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

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to cut short this ridiculously long discussion by noting the administrative consensus for a topic ban on User:Smatprt from all articles related to William Shakespeare, broadly construed. Admins dissenting please note here before the end of the month or I'll just cut the link to the subpage and formally notify Smatprt of the topic ban. --TS 23:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the ban. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.

The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that is preferred. That is why, when Mudwater repeatedly removed the maps in July, I decided to avoid edit warring and try to discuss it with him. However, he evaded my questions about his justification for removing it, and when he finally stopped replying to my posts at all, that is when I restored the maps.

Throughout these discussions, I have tried to engage those who oppose the map, and have made changes to try to accomodate their concerns. I changed the captions on the map to address their objections and SaltyBoatr made a change to them as well. When Hoplophile suggested the OpenCarry.org maps to balance the Brady map, I created those and added them. When Mudwater suggested adding a concealed carry map (although he later denied doing so, then admitted he had), I created and added the NRA/ILA map. I continue to be open to any other suggestions.

In response, there has been not a single suggestion for a solution or compromise. Inexplicably, Mudwater even argued that it was a good thing that the article was "all trees and no forest"; i.e. that it had no summary information. While I cannot be certain what is in his or others' minds, it seems to me that the real issue is an extreme dislike of the Brady Campaign and that the only acceptable solution to them is the removal of the Brady map.

It should be clear that I have made a good faith effort to discuss the disagreement and to try to reach a consensus. I am sure I could have done things better, but I am not sure how at this time.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

• Archived discussions:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on the article talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, adding the "Brady scorecard" to a state would be analogous to adding the NRA scorecard on a candidate (or anyone else's scorecard, for that matter) to a candidate's Wikipedia article. Having said that, YESPOV is indeed part of NPOV. The main point, though, is that editors must work in good faith to pursue consensus on how to present contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. While this isn't the place to argue content, I'll simply clarify that buried in those arguments is the point made by myself and others that an NRA map would be just as inappropriate. We aren't trying to push one point of view or the other, we're trying to remove all point of view and simply list the laws in an encyclopedic manner. When third-party analysis of raw data get interjected that is when POV problems occur, and as Mudwater stated above, there are already articles discussing the political debate about gun laws. The maps are included there and continuing to add them here despite clear consensus is the problem. Rapier (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a new clear consensus on that point. What I see is several editors who were on one side of the July "Remove all maps or not?" discussion - which an apparently uninvolved admin closed as "No consensus" - continuing the discussion and asserting now that you have consensus, without the participation of most of the other side.

Nothing in the new discussions invalidates the July discussion. No effort was made to revisit it with another clear poll / RFC. It seems like some previously active editors are less active now, but that doesn't invalidate their participation in the last clear poll / RFC type discussion.

ANI is not a replacement for going back to the page and holding another RFC. If those other editors are gone and it's a new consensus that's fine. But this is not the place - and attacking the lead map proponent for disruption is not the right approach - to solve the no consensus problem. Do it right, on the article. Get a consensus. If it's still "No consensus" then accept that. If it goes your way this time, with whoever shows up to bother to participate, then he will need to accept that as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We've had seven months and more than 30,000 words of discussion, including a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and a Request For Mediation. A majority of editors -- including myself -- feel very strongly that adding the Brady Scorecard map is an egregious violation of NPOV, and also distorts the facts, while other editors don't agree and think that adding the map would be okay. It seems to me that if many of the participants agree that the map would be a major NPOV violation, and pushes a one-sided political agenda, that trumps other editors saying that it would enhance the article slightly by providing an attractive graphic of summary information. Also, part of why JPMcGrath's editing is tendentious is that he keeps saying that editors such as myself have not explained why adding the map would violate NPOV, when in fact we've just spent the last seven months explaining it, over and over and from many different perspectives. There's a difference between "you've explained the reasoning behind your opinions at great length and in many different ways, but I still don't agree," and "you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinions," but the difference seems to elude JPMcGrath. So, I find it hard to believe that prolonging the discussion any further would have much benefit at this point. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, that debate is still going on? As I recall, the main issue with that map is that it presupposes certain things and gives a value judgment as to each state's attitude toward gun control. The problem is whether that map presents an unbiased assessment. Since they themselves are its authors, obviously they are going to judge which parameters to be used. Now, if you had a similar map from the point of view of the NRA, those two maps would be interesting for the reader to compare, and see if they "agree" on each states' attitude toward gun control, even though the groups are obviously on opposite sides of the issue. That is, the NRA might consider a restrictive state to be a "bad" state, and the Brady bunch might consider it to be a "good" state - but it's possible they might rank the states the same way, just flip-flopped in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the forum for content dispute, but to clarify the argument is that all maps offer up a POV that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic listing of state laws, not that the "Brady" map alone should be removed. Let's please be clear on the prime mover is, and not allow this to become an issue directed at a single point. Rapier (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be useful in the context that Bugs describes, but it's simply not acceptable to keep readding it as it's been done here. There needs to be the wider context that Bugs is talking about if there's any chance for this kind of advocacy ranking to be relevant in a general state article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've un-archived this thread to allow for further discussion, per User talk:JPMcGrath#Warning. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post my response as soon as I can get it together. — JPMcGrath (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Response by JPMcGrath

First, I should point out that several of the statements made by SeanNovack are inaccurate:

• He says that "the issue was decided by consensus months ago", which is untrue. That there has never been a consensus is made clear by the RfC here, and by Mudwater's multiple statements that "about half" of the editors agree with him.
• His "suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming" comment appears to suggest that my attempt to get others to address the justification for their WP:NPOV claim was something new. In fact, I had been trying to get them to address this question from the beginning.
• His suggestion that the fact that there had been "more than 30,000 words of discussion" means that my questions about the justification for removing the maps had been answered is nonsense. That there was a great deal of discussion does not in any way suggest that the discussion contained an answer, and the unwillingness of participants to point to an answer strongly suggests that it is not there.

That said, I spent some time writing a response that went into this conflict in great detail, but then realized that rehashing all of the details of the disagreement would be tedious, not on point, and would ignore the central point of this discussion, which is the accusation of tendentious editing. According to WP:Tendentious editing

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view."

I have clearly stated that I believe the article badly needs summary material, so that the reader can get a feel for the overall state of gun laws in the United States; as I put it at the outset of this conflict, the article is "all trees and no forest". The maps are intended to ameliorate that problem.

I do not believe that in any way fits the definition of tendentious editing, so I would like my accuser, SeanNovack, to explain what is it in my editing that qualifies as either sustained bias or a a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view? What exactly is the bias or viewpoint?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you are the only one that feels that summary information is necessary. Others feel it 'may be helpful', and the rest of us are saying that summary information is inheriently biased by the person doing the summary and has no place in this article that is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing of gun laws by state. The summaries exist in other articles, they simply have no place in this one. Rapier (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again JPMcGrath is saying that other editors have not stated any justification for the position that the Brady Scorecard map violates NPOV, and distorts the facts, and so should not be included in the article. I would encourage anyone reading this to click through the links I posted above, and look at some of the previous discussions, and see whether or not there are in fact very extensive postings on exactly that topic. Also, the term "tendentious editing" definitely applies, because JPMcGrath is ignoring what many other editors have said, and is continuing to add the map, which is very biased and advocates for a particular political position. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mudwater: No, I was not claiming that you have not stated any justification; you have come up with several reasons. For example, you have said that you do not believe the Brady assessment is accurate, although when asked, you did not point to any reliable sources that said this. You have also claimed that including information from the Brady Campaign provides a "soapbox" for them, yet you have no objection to information from, for example, the NRA.

However, none of the reasons you provided are related to WP:NPOV. I asked you to point to the language in WP:NPOV that it violates and you would not do so. I asked you how you came to the conclusion that your objections violate WP:NPOV and you claimed that you had done so previously. I asked you to point to your purported answer and you posted links to all of the discussion that had occurred on this subject. In short, you obfuscated and obstructed.

In fact, you have never addressed the question of why it violates WP:NPOV. You have simply stated reasons that you don't like it and claimed that it violated WP:NPOV. The fact that you disagree with their assessment, or that you don't like the Brady Campaign does not mean it violates WP:NPOV.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean: First, I should note that, like your claims of a consensus, your assertion that I am the only one who feels it is necessary is just a fabrication. None of the RfCs have made that distinction and you have no basis to make that claim.

But that ignores the point I was making. Tendentious editing is about being "partisan, biased or skewed", and believing that summary is appropriate clearly does not fit that. If that is the basis for your tendentious editing claim, it falls flat.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've left this alone, but it's the same old story. A number of editors see it one way. JPMcGrath and generally one other editor see it another and when they agree with each other, they call it a consensus. If you fail to agree with them, you're just bias/partisan/POV warrior/etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I am somewhat perplexed and perhaps even a little bit amused. I did not say there was a consensus; rather it was SeanNovack and Mudwater. And I did not accuse anyone of bias; SeanNovack accused me of bias when he said that I had engaged in tendentious editing. So your comment appears to be a rather stinging indictment of SeanNovack and Mudwater. I would not expect that from you, so I am confused. Would you please explain what you meant? — JPMcGrath (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

JPMcGrath, you just said, "In fact, you have never addressed the question of why [the Brady scorecard map] violates WP:NPOV. " Here are a few selected diffs where I've done exactly that: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Those are just a small selection, all of them taken from the first of the nine discussions that I linked to above. There's plenty more where that came from, and tons more from other editors as well. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have given your opinion over and over again that the Brady Campaign scorecard is biased, and you have claimed that it therefore violates WP:NPOV. What you have not done, even though you have been asked to do so over and over again, is to show that WP:NPOV says material that is biased should not be included.

As I have pointed out to you, WP:NPOV does not say that. In fact, it explicitly says that the article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It also contains a section titled "Attributing and specifying biased statements". It clearly does not proscribe inclusion of bias; it explicity calls for it.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that I've never addressed the question of why the map violates NPOV -- which you've made many times -- is patently false, as the various links and diffs that I've posted clearly show. You don't agree with what I've said on that subject, but that's an entirely different thing. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the question; what you said about it is nonsense. It would be no different than if you said it violates WP:NPOV because you were eating cornflakes when it was posted. If your claim is not related to what WP:NPOV says, then it is just gibberish. It no more addresses the question than if you were to recite Jabberwocky. — JPMcGrath (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the Brady scorecard map has now lasted almost eight months, and includes multiple talk page sections, a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, a Request For Mediation, and two postings on the Administrators' Noticeboard, including this one. We've now had more than 34,000 words of discussion. It would seem that you're willing to keep arguing indefinitely. However, we're long past the point of diminishing returns in this discussion. Many editors have agreed that the map should not be added to the article. That, I think, is the bottom line. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) - bit of a mess

Following User:Racepacket's recent move of The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) to Cornell literary societies and subsequent editing, User:Cmagha has cut and pasted the original version of that article to The Irving Literary Society and in the process removed all the edit history as well as creating an unattributed content fork. Also, Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1 was not moved when Talk: The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) was moved to Talk:Cornell literary societies and is now stranded, although I've added a link to it at the newly titled talk page.

I then contacted Cirt because he was the administrator who handled the original restoration of the article after this deletion review, if nothing else to merge the page history of Cornell literary societies to the fork The Irving Literary Society. Although, that's only one aspect of this tangle. However, he suggested [7] that the issue should probably be dealt with here. I will notify User:Racepacket and User:Cmagha of this discussion as well as the talk pages of the relevant articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that almost all of the sources deal with a group of four of the student literary societies that existed at Cornell from 1868 to 1888. The sources cited indicate that the Irving (a coeducational literary society that included members from a variety of fraternities) held its last known meeting on May 23, 1887. A current undergraduate fraternity claims (without sources) that the Irving was "absorbed" into that male-only fraternity and that its membership has continued over the years as being co-extensive with the fraternity. They have incorporated a link to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) into their website used for rushing and member recruitment. I cannot find any secondary sources to support this claim or the continuation of The Irving as a registered student organization.

To fix up the article to reflect what the sources say (e.g., a discussion of a number of co-equal literary societies) I moved it to Cornell literary societies and changed the phrases "The Iriving and its peers" to "the literary societies". I have also found a number of WP:SYN, WP:OR and mischaracterization of sources problems, which I am trying to fix. As for the latest step, which is User:Cmagha restarted the Irving-centered article at The Irving Literary Society, there are problem because WP:ORG provides "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." So, absent a sourced connection to the Irving, the present-day local fraternity would not justify a separate article. I suggest that we place a notice on WikiProject Cornell, and mobilize an effort to improve the Cornell literary societies article and perhaps start an AFD on the latest content fork. I only became aware of this problem yesterday, and was not aware of Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. A would appreciate any technical help in correcting any mistakes made in the move. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I heard from two of the other editors after the title was changed; was somewhat confusing. There is room for both concepts, Racepacket's idea of a general article, and one on the Irving. The Irving article has been through review twice, the original AfD and then the petition to restore under deletion review. What has been harder to understand is the perceived animosity (language such as 'outrageous') and the persistance of the opposition to the article, despite some excellent help along the way. As Racepacket indentifies questions re: factual citations, the editors will address.--Cmagha (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how deletion review is not perfect. At a glance the article looks well crafted, and I think it was for this reason it passed an AFD review. The editors didn't actually take the time to read the sources for the article carefully and compare them with the wiki article. The article should never have been allowed to be recreated. It's chalk full of original research, misconstrued sources, peacockery, and inflated claims that have no supportig evidence. The main editor who contributed to the article has a clear conflict of interest and has repeatedly reverted and or ignored the advice of multiple experienced wikipedians who have tried to point out wiki policy regaurding original research, verifiabilty, etc. Those of us who supported deletion in the first two AFDs got tired of arguing and didn't participate in the deletion review process. If anything the re-created article is worse than the ones that got deleted before. Sigh.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ouch. I didn't learn how to revert until someone asked me to help with vandalism about a month ago, so that looks a little dubious, above. When compared to the original, this article does look spiffy, in part because of the great, if not somewhat tonal, coaching.--Cmagha (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't blame the deletion review process per se. As poor as the "revised" article was (and still is in its current fork), it probably did have sufficient sources to minimally establish notability, at least for the mid-19th century Irving Literary Society at Cornell. Notability is the only remit of deletion discussions and reviews. They are not concerned with content and style issues unless there are BLP or copyright concerns. Content and style issues and COI concerns need to be addressed through ordinary editing. But whether there is eventually one article or two, the current title of the fork The Irving Literary Society is not suitable and should be moved back to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). As was pointed out at AfD: The Irving Literary Society, there are multiple distinct Irving Literary Societies in the US, several of which are more notable than this one, have a longer history, and are still in existence. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved and relinked the article Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. I have tagged the article The Irving Literary Society. However, "don't bite the newbies" can only go so far. I am a bit troubled by the apparent meatpuppet relationship between Cmagha and at least Coldplay3332. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• So this is resolved? We can just concentrate on improving both articles, Cornell literary societies and the Irving Literary Society? By the way, Coldplay3332 and Cmagha are very different people. No meat; no sock.--Cmagha (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• No it's not resolved. The original request to administrators here has nothing to do with content disputes, it was simply:

  1. that someone repair the wholesale cut and paste you made from another article or advise on how to make proper attribution in this case

  2. that the fork The Irving Literary Society be moved back to its original title, The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University), over the redirect. Only an administrator can do that.

  Voceditenore (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have supplied the required attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• As previously reported at ANI, it is again raining sockpuppets/meatpuppets on this issue. The accounts that appear to be now involved are: User:Cmagha, User:Wehatweet, User:Coldplay3332 and User:Lebowski 666. There are still behavioral issues involving tendentious editing, misuse of sources, POV, synthesis and COI of a chronic nature. Racepacket (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Funny, I just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha. Good to see it wasn't just me having this concern.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Flatscan for fixing the attribution problem. How about Voceditenore's other concern that we've gone back from The_Irving_Literary_Society_(Cornell_University) to The Irving Literary Society after the cut and paste. Please note, WP:TITLE says, "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown)." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the problem has now been resolved because a number of accounts were blocked by an Administrator at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cmagha/Archive Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be those accounts that got the article restored, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Although User:Cmagha was permanently blocked, a new User:IndtAithir has registered. His user page states:

Rolodex

• Risker, a wise sachem.
• DGG, a wise sachem.
• Cmagha, R.I.P. (my old boss)
• Daniel P. Meyer, the guy I want to work for !

And he has copied an earlier version of the Irving article into his talk page. Racepacket (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, the accounts were now unblocked because they claim to be co-workers who share the same IP address. This leaves the editing behavioral problems unaddressed. Racepacket (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think this might be usefully marked as resolved, in the sense that this is no longer an 'incident' requiring immediate admin intervention.

  The closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination) has been asked to also sort out naming issues and article histories, if the article is kept.

  The five previously blocked editors have been unblocked following a further checkuser and all have been strongly urged by an administrator to follow this guidance. Hopefully they will.

  After I left this note, the new user promptly removed the article from their talk page. By the way, I see that the user hadn't been notified of this discussion. I've remedied that. [8]

  Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I had not seen your welcome message because it was deleted, so I also left a message which was also delete. Racepacket (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

British Isles disputants

Triton Rocker

Could someone please deal with Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) who's third edit after coming off a one month ban was to make a personal attack on my editshere in direct validation of a civility ban that has been imposed on him at British Isles Probation Log. Just in-case Triton Rocker says he didn't understand the scope of the ban here is the actual words left at his talk page by Cailil (talk · contribs) You are being placed under a behavioral editing restriction. This account may be blocked if it is used to make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil,personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton really doesn't like me so I'll leave this for another admin to decide, but the fact that this was their third edit after coming off a month long block combined with the rest of their block log leads me to favor an indefinite block. Maybe point them at the standard offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO, I saw Bjmullan request that TR retract his statement earlier. Having viewed the post and Bjmullan's own phrasing above: "...was to make a personal attack on my edits". Clearly, it's directed at the edits, not the editor, as per WP:CIVIL. Sure, TR was careful to put a paragraph spacing between his own statement regarding bad faith and the generic and non-directed "...It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise...". By Bjmullan's own statement, it was an attack on edits, not an editor. An over-reaction IMHO, and although a bit of warning is possibly due, there's nothing actionable here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker was not only commenting on my edit at British Sky Broadcasting but accused me of provocative editing in general without producing any incident to back up his claim. A clear case of not assuming good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be sheer sophistry to argue that In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him. is a comment on edits, not the editor. I am not a great fan of bureaucratic definitions of civility, but a direct accusation of bad faith is about as personal as it gets.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan's edit was to change "Britain" to "UK and the Republic of Ireland" in more than one place after another editor had chnage dthe infobox to "British Isles". One source uses "Britain" only. The other uses Britain pretty much except for page with map (hunted down) showing the location of it's offices in UK and the Republic of Ireland. Subsequently there was a bit of an edit war between named editors and IPs. Isn't this what WP:BISE was supposed to resolve? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's so much activity on his talk page and block log it's a bit of a maze, but I thought at some point there was an agreement that he would stay away from this whole "British Isles" conflict. In any event "I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him" certainly is an accusation directed at an editor. Any time a user accuses another of acting in bad faith they need to be damned sure that is what really is going on, and should always provide diffs to substantiate such a claim. Especially if they have a notice on their talk page proclaiming that there is "too much snooping and snitching on the Wikipedia" and a section header they added so that everything below it is identified as "harassment." We don't need this kind of battlefield mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm waiting to see what his fourth edit is. And btw, there's no way to read "provocative and bad faith edit" as something other than a comment on an editor -- especially since ABF was specifically called out in the notice of his civility probation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am writing this for individuals who are new to this dispute and unaware of the issues involved. For those individuals who are already up to speed, please excuse some repetition as I make my introduction.

"Good Faith" has been established at WT:BISE that none of the contestants enter into edit wars, adding or removing the term "British Isles", without first consulting the community.

Mr Mullan, a support of the contingent who have for some time been habitually seeking to replace the term "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland", did so here; [9]

• The 'edit' was not in good faith. Why?

The topic is about satellite broadcasting to the British Isles. It was agreed by the community that the terms "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland" do not include the Isle of Man nor Channel Islands which exist in the geographic area British Isles. They do not. A simple Google search taking seconds shows that the company broadcasts to the the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Common sense tell us that any signal going to the UK and Ireland would have to include at least the Isle of Man and more than often the Channel Islands. Therefore, Mr Mullan either knowingly or negligently introduced an error into the Wikipedia to support the ongoing campaign.

Mr Mullan is very aware of the issue of dispute and previous discussion. It is very difficult to read the editing introducing the error as but a provocation or a testing of the waters to see how far he can go. Courtesy would have been to brought it to WT:BISE but in this case there is no possible contention British Sky Broadcasting broadcasts to all of the British Isles.

* Why is our time being wasted there and here? It is just more LAME DRAMA.

My comment regarding my previous experience was not uncivil. It is either true or false. I could provide many example if anyone cares. Mr Mullan has an obsession with with me because of this British/Irish issue, follows my editing into other areas where he has had no interest, reverts my work and habitually reports me. This is just one more example.

I consider this a provocation where, e.g. the summaries are prejudicial and do not reflect the reality of my works. One such case would be the topic on Queen Elizabeth II, e.g. [10][11].

I would like to make it clear for newcomers to this dispute that I do not have a political or nationalistically motivated POV. My POV is that politics should be kept out of area which are not political and that the Wikipedia is not the place to decide international geonaming. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR Blocked

Well Sarek, now you've seen that fourth edit. I have imposed a one year block. There is not the slightest indication that this editor is ever going to get the picture. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that Triton Rocker has been given a block. However he accused me of following him around and used Elizabeth II as an example of where I followed him. For the record, I first edited at the article on 14 January 2010, Triton Rocker made his first edit nearly eight months later on 22 September 2010. His third edit at the article was to remove a large section of the last paragraph from the lede. Surely he must have realised that on such a high profile article that the lede would have been discussed and agreed on the talk page? Triton Rocker continued his usual MO of making edits without first getting consent, personal attacks and not assuming good faith. I quote him from the talk page: Miesianiacal, I appreciate the "Monarchy of Canada" is one of your things and you want to make a big issue of the Canadian-ness of Elizabeth II. Putting your personal interest aside,..., Considering the similarity of your interests to MIESIANIACAL, regarding the 'Monarchist League of Canada' et al [5], can I ask you both not to use this topic for your own political soapbox?. And finally here is the edit summary from DrKiernan (talk · contribs) after reverting one of Triton Rocker edits; unexplained, contentious, potentially misleading....Bjmullan (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A year's block? lmao, I see this "civility parole" has been taken to the extreme as was to be expected. Simply incredible. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's incredible that he couldn't restrain himself in the face of multiple warnings. Support 1-year block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No BW it's become quite clear that TR doesn't take Wikipedia's behavioural policy seriously. He can count himself lucky we're still using blocks of definite duraion. All TR needed to do was be civil and AGF. Endorse 1-year block--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good block.  Sandstein  13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well played Bjmullen. AGF: the gift that keeps on giving. Triton sounded like a sensible bloke actually, Bjmullen certainly never had anything substantive to counter on any content point of his, so in a way I'm happy he has been released from the depressing need to learn the game himself to be allowed to participate in such complex and debate worthy issues like, does a satellite signal obey geographic or political boundaries, and whether we need references for such daftness. Go and do something usefull with your life Triton, come back maybe when the Irish issue has had it's own arbcom case, and people are put under real civility restrictions, which enforce the whole policy, not just the easy bits that any old gamer can pick up and use so easily as a weapon, and which actually foster real mutual respect, not the fake kind, and allows real, relevant and clueful content argumentation to come first, not last, in these tedious face-offs. Still, what's next on the BISE agenda today. 'Does the British Isles have a coast?'. Well, that sounds like a perfectly normal question to ask, *AGF mode ON*..... MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR should've stayed away from the BI stuff, until his sanction expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban instead of block?

I don't have a problem with a one year block, considering he just doesn't get it despite repeated warnings and blocks. However surely a better solution would be to just ban him from the British Isles area entirely, and interaction bans for any editors he's been in conflict with over the issue? This would allow him to get back to other areas of editing where he's apparently been productive. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering his campaign against "snitches", I suspect that he's going to have problems wherever he edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it's a good point. The reason I didn't propose a full topic ban last time was becuase TR already has Black Kite's limited ban (topic banned from editing) in place and I thought the civility parole would resolve his interaction issues - it clearly hasn't had that effect. That said TR did have a history of editing constructively at motor bike topics and I'd hope that when he comes back he returnes to constructive editing, thus banning him from what seems to be a hot-button topic for him might work - I'm open to discussing it anyway--Cailil ^talk 13:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This result seems odd. Apparently "commenting on editors rather than edits" is a blockable violation of a civility parole, and therefore a violation of WP:CIV? OK, if that's the operating rule, it should be applied everywhere, to everyone; that could make ANI a little complicated; some comments in this multipart thread appear to me to be comments on an editor. It seems to me, for instance, somewhat difficult to categorize speculation about future actions of an editor as "commenting on edits", since the edits haven't happened. So, could someone explain precisely why [12] is such a terribly uncivil edit? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I don't find the comment overly un-civil. However, a striking-out of it wouldn't hurt either. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

While standing alone it wouldn't have been blockable, Cailil's civility parole specifically called out assuming bad faith. Since TR explicitly made an accusation of bad faith editing in the diff above, it was a clear violation of the parole.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation, Sarek. The "civility parole" invoked CP01 of WP:GS/BI, which does not refer to assuming bad faith, and so doesn't directly authorize any sanction specifically calling out "assuming bad faith". Or are you arguing that "no assuming bad faith" is authorized implicitly in WP:NPA or WP:CIV, which are mentioned in CP01? Furthermore, the application of the "civility parole" [13] mentioned a "consensus" at ANI, and the link goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Expansion_of_sanctions_at_WP:GS.2FBI, where I don't see the specific wording of the specific civility parole for Triton discussed. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of his notification was quite clear. If he didn't like it, he should have appealed it -- and screaming about a "kangaroo court" is not an appeal -- instead of violating it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any phrasing of any appeal could have been construed as a violation of AGF... Gimmetoo (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The user's talk page ("If you wish to harass me, please do so below.") in combination with the history is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality Wikipedia is better off without. However, the longest previous block was 1 month; it's possible that something less than a year would be better, like 3 months - assuming that there is any hope of the user reforming. (And if there isn't, we might as well indef now as wait for more trouble.) Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Call me an old softy, but I believe TR should be only topic-banned for a year. AFAIK, his behaviour on other topics is cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion with NcmV at the implementation thread that kind of ban is problematic. However, as I said in the civility parole notice I'm happy to review it after 6 consecutive months of 'clean' editing on wikipedia (not just a 6 month holiday). That goes for the ban too - I'd be happy to review it or let it be reviewed by the community after 6 consecutive months of constructive editing. The ball is firmly in TR's court all he needs to do is accept and abide by policy in spirit and to letter - if he does that then the restrictions will be lifted--Cailil ^talk 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker came off his one month block @ 14:55 by blanking his user page. One hour and eight minutes later on on his third edit he attacked me. He never retracted nor did he accept that his edit was wrong. I believe that trying to get Triton Rocker to abide by any rules here would be very difficult. I fully support the one year block. Just for information (particular to Triton Rocker and MickMacNee) my name on Wikipedia is Bjmullan and not Bjmullen, Mullan or Mr Mullan. I would thank you to respect that. Bjmullan (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about respect. In response to this 'attack', you threatened Triton in not one but two places, you went to his talk page saying incivil and baiting things like "When will you ever learn?", and you filed this ANI report, all before he had even made another edit, let alone had a chance to accede to your demands to redact the comment and flaggelate himself. You should frankly count yourself lucky that the adminning of this topic area is so transparently one sided. Wait a few minutes, and I'll probably get a months block for mispelling your user name, even though it was clearly just a mistake. Any admin interested in your insinuation it was anything other? I didn't think so. Or maybe you can petition for me to be put under a spelling probation eh. I'll start saving my pennies to fight the case you will clearly inevitably bring for mental anguish. You do anything and everything except actually defending your content edits, so if you're looking for respect, don't look in my direction, I am not one of these people who believes AGF is indefinite and one-sided. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple blocks already for topic ban evasion. AGF doesn't ask us to completely abandon common sense and give 10 slaps on the wrist, thinking, "Hmm, maybe there won't be an 11th time. Then I might have to give him a big finger wagging. That'll learn 'em." Vodello (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On good faith, and being taken for total mugs

OK then, if people think that we should all AGF to a man in this topic, let's take a wander to the BISE page and examine the latest report shall we? It concerns the novel Storm Warning. Nobody really knows anything about the article or the book, but that's not really important. User HighKing, whose last god knows how many edits have been in or around BISE (I stopped after 500, SPA much?), has clearly gone looking for an article that uses the term, and has found one he thinks he can get the term removed from. It's usage there is not inaccurate, and it has yet to be established why the original editor used it (nobody is even bothering to ask), but HighKing has helpfully suggested how it can be removed, anyway, and asked if anyone has any arguments for or against this, in the wonky way that has somehow been established for BISE, even though supposedly, polling is evil. There are of course, no compelling arguments either way, but for some reason, we are not allowed to question HighKing's reasons for making this, and other, suggestions, without ever coming up with a guideline to mandate such a systematic programme of literary changes. So, would an admin like to suggest what the good faith response to this situation actually is, without breaking the holy AGF? Unless or until admins get real, and call a spade a spade, and deal with it as a whole, then the only thing that will pass for enforcement in this area is this sort of gaming nonsense, while the pedia gets systematically cleaned to adhere to a certain POV, i.e., that 'British Isles' no longer exists as a term, and any and all usage of it at Wikipedia has to conform to completely ridiculous sourcing requirements similar to that applied to 'terrorist', or 'palestinian', infact, even worse half the time. This is time wasting POV pushing nonsense, and it is no suprise people like Triton, who are not prepared to play the game, are so easily eliminated from it in this way. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you were already warned this month for your behavour at WP:BISE xfd[14]. This is an enforcement thread of an editor under editing restriction. Your issues with BISE and other users are a seperate matter. If you have an evidenced and substantive issue with another user then put it to the community in a concise and neutral way, so that within the parameters laid down in the Troubles RfAr or the BI topic probation we can deal with it, or open and RFC, or try mediation - there are multiple avenues of disute resolution to try. However, wikipedia is not a soapbox and your above edit is in breach of that and of WP:BATTLE. Take a step back and reconsider your approach, and seriously if you have evidence of people misbehaving show me I'm happy to look at it--Cailil ^talk 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that Mfd. That was in effect a mini-Rfc on BISE. And the majority opinion of uninvolved editors who bothered to comment?. Their consensus was that it was an illegitmate cabal-like venue which is responsible for POV pushing. What a shocker, a complete surprise, you could have knocked me down with a feather. What was also not a surpise, was that this outcome was completely, totally, and utterly ignored. Just like it is repeatedly ignored here. Just like it would be repeatedly ignored after a full Rfc. Mediation? Would not even be accepted, let alone approached in good faith. Prior arb case? Out of scope (infact, it is the reason HighKing moved into this dispute full time). No, the only people who can do anything about this, short of another arb case, is you lot, and pretending that this latest incident is somehow completely seperate and unrelated to the behaviour I outlined above, is really not the way to go. There is no actual rule that I'm aware of, that you are supposed to restrict yourselves to investigating just the content of the initial report, not least if there is an underlying cause, which there so clearly is. If you want to prevent such reports coming every few months, until the end of time, then for crying out loud, stop ignoring these things. Nobody is ever going to take this through an Rfc just to be ignored, and it is arguably far too late for that anyway, the root causes date back years, and it is far too beneficial for the gamers to keep the status quo for them to ever take any notice of such a thing. On that score, from where I'm standing, Bjmullan's threats, demands and general incivility towards Triton fell foul of every single paragraph of BATTLE. And that was from a grand total of five or so edits. It all worked out pretty well for him though eh? He is the guy laughing his ass off right now at having eliminated an opponent from BISE, because he is now free to carry on and resume the TE style discussion which it looks like another poor and unsuspecting example of that extremely rare beast, a relatively neutral and uninvolved at BISE editor, Quantpole, is about to experience. Maybe he will lose his rag eventually too, find out that nobody in the admin corps even cares why, then say something daft and get himself put under probation, and then suffer the same fate as Triton. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamers? Jeepers, ya get involved with BISE & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you aren't going to get another warning. Stop soapboxing. Stop treating wikipedia like a battleground. And stop attacking other users. Your above edits in this thread[15][16][17] and on TR's talk page[18] are in violation of these policies.
If you have evidence of disruption by other users present diffs, show patterns of behaviour in diffs and leave out the editorial please - we can all can make up our own minds whether the diffs constitute disruption or not.
Again if you want to present evidence of something go ahead but do so in concise and neutral way with diffs. If you are unwilling to do so, and unwilling to attempt dispute resolution you should not make edits that disrupt enforcement threads related to it--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am about as unwilling and unable to deal with this issue, as everybody else was unwilling and unable to deal with POV pushing on Climate Change, or on Isreal-Palestine, or on Macedonia, etc etc etc. You want diffs? Well, i gave you enough info to be going on with, but if you want specifics, what about this from Bjmullan just now, Perhaps you could explain why you think using UK + I is wrong. That was after the person he is speaking to had already stated how he thought it was wrong. This is just the latest example of precisely the sort of incivil and tendentious editing that is the reason editors like Triton are so easily gamed off of that page and into a year's block. You will note that this is Bjmullan talking to the editor who is also relatively new to BISE, and merely trying to give his opinion. So, now you have a diff, what now? Am I still soapboaxing or disrupting this thread with an entirely unrelated issue? Should I still fuck off to the looney bin I apparently rode in from and castigate myself for not having written all this up in an Rfc before mentioning it, or is someone actually going to step up here? And before anyone says 'not blockable', I am only after just the slightest indication that admins will even acknowledge that this one particular edit, which took 5 seconds to find, is an example of incivil/TE behaviour (i.e. in this case, do not deliberately ignore other people's already stated opinions). I won't bore you with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern needed to get a block if not stopped, I just want to see if there is any market at all among the admin corps for enforcement of this kind of problematic behaviour, to give all of us who are heartily sick of it, just some indication that NPA/AGF are not the only things that matter here, and that the whole of CIVIL is relevant under this civility parole regime, not just the easy bits. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Agree. Unfortunately, when, like TR, you are already under restrictions you are easy meat if you can't keep a cool head. Bjmullens edit was not good but TR knew he shouldn't be getting involved in edit wars. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Mick it is very necessary to "bore [us] with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern" - otherwise we have nothing to go on. We don't do content disputes here on ANi, and if you want to raise an actual issue you need to show context, edit patterns, evidence of misconduct, relevant policies/decisions etc.
As regards the edit you mentioned yes Bjmullan's remark was unnecessary as was Quantpole's use of "disappointing". The conversation is a bit circuitous and the remarks mentioned (by both) are unconstructive. It is a borderline abuse of talk-space by both, but one that could be solved by striking. It is something the patrolling admin (TFOWR) will probably look into ASAP and if he misses it I'll poke him to remind him about it.
I warned you Mick to stop soapboxing and that we don't need the editorial. Stop screeding in wikipedia talk-space or you will be blocked for abusing it yourself--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what Calil, the only Rfc I'm ever likely to file, is over your apparent wish to give more of a shit about people 'disrupting' non-article space noticeboards, than doing anything about a report of actual POV pushing in actual articles. Which thanks to your game-winning block of Triton, continues unabated. Not that you give a flying fuck of course, for obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick I warned you, I told you it was your last warning, and I answered your question. Your above reply fails WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOAP. I'm giving you one opportunity to redact your remarks or I will escalate the matter--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• BTW I've never blocked Triton Rocker--Cailil ^talk 20:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's spot on, Mick. All the admins involved here seem far more concerned with talk page etiquette than with the POV pushing, some blatant, some subtle, that continues unabated at the BISE page and elsewhere in connection with the British Isles issue. It sickens me to see what's going on. Triton received a totally uncalled for block and sanctions against him were imposed almost unilaterally when he wasn't even allowed to defend himself, and on it goes. The current block of one year is surely a joke! Triton's remarks that caused it were entirely acceptable under the circumstances when, faced with an editor who disregarded the rules at BISE, he had no option but to complain. I cannot comprehend how supposedly intelligent people, like the involved admins would have us believe they are, fall for this BISE shit hook, line and sinker. I can only assume they have little or no experience of comparable matters in the real world. It's so obvious what's going on here that a baboon would be able to fathom it out, and if that baboon had the wherewithal would impose topic bans on a small number of certain other individuals who are the real root cause of the problems here. The likes of Triton and a few others are merely reacting to a scandalous situation which is being ignored by the few people (admins) capable of doing something about it. LemonMonday Talk 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton was not banned from discussing the topic, and that's what Triton was doing. Triton's edit seems reasonable and quite civil. I support removing the block entirely. I also support removing any civility parole from Triton at this time. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To make my position clear, I also support removal of the block and the civility parole for Triton Rocker. They are counterproductive in the current environment, and were both imposed in a situation of gross unfairness. LemonMonday Talk 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LM you were warned to stop forum shopping about this. Your edits are displaying a clear battleground mentality further edits to the project like this will be prevented by block. This is your last and final warning--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, it seems that you exist here simply to hand out warning and blocks. Much more of it and you'll be featuring in the Guinness Book of Records. I don't know what you mean by forum shopping and this so-called battle ground mentality. I am merely expressing a view on this very difficult matter, is that a problem for you? Well, it seems to be because every time I return to Wikipedia - and yes, I don't edit that often - you are not far behind issuing warnings and blocking me, no matter what I have to say. If I was not such a generous person willing to assume good faith I'd think you were deliberately targetting my remarks. I note in these threads copious amounts of dialogue the contents of which far, far exceed your own strict requirements for civility and other issues and yet you don't bat an eyelid. Why is that? I said To make my position clear, I also support removal of the block and the civility parole for Triton Rocker. They are counterproductive in the current environment, and were both imposed in a situation of gross unfairness. That is my view. It's obviously not your view but I can't help that. My comment is highly relevant to the current debate even if you don't like it. Your constant warnings and blocking threats are debilitating. Please stop them. Incidentally, it might help if you actually offered some views on the points being made here rather than doling out threats and blocks like there was no tomorrow. LemonMonday Talk 20:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarify - sorry Cailil, it wasn't you that blocked me it was User:Jehochman, but you do issue one hell of a lot of warnings and as I say, it would be useful if you actually put some views forward about the whole British Isles thing - what you consider to be the root causes and how these might be dealt with etc. LemonMonday Talk 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Point being LM that TR's restrictions have been approved 3 times by community that discussion is over. Brining up again in hope that another admin will remove it is forum shopping and I've asked Jehochman to review your posts in light of my warnings.
"The whole British Isles thing" is under community probation and I will enforce that probation to the best of my ability on both sides. If someone puts forward a case showing in a neutral and cogent way that anyone has been violating that probation I am happy to act on it. But I will not let incivility and ABF pass - that's where problems on WP start.
If we can encourage people who don't like each other to work together productively everyone wins but if someone would rather flaunt WP:5 then they will just be prevented from doing so--Cailil ^talk 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bringing it up in the hope that another admin will overturn it, rather that the community will reconsider it. Anyway, I see what you mean by policy shopping here. I thought PS was looking for a policy to support your POV, something that happens a lot at BISE. Maybe both meanings are right.. LemonMonday Talk 21:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing my forums with my policies. LemonMonday Talk 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's usage there is not inaccurate". And that phrase neatly encapsulates all I'm finding depressing about this whole "meta-BISE" debate. It's not inaccurate to describe London as being a city in Eurasia. It's also staggeringly unhelpful. This book involves a plane crashing off the Western Isles, and there's seriously an argument being made that we should say it crashed in the British Isles? Really? Surely we should be saying it crashed off the Western Isles? But "not inaccurate" is a new mantra at WT:BISE. "Not inaccurate". Rather than strive for precision and accuracy it's argued we should justify terms because they're "not inaccurate".

There are, obviously, times when "British Isles" is as accurate as it gets. When we're discussing extreme points of the British Isles, any alternative simply doesn't cut it. When the largest area that something occurs in happens to be the British Isles, any larger area simply doesn't cut it. When a source uses the term "British Isles" any other term simply doesn't cut it. And yes, there's POV pushing. Big surprise there. That's in large part the whole reason for WT:BISE existing - to address the POV pushing. But make no mistake - this isn't a one-way push with blind admins not noticing or - worse - siding with one faction. Like every other POV area on the project, it's a a two-way street with both sides (apparently) oblivious to the fact that they're partisan.

So what can I do? What am I not doing that I should be doing? Well, my first goal was to tackle the uncivil POV-pushing. Really - what is the point in tackling civil POV-pushing while turning a blind eye to personal attacks? Was I wrong to adopt that approach? I don't believe so, but I'm open to suggestions. And really, as an admin, what special powers do I have that Mick, say, doesn't? Well, I can block editors for breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Beyond that - not much. Mick can start an RFC just as readily as I can. Would it be appropriate for me to start an RFC or other form of dispute resolution, or would it be better for me to leave it to Mick, LemonMonday or anyone else?

Right now I'm pretty jaded about BISE. When I've tried to mediate in POV disputes in the past both sides behaved more or less equally well (or badly...!) This time it's like one side has a suicide pact. It is fair to say the sanctions have been one-sided to date. It's also fair to say that one side has behaved far, far worse than the other. Both sides push their POV; one side pushes it in such a rude, aggressive manner than it's impossible not to react. I'm really - really! - not big on WP:CIVIL or civility blocks or sanctions. The fact that I've been prepared to block editors for WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc should speak volumes. I'd love to be a position where we can start looking at civil POV-pushing, but I'm not going to do that while incivility reigns supreme. Shouting loudly and attacking other editors does not make you right, any more than speaking ultra politely - but the latter at least makes for a far more collegial working environment. TFOWR 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it you seem to be doing a good job at BISE, but when a detailed examination of the whole British Isles problem is carried out it can be seen that your efforts are actually not helping at all, in fact they are having a detrimental effect. This is because as Mick and a few other have noted, thy do not get to the crux of the matter. Have you ever stepped back and asked yourself the question - "Why do we permit a single user, now assisted by an 'apprentice', to push the anti-British Isles POV to the extent that he has been so successful at it that he now commands a whole project to support his actions"? It's a long question, and a big one, and it requires a big answer. To date a number of us have posed the question but no one who can do anything about it has answered. Maybe you could try? LemonMonday Talk 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps LemonMonday either before or after MickMacNee has produces his thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern you could layout your detailed examination of the whole BI problem for us all to see? Bjmullan (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the long term pattern. Just keep on clicking the older 500 link. LemonMonday Talk 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I paranoid? or has this ANI report turned into a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way but I make it a habit not to read the ramblings of Mick I just scan them and look for the comments he invariably makes about HighKing no matter what the subject. Mo ainm~Talk 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's consider what would happen if I wandered away, taking Cailil and Black Kite with me. BISE would descend into precisely the kind of civil-free nightmare it's been in the past. So that's my number one priority - civility, not answering the "big questions" one side wants me to ask for them, but that they can't - apparently - be bothered to ask themselves in an RFC.

And there's an even bigger question, which you've missed: why do we permit a single user, or group of users, to push any POV? Whether it's pro-Greece or pro-Macedonia, pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, pro-British Isles or anti-British Isles - it happens all over the project. What you're missing, LemonMonday, and I had thought I spelled it out in the post you replied to, is that BISE is about more than just anti-BI. It's about pro-BI pushing, too. As a project we don't have a good answer for POV pushing. I don't have an answer, either. But I believe, strongly, the answer will only come when we recognise that POVs never stand in isolation - there's always an opposing POV. You state "a number of us have posed the question but no one who can do anything about it has answered". Who, exactly, can do anything about "your question"? I'm not going to block civil editors on your say-so. You, however, have as much ability as me - perhaps more so - to raise an RFC. Again, I had thought that I had spelled this out in the post that you replied to. I reiterate: I have the ability to deal with civility. You have the ability to deal with apparent POV pushing. It just requires you to put in the leg-work, and run the risk that other POVs may be identifed. TFOWR 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone way off track. Poor TFOWR, minding his own business when suddenly this turns out to be a critique of of his abilities as an admin monitoring the BISE page. Never mind mate, I think you're doing an excellent job. ;) If there is no further action to be taken shouldn't this be closed? Jack forbes (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wise words Jack. I total agree with your comments. Bjmullan (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Calill, I could care less what you think anymore. Take me to whatever venue you like, I will relish the opportunity of showing exactly how biased and one sided you really are wrt Irish issues. The POV pushing is carrying on at BISE whether you get your finger out of your ass or not. Well done. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of us learn to live (over time) with Mick's rants, but this is now getting abusive to one of the few admins bothering to put time into a difficult area (see TFOW's comments above on civility). Would an uninvolved admin take a look at this? --Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR has been doing an outstanding job in the teeth of sometimes really quite extreme provocation. Clearly quite a number of editors need to take a holiday from this issue as they aren't handling the emotion of it well and getting involved in inter-personal flamage rather than focusing on the issues. And I speak as someone who might be associated with the "pro-British-Isles" "camp", if there were camps, which there shouldn't be. Believe it or not (and it's hard to from the above!), we do sometimes achieve reasonably civilised and constructive levels of discourse at BISE and when we do, things can be looked at in fine detail and with objectivity. The name calling is a total distraction and (I'm addressing this to those of you who seem to enjoy doing it) 100% counterproductive from your own viewpoint! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to the main issue

Back to the main issue. TR was blocked for one year for this edit. Even those who consider this edit somehow faulty ought to view the fault as fairly minor. Even for someone coming off a month block, can this possibly deserve a year? Are we going to apply such a low tolerance to other editors, consistently? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For those under civility parole and behavioural restriction who have repeatedly violated it in an area already under its own community probation - yes we will apply this consistently and we are. This measure has already been reviewed here and on TR's talk page. As has been mentioned before repeatedly bringing it up is an attempt to ask the Other parent and is forum shopping which is a violation of policy. Furthermore as stated to you earlier, attempts to wikilawyer are inappropriate.
And for clarity TR was given the chance to make a redaction of that edit you show but rather he chose to justify that edit, which he was restricted from making, with further ABF here in the above thread. He had notice of this discussion, he has had long enough to acquaint himself with his restriction, and yet he decided to make that comment in that manner anyway--Cailil ^talk 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am disputing the block. ANI is an appropriate place to review a block, and this a thread to review that block. Discussion led to the civility parole. Are you claiming that discussing this is "wikilawyering"? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm warning you that you are wiklawyering - an editor under probation or restriction is forbidden from making disruptive edits - full stop. There are no 'if', 'buts' or 'ands'. Big or small the infraction doesnt matter it just matters that TR did it and has not recognized that it was wrong. In case you missed it the block has been reviewed already here and on TR's page. This not the first or second or third time that TR has violated one of his restrictions. People only get so much rope.
From the point of view of wanting to help TR this isn't going to - the only way to help him is to encourage him to accept site policy and his restrictions, and to demonstrate that he will act within those parameters. If he does so I'll review his block myself. User:Magog the Ogre made the same offer hours ago. We're not blocking TR becuase we don't like him - we're blocking him becuase he's being disruptive. If he stops being disruptive he stops being blocked--Cailil ^talk 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"... because he's being disruptive"? I don't see TR adding or removing "BI" (TR seems to be observing TB01), nor do I see that talk page diff as "disruptive" (unless any posts from TR there are automatically considered disruptive). If you're going to block someone for a year, then it ought to be for doing something that's a pretty serious fault. I'm saying I don't see that. I'm about as uninvolved in this as I can imagine anyone being - I don't recall ever interacting with TR or you, or the underlying content dispute - and my opinion is that a "civility" or "disruption" block for that talk page diff would be questionable, and a one year block is grossly excessive. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification by blocking admin

Let me clarify something. The direct cause of the block was the line "It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that...". This is an indirect way of saying you are a stupid liar -- it's about as uncivil as you can get. An editor who can't even recognize that such a statement is uncivil does not belong on Wikipedia. And this was the third edit after coming off a one-month block. There is really no room to move forward here unless TR demonstrates an understanding of why the statement was uncivil. I'm sorry to say that I haven't had time to follow all the discussion above -- if there is anything in it that addresses the main issue, I would be grateful for a pointer. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

it's about as uncivil as you can get; not really. "You are a stinking fuck pig currently at the top of the fuck pig premiership" - now that's as uncivil as you can get (example only - don't take it as being directed at anyone). Contrary to the view expressed above, Triton's remarks [19] were not a direct attack on another user, despite the provocative action of that user. At worst, Triton's remarks are ambiguous in their direction. Consequently I suggest that a one year block is a substantial over reaction. He made just one edit that someone took exception to, for the wrong reason. I urge the community to declare the block void and have TR reinstated. We can address the sanctions elsewhere, along with a wider consideration of the British Isles issue. In line with TWOFR's recommendations I will be raising an RFC, when I've looked into how to do so. LemonMonday Talk 17:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For someone who was not on a formal civility parole, it might not have been blockable. However, given that he was on that parole, he should have either kept his head down or appealed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why anyone should "keep their head down" on anything around here. You're missing the point. I'm trying to tell you that it was not uncivil, and he has appealed but, surprise, surprise, it's been rejected. LemonMonday Talk 18:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

...and several editors are trying to tell you that it was uncivil. Let's looks at two examples, and you can tell me whether you really, truly, believe them to be compliant with the terms of TR's parole:

1. In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him. Part of the parole involves following Wikipedia:Civil#Assume_good_faith, which states Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help, not hurt the project. Everyone makes mistakes, and a reminder is sufficient most of the time, but even when difficult disagreements occur, it may well be that no one involved has any ill intent.
   Assume good faith as much as possible. The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence; however, do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one. Attempting to believe the best of your fellow Wikipedians, and they of you, helps to eliminate some of the problems that arise when we communicate only in text, and cannot use all the verbal and visual cues used in talking face-to-face. Are you seriously trying to tell us that "Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit" represents anything other than an assumption of bad faith?
2. It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that a Satellite company serving the British Isles, or from the East of England to the West of Ireland, would also reach the Isle of Man and/or Channel Island. It also takes no effort to find references for one or both of the other group of islands (e.g. "'Isle of Man on Air'"). So what is going on here? Looie496 has covered this above, and I guess you remain unconvinced. However, for the record, I at least consider "It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise..." to be a serious vio of WP:CIVIL. I'll leave discussions as to Sky's coverage of Western France, their T&Cs that cover the British Isles apart from Ireland, and TR's WP:OR to the talkpage.

Incidentally, this is a good example of pro-BI POV pushing. Here we have three things: (1) a satellite that beams down a signal to Western Europe, from Central France to somewhere East of Ireland; (2) a service marketed in Ireland; and (3) a service marketed in what the broadcaster refers to as "the UK" (it actually includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but excludes Ireland). There are arguments to be made here for both pro- and con-BI positions, but TR's blind refusal to accept that is what marks TR as a pro-BI partisan. The situation isn't nearly as clear-cut as TR would have us believe.

But I digress. Lemon Monday, TR had ample opportunity to modify their behaviour. It's regrettable that they chose not to. TR was well aware of the civility parole, they had good opportunity to read and understand what was required, they had previously been warned about precisely the kind of remarks which led to this latest block - and yet they chose to make them anyway. TR walked right into this of their own volition. TR had the chance to avoid this, yet chose not to. This isn't rocket science - all that's required is for editors to state their case without referring to other editors. Most participants at BISE managed to understand what was required. TR consistently demonstrated an inability to do so. TFOWR 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. His so-called violations, if they were violations at all, were minor in every case. LemonMonday Talk 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to tell us that "Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit" represents anything other than an assumption of bad faith? TFOWR 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained that above; bad faith is justified in some circumstances - the policy says so. And when you think about it, it's ABF on the part of you and others to not give TR the benefit of the doubt here, because the whole thing is debatable and subjective. Maybe AGF and accept that he wasn't being uncivil? LemonMonday Talk 19:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed your "explanation" because you inserted it slap-bang in the middle of my post. (Please don't do that. I sign at the end of my posts for a reason). I've moved your comments to below. I'll reply to them at the end of your comments, not halfway through. I'd appreciate the courtesy of you doing likewise. TFOWR 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This applies: The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence. With certain editors, editing a certain category of article, it's almost impossible to assume good faith, so TR was not in breach of the sanction on this point. LemonMonday Talk 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TR's main objection, and the reason for his remarks, were the actions of Bjmullan in removing BI before raising it at BISE. Bjmullan was clearly seeing how far he could go. The technical discussion is a secondary matter here. LemonMonday Talk 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ye Gods, really? That's your argument? That's not an "explanation" that's desperate wikilawyering - "it wasn't poor Triton Rocker's fault - the nasty other editor made them do it!" Are there any other editors who whom you feel we should never have to assume good faith? Do you have a list? Is it published, perchance, to make life easier for the poor old rest of us? Do you have any real answer - one that involves actual obvious contrary evidence? Backed up, perchance, by diffs and not your personal beliefs? TFOWR 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)TFOWR is correct you are wikilawyering LemonMonday .
Acusing someone of acting improperly has to be done in a calm neutral way that shows evidence by presenting diffs in order to demonstarte a history and a context. That is completely different from making claims based on some assumed knowledge of what another person's motivations are. Basing an argument on such assumptions is never acceptable. Basing it on evidence, across multiple sites of conflict, that can be freely accessed and weighed is a completely different thing (and one taht take stime and effort). TR, and in fact nobody, at BI has ever bothered to do this becuase the atmosphere is so poisoned by personal invective, assumptions and racial comments. None of which are permited, none of which will ever be tolerated and none of which will go ignored.
If you want us to deal with substntive civil pov pushing show us all a real abuse report that evidences context, history and proves something. If you want an example this was my way to show edit-warring (the collapsable boxes are optional)--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, your sarcastic response above is uncalled for and adds nothing to the debate (btw, inserting in the middle of your post was a formatting error, that's all. It didn't call for a "slap hands" attitude from you). I was trying to be civil but it obviously doesn't work. Cailil, I'm just thoroughly tired of your constant complaints about other editors' remarks. I am not going to respond to you again and I wish not to enter into any discussion with you. LemonMonday Talk 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume that's a "no", then? You don't have any actual evidence, and this is all just your personal opinion? TFOWR 20:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence? There is no evidence here. Everything is a matter of opinion. If I presented a load of diffs they would all be subjected to the opinion of you, me and everyone else. TR was blocked because in the opinion of the blocking editor he was being uncivil. In my opinion he wasn't being uncivil. In your opinion he was being uncivil. There is nothing hard and fast here. Ultimately he is blocked because he's fallen foul of people with power, who've acted purely on their own opinions. I get back to AGF - maybe there should be fewer opinions that assume bad faith. LemonMonday Talk 20:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Crap. Several editors have presented diffs showing TR violating WP:CIVIL and assuming bad faith. You've presented your opinion that the diffs show something different. You've also offered your opinion that TR believed something, and your opinion that that alleged belief was correct. There's plenty hard and fast here - you just don't accept it. Much like the last several times this or similar issues have been raised at ANI or AN. I can dig out diffs if you want - this isn't just my opinion, I do have evidence. TFOWR 20:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

LM, you've made a serious allegation of misconduct here against Looie496 (and every sysop that reviewed that block) you need to either substantiate it or withdraw it. You've already been blocked under WP:BATTLE--Cailil ^talk 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sysop that reviewed that block"? Did any sysop responding to LR's unblock template have the option or discretion to unblock in this case? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes they did and they continue to have that discretion. Also one, MAgog the Ogre, (as I did above) stated exactly what TR needs to do to get unblocked--Cailil ^talk 23:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

LM, what do ya want? the sanctions to be lifted & TR unblocked? Then have drama at BISE? Why would you prefer such things? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Triton Rocker

The following text is copied from User:Triton Rocker's talk page, at his request. LemonMonday Talk 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 made a very serious procedural mistake (there was no Arbcom sanction) --- and misinterpretation. And yet he block appears to be based on his own further interpretation.

I agree "saying you are a stupid liar" is "as uncivil as you can get" but I did not say it. It is as simple at that. I address a difficult situation, in a difficult context of which Looie496 knows little ... in a formal, polite and civil manner. I really did.

Bjmullan could easily have doubled check on Google before entering an error into the Wikipedia. He did not. That is the sort of integrity I would expect of a Wikipedian --- BEFORE --- they made a edit in an area strewn with POVs and laid the onus of proof onto others.

Satellite Broadcasting

Contributing to an Encyclopedia also requires some applied intelligence. I am sure Bjmullan is intelligent. The question is, did he chose to apply it? Now, anyone considering Satellite Broadcasting in the British Isles for 3 seconds --- least of all someone involved in along term political dispute over it --- would realise that any signal to Britain and Ireland is going to hit the Isle of Man (which is in neither). Therefore, to change a correct "British Isles" to an incorrect "Britain and Ireland" --- AGAINST THE SANCTION --- could be a a bad faith edit.

In response to TOFWR, think again about the accuracy of the content. Satellite Broadcasting has two parts, the signal --- which can goes everywhere --- and the marketing of that signal. In the case of a company, we are not taking about satellite broadcasting per se but the commercial marketing of that signal ... which according to the company report was to the British Isles.

Civility

Again, I did NOT say "Mullan's edit was a bad faith edit". I said, " In my opinion, Mullan's edit ...". In the professional circles to which I am used, that is applying civility in an area of disagreement. It is suggesting that I could have been wrong. I spoke in general about intelligence and integrity. I did not say, "Bjmullan is being stupid and has no integrity" --- which would most certainly have been uncivil.

Lastly, in every legal or legalistic procedure I know, "truth" is a pretty good defence. In this case,

the individual who insert the factual content error walks away free,

the individual who drew people's attention to the correct facts is being blocked for a year

endless hours of wasted efforts and energy are expended--Triton Rocker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

I think we need to our eye on the issue of accurate content, value it and give it the first priority. Can we focus the discussion on that rather than what one individual imagines what another individual, whom he has never met, has said?

Topic ban

• I would accept a topic ban from British Isles related topics --- IF --- that topic ban is also extended to Bjmullan. My 'partner' in this 'crime'.

The logic for this is based on Bjmullan history in the area of British Irish naming dispute, and his direct interest in my editing. In short, it takes two to tango. Bjmullan has time and time again played a support roll in HighKing British-Irish naming dispute, doing exactly what he has done in this case. If requested, I am prepared to do the work to evidence this by way of diffs. Most people involved know his position well.

Honestly folks, the British Isles naming dispute has gone well beyond normal standards of "assuming good faith". It has become a contest or Wiki-war with its roots in a nationalistic political dispute going back several hundred years.

I will happily accept defeat on the matter and remove myself if he is fairly taken out of it as well for his part in stirring up this drama. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No dice. 1 year block. Those asking to continue to assume good faith are asking those involved to grab an electrified fence for the 11th time after it shocked them the previous 10. How many times has he been blocked for evading topic bans? AGF? Really. Vodello (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

• Melniboné (AfD discussion)

User:MickMacNee nominated the article for discussion with a slim rationale. I asked him to elaborate and got this response. Thats all really. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember to notify editors when reporting them to ANI. I have now done this for you. --Stickee (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Stickee, had to pop out Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

we let Mick edit here... why? Jack Merridew 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never really had the patience to read through Mick's tl;dr replies I've seen on this page in some other threads.. but this edit is horribly WP:POINT stricken. It stands on it's own its so pointy. I'm with Jack here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a pointy attack at the Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Melniboné discussion, where I noted the lack of references and that the original editor had picked out the sentence with British Isles in it for deletion. It's a short discussion, you can see the background for Mick's action there anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block's aren't supposed to be punitive, but... argh! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick isn't necessarily the bogeyman he's sometimes thought to be. He comes in for a lot of flak because some folk believe using naughty words is forbidden, which is, frankly, crap. Mick speaks his mind, and frequently calls a spade a spade (actually, he usually calls a spade a "bloody spade", but that's by-the-by...) He's a regular at WP:ITN/C where he usually voices a contrarian viewpoint, which is welcome (well, by me at least). I genuinely believe Wikipedia needs editors who aren't afraid to voice unpopular opinions.

Mick does occasionally stray from the path of WP:SPADE onto tl;dr territory. That's a shame, as I think that beneath the walls of text there may be a valid point - but this isn't an issue for ANI.

What is an issue for ANI is WP:POINT. This report, and the circumstances that led to it, is not the first time Mick's tried to make a point like this. The common feature here is Mick's support for the term "British Isles" (albeit dressed up as apparent disdain for the term). Mick would be better served either taking it to an RFC or, if Mick feels that that won't, for whatever reason, work then dropping it altogether. I'd prefer the former, but really I don't care just so long as this is the last WP:POINT made. TFOWR 12:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to add to this the pointy, tendentious and abusive remarks made by Mick above (to me) in the above sub-thread. Particularly his last one which is a peach[20].
  While I take TFOWR's point that using vulgarities is not forbidden per se using them in a screed of abuse at any other user is forbidden (per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG). Using wikipedia as a forum is forbidden (per WP:NOT & WP:TPG).
  This AFD comes after his behaviour at the WP:BISE mfd a few days ago - which was harassing, incivil and soapy and while I sympathize with his actual point there the way he made it was inappropriate. His editing style are contributing to a poisonous atmosphere in an area already under community probation (see WP:GS) he is in fact in breach of that probation with this pointy afd - the question is now what after all of this should be done--Cailil ^talk 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  Aye, apologies Cailil: my comments on profanity were in no way intended to justify attacks on, or rudeness to, other editors. TFOWR 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not taken that way at all TFOWR - I undestand your point but I just want to underline why I take this matter so seriously--Cailil ^talk 16:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is a pretty clear WP:POINT violation, but I don't see any need to block. To block would be punitive. I disagree that Mick's usual editing style is a problem otherwise. He's just someone who doesn't sugar-coat things. There does seem to be a rising frustration level recently, which is understandable given that WP:BISE is somehow still allowed to exist even after the WP:GS/BI sanctions were imposed. People are misciting WP:SOAP a lot here. It's about advocacy of issues external to Wikipedia, not writing passionately about internal issues. Gigs (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. If a user with this immense block log continues to severely violate Wikipedia conduct rules, such as by filing that AfD and making such comments, and is furthermore dismissive of the concerns raised in reaction to this, this indicates that they have no intention of complying with the fundamental rules of interaction in a collaborative project and should be indefinitely blocked to prevent further disruption. Unless somebody can come up with a compelling reason not to do that, I'll be implementing that block shortly.  Sandstein  22:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support such an action, given that they've shown they have absolutely no care for the editing environment here, and will do whatever they want to get their way, or prove some point. WP:DE and all that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, I have blocked MickMacNee indefinitely as the only way to prevent such disruption (and the associated drama) in the future. In view of his block log I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible, because his persistently aggressive mode of editing can only be explained as reflecting aspects of his character that are very difficult or impossible for a person to change at will. As such, I ask that any unblock of MickMacNee be considered, if at all, only after thorough discussion in a community forum and accompanied by measures that prevent his returning to the topic areas in which he has been disruptive. (I am not proposing such measures at this time because the disruption does not seem to be restricted to a clearly identifiable topic and a full block therefore appears to be required).  Sandstein  07:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [21] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [22] (20 October) and [23] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.

Responses to some points presented above:

1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.

It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[38] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [39][40] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[41]

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[42] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [43] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[44] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[45] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[46]

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [71] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[72]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[73][74]

Communicat is often less than civil.[75] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [76] and the statement that earned him his first block is still there on his user page without any retraction or apology.[77] Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.

The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.

The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.

Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.

Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [78] and [79]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum ^@) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.

Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [80] as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Habap, I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.

Nick-D and interested parties, as regards Nick-D's recent posting above: no useful insight into the issues at stake can be gained by any "casual skim" of the current Talk:World War II "discussion" page or archived editions of the page as suggested by the filing party. Certain complex, important and perplexing matters were and still are at issue, and they also have a direct bearing on Nick-d's (and others') persistent violations of NPOV policy. Anyone sufficiently interested, and with the time and inclination to do so, should read the current and archived pages carefully, objectively and analytically, from top to bottom, before reaching any firm conclusions of their own. In particular, they should note my numerous, unsuccessful attempts to engage in constructive article content discussion with Nick-d, and his facetious replies or absence of replies thereto. It's all there in the record.

Suffice it to say that a perceptive reading of the discussions will prove that I have engaged in sustained discussion and serious attempts at negotiation with Nick-d (and others), with the sole intention of trying to find a solution to content problems, in order to help improve the article. My efforts have conformed fully with the letter and spirit of wiki's stated dispute avoidance policy. In response to which, Nick-D is now falsely and self-righteously alleging "Tendentious editing despite warnings and blocks". As Petri Krohn has correctly observed above, there has been no tendentious editing on my part. I would suggest that the wording of this ANI notice lodged Nick-d is itself tendentious.

Misleading reference is made by Nick-d to "warnings and blocks". I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept reviving a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. These blocks had nothing whatsoever to do with so-called tendentious editing. Indeed, Nick-D's own reasoning is tendentious, and his lodging of this notice is riddled with lies and distortions.

As for Edward321's claim that he is "one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited": this party appears to have a slight problem with numeracy. He is one of only three editors who attempted to provide that so-called evidence, which in any event was not "added" to the article as falsely implied. In fact, Edward321 has himself submitted to the discussion page certain disruptive information that is contradicted directly by the sources he provides. All this too can be found in the discussion page, see my posting of 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Enough said. Communicat (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat is correct that he did not add the incorrect info to World War II. On the other hand, has repeatedly proposed changes on the World War II talk page that are not supported or even contradicted by his sources (noted by Users Hohum,[81][82][83][84][85] Nick-D, [86][87][88] Edward321, [89] and Habap.[90][91][92]

Communicat has added posted information that is not supported or even contradicted by his sources to the article History of South Africa (Noted by Edward321)[93] Western Betrayal (noted by User 67.122.211.178)[94] and Aftermath of World War II (noted by Edward321)[95] Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

These and other issues are currently the subject of an application by me for arbitration, to which the filing party of this ANI has now been included as a third party in tandem with Edward321. An evidence page will be opened if and when Arbcom accepts my application, which is still under consideration. I consider it inappropriate to comment further in this forum at this time, which does not mean I concur with the allegations made. Communicat (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to note. The arbitration seems very likely to be rejected (currently 1/5/0/1), and shouldn't distract from this notice. (Hohum ^@) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly the way it's going. Even if that unexpectedly and drmatacially changes, it would be best to keep this going as several members of Arbcom have said if they take it they will be investigating the actions of all interested parties. Edward321 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem on BLP noticeboard

• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)
• Griswaldo (talk · contribs)
• The Founders Intent (talk · contribs)

Ronz (talk · contribs) and user QuackGuru (talk · contribs) have unfortunately teamed up to stonewall a debate on the BLP noticeboard here. The debate has been going on at length for a few days, with Ronz as the sole figure claiming that there is some BLP issue. He has presented no evidence that there is any BLP issue involved, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. Yesterday I made a final request for him to explain why this was a BLP issue [96]. he refused to do so, quibbling over other details with other editors [97], [98]. I reminded him again here [99] that he needed to give an explanation, yet he was still non-responsive and tried to mark the issue as 'stuck' [100]. Consequently I closed the issue 'resolved as unfounded' [101]. there was then a quick series of reverts: Ronz [102], Griswaldo [103], Ronz again [104], Me [105], Ronz again [106], Griswaldo (who removed the archive entirely) [107], and I restored it here [108]), and then finally QuackGuru stepped in here. [109]. His involvement is because he and Ronz have been spamming my talk page (something like 50 or 60 posts between the two of them over the last couple of days- check the history), and have been discussing me independently [110].

As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time.

I'm also a bit tired of the way he plays political games. He is repeatedly saying things like "It was worth a try looking for ways to work with you"[111], or "If you're not willing to discuss the matter" [112], or "Can we work out some compromise" [113], or "shall we get a third party to work with us both" [114], as though he were actually interested in achieving a compromise. But each time I try to work with him he back-peddles: here I ask him what he'd like for a compromise [115], but he says he doesn't have anything in mind [116]; here I suggest that we take the issue to wikiquette as a third party [117], but he refuses [118]. This is such an obvious effort to create the impression of being reasonable while actually being completely unreasonable - essentially another stonewalling tactic like his refusal to explain the BLP issue above. it's very disconcerting, and I don't quite know what to do about an editor who is so obviously comfortable trying to game the system.

I'll go notify him and quackguru now, and leave the discussion up to you guys. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm probably the biggest BLP Hawk on this site, but I can see no issue here. In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims. Everything here looks like fair comment and justified discussion. I think stuff like this should probably be aggressively archived once a conclusion is reached, and pages ought to be {noindex}, but even that's probably being over-cautious. Nothing here is libellous in my quick checking, and nothing is gratuitous. (Of course, I may be missing something.)--Scott Mac 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion on BLPN dispute below --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Two FYIs:

1. Ronz has apparently decided to boycott this ANI discussion and respond to commenting editors on their talk pages (e.g. [119], and see his explanation here). I anticipated this, but I don't suppose it makes much difference.
2. It seems likely that the WQA listed below will be closed and merged in here, to avoid separate discussions. I'll remove the link below if that happens. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz

(merged related discussion from WQA per suggestions there)

Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to think that he can act unilaterally in ways that are, in my view, disruptive to the project.

I encountered Ronz when I engaged an RS/N request regarding Weston A. Price and a source being used in that entry by fringe health critic Stephen Barrett - see here. The consensus in this discussion, as well as a similar discussion at the FT/N, has been that Barrett, while a notable critic of contemporary fringe science/health theories is not a reliable source on Weston Price, or the historical context in question. User:Ronz appears not to accept this and has been acting disruptively in relation to those whose comments appear to him to be at all critical of Stephen Barrett. In fact he appears so "sensitive" to criticism of Stephen Barrett, that others regularly comment on it when they encounter his behavior - [120], [121]. Over the last few days Ronz has being acting disruptively in this area, at times under the claim of WP:BLP and of protecting Barrett from "libel" and "defamation".

• Removing talk page comments he doesn't like, then collapsing them after being reverted and edit warring to keep them collapsed, and then finally after being reverted again putting his own subject headings over the comments.
• Issuing BLP warnings to editors who in good faith are trying to evaluate the reliability of Barrett as a source - Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, BruceGrubb, and Griswaldo
• Unilaterally deleting talk page comments, claiming that they are BLP violations - [122],[123]

I should note that Ronz did not refactor the comments he deleted or ask the editor who posted them to refactor the comments but instead chose to remove them in entirety. When he started these deletions a couple of editors who objected, reverted him, myself included. I tried to tell him to get some outside input on the BLP matter since he appeared alone in his belief that there was a violation. He made no efforts to do so, and just kept reverting. It was made clear to me that since a BLP concern was raised by Ronz I should not edit war to restore them so I stopped reverting him, and instead started a thread at the BLP/N. Not a single editor commenting at the BLP/N has agreed with Ronz assessment of there being BLP violation in the deleted text, yet Ronz is now trying to WP:GAME the system by tagging the conversation as "stuck" and later as having "no consensus". He did the same thing at the FT/N discussion, also declaring it "stuck" and edit warring to keep it in, despite a clear consensus on several matters. He doesn't agree with the consensus of course, and it relates directly to Barrett's reliability as a source on Weston Price, of course. In my view this activity is disruptive. Ronz clearly has a "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett and it isn't helpful. What can be done?Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The actions of removing other people's comments, hiding them, edit-warring on closing discussions, and the use of BLP warnings on other users involved in the discussion does seem like a major issue that needs to be addressed. These are not actions that a good-purposed contributor to Wikipedia should be making. Silverseren^C 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Block Ronz for 24h in order to prevent further disruption. Basket of Puppies 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that 1) Ronz has been notified, 2) has chosen to respond on individual talk pages, rather than here at ANI, and 3) Basket of Puppies' comment is, at this point, an unimplemented suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd support BoP's suggestion, just for the continued refactoring of talkpages. Ronz can carry a torch for Stehpen Barratt all he likes, but that doesn't give him the right to rewrite what other people wrote, or try to unilaterally shut down discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just received a message from Ronz on my talkpage. It's rather odd for him not to discuss the issue here and instead badger people on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When someone tries that with me, I usually just delete the edit and tell 'em to come here. It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was about to suggest that it's probably wise for Ronz not to put in an appearance here - he's so far into the red on this issue that I don't think there's much he can do to salvage things. But I'll bow to Elen's suggestion as being both more honest and more practical. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First, "As long as discussion is happening, blocking is not required." The FTN dispute is moving along nicely in contrast to where it was just a day ago. I've indicated that I will continue to discuss the BLPN issues, just in a venue where WP:CON and WP:TALK are followed. Are there any other disputes that aren't being discussed that need to be? --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion between Ronz and Ludwigs2

Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:

1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?

As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations being made in good faith. If there are, my apologies for missing them in this morass. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually expect you to respond, Ronz. I'm simply reminding others that the problems go far beyond the trifling thing you present. I trust that they will examine the case thoughtfully and make up their own minds about it. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think you made one in good faith? If so, point it out and I'll address it. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I made all of them in good faith. I may be wrong, and I will certainly accept whatever the consensus here is, but this is precisely how it appears to me. If you have a different explanation of what happened this would be the time to share it. Frankly, I don't see any other explanation for your behavior, but I don't like this explanation, so I'd welcome a different one one. it's up to you. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence I've provided for your "apparent canvassing" accusation demonstrates otherwise, as does your comment of support [124]. Pick one where you're not making the same mistakes of misrepresenting the situation and not assuming good faith. There's got to be at least one in all of them. I can't believe I've haven't overlooked something. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to see good faith, Ronz, you're not going to see good faith no matter what I do. That is not my problem. I'm happy to let others decide the issue after reviewing the material; I thought you might want the chance to explain things, but you should do what you think is in your best interests. The only observation I'll make is that attacking me is probably not in your best interests right now. You don't really have any credible evidence that I've done anything in bad faith, and casting aspersions wildly in the hopes that one might stick is just going to reinforce the idea that you're trying to game the system. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry everyone for stirring him up like this. I don't believe he'll stop. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL - God, you are such an incomparable ###. You're going to play the wounded buffalo card to the hilt, aren't you? Well, be it as it may. all the evidence is on my side, and while no one may want to do anything about it, there's not much you can do about the facts of the matter. --Ludwigs2 04:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparent canvassing

Responding in good faith to Basket of Puppies's request that I address some of Ludwigs2's accusations:

I don't see this as a good faith accusation. Ludwigs2 apparently doesn't understand WP:CANVAS, and misrepresents the situation, in violation of WP:TALK (especially WP:TALKNO) and WP:AGF. I made one revert, so wasn't at any 3rr limit. I did work to change his misrepresentation of consensus there (a WP:TALK and WP:CON violation on his part), and indicated so in my edit summary [125] and in a comment to Ludwigs2 [126]. I changed the summary again [127] and continued discussing the matter with Ludwigs2 [128] and Griswaldo [129] [130].

I contacted QuackGuru 14:33, 26 Oct two hours earlier than my first edited related to the supposed canvassing 16:42, 26 Oct. My reason for contacting QuackGuru was to let him know I noticed that Ludwigs2 was treating him similar to the way he was treating me.

To answer Ludwigs2's question, why else would QuackGuru appear? I think it would be best just to take Quackguru in good faith that he actually meant what he wrote in his edit summary, "heavily involved editor shoudld not close the thread when there is possible BLP issues." [131] --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior of Ludwigs2

Ludwigs behavior in this dispute demonstrates an inability to understand or follow Wikipedia's behavioral policies/guidelines, especially WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CON, and WP:DR: Besides his contributions to this ANI, his talk page provides ample additional evidence: User_talk:Ludwigs2#BLP_concerns [132] User_talk:Ludwigs2#Thanks_-_Weston_Price_discussions User_talk:Ludwigs2#Collapsing_text User_talk:Ludwigs2#Marking_your_ArbCom_requestsUser_talk:Ludwigs2#BLPN. If an editor would like diffs, I'm happy to provide them. I doubt there's much need to look beyond the evidence he's provided here in his accusations against me. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If no one is disputing this, then what would be appropriate motions? --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No one disputes what? You're just making unfounded claims again. Provide actual evidence and explain yourself. Simply linking to discussions and to policy pages is pretty meaningless. Not to mention that you're claiming that he has violated virtually every policy he could have. When people look at your links and don't see the violations what are they supposed to do? This is the same frustrating behavior you're exhibiting on the noticeboards and talk pages.Griswaldo (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide more foundation for any claim I've made. I am looking to take a break soon, so how about what I've already gone into detail on the "apparent canvassing" accusation? Or maybe the very brief response to his comment of support[133]? --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, the canvassing accusation is pretty insignificant here. I'm not entirely sure why Ludwigs2 even made it. You were discussing him with another editor, who knows if it was WP:CANVAS by the letter of the law or not. Either way it has nothing to do with what brought us here, which is your disruptive talk page behavior. Tackle that instead please.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait. This section is for discussing Ludwigs2's behavior. Sounds like you want to discuss mine. I'll wait and see what specifics you offer to see if the discussion should remain here. Can you indicate a specific talk page? Diffs and relevant policies/guidelines would help too. No rush though. I won't have time til after my break. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And around the circle we go. There is nothing to respond to Ronz, see above.Griswaldo (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN dispute

You asked for a review. We reviewed it. No one is seeing any issues.--Scott Mac 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to BLPN, then note the comments there by two other editors at 12:37, 24 Oct and 14:50, 23 Oct.

Further, there is nothing written in WP:BLPTALK on how to handle material "related to making content choices." The exception was made initially 04:37, 25 November 2007 , and appears to be related to discussions beginning here on preventing exceptions to BLP in talk space. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the exception was mirrored with a talk page comment with no responses: here --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone with no involvement on the other arguments it all (as far as I remember), your behavior on this board itself is disruptive. Users have presented a number of clear, specific complaints about your behavior. Your response to every one of those complaints has been (paraphrasing) "I don't see any legitimate complaints". That's not a response--it's a refusal to listen to the complaints. I'm not saying certainly I support a block since I haven't looked at the details, but if this is the same way you were behaving in other places, it's no wonder to me that others are questioning your ability to work collaboratively. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of behavior

This is not an isolated case. I had a content dispute with Ronz not even a month past and the same pattern of behavior showed up. A search of ANI archives will show lots more. WP:AGF I think is being abused and used as a shield for his behavior. I also agree with the observation of gaming the system. The way he posts on talk pages, the way he refactors comments, and the way he edit wars are technically not in outright breach of guidelines, or if breached, there is some token understandable reason. But taken all together and with its regularity I think Ronz's behavior is unsupportable and is causing a poisonous atmosphere. Lambanog (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this ANI posting you made on October 6th? "Ronz's editing behaviour" --Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs you'll also find at least 3 other AN/I reports ([134], [135], [136]) and 4 WQA reports ([137], [138], [139], [140]). I'm sure these were the instances Lambanog was referring to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is the ANI dispute I brought up. But this issue should probably be looked at thoroughly. There are many other instances in the ANI archives. I see a pattern. Lambanog (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Motion to block Ronz for 24h

• Support Basket of Puppies 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This. Basket of Puppies 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to do so. Each of them? --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll tackle one while I await your response. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support It is very irritating to other editors to continually object to their edits without providing reasons and it is an abuse to use Wikipedia as a battleground. TFD (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where/when did I not provide reasons? I've been accused of such a thing, but I don't see any good faith accusations, so haven't bothered to respond. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• support, An RFC/u might be in order as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you really ought to stop badgering people. I am now thinking a block of 48h is more appropriate. Basket of Puppies 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz I havent even looked at BLPN issue, I think its warranted with just the behavior I have seen here at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifics, please. What have I done here that concerns you? --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - obviously. I'd also like to recommend that that Ronz be topic-banned from any article or discussion relating to Stephen Barrett or QuackWatch for an indeterminate period. Ronz seems to have a particular problem with objectivity when it comes to Barrett, as various editors have commented on, and when Griswaldo asked him whether he has some COI with respect to Barrett of QuackWtach [141] he refused to answer [142]. Whether or not he has a COI, his obvious investment in the issue does seem to get in the way of consensus discussion. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Ludwigs2 demonstrates and inability to understand or follow WP:AGF. Additionally, WP:COI and WP:HARRASS. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - I support a minimum 4 day block, and an indefinite block on any pages related to Stephen Barrett and BLP. He has demonstrated a disregard for WP:NOTHERE. Indefinite blocks on BLP should last until he demonstrates WP:AGF toward editors and policy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate where I'm not following WP:AGF. I'm happy to provide more evidence per WP:AOBF regarding Ludwigs2. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I would also support an RfC/U. Lambanog (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ANI is not for any editor or group thereof to penalize an editor where the case was not made that anything specific elil acts occurred. This looks more like a set of opinions, at best, for an RFC/U, and not really strong enough to carry one out. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note I've added a block template for a 48h block for this user on his talk page. Will an admin please technically implement this block. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, "I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so." --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Who's prevented you? You've had a Talk page, two Noticeboards, this space and 12 days to resolve issues. We're done. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz we're here because people have exhausted their patience for your antics. You keep on saying that you are working to resolve disputes in good faith but the reason why people have no more patience for you is that you are in fact simply making unfounded claims and posting links to policy pages that supposedly back your position without ever really answering questions or providing evidence of any kind. Good luck with that. I support a block if it will help but a topic ban from anything related to Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch would be much more effective.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your obvious frustration.

I'm working to resolve disputes here, at BLPN, at FTN, and elsewhere.

"you are in fact simply making unfounded claims" No, I'm not. If you think there are any good faith accusations against me not already addressed, please indicate one. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hilariously, Ronz added a warning to my talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on Ronz behavior here, but yes, adding a block template to their page was out of line. If an admin actually blocks them, they'll add the template. Please don't. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, tho the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz is clear. I'll admit I added the blocknotice in haste, tho, but in good faith. Basket of Puppies 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Daywalker is not "probably right", they simply are right. Please make an effort to understand when and how templates are used before using them.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Basket - I opened this ANI, and even I think you're pushing this a little hard. would you mind bringing it down a few notches? --Ludwigs2 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm off to move a table. Basket of Puppies 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested assistance from an admin. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Reading this whole thing gives me a headache. I see a group of editors who seem to be ganging up on one editor to get a block. Accusations are being made quickly and no one seems to be allowing time for any answers. It looks like everyone has already made up their minds before anything is even said so heck, let's just block Ronz and get it over with. No, that's not how we are supposed to do things here at Wikipedia. Trying to follow the different discussions here are almost impossible. How about everyone just calm down a bit and if this needs to continue than please lay out your questions clearly then allow time for them to be answered. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Questions have been laid out clearly. Ronz doesn't answer them. It is an established pattern of behavior, in fact the very pattern of behavior that brought us all here in the first place. I suggest you read Hans Adler's post below because it is quite enlightening. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• CG, I'm sure it might look that if you just wondered in here. We've been at this for at least 13 days now, and Ronz's pattern of behavior has shown itself the entire time. His prior involvements show it, and editors from the past seem to comfirm it. Ganging up, that's what threads in ANI usually look like when someone is being reported; are you surprised? Cool off? Thanks for coming here to tell us that, who knows what might have happened. :rollseyes: The case is clear, and the choice should be clear. An admin needs to act now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Crohnie, I notice that you also supported Ronz in the separate ANI discussion regarding Ronz's behavior I started earlier this month. May I inquire upon what your good opinion of him is based? Did he help you with something here on Wikipedia? Do you know him in real life? Do you have similar experiences? Is this support you give based solely on a reading of the conflict? If the latter, what do you make of Ronz's behavior? Do you think it is commendable? Do you think he is behaving properly? For example do you see nothing provocative with his habit of posting dry messages to the user talk pages of people he is in disputes with that do not actually offer compromises? Is that something you would do too? Would you agree with the proposition that the other editors here, not only Ronz, should be accorded an assumption of good faith as well? If you have a hard time understanding what is going on, why are you defaulting to support for Ronz, instead of providing a neutral comment? Lambanog (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Ronz has accused The Founders Intent of being drunk ([143]), accused Griswaldo on more than one occasion of not asking questions in good faith(Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues), repeatedly used claims of off topic as well as not follow WP:CON and WP:TALK to avoid points raised by other editors, has engaged in apparent Wikipedia:WikiBullying (see Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, Griswaldo and BruceGrubb), has tried to use Stephen Barrett's unreferenced (and per Talk:Weston_Price#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words easily disproved) claims about Price in a biography about the Price himself not whatever organizations happen to bare his name, and disrupting the talk page with what many of the editors both there and on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues see as a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. This is worth far more than just a 24h block in my view.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Seb az86556's comments below. A 24 hour block seems unlikely to have any non-punitive purpose, and that's not what blocks are for on Wikipedia. We should be thinking longer term or not at all. Kansan (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis of an idiotic imposition of punishment. Help him become a better editor by offering him advice on how to resolve disputes. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should not be punitive. I've suggested other options below that are not punitive. I think your suggestion to have people help Ronz become a better editor is fantastic, but I don't see any volunteers. Please note that mentorship is one of the options below. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I've gotten Ronz in touch with some people who may help through some off-wiki e-mails. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Well cheers for doing that and I hope it does him some good.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
      • So SA, since you've become Ronz's mentor, I assume you'll be following up to see that improvement actually take hold and grow. Good luck. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I am Ronz's mentor and am unsure why you think my post above indicates that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Err... what exactly would a block do?

No, I'm not playing naive, I mean it; there are only two possibilities: either this is meant to be some sort of punishment with a humiliating for-the-record note in someone's blocklog, which is not what blocks are for; or there really is some behavior that hails from conviction in which case the issue is only postponed for 24 hours. If people really think that this behavior hails from conviction and thus won't cease after 24 hours, then please open an ArbCom case or whatever and try to get the user banned (not suggesting anyone should get banned). Head-on-a-stick isn't the answer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Head on a stick might be warranted when the block suggestion was indefinite or much longer. 24h, however, seems to me to be a short block. Ronz behavior and actions during this ANI thread have demonstrated his continued disruption and lack of desire to work collaboratively and adhere to policy. (I admit my own actions last night were less than stellar, for the record.) Blocking Ronz is not meant to humiliate or punish, but rather to prevent the continued disruption that is happening and ongoing. Basket of Puppies 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, FYI, indefinite blocks are far less punitive than time-expiring blocks because they require blocking administrator to stay in contact with the blocked account and work out an understanding for conditions for returning to normal editing. With a time-expiring blocks, administrators often vanish for most of the duration of the block much to the chagrin of the editor who posts unblock notices and forces other administrators to try to figure out what a decent rationale for unblocking would look like. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Earlier this month, I started an ANI discussion on the subject of Ronz's editing behavior. Nothing was done. Perhaps nothing could be done at that stage, but what surprised me was how the couple of editors that did speak up pretty much supported and condoned Ronz. 3 weeks later it would seem he was only emboldened by the previous result and has poisoned the atmosphere for at least 3 other editors. I would venture the opinion that the bad experiences of these latest editors were unnecessary and avoidable if more decisive action had been taken earlier. If admin actions are only preventative then I ask what would have been the proper course to prevent this re-occurrence? If it was possible to go back in time three weeks to the earlier ANI discussion knowing that if nothing was done 3 more editors would be offended by this editor what remedy should have been suggested back then? Lambanog (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block notice posted by non-administrator

This was a mistake and Basket of Puppies has apologized
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[144] Why did Basket of Puppies add a block notice to the user talk page of Ronz? Basket of Puppies is not an administrator and an administrator has yet to comment in the section above. A non-administrator simply cannot post a block notice on another user's talk page in this way. That seems like disruptive and provocative behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I added it because of the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz. I noted this above and asked for an admin to review and implement the block. Basket of Puppies 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)I was quite confused by that myself. Basket of Puppies appears to be confused about how it all works. Maybe someone ought to explain it and point out the protocol. Unless there is some background I don't know I don't see why WP:AGF wouldn't apply to this situation, though I admit its quite bizarre. If Basket of Puppies should have known better then the situation is quite different of course.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) agreed this conduct is highly counterproductive and disruptive. I would like to hear his explanation for this action The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I think BoP just screwed up. I doubt it was intentional, but you should let an Admin handle those types of notifications. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) How can any "overwhelming consensus" be determined in just over two hours after posting a motion? Contributors to wikipedia, for example administrators or arbitrators, are in lots of different time zones, so 24 hours is the normal period to allow, just as a courtesy. Mathsci (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I believe that's quite enough. We all see it for what it was, an ignorant mistake. Don't be disruptive yourself to prove a point that's already been made. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Please try to remain civil. I repeat that 24 hours is the normal period of time to allow to see how the community at large feels about a particular motion. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)Let's just all calm down here. I don't think anyone disagrees with you, Mathsci. BoP has jumped the gun rather dramatically here and misused a template to boot. I personally think it was an honest mistake, but if you don't please do whatever you feel is appropriate. However, I don't think we ought to dwell on this issue any longer since no one is in disagreement here. The Founders Intent, please tone it down because I'm sure Mathsci is also responding in good faith here.Griswaldo (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) You're right, I shouldn't have placed the notice. I am sorry and will never do it again. Basket of Puppies 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Review

I have reviewed all the background here (which was not fun), and it is clear to me that Ronz has behaved in flagrant disregard for community norms of editing. It's a textbook case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taken to an extreme. Because Ronz is a valued editor with a clean block log since 2007, I have left a message on his talk page summarizing my conclusions and asking for an acknowledgement that the community does not accept this behavior and a commitment not to do anything like this again. Because the time of day makes it likely that he is asleep, I would like to leave the issue unresolved until he has a chance to respond. If any other admin feels a need to take action here, however, I have no objection. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand or agree with what's going on here. I'll admit that this is pretty much tl;dr. It seems that no one really agrees with Ronz about a BLP violation here, and he needs to accept that. The prolonged back-and-forth doesn't reflect particularly well on either Ronz or the other parties involved. Edits like this suggest to me that The Founders Intent (talk · contribs) should absolutely not be editing any BLPs until s/he reads and demonstrates an understanding of WP:BLP.

  I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. I don't see any reason at all to think that any of the participants in current dispute are so motivated, but that context might explain the apparent oversensitivity to BLP issues evinced by Ronz. I don't see a need to block anyone here; all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. MastCell ^Talk 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to make something else clear here, to MastCell, we were editing the Price article not Barrett. No one can be shown to have a "grudge" against Barrett (and if you didn't mean us then you're just off topic). Please show it if you can, and bring it to the Barrett talk page. That is all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the extent of your proof of a grudge against Barrett? You err. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

People can read your comment and come to their own conclusions. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@Mastcell -- 1) I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. -- That helps to explain why Ronz has such a clean block log despite a history of behavior like this (see Hans response below). 2) ...all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. -- I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume that you just haven't looked into the situation enough. Ronz has been stonewalling any resolution to any of the issues being discussed and forcing people to go to numerous noticeboards because of his stubbornness, while refusing to accept the input from those boards. What you are seeing here is a number of editors trying to engage him over and over without any success. Those of us who have been wasting our time with this for days now probably don't appreciate the mis-characterization of this as problem caused by us. I'm not going to defend every action of every editor who has been arguing with Ronz, but in general I would advise an appreciation for what Hans wrote below because it is dead on.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I'm not on review here. Please keep your opinions on the subject matter. Not being perfect at every edit does not mean I deserve to be blocked from editing. At least I spend my time here at WP trying to affect good content, and not judging others work. Try walking even a minute in my shoes. Anyway, what Looie496 has stated is to put it mildly, and what Griswaldo said is dead on! Ronz is a smooth operator with years of practice at this combination of wikilawyering and naivete. The way he whips out WP:TALK at the drop of a hat on multiple editors in this incident can make your head spin. I don't consider him to be a valuable editor in his current state of behavior, and there is no need to assume good faith on his part; since he has shown none. I would go so far as to say that term "good faith" has been way overused as a shield from facing the truth by him, especially considering his accusations of bad faith about other editors. No, he needs to go and be taught a lesson that WP is not a courtroom (it's an encyclopedia), and we don't need any "wikilawyers" of this type. The way he has clung to the protecting Barrett, you'd almost think he was Barrett himself. No this is more than just normal and expected protection of WP articles, especially considering his involvement in the last big Barrett blowout. Ronz's threats on talk pages, misapplication of policy, and OCD on Barrett need to be properly addressed by the admins. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that Ronz is purposefully ignoring the issues that have been raised. This edit alone shows that he refuses to engage in discussion, not to mention his actions of replying on numerous users' talk pages (including my own). At this point, the issue with Ronz is less anything to do with the Stephen Barrett discussion and more the fact that Ronz seems to be purposefully trying to work around policy and get his own way, saying that any complaints against him are either users assuming bad faith or users violating some policy. The amount of wikilawyering on his part spread across these sub-discussions is extraordinary. I believe that something definitely needs to be done here, if Ronz refuses to acknowledge the faults of his own actions. I am sincerely hoping, however, that he will acknowledge them after he reads Looie's message. If not, then actions definitely need to be taken. Silverseren^C 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but why not go with the above-stated consensus to block Ronz? Basket of Puppies 04:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add that I'm as (If not more) disturbed by the gamesmanship that goes along with the tendentiousness. I mean, when he feels free enough to pull this kind of ad hominem trick right in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behavior... what do you do with that? and that's just the latest - you'll find a string of 15 or 20 such ploys on my talk page. He obviously still believes that if he can turn this around and undermine my credibility he can 'win' (whatever it is he thinks he's trying to win). Granting that he's good at it - his methodology for undermining other editors is smooth, polished, and seemingly well-practiced; good enough even to work against me, which is saying something - but that's not really a good thing. Whatever else happens, I'd prefer not to see him walk away from this discussion in the continued belief that undermining other editors is an acceptable way to achieve editing goals on Wikipedia. I don't know what it will take to convince him otherwise (well, actually... never mind), but I want to make sure that this concern is properly and fully registered. --Ludwigs2 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have had very occasional contact with Ronz, spread over more than two years. My impression is that Ronz is mostly active in two areas:

• spam
• Stephen Barrett.

The first takes by far the greater share of his time and activity, and his very inflexible mode of operation is optimised for it. Sometimes he overreacts, but it's easy to get away with that in that area. For some reason he treats editors with whom he disagrees in the second area in essentially the same way that he treats spammers. Since these good-faith differences of opinion require rational discussion rather than warning templates and threats, this predictably leads to regular conflicts.

I don't recall Ronz ever changing his mind about anything when confronted with evidence, or ever admitting that he may have made a mistake at some point. I don't remember seeing any dispute involving Ronz that wouldn't have entitled his opponent(s) to get their money back because "this is not an argument, it's just contradiction". The good-faith explanation is that Ronz simply doesn't have the cognitive abilities that are required for full participation in the Wikipedia process.

This give some insight in what Ronz is doing most of the time, and how his behaviour in a context of suspected spamming, while far from ideal, is at least somewhat adequate, probably making him a net positive to the project. This dispute from over a year ago demonstrates that Ronz pursuing his Stephen Barrett agenda in exactly the same way as if he was fighting spam is not a new phenomenon at all, and that the only thing that varies between the various conflicts he is getting himself into this way is how the other parties react. His own behaviour is schematic, consisting mostly of templating and adding diffs to template messages. Sometimes he writes a sentence of his own and adds a diff, which is more often than not the diff of the message to which he is responding. This is essentially a refusal to communicate, coupled with a series of unfounded (since the diffs typically point to evidence of disagreement rather than evidence of wrongdoing) attacks.Hans Adler 10:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update - Ronz has responded to Looie496 on his talk page, but again appears to be avoiding what has been asked of him. He is also threatening to retire.Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Griswaldo, can you check the first diff? It appears to be from an article. As far as planning to retire, that's not much comfort. Basket of Puppies 20:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • A retirement template, he has a template for everything, doesn't he? We've been duped, and made fools of here by the process. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no need to be so dramatic. Let's give Looie a chance to explain himself a little better and let's also give others a chance to respond here. I think we have several viable remedies that are not punitive but might help prevent future disruptions like this, ranging from a clearer admission of problem editing and more specific promises to improve his behavior to a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch. I hope others will comment on these and/or propose other remedies.Griswaldo (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't consider doing nothing a viable option. Looie made his decision and stated clearly why, I just happen not to agree with it. I don't think I've kept anyone else from making their point, nor have I kept Ronz from changing his behavior or explaining himself. I think he was give ample (> 13 days) to provide some insight into his actions here. I don't believe I obstruct him in anyway at all. I believe we all offered some rememdies, which were rejected. This basically started about 4 Sep 10 when BruceGrubb was trying to add good references to the article, and Ronz began disputing them, and edit warring over them using various policy shopping to defeat their inclusion. That's a long time, and a lot of time and effort to improve an article while someone else is doing nothing more than criticizing content and quoting policy. Am I being dramatic, maybe a bit, but I call it the way I see it. That doesn't detract from the truth of the matter. We need real solutions, and not promises and warm feelings. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
          • • I think your behavior leaves much to be desired and some modification of your advocacy and stridency might go a long way toward helping to diffuse the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well said SA. I find the comments above to be personal attacks. Why would it not be satisfying to have an editor who has been here for a long time retire? I think the behaviors of the other editors here need looking at. Ronz said he may retire but that he is thinking hard about how he does things and will change the behavior. What do you want? You don't want him to retire, you don't like what the administrator decided, so what would make you happy? A block, a ban, indefinitely, what? Administrators I suggest that you check the other editors commenting here because something is seriously wrong with the comments that have been made. Sorry but I'm a bit angry reading what has been said above, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Crohnie, I can't speak for other people but I didn't want to see anyone get banned from the project, and I never though that a block would do much good to be honest. What I wanted to see was acknowledgement by Ronz of the specific issues raised here at the very least. None of my suggestions aimed at blocking, banning or otherwise punishing the guy. I think that should be clear. Like I said elsewhere I'm happy to have my own behavior scrutinized. That's part of doing business here. By the way I can't really understand why Ronz is threatening to retire, personally. This issue has been severely over-dramatized on both sides at times during the discussion. I will allow that there could be private information that most of us are am unaware of (making some amount of drama understandable), but if that were the case you can't really blame anyone for not knowing. If that is not the case I think a lot of people could stand to chill out a bit. Like I suggested already below, if consensus is that there is nothing more to be done then I'm happy with that. I hope that, as ScienceApologist mentioned above, Ronz is getting some off-wiki advice regarding this type of editing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Followup

It is my impression from the response on Ronz's talk page that he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community. Accordingly, I am not prepared to impose a block at this time. I am aware that several of the editors who have been caught up in this feel that nothing less that a long block would be adequate. I completely understand that attitude but can't quite get there myself. It should be clear, though, that any future behavior resembling what we have seen here will draw a rapid and vigorous response. (For the record, although I personally am not going to do a block, if any other admin feels that a stronger response is required, I will not make any objection.) Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie I don't see that in his response. He has only admitted to being wrong about the talk page deletions based on BLP and not the general pattern of tendentious editing. How does his promise prevent him from freaking out the next time Barrett or Quackwatch are discussed? If we don't set some kind of precedent here we'll have to start from scratch the next time he starts this because we're not left here with any remedies for specific behaviors nor any promises to stop those behaviors. I'd like to see more specific promises from him at the very least or else a topic ban from the problem area. Consider the depth of the problem in that area as expressed by Hans.Griswaldo (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What about mentorship? I guess I'm just not convinced that Ronz understands exactly what the problem is and how he will need to alter his future behavior when confronted with similar situations. I do not see such an understanding in his response. A mentor might help with this. Any volunteers?Griswaldo (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dumbfounding!! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: While I'm not all that perturbed by this - I didn't actually expect anyone to impose any overly-strong sanctions - I do have to say that I'm not entirely satisfied with this outcome. Sure, Ronz has claimed that there is "great deal he wants to change in his approach to editing" and admitted that he engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing, and I do expect that he will be a bit more cautious in his approach (at least for a while) if only because he will recognize that he's under observation. But I don't really get the sense from the short comment in his talk that he's gotten the bigger picture here. Disruptive editing is only the most superficial aspect of the problem: I don't see anything here that indicates Ronz even recognizes that there are problems with wp:CIV, wp:AGF, or wp:CONSENSUS in his behavior. If he tries the kind of manipulative crap that he's pulled on me here and in my talk page again I'll drag him back here so ANI so fast it will make his head spin, but right now I don't even see any recognition from him that he's guilty of it it, much less that he's sorry for it or interested in changing it.

Frankly, I think you got suckered by the wounded buffalo act (that's an old Hindu story about a clever water buffalo that escapes its traces and runs rampant through the town, smashing everything in its path; when it finally gets its front hoof caught in a snare, it limps and moans and shakes its head mournfully, knowing that good-hearted people won't punish what they see as a poor, dumb, wounded animal). That's fine - I approve of good-hearted people, and would rather we err on that side than the other - but if you want to make this decision then I am going to hold you responsible for ensuring that Ronz actually comes to understand the need for good faith consensus editing. It's not good enough that he continue doing what he does in a lower key; he actually needs to change his editing practices substantively and show more respect for other editors, otherwise (sooner or later) he's just going to come right back to this. Are you willing to take responsibility for seeing to that? --Ludwigs2 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, you and (particularly) The Founders Intent should be grateful that your conduct in this dispute has largely escaped scrutiny thus far. Quit while you're ahead, instead of keeping after your pound of flesh. MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF here and assume that you didn't intend to threaten Ludwigs with that comment, because otherwise it could be construed as "back off or you're next". If anyone has actually stepped over the line their behavior should be looked at (Ronz, Founders Intent, Ludwigs, myself, etc.). I'm happy to have my own behavior scrutinized, but not as a distraction to the current discussion. If you want to start a sub-thread or a new one please do. Regarding the current discussion what do you think of my three suggestions above? 1) A more definitive set of promises by Ronz, 2) mentorship and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett/Quackwatch related issues? Thanks for staying focussed here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a threat, because a) I'm not really much for threatening people, and b) I would not feel comfortable blocking Ludwigs2 under pretty much any circumstances, because of our previous interactions elsewhere. It's exactly what it sounds like: an expression of distaste for the fact that people who haven't comported themselves particularly well in this dispute feel entitled to make a lengthening set of demands about its resolution. MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Says a johnny-come-lately who hasn't spent the last 13 days dealing with this. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Your idea of vindicating Ronz, is to attack his accusers. Of course I've gotten frustrated, and I think WP understands it. Find me the WP:SAINT policy that requires I be as perfect as Jesus. I don't think anything you've said has a leg to stand on. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Either way, can you please comment on the topic at hand. Looie has suggested that option 3 might have some merit on his own talk page, but unfortunately not here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

MastCell: If you have specific problems with my behavior you are welcome to raise them, here or in my talk - seriously, I'd be curious to see what you think I've actually done wrong. I know most of my strengths and weaknesses as an editor: I know I'm a stubborn, self-righteous hard-ass when I get my goat up, but I also know that I'm utterly reasonable, generally thoughtful, and always open to proper discussion. I don't lie, I don't manipulate, I listen to others carefully, and (in all honesty) I get thoroughly pissed off when others abuse that respect I give them. If you think I shouldn't get pissed off when people lie about me or try to manipulate me... well maybe you're right. But I'm not going to apologize for completely appropriate anger.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason I get in these conflicts is that I insist on reason on topics that a lot of editors don't want to be reasonable about. That comes off particularly pushy sometimes - there simply is no way (in this context) to point out to someone that they are not adhering to reason without them taking it badly, and that goes doubly for editors like Ronz who are accustomed to seeing themselves as being on the right side of conflicts. If you want to fault me for poor logic in any particular case, please do so; I'd never do what Ronz did in this case, ignoring and subverting reason in order to maintain some preferred POV. If you want to fault me for the way I approach being reasonable, please do that as well; I'm always interested in new discursive techniques. But I don't think you really want to fault me for using reason, even if I am hard-assed about it. There's little enough of that on wikipedia as it stands. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2 here especially when a policy is being used to remove other editors comments on the matter. As I said before WP:BLP is not a magical censorship hammer to remove any criticism about a living person. I could have cared less about who Stephen Barrett was or what he did; all I cared about was the accuracy of the statements he made about Weston Price and on every point using reliable sources (I do NOT consider Weston A. Price Foundation as meeting WP:RS at all so using that as a counter is not a good idea) Barrett was as best in error or out of date. Continual harping on Barrett being relevant due to status as a debunker resulted in further research raising serious questions about Barrett meeting WP:RS requirements ([[145]]). I full stand by my original statement that if those sources I referenced are being total factual then there are some serious issues about using Stephen Barrett as a RS on anything but the article on him. Furthermore the linked Weston A. Price Foundation article is horrid in its statements about Barrett with such unsourced statements as "self-appointed arbiter of correctness" and of putting "his own politically correct spin on Price's findings". We can link to an article that has this unsourced nonsense and can't use an article refers to an actual course case?!? Is this reasonable? Is this even sane?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Three other options

As I've mentioned above I do not think the current response from Ronz is very reassuring in regards to preventing future disruption. I have proposed three other options above, and on Looie's talk page. They are not mutually exclusive.

1. A much clearer admission from Ronz that covers the tendentious talk page editing in entirety and a specific promise not to repeat this behavior in the future.
2. Mentorship to provide Ronz with a resource to help him self-regulate at times when he would otherwise fall into the disruptive pattern of editing.
3. A topic ban from any issue related to Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch.

All of these options are meant to be preventative and not punitive. I personally favor #3 given the apparent history Ronz has with Stephen Barrett related discussions as well as the benefit he seems to be to the project in other areas, but I'm amenable to any of these options. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with a hesitancy on #2. I'm not sure if mentorship would be very worthwhile, but i'm willing (and hoping) to be proven wrong. Silverseren^C 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, I read this and see that you were all given a response from the administrator about what Ronz said yet you are all still screaming for your pound of flesh. What does that say? I'm out of here on this one, good luck to all of you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, how on earth is this "screaming for a pound of flesh"? People are not satisfied with the remedy because they do not think it will prevent future disruption. When that is the case they should discuss other remedies. No one is screaming for a pound of anyone's flesh, and we're not arguing against consensus here, just the solution of one administrator. Indeed the consensus seemed to be to do something more substantive. Do you think, of he got a mentor, that someone would receive their "pound of flesh"? Can we stop with the over-dramatic commentary now please. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• If no administrators are interested in making further comments, it might be time for this thread to be moved to a subpage or possibly even archived. Mathsci (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold on there. For your information, Looie was not the first administrator to comment here. User:Elen of the Roads supported a 24 hour block proposed by Basket of Puppies well before Looie involved himself here. I don't see a retraction from her anywhere do you? The overall consensus has been that a remedy of some kind was needed here, and Looie agreed with that. He seems to believe that an adequate remedy has been found but some of us are confused by his rationale. Also Looie has given some degree of support for option 3 on his talk page. I've asked him to respond regarding these issues here. Can we please hold our horses on this? I suggest actually taking a stand on the options presented instead of asking for the discussion to be hidden.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    (This is only meant as a clarification!) Elen of the roads was not an admin when she supported the block. I assume that she still does (unless the instant a person becomes an admin they change!) but Mathsci may not know that she has since become an admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that RegentsPark. I did not realize this myself and it certainly explains the confusion. Sorry MathSci.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What was initially a discussion of a specific incident has morphed into a discussion of long term issues, which ANI is not best placed to handle. User:Ronz has declared an intention to retire. Such options have been abused in the past to shutdown community debate, but in view of the above discussion, it may be best to accept it at face value and to bear in mind the option of an WP:RFC/U should he change his mind or later return, if concerns continue. Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment After reading the discussion and Ronz's statement on his/her talk page, I think Looie has expressed it well. The editor recognizes that their actions have been viewed unfavorably by the community and that should perhaps end the matter, for now. As Rd232 says, if the concerns continue then this will either show up here again or at an RFC/U. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If this is where the consensus is I'm happy to abide by it. In parting this discussion I would like to point out a couple of things however. Ronz was very recently at AN/I, and I responded to Mathsci above with a list of at least 3 other AN/I reports ([146], [147], [148]) and 4 WQA reports ([149], [150], [151], [152]) that were about Ronz. Other editors have commented that this is not only a pattern of behavior but that lackluster responses in previous discussions may have emboldened him to behave like this in this instance, if not others. I hope that this discussion has been thorough enough to establish the foundation for a much less patient response next time the situation arises, if it arises. Besides this, on a personal note, I will admit that it has been difficult for me to let this go so easily because it's just very hard to do so when someone has wasted this much of your time behaving disruptively. I have been trying hard not to make this as personal as some other frustrated parties seem to be, but I could do better in this regard as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I think waiting what happens now is the best possible outcome of this thread. Further discussion may not be necessary. If it does become necessary later on, another thread can be started easily. Hans Adler 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 came to my talk page. I responded as best I could with my limited time right now. I am really short of time due to RL but I want to bring my comments to everyone attentions. I plan on researching even further the article. I think the other editors here should be looked at for their behavior which is common to do at AN/i. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, I would like to request once again if I may, what is the basis of your good opinion of Ronz? Lambanog (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Lambanog I'm not sure this is a proper question to ask. You seem to be asking why she might think Ronz is a swell guy. She doesn't have to answer that nor does the answer pertain to the discussion. Can you let this go please.Griswaldo (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cronhie of course doesn't have to answer the question. But I would make the observation that most of the comments in defense of Ronz are negative ones that tend to level accusation at the other editors; the positive defenses on Ronz's behalf would seem to be confined to Hans Adler's comment that seems to indicate Ronz has always been like this but Hans thinks he's a net positive for the project regardless and MastCell's comment in mitigation that the issue that started the latest dispute is somewhat controversial. Since Cronhie has expressed the strongest sentiments in Ronz's defense I was wondering if she had some experience with the editor that would shed a more positive light on him and that has inspired her loyalty. If so, sharing such positive experiences in favor of Ronz's character would be more helpful than comments with negative implications about the other editors. But if it is improper to ask, I will desist. Lambanog (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lambanog, I am not sure whether Ronz is a net positive for the project or not, but I am quite sure that this discussion is no longer useful at this point. It can be resumed if and when Ronz falls back into his problematic behaviour.

One thing you don't seem to have noticed is that the fact that Ronz's behaviour is problematic does not imply that you were right or blameless in your own conflict with Ronz. This entire discussion is not about you at all. Hans Adler 15:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm not entirely satisfied with this as a result. I'd be happier if Ronz were to admit to/apologize for the baiting and user page harassment that he's clearly guilty of - that would allow me to believe that he really is interested in trying a new approach, and not just hiding under a rock until the storm blows over. I don't want Ronz to leave, I want him to play nice, and some acknowledgment from him that he's aware that he wasn't playing nice would make me happy. will that be forthcoming? --Ludwigs2 15:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The future will tell. When long-term problematic behaviour of an established editor with friends is scrutinised at ANI for the first time, we rarely get anything but a vague acknowledgement that the editor will be more careful in the future. Then after a few days, weeks or sometimes months there is usually another ANI report, then another and another, and then there is enough momentum for sanctions or, ideally, behavioural consequences. It's all part of the normal ANI process. For someone who has been continuously dragged to ANI with often frivolous complaints this is probably less apparent, but this thread dying down at this point is just part of the normal process. Hans Adler 06:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

yeah, probably for the best anyways. I'll AGF that he is seriously taking the problem to heart, and will come back at it with a fresh attitude as soon as he's ready. And then let there be much rejoicing, and singing of joyous songs... --Ludwigs2 06:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly closed move request at Cambridge

The move request at Cambridge was closed by User:Born2cycle (so a non-admin close), despite it being a contentious debate and to my eyes without a clear consensus for a move – quite the opposite. I can't see a RM review so am posting here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the user who closed the discussion was very strongly in favour of moves at Plymouth and Dover (making over 30 edits at the Plymouth discussion). This would be a problematic close even if they were an admin. Quantpole (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a {{db-move}} tag which Born2cycle placed on Cambridge, so that the move shall not be implemented pending discussion here. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think someone entirely uninvolved in any of the related proposed renamings should close the discussion. Regardless of the result, which is clearly controversial, it needs to have the legitimacy of someone entirely uninvolved, so it cannot be challenged later purely on procedural grounds. MRSC (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have removed the closure formatting on the Cambridge move discussion added by Born2cycle based on the complaints on that page and this thread. I have avoided moving the page back myself as I have been involved in explaining why a move is not a poll (see diff) with the almost identical Plymouth move discussion. Considering Born2cycle's apparent confusion on how consensus is supposed to work, their conflict of interest and the fact that it is not a ballot, it seems quite inappropriate for them to close such a robustly discussed move request. Fæ (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Concur - I'd hate to be the admin trying to straighten this out, but it is clearly a contentious move and needs a fresh set of eyes. Also, how long are these discussions typically held open for? I would have thought this one is still active, with new editors still commenting.

Several page move/disambiguation discussions have been started simultaneously. While they are all slightly different cases, it is useful to at least be aware of the others. For the record, we have Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall, Talk:Cambridge, Talk:York, Talk:East York and Talk:Lincoln (I may have missed others), and a discussion at the village pump. GyroMagician (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's completely inappropriate for Born2cycle to close any move discussions; much of his/her editing seems to be somewhat of a mission to move pages.  pablo 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also re-targeted the redirect at Cambridge to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, pending closure. It makes no sense to break wikilinks when it may not actually be necessary. (Depending how the admin closes it). Personally I'd read Born2cycle's closure statement as a !vote in the discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see also this which again is a non-admin closure of a discussion, with clearer consensus but for a different name to that which it was moved to. It seems Born2cycle has a very poor understanding of the move process and how decisions are arrived at.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to Cambridge, as it appears that the discussion may not have been properly closed. I'll leave the question of a final close to someone else, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the discussion and will close it shortly. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the review. For the WP:IAR-required good reason of trying to help with the backlog at WP:RM, several editors who are non-admins but knowledgeable in naming policy and experienced in these discussions and decisions have been ignoring the rule about non-admins avoiding controversial RM discussions to close quite a few contentious debates. To make up for it, I, for one, have tried to provide detailed reasoning in my closings, as I did in this one. I've had one other closing challenged like this [1], and the reviewing admin approved[2] with the following note:

I'm an uninvolved admin, and have read through the move discussion. B2C is correct; those who opposed the move did not present any sort of argument for why we should ignore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy. While Wikipedia generally works by consensus, we must adhere to established policy and not fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. I have therefore completed the move request and moved the dab page to ...

The issue of being a non-admin closing a contentious debate was not raised, and I've continued to try to follow this lead to "not fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments", including in this situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Decision to move back

I see that the discussion has now been closed "no consensus" with a decision based largely on the following assertion:

"Page hits (7) are not much use in this situation because, for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass (or clicking on Cambridge, Mass when it shows up in the search result list)."

Page hit counts tell us how relatively popular all "competitors" for a given name are, regardless of how readers get there. For the most part, anything listed on the relevant dab page is a "competitor" for the name in question, and Cambridge, Massachusetts is clearly one of those "competitors" for "Cambridge". Just because some readers might type "Cambridge, Mass" (I wouldn't) to get to that article is no reason to discount its high page view count relative to its "competitor". Since we have no way of knowing what searchers might be typing to find any topic, this reasoning invalidates how almost every primary topic decision I've ever seen has been made.

I agree that Cambridge, Cambridgeshire might not be the ideal new location, but, as I noted in my closing, no other alternative was discussed in the original discussion. I suggest that that discussion should be held separately, but a need for a better alternative is no reason to leave this article at Cambridge. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarly surely, the need for a better alternative is no reason to move it.  pablo 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course the need for a better alternative is not a reason to move it. The reason to move is that it is not the primary topic for "Cambridge".

Cambridge, Cambridgeshire might not be as good a place for it as "Cambridge", but almost every use of every term that is not the primary use of that term is in the same boat. If that were a reason to not move articles then almost no move from a better name because there is no primary topic for that name would be justified.

The guideline for disambiguating cities in England says to "use ceremonial or administrative divisions wherever it is possible"; moving this page to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire is fully in compliance with that and every other policy and guideline that applies to this situation. Yet this move was reversed, partially because, apparently, the name specifically indicated by guideline was not good enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't an appeal like this forum shopping?

Also, one big question... was there anything wrong I did in my closing? What is the basis for the reversal? I followed the reasoning and explained the error I see in it above, but what I didn't see was an evaluation of my reasoning, or how I might have made an error. I know in the court system for an appeal to reverse the decision of a lower court, some error has to have have occurred at the lower level, and I think there is good reason for that. Otherwise, any non-admin controversial decision can be appealed for no reason other than forum shopping. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any "non-admin controversial decision", so the problem shouldn't arise. WP:RMCI#Non-admin closure says:

"Non-administrators should restrict themselves to:

• Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);

• Where there is no contentious debate among participants; ... "

David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I thought an admin had closed it wrongly I would have asked them first, but as it was a non-admin closure I had two reasons for bringing it here. I felt it needed an admin to look at the closure and review it, as it was a closure that should only have been done by an admin. And more practically it would probably require admin tools to undo the move and tidy up afterwards, if that were required. So not forum shopping, just asking for help from editors with the authority and tools to properly review the closure.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with you requesting the review of my closure via this ANI. My issue was with how the review was apparently done.

First, the reviewing admin apparently did not review my closure reasoning at all, but instead simply evaluated the discussion from scratch.

My point is that if challenges to decisions (of admins or non-admins) don't review the decision but simply re-evaluate from scratch, the effect of that is to encourage using the challenge process as a kind of forum shopping. That is, any time one doesn't like the outcome of a decision, you can apparently simply challenge it to get a second opinion. There is a big difference between reviewing a decision previously made and deciding whether a significant error was made or not, or making the decision anew without regard to the soundness of the previous decision. I suggest appeals courts in the "real world" do the former for very good fundamental reasons that have to do with human nature and so apply here too.

Second, if this decision has any kind of precedent-setting effect, by ruling that page view counts have limited utility, I suggest it removes the ability of anyone to make a decision about primary topic in most similar situations. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to make your opinion known then you should have done so in the discussion rather than closing it. There are two reasons why this has been reviewed - firstly it was a non-admin closure of a contentious debate and secondly you were clearly involved in other very similar discussions. If either of those situations occur in the future I would expect the closure to be reviewed. To avoid this happening again is quite simple: don't perform non-admin closures of contentious discussions and don't close discussions where you are clearly not impartial. Really, I would stop complaining about this because it is you who has caused all the problems, not anyone else. Asserting that your incorrect close should be viewed as some sort of super-vote is ridiculous. Quantpole (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not complaining, just trying to understand what I did wrong. So any close by a non-admin of a contentious WP:RM discussion, at least when that non-admin is involved in "very similar discussions" is incorrect and should therefore be reversed and re-evaluated anew? Shall I file an ANI for every such "incorrect" close that occurred in, say, the last year? Or shall I do that only in the cases where I disagree with the outcome, hoping to get a reversal? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A closure of a move request by a non-admin is not automatically wrong, but is more liable to be appealed on the basis that the correct procedure wasn't followed. Now you may argue IAR all rules at this point but in this case you also don't appear to be able to evaluate consensus very well and are clearly not impartial with respect to British settlements. If you can find other requested move closures which also had so much wrong with them then I would suggest bringing them here or relisting at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just adding a few words of approval for B2C's actions - clearly they're not exactly in accordance with the "rules" about non-admin closes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - there was a huge backlog at WP:RM some time ago, which has now been brought down to quite reasonable proportions partly thanks to helping out by non-admins like B2C (and myself, a bit, though I've tended to be rather less bold). I don't necessarily agree with all the decisions, but the same would be true about closures performed by an admin, and after all nothing is irreversible (particularly when we're just moving articles about rather than deleting them). To return the suggestion he made to me a while ago - perhaps he should consider becoming an admin, to reduce the controversy associated with his closures?--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think being an admin would have made this closure any better. The non-admin thing isn't a big deal to me. However, the closer needs to be seen as impartial. To use the legal analogy, if evidence came to light at appeal that the trial judge was not impartial, that technicality might be enough to overturn a conviction or force a retrial (depending on the jurisdiction); it might also result in disciplinary action against the trial judge. In this case it was closed in agreement with his POV. This sums it up to me, replace "Plymouth" with "Cambridge". The two discussions are very similar, with significant overlap in contributors using similar arguments. I count 13 (of ~24) of those support/oppose comments on Cambridge have also commented on the Plymouth move - which is an indication of how strongly related they are. Participating in one discussion whilst simultaneously closing another which involves much the same arguments from much the same people is clearly incorrect.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth

• Would anyone like to close the similar discussion at Talk:Plymouth? DC T•C 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Anne

Resolved

• Queen Anne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I request an independent review of the closure of Talk:Queen Anne#Requested move by the same user using similar arguments to those used on the Cambridge move. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewed. And I endorse the close.--Scott Mac 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that. Not sure if it is normal or appropriate but it might be handy to add your endorsement to the discussion to avoid any further challenge. Fæ (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Might not be a bad idea. Add my endorsement as well if you wish. NW (Talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since multiple reviews by admins have occurred of this non-admin decision in a contentious discussion, would anyone please care to review both my close (now hidden) and the new close of the discussion initially raised here? Thanks. Talk:Cambridge,_Cambridgeshire#Requested_move. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that on further review Born2cycle's close has been changed by Scott Mac so that the article is now at Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Quantpole (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

I'm slightly loath to bring this one up since I actually agree with the result, but again there did not appear to be consensus for this requested move. Quantpole (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest there are two definitions of "consensus" that are often conflated:

1. The "consensus" of those participating as determined by giving equal weight to every "vote".
2. The "consensus" as determined by evaluating the arguments and assigning weight according to how well each argument is in concert with the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions.

I try to make my closing decisions per (2) sometimes conflicts with (1), and concede that was the situation in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Was closing Cambridge at all a bad idea?

The discussion should be reopened. Per WP:RM, if there's no consensus after a week, you don't close, you keep it open for awhile until you get consensus. Also, people have forgotten that this is NOTAVOTE...if you have better policy but fewer votes, you still have a better argument Purplebackpack89 17:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Winchester2313

Regarding Winchester2313 (talk · contribs):

1. User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs)'s history long precedes my recent interactions with him, but I have been watching his interactions with other editors. It is only when our paths have now crossed as editors in a number of talk pages and articles, that his problematic and negative attitude to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN have hit me directly, all while he spouts various WP policies to defend his essentially indefensible behavior.
2. User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) has in the past been requested to stop edit warring, see: (a) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Menachem Mendel Schneerson; (b) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Elazar Shach; (c) adding defamatory stuff User talk:Winchester2313#April 2010, (d) requested to stop blanking, vandalizing pages and personal attacks at User talk:Winchester2313#May 2010 and has been requested a few times on other talk pages to stop his intimidating behavior on several pages that he violates WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT when editing.
3. At Talk:Elazar Shach he has displayed crude and ruthless behavior, name calling against editors who disagree with him. He has intimated that he is WP:OUTING as he taunts them "Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...)", that he's a "a brainwashed robot" (violating WP:NPA), as he directs his attack against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) naming him as Jonathan Rosenblum.
4. He attacks subjects of articles: as a "blatant liar" and accuses others who point out his faults as "desperate lies" (violating WP:NPA).
5. I have also asked him to clarify his user name, see User talk:Winchester2313#Your user page, may be associated with other blocked puppets.
6. In the past there was a case against pro-Chabad POV editors who swoop in on subjects their movement dislikes, not to mention control their "own" articles, and create havoc by attacking and harassing editors who disagree with them. At that time the case was brought against 4 pro-Chabad POV editors who are now not as active (one was blocked subsequently, two are not as active), but where they have left off User:Winchester2313 has picked up the cudgels.
7. In the past case ArbCom left the door open that "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings: "Chabad movement...if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed."
8. I have repeatedly asked him to stop his confrontational behavior and to engage in good faith discussions, see User talk:Winchester2313#Let's talk at Shulchan Aruch talk page; User talk:Winchester2313#Yitzchok Hutner; and most recently stop his vandalism User talk:Winchester2313#STOP your vandalism FINAL WARNING but his favorite weapon is to ignore my pleas and to keep on reverting.
9. He is conducting an edit WP:WAR at the Yitzchok Hutner article, not allowing me to add references and citations (see the diffs of my work that was in progress on citations [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] there are a few more) while he blanket reverts them all in the process violating WP:3RR, and hurls accusations, as he has done at other editors in the past in the hope of intimidating them away. He has already reverted the Yitzchok Hutner article 4 times [162] [163] [164] [165] in 24 hours with blanket reversals in utter violation of WP:3RR that destroy my good work and ignoring pleas to talk at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions.
10. While at this time User:Wincheste2313 is one of the most pro-Chabad POV editors who is very active, there are in fact a few more editors like this who pop in and out, almost never creating full identities on their user pages, who are blatant pro-Chabad POV editors who use all forms of WP:LAWYERING to harass other editors away from articles they wish to edit their way.
11. This is a very troubling development and I again wish to bring to the attention of the community the inherent threat to Wikipedia's open editorial style when such one-issue POV editors work in a loose federation and confederation to impose their will and drive out others they deem as their foes who disagree with them. In this regard see the serious threats that Wikipedia has confronted at the: (1) TM case; (2) Scientology case; (3) LaRouche case; (4) CAMERA case as well as at the (5) Chabad case, that are all related and must be seen as similar dangers to Wikipedia's editorial independence.
12. User:Winchester2313 must be sanctioned for his own mounting violations. Wikipidia is not fair game to editors working from only one point of view. Thank you. Most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the user. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also by me [166]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

USER:IZAK has in fact been relentlessly accusing both myself and various other editors of some type of ongoing 'Chabad' conspiracy for some time, and which is blatantly untrue. I do not act in concert with any other editors, and while I've only been on Wiki for a relatively short time, have (and continue to) tried to learn the rules well and adhere to them. To a conspiracy buff like IZAK, this becomes WP:LAWYERING, as if removing unsourced and highly contestable material, as I've done at Yitzchok Hutner is wrong.

More recently, User:IZAK has resorted to repeatedly threatening me (and others) on various pages, while continuing his allegations of 'Chabad POV', as if that were some type of crime?! Some recent examples include [167] [168] where he continues to allege a Chabad-conspiracy (despite there never having been any strife between Chabad and Breslov ?!!), and where he relentlessly lobs insults/accusations like: 1. "something you should be acutely aware of as a member of Chabad that worships a dead rabbi and sees nothing wrong with that as continuing the dynasty of a deceased ruler, regardless of who his predecessors were." IZAK (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 2. "but that does not mean that when pro-Chabad POV editors start getting involved in articles outside of purely Chabad topics, such as you have done by downgrading and in a great sense also demeaning historical rivals to the Chabad movement," 3."What I said was that pro-Chabad POV editors have taken it on themselves to attack articles about targets they hate, and that includes the article about Berger. Please do not twist my words, and enough of going around in circles". IZAK (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 4. "There are so many various splits in the Hasidic world, just see the dozens in Template:Hasidic dynasties that it would be impossible, absurd and reckless for one or two basically pro-Chabad POV editors to decide who and what is or is not a Hasidic dynasty in the world and history of Chasidus at large."IZAK (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC 5."Let's get this straight, the issue is not Chabad which deserves and gets lots of WP:NPOV from me and other editors, the issue here is the proven pro-Chabad POV editors who need to exert utmost care when entering a domain that has potential WP:COI with the subject matter at hand, since it has been proven again and again that when a controversial topic intersects with so-called Chabad party lines, then proven pro-Chabad POV editors such as yourself, Yehoishophot and Winchester jump in and often create a WP:WAR, when if they just stepped back, and at least focused on the pure Chabad topics it would be more understandable and productive for them and the rest of WP. IZAK (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 6."Why do you just wish to keep on fighting and quite obviously violate WP:CIVIL yet again? There are better ways to be productive, try devoting serious time to improving as many articles in your supposed realm of expertise at Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism and not running and rushing to attack subjects and editors you don't like." IZAK (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see [169] where again, accusations of a Chabad conspiracy are inserted by IZAK to derail a discussion as we are informed that;

"You fellows start the problems yourselves, so you only have yourselves to blame. Stop acting innocent. Stop harassing editors and edit warring at the Rav Shach-type articles and any topic that Chabad deems to be "enemies of Chabad"! For example, even though Orthodox editors do not agree with Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism you do NOT find them spending time attacking them and their notable people, as Chabad editors do with their "hate list" topics. It becomes very tiresome, and I must warn you that in the past when such behavior, with clear evidence of group editing taking place, that sooner or later the entire group will face the music. This is not just my imgination or prejudice talking, but please take a long hard look at what happened over the years with the: (1) Transcendental Meditation movement case; (2) Scientology case; (3) Lyndon LaRouche case; (4) CAMERA case and why the (5) Chabad movement case is similar and came dangerously close (for you) of serious measures against you. If you persist in your violations and threats and harassments with your pro-Chabad POV edit warring, you will leave me no choice but to reopen the case against you as you create an environment of hostility and insults that makes it impossible for other non-Chabad editors to tangle with you out of fear and the sheer drudgery of having to put up with your constant mischief making. I have a very simple word of advice for you, just remember, all the time, that Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org!" IZAK (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) and then that; "Well at least you agree with me and prove my point with the abominable way User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) is carrying on right now. I am always open to reason. You make a big error when you falsely accuse me of "anti-Chabad POV conspiracy theories" because (a) it's not a "theory", and (b) I am not "anti-Chabad" and (c) the way it has worked over time is that pro-Chabad editors do work in tandem..."IZAK (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It should again be noted, that the subject matter of this latest tirade had no connection to Chabad at all, and merely highlights User:IZAK's ongoing war against his imaginary opponents.

He then takes to threatening me with "more formal actions" if I don't "mend my ways" [170] further accusations of sock-puppetry followed by more threats [171] and [172] [173].

I have tried to respond to User:IZAK's issues directly, but he seems determined to force-feed his agenda and edit-warring unabated. Requests for WP:SOURCE and WP:VERIFY are simply met with accusations of WP:LAWYERING !! Upon informing User:IZAK of my intention to file a complaint regarding his behavior [174] his response has simply been to co-opt me with this spurious action. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Winchester2313 for your response. I thank you also for the liberal quotes of my warnings, that you obviously at no point took to heart. Your POV agenda is evident even to a blind man. I have no problem with providing any sources, I have been an editor since 2002. That is not the issue. The problem is that you deploy "slash and burn" tactics when encountering editors who disagree with you. Your points about all the other Hasidic groups is an obfuscation and utter red herring argument. None of them do what the pro-Chabad POV editors get away with. For example in the Yitzchok Hutner article : First I try to add in material. Then Winchester swoops in and blanket reverts [175]. He says he'd like "sources." I work on improving the article based on links to other Wikipedia articles, he still reverts everything again [176]. Then I try again by adding more material and while working on sources, all very good, Winchester blanket reverts everything yet again [177]. I try to add sources and improve the article and he reverts it all again [178] as I tried to put the material in with sources to improve the article and I ask Winchester to take it to talk. He refuses to talk and Winchester reverts everything 4 times violating WP:3RR. Then out of the blue, Winchester decides to talk about stuff he has reverted that is not in his version of the article. So if he cuts it out, Winchester has the best of both worlds, he cuts and demands talk after the fact, like a surgeon who wants to discuss how well he has done amputations. That is not the way it works. Material is included and then discussed, requests can and should be made for sources, but not with hot air threats in violation of WP:CIVIL, everything is NOT chopped out in bulk by blanket reverts and then put on the butcher block for "discussions" for me to "defend" while Winchester holds on to his revert button and has already cut everything he does not like out. He is acting like a literal gatekeeper violating WP:OWN as he frazzles those he disagrees with by abuse of WP:LAWYERING and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, not to mention his lack of WP:CIVIL and WP:E. It is pointless to debate with an automatic habitual reverter now, (a) because I don't like edit wars (I hate them as I am sure most normal people do to avoid confrontations) and so I avoid them like the plague!, and (b) because Winchester has slashed the material he disputes, a lot of it, out of this article so the discussion is hypothetical, it's not about what should be in the article, it's about what Winchester decides should go into the article since by inclination and habit I am an inclusionist, and (c) the deeper ramifications of Winchester's antics are now in question that need to be dealt with. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Either the rules WP:VERIFY and WP:SOURCE apply to User:IZAK the same way as to everybody else, or they don't. Which is it ? Why do you demand the right to insert controversial information without sources, and then complain when you force an edit war? Winchester2313 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, you already had this discussion about it, see Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Rabbi Hutner and Chabad Lubavitch and the information about Hutner's positions against Chabad was sourced a long time ago, so don't attribute this to me. IZAK (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I have never removed a single credibly sourced statement from this or other articles. In fact, I spend a great deal of time adding references and citations to most articles I edit. The material you mention was restored with sources and I never edited it again. Speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Winchester2313: The following diffs [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] (there a few more that show I was working very hard to make them accurate) prove beyond a doubt that I was working dilligently on providing sources at the Yitzchok Hutner article, and that instead of joining my pleas to you to join in WP:CIVIL discussions multiple times, instead you chose to violate WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:3RR amounting to one huge load of WP:HARASSMENT for which you, in addition to your past violations like this with other editors over the last year, you should be censured as the admins see fit. IZAK (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my sloppy linkwork in my response above - this is a first for me and I'm just learning how to use the [diff]s etc. I'd appreciate any help if anybody can clean my above post up.... Winchester2313 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding some of your other claims, I never 'outed' anybody, in fact it was another user who broached that idea [188] and I merely went with the line of questioning, as it did seem strange that the blog and most of the suspect information linked to it (and dumped here) were authored by.....Yonoson Rosenblum' !!! Winchester2313 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Winchester2313: So you admit to doing it. The other guy didn't "broach" it, he did it and you joined him wholeheartedly with the same explicit intention and wording "Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...)", and you attacked him that he's a "a brainwashed robot" (violating WP:NPA), as you direct your attack against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) naming and hence outing him as "Jonathan Rosenblum" who happens to be a well-known respectable living person. This just proves my point about pro-Chabad POV editors working in tandem to gang up and devalue and crush a hardworking editor (at Talk:Elazar Shach) who was making good faith efforts and you mercilessly joined in in cutting him off at the knees. You should be apologizing instead of affirming and confirming your violation of WP:OUTING. Here are the names and diffs of the others you joined in with Yankev26 (talk · contribs) violates WP:OUTING [189] attacks him and violates WPLIBEL against this notable living person with his own WP article, and insults: "Removed impossible lie". Londoner77 (talk · contribs) accuses an editor of "ignorant rants" and joins the WP:OUTING spree: [190]. But they have not been as active and as vehement as you have been for almost one year now. IZAK (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I simply find it unbelievable how Izak turns every single discussion, no matter how unrelated, into an opportunity to dig up yet again his obsessive anti-Chabad POV bias and his wild and absurd accusations of conspiracy in his critique of other editors, thereby violating NPA, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTBATTLEFIELD, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:HARASSMENT, and of course AGF. It's amazing how he can't stick to the issue of the article at hand, no matter what it is, when someone he perceives as having a Chabad POV is involved. Really, a case should have been brought against HIM here a long time ago. As for Winchester; I think he has many good arguments, but he's lacking somewhat in wiki etiquette, as he's clearly still learning the ropes here; remember BITE. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yehoishophot. No need to come here because of sour grapes. I am being very specific about Winchester2313's impossible behavior. Way before he met me, he was warned multiple times by at least two admins in the past that he faces a block for his constant WP:WARRING, and I have actually noted that lately you have been quite calm. But since you have come here to blindly add fuel to the fire, I will note for the record that I am not making things up. Your own pro-Chabad POV editing was made crystal clear at Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs (until January 2010) (yes, you will deny it, but they are all your edits) so it is absolutely incredible that you claim that somehow it is "me" that is the problem, when any articles in Category:Jews and Judaism that pro-Chabad POV editors swoop in on become automatic battlegrounds with automatic harassment of non-Chabad editors with the aim of driving them away (there are quite a few already, and I will not go into all that at this time), and if anyone complains you have the bad habit of taking on the role of "innocent victim". Your attempts at spinmeistering on behalf of Winchester2313's blatant violations will not work. He must face up to the consequences of his brutal and merciless methods that his own record reveals. IZAK (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

It seems that both editors here are operating on the principle that the more complaints you pile up, the better your case. That isn't how it works. When you mix small complaints or spurious complaints in with important complaints, it makes the important complaints harder to recognize. Bottom line: the arguments by both editors here are so complex and incoherent that it is nearly impossible for an uninvolved editor to figure out whether there is anything here that justifies action. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Have tried to follow the discussion. Although IANAA, I do like to monitor discussions here and offer helpful comments and suggestions when I can. What these two editors have submitted is ripe for a big TL;DR. Saebvn (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Jason Ross (actor)

Resolved

 – Reg'd account blocked. From IP, editor rem'd legal threat. Now, he just needs to seek unblock on reg'd talk page — SpikeToronto 04:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Jbr055 (talk · contribs)

This editor, claiming to be the subject of Jason Ross (actor), has edited the article to contain what may be perceived of as a legal threat as per WP:LEGAL. (See here.) In the process, s/he also removed the template directing editors to the article’s deletion discussion located here. With this edit, I reverted the article to its state prior to this editor’s edits. The phrase containing the possible legal threat is as follows:

…[T]his page has been comprised. I am the subject of this listing, and have had this article about myself, a current actor on UK television, US and Australian television, modified without consent. This matter is currently with my attorneys due to restriction of trade and potential libel of the person concerned. The offender has been asked to desist his constant, incorrect edits. But when you are a telelvision personality and you have someone who knows you personally, attack your listing, you have to protect your name and corporate identity. As an international actor, journalist and documentary maker my name is everything to me, so any attempt to discredit it will be dealth with directly, and without hesitation.

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is also a legal threat made by the same editor at the article’s deletion discussion, which reads as follows:

This is Jason Ross and I find the above comment offensive in the extreme. I am an international actor and television journalist, currently starring on BBC telelvision in the UK, am on TV in Australia in 3 states, and debuted on TV in the USA in September 2010.

Please desist from your petty attacks or I will take further action. Wikipedia have been very helpful in identifying the identity of the person above and I thank them for their help, the matter is now with my lawyers. Some people never learn until lawyers are involved - again! So sad... God bless..

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the user's name, language, and method of posting, I say it screams vandal, and I doubt this is Ross, or anyone connected to him. Permablock user for legal threats and move on. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done blocked per WP:NLT. --Jayron32 06:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As the likely target of the legal threat (I removed unreferenced info and nominated the article for AfD), can I ask why I wasn't informed about the threat or this incident report? Can I also be assured that "Wikipedia have been very helpful in identifying the identity of the person above" did not happen? Surely my edits were within reason and within policy and any requests by this user should be ignored. The-Pope (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As Sven Manguard said, this is most likely a vandal. So "Wikipedia have been very helpful in identifying the identity of the person above" is nonsense, as Wikipedia doesn't give out personal information of its editors to anyone. Goodvac (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

...except in accordance with relevant policy. I make no representation in this instance (and have no knowledge that would enable me to do so), but this is a high-traffic page, and I think it's important to point out that there is a specific privacy policy that covers this.  Frank  |  talk  09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Pope that these threats have distressed you, as they would any of us being so targeted. As for the legal threat itself, since you have edited the wikiarticle, and you nominated it for deletion, chances are you have both of them watchlisted, and would read one or both of the legal threats yourself. Moreover, of all the editors to the article, how was one to determine that you were the target of the threat? I, for one, wasn’t sure who was being targeted. Finally, the instruction to persons filing a report at ANI is:

You must notify any user that you discuss.

Quite simply, my filing did not discuss you: It discussed the individual making the threat. Again, sorry that this happened; but, thankfully, Jayron has taken care of it as per WP:LEGAL. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No longer resolved. Editor now evading block by continuing to edit as IP 220.244.38.140. (See here.) While the editor has redacted his legal threat at the deletion discussion, he has failed to request an unblock at his talk page, as he was instructed to do. Perhaps, then, the IP address should also be blocked as per WP:EVADE. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 16:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

IP has redacted legal threat - no-one told him what they wanted him to do was to say on his talk page that he wasn't going to sue, so he may have figured this was what he was meant to do. No reason to block IP just for that, only if they go on editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He was told that he was blocked and told in the block message from the blocking Admin that he had to redact the legal threat and request unblock. Also, careful review of the diff provided shows that he did not just redact his legal threat (diff shows a range of edits by the IP). He also added content to the deletion discussion. That is block evasion. When one is blocked one is not permitted to edit from an IP. Block evasion is block evasion. Thus, with all due respect Elen, your suggestion carves out an exception to the block evasion rules I have never seen before. The purpose of blocking his IP is to permit him to edit only his talk page, whereby he can request unblock and get his privileges back. — SpikeToronto 18:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now blocked the IP for 72 hours for block evasion. When I looked, he'd only made that one edit (either that or I looked wrong) but he's evidently kept going - sorry about that, usually I'm better at spotting when it's going to go down like this. Looks like this may be an IP he uses regularly, so worth keeping an eye on when this block expires.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Elen. He may have a static IP address since I notice that there are no other edits to WP from the IP. (Of course, he just may be the first person ever (dynamically) assigned that IP who’s edited Wikipedia!) What I do not understand is, especially since this is most likely the same IP from which he was using his registered account, why did autoblock not catch the post-block attempt at editing? This is the passage from WP:AUTOBLOCK that made me think it would:

When a blocked user attempts to edit the site, the IP from which they are editing is "autoblocked," so that they may not make the same edit anonymously or under a different user name.

Mind you, elsewhere I read that autoblocks only last for 24 hours … I think I’ve read that right. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

IP edited the Jason Ross article in Feb 2009 - seems an awful coincidence to me. I'm beginning to think autoblock no longer works the way it is supposed to work, as I have now several times come across a blocked user who seems to be still using the same IP to edit logged out. Either that, or I don't understand how its supposed to work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If the user stops logging in the autoblock will never hit again. Eventually they figure that out. In that case, the underlying IP needs to be manually blocked, if they're a persistent problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Elen and GWH! I’m going to mark resolved. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 04:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Block threats for disagreement on style

Resolved

 – Enough is enough

There is a long standing disagreement between editors over the style of the article Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth, in particular over whether the article should be written as a lipogram. I understand that some editors have strong views that such a style is not correct for WP but the talk page history shows that may editors have supported this style. Whilst I fully accept that admins should step in to prevent edit warring and other disruptive behaviours I do not thing that they should take sides in the argument and threaten those who support a lipogram with blocks. Unfortunately Fut.Perf. has recently placed this warning notice on the talk page, banning further discussion of the topic:

"Participants in the discussion should be aware that any argument based on the premise that the "lipogram" quality of the title should be preserved is self-evidently contrary to policy and therefore will be ignored in the closing of this discussion. Editors who persistently push for such arguments contrary to policy may be blocked for disruption " Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem here. Writing the article as a lipogram is both contrary to MOS in general, as well as the concept that we should write accessibly. → ROUX ₪ 12:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy has repeatedly been told that this is a settled matter. The article was unreadable and contained many fictions and half-truths generated to avoid using the letter "e." It was pure self-indulgent wankery, with no regard to writing a clear, accessible encyclopedia article. It's just disruption at this point, and edits to degrade the article into a lipogram should appropriately lead to blocks.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A lipogram is not a "style of English". It is an artificial constraint that an author imposes on himself (and on the reader). No such constraints are appropriate on an encyclopaedia which aims to be usable and accessible.

Lipogramatic versions of this article were well-nigh unreadable, and contained inaccuracies. The history of this sorry article contains such ridiculous conceits as removing the 'edit' sections, using 'Anglic-group' to mean 'English language', using "aught-six" to mean the year 1906, and more seriously, changing the names of people - including the author.

There is no more reason or sense in writing this article as a lipogram than there would be in writing the article on Shakespeare as a sonnet, randomising the article on Schrödinger's cat so that it deletes itself 50% of the times it is clicked on, or writing the article on the Mona Lisa in the form of an oil painting. Fut. Perf. is correct that attempts do do so are disruption. pablo 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the stance Fut Perf is taking on this. There's been quite enough fooling around already and that one editor continues to use the same ridiculous affected manner at the talk page and at the previous ANI report amounts to trolling, clear and plain. CIreland (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also fully agree with Pablo and Bali, this is a no brainer. Future Perfect is entirely correct. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block for WP:DISRUPT should OP attempt this line of editing ever again across Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a disagreement on style. It's a forceful end to silliness. --Onorem♠Dil 13:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this on AN/I only a few days ago; there is no way on earth that the article itself will ever be written in this style. This has apparently been a long-simmering issue on that article, and IMO it is log overdue for an "enough is enough" stance, hence the appropriate warning now at the top of the talk page. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Or a page notice. Is this not what they are for? I have added one. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thoroughly support Fut.Perf.'s actions. --John (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess that is it then, we are all to to do and think as we are told. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS on 3 million+ articles is to write them in English, with all 26 letters (plus some borrowed from other languages where required). If you want to invent an encyclopedia all in lipograms, fill your boots - just not here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No dispute on style, just certain editors being very disruptive without the slighest concern to learn even the most basic reasons why. Grsz¹¹ 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely with FP. Martin, this decision isn't saying "we are all to to do and think as we are told." It's saying we should all use all of the letters available in the English language to make a coherent encyclopedia entry. If you want to rewrite this article as some sort of writing challenge, feel free to do so on a blog somewhere. Here on WP, we've already bought all the vowels, and we're not afraid to use them. Dayewalker (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read through the archives of the talk page for this article. Never, not even in my days dealing with the Macedonia stuff, have I seen such persistent IDIDNTHEARTHAT as I saw from those who wanted this article as a lipogram. No matter how many people spoke against it, they'd repeatedly go on with the same arguments and the justifications and ignore all reasons given why the lipogram wasn't acceptable. It's time to be done with this. Eventually, beating the dead horse is disruptive, as it wears away the patience of those discussing with the horse-beaters. It is indeed time for blocks if this continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here.

• That writing the article as a lipogram is such a divergence from the normal policy (i.e. of clarity and relative uniformity) that it is not something that could be done on a single article level. It would require much wider community input and thus would be denied on the (correct) grounds it would open the flood gates for even more of such "one off" article styles. Disagreeing with this, in itself, is not a bad thing or block-able offence
• Then there is the issue of not understanding or ignoring the above limitation and consistently/disruptively continuing the argument after it has been judged a non-starter by the wider community (which it has been, here at AN/I). It is this latter issue that FP was warning about, and rightly so.

I think this is over, article is moved, lipogramming has been judged no-go and Bali has done a superb job rescuing it back to decent prose. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree: there is one last step needed before closing this thread. Any objections to taking Fut. Perf.'s admonition (which is quoted at the beginning of this thread) & putting it in a box at the beginning of the Talk page of this article? This disagreement over how to write the article has gone on for years, & because some people think writing an article about Gadsby as a lipogram is a good idea, & don't care that many readers are not in on the joke that Gadsby is a lipogram, without a visible warning this squabble might otherwise continue for even more years. I just read thru the talk page, & only after determined searching was I able to find Fut. Perf.'s very appropriate words. -- llywrch (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is now an edit notice in a big orange box whenever you try to edit the article anyway, telling you not to do it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just adding myself to the general consensus here that any further attempts to get local consensus for writing an article in lipogramme style rather than going the proper (and futile) route of working towards a project-wide agreement that such special styles are generally OK, is disruptive and should lead to warnings and then blocks. Hans Adler 17:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I NOMINATE FOR WP:LAME as this is the most WP:LAMEST and silliest dispute ever The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please rephrase that comment as a lipogram? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an obvious violation of our policy on silly disputations and unworthy variations from our common goals- put it down in our log of such actions. TNXMan 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish to say that I am full of admiration for Tnxman's lipogrammatic ability (Although, Tnxman, your sig contains an... you know what). But upon trying my own hand at it, I think it is not as difficult a task as I first thought. If a law is laid out that, going forward, all ANI posts shall consist only of lipograms, this board would not contain so much vitriol - too much work to fight.--Floqunbam (talk) 22:20, 28 Octobr 2010 (UTC)

I count 8 occurrences of "e" just on the cover. I understand the author followed up with a book containing only the letter e. That was a screechy read, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Accused of plagarism

I have been accused of plagarism at Malta Test Station an article that I recieved a DYK for and User:SandyGeorgia then put the tag on. This is a user who has had many problems with me and has bothered me lately over minor things and if I complain about anyone brings up their problems about me. Can someone without a problem with me please check that article. The template SandyGeorgia put on their states that the contributor of the article is to be notified. I did not recieve a notification regarding this. I find it highly suspicious as no article I have ever written has been characterized as plagarism and I'm a grad student and have never been accused of that in my professional or collegiate career. I have MANY DYK's and you'd think if this was a problem someone there would have spotted it. I would like, if Sandy's actions are found to be false, for Sandy to be put on an interaction ban with me before more occurances happen.Camelbinky (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYKs are a game for kids, and i reviewed a few a couple of weeks ago on my own and found them all to be plagiarized (all by the same editor, not you). It's generally not a very competent bunch over there. So having been a DYK is no defense against plagiarism. Not having plagiarized is. I'll take a look for you. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at a couple of sentences and they were straight cut and pastes from the citations, without quotes. If you handed in an academic paper to me like this, grad student or not, I'd fail you. Can't speak to your interpersonal dispute though.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The is no "from" field on that template, which is a bit strange. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the lack of a "from" is because the issue is with multiple sources. Silverseren^C 19:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky - did you copy and paste any of the text from anywhere else? It doesn't matter if you did, just be honest about it and we can get the article sorted. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just from a review of the first source and what it's being used to reference, i'm seeing problems. The line "The Malta Test Station was established in 1945 on 165.36 acres (66.92 ha) of land leased from Thomas F. Luther" in the article is far, far too close to the line in the reference, "The Malta Test Station was established in 1945 on a 165.36 acre tract by lease from Thomas F. Luther."

The reference is also used for the sentence "The United States government also acquired a perpetual easement over a circular area containing 1,800 acres (730 ha) surrounding the site" in the article. The line in the reference is "the United States also acquired a perpetual easement over a circular area containing 1800 acres."

The main issues is an utter lack of quotations, which should clearly have been used for these lines at separate points. This is, indeed, an example of plagiarism, at least for the first reference. (For checking, you can find the first reference here.) Silverseren^C 19:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) I was about to post a message here indicating that I informed the user, but ended up incorrectly reverting Theresa, who I thought had removed the thread by accident. My mistake. Anyway, I informed the user. Looks like I only beat Camel by a minute though, though my note was somewhat more neutral. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like SandyGeorgia did the right thing. This is not a big issue, I'm happy to help Camelbinky rewrite the article if he so wishes. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I did in fact copy-paste from the sources, as my intention was to make sure I got the information correct. My intention was to put things in my own words and I guess I did not as much as I thought I did. I apologize and would like the ability to fix the article instead of it being blanked by the template, a template to which I was never notified about. And I am now afraid of how many other articles I have written that now do not exist and may be deleted because I was not notified now that someone who has shown a problem with me has taken it upon themselves to "watch" me. Someone who prior to this has never shown an interest in the corner of Wikipedia to which I edit (and among the many DYK's I received and the fact that I post my new articles at appropriate wikiproject pages and on my own user page it is not like I create/rewrite articles under the radar). My main concern is wiki-stalking and someone thinking that I need to be "watched" and will attempt to blank out anything I do due to a grudge. I greatly apologize for my sloppy editing on this article. I have received GA's and praises on several articles and am looked to for help on sourcing and researching from the rest of the NYCD wikiproject that I co-founded, so I think I should have been given a heads up by Sandy and given an attempt to fix the article. I appreciate and accept Theresa's help.Camelbinky (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you be worried that people are watching your contributions? That smacks of paranoia. Just don't copy and paste other people's work and you'll be fine. While you're here, how about apologising to Sandy? Parrot of Doom 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy templated his work for possible deletion and failed to tell him. I think that is why he is so upset. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can fix the article! It will not be deleted don't worry. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at footnote number 9 matching against page 3 of this source and would strongly suggest this user familiarize themself with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. In fact it is a big deal. If this sort of thing happens in a high school or college classroom in the US, a student will receive a failing grade. We shouldn't be seeing substandard work such as this on the main page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was by not a big deal was not that it isn't important - it is, but that it is very easy to fix. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect one will find this problem with a great many of this users contributions. Just a hunch.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

All the articles I have created or have been the author of more than about 80% of the content are listed on my user page. Feel free to look at each one and tell me what problems they have and I will fix them. That is if I stay around because that lack of AGF right there is why I want to quit right now. Over 3 years and I have never been accused of plagarism and now all of a sudden this starts. Wow, dont mess with certain editors or they go after you.Camelbinky (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Officer, how dare you not assume good faith that I was stealing this candy bar! Sure, the other candy bar in my pocket was stolen, but you are entirely out of line to assume I might have stolen this second one!" "Over 3 years and I have never been accused of theft and now all of a sudden, now that I've been caught, people are assuming I did it before!" "Don't mess with certain editors, or they might see that you ... actually, no, I don't have a witty comparison for that one, that last sentence of yours was just plain bullshit. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't get all "woah is me" that's not helpful at all. Instead spend some time checking your own articles to make sure that they are spic and span. Then nobody will be able to accuse you of anything. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, an editor correctly identified a copyright issue, and took appropriate action. She should have notified you, but the fact that she didn't rather suggests she's not trying to use it as a stick to beat you with. Now, because of your ANI complaint, others are looking at your contributions, with a certain WP:PLAXICO effect. Set your house in order, and take it on the chin when your errors are exposed. We all make mistakes; it's never pleasant when we realise it, but denial doesn't help anyone. Rd232 ^talk 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec, Camelbinky, (or "woah", as applied to horses - TK please note); you asked this board to sort out something between you and SandyGeorgia because she templated an article you wrote and, subsequently, you were found to have plagarised the content... I haven't seen much of an indication of you acknowledging SG was correct in this matter, much less apologising. If people are not extending AGF when they should, it isn't as if it is a one way street. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• And now Hamilton Hill, Schenectady, New York has been slapped with a template. I'm kind of annoyed at that one, since I helped you with it. :/ Silverseren^C 19:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  The article is blatantly plagiarized, and we need time to figure out if any of it is original. Some of them are directly copied from their sources: "The largest decrease was by seniors at 42.2%" directly from here; some of them are closely paraphrased: "The residents of that neighborhood objected to a Black church" and "But some residents in the tony Stockade neighborhood objected to the thought of a black church". --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, there seems to be an important misunderstanding here. It is never acceptable to copy&paste and then reword, regardless of how extensive the rewording. A passage created in this way will always be a copyvio. If the rewording is extensive enough, it might be hard to prove that its a copyvio, but according to the rules, it's still a copyvio. The only acceptable method of writing is to put the content in your own words. That can be very difficult when you're working from a single source; it's much easier when you are integrating information from multiple sources. Looie496 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

General comment about plagiarism: I agree that copy/pasting is not a good idea, but when writing a sentence dealing with specifics, especially measurements, there are only so many ways to write "The U.S. government owns a 4 sq mile stretch of land leased from John Doe" or whatever the case may be. Plagiarism is a heavy charge, and if we are supposed to AGF on WP, I think we should look more for a pattern of behavior or "chunks" of article larger than one sentence before implying someone is plagiarizing. The Eskimo (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF has some caveats when it comes to copyright/plagiarism: see WP:AGFC. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

block policy is needed for any plagiarism

First of all, the correct spelling is "plagiarism" not "plagarism" as shown at the top of the section. Second, I am a former teacher and condemn all plagiarism. At school, any plagiarism resulted in a "F". Third, anyone who commits plagiarism should be immediately blocked. When they understand the problem, promise not to do so in the future, and promise to clean up the mess, they should be unblocked. We should not let editors keep on plagiarizing (even they only plagiarize occasionally). After they are unblocked, they should fix all plagiarized material that they did. Upon fixing it, we should then thank them and encourage them to continue to be good. Fiona United (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so. However, it would have been exceedingly wise for Sandy to make the notifications. The idea of this is not to play gotcha, it is to see that any unsuitable content is repaired. As far as I can see, the bast way of doing that would be to notify the editor who placed the content there, calling on her to make appropriate modifications if necessary. Placing a tag accomplishes little until someone acts on it, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, blanking the text and placing the tag accomplishes the most important step-- it gets the copyvio off of Wiki, regardless of whether the editor fixes it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good proposal, but it wouldn't be wikipedia anymore without that plagiarism. And think of the "wiki cup."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking is not fun and games but plagiarism is serious. It pains me to say that Mariah Carey, an article I made an edit, may have done so..see Wikipedia...Despite the fact that Carey is often credited with co-writing her material, she has also been accused of plagiarism on several occasions. Many of these cases were eventually settled out of court.[189][190][191] Also, I am not saying that Sandy is good or bad, just a comment on how we should treat plagiarism on Wikipedia. Fiona United (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree a block is in order at this stage. BUT:

• Recommend passing this off to someone over at WP:CCI to check a few of CB's prior articles for similar problems
• And stern words to CB so he understands the serious problem in doing this

But it appears the work was done in a good faith with an attempt to not copyvio the sources; so as long as the problem is understood then nothing more seems warranted. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and a few words to appropriate parties that a tag by itself accomplishes nothing might well be in order. All in the name of building an encyclopedia, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, at the very least a talk page note is definitely useful (indeed, possibly even better as it is then available to all editors) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a school project; we don't fail people for content problems.

Plagarism isn't even a problem per se - but it is when it's not citing sources properly or a copyright violation. Those are problems, for us and for those who originally produced the material. For those reasons, information needs to be properly rewritten / paraphrased, or quoted and cited properly as to source.

We do not have a zero-tolerance policy because everyone makes some mistake with this eventually, and we're not an academic environment where failing people for something is appropriate. Yes, we take copyright violation and related problems seriously. Moonriddengirl is very focused on this problem as are many others, and most admins including myself take it very seriously. We will and repeatedly have blocked people who did copyright violations and are either unrepentant or uncooperative about fixing it.

Reform is preferred. Blocking to prevent further harm to the Encyclopedia or to others' intellectual property is a fallback in cases that justify it. It's not zero tolerance now and probably shouldn't be. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagarism isn't even a problem per se - but it is when it's not citing sources properly or a copyright violation; I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say, but plagiarism is a problem, and the most important step in rectifying it is blanking the text and placing the tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly informative to get the civility police's pov on plagiarism, which appears to be basically it doesn't matter, because we're focused on eliminating naughty words. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What we have to remember is that we are very different indeed from a school paper. In a school paper, the teacher or professor wants to see original thought. On Wikipedia, we avoid that and hew close to the sources. And, through inexperience or carelessness, people hew a little too close. It's a mistake, but hardly unforgivable. Not an honor code violation or whatever it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as honor code, all editor should be forced to sign a statement, one part should include not plagiarizing. Fiona United (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't work wouldn't be any way practical. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. If you aren't sure, you can plagiarize in the sandbox. Wikipedia is referred to by millions of people worldwide, more than a small city newspaper website. If Wikipedia is amateurish, we look like fools. If you can't edit without stealing prose, then you should not edit until you learn how. Wikipedia is not a school paper; Wikipedia is more important than a school paper. School papers are read only by the teacher. Wikipedia is read by millions. This is not to say that people should be blocked left and right but if you plagiarize, you must fix your mistake and temporarily stop adding to Wikipedia or you should be blocked. Blocking is not punishment but an attempt to uphold Wikipedia's reputation. Fiona United (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think WP:COPYVIO has this covered. If after warnings an account keeps violating copyright then they will be blocked. But if this is as complex as Sandy says the issue is probably very complicated--Cailil ^talk 22:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no excuse to dismiss Plagiarism on AGF grounds under any stretch of the imagination. That said, that does not mean "come down like a ton of bricks" every time it is discovered as there are different situations (i.e. telling a newcomer kindly and politely that we do not allow material that is copypasted from a source that is uncited is obviously preferred over bringing said user to ANI or blocking, especially on a 1st-time occurrence). Also, avoiding plagiarism is not something one learns to avoid not when they enter college, but far before that (for me, middle school, I don't know about others, though). –MuZemike 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of yall just don't get it. The cutty-pasty epidemic is a big problem, spawned in part by other ailments like the "wiki cup" and "dyk" and other bauble collecting exercises that favor measurable "deliverables" ("i created x articles" "I got y DYKs" etc...) over creating coherent articles that are accurate surveys of a relevant topic. A lot of these articles are wrong, wrong in emphasis, wrong in basic facts, and most importantly wrong because there is no true distallation of the consensus view of the topic from the best sources. Why? Because the cutty-pasties don't really understand what they're writing about (how could they? In general, they haven't sat down and read it all before starting. They're just Magpies; a bottle cap here, a shiny piece of plastice there, ctrl v and I'm done). And this entirely leaves aside the fact that cutting and pasting is often from very old PD sources that are no longer accurate (particularly in science-related articles, but not exclusively). The culture of tolerance for this stuff, and the false sense of accomplishment given to poor article writers with DYK baubles, leads to an ever expanding miasma of innacurate articles, beyond the scope of the small handful of engaged editors to fix, if they were to try. Sometimes, more is less.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I support a fairly hard line on plagiarism, but I don't support the "immediate block" suggestion. Anyone who has worked in this area knows that many people think things that aren't so:

• It's OK if you change the words a little (no, it's not)
• It's OK if the source is PD (no, it's not)
• It's OK as long as you use quotes (no, you need a ref)

We need to educate people, but an immediate block isn't the right first step. Better to point out pages such as Close paraphrasing and offer to help.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

" It's OK if the source is PD (no, it's not)" Clarification of this please? If it is PD is it not possible to change it or use it for commercial purposes without attribution? Isn't this the primary difference between PD and CC-by-A? Is CC0 therefore even more flexible than PD? Lambanog (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer with some hesitance, as I sense I am among experts, and while I think I know what I'm doing, there's a lot to know. My points is: if material is under copyright, and it gets copied or closely paraphrased in WP, then we have violated the rights of the copyright holder. If we do the same with PD material, there are no rights of a copyright holder violated, but we have violated our own internal rules, which require attribution when it isn't our own words. Just as a student writing a paper would be guilty of plagiarism if they copied PD material without proper attribution. They didn't violate copyright, but they are still guilty of plagiarism.--SPhilbrickT 15:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• (@ Bali, ec) BINGO-- I didn't have to type all I typed below, you said it better, but you added it while I was typing. Add to that, however, that DYK doesn't have as part of their mission to screen for reliability of sources, so the articles aren't necessarily even meeting WP:V. Better scrutiny at RFA might help solve some of what is feeding this; it is most dismaying to see RFAs passing on editors who don't have the slightest clue on Wiki policies, but are getting through by touting their DYKs or GOCE involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Catching up

Sorry, I've been out all day, but there's too much wrong above for me to summarize quickly, so I'll put a placeholder here and begin to work on my response. Maybe if others stay out of my subhead until I'm done, I won't get 85,000 edit conflicts ... may take me a while to finish typing, because there is a much bigger problem than one editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting at the top here:

• Camelbinky said: "This is a user who has had many problems with me and has bothered me lately over minor things ... " I don't think two notifications asking you to WP:AGF constitutes "many problems"; as much as you may like to think so, this whole issue isn't at all about you, and in fact, you are only a minor player in a much bigger problem on Wiki. I see references to me not notifying you (above); because of another copyvio experience (detailed below), I didn't even read that template (the folks who work at Copyvio might consider ways to reduce it-- TLDR) after I placed it. Had I read the template, however, it's unlikely that I would have wanted to be the one to notify you, considering your AGF issues, and I also don't consider it a problem of notifying you, rather DYK, so I have now done that. And in terms of common sense, since it was on the mainpage, I would have assumed you were watching the article anyway. Now I know to notify; I apologize to Camelbinky for not reading and not notifying.

