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

Category dispute on GAA articles

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

---

User:Brocach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is making war around Gaelic Athletic Association-related articles. He is ignoring discussion, just to push his own POV. There is no effective support for his moves but he just invents excuses. By now he seems so frustrated, that he started vandalising articles. On the 19th, he was blocked from editing to stop him from edit warring over several article. In that same war User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was involved and blocked. They were involved in one of the most silly edits wars I have ever seen: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong. Both appealed the ban, both saw their appeal denied. Unfortunately, Brocach did not learn anything from his block and quickly resumed his disruptive edits and went on with, among others, a clear declaration of war.

An overview from the relevant edits after the block:

Insults

• [1], [2]

Move without agreement or consensus

• [3], [4], [5],

Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories

• [6],

Other disruptive edits

• [7], [8], [9] (later used to claim that people did not live in North Tipperary, while it was de facto there from 1838), [10], [11],

This drama is already going on for a year now. With pages moved back and forth, edit wars and a very nasty atmosphere.

I certainly acknowledge that a block is counter-productive but to restore peace, I request a long term topic ban for Brocach for all articles related to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The Banner talk 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]and [22]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to Brocachs habit to remove everything from his talkpage that he doesn't like, I present here the proof that I have informed him. The Banner talk 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot of accusations there so it will take some time to respond.

I have never vandalised any article on Wikipedia. Anyone who looks at my edit history will find a long record of reverting vandalism. Some examples: [23], [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=533547170], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and on and on.

I am not ignoring discussion. In relation to the GAA articles, most of the edits that User:The Banner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) objects to are actually reverts of previous controversial edits, generally made by User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without discussion, and generally moving articles about the GAA away from the common name of the topic - typically, renaming football competitions by inserting "GAA" within the competition name. Generally when I have moved things back to their common name, I have opened a thread on the talk page.

The POV I am "pushing" is Wikipedia policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing particularly controversial about that.

It is absolutely not the case that there is no support for my reverts of controversial moves. In the most recent discussion of this, here, you will see clear majority support for the reverts. That in itself should be enough to establish that the topic ban belongs with the editor who made the original controversial moves without discussion, and then busted a gut trying to undo all the reverts, namely Laurel Lodged.

Turning to the Tipperary question: for those unfamiliar with the sports, Gaelic football, hurling etc. are organised in Ireland on a traditional 32-county basis, not in line with newer administrative counties such as North Tipperary. Top-level inter-county players play for Tipperary, and the category for them has long been "Tipperary hurlers", just as it is for "Dublin hurlers", "Galway hurlers" and so on. Because only the GAA organises hurling, no-one had ever thought it necessary to change a category name until - guess who - Laurel Lodged, without any discussion, renamed that one category "Tipperary GAA hurlers" and moved many articles to that page. This now sits as a completely anomalous category: every other county lists hurlers in the long-established form, "Carlow hurlers" and so on.

Next, Laurel Lodged, as ever without any discussion, started moving individual Tipperary sportspeople from the long-established and well-populated category Sportspeople from County Tipperary into two new categories of his own creation, namely Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Sportspeople from South Tipperary. Again, of course, without discussion; and again creating an anomaly, in that none of the other Irish sportspeople by county categories use the new local government counties; they all use the traditional 32 counties.

The behaviour of Laurel Lodged in changing literally hundreds of GAA articles and refusing to engage in discussion frustrated me greatly; as my history shows, I have made a significant contribution to GAA coverage here. I regret that on one occasion I re-reverted a Laurel Lodged move repeatedly, following which we were both briefly banned.

I have not "resumed disruptive edits" nor "declared war" - follow the link provided by The Banner and you will find me quite properly taking the issue of Tipperary changes to the relevant talk page, and as it happens, securing support while Laurel Lodged did not.

Next, as for "insults": the first link provided is to me stating the incontrovertible fact that Laurel Lodged keeps changing pages without discussion, and it will be seen that I did not use any abusive language; the second link provided is to me rebuking what I refer to as the "disgusting behaviour" of another editor who, on the talk page of an unrelated (non-GAA) topic, referred to me as "arsehole" and, in another edit, "a stupid cunt". Now there's an insult; but I was not the person who made it, nor would any reasonable person think that referring to that as "disgusting behaviour" was an insult.

My accuser then links to supposed "Moves without agreement or consensus". But all three links were on the basis of consensus that anyone can check at the reference already given.

My next offence is "Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories", a plural accusation with but a single link, and this turns out to be, yet again, a matter of reverting changes made without discussion of consensus by, need I say, Laurel Lodged. The usual pattern applies in that I am the first one to take the issue to the talk page, and Laurel Lodged refuses to engage there.

As for the "Other disruptive edits", the first two again were reverts that were discussed and supported here, unlike the original moves which had not been discussed. The next is, far from being a "disruptive edit", a perfectly normal edit to an article dealing with local government history in County Tipperary. Looking at it now I see a little typo, which I have fixed; perhaps that what was thought "disruptive" but anyone checking the history will see that it was a simple mistake with no harm intended or done, and heaven help us if every case of clumsy typing is construed as vandalism. The next is, again, a normal and innocent edit to the template for Derry GAA clubs, ensuring that text appeared in black rather than red as per WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR. Any problem with that? My last "disruption" was to add a factually accurate, and sourced, improvement to wording around the ISO code for "Ulster" - an obscure enough topic, but interesting for some, and worth getting right, which it now is. In short: these accusations of disruption are completely spurious.

I therefore insist that no case has been made for topic-banning me, least of all on a theme, the GAA, where I have made a substantial and worthwhile contribution. However, because of Laurel Lodged's long history of moving GAA articles without seeking consensus, reverting moves back, and refusing to engage on the relevant talk pages, I would be hugely relieved if he were topic-banned from the GAA, at least for a few months. I'm proposing that here, and notifying him on his talk page. Heading above amended accordