, it has tagged the Main Page as uncategorized. According to the bot policy, automated bots cannot be run on main accounts unless approved by BAG (and AFAIK, this is not). (X! · talk)  · @926  ·  21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Done[63]. Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard, it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with a user undertaking blanking and implementing 1h[64] (one hour) auto-archiving on the talk page designated as the point-of-contact for the bot. There were multiple threads open on the User_talk page on the topic at the time of blanking. —Sladen (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. Suggest he simply be banned from running a bot or engaging in any automated edits, or edits that seem to be automated, for one year. At the end of that year, if he has demonstrated that he will actually discuss his edits and not summarily blank discussions, he may apply at BAG to have his bot reinstated. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Good, I warned him like 4-5 times about changing {cite foo} to {Cite foo} in the last two days, and he was still making them. In general, it would probably be a good idea to force him to do these AWB runs on a BAG-approved bot rather than on his main account. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from user's talk

Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. I have revised the ruleset on Cite templates, as I said. When people start destroying the structure of the talk page the choice is to revert or archive. I had 35 threads, all pretty much dead, it seems reasonable to archive them - all accessible and new messages can still be left. I have no revised the rulset further and removed the Cite templates completely, restoring the status quo ante. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I advised him that he really shouldn't be changing the first-letter capitalization for any templates without consensus or approval; if a human editor used {{small case}} then it can and should remain small case. –xeno^talk 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of doing that anyway? Does it help the server or something? Wknight94 ^talk 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I think Rich's belief is that it somehow helps new users identify templates and improves readability [65]. My belief is that it just bloats the diff and makes it hard to see what the actual meat of the edit was, while imposing a personal preference that does not seem to be shared by the majority of editors. –xeno^talk 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is purely Rich's preference on the aesthetics of the templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had noticed this being done before, and found it mildly annoying that my templates were being capitalised for no apparent reason, especially as personally I think {{cite news|...}} looks better than when it's capitalised anyway. I figured this had basis in policy somewhere so I didn't protest; the edit summary including a "build number" and being performed by a bot suggested that it had been community-approved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, capitalization of templates hasn't been specifically approved. –xeno^talk 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't appreciate that it is only one user's preference, plus the fact I don't really see any gain from doing this. Truthfully, I am surprised that Rich has been so unresponsive in this matter. He has been helpful in the past, performing Admin duties in a clear and objective manner. So what about this appearance of being community approved? Since it was not community approved, perhaps that was not intentional. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If the edits are uncontroversial there should be no difficulty in forming a Wikipedia-wide consensus, producing a policy, and then specifically authorising a bot to undertake the work. Wikipedia has processes for doing all of these. The large number of threads on just this one topic recently shows that it is controversial and therefore not something that is appropriate automated deployment (whether bot, or automated "manual" edits). —Sladen (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The ownership displayed in operating bots against consensus and removing avenues for discussion is deeply concerning conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We're not really that short of avenues for discussion. This has been on two noticeboards and one project space talk page, so far. See above. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It isn't that we're short of venues; it is that the user is deliberately closing off the natural venue while making (to me) extremely controversial edits without consensus. I was noting that this is clearly a conduct issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• My stalker of these many moons is currently turned off? I'd better sneak some writing in. ☺ In the meantime, I hope that everyone commenting on this is aware of all of the prior discussion, (now) linked to at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• A bot being misused is as bad as at least ten regular vandals. Please don't tolerate such things. In case of repeated issues, impose a total automation ban (like Betacommand had back in the day) and/or an edit speed limit of 20 edits per hour or thereabouts, and generally urge the editor away from any repetitive editing of any type. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two questions:

• What happened with the SmackBot/Citation Bot conflict. Did Citation Bot switched to the capitilised Cite web or not?
• Does anyone know how many of the 200k Cite web templates are capitilised and how many aren't?

-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• In order:
  1. Rich Farmbrough told Dispenser that Dispenser should fix Reflinks to conform to SmackBot. See the discussion on Dispenser's talk page linked-to at the top of this section.
  2. Possibly. It's possible to find out, but expensive in terms of traffic for mere mortals without toolserver access.
• Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My stalker is back

SmackBot is running again, it seems. I didn't manage to sneak in any writing, alas. ☺ Interestingly, as can be seen from this edit where {{silicate-mineral-stub}} was changed to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, it is still capitalizing the names of all templates. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is Farmbrough blocked but this bot isn't? Shouldn't it be the other way around if the bot edits are the ones people dislike? Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked for running bot tasks on his main account; the bot itself hasn't been doing much wrong right now (though it does seem to be used for non-bot edits). Ucucha 14:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Angusmclellan just blocked SmackBot. Ucucha 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G's diff is from today and includes the sort of pointless case change complained of. Since RF can't now (and before the block, seemingly wouldn't) change this behaviour, there seems to be no reason to leave the bot running and add to the comedy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot is not following its own documented stop process, and I have just drawn Rich's addition to this.[66]. The instructions given at User talk:SmackBot are to place the string "STOP" in that page and a new section link is provided to do this. This "STOP" string continues to be the present, but the bot is making edits[67][68] including the these capitalisation changes under discussion[69]. A bot making edits while apparently stopped is a fairly serious bug as there is then no reliable way to stop the bot without resorting to an administrative block (as has had had to be performed here). —Sladen (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Rich has reprogrammed AWB, editing the bot's talk page will stop the bot until the orange bar is cleared and it is restarted by the operator. I would guess this is what happened. –xeno^talk 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Same question as above but for Femto Bot (talk · contribs). Wknight94 ^talk 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, it seems this bot does not have approval. (See also). –xeno^talk 17:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked for now. Not sure if it's worth blocking the rest, I'll have a look through to see if they are editing. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • None of the other bots are active. So lack of approval won't be concern. As for Rich having access to unblocked account, I don't think that should be a concern here. IF he does start editing with one of them it's not going to do him much good, so not worth blocking the others, imo - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It probably wasn't worth blocking even that one, to be honest. Part of the complaint here is that 'bot-like edits are being done through the main administrator-privilege account. The irony of blocking Femto Bot is that it was making edits that had heretofore been made through the Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) account, apparently entirely uncontroversially, since at least May 2010 (list). It was a 'bot intended to do exactly what people have been asking for.

      I think that we're starting to lose sight of the goal here, as this snowballs into desysopping discussions and the like. The goal is not to stop Rich Farmbrough at every turn. It's to get xem to get SmackBot and other people's 'bots onto the same page when it comes to changing/retaining capitalizations. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason to block any bot account that does good edits and have approval of the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see where it has approval? If Rich wants to move some approved tasks from SmackBot to Femto Bot, the appropriate course of action is to ask for a bot flag for the cloned bot at WP:BN. –xeno^talk 18:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's moving some regular monthly gnomish and robotic tasks from the administrator-privilege account, where they've been performed for months, to an unprivileged account. This is part of what you want, surely? Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, it is ideal for the bot task to moved to a proper bot account, but it needs to be flagged and approved per the WP:BOTPOL. As I said, if the task is already approved (I'm not sure if it is, there are so many SmackBot BRFAs), R.F. can skip directly to BN to just ask for a flag as was done here. –xeno^talk 18:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I was referring to the idea to block all Rich's accounts. For instance, Mirror Bot mustn't be blocked. Moreover, since edits that don't have consensus stopped I don't see any reason to keep the block and prevent Rich from doing other tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I only pointed to the page listing the other bots, I didn't suggest they all need to be blocked. –xeno^talk 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Desysop?

Seems a bit silly to have an administrator in an indefinite block. If he can't be trusted to edit at all, why would he be trusted to be an admin? If he isn't going to respond to the concerns or even respond to having been blocked, it seems the desysop process needs to begin before long. Wknight94 ^talk 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well (1) I don't believe that desysopping is within the scope of ANI (RFC / ARBCOM) and (2) as you know, indef doesn't mean infinite. Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone is concerned about his administrative actions at this point, merely his bot-like edits. –xeno^talk 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ditto. No doubt he is distracted by something in RL and will take care of this in due course. Or he may be adjusting the programming as we speak. Once he solves the problem and implements it, there is no particular reason to keep him blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• This seems to be a bit overboard. The desired result is for Rich Farmbrough, Dispenser, and others ‎to get their tools singing from the same hymnal — no blocks, no desysoppings, no fuss, no acrimony. I made the point a week and a bit ago that this sort of thing is usually sorted out informally amongst 'bot owners. That's been my experience, as a 'bot owner. I'm rather saddened to see my argument undermined by the fact that this time, it as yet hasn't been. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience the user in question is unfit to be combining adminship and botting. Had an ordeal with it in Jan 2009 when it was inserting {{Ibid}} into 1000s of articles, which I was forced to revert with mere rollback. Stunningly, in one planned action the user behind it used rollback to revert these reverts and then Smackbot to reverse himself.One Example In general there are too many princessy bot operators who cannot be trusted with their tools. I'm sick and tired of dealing with the problems they cause, though of course bots in general are a net plus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I ask is the absurdity of having an admin indefblocked. If he's such a menace that he can't edit, surely he can't be an admin. Otherwise, if we're just waiting for him to return from RL distractions, then unblock him. Shouldn't have one without the other. Wknight94 ^talk 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would guess the block was placed as a form of 'wake up call'. If R.F. were not an admin, his AWB access could simply be revoked (admins have implicit access). –xeno^talk 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you unblock him and he continues on without resolving/discussing, then nothing happens. If he unblocks himself and continues on without resolving/discussing then you have cause to ask arbcom for an emergency desysop. (This is about any blocked admin in general, not a judgement on the specific admin involved).--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you unblock him and he continues, then he gets re-blocked. If an editor can't reliably keep himself in an unblocked status, they often get banned. They sure as hell shouldn't be an admin! Wknight94 ^talk 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about what should be, it's about what is. There's no desysop process outside of arbcom. If he needs desysoping you there either needs to be a case filed or he would have to cross one of those bright lines that would pass arbcoms emergency desysop test. Such as unblocking himself.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm testing the waters for the viability of an ArbCom case. If no one is prepared to take that step, then he should be unblocked. I don't know Farmbrough and I don't care, but you simply can't have an indefblocked admin. Unblock or proceed to step 1 of desysopping. Wknight94 ^talk 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Indefinite is typically chosen when a time-limited block would not necessarily have the desired effect. In this case, the user is indef blocked pending a certain outcome (a commitment to cease making edits of the disputed nature until consensus and BAG approval is attained for the same - see comments from blocking administrator). The commitment has not yet been made, so the user remains blocked. The fact that they hold administrative rights is entirely peripheral. –xeno^talk 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're okay with leaving someone blocked forever - assuming they never meet your requirements for unblocking - even though they have a sysop bit? Wknight94 ^talk 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You've posited a hypothetical situation that I doubt will come to pass in the present case (I expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them), but yes - if a user is indefinitely blocked because of their doing X and they refuse to agree to stop doing X, then they will remain blocked indefinitely (+sysop notwithstanding). If this were the case, one would have a case to ask the committee to consider removing the bit, but it's premature at this point. –xeno^talk 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you - the blocking admin - "expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them", then you need to unblock him. Wknight94 ^talk 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

X! (talk · contribs) was the blocking admin. –xeno^talk 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Eck, y'all and your X names.... Still, if the consensus here is that Farmbrough will break out of this odd trance, then he needs to be unblocked. Like now. For all we know, he is waiting to be unblocked before he'll even discuss. I don't see any comments from him about RL distractions. (Or are they offline?) Wknight94 ^talk 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think the user should be unblocked you could ping X! (talk · contribs) for his thoughts. I agree that it may be ideal to have the user conditionally unblocked (conditional upon them not resuming their AWB tasks until the matter is finalized) so they can participate here directly, rather than by proxy. –xeno^talk 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If my reading of the consensus is correct, it would be useful to unblock Rich and allow useful, administrator activity to proceed on the condition that Rich agrees to abide by BAG (that means no automated edits, no AWB, no Smackbot, no Army/*bot). For those worried that unblocking might be premature, perhaps we can agree (and document) that Rich would be blocked again immediately if any automated edits are made. That would allow discussion to continue, and for Rich to apply for suitable bot permission. If WP:BAG is being followed (in spirit and letter) then there is no longer a problem. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be reiterated in the process of unblocking that bot-like activity is not allowed from main accounts and the same for bot accounts that do not have up-to-date approval. The suggestion of <20 edits/hour may be a way to enforce this (although it is a technical solution to a social problem); without automation, the 10 edits per minute speed that I have clocked Rich at previously is unlikely to be attainable.

Above all, demanding punishment is the wrong direction: all that is being requested is simple compliance with Wikipedia policies. —Sladen (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

resp to Wknight94 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) post - as far as I am aware, RF is still able to perform sysop functions (such as, but hopefully not, unblocking himself) but as blocked cannot post on any page other than his talkpage to say what he has done. RF can block, move over redirect, protect, and have access to The Chocolate Biscuit Jar, etc, as any other admin. It is his editing privileges only that are blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As Deacon knows perfectly well "Rollback" is a blunt instrument, which he was using against policy. Specifically it reverts all consecutive changes by that user. Moreover he simply mass rollbacked a bunch of articles without differentiating by edit summary. Had Deacon used "undo" - even blanket undo it would not have been a problem. As it was he created a situation where potentially very old, very complex, fixes for which the code no longer exists (because they were one-offs - eg importing population figures, or correcting RamBot grammar problems) could have been undone. Since any edit, however trivial, would now prevent the recovery of this information without manual analysis of every single history of however many articles it was, I speedily reverted the hasty patch wherever possible, picked out those articles that could not be fixed for manual analysis, and removed the "ibid" tag, that he found so offensive, cleanly, without damaging the articles in any other way. As I recall I spent a considerable time undoing his mess, whereas if he had simply let me sort it out it would have been minutes. Nice to see that he bears a grudge about it though. Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

My view

There seems to be a history of poor botop practices on RF's part here. This is not a new problem. This is a problem that has been going on for years. Bot operators are expacted to respond to concerns about their bots, and instead, he has reverted them as "vandalism". This is not appropriate conduct for a bot operator. What more, one should know that running one on your main account is prohibited, and that is also not a new problem. Even if the problems that led to the block are resolved, I would like to see some sort of action taken as a result of this. If nothing happens, this is just bound to happen again. It should go without saying that all of his fully-automated tasks are operated from his bot account and approved by BAG, for each and every task. If he refuses to comply, I think a reblock may be needed. I am reminded of Lightmouse in this situation: good intent, poor execution. (X! · talk)  · @728  ·  16:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed not, as I commented above, a new issue. RF should be banned from bot or bot-like edits, period. Same as Betacommand was. → ROUX ₪ 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor technical question

Smackbot was doing what I thought were strange things to DEFAULTSORT for cats eg [70]. ie ÖBB Class 2070 became sorted as {{DEFAULTSORT:Obb Class 2070}} Which was fairly counterintuitive. (yes I know what Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys says but if the bot had made no edits the page titles caused perfect categorisation anyway, whereas incomplete bot activity made a mess.) Whilst I had no real objection to what it was doing in principle the effect was usually to totally mess up alphabeticalisation of categories requiring remedial manual editing work .

Can I assume that no more edits like this will ever be made and I can ignore what the bot was programmed to do - and consquently stop having to make edits that fix problems inherited?Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• This was a very good edit. Pagename has special characters and DEFAULTSORT needed to be added. Check also WP:CHECKWIKI that detects pages with special characters with no DEFAULTSORT. Let's stick to the initial subject of this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to digress. A good edit, but not in isolation , see Category:ÖBB - the rest were untouched. Can someone point a still functioning bot at the rest. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Since we're on this digression: Why do you want all of the articles in that category under the same letter anyway? Surely it's better to sort by the number in that category, so that the 2070 is under "2", the 770 is under "7", and so forth? Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah ok. Yobot can do the rest as part of WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes and then decide how to handle the categorisation in the specific category. DEFAULTSORT is global. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • respond to UncleG - yes probably, I didn't create the articles, and a standard for categorisating these things doesn't seem to exist, but is needed. Otherwise I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia#Yobot about the issue, for those who wish to discuss or solve this tangential problem.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Btw, I finished the task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already brought this up with RF. I consider it intentional disruption. He make tiny meaningless changes throughout articles that break diffs and then changes them to something else the next day. He basically told me too bad. Changing the names of reflinks is one of his favorites. -Selket ^Talk 04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bah, editing too late at night. This was in the entirely wrong section and I was talking about a different editor. Please disregard. --Selket ^Talk 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • Thanks for that, anything like this can be brought up with me an quickly fixed. As for sorting under 2070 for that category probably a very good idea - the only caveat is that with large categories we should avoid sorts that diverge from the leading characters - i.e. fine to sort Henry IV as Henry 04 - because he will be where we would look for him, but not fine to sort him under "Anjou and Castille" - to give a flawed and improbable example. Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Unblocking?

Rich wrote somewhere (I can't be bothered to find right now, I am busy in real life too) that he removed the cite -> Cite from SmackBot's code. Should we move on, unblock, let SmackBot keep doing its main tasks and re-report of there are still complains? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Check User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Is_it_not_possible.... Rich removed the cite -> Cite and the spacing around heading from his fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There's still a problem with other templates, like the stub one. Also, Rich was also blocked for running unauthorised bots on his main account, I'm yet to see any suggestion that this is going to stop, and it's an on-going issues, which he's messed up repeatedly. I think editing the main page like that (arguably making this an unapproved admin-bot) can not be ignored. Personally, I think that an edit limit of ~20 edits/hour, along with a(nother) stern warning that all automated tasks must be approved by BAG, would be a good way to go here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am opposed to unblocking him yet, per "My View" section above. (X! · talk)  · @491  ·  10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So what would satisfy your concerns? Let's come up with something concrete and actionable. Here's a starter that you can boldly modify: Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • for context, "here" is referring to this section. (X! · talk)  · @553  ·  12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I would only support this is it was made explicitly clear that all automated bot-like tasks be approved by BAG. (X! · talk)  · @553  ·  12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Be bolder with the section! ☺ It's there to be edited. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think unblocking is the way to go until/unless he agrees to some kind of restriction on automated edits. StrPby (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree. This response goes some way to addressing concerns but it does not go far enough. I have suggested an alternative, simpler, set of possible conditions below. I would like to try to minimise any chance of this problem reoccuring before unblocking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich should be unblocked at least to comment in this discussion. I bet nobody believes that Wikipedia is at danger if we unblock him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditions that would satisfy X!, Kingpin13, MSGJ, and others

1. No more changing the cases of the initial letters of any templates. No more changing {{for}} to {{For}}, or changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, or changing {{coord missing}} to {{Coord missing}}, or anything else.
2. No automated editing at all from main account. Specifically:
   1. All 'bot-like tasks, like this one, no matter how uncontroversial, to be farmed out to non-administrator accounts like Femto Bot (talk · contribs), and approved via Bots/Requests for approval.
   2. Use of a dedicated non-administrator account, in accordance with AutoWikiBrowser rule of use #2, if editing at speeds like 10 edits per minute with AutoWikiBrowser.
   3. Clear linkages be provided on the bot pages to the appropriate approvals through Bots/Requests for approval.
   4. No altering a bots function outside of the linked approvals without approval of the change.
   5. Scope and function(s) of the bot explicitly stated both in the application for approval and on the bot page.
3. A message to any bot's talk page stops the bot; the task is not restarted until the issue is resolved.
4. No unblocking one's own bots.

Small-ish suggestion re point 2:

Merged with above.

Looking at the preceeding discussion, it should be crystal clear regarding he be fully transparent and accountable in his use of bots.

- J Greb (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I support the modified conditions now that the BAG approval is added. (X! · talk)  · @914  ·  20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have to say, one of the things which I personally find wanting is Rich's attitude. He seems very reluctant to ever admit that he's actually done anything wrong (even after slapping a maintenance template on the main page..), for example, his first unblock request showed a clear lack of remorse, and his comments on his talk page display that he doesn't really seem to appreciate what he was actually blocked for, let alone be prepared to admit that he shouldn't have done the various things which lead up to the block. However, I do agree with the conditions above. Although I'm not completely convinced they would be enough, they're all basically already in policy, so Rich should be doing most of these already.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the above and guess that User:Sladen would too, judging from RF's talk page. It's not really a complaint but I think RF's 'man on a mission, the only one who can possibly solve wikipedia's problems' attitude is starting to look a bit silly. I thought the unblocking was so that he could respond here, not so he could carry on with what he was doing before. Is this guy actually listening to anyone? Can someone suggest he post a short note to us mortals here on his own wp:ani section. Please :) Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed[71] to both participate in discussion here, and to cease doing the disruptive and unresponsive editing that got him blocked in the first place. So I've unblocked him. Wknight94 ^talk 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblocking. - it's hard to know where to start with this one. It is more about human nature than anything else - and text communication. So lets start with Wknight94's message above.

"Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed both participate in discussion here... "

OK so this is minor, maybe, and in good faith, but the implication is that I was reluctant to join the discussion. Obviously that is the impression Wknight94 picked up, probably from something said on my talk page by my unblock request. However I was in the middle of typing a comment here when I was blocked.

• 21:01 notification of ANI
• 21:03 - 21:06 started reply
• 21:09 - blocked.

As my comment (later forwarded by Xeno, for which thanks) said "Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. "

-so I wasn't exactly reluctant to "cease doing" .. "that [which] got him blocked in the first place".

Further "disruptive and unresponsive editing" is rather jumping to conclusions, based on what others were saying.

More later as I am being pinged on my talk page (about responding here I think). Rich Farmbrough, 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Str1977 & Parrot of Doom

Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To put it nicely, these two simply aren't getting along. I've been watching their fighting over the past couple of days, and it's becoming more and more of a problem, especially to editors who simply want to discuss changes to certain articles, not get involved in personal fights. The two main articles in question are two Pink Floyd albums, "Animals" and "The Division Bell" (though it is not limited to just those pages). These two don't seem to agree on anything, and the Str1977 recently started this discussion, a long rant which seems to be a cross between a discussion a personal attack. However, despite starting discussions on both pages, he has not stopped edit-warring. I personally see this as redundant. He opens civil discussions intended to avoid conflicts, and then continues to engage in those very conflicts. Parrot of Doom has responded aggressively, calling the accusations "bullshit" and the response "hilarious" His edit summaries have echoed this kind of sentiment, such as "better written my arse" and "just fucking pack it in will you?". Parrot of Doom's editing of certain articles has always often bordered on acting as if he owned them, and I'm not denying that I've had disagreements with him in the past, but his history as an editor clearly shows that he's made a vast amount of improvements to this encyclopedia as a whole. So I'm at a loss. I don't want to take sides here, so I hope this notice doesn't sound like a biased attack towards one editor or another. Getting myself sucked into the polarized fights on talk pages (or anywhere) doesn't sound helpful at this point. I'd really like this fighting to stop and I don't feel it's within my power to make that happen, so hopefully an administrator can resolve this issue. Thank you for your time. Friginator (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Friginator, for making a start.

I do agree with him that Parrot made a lot of valid and valuable contributions to many articles (and that only after having a quick look). But his achievements seem to have left him with the impression of ownership.

I have made several edits, mostly to "Animals" (the others are just formatting issues, though IMHO they do have repercussions on NPOV) but Parrot reverts basically everything I did, even minutae. I admit that I could have discussed matters at talk from the start but thus far this road has not yielded any positive results either. What I get is insult after insult (those were not responses to any attacks by me but what he did from the very start), no reply to some points while he at first seemed willing to at least have a look at some (but only some). He never did this thus far and for a while even refused this on a talk page formatting issue. But he still did so after I yielded to his demand. He usually blanket reverts everything. Even if he had agreed to something on a talk page (as he did to my compromise suggestion to spell out "United Kingdom" for its first appearance), he then simply reverted it, even making an extra edit for it.

I'd like this fightiging to stop too but how am I to react to things like "just fucking pack it in will you?" Yielding to such bullying is not helping Wikipedia.

I have desisted from describing the actual content disputes, as these are usually not welcomed at ANI.

Thanks for your patience. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. One more thing: while my tone was indeed polemical and, given Parrot's treatment of me, increasingly angry, I did not make any "accusations". That term was introduced by Parrot. My talk page posting almost entirely consisted of the actual content points. My impression of OWNership and the word "obstruction" in the header were the only two exceptions. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way is "just fucking pack it in will you?" bullying? You may (and others probably will) claim that it's uncivil, but bullying it is not. You and your friend have brought a content dispute here to ANI under the guise of something else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that none of this is in the "guise" of anything else. I'm not sure what you're implying. I know next to nothing about Str1977's previous history as an editor, and "friend" is not really a term I would use to describe him. Friginator (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If he tells me what he did (the incivility of which is a matter of fact, not "claiming") and I yield, then it will be a bully getting his way.

The issue raised here by Friginator (with whom I have no previous acquaintance - hence he is not "my friend") are not about content but about behaviour. But what's it to you, Malleus?

Parrot by now has responded, on his talk page, apparently not bothering. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Very wise of him. Rather little of any real value happens here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it constructive, please. It looks like a content dispute turned nasty. Having had a quick look at Animals I can see merit in the edits of both parties. Great example of how quickly things can get out of hand when folks forget the pillar of civility. --John (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

... and come here crying to teacher. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus - I appreciate your ongoing advocacy of your personal beliefs regarding civility and Wikipedia, but I would like to remind you (again) that you do not represent the consensus admin or community opinions, who agree that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are important and need to be enforced. There is a difference between advocating for changes to those policies and/or enforcement and telling people in civility disputes that there is no issue, when community consensus would indicate there probably is.

Parrot and Str1977 - You both seem on first investigation to be constructive editors, outside of this dispute. Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you of something George. Your beloved civility policy is applied inconsistently and corruptly, and so the faux consensus you cling to to justify your mission is of no interest to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. "Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things" is simply insulting, treating grown adults like children. Now that's what I call incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

George,

on the contrary. Only dealing constructively with suggestions of the other can fix the problem. "Not talking to each other" is not a solution but actually - despite all the shouting - the problem. So, such a restriction is out of the question. That much is true in Malleus' cricitism (another part is true as well, but not as he intends it to be) but I can't help but wonder what business he has here. He's neither party to the conflict (is he?) nor an admin. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no restriction on random Wikipedians participating here. Community participation is encouraged; in this case, Malleus represents a tiny community fringe viewpoint that the whole idea of civility on Wikipedia is flawed and/or wrong and should be abandoned as a policy. But he's part of the community. We should not forget that he's there with that opinion (not likely 8-), nor allow that viewpoint to interfere with enforcing the working consensus policy.

Regarding an appropriate solution, in many cases we've seen that editors were able to just avoid each other and thus not antagonize each other. However, if you believe that the two of you can or need to cooperate on the articles, obviously that approach won't work.

I would like to see Parrot of Doom comment here. What, from his perspective, is causing the situation to go in the direction it's gone so far?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding each other would come naturally, given the experience, if the underlying problem was only solved. I know ANI is not for content disputes but the way Parrot simply blocks content edits he doesn't like has to stop.

And sorry, I cannot agree with what you said about Malleus at all. He is entitled to his opinion but should not disrupt any attempt to find a solution. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. Nobody comes here looking for solutions, they come looking for sanctions. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the only appropriate response is that you aren't a named party to the solution here, Malleus, and that you should take the meta-thread off to the ANI talk page and/or policy pages elsewhere. Poking at Str1977 isn't helping in any way. You had your say on the policy; you're now crossing the line into baiting them. Enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep your threats for someone who takes them seriously George, you know what I think of them. I understand that you don't like to hear the truth, but that's your problem, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Str1977 to stay out of PoD's way; the latter is a good editor but has an unfortunate turn of phrase sometimes. With any luck, whether or not PoD responds here we can be pretty sure he has read it. I'd be inclined to archive this as long as nothing comes up again in the next while. There's a content issue here which needs attention in article talk, a possible user conduct issue which can be avoided by these two avoiding each other until they can be civil; what more needs to be said (or done by an admin), unless either of them is silly enough to keep making the content issue (which doesn't seem that huge to me) a personal one? --John (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John, and as I told you, your suggestion is of no use as it boils down to Parrot simply having his way. As long as Parrot blocks content edits and ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution. Ignoring the problem, as you suggest, will not make it go away. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there's a content issue which you could resolve if you handled it better; personalizing a dispute like this (as you did at the talk page) seldom leads to a productive resolution. If there's a long-term problem with PoD's behavior (and I am not saying there isn't), you need to file a RfC/U. Short term, avoid the problem by avoiding each other. While not perfect, this is as good as we will get I think. If either of you continues with this disruption, I'm sure someone will be along to block either or both of you as required. I really hope that isn't necessary. In terms of this noticeboard, I think we have done all we can do. --John (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words: nothing. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Before the interpersonal conflict went sideways, there was some productive talk page discussion regarding the content issues. That is not yet resolved. I don't know that either of you is obviously right or wrong on the content issue in question, and I think that discussion needs to happen before the right solution evolves.

Just because there was some abusive language does not automatically mean you win the content dispute. The merits still have to be discussed on that. If the abusive language is over, the content discussion has to resume. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

George,

despite the rocky start I was and am open to discuss on the talk page. Parrot has responded once (to some points) but then repeteadly refused to deal with me, even after I yielded to his demand to restore his "reply between the lines" format. The abusive language has been entirely his (unless pointing to WP policies is now considered "abusive").

I am still open to discuss but, according to John's neatly thought-out "solution", I am supposed to stay away from him, which basically confirms the ownership problem and leaves the content problems intact. It is the latter I am most concerned about. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's true then you're in the wrong place. The place to discuss content disputes is the content noticeboard. This is the place where you demand that sanctions be placed on your enemies. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you unable to read or simply unwilling, Malleus?

"As long as Parrot ... ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution."

I came here for help regarding the behaviour so that discussion on content (which Parrot blocks) could move forward. It is the content why we are all here on Wikipedia, isn't it?

But I guess, you have been right about this place here: nothing really ever comes out of it as people are just uninterested. Wonder why they became admins in the first place. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RexxS behaviour

Please see [72] (revert without discussion, with denial there is any issue). This involves an issue I raised some two weeks ago about sortable tables not sorting correctly. At that time, even after repeatedly stated there was a problem with the tables [73], RexxS (talk · contribs) responded with a blatant denial [74] and a condescending insult [75] for which I reminded him of WP:CIVIL [76]. I have invited RexxS multiple times to refactor. Now, given [77] (denial of issue and uncivil demands) and [78] (more condescending insult), I submit RexxS behaviour merits at least a 24-hour block. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See the article talk page & Gimmetoo's talk page (and here) for the efforts which RexxS and Rossrs have each made to resolve this issue. David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• No prior warning (which I JUST gave), and as a neutral party I'd like to see the question raised by RexxS at the article talk answered, because without showing us that proof I can only assume that you are removing the sort altogether without a good reason. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Does not appear like block-able behavior to me. A warning will be sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Penwhale, RexxS was directly warned for civility twice ([79] and [80]). RexxS was also invited to refactor a couple times, which he declined. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a very unfair complaint to me. Both RexxS and I have been asking for clarification for over 2 weeks and Gimmetoo has made vague and/or cryptic comments, has answered a question with another question, and 2 weeks ago withdrew from discussion. He's made statements and has been upset that they haven't been taken without question but has not offered clarification or explanation when requested. There are parts of WP:CIVIL that apply to him too. "(a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;" and "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative". This was a very small issue that could have been dealt with and finished 2 weeks ago, if Gimmetoo had been "reasonably cooperative". It should not have taken over 2 weeks of discussion in 3 different locations to arrive at the point we're currently at, which is still not clearly answered. Rossrs (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I went to the first item the OP complained about, and the sort features appear to be working - and I have an antique version of IE. So I wonder what the OP's issue is with those tables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it has something to do with the dashes between years. But I went to Rex's last edit, and it works the way I would expect it to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I too cannot see the problem. I've re-added the table. I couldn't find a clear statement of the problem. I've requested an explanation on the talk page. Possibly a misunderstanding? Let's see.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You do indeed need to read the discussions at the three talk pages to understand the issue. Penwhale, I accept your admonishment for my uncivil tone; in mitigation, I can only say that I am an experienced editor in good standing with featured content, and it was the result of complete exasperation at Gimmetoo's behaviour, which I believe warrants examination. Although I am annoyed that he chose to ask for administrator intervention here, I am pleased that other uninvolved eyes are now able to review the situation.

The initial behaviour from 15 September is documented at Jack Merridew's talk page. The issue involves the sorting functionality of two tables at Yvonne Strahovski. Jack was on holiday, and as a regular talk page watcher, I attempted to work out what the problem was with the sorting. As you can see from the edit summaries, following Rossrs's change of hyphens in date ranges to en dashes per WP:DASH, Gimmetoo decided to remove the sortability because he thought it was incompatible with the en dashes we use in date ranges. The fact is that sorting misbehaves whether hyphens or dashes are used. Here is the article using hyphens, dif-hyphen; and a version using dashes, dif-dash. As anyone can verify, clicking the sort icon twice (a descending sort) on the 'Year' column of the 'Television' table incorrectly puts the '2007' row before the '2007–present' row in both cases. The fix for that is to use a sort key – which I did, producing a table that now sorts correctly. See this version, which sorts exactly as it should. I explained all that to Gimmetoo, pointing out that's it's better to fix the problem than to remove the functionality. So far, perfectly civil, apart from what I perceived to be a rather curt attitude on the part of Gimmetoo. I accept that others may or may not see that the same as I.

From there it goes downhill. Rossrs asked Gimmetoo on Gimmetoo's talk page what he meant by his edit summary "Undo sortable then". Gimmetoo claimed "the type of dashes you put in a couple edits earlier were in some way incompatible with the "sortable" option. The dashes you added were in the year ranges; year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility". As I have demonstrated above, this is simply not true, and I objected to Gimmetoo attempting to blame Rossrs for Gimmetoo's own lack of understanding. Gimmetoo then begins a sequence of cryptically asking if "this is resolved?". Although both Rossrs and I have asked him on each occasion to let us know what other issues he found, he has ignored the question until today.

Yesterday Gimmetoo once more removed the sortability from both tables (although only one has date ranges) with the edit summary "(two weeks, no response, still not fixed)". I know that the problem is fixed (as anyone who checks the version prior to his edit can verify. So I reverted his edit with the edit summary "(it's fixed - clearly state your problems on the talk page)". Instead of discussing his perceived problem on the talk page, Gimmetoo immediately re-reverted to impose his version without sorting. As I voluntarily observe a 1RR (for these very situations), I opened a section on the article talk page where I asked other editors to decide whether the tables should be sortable. I also posted on Gimmetoo's talk page expressing my dissatisfaction with his behaviour, and requesting he ceased the edit-war and actually got down to discussing what he thought the problem was on the article talk page. As you can see, Gimmetoo returned to his style of enigmatically hinting that a further problem existed without having the grace to explain what it was.

Today Gimmetoo dropped this little gem: "You are mistaken, and it appears you intend to stay mistaken. I said the sortability was incompatible with dashes. You've seen that diff, since you mention it above. If you wish to continue to ignore what I tell you, then you are currently not teachable. As I said above, your statement ("You may have found a problem with changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges that nobody else on the wiki is aware of; in which case, please enlighten us") reads as condescending sarcasm." which as well as containing a personal attack, completely ignores the facts – dashes or hyphens make no difference; the table has been fixed by the sort key. He still had not indicated the nature of what other possible issue may be present.

At last, Gimmetoo has claimed that the issue which he had kept us in the dark about for two weeks was "It does not sort correctly in some versions of some browsers." That, I'm afraid, is absolute balderdash. It is well-known that some very old versions of Safari will only sort on the first column of a table, but that applies to all sortable tables, irrespective of hyphens, dashes, or any other considerations. Apart from that, there is no other browser where the table does not sort correctly - and even on old Safari, it sorts correctly on the 'Year' column of the 'Television' table!

I am sorry that I expressed my consternation at this behaviour uncivilly, but I think most editors would recognise that you would need the patience of a saint not to become exasperated by Gimmetoo's behaviour.

I would therefore like to see other editors examine whether Gimmmetoo has been guilty of uncollaborative editing, misrepresentation of issues, using re-reversion to impose his view while failing to discuss his objections in any meaningful manner, and a blatant personal attack. I do not wish to see Gimmetoo sanctioned, but I do believe a stern warning to amend his behaviour in the way he interacts with other editors is deserved. He also needs to restore the sorting functionality to the tables that he has removed for no good reason. An apology would be nice, but I don't expect to get it. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to tell the other editor when you post about them on this page. I have done that for you. I'm beginning to wonder if this is one massive communication problem rather than an actual editor issue?Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC) wrong person Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to offer my 2 pennies because as Rexxs will tell you we've argued and compromised lots and have been locked in discussions for several days in the past. He is a fair user and all his edits are done in good faith. I accept that he could have played the situation better and used a more curtious selection of words but at the end of the day he is working to improve accessibility on wiki. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

First, note that I first recognized a problem with the sorting, and fixed it in a way that kept the sortable functionality. I didn't think that was going to be an issue. When that was undone, I highlighted that hypthens and dashes made a difference, was reverted by a third editor with the edit summary "sortable works fine". So I opened up a thread on that editor's talk page to discuss the issue. My position at this point is that I have provided one workaround that fixes the issue, and if that's not acceptable to this editor, then we probably shouldn't have sortable enabled here until an acceptable fix is found.

• At that point, RexxS' became involved with this unsolicited response on that user talk page. Look at that edit. It includes a flat denial of my description that hyphens and dashes make a difference, and the assertion that "[I] can assure you that the table now sorts as expected." It also includes a "recommendation" to ask technical issues on Merridew's talk page - as a response to a thread I started, on Merridew's talk page, to discuss this issue. Rather kafkaesque.
• RexxS continually repeated that dashes and hyphens don't matter. For instance [81]: "Your statement above "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility" is patently untrue." This immediately follows my statement [82]: "Above, I clearly said that "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility". RexxS has not fixed the problem that refers to." Given that RexxS was unwilling to even consider the possibility that my explanation was correct, what more was there to do.
• RexxS replies continued to be obstructionist, until [83], in which he claims I might be too embarrassed to admit my mistake. It was this statement, which drips of condescension, for which I first noted WP:CIVIL.
• RexxS response above illustrates the same issues I am highlighting as a behavioural problem - the denial of a technical problem and the resulting obstructionism. Just to pick a few quotes from above: "The fact is that sorting misbehaves whether hyphens or dashes are used." "completely ignores the facts – dashes or hyphens make no difference; the table has been fixed by the sort key." I have stated repeatedly that dashes and hyphens do make a difference, and the table has not been fixed. And his direct response to my statements is: "As I have demonstrated above, this is simply not true." I do realize RexxS does not believe there is any problem, so of course he thinks that any changes I make cannot fix [what he thinks is] a non-existent problem. I am nevertheless extremely troubled that despite my frequent statement, RexxS continues to deny there is any issue, and continues to mispresent the issues.
• The problem is still not fixed. It exists in Safari 4.
• In summary, I long ago identified a way to resolve the issue for Safari 4 that was compatible with the sortability feature. I'm not tied to that particular solution, but if sortability is to be retained, then I do think some sort of fix is appropriate. If anyone genuinely wants additional details, please let me know. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the only one that seems to be having a problem with the table, including the version you claimed didn't work at all. You've got to consider the possibility that the problem is at your end. To put it another way, if it works in every browzer but this Safari 4 thing, maybe the problem is within Safari 4. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you made what you described as a "frequent statement" and expected other editors to blindly accept your statement. When you were asked to explain and clarify your point, you made comments saying that maybe the problem wasn't what RexxS thought it was. How was that helpful? I asked you to clarify and you didn't. Your comments looked very much like you had a secret and you didn't want to share it or even give a clue. You asked me if I thought the matter was resolved. I had no idea what you were talking about because you didn't say what you were talking about. You asked RexxS if there was anything he wanted to change in his comments, instead of pointing out what you disagreed with. You didn't make a single clear comment. If you had said two weeks ago, "it does not sort in Safari 4", this would not have escalated. It festered and got ugly because you failed to communicate clearly even though both of us kept asking you to make your point. Today is the first mention of Safari 4. How hard would it have been to reveal this two weeks ago, rather than keeping it up your sleeve like an ace you're waiting to play at the right moment. It's interesting that you call RexxS on civility. I have to admit that you are civil to a fault, but there is a lot lacking in the way you interract with other editors, and I think that instead of RexxS being given a warning, it should have been you for letting this matter escalate when you could have defused it any time. It sorts perfectly in Safari 5, by the way. Rossrs (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If it works in everything except Safari 4, then the problem is not with the table, it's with Safari 4. The complainant should upgrade to 5, and then he should be fine, right? In any case, we can't cease using a function just because a buggy browzer has a problem with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Upgrade. Exactly. But why did we have to go through all this drama just to hear the name of the buggy browser? Rossrs (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the 64K question which the complainant needs to step up to the plate and answer. (Is that enough cliches for one sentence?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I am still met with denials and obstructionism. If I had not been met constantly by denials and failure to AGF, perhaps we wouldn't be here. And "upgrade"? This is an issue for readers - are we going to have a site-notice "best viewed in Firefox"? Safari 5 was released in June 2010 so Safari 4 is relatively recent. Anyone want to look up its browser share? In other discussions we typically support browsers/readers going back at least 5 years. I identified a fix that was compatible with sortable tables in Safari 4 - and yet, for some reason, nobody wants to use that or develop any other fix. Rossrs and Baseball bugs would seem to want WP to knowingly and consciously provide a broken table for some fraction of our readers when a non-broken version is available. Finally, for the editors who have stated it's just my problem - have any of you actually observed how the "sortable" function behaves on this table in Safari 4? I have personally verified this issue on 3 (three) different setups from three different associates. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it works under Safari 5 under Windows Vista. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've isolated the problem to Safari 4. It doesn't make sense to not use a function just because there's a buggy browzer out there. But if you have a workaround that will work in Safari 4 and not cause the other browzers to have a problem, then what you should do is set up a copy of that table on your talk page, install your fix, and notify us when you've got it set up, so that we can test it with other browzers. If everything's peachy, then it could be implemented in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you were not met with a failure to AGF. You were met by two editors who had the nerve to challenge you on your edits and ask you to support them. Any editor has the right to do that and any editor, when challenged, has an obligation to the project to AGF and respond in a clear and constructive manner. You failed to do this, even while the discussion remained courteous, and the tone of your comments made it clear that it was because the editor you really wanted to respond to you, did not. You brought us here. We are here because you refused to reveal what your problem was despite being asked, and you have still not explained why you didn't just speak directly at the beginning when I asked you on your talk page. When I first asked you about it, I was thinking that if I had made a mistake, I would like to know what I did wrong so that I didn't repeat the mistake elsewhere. What could be more 'good faith' than that? All you needed to say was something like "the sortability doesn't work for all browsers, so for some users this could be a problem". You said that it was incompatible, but didn't say that you were referring to a particular browser, so I assumed you meant that it was incompatible entirely. I couldn't see that. It looked right to me, and although you could have easily clarified this, you did not. Where was your 'good faith'? Instead you posed questions that were completely unclear, blamed me for a problem I couldn't even see, and alluded to problems that I could only guess at, and all the good faith I started with was slowly drained to the point where, I'll admit, it's completely gone with you. And you feel that other editors are being obstructive? The sortability issue and your behaviour are two separate issues, and your behaviour still needs an explanation. You started this ANI to discuss editorial behaviour, not to resolve the sorting issue. You started this in an attempt to silence an opponent, and it was only after that failed, that you answered the question you had avoided from the start. Now the focus has shifted to the sortability issue and away from what I perceive to be the consistently poor behaviour on your part. Discussion of sortability doesn't belong here. It's a distraction, and is a technical issue that should be discussed elsewhere. Except we tried that already and you didn't want to participate. Now you do. That's interesting. One simple question for you and in the name of AGF which you have just invoked, an answer would be really nice - why did you not just spell it out two weeks ago for those of us clearly too stupid to guess what you were hinting at? Rossrs (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was met immediately and consistently with point-black denials that there was any problem, and condescending, insulting remarks. After repeated attempts to get some acknowledgment of even the possibility that RexxS might possibly, just maybe, not have the full story, and getting nowhere, there really wasn't much else to do that let it rest a while and give RexxS and you an opportunity to save face. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What "condescending, insulting remarks" did I "immediately and consistently" make to you? It's not only RexxS that you wouldn't give the time of day. No, that doesn't wash. If RexxS didn't have the full story, you could have just given it to him right at the start. You said something like "is there anything in your comment you want to change?" to RexxS a couple of times but how was he to know exactly which of his words you wanted him to change without explaining? You kept saying there was a problem and we kept asking you to explain what it was. I don't need to save face, and thank you for the thought, but you need never do that for me. What you actually said was that you would wait to hear from User:Jack Merridew. I think RexxS and I were just background noise and you didn't explain yourself to us because we weren't the editors you wished to discuss it with. Perhaps there was a danger that we might have resolved it, and then you'd have had nothing to take up with Jack. Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Condescending, insulting remarks": I have never known Rossrs to behabe in that manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly evident that it's the OP who's the disruptor here. Note in this diff[84] and lines above it, how he continues to make personal attacks and also persists in the notion that he should be allowed to do his testing within the article rather than on a test page; that if it works for him, that's all the matters. It's fairly evident that he's never worked in an I.T. shop, because that's not how things are done. You post a test version, make sure it works for you, and have everyone else test it. Then you can put it into production. The old saw, "If it works it's production, otherwise it's a test", is not appropriate in a high-visibility situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BB, have you tested any versions of the article in the browser noted? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How would I? And why would I? I have IE, which is the standard where I come from. Safari is apparently a Mac product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to labour the point, but Gimmetto's "fix" doesn't work in any browser. The Safari 4 bug is documented here "With older versions of Safari a table can only be sorted by the first column: all sort buttons have the effect that only the leftmost one is supposed to have." Sorting still gives unexpected results on mixtures of numbers and words because of the javascript algorithm used, not the browser.

I've made copies of the tables from three different versions of the article at User:RexxS/Sorting. Anyone can try them out and see if Gimmetoo's fix (table 1) actually works. You can also see that hyphens or dashes (table 2) make no difference. And you can see that my fix (table 3) did work. That's for any browser using javascript and any operating system. That's the background. Gimmetoo was mistaken that his fix worked, and can't accept that my fix worked. What followed resulted from my attempts to explain this to him, with an increasing sense of frustration at his unwillingness to communicate just what he thought the problem was. Everything else is obfuscation. He still hasn't named the browser that he was using when he made his "fix", and it took two weeks for him to offer the "browser explanation". Gimmetoo, tell us what browser you were using and whether your fix actually worked.

I'll ask then, is Gimmetoo's behaviour in edit-warring to remove sortability from two tables (one of which had no issues) acceptable? Is his attitude toward two other editors who were only seeking to improve the article acceptable? Is his "If you wish to continue to ignore what I tell you, then you are currently not teachable" [85] an acceptable comment to make to a fellow editor? --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RexxS still denies there is a problem. If RexxS is wrong, will RexxS be blocked for obstruction and disruption? Would RexxS agree to accept a block? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to fix this problem? Would it kill you to set up a version on your talk page, OR RIGHT HERE, and see if it works for everyone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. The problem I started this thread to address is RexxS' behaviour. I don't want to see it repeated. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And you would be well advised to curb your own behavior, to stop hurling insults about denial and kafka and so on. You may think the world revolves around the Mac, but it doesn't. The key question: Does the table work for you now? If so, can this issue be marked "resolved"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Gimmetoo has not been trying to fix the problem. None of his edits to the tables in Yvonne Strahovski have been constructive (reverting dashes to hyphens in date ranges contrary to MOS:ENDASH, repeatedly removing sortability from the tables). He did not explain what he thought the problem was, despite requests. He did not start a thread on the article talk page to discuss the problems he perceived; I had to do that. At no point has he shown any interest in improving the article, but has preferred to play games with editors who were trying to improve those tables. I fixed the article for almost all readers two weeks ago, and following suggestions from Ucucha, I extended the fix to cover Safari 4 yesterday. The community can rest assured that if I'm not provoked by obfuscation, baiting, and insults, you won't see incivility from me. On the other hand, unless Gimmetoo's behaviour is corrected, it won't be too long before he's back here yet again, with another frivolous accusation against good-faith editors, in a incident that he's manufactured. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, not an RPG where you try to trap and damage your perceived opponents. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. But reading through this, Gimmetoo (the OP) is the problem here. He's basically playing games because he can't his way (apparently he can't be arsed to update or patch his own buggy browser). There's nothing else meaningful to say here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali is not uninvolved, and I can provide details to anyone who wishes. In any event, the "fix" for any particular individual may be an upgrade, but this is an issue for readers. (And on what grounds do you claim it is my "own buggy browser" - what makes you think I routinely use Safari 4?). Gimmetoo (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever point you had seems to have gotten lost in this convoluted mess. The solution for the readers is simple; if something doesn't display right here, and the cause is a known bug in an outdated browser, then it is time to upgrade. Simple? Yes. I'd suggest you move on before this becomes a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just tested User:RexxS/Sorting in Safari 4.0.4, and found that the first table (Gimmetoo's version) doesn't sort properly in descending order (it gives 2007, 2007-Present, 2005-2006, 2004). However, version 3, supposedly fixed, doesn't work either: it sorts in the order 2007–Present, 2004, 2005–2006, 2007. Ucucha 16:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally, some progress. Could you please check version 4, along with the note explaining why the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present" was not the issue. And to repeat for those saying "upgrade" - this is an issue for readers. There is a non-trivial fraction of readers using Safari 4 who will see this issue. Shouldn't we do something to resolve the issue, if it can be resolved? Or is it WP policy that browsers more than 3 months old do not need to be supported here? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not think that we should. 3 days or 3 months, outdated is outdated. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My old home PC uses a version of IE 6 that was probably installed 5 years ago. Yet the table works just fine on it. Another reason not to buy a Mac. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Most people don't keep up with whatever browser updates appear, and we should strive to be accessible to everyone within reasonable bounds.

Gimmetoo, I am using version 4, as I said. Ucucha 17:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. I see I was unclear. I meant could you check the 4th version of the table at [User:RexxS/Sorting]] using Safari 4.0.4. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That one works perfectly. Ucucha 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But please note again that the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present" is NOT the issue here. I think an argument could be made, based on the order of appearance dates in this case, that "2007-present" might come before "2007". I was quite happy with leaving that ordering random due to the ambiguity. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please check that on the actual page, which is not the same as version 3. All the same there's a basic issue here - it's a technical problem - hopefully to be fixed one day. Are we to delete all sortable tables using hidden sort keys because Safari v.4.04 doesn't work with them. (rhetorical question).

It might be more productive to take this problem to either Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the issue. There is a problem. It can be fixed. Should we have broken tables when they can be fixed? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ok what is the fix - I'm assuming it's not to remove sortability?Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just tested User:RexxS/Sorting. Items 1 and 2 don't work. Items 3 and 4 do work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BB, again, please ignore the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present", because that was not the issue. RexxS (or someone else, I can't recall now) chose to force an ordering of those two. That's a content issue, not a technical issue. (The only technical issue about that is in how to implement the content decision of a particular forced ordering.) Gimmetoo (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking again at User:RexxS/Sorting, my clunky old IE 6 browzer can sort ascending and descending on all columns, and it all comes out right except for issues with the "2007 to present" in the first column of the first two items. And (chrono)logically, "2007 to present" comes later than just plain "2007". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but the problem with sorting a table when using Safari 4 or earlier is that Wikipedia pages are XHTML documents. This produces unexpected results in Safari when javascript sets the innerHTML property of an element [ http://www.quirksmode.org/bugreports/archives/2004/11/innerhtml_in_xh.html]. Our script for sorting tables [86] unfortunately makes use of that technique. This is an incompatibility between older versions Safari and Wikipedia, and can manifest itself on any sortable table. It's a known problem, but not the issue here. If Gimmetoo had mentioned Safari initially, I could have explained that it's a site-wide issue. He chose not to do that, but to continually hint that "it was not resolved". If Gimmetoo wants us to abandon all sortable tables, because they may not work on Safari 4, he needs to take his campaign elsewhere. Nevertheless, how can he justify repeatedly removing the sortability from two tables on that basis? I've done what I could to improve that article, at least for 99% of editors, while Gimmetoo has only battled to remove that functionality from those 99%. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If he resumes edit-warring over this issue, he will be stopped cold. If there's a bug in this Safari thing, then he needs to upgrade. If he doesn't want to upgrade (or better yet, dump the Mac and get a real PC), then he assumes the responsibility for the problem at his end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What you just said has been addressed multiple times. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Here's the current version. Now I'll save and see if it works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Films

Year	Film	Role	Notes
2007	Gone	Sondra	as Yvonne Strzechowski
2007	Persons Of Interest	Lara	as Yvonne Strzechowski
2008	The Plex	Sarah
2008	The Canyon	Lori	Release date: October 23, 2009
2009	I Love You Too	Alice	Theatrical Release: May 6, 2010 (Australia) DVD Release: October 6, 2010 (Australia)
2009	Shadows from the Sky	Jill	pre production
2010	Matching Jack	Veronica	Theatrical Release: August 19, 2010 (Australia) Previously "Love and Mortar"
2010	LEGO: The Adventures of Clutch Powers	Peg Mooring	Straight-To-DVD
2010	The Killer Elite		In production (as of May 9, 2010)

Television

Year	Title	Role	Episodes	Notes
2004	Double the Fist	Suzie	1	Episode name: "Fear Factory"
2005– 2006	headLand	Freya Lewis	26
2007	Sea Patrol	Fed Agent Martina Royce	1	Episode name: "Cometh the Hour"
2007– present	Chuck	Special Agent Sarah Walker	55

Yep, looks good to me... and I'm only on XP with IE 6. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, and I have the most up to date sooper dooper version of Firefox. Can we therefore safely state that even if Gimmetoo personally cannot sort these tables because he is using Netscape 2.0 on a 286, this does not give him grounds to delete the sortable table for everyone else, or to complain at RexxS and Rossrs for fixing it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It also works on my laptop which has Windows 7 with IE 8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works with Safari 3.1.2, Opera 10.62 and Chrome 6.0.472.63, all under Windows Vista on a PC laptop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Time wasted

This all appears to be to be timewasting and counterproductive bad-cheese because of some editorial decision User:Gimmetoo doesn't agree with. It's proved difficult for me to get a clear answer from them, User:Gimmetoo is clearly a stonewaller I'm not suprised that other editors have had difficulty remaining civil with them.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

From Rex's detailed explanation above, it's clear that the problem rests with older versions of this Safari browser. One problem I have with IE 6 is that for some reason the lettering on wikimedia commons shows up very small and unreadable. On my IE 8 machine it's fine. So do I come here griping about it? No, because I realize that the problem is at my end. It's possible there's a workaround. But I wouldn't be right to demand that they stop using that font just because my old version has a problem with it. It's apparent that this is a known bug with Safari 4, and that's the way it is. Of course, if the OP can find a way to make it work for both his browser and everyone else's, that would be peachy. But removing tables just because he can't read them is disruptive, and I suspect will not be tolerated from here on out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What you just said has been addressed multiple times above. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that he never removed a table. Ucucha 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He actually stripped the sortable functionality out of a table. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is now a 5th item at User:RexxS/Sorting which the poster thinks should work for both IE and this Safari thing. It does work on my IE 6. If it still doesn't work on Safari 4, then G2 needs to either (1) get busy and figure out a way to make it work; or (2) find something else to work on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It does work on Safari 4; I tested it. I don't know why you feel the need to mention things that Gimmetoo needs to do. Ucucha 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because he's the complainant here, and he has continually denied that the problem is at his end, and he has gotten everyone else to do his work for him. So if it still doesn't work on his browser, even though it works for you, then the ball is back in his court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Ucucha. It seems that if every cell in a column has a sort key, then Safari 4 will perform the same process on each and the table will sort correctly on the key, regardless of the displayed cell contents. I've updated the Television table in Yvonne Strahovski#Filmography to have a sort key on each cell. Is there anyone now who doesn't get the order "2007–present"/"2007"/"2005–2006"/"2004" on a descending 'Year' sort? Apologies to admins & others for the off-topic post, but I believe there are more eyes on the issue currently here. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works on IE 6 and IE 8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works in Firefox 3.6.10 on Windows. I note the first table features Class=unsortable. As I suck at Wiki markup (I can program in VBA, can't do wiki markup, go figure), could you explain what that's doing.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean ! class="unsortable" | Notes ? All that does is prevent sorting by the column of notes. see Help:Sorting#Making_a_column_unsortable That's standard proceedure, sorting by the notes doesn't make much sense.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (who thinks her brane has fossilised)

Repeated forking of articles and refusal to listen Lilbadboy312

Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly recreating the article for the song "In the Dark" released by JoJo taken from her ree mixtape Cant Take That Away from Me. Firstly he created the article at In the Dark (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was reverted lots of times but he recreated the page lots of times. Then he/she recreated the page at In the Dark (JoJo Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and even uploaded images taken from his own personal blog. Then after being warned for the final time here, I gave him/her a final warning here. And then surprise surprise, after being notified of the recent article's deletion he/she cleared his talk page here and then recreated the article In The Dark (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Its obvious that the user in question has questionable editing practises. He constantly has image issues thanks to him uploading inappropriate images and then goes ahead disobeying consensus and administrators by creating inappropriate page forks, making NO attempt to engage in any kind of discussion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please comment on this... it does require some kind of intervention. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Although this does not yet require admin intervention, you will see that a couple have commented and now have some eyes on the editor. Step one though: they had never been welcomed - and unless they know all of the rules, how can they know they're acting improperly? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole redux - now including copyvio

71.139.18.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dcahole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following from the unresolved but now archived thread started here a few days ago, User:Dcahole has returned. They have undone much of the clean-up work done by User:Cameron Scott. Note that person behind the account has a longstanding grudge against Cameron Scott, as well as myself.

In this edit User:71.139.18.157 cut and pastes multiple paragraphs from a magazine website. The IP is quite obviously the same user as Dcahole, per this edit.

I would appreciate some admin assistance in resolving the issues raised in the original ANI post, as well as dealing with the latest shenanigans of Dcahole. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

SPAM warning left, haven't had time to check the copyvio... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped the article back to the last known "good" version - the copyvio is undoubtedly a copyvio, the other editing (i.e. removing sourced criticism) looks dubious as well though. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Verified copyvio; there are some differences, but the majority of the text mirrors the site. HalfShadow 03:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that GWH has given what amounts to an only and final warning to Dcahole; any further issues regarding either copyvio or targeting Cameron Scott or Delicious Carbuncle, and it is cluestick application time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, I don't wish to sound unappreciative, but Dcahole is only the latest in a series of socks and IP accounts used for this purpose. A member of ArbCom assured me that I am wrong in my identification of the user behind these accounts -- but that Arbcom are aware of the identity of the user -- when this came up in July related to some trolling on Wikipedia Talk:Child protection. The same user has also targeted User:Schrandit, another long-time adversary. I suspect that the user has no particularly strong feelings about Men's Health (magazine), but they have successfully derailed my attempt to address what I feel is a clear-cut COI issue. In other words, blocking the Dcahole account isn't addressing the problem (although why the account isn't blocked yet is beyond my comprehension). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

While ArbCom members have CU permissions it may be best to email Checkuser with your concerns, as they may then be reviewed by others - and even if your suspicions as to a sockmaster are not correct, abuse of multiple accounts may result in some actions being taken. Outside of CU confirmation (or otherwise) or WP:DUCK we can only deal with the individual accounts at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did copyvio from that magazine's site, I used it because it was written by Men's Health to sell subscriptions and it did a good job of just talking about the content. Everything else was adding sources. I didn't remove sourced criticism, I added it. I did remove something from Cameron Scott that was false and not in the source, that is the sum total of any grudge or attacks. I don't know who any of them are but if this is how Delicious carbuncle acts then I guess they would have grudges held against them. They added "Conflict if Interest" and besides the external links- all 22 were to official language editions of the magazine - has offered nothing but accusations. They did an investigation and this is another thread filled with with hunt rhetoric. I never attacked anyone, all I did was add sourced content, besides the one which I tried to summarize but still meets a copyvio problem I was putting in exactly the information the encyclopedia should have with sources. When everything was deleted you removed not just the one copyvio section but all the other stuff was fine. If anyone has a grudge it is Delicious carbuncle against Men's Health, they seem locked horns in preventing it from being improved with sourced content. Can someone whose not making things up about attacking please look at everything besides the copyvio and see if it's OK? Dcahole (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone is overlooking the obvious here - that the redlink's user ID is an obscenity directed at the OP here. Accordingly, I have reported his username to the proper authorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that was discussed in the linked thread at the top. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been indef'd for username violation, but he's arguing that it's a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised; he is telling the truth about that being a name, but I find it an AMAZING coincidence indeed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording of his unblock request suggests someone who has had a previous run-in with DC under different ID(s) and/or IP(s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the user name is inappropriate. The user said it was some common irish surname or something. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, an amazing coincidence. And it's an amazing coincidence that his first few edits went after a user with the initials DC. A most unfortunate coincidence, begorrah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson redux

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) and I are in the middle of a content dispute at Talk:Turpan#Requested Move. He just made this edit, in which he puts a comment of mine underneath a header "Irrelevant abuse", which I'm pretty sure qualifies as modifying another user's post (see WP:TPG#New topics and headings on talk pages), not to mention it separates it from the comment to which it's responding (although that is elementary by now). Normally I wouldn't care too much and this would seem like a non-issue, but Pmanderson has a long history of problems with disruptive and incivil editing, including several recent ANI threads, and a recent RFC/U. I'm not trying to silence my content opponent or something (indeed, he has already made his statement at the move request), but I do think this is inappropriate behavior on his part. I'm not trying to forum shop here; I think this is a better place to deal with a behavioral issue without wasting space at the talk page (I'm hoping some actual content issues can get worked out there without it descending into bickering; anyway, isn't ANI the place for bickering? :P ) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Something's got to happen here. Pmanderson is proving unable to get along with people he disagrees with and is willing to move war extensively on these matters (while in this case, Rjanag and he have moved an equal number of times, we must remember that Pmanderson also move warred at Aorist). In my observation, his behaviour is increasingly incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative environment and needs to be changed. I'm frankly thinking a block is the only way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Georgewilliamherbert has blocked for one month. In related news, the size of Pmanderson's talkpage is a bit much, and he himself admits that it is to be obstructionist to people who aren't 'friends'. I would archive it myself, but don't particularly feel like getting shat on. → ROUX ₪ 03:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly regret that it had to come to this, but I do believe that GWH has done the right thing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Forwarded from PMAnderson's talk page at his request by ( Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) ):

Please post the following at ANI for me:

This irresponsible admin moved Turfan to Turpan, despite strong opposition by User:Alefbe; closed the eventual discussion on the title at Talk:Turfan#Title, and now, after a further inconclusive discussion at Talk:Turfan#Naming in which he was the chief advocate, has moved it again twice (using his bit to delete the redirect). He himself admits that it was not closed by a neutral observer. He then went to Ecit-Warring; and now comes here.