• Camelbinky said: "...  to blank out a page that is on the main page of Wikipedia looks bad". In fact, quite the opposite-- to run plagiarism on the main page is what "makes Wiki look bad" (and worse-- jeopardizes everything the Project is based on), and it is every editor's responsibility, when finding plagiarism, to blank the content. Again, see the story of another copyvio I dealt with (below).

• I see a reference above to Camelbinky being offended because I put the article up for deletion; when I saw that comment, I said "huh"? That template suffers from TLDR, and I now see the "deletion after a week" blurb at the bottom. Because of my experience on another article, I did not know that it was current practice to delete copyvio articles after a week.

• Next, this is not a Camelbinky problem, and I think calls above for blocking-- in fact, undue focus on Camelbinky-- are misplaced here. Many editors here don't know or understand close paraphrasing and plagiarism (I certainly didn't when I was new here), and I think we should AGF until given a reason not to. What we do need to do is get at the source of the problem that is feeding this. My attention was first drawn to the problems with Copyvio from the issue below.

• There has been a very longstanding copyvio tag at Jockstrap (which is why I didn't know current policy was to delete copyvio articles after a week-- that one was there forever). I came across it as part of the issue of understanding LLC books: see the explanation here of why we MUST blank content on copyvios. LLC Books simply removed the Copyvio tag from that article, and printed the book anyway !!!! This got me more interested in copyvios. Along with that, I recently became more active at RFA and have been very dismayed to discover what is going on at DYK. Next.

• The problem is not Camelbinky or any other editor who doesn't have a firm grasp on plagiarism or close paraphrsing-- since I've been looking into it, the issue is rampant, systemic at DYK, and furthered by the "reward culture" at RFA and places like WIKICUP. Since I've been following RFA, I've seen multiple inexperienced editors (and even experienced ones) launching their RFAs based on their "writing ability" as demonstrated by their number of DYKs. Every DYK I've checked at RFA turns out to not only be plagiarized, but also based on sources that don't even meet reliability! There's a problem at DYK, but it's not their problem-- it's that they are being overwhelmed because of the "reward culture" by editors who maybe shouldn't be trying to write articles anyway, so they copy-paste or too closely paraphrase. More scrutiny is needed at DYK, but more importantly, more scrutiny on DYKs and other "prizes" throughout the Wiki and at RFA is needed. In one recent instance I found at RFA, we ran a DYK that was not only plagiarized, but it was based on a commercial travel site that doesn't meet any measure of reliability. The "reward culture" is jeopardizing the project's goals, and it's not fair to aim a very big issue at one editor only. It is rampant.

It is not my intent to "bash" DYK, but they need help over there, or alternately, we need to shut down the "reward culture" that is feeding so many ill-prepared articles to them. In the meantime, I've added the DYK bot to my userpage so I can routinely check the latest DYKs for plagiarism; perhaps others will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done :) I see while I was typing, several other editors said same above (about the reward culture and AGFing on plagiarism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I do want to point out that the template does say "it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing" (emphasis added). Once an article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, it is listed by the tagger or by bot at the WP:CP board. When copying is foundational and extensive and no rewrite is proposed, that's often what happens. If copyright can be excised and leave a usable article, we sometimes do that instead (especially now that rev deletion makes retaining attribution easier). And there are contributors who rewrite these articles in the temporary space supplied so that we can replace them. It is a good idea to advise the contributors when blanking the articles for several reasons. First, it may help them address the problem, either by correcting the existing article or by helping them learn to avoid it in the future. Moroever, it provides a record of the problem. While I agree with User:Georgewilliamherbert above that our first effort is and always should be reform, we do block repeat offenders to protect the project (and our reusers) from legal jeopardy. That said, I've seen a good many contributors who have had problems with our copyright policy and plagiarism guideline who, once instructed how to handle sources differently, have gone on to be highly productive.

Sometimes people overlook the notification requirement, particularly when they are unfamiliar with the template. At WP:CP, we often relist articles in such situations and provide the notification ourselves. The most important thing is to get the article out of publication during the clean-up/verification process.

Copying, unfortunately, is rampant on Wikipedia. We have dozens of open investigations at WP:CCI, and I would presume that between WP:SCV and WP:CP we deal with dozens of individual articles every day. Who knows how many get past us? :/

In response to comments above, plagiarism is blockable, but so far as I know blocks for plagiarism as compared to blocks for copyright are extremely rare. Since before I arrived, WP:CP has included the text, "Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing." (This in the section "Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright".) There've been several cases at ANI that have resulted in bans, but, as with copyright problems, these always seem to begin with good faith efforts to advise the contributor of community practices.

At this point, it seems like there is some further review of User:Camelbinky's articles ongoing, and that seems like a good idea since from his talk page it looks as though several other problematic articles have been detected. Our goal here should be to identify problems, get them cleaned up and make sure that Camelbinky is aware of how to move forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is just a thought and might be an instruction creepy suggestion, but could we code the WP:DYK page like we have WP:SPI coded - so that you have to open a draft from the 'project' page and when you do you get a big pink/orange "how to box" above your editing window. I know it's not a real sollution but if people are doing this relatively innocently it might help?--Cailil ^talk 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How about waiting for input from regular DYK reviewers before trying to change an area you're not heavily involved in? StrPby (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd do away with DYK by fiat if I could. But in my experience (admitedly small sample -- about 20 articles) most of what passes through that system is godawful. Why would one expect they're a hive of appreciation of (and ideas for fixing) the problem?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Then it's a damn good thing you can't. No one's asking you to like what we do. StrPby (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah. You're one of the culprits. A question then: Why do you so often review and promote articles that are plagiarized and innacurate? Maybe an explanation of this problem will help all of us figure out a time-effective way to fix it.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
          • So suddenly I'm a "culprit"? I'd suggest you select your choice of words a bit more accurately. When I review at DYK I do check for close paraphrasing and copyright violations. See User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 27#Copyvio second opinion for an example. StrPby (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't ask if i like what you do. You asked if I like what we do, the we in question being the DYK people. DYK routinely promotes plagiarized and innacurate articles. As a general phenomenon, do you have opinions on why this happens and how to fix it? I'm listening, probably a few other people watching this page are too.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said at WT:DYK, I think a good place to start would be to require more than one reviewer approving each nominated hook before it gets passed to appear on the Main Page. More eyes = better, whilst not making any big drastic change yet. StrPby (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One anonymous person of no proven ability or expertise gets to decide, and with no reputation risk for getting it wrong? Wow. It's worse than even I would have suspected. Two immediate reforms spring to mind. Minimum of three reviewers. And (this is important) some kind of meta-data that includes that they were the reviewers connected to the hook (perhaps on the talk page, "reviewers x, y, and z approved this.")Bali ultimate (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So we all agree that 1) the article that this got started over was plagiarism; 2) plagiarism is bad; 3) award-collecting behavior contributes to the problem. Is there any need to continue this TL;DR discussion on ANI? No one's getting blocked and ANI is not the place to propose large-scale project changes. Nothing productive is going to come out of arguing here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing productive comes of discussion anywhere here on wikipedia; DYK will continue to trundle on until it becomes obvious even to the most deaf and blind of fools that it has a serious problem, maybe not even then. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from casting aspersions on all of us DYK regulars; whatever you think of some people, it's a rather blatant personal attack to call us culprits for our participation in the process. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Culprit is just a way of drawing attention to your collective responsibility. I'm trying to draw attention to the general lack of competence among the DYK regulars, as demonstrated by the frequent promotions of articles that plagiarized, innacurate, poorly sourced, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK is the end point of some of the problems, not the cause of them

While everyone else has been being constructive, I have written some TL;DR material myself, so I thought I'd just post it since now I'm not sure what else to do with it. Sorry if I repeat something already covered.

(1) In my rather short experience, I have now several times seen editors using "but I have X DYKs, so I must be a good editor!" here at AN/I and elsewhere. I have challenged this and then been told by (a very small minority of) other editors involved in DYK, that DYK success is indeed an indication that an article has had a thorough inspection by multiple reviewers. (I paraphrase, but you get the idea.) This is wrong and this idea contributes to the problems with the perception of DYK.

(2) It's wrong because (as others have hinted already), (a) the DYK reviewing process only requires a minimum of one reviewer, (b) the DYK reviewing process only requires the reviewer to check the article citation and source supporting the hook fact, not the others, (c) when I've questioned the quality or sourcing density or appropriateness of a DYK hook or article, I've at least twice been told (paraphrased very closely) "hey this is DYK, not GA", (d) there is not really any provision or willingness for any other than a relatively narrow set of criteria to be used to say "no" to a DYK - I have also been told "if that is an issue then you should AfD it".

(3) Going back to point (1), I don't currently read RFA (or even know if I have the right acronym there) but if DYK-numbers are being used extensively there as well, as others have suggested, then this is pretty sad and indeed indicates a problem at RFA.

(4) "The people at DYK" have not encouraged the Wikicup-DYK relationship as a bauble-multiplying process, at least in the several months I've been involved. The most recent discussions over this began with concerns that the (unintended) effect of Wikicup was recently to flood DYK with "cookie-cutter" articles of dubious value and dubious appropriateness for DYK, and ended with an agreement by those running Wikicup to significantly reduce the prominence of DYK in Wikicup to try to prevent this.

(5) Along the way, we had claims that "DYK would die without Wikicup" - a claim completely rejected by almost everyone involved with DYK - and the assertion that the problem is at DYK's end, not caused by Wikicup. This latter assertion is misunderstanding the issue. The baubles thing hits DYK hardest because it is the easiest way for something to end up on the main page, and that is an issue. DYK participants and organisers seem to have been pretty clear that they do not want the Wikicup promotion of DYK, or at least not at the level it occurred over the last few months. So, although I agree with some of the concerns about bauble-collecting, I think it's unfair to portray any of those involved as some sort of witless bauble-cabal all feeding off each others' dimwit enthusiasm.

(6) Going back to the issue of what standards are expected of a DYK, given that it hits the main page. Yes I think it is reasonable to remind all involved that something being on the main page is a big thing, and if it has plagiarism that is only caught later, or is chock full of grammar or spelling errors, or has some other problem, then that is worrying. There is sometimes an over-focus, within the DYK area, to constantly remind ourselves "the purpose of DYK is to showcase new content" (and therefore it doesn't have to be perfect) or "the purpose of DYK is to encourage editors to create new articles or expand existing stubs" (and therefore the quality of the material being provided to the front page is in some way secondary). There is some truth in these viewpoints, but if taken too far they are missing the point - especially since for some thousands of readers a DYK item might be the first Wikipedia article they ever look at, or even the only one.

(7) However, that caveat "from Wikipedia's newest articles" does sit above the DYK section on the front page every day. In addition, it is also partly what Wikipedia is about. DYK is not just about getting recognition of your article being on the front page, but also putting new articles in a place where new editors may want to pick them up and do something productive with them, maybe improve them significantly. Sometimes that might be because they're interested in the topic or the hook was catchy or even because they think there is a serious problem with the article itself. It's one way of turning readers into editors, and it works. I created my Wikipedia account (and have made hundreds of corrections to DYK candidates and also AfD'd a few) because I was wondering how on earth a POV-pushing series of nominations made it onto the main page. Was it especially damaging that they made it there? No. Was it beneficial to the encyclopedia that far more articles were significantly improved as a result? Yes.

(8) There is also the problem that reviewers at DYK can only do so much. When I review nominations (and the articles) I do so with my understanding at the time of the DYK rules and of Wikipedia's policies. Like other reviewers, I am also limited in the amount of time I can spend on it. If a new(ish) editor does not have great English skills but has produced a reasonable article, and a reviewer then spends some time fixing the spelling and grammar problems, but misses quite a few of them, and it ends up on the main page, is that a huge issue? Maybe, but it's not enough of an issue to say to the original editor "hey, not only is your English not great, but we basically don't have time to deal with it because it might make the main page look not perfect, so just never mind." Excepting some extreme cases, one productive editor is still far more valuable than even a few thousand passing readers feeling that Wikipedia has poor grammar. When it's plagiarism, yes it's more serious, but again it's both about changing the culture and having to spend more time reviewing problems.

In summary, yes there are problems with DYK, but they are not insuperable ones, and DYK serves an important role that seems sometimes to be misunderstood both by those regularly involved with it, and those who are not.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've struck the slight sarcasm at the start of what I just wrote because I feel it's uncalled for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I read it all :) The problem is that it's too easy for those seeking rewards to pop out plagiarized DYKs, and their next step is often RFA. I don't know what the solution is, but plagiarism on the main page is a problem that needs to be solved. I suspect the solution is to be found in better scrutiny at RFA, as that may put an end to the reward seeking (and some other problems as well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are DYKs really the problem?

Comment: this seems to have evolved into a bit of a witch hunt on DYKs. I personally do not participate in that area, but I would like to point out that in an encyclopedia open to anyone to edit, the fact that a significant amount of info being cut and past is not surprising, especially in light of our strict rules regarding all info be sourced. I wonder if perhaps the problem should be looked into from the back end. For instance, I often see (citation needed) tags in articles...perhaps a (cut & paste) tag would be useful. Editors who cut and paste info (within reason) could include this tag to alert other editors that the section needs attention, without losing the info, and it shows good faith on our part without shutting out editros who may not be "skillful" enough to "write in own words" information on the spot. Just a thought. The Eskimo (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)\

Sorry, but I don't see how this would work. This would presuppose that those users who are incapable of avoiding copy/paste writing have an awareness of the problem and know their writing needs to be improved. Well, they don't. Or if they do, it would be their own damned responsibility to fix it, and not leave the work to others. No, sorry, if somebody isn't "skillful" enough to write something in their own words, then the only solution is they shouldn't be editing here, or at least not trying to create substantial new content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is already a {{copypaste}} tag - it gets it listed as a copyright problem, because that's what they generally are. As Fut.Perf. says, if an editor can't write something in their own words then they shouldn't be writing here, at the very least not without close supervision from someone who's willing and able to check and fix all of their work. Again, assuming good faith does not mean we just assume that editors aren't creating copyright violations, it means we assume they're not creating them intentionally. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think they are. Things like DYK, wikipcup, etc. which reward users with badges, points, or other things are opening themselves up to abuse. It's an unfortunate fact of life that people will cheat. Any large system inevitable gets people trying to game it, or outright break it to come out on top, prove a point, or with some other motivation. It's why we have policies against that kind of thing here. As the DYK is set up, as with the wikicup we're actually creating an environment that fuels that kind of behaviour. As such I think they should both be shut down. If anyone would actually stop doing the work they're doing because they're no longer getting virtual points for it, I'd say we probably don't need their contribs in the first place. DYK could exist, but I think under a different format.--Crossmr (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On that logic we would ban barnstars as well, since your definition of "things which reward users with badges" would include pretty much the whole of Wikipedia as one of those "things". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(Note: that was a slightly careless edit on my part - Errant's following comment is a reply to Crossmr not to me) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, because barnstars are given randomly by other users generally. The Wikicup and DYK has very specific rewards for very specific tasks. Two totally different environments.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They are part of the "problem" anyway. The wider problem, of course, is that writing a DYK article and other peacocking is vastly more rewarding than the grunt work of copyediting, cleanup, copyvio checking, fact checking etc. Which is fine, that is just how the world works. But there is definitely mileage in, I think, talking about ways to improve the ability of DYK (et al) checks to catch these problems. Plagarism articles are definitely common at DYK, so that is a specific we can look to address (not here of course) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cough

This is the Noticeboard for Incidents. This thread has evolved long past discussion of a specific incident, which seems more or less resolved. Later contributions in the thread are valuable in illuminating broader issues, which seem to be primarily

1. DYK scrutiny (in terms of copyvio checking and info verification)
2. perhaps wider than expected prevalence of copy-pasting, possibly with close paraphrasing, among experienced contributors

These are obviously issues worth discussing, but not here. Rather than chop off this discussion at the knees and risk it dying, let's focus quickly on how else to take this forward; a couple of WP:RFCs I would think. Perhaps someone could volunteer to take one or both of these issues forward for discussion elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 10:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is over. Dude made a mistake, fessed up to it, got a slap on the wrist, willing to do it right, newbie 'professor' says "IMA GUNNA GET MAH PITCHFORK AND BUTANE", vets say 'lol shut up noob', now it's pretty much become redundant. No block necessary, just help him fix it and move on. Vodello (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, close it ... doesn't look like I should hold my breath for an apology ... I might die first :) Working on a Signpost publication about these issues, which are extensive-- what is plagiarism vs. copyvio, how to detect them, how to deal with them when we find them, etc. ... stay tuned! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is no longer an incident. I disagree that DYK deserves scrutiny. DYK should be scrutinized the same as any article, not more. I pre-emptively apologize to Camelbinky if this is seen as an attack, it's not. Camelbinky shouldn't be blocked because the problem is identified. What is unresolved is what to do with plagiarism. I think that anyone that plagiarizes should be immediately blocked until they understand the issue and agree to fix their mess. After unblock, we should say "no hard feelings, just help us keep Wikipedia plagiarism free". Again, I agree that this is no longer an incident but a systems problem. Fiona United (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking is never punitive. It is to prevent a further problem; so if Camelbinky understands what went wrong and takes steps to make sure it does not happen again then that is the right outcome. We always try to assume good faith; in that an attempt was made to stick to the policy, even if that attempt went wrong. Of course, if xhe does not stop this sort of activity, then a block becomes a possibility. This is a well established process. (on the DYK issue, I think the argument is that DYK gives less scrutiny than normal article scrutiny, which is where part of the problem may lie in not catching these issues) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(I think that's a red herring argument - there is no "normal article scrutiny" for a randomly created 1500 character article that somehow gives more scrutiny than if the same randomly created 1500 character article happens to get submitted to DYK. DYK only adds scrutiny, not removes it - but the issue for some people is that it also places articles on the front page and rewards article creation.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to other article reviews; such as those prompted by copyedit/sourcing tags. DYK articles are checked, but given the risk associated with their creation, sometimes not tightly enough. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Having spent a good portion of the last 24 hours on this issue, learning more about plagiarism and copyvio (and the differences), seeing the amount of feedback on my talk page, and learning how really labor intensive it is to clean up after copyvios and plagiarism, I do have something to add that is hopefully relevant to ANI. I don't think many people do this intentionally, and support WP:AGFC. But the amount of editor time that goes in to DYK reviews and cleaning up after plagiarism and copyvios indicates to me that, when we know an editor plagiarizes, we should keep them on a very short block leash if they also disrupt in other ways, including "minor" offenses like AGF that wouldn't normally result in a block. Mature editors will recognize their mistakes, clean up after themselves, and not become a drain on other productive editors: if a plagiarizing editor doesn't toe the line on other behavioral guidelines very closely, that is probably an indication of immaturity and a general lack of compatibility with Wikipedia editing, and I suggest we should apply strict blocks to those editors in the event of any other disruptive behaviors-- the timesink in cleaning these things up, and reviewing DYKs, is enormous, and those editors may need to be shown the door more quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you say the same if the editor was writing featured articles? Do you think WP:FAC is perfect at finding passages that have been "lifted" from U.S. government publications? Of course it's not, nor is it a big deal compared with the many other problems of Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In a word: [191] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio and close paraphrase

As I understand it, you can't copy and paste into an article with the intention of then rewording it. It's also a bad idea as you may end up with a close paraphrase, which we treat as copyvio. The essay at WP:Close paraphrase should be used as guidance (and should probably be a guideline). Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

New DYK/BLP issue

And now we've got a BLP DYK on the main page, largely sourced to "Guampedia": José Sisto. Need to get through that soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, BLP issues for someone who was a political leader in 1899? Do you actually read these articles before you post here, or do you go all guns a blazing for whatever is this week's pet cause, regardless of whether it's appropriate or not? Why should anyone bother to listen to you, if the latter is the case? Physchim62 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pysc, I know you're still terribly upset that one wayward "s" that no one but you saw in a FAC eons ago, but do try to put that enormous tragedy behind you! OK, my mistake-- it's not a BLP, but we don't cite articles to "guampedia", and if it were a BLP, I doubt that would have been caught at DYK anyway. Point less serious, although less urgent, but same. WP:V is as important as BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering they claim to be peer-reviewed, why aren't they a RS? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussing at Talk:José Sisto (the original citation I clicked was one of those crappy webcitation archives, that didn't take me to the original source, and I thought I was at archive.org). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And now we have an incident: my good faith edits to remove a non-RS labeled as "vandalism" by an editor who has expressed outrage many times at FAC (over a wayward "s"), and recently told me to STFU. I let the "STFU" slide-- now I'm less inclined to let this continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, yes, major slap on the wrist to Physch for that --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree STFU is more mild than "idiotic" or "sycophantic". Carry on, business as usual! But perhaps someone can get Physchim to clean up his edit summaries and section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading the discussion at Talk:José Sisto makes it pretty clear that Guampedia qualifies as WP:RS; plus the article was obviously not a BLP, being about an individual who served as the Commissioner of Guam in 1898. So what's the deal with torches and pitchforks here? Nsk92 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Scanning the DYK and related talk pages, I believe both the original copyvio issue and the (non-)BLP issue with Sisto have been resolved and this thread can be closed, unless Sandy, Physchim or someone else disagrees. 28bytes (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

yea, that one was a miss and a mistake by moi (nowhere in the article did it say the man was dead, and I clicked on one of those damn webcitation links and thought I was at archive.org). Still very big problems at DYK, but they did pull a very bad BLP from the mainpage when I pointed it out, and I haven't found any new plagiarism or copyvios all day, so things are looking better. It was kind of Camelbinky to call these problems to everyone's attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

4chan/other forum-based attack?

• The Best of Bond...James Bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Surfin' Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Songbird (Kenny G composition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Baha Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Who Let the Dogs Out? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There may be other articles, but these are the ones I've seen hit so far. Various IPs, mostly 111.etc, have been hitting these articles, adding that the listed songs above(of course not including groups who made them) are 'a favorite of James Bond in Goldeneye', or that they were used in Dr. No, etc. Others have reverted this as it has became apparent it is vandalism, but can't something more be done? A range block? Semi protection?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think semi-protection would be easier (prevent all the IPs), but don't the 4chan threads die off rather quick? WP:RBI might be the simplest solution. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not enough activity to merit protection, but I'll keep an eye on them. Let me know if any more crop up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's started again. I've pinged you as requested on your talk page. A range block may be the only possibility here, as the article range is expanding.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question on Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – My bad, misread the situation. Sorry Sven Manguard _Talk 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What should I do if I find an account with highly suspicious behavior, (in this case, an SPA trying to delete a page.) It screams sockpuppet, but I have no idea as to who. As far as I am aware of, I can't file a sock request if I only have on user (per they don't do digging.) The user in question is User:Poetry Truth Justice. Now I know that by posting here, the probability that this will spiral out of control is high, so please, just answer the question so I know what to do in the future and don't have to take these things here. As for admin action, I really don't care if you do it here or have me file this somewhere else, so long as I have an answer. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 01:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What should you do in the future? I suggest you assume that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia until you have actual evidence to the contrary, stop calling them an SPA, and (if interested) discuss the benefits/costs of deleting the article on its merits. It is not, by itself, "suspicious behavior" to create an account in order to nominate an article for deletion; it's more or less required, since IP editors can't create the AFD page themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sven, I see no problem with the deletion nomination. I have no opinion or comment on whether or not it should be deleted, but the nomination does not appear to be sock related or in any other way bad faith. In future instances, I would recommend searching the MO of the editor in question and seeing what other editors it is significantly like. For example, if User:A nominates Article X for deletion with a snarky manner on the basis that the article is bias and fights back furiously when editors oppose the deletion, and three other editors have done the same thing with regards to Article X, then you might have reason to suspect those four accounts are related. Is something similar the case here? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked it over again, and I now realize it probably wasn't as bad as I thought it was. I thought that he nominated the article both times, which would have been a different case entirely. Let's resolve the case and move on. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Juve10

Should i request a check for socket puppet with ip check for the user and block from to create new account? The user problem is simple. His article is far below basic standard: full of wrong information. May be my English is suck made him stopped using the current account, but i just request him to cleanup his old suck (instead of stub) before to create new mess.