There is now a move discussion, at which he strongly opposed; so I strongly supported. The post he complains about says:

Uh-oh, your support was "strong" [ so I guess you win. As for "demonstrating actual consensus", have you read the RfC, or any of my messages? I will say it again: four out of five editors there presented reasons for moving it to Turpan. How is that not consensus? (Oh, right, because you don't like those reasons.)

A very pretty piece of abuse - and falsehood, since several of those four editors said they didn't much care - and if it weren't for Rjanag's abuse, I wouldn't care all that much myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the notes, discussion, and PMA -

On this particular issue, Rjanag did not falsely indicate that the other 4 uninvolved editors preferred "Turpan". I read the discussion; they all did, in varying levels of enthusiasm (from low to moderate preference, but all slightly preferred "Turpan").

I would like to request another uninvolved administrator to review Rjanag's behavior here for using admin tools or edit warring improperly in a content dispute. I don't see an obvious example as PMA is asserting but would like someone else to make that call, please.

Regarding PMAnderson -

We had a user conduct RFC over the summer. We've had numerous ANI threads. I blocked near the end of the RFC, he was unblocked agreeing to behave better going forwards. The RFC result was essentially unanimous that PMA needed to pay more heed to NPA and CIVIL policies (slight involvement on my part - I wrote a very popular opinion to that effect in the RFC).

I believe the situation is worsening not improving, was already too far over the summer, and reached the point that it cannot be ignored further with this series of events today. I have blocked for one month.

I would like to urge other admins NOT to lessen the block duration this time; I don't see any sign that he "got the message" from any of the prior actions, RFC, warnings, etc. We need to have a sanction that sticks and has effective long term behavior change here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but this was clearly coming. Despite an RFC where there was a preponderance of editors who endorsed that PMA needed to change the way in which he interacted with people, this is the third incivility-related ANI report on him since that RFC closed. At some point, action needs to be taken, for the sum total of disruption. I am not sure this one event, if taken in isolation, would have been a blockable offense, but the entirety of his behavioral history here at Wikipedia has been adding up. I endorse GWH's block of PMA. --Jayron32 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@GWH: He is correct that I used admin tools in the edit war, because in retrospect (after the first one, a month ago) I realized I was deleting a redirect to move the page back. I'll let someone else decide whether or not that was justified this time (the move is not being discussed at Talk:Turpan#Requested Move). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, there's nothing wrong with deleting redirects in a move request ... policy and Arbcom rulings have made it clear that edited redirects are not meant to be treated as barriers to anything and can be deleted in these circumstances. But moving a page in favour of a name you yourself have come out to support, when a context of formality and procedure has already been established, is bad practice and thus provocative. I don't know if these page move requests were listed at WP:RM, but if they were, then you are vulnerable to the accusation of admin abuse because there is an expectation that RM requests should be closed by [uninvolved] admins only. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as I remember they were never at RM. Pmanderson move warred, I obliged for a bit but then I bit the bullet and opened an RfC. After the RfC died and no one was stepping forward to close it, I went ahead and did it because I felt (incorrectly, it seems) that the consensus was obvious. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

Pmanderson's talk page is currently over half a megabyte long, which as mentioned above, he deliberately maintains in order to discourage others posting there. If I'm not mistaken, that could be enough to crash some computers. The purpose of user talk pages is to facilitate communication between editors, not to obstruct it. I'd like to suggest that some kind admin put a MiszaBot tag on his talk page and instruct PMA to leave it there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. → ROUX ₪ 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please step back and consider what you have written. By all means point these things out to PMA, but this type of policing is not what administrators should be doing. -- PBS (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this has been pointed out to Pmanderson, and he explicitly stated that he keeps it that long to dissuade people who aren't 'friends' from posting there. Deliberately making communication with other Wikipedians difficult is a) not allowed, and b) Pmanderson is well aware of that. → ROUX ₪ 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, its dishonest and Counter productive The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked to think that anyone who edits in good faith would think of anyone else who also edits in good faith as anything but a friend. Therefore I presumed that what PMA meant is that it deters people who do not edit in good faith such as vandals. I do not think that policing the size of user talk pages by forcing MiszaBot on users, or by other coercive methods, is something that administrators should be doing. -- PBS (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A talk page that can't be edited defeats the purpose of have a talk page. However, since editors can edit by section, I don't see why it would be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I first brought it up was because I accidentally edited the whole page (I don't remember how anymore, I think maybe I wanted to add two new sections at once) and nearly froze up my browser. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an old browser (IE 6) on an old machine. Just as a test, I edited the entire talk page. It took a little while to save, but it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing aside, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some computers that would freeze up or slow way down just looking at the talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem looking at it with IE 6. I can imagine some Blackberries or Macs might have some issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Targeted killing

• Targeted killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A dispute at Targeted killing (history) has resulted in the following report filed at AN/AIV:

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Targeted killing; vandalism after final warning. Editor has been deleting completely both the page targeted killing and its attendant talk page. That page is a new, 100K, 150 footnote article. He apparently dislikes it, and has deleted despite a final warning. This is a re-post w/the below explanation as to why deletions of this sort are vandalism under the guideline. Note: this is certainly vandalism, which wp:vandalism states includes "Removing all ... of a page's content ... with no valid reason(s) given in the summary" inasmucch as there has not been "a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content"Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Whether or not there's a good reason to remove the content is debated, so this is a content dispute. I'm not going to remove this one again, but I can pretty much guarantee it will not be acted upon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC) It is by no means a content dispute -- there is nothing about the content that is in dispute. Yet it is being deleted. Under the guideline, one needs a "non-frivolous" explanation for removal of apparently legitimate content. We have none. We don't even have a statement that the content is not legitimate.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I think a key issue is whether or not the consensus was reach in this discussion last May. If not, this can be treated as a content dispute to be further discussed in the newly opened RFC. If it has, than continued removal of the new article content can be considered disruptive editing against consensus. Should this discussion be moved to AN/I? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Even if disruptive, it's not vandalism per Wikipedia's definition. ANI may well be a good place to discuss this, though.

At this time both editors have reached 3R, but have not violated 3RR. This issue has been moved here for further discussion. A prior discussion relating to the fork and a new RFC are linked in my prior comment above.

Should administrative action be taken or should we let the RFC run its course? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Full protected for one week, there is a conflict ongoing at both the article history [87] and talk page history [88] (did not protect the talk page). There was also a report at WP:AIV about this, did not seem appropriate for AIV, [89]. Other admins, feel free to review, change the protection if there is consensus for that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since there have been no further comment, should we closed this out with no further action and allow the RFC to run its course? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche placed a comment at 03:40, (30 September 2010) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. When I raised the issue on Epeefleche's talk page at 03:53, that using vandalism in the history of the article over a content dispute is not acceptable behaviour. Far from telling me that (s)he had also posted to AIV Epeefleche made a statement "Third of all, the scrip chose the specific words--if you don't like it, take it up with the scrip writers. It is the standard language." I leave it to others to decide if this is honest behaviour and the comments by Epeefleche on talk, talk:Assassination#RFC: Should there be a separate article called Targeted killing and in the history of Targeted killing civil and likely to help build a consensus, or uncivil and likely to hinder the build a consensus.

I would like to know what script Epeefleche used to put comments into the history of an article as clearly it is open to misuse if it is used in content disputes, and because the link to wp:vandalism is hidden behind unconstructive the user of the script may not know that it is being used. -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer: The tool used was WP:Twinkle. (More on the editor's talk page.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tom N for the more detailed explanation on my talk page. I would like to know if anyone considers the way that Epeefleche used Twinkle to be an abuse of Twinkle. -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If they screwed up with it the punishment tends to be removal for a significant time. There's a strong contingent on the wiki (including myself, full disclosure) that consider these functions on these tools to be unclueful in the extreme to begin with. Automated messages telling someone that this random other person (maybe, maybe a bot) has a problem with something they did are an abuse to begin with. At some point we changed from trying to recruit new editors from people dicking around by using hand written notes (you know, to show that there's a community here and not just a walled garden of information) and instead started trying to fill daily vandal-busting quotas to accumulate EXP on some twisted WP RPG. -- ۩ Mask 09:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, at the root of this issue is a content dispute; pretty much all fights on Wikipedia originate over content. The question is whether Philip Baird Shearer is obeying the rules insofar as editing against consensus, seeking to resolve issues through discussion, etc. It doesn’t seem to be the case here. This is an issue of whether the term “targeted killing” should be an article unto itself. Given that the U.S. Government is using the term, it would be unconscionable for Philip Baird Shearer to redirect searches on that term to “Assassination”, which looks too much like POV-pushing. Wikipedia works best when the consensus view prevails and breaks down into complaints like this when editors flout process. Greg L (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn’t seem to be the case here" Is an RFC not "seeking to resolve issues through discussion"? "it would be unconscionable for Philip Baird Shearer to redirect searches on that term to “Assassination”, which looks too much like POV-pushing." Given that the term had been a redirect since Tazmaniacs redirected it on 19 February 2006 (after a discussion that it should become a redirect until 00:21, 30 September 2010 when Epeefleche created a new article, I think your statement "it would be unconscionable for Philip Baird Shearer to redirect searches on that term to “Assassination”, which looks too much like POV-pushing." is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I have reviewed the situation and have the following comments:

• Both editors were edit warring, which is unacceptable. That they stopped at 3 reverts is not really important, and both could have been blocked for these actions.
• However PBS's edits can not be called vandalism as they were made in good faith. Therefore the edit summaries used by Epeefleche were inappropriate, and this certainly was misuse of Twinkle. I will refrain from removing access to this tool at this time, but will post a warning on Epeefleche's talk page about this.
• The appropriate course of action when you don't think a page should exist on Wikipedia is to follow the deletion process. Nominating the article for deletion would have been preferable to edit warring over a redirect.
• The discussion mentioned by Epeefleche is recent and, although not unanimous, does show significant support for a new page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Let's be clear here. What would you think of PBS deleting the entire 100K, 150 footnote article "abortion"? Simply blanking the page? Multiple times, despite multiple warnings? Because he claimed -- in his explanation, a bare edit summary -- it was simply a euphemism for "murder", and therefore should not have an article? (While the "murder" article has only a comparatively brief mention of abortion). And claimed that the extensive talk page discussion such as the one that Martin describes above does not show consensus.

That, by analogy, is precisely what is happening here.

I'm happy to:

1. supply all the diffs (some of which are now below), and
2. the detailed chronology, and
3. reflect PBS's 6 deletions (of the article[90][91][92] and the talk page[93][94][95]) within a mere 2+ hours, with bare edit summaries that fail to provide a reasonable basis therefor, and
4. his spurious assertion that it is merely a "euphemism" for murder (an assertion I addressed multiple times) lacking consensus as his edit summary bare explanation,
5. detail my multiple efforts to engage him on his talk page while he was doing this,[96][97]
6. the multiple entreaties and warnings to him to desist, explaining why his bare edit summaries to the extent that they even pretend to be substantive, are frivolous -- to no avail,[98][99][100][101][102][103] and
7. the many, many references I pointed him to of scholars and judges and others who say that "targeted killing" is not "assassination" (while, as with "abortion", there are as the article indicates some with a different view), and
8. the precise language of wp:vandalism which specifically describes "page blanking" without a non-frivolous rationale as vandalism, and
9. describe how the assumption of good faith is a rebuttable one that melts away after an editor rebuts it by his actions.

If people need more, I will do so. But in a nutshell, this is what has been going on. And I see no evidence that PBS "gets it". It could reasonably be assumed by some that he deleted the article and its talk page 6 times in 2 hours with something short of a "good faith" intent. Something short of his obligations under wp:admin to model appropriate behavior, and to avoid edit warring. As to PBS's saying he fails to see the consensus which the above editors and others see, and saying that he fails to see how targeted killing is anything other than a euphemism for murder (after I've provided him loads of citations) -- as they say back in Texas, "don't pee on my leg, and tell me its raining".

This is precisely the sort of heavy-handed inappropriate behavior that drives away good editors. It is not behavior that one with the bit should display.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

[Add--as I've also added some diffs above] As an example of the language I pointed PBS to that showed his assertion that targeted killing was simply a euphemism for assassination was not a universally agreed fact, I pointed him to, inter alia, the following:

As reflected in the article itself even as I came upon it, there is clearly a substantial body of thought that targeting killing is not the same thing as assassination ("Pro:...They also oppose the use of the term assassination, as it denotes murder, where targeting such leaders is seen as self-defence, and thus killing, but not a crime.[33]"). Assassination is categorized under murder, which is an unlawful killing. Obviously, it satisfies someone's POV to put it there. But there is clearly not a consensus view in RSs that it is unlawful, and assassination. See also: The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, by Georgetown Law professor Gary D. Solis ("Assassination and targeted killing are very different acts") The Impact of 9/11 and the New Legal Landscape: The Day That Changed Everything? Day that changed everything?, Matthew J. Morgan, Bob Graham ("There is a major difference between assassination and targeted killing.") "Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", by Amos Guiora, 36 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 319 (2004)("Targeted killing is also not an assassination") Fatal Choices: Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing, by Steven R. David ("there are strong reasons to believe that the Israeli policy of targeted killing is not the same as assassination") "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing" E Patterson, T Casale, International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, Volume 18, Issue 4 January 2005, pages 638-52 ("Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination.") Ireland and the Middle East: trade, society and peace, Rory Miller (2007)("Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination' for three reasons") "Targeted Killing and Assassination: The US Legal Framework", William C. Banks, Peter Raven-Hansen - U. Rich. L. Rev., 2002 ("Targeted killing of terrorists is therefore not unlawful and would not constitute assassination") Responses to Terrorism / Targeted killing is a necessary option, Judge Abraham D. Sofaer, March 26, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle ("When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action.")

As well as to this detailed discussion by scholars and others of the very issue, in the targeted killing article, here.

PBS's response? He just ignored me, and kept on blanking the page and inserting a redirect instead to the assassination article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If their edits are made in good faith the placing warnings on a person's talk page does not justify calling someone a vandal. You say I deleted the article I did not, you say I banked the article I did not. What I did do is revert to the redirect that has existed for may years. I say that here, because although are aware of that, you did not bother to mention it! Initiating an RFC is hardly the action of someone not willing to discuss the issue! I would ask interested parties to look at User talk:Epeefleche and Talk:Assassination and decide for themselves who if anyone was/is not willing to discuss the issue.

Epeefleche As an involved editor in this case I will not take any administrative action against you as that would be inappropriate. But if in future, if it is bought to my attention that in a content dispute in which I am not involved, you use Twinkle in the same as you did when reverting my edits, I will prevent you from using it under the Blacklisting clause. If you the persist in accusing other editors of vandalism when they are making good faith edits, and it is bought to my attention I will block you account until you agree not do do it. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Martin’s observation that the article is best dealt with via an AfD and not editwarring is brilliantly simple and should definitively settle the matter. I consider this ANI finished. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see all you great editors having this dispute. It appears to me you all make goods points. Why not just let a little time pass to see if the things people are accusing each other of doing is actually a pattern of one editor or another. That said, I do not think blanking out an entire article and talk page without first obtaining consensus is a wise idea. I certainly hope it was not vandalism. Targeting killings are substantially similar to assassinations, but they are significantly different to earn a separate article. This particular article, targeted killings, looks really well done, and it really has little to do with assassinations, let's be honest. So I hope everyone will get along and improve, not remove, the article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments 100 percent, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche you claim that what I was doing was edit-warring, so presumably you must have thought that you were edit-warring, if so why do you persist in reverting it you thought you were in an edit war?

Epeefleche you write "Let's be clear here. What would you think of PBS deleting the entire 100K, 150 footnote article "abortion"? Simply blanking the page? Multiple times, despite multiple warnings? Because he claimed -- in his explanation, a bare edit summary -- it was simply a euphemism for "murder","

Epeefleche I did not delete or blank the page. Delete and Blank have specific meanings and you are using the terms. My first two reverts were:

• 01:28, 30 September 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (rv to last version by Sceptre. There is no consensus that this euphemism should be a separate article)
• 02:31, 30 September 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (revert to last version by PBS. There is now an RFC. Let that run to see if there is a consensus that a new page should be created.)

the first was a revert to a previous version not the "delete or blank the page" that you claim and the second was after I set up an RFC not " in his explanation, a bare edit summary ..." which implies that there was no other correspondence.

Also in the same statement above you write "his spurious assertion that it is merely a "euphemism" for murder (an assertion I addressed multiple times) lacking consensus as his edit summary bare explanation," Where did I say that targeted killing is an euphemism for murder I said it was an euphemism for assassination. Why do you distort what I said like that? Do you intend to deceive or was it just a careless mistake? -- PBS (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• PBS -- you were edit warring. You received multiple warnings for page blanking and edit warring. I was not (and did not receive any such warnings). Reverting your blanking of the article, that was not accompanied by a non-frivolous explanation, is of course appropriate under wiki guidelines.

Furthermore, you are under especial wp:admin obligations not to engage in edit warring. Continued behavior of this sort can, and I understand has, resulted in admins being relieved of their bits.

When I say "blank", understand it to mean that the result of your edit is that anyone seeking to access the page "targeted killing" and its talk page, by searching for its name -- targeted killing -- would not reach the 100K, 150 footnote article in question or its talk page. And, as the diffs show, would instead be directed to a page that was completely blank as far as the 100K, 150 footnote, material is concerned. As was the case in your six edits here.[104][105][106][107][108][109] But perhaps you knew that, and are just engaging in wikilawyering to deflect the focus from your behavior.

What in the world makes you think that, with the conversation having concluded and reached a consensus -- as a number of other editors have now confirmed -- you can just blank the page, because you want to get additional months of input? How many months do we need? And why should the cost of your personal effort to blank the page be that you blank it for the term of your misguided RFC, of a question already asked and answered? Your first reason was frivolous -- there most certainly was a months-long discussion with a consensus. And your view that the phrase is merely a euphemism is no more credible than if one were to say that abortion is merely a euphemism for murder. Your spurious assertions were responded to, you were warned many times, and you continued headlong with your six blankings. As to euphemisms, I mean to say "euphemism for assassination, analagous to one calling abortion a euphemism for murder".

I would appreciate it if you would admit the error of your behavior, and agree to desist. You don't seem to be taking responsibility for your inappropriate actions here. Epeefleche

Opinion from Tom N There comes a time when the most productive action is to agree to disagree. WP:AGF can mitigate most of the issues discussed above. The May discussion appeared to lean in favor of the new article, but there was no clear statement of consensus and I believe that some (in good faith) would assume no consensus, while others (also in good faith) could assume consensus in favor of the new article. As for the reverts, PBS clearly stated his reason for the reverts, so I would not consider the reverts frivolous (although I would allow for the possibility that others would, in good faith, consider those same reasons frivolous). I believe "Vandalism" is a term sometimes used too frequently in cases that could be considered content dispute, if one considers the possibility that another editor has other than a destructive (aka unconstructive) intent. As for deletions, removal of established material without good reason (preferably stated in the edit summary) is clearly unconstructive. Reverting recently added material is another matter. If this had been a material addition to an existing article, the WP:BRD process would apply. For a brand new article, the deletion processes (CSD, ProD, or AfD) would apply. Content forking (and alleged POV forking) adds a shade of gray to the situation, but I think it would still have been best to apply ordinary deletion nomination processes.

Back to my original point. Epeefleche and PBS: You have both stated your cases and neither appears inclined to acknowledge any merit in the other's position. Further discussion will not likely change that. I (and others) have listened to your arguments and reviewed the situation and have elected not to take any administrative action other than to protect the subject article. (Although as one admin pointed out earlier, the edit warring alone could have justified blocks.) It is not likely that further discussion will change that. Please AGF, forgive any perceived transgressions, and agree to disagree. It's been four months since the prior discussion, I think we can wait a little while longer for the current RFC to establish or affirm the consensus regarding the article.

One side note: PBS - In this edit you included a statement "But if in future,..." that could be interpreted as possible future prejudice. I assume that was not your intent, but it might be wise to refrain from any potential direct administrative action against Epeefleche. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Tom, mainly.
  • Both editors edit-warred, but neither is admitting that they did anything wrong.
  • It is clear from comments above, and in an email I received, that Epeefleche still does not understand that characterising these edits as vandalism was incorrect. I fear that removing this editor's access to automated tools may be a necessary step in the future.
  • I would also counsel PBS that taking administrative action against Epeefleche would be unwise.
• I think we could mark this as resolved now. We're unlikely to make any more progress at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading watchlist notice

Unresolved

Resolved

 – Notice changed. To discuss whether this notice should be there at all, please go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#notice for recruiting Article Assessment Team for the Public Policy Initiative — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please remove this severely misleading watchlist notice – which appears to relate only to reassessment of articles related to public policy in the United States, as opposed to all Wikipedia articles – until the text has been fixed? Thank you. Hans Adler 08:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How's "The Public Policy Initiative is testing a new article assessment system on pages under the project's scope. Interested article reviewers can sign up now." ? sonia♫ 08:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Ideally there would also be a link from "Public Policy Initiative" to an article or project page where one can find out what it is. Hans Adler 08:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This should do, then: "• The Public Policy Initiative is testing a new article assessment system on pages under the project's scope. Interested article reviewers can sign up now." sonia♫ 08:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are giving a random project watchlist notice space? unless it is project wide, or will have significant impact on the whole community I see no reason to give it watchlist notice space.--Crossmr (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss making changes to it here, we can discuss whether or not it needs to be there here. That's a change as well and we need an admin to take care of its removal. From the looks of it, that talk page is extremely low traffic and a discussion there won't go anywhere. Changing it to unresolved.--Crossmr (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely why WP:WHINE should redirect here. Everybody who wants to draw attention about anything will dump stuff here for that reason. –MuZemike 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't here it would have been some other page. ANI had the misfortune of being the right page at the right time. 2004 was early enough that it was adopted like only a fresh idea can be adopted, but thats old enough now that it seems as timeless and immutable as stone. Why does everyone dump stuff at ANI? Because everyone reads this page. Why does everyone read this page? Because everyone dumps stuff here. It's beautiful in its self-fulfilling propagation, like a photon zipping out into space, it's magnetic field propagating it's electrical field and it's electrical field propagating it's magnetic field. -- ۩ Mask

Or perhaps it should be renamed some something like Wikipedia:Community forum or something similar to the Village pump? –MuZemike 16:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Partially answered my own question: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Problem with this board, and two specific proposed solutions :) –MuZemike 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was more about, "Why is it okay to bring it here for a change, but not okay to decide if we actually need it now that it's been brought here?" The user could have made the editprotected request on the page.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought it here because I wanted the watchlist notice to be removed fast. As you can verify, it took 2 hours for an admin to act on my watchlist notice. ANI used to be faster, but even that seems to be a quiet place nowadays. Hans Adler 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because ANI gets diluted with other, more mundane crap, many admins have lost the motivation to take action. I don't blame them, hence my proposal above. –MuZemike 04:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd vandalism