He wrote every Juventus and Catania with peacock words: "impressive" "good performance".

And once created fake stats for the player. That player in the real world failed to play regularly with one 1 game, he wrote he is impressive with 20+ game, and not a single case.

Lack of inline citation for transfer fee he claimed, sometimes an inappropriate external link. He provided http://www.juventus.com as reference, O which page?

He claimed these is not serious mistake, and told me used a wrong source (but he never provided inside the article) or even had a good external link http://www.tuttocalciatori.net, he still "create" some fake stats, which the external link provided self-conflicted with his content.

Assume good faith, assuming he IS NOT intent to promote his players, i just request him to improve his article but no reply. But seems he had a new account and look like editing Alessandria/created article for some alessandria footballer. But should i open an request or any other way to solve? Matthew_hk tc 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into this in a moment, but as a small note, the term is sock puppet. As in the puppets made out of socks you put on your hands.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please link to the article in question?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not civil to call his work suck. It may be a competence issue, but there is no need to make fun of it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Some other i had i find. The most recent creation is in June 2010 and i asked him to cleanup his old article

• Mirco Antenucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Raffaele Imparato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marco Costantino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Deleted
• Andrea Caroppo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Deleted
• Yobie Bassoule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matthew_hk tc 06:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just like this one, Dario Campagna, he never made a research and often wrote he likely to be loan out from Juventus but in fact he already left Juventus some time ago. Matthew_hk tc 07:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Stefano Di Cuonzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Matthew_hk tc 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew, why do you think Juve 10is a sock(et) puppet? Rather than just a writer of bad articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory

User Mathsci is refusing to discuss his reversions on Heim theory (see diff here) and is removing posts from his talk page when alerted on his behavior (see these diffs here, here, and here) . I think that third-party conflict resolution and perhaps some form of protection on this article would be helpful so that the edit warring will cease...-Novus Orator 06:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've stopped editing this article until further notice because of a personal strong history of contentious editing (with ANI alerts) and the need for an investigation to be completely non-biased. I would appreciate if a neutral third party that does not include the editors (or admins) involved with this article's history look into it...--Novus Orator 06:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [signature "Novus Orator"]
• Gniniv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (former account)

The editing by these accounts has been discussed on multiple occasions here on WP:ANI by multiple editors. Terra Novus has been warned about his editing patterns in physics articles by multiple editors, including editors involved in WikiProject Physics. The main problem over multiple articles and wikilinks is edits made to suggest UNDULY that Heim theory is now considered to be part of mainstream physics. Each time that it is explained to TN that that is not the case, TN makes an apology with a promise to reform, briefly desists, but then reappears a few days later with identical edits, demanding that previous discussions be repeated. That is simply disruption. For a week now there has been a thread at WP:FTN on Heim theory, started by Cardamon (talk · contribs). There Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) suggested that the editing of Terra Novus should come under discussion once more here. Since TN appeared to be on a break from editing, we let that drop. But then he resumed the same type of editing today. He made two reverts on Heim theory, reversed by Xxanthippe (talk · contribs) and then by me, and then a revert on one of the main physics templates Template:Beyond the Standard Model, reversed by me. He now describes that as an "edit war" and demands page protection. The correct place for either of those requests would have been at one or both of the noticeboards WP:3RR or WP:RPP.

At this stage, after gathering links to previous discussions (including the lengthy pararaphs of advice that Ohiostandard (talk · contribs) left on his user talk page), the discussion of an indefinite topic ban on physics articles, templates and their talk pages, broadly construed, seems unfortunately to be the only next step forward. Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Normal content dispute should be addressed thhrough a normal process progression. No sign of anything here which would not be better addressed by other noticeboards, to be sure. For example, one of the bones of contention was whether Google Scholar shows any hits on the theory - indeed the article used to assert "not covered in Google Scholar". That assertion was then used to justify further setting the topic as exceedingly fringe. Alas, that claim was wrong, and so I suggest that this entire desire to mark what is admittedly not the "mainstream" view as being totally off-the-wall is not justified on WP policy grounds (claims based on false claims in an article must be re-examined at the least). In short - asking for "topic bans" is a serious matter -- one which should not be discussed until after RFCs within the article talk page as a minimum, to get outside opinions on the content dispute. Collect (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, editors are allowed to remove notices from their user talk pages. The removal of material from one's own user talk page is not germane to any complaint. Collect (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

@Collect, true, but it usually isn't seen in good taste when a notice involves behavior by the user involved...--Novus Orator 08:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that the editors look into the history of the following accounts before they act so quickly...My starting complaint on these users still stands...--Novus Orator 08:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I think that (in this case) I am constructively editing. I do have a (rather long) history of struggling with editing certain areas of Wikipedia, but I think that I quick look at my history will reveal that I have abandoned editing large areas of Wikipedia (such as Creation-Evolution related articles) and have been willing to take Wikibreaks even when it wasn't totally clear whose fault a conflict was. Several of the other editors may not like my information, but I believe it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am frustrated that certain editors are complaining about contentious editing when they are unwilling to discuss the matter involved...--Novus Orator 08:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The right-hand column in this diff from a previous ANI should, imo, be read in its entirety by anyone who wants to understand what's going on here, and who is unfamiliar the user who brought this to ANI. It includes, in effect, the user's mission statement for editing Wikipedia, and a declaration that he can't both be true to that and continue to edit the encyclopedia. This was the reason he gave for his (three-day) "retirement", and it's followed by a very illuminating response by user Mann jess. The following is also from that diff, and was also written by Mann jess:

I would really love to see you contribute positively Gniniv. I really would... but after all I've tried, I see no way that's going to happen. Dozens of editors have worked with you for extended periods of time to help you adjust, and your behavior has only gotten worse. This new trend of opening mediation requests as soon as your edits get reverted is beyond disruptive.

There's no merit to the complaint made in this post by Gniniv/Terra Novus, none at all, and it should not have been brought here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that my past history has anything to do with the current issue. I think the real problem that this exposes was a past misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE on my part in the articles I struggled to contribute on. The community was not ready for me to add a alternative perspective, so I was asked to move on. I am not editing contentiously on this article (currently), and am trying to reach a consensus. Instead, all I get is a complaint that I am acting like I used to and no discussion. I have a right to bring this objection to an article.--Novus Orator 08:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There have already been discussions on the talk page of Heim theory about it being far from the mainstream: they do not have to be repeated. There consensus is that Heim theory has not been accepted within mainstream physics because, outside a group of two or three followers, some retired, there has been no reaction at all in the scientific literature or textbooks to this theory. On the other hand there have been a number of reports or comments on the problematic editing of Gniniv/Terra Novus on this noticeboard and elsewhere:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Heim_theory
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Edit_warring_on_Cryptozoology_articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#User:Gniniv_.2F_User:Terra_Novus_.2F_.22Novus_Orator.22
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Completely_undiscussed_controversial_climate_change_move_needs_reverting
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Alternative_proposal

Ohiostandard is far more familiar with this user than me. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that editors look at those links to see the issue of POV pushing I mentioned above. These editors seem to think that something is fringe despite refusing to offer proof of this claim (Especially in the Fringe theory noticeboard).--Novus Orator 09:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci is probably right that I'm more familiar with TN's editing than he is. Here's some documentation of the ongoing problem that Mathsci probably wasn't aware of:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Genesis_Creation_Narrative
• User_talk:Raeky/Archives/2010/July#.27Revenge.27_FPP_again
• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot
• Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot

The second and fourth links document a precipitous "rush to the boards" made in the first and the third, respectively, just as we have in this present thread, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Although he says he's dropped editing in "large areas of Wikipedia (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" he has in fact continued to edit in that specific area, eg Ken Ham, Out-of-place artifact , and it is my opinion that his edit at UDFy-38135539, reverted here [192] with the comment "(Reverted Terra Novus' Young Earth Creationism "neutrality" edit. Material was not in source.)" was an example of the sort of edit he would have been banned for earlier if he hadn't kept making promises to reform. His move of Climate change denial to Criticism of Climate Change led to discussion of his actions here which should be read to give more context to this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, those were slip-ups. I think that my earliest history (on Objections to Evolution for example) has been totally left behind. This is a working progress, I am going to make mistakes, but I think that I am getting less tendentious in my edits...--Novus Orator 09:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller is talking here about very recent edits on your second WP:CLEANSTART account which were clearly contentious. It's not a very good idea to misrepresent the edits of yourself or others in this thread. You made a frivolous ANI request by posting here. Just recently you made this posting [193], which you thought better of a bit later. Why did you accuse me of "the fallacy of scientific moralism" [your redlink] for suggesting that articles on wikipedia are written or their notability assessed using reliable secondary soures? Please calm down. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now thats something I agree with. I will be taking a wikibreak until further notice. Good day...--Novus Orator 09:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am another user who has reverted some of the "see also" links pointing to Heim theory. If User:Terra Novus is reinstating these after other editors revert them, it's a behavior problem (editing against consensus), not a content dispute, as the reversions were made after discussion among WikiProject Physics editors (most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Heim theory (again)). I brought this up with TN at User talk:Terra Novus#Links to Heim theory (diff), and from reports given above, other editors have also been trying to solve this via discussion.

Regarding Google hits for publications, this has already been discussed extensively at WT:PHYS, which may be useful for context. The thread is now archived, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2010#Scientific mainstream-In or Out?. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a link to that discussion. Terra Nova has explicitly stated above, "These editors seem to think that something is fringe despite refusing to offer proof of this claim (Especially in the Fringe theory noticeboard)." That shows a lack of understanding of wikipedia editing policies, in the light of the discussion you linked to and similar discussions on the article talk page. In addition this edit [194] does not inspire any confidence that his behaviour is likely to improve, even after his very recently announced wikibreak. Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He's made that announcement before. He takes a break, then comes back and sooner or later, usually sooner, we see nothing has changed. Perhaps we should set some conditions he has to follow when he returns. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's not really clear enough to me what the problems exactly are, such that possible solutions can be identified. I think an WP:RFC/U would be helpful at this point to clear that up. Rd232 ^talk 10:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason he should be allowed to return? I don't see him as a net-positive for the project, and we have no obligation to allow people to edit here who have shown themselves to be disruptive and unable to follow our policies. I'd be interested if someone would point out what contributions of his have improved the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say, "no". I'm really sorry to have to agree that TN is a net negative to the project. He's unfailingly civil in his interactions, and I get the impression that he's probably very good company in real life. But when policy violations are called to his attention he repeatedly says he understands, even agrees, promises to refrain, promises to avoid controversial articles, and then goes back to the same old behavior in a day or two.

I think Rd232 is right that it will probably require an RFC/U before this user can be banned, or perhaps even indef blocked. Given the tremendous amount of time so many people have had to put in already to address Gniniv/TN's editing, though, it hardly seems fair. I wish I had time to do it myself, actually, but I just don't. Knowing how very slow I am at anything remotely administrative, it would probably take me days. But an RFC/U would certainly be helpful at this point, if anyone is able to undertake the task. Since the behavior remains the same, and since multiple users in the ANI thread that prompted his "retirement" as Gniniv were calling for a ban, and because that "retirement" truncated the discussion, I think it would be appropriate to inform those users of any RFC/U that is initiated.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. You are probably the right person to start the RfC/U. Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd certify an RFC/U but, as I wrote just above, I can't spend the time to draft one right now even though I'd like to. All the necessary links are here for anyone who can find the time to proceed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(Apologies for the glitch or misclick that mangled my first attempt at responding). Short version: Endorse RFC/U, but suggest that, rather than banning, further WP:DR followed by (if necessary) a topic ban would be appropriate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Terra Novus for 1 week for disruptive editing. The job of admins is to assist editors in creating and maintaining articles. If we force them to jump through one hoop after another in order to get help, we are not doing our job. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Looie496 for your "cut the knot" approach. We can think about an RFC/U in a month or two if the problematic behavior resumes (as it has in the past). Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Aradic-es

IP's of indef blocked user Aradic-es continue to vandalize articles. [195] I've given him a chance to explain himself but rather than address the situation at his talkpage he "revenge edits" other articles because of my revert. [196] This Bosnian Croat/Herzegovinian Croat situation is the same thing that got him indef blocked in the first place. [197][198]

Should the affected articles be requested to be protected or is a range block in order? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically , WP:Commonname rule can be apllied to Croats but not to Bosniaks??--78.2.159.114 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We aren't discussing article titles but if you wish the "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina" article can also be brought into this.

List of Aradic-es (hopping) ips:

78.2.136.189

78.3.78.115

78.3.66.132

78.2.159.114

78.2.172.136

78.1.116.102

78.1.124.164

It appears he's been busy canvassing as well. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be a very large rangeblock to cover all of them. Doable but not sure we would want to. JodyB _talk 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be a /14 block. It would require at least 2 separate rangeblocks to accomplish it and would affect over 250,000 addresses. We need to find a better way. JodyB _talk 16:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI + whack-a-mole? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Range block of IPs

Resolved

 – The articles have been semi-protected. Please re-report here if the problem persists afterward.

Could an admin check into this. It seems an IP hopping vandal with an agenda is continuing to disrupt various film related articles two example articles List of thriller films: 1990s and List of action films of the 1980s. Semi protection does not seem to help, as he just goes on to a different article. According to the talk page they may be sockpuppets of User:Pé de Chinelo. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 0

Can you provide us with a full list of articles where disruption is occurring or a list of IP addresses engaging in disruptive editing on the said pages? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/187.35.36.216

• Special:Contributions/201.43.207.250
• Special:Contributions/201.92.133.180
• Special:Contributions/201.95.49.160
• Special:Contributions/201.68.206.194
• Special:Contributions/201.13.197.253

Article hit before they were semi-ed:

• List of action films of the 1980s
• List of action films of the 1990s
• List of action films of the 2000s
• List of action films of the 2010s
• List of thriller films: 1990s

May be more articles, that I'm not aware of.

Other notes:

• User:Andrzejbanas, seems to be a target of this vandal's edits as seen in User_talk:Andrzejbanas.
• Checked on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pé_de_Chinelo/Archive, which seems to indicate that the vandal may be using the same ranges mentioned in the case. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 19:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note: See this page also [199]. Some of us are trying to tag the new ip's as we catch them but they change quite often. I am not sure that all of the recent ones are on the sock puppet report. The pattern over the last few months has been for this editor to disappear for a week or so and then return with a barrage of editing from multiple IP's on articles, their talk pages and Andrzejbanas talk page as mentioned above. Considering the range of the IP hopping and the language used in the personal attacks on Andrzejbanas (many of which have been rev/del by User:Edgar181) it is possible that a ban discussion should be opened on Pé de Chinelo. That is if one has not occurred before - I looked through the banned editors list and could not find this editors name but I might have missed it. MarnetteD | Talk 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to be against this. We are sometimes too quick to ask for a range block. Remember that range blocks should only be used in extreme cases, which this doesn't appear to be. Usually the vandal gets bored and moves on. Don't worry theres always someone around to catch vandalism, and if not, it gets fixed eventually.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been socking since before June of 09. So the bored and moving on does not look to be happening anytime soon. The edit summaries are usually pretty vile which is why so many of them are rev/del. But I agree with your sentiments about range blocking and I know that they are to be avoided when possible. That is the reason that I suggested the ban so that we can revert this persons edits without fear of violating 3rr. MarnetteD | Talk 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Most editors such as this recognize the futility of their attempts fairly quickly, but the ones who are not so bright may take a bit longer to catch on. This one, I suspect, will take quite a bit longer. Long term semi-protection of the articles will likely be necessary. Range blocks probably aren't appropriate in this situation because of the broad range of IPs involved. For now, the articles have been semi-protected short term (Thank you, Looie496 and Courcelles) and I have applied rev/del to a few more of the childish edit summaries. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I first noticed this user, using the 201.xx IP range, edit warring over genre on The Godfather, at least 2 years ago. Here are some diffs:

• [200]
• [201]
• [202]
• [203]
• [204]
• [205]
• [206]
• [207]

There are many, many more, but this gives you an idea of how he works. A full list of all the films on which he has edit-warred would be long, but would have to include, in addition to The Godfather, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Silence of the Lambs, Inglourious Basterds, and Heat. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat on my talk page

Resolved

Can someone please deal with this: [208]. I have deleted it from my visible talk page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Done. Looks like a pretty blatant attempt to use a legal threat to prevent a deletion. I would have thought it would have been easier - and cheaper - to simply contest the proposed deletion, but different strokes for different folks... Does this make me a human rights violator too?! TFOWR 17:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Could you please RevDel that under CFRD #3? —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, do we have to? I'd almost rather leave it for the amusement value. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC) My lawyer is meaner than his lawyer. I keep him chained up in a shed and feed him raw meat and babies to keep him mean. HalfShadow 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) No further posts should be made to this thread. No administrator should take any further action regarding this matter or consider unblocking this editor without consulting me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Oh that's no fun, I'm sure we could raise his eleventy-billion dollars by suppertime. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Oh no Tarc - you made a further post in this thread! That was naughty! DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Why? What happens if we post in this thread? – iridescent 18:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Oh shit, not 1080 million dollards! --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC) REVDEL completed per WP:REVDEL#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight "It does not matter whether the privacy breaching material was posted by the user themselves or by a third party, whether in good or bad faith, recently or in the past, whether accurate, whether the target is identifiable to the administrator, nor whether it is a statement, pointed speculation, or implied." - err on side of caution to use revdel. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stop it It is unprofessional and brings Wikipedia into disrepute to taunt indefinitely blocked users. Stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC) OTRS Ticket 2010102910009177 is related to this for those who have access. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Could whoever is handling this matter kindly e-mail me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Will do. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib images

The use of a very large group of images of the Abu Graib prison and abuse case have been unreasonable restricted by putting them on the MediaWiki:Bad image list. I think this restricted use of a very large group of Abu Graib images is unreasonable and has been done by a single administrator without providing a good reason. I think that needs some discussion here. I request to lift the restriction of the use of Abu Graib images by removing them from this list. Regards. IQinn (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting them on that list doesn't "unreasonably restrict" them unless it prevents their use on an article where it would be unreasonable to prevent their use, in which case that article can be added to the list this ceasing the restriction. Can you be more specific? What is the reasonable use that's being restricted?--Scott Mac 00:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Leave it up to the creativity of our editors when and where to use them without unnecessary hurdles. Simply no reason to have the Abu Graib images on that list. IQinn (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. Those are photos of people being tortured, which is always an extremely sensitive matter, and hence restricts their practical use pretty narrowly up front. For example, posting them on one's user page would not be permitted. Also, wikipedia is not a picture-hosting site like flickr or something. Putting a "very large group" of any types of photos in an article is typically not allowed. A mundane example would be that while we might have a hundred pictures of dandelions at commons, we wouldn't or shouldn't have a hundred pictures of dandelions in the article about dandelions just because someone likes dandelions - there would have to be some uniqueness and notability about the photos. Certain Abu Graib photos became well-known for various reasons, and could be notable for the article. A "large group" wouldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 30 October 2010

These are all examples we can deal with by common edition practice. Torture is not a sensible matter and Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED. I found it almost tasteless to add the Abu Graib images of torture to the MediaWiki:Bad image list. I strongly reject this practice. There is still no good reason to do so. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a good reason, as I just told you. Maybe it would help if you would specify where you want to put the images, and how many of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Using those photos except under very special circumstance would clearly be unethical and could even be a BLP matter. I think it is very prudent to have them on a list of pictures the use of which requires special thoughtfulness and better than average reasons. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly could use of those images in any non-vandalistic sense be a BLP violation, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

but is there any evidence that they were used unnecessarily? I think they could be legitimately be used for other articles that those relating to the subject itself, as they are some of the very clearest and best known images of torture. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not argue for permission from you to use them somewhere. I argue that that putting them on that list needs a strong reason. It limits the use of these images for most of our users as. As said leave it up to our users where to put them. There is no reason to restrict them fromt-up and let users go to additional processes. Having them on this list will automatically reduce the justified use of these images - as not many users have the patiences and skills to apply for the necessary exemption. The adding of these images to the list has already removed images from articles. Images simply vanished what could be interpreted as censorship considering the nature of these images. Just one example the image [File:Abu Ghraib 58.jpg] [209] (the image link does not even show up here) is included in Nudity#Punishment. The adding of the image to the MediaWiki:Bad image list has remove the showing of the image in Nudity#Punishment. The mass adding of Abu Graib images to the MediaWiki:Bad image list was unnecessary and has already removed valid use of the images. IQinn (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know that list existed. If I were a new user, I'd simply assume I'm too stupid to add images; there's no explanation as to why it's not visible... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP is an excellent reason, and it trumps nearly everything else on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And who says it's not visible? I'm an ordinary user, and I can see the list and its contents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example. Any BLP problem to use [File:Abu Ghraib 58.jpg] [210] in Nudity#Punishment? IQinn (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The file is included in that section but not visible. IQinn (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet that if you asked on Mediawiki talk:Bad image list, you could get that specific image allowed for that specific article. These images do still deserve caution in general, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As said i am not arguing for exemptions of single use of images in specified articles. That image should not have been removed from Nudity#Punishment in the first place and putting ever editor to a process of an front up approval for any use of almost all Abu Graib images on Wikipedia - that is the problem. IQinn (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also strongly concerned. Have these images "been used for widespread vandalism where blocks and protections are impractical?" Hipocrite (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was nice of someone to goddamned inform me of this discussion (clearly someone decided to bring this to the forum in absolutely outstanding faith, seeing as he wasn't getting his way). I'm glad that everyone finally decided to bring it up after I had the discussion up for two weeks, and after I used common sense and only added the images with naked bodies (which were filmed against the person's will!) and used exactly the same criteria as the other images. Sometimes this place is such a fucking joke. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are unable to remain civil when your controversial administrative actions are questioned, there is certainly a problem. I'd also ask that you be more clear that the "someone" who informed you of this decision is not the "someone" who brought it to the forum. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That was my point. And don't patronize me; yes I'm upset that people who didn't give a fuck in the first place when it was on the page for two weeks are all of a sudden up in arms about me doing exactly what's been done with other images and immediately bring it to ANI without bothering to try to work it out there first or even inform me of it. But fine, do things as you all will. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, those who don't even know the list exists can hardly voice an opinion; if the whole system gave some sort of hint or display a placeholder that says "go to Mediawiki:so-and-so to request exemption" I wouldn't see that much of a problem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Forget about it; I've just removed the damned things; just about no one else could apparently be bothered to care about the contradiction or possibility of vandalism. I'm going on Wikibreak. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-22/Charlie Anders

Can someone uninvolved look at the above case and decide what to do with the case, and with any users on it (if anything). A checkuser has stated: The filer of this case, Formerly 76.169.140.29, is a single-purpose sockpuppet of Bigdaddy1981. I have blocked the former, but I am not sure whether to block the main account or not, considering that he has not edited in a month.

Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Range block requested

Resolved

 – 121.54.32.128/27 done. JodyB _talk 02:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Over the course of the past week, I have been dealing with vandalism to a handful of pages that I have been working on for the past two years. For whatever reason, an individual in the Philippines has been changing the premiere, finale, etc. dates of various related television series and films. The articles hit are as follows:

• Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Template:Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kamen Rider W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider W & Decade: Movie War 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tensou Sentai Goseiger vs. Shinkenger: Epic on Ginmaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While the first IPs used (121.54.100.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & 121.1.18.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is on a different block than the other IPs, I believe that it will help by blocking the range that the following IPs use for an extended period of time will be more efficient than developing an edit filter (the edits are not the same on various pages) and semiprotecting some of these pages will

• 121.54.32.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.54.32.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.54.32.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.54.32.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.54.32.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.54.32.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ondertitel Open threat of edit warring, personal attacks, general uncivil behaviour

Unresolved

I encountered Ondertitel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over at Crack intro. Like many internet subjects this often attracts editors using less than stellar sources. He made several additions to the article. I checked them, and while a good portion of them were fine he did attribute some information to some self-published sources. I removed those bits and stated as much in my edit summary. He restored them and I began the process of explain WP:RS and WP:V to him. His replies have been full of insults and now has an open threat of edit warring on the article talk page. I'm going to keep undoing your undos until you execute your threat and call an administrator that tells me to attribute it already and stop it. As such he should be blocked until he rescinds his threat. I also previously warned him about NPA, CIVIL and OWN, but his follow-up comment is full of more of the same. His initial comment, for which I warned him, Don't blindly follow sheeple and use your brain., is followed up by I consider your "challenge" trolling/nut kicking/demotivational the way you did it., and you are a demotivational asshole,. There is a serious problem with WP:OWN here and his response to any opposition to his edits doesn't put it in a favorable light. Since he's specifically requested someone whack him, I suggest someone fulfill it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Still an open threat of edit warring here, if people need diffs: First insult [211], my warning to him after it [212], his follow-up where he threatens edit warring and continues with the insults and personal attacks [213].--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored this. This still requires administrative attention. There is still a user threatening open ended edit warring.--Crossmr (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:IQinn

• File:Hadj Boudella before his detention.jpg
• File:Belkacem bensayah.jpg
• File:Ravil Mingazov.jpg
• File:Nusrat Khan.jpg

I recently tagged the above images for deletion ({{di-replaceable fair use}}) as they're all non-free images of living individuals, and thus almost certainly replaceable. However, the images' uploader, Iqinn, removed the templates and opened an FFD discussion on each image. Now, since this is a specific copyright issue which isn't handled with an FFD but rather the template, I re-added them to the file pages. Still, however the uploader insists that a week-long FFD discussion needs to take place. The images were "scheduled" to be deleted after Friday, 10/29, but Iqinn keeps modifying the template so that they won't be deleted until after Sunday, 11/7. Any of my attempts to restore the templates to their original state get undone by the uploader, and they don't appear to be hearing anything I say to them. I'd normally try alternative means of dispute resolution, but since this is an issue regarding non-free images with presumably invalid fair use rationales, I'm bringing the issue up here. Swarm^Talk 04:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The user who tagged these images has tagged these images and without providing any detailed reason for his action. The tag this user added to the images allows for deletion after only 2 days and the deletion time was already up before i even noticed that he has mass added this tag to the images. These are not easy cases and it needs more time and it needs community consensus and more community input. I have submitted these images to FFD where an ordered content focused discussion can take place and i have ask the tagger to join this discussion. No reason to press for deletion without allowing for discussion and community consensus. IQinn (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not really, Iqinn. Not if they're copyvios. The tag is meant to get rid of such images expeditiously and consensus doesn't enter into it. We can't violate someone's copyright by consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, that's really disruptive and against the rules to delete and alter the tag the way you have. It's probably blockable, too. Don't do that again. You can always upload them again if your come up with an acceptable fair-use rationale or they get properly licensed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is disgusting and disrespectful on so many levels...

If you look at the history of User talk:Parasect and scroll down a little while, you will see that some idiots, (you have 4 chance to figure out who it is; otherwise your guess is moot) have been suggesting that the user commit suicide. Just a week ago, this user was thinking suicidal thoughts, and I can't even begin to say how utterly rude and disrespectful this is. In short, I'm requesting an immediate Revdelete. Thanks, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)