Striated darter is, I'm sure, a lovely little fish, but it's article history is not so pretty, with lots of juvenile vandalism. But the odd thing is that some of those recent vandals have also contributed positively to other fish articles (I noticed Fantail darter and Pirate perch). For a moment I thought maybe accounts had been hijacked, but none of these editors have made very many edits, so my latest guess is that these accounts and their early edits were part of a class assignment and now the true colors are showing. Anyway, it raised my curiosity but I have to run off, so I thought I'd leave it for you, in a different time zone, who are already sipping cocktails. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost for sure. All four of the accounts were created on August 26, so either it's one person who for some reason decided to create 4 accounts, or it's four classmates playing around. I did not block them, because it seems like they stopped after getting the warning messages (the one further warning, from XLinkbot on Cwhite44's talk page, is a false positive ... the bot was actually adding vandalism back into the article there after Cwhite44 reverted himself). —Soap— 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I left an only warning because it was clear they were messing around way too much, and I'm glad to see they stopped. Let's hope they get back to writing articles about fishies, as class assignments or not. As a sidenote, I've noticed that Wikipedia's animal coverage suffers from rodent overpopulation, so those contributions are welcome. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mackie777 refuses to engage in discussion

I have been trying to engage Mackie777 (talk · contribs) in a discussion about an article she has created about some cartoon characters. She has essentially copied an article on some Simpsons characters and changed a few facts in the infoboxes. Since I could find no indication that these characters were individually notable, I originally redirected the article to the article about the show in which these characters appear. However, Mackie has reverted that change on several occasions (here, here and here), despite my efforts to discuss the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I left a notice on his/her talk page saying she has to start discussing things and that she'll be blocked if she doesn't. 67.42.154.201 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of list of industrial music bands, needs semi-protection again, range block maybe

Resolved

 – IP blocked, page protected, thanks. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the best place to report this. Basically, the list of industrial music bands page keeps being vandalized by an IP, but the specific address keeps changing. If you look at the recent history, you can see it's being blanked by a group of IPs in either the 89.244.?.? or 94.134.?.? ranges. Not sure if a range block would be good either, but edits like this make it clear that whoever this is has no intention of stopping their disruption. Any help or advice would be appreciated. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 15:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You could try WP:RFPP and asking for the page to be semi-protected until the IP gets bored --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semiprotected the article for a month. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nair

User:ChandranPillaiChandernagar is adding contents which are totally unhelpful and off-topic and personal attacks and i removed it twice and left him a warning here. He added the content back again with a pesonal attack in the edit summary. it will be helpful if a few would add the article to their watchlist. --CarTick 21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ChandranPillaiChandernager indefinitely blocked and edits to talk:Nair suppressed; racism and cultural xenophobia is not tolerated, even in instances where the contributor is from a minority group in regards to the editorship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --CarTick 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over hair removal products? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should get to the root of this. Find out who's at follicle. HalfShadow 03:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your puns are hair raising. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the bald truth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, it is clear that it is user CarTick who is trying to insult other people and doing racial abuse. Admins should punish the real culprit, not the victim. See Talk:Nair#POV_tag and Talk:Nair#Misinformation_campaign. I am starting to lose my trust in Wikipedia, as users like CarTick are using it as a tool to abuse other ethnic groups and any one protesting against it is getting banned. And I don't find anything worth giving a life-ban in User Chandran Pillai's last edit. Anyway... you have your way... carry on. 203.131.222.1 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The latest Sinbad Barron sock, a.k.a. Prince of Kosova

Fairly obvious by looking at the contribs: [110]. Athenean (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked indef, and all edits reverted. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange vandalism pattern at Mark Madden

I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at Mark Madden. For the past week, various IP addresses, all starting with 114.74 have been vandalizing the page in strange ways. This user adds some plausible sounding content with references that do not support the assertions, combined with other, obviously wrong information. He/she/they only makes one or two edits a day, so the pattern took awhile to emerge. Also, my own user page was vandalized. [111] Since the IP addresses shift slightly for each edit, I am not sure what to do. I can't even tell if I am guilty of 3RR! Help? Tarastar42 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply if you're reverting vandalism. It can't or nobody would be able to revert it. HalfShadow 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

<blush>. Yeah, I guess that seems really obvious... duh. Sorry, I am new! Tarastar42 (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. The best thing to do in this case is probably to ask for semi-protection. That way only users with accounts can edit it. You can do that at WP:RFPP. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright?

A couple of days ago I added an addition to Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike‎ with a source to a youtube video which was then removed under alleged copright ground of which he then sent me this which suggests I can't use that under copyright law. Now, (as I'm guessing Wikipedia goes by American copyright law) I told him here that under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, what I was linking to constitutes fair use as it is being used for research purposes (As I doubt people would be going to that page to be entertained) as it is showing an artistic song about one of the people involved. Can someone affirm who is correct? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot claim fair use when linking to a copyright violation. O Fenian (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted on the Talkpage? It contains the relevant law text. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not contain the relevant law text. It contains completely irrelevant law text. O Fenian (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well what is this then: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies". Which would indicate that what I did was not a copyright violation but let's see what the admins make of it instead of all this petty bickering we always seem to do when we differ on something. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It would indicate you are completely ignorant of copyright laws. WP:LINKVIO, and for the record that particular section was directly linked to in the warning you were given. O Fenian (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The copyright laws are not mentioned in LINKVIO so i had to go and find it which does say under copyright law it's OK as it's a copy used for research purposes. In fact if it was added it would be one of 2 that would be actually sourced on that page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The admins don't need to do anything unless you continue to insert the link. It sheds a bad light on Wikipedia to link to copyrighted material as the link to the policy clearly says. If you want to make such an argument you will need to go seek a change/clarification there. You also need to consider why you are linking to it at all. Does it truly benefit the article? Enough for the project to possibly engage in contributory copyright infringement? More than likely not. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. So you are running into two concerns regarding policy. Furthermore, the uploader is not a reliable source. Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And on a similar note, if an admin does feel that the essay Wikipedia:Video links misrepresents the policies and guidelines used to create it (since we still don't have a guideline regarding references but only external link sections) please say so since it could always be improved.Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It possibly could because it offers balance on the page as currently the page is all unsourced but 1 republican reactions and I wanted to add a sourced loyalist reaction. But I've noticed that policy says that if it's from a web archive then it's OK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to go take it up at the policy pages if you want a change. Until then you are grasping at straws.Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well before I hadn't seen LINKVIO. I'm just saying that because the policy page says (and i quote) "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives" Which would say if I found the same source in an internet archive, it would be suitible to be used without copyright issues? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But then you run into problems with the uploader not being RS. WP:NOTREPOSITORY is also part of a policy that you are ignoring. Instead of fighting to keep a link that has little chance of being accepted by the community, you should fix that problem of the article being hardly sourced.Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The C of E claims "The copyright laws are not mentioned in LINKVIO", that is obviously apart from where it says quite clearly "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". I second Cptnono's "grasping at straws" comment. O Fenian (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure C of E (English, I assume) is aware that obviously Wikipedia operates under that law as the servers are in the US. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, That's why I quoted US law on the issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe does not seem to get it

Resolved

 – user blocked S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DIFF HERE

BlueRobe (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) Already blocked for incivility, it now appears that -- at the least -- he needs to be blocked from his own user pages, as well. BlueRobe failed to post a positive response to my warning. I have to say that he's making it increasingly hard to see how he will be a net positive to the project. BigK HeX (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur that comment from bluerobe was nasty--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked and talk page access revoked by User:Bwilkins. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked. Only talk page access was revoked. His block doesn't seem to be modified.--Crossmr (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I called this giant time sink 5 days ago . Why doesn't someone just indef him and be done with it. There is zero evidence that he won't continue the disruption when his block expires.--Crossmr (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Wikipedia, in general, has way too much tolerance for users who are unlikely reform. The number of warnings this user has received is staggering; do we expect a sudden change after the 20th warning? The 21st? Kansan (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

“ 13:13, 26 September 2010 Blood Red Sandman blocked BlueRobe (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: Ongoing uncivil editing) ”

- looks blocked to me. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Though that was the block he already had prior to this latest indicator. BigK HeX (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Longer rangeblock required

A couple weeks ago Avi range blocked two small IP ranges for two weeks for vandalism (the result of continued BLP violations despite multiple warnings). Straight off the block the IPs are back adding unsourced religious and descent categories to BLPs (example from today). Would it be possible to get another rangeblock applied? The original discussion can be found here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update: IP has now hopped to 166.216.130.80 to restore the BLP/EGRS violations that were reverted this morning here and here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

New filter needed?

It's old, it's tired and it's back via a bunch of copycats. The latest Grawp/Johnny the Vandal variation on that tired "HAGGER?" theme is the slightly Francophone-sounding "Got HAGUER?" and other variations using the new spelling. How old and tired? One of these adorable little children thought he was harming me by - get ready for it - asking if "Lucky 6.9" had HAGUER. I actually laughed out loud. No secret that was my old username, I don't hide it, I haven't used the account in years, had it desysopped in good faith by my request and I established this account above board after returning to the project. So, is creating a new filter worth the trouble or do we just swat these mosquitoes as they appear? Lucky 6.9 aka--PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are people still doing this and thinking they're clever? It's been lame, pathetic and impotent for some time. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigbrothersorder shouting on the indian articles

Bigbrothersorder (talk · contribs) is shouting in their edit summaries and reverting some users at the indian articles, i encouraged them to come to the talk page but the ignored me and are still at it what do i do?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of things he/she is being a bit dickish with these CAP LOCK edit summaries like "ITS A FACT LOOK IT UP". I left a message instructing him to cut it out, and explaining that the truth is not the truth without cites. Lets see what he does now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks SGGH --Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his changes to Meenas as they appear to be a bit overly dramatic for such a sensitive topic to not have any citations, given his clear agenda. I don't think I'll revert the more minor changes to other articles at the moment because I can't make as much sense out of it due to unfamiliarity with the subject matter. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

he is blocked for edit warring, now there is sock puppet case going on--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User creating multiple bad articles and ignoring talk page warnings

LobãoV (talk · contribs) has created many articles on Brazilian footballers consisting solely of an infobox, with no other content. Many of these articles have been nominated for speedy deletion for no content, and others proposed for deletion as unsourced BLPs. Despite many warnings on his talk page, this user has not made a single reply to any of the warnings -- his edit summary shows 0 contributions in the User talk, Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk spaces. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the assumption (correct or not) that the user is Brazilian, it might help to have a Portuguese speaker post to his talk page in Portuguese explaining the situation. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The user has demonstrated the ability to communicate in English, with edits to Claussio dos Santos Dimas, Marcos Assis Santana, Carlos Robston Ludgero Júnior, among others. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, the English on those pages is not exactly comprehensible, and to me suggests that the user's English isn't really at a level where he might be able to fully understand the policies and guidelines that he is flouting. I still think some sort of communication — in Portuguese — would be a good idea. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps. Sadly, I can barely read Portuguese -- I certainly can't create a sensible warning to this user. I'll try to recruit as Portuguese speaker for the task. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A simple babelfish translation should be better than nothing, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. But he may not even be aware of what a user talk page is, or what the yellow 'You have new messages' tag means. He's never contributed to any talk pages. Perhaps a short block might in fact be the only solution. --Kudpung (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat on Obama sanction page

An anon ip claiming to be a person called "Anthony Ratkov" made an edit on the Obama sanction page that, among other potential violations, made direct legal threats to the Foundation. I've informed the editor the post was directed at. Dave Dial (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat so much as intense douchery, and a block on those grounds is entirely valid. Especially since, if they are so rabid against the foundation, they clearly have no actual interest being here. Also, the personal attack. And the accusation of illegal (rather than 'not tax exempt') behavior. If they're genuine, I'm sure Mike is eagerly awaiting either their email or something from the IRS, two things which I doubt will ever arrive. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the IP's cute little rant is still on that noticeboard? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is presumably the same person as User:Anthony Ratkov, whose user page is a hymn of self-praise, largely edited by IPs in the same range as the above editor, and which have repeated the same pattern of behaviour in articles relating to US political scandals. Should this user be blocked, and the self-advert deleted? RolandR (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MfDed the userpage, but considering that account has all of 3 edits, none recent, there would not seem to be any reason to block it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that I have just submitted an SPI, listing fifteen suspected socks.RolandR (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Persistant reference spammer - need some help

A few days ago I found 83.215.123.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding references to articles that where all written by the same author. When I looked into this further I noticed that similar IPs and one editor (noted on the IP's talk page) had also been doing this over several years and that a few references had been reference spammed all over the place in major biological articles like genome, life and others (see here for 50 instances where I removed them). Based on the long term spamming of these references, where no content was being added, and where they were often inserted into the lead of articles, I felt it was appropriate to issue a 4IM warning to the IP. I checked with another editor to see if they felt this was appropriate and they agreed. Today the IP has commented that I am "the mind police" and continued to add references to articles. Could someone take a look at this and decide whether I was correct to clean up every edit these accounts had made, and what if any action needs to be taken now. Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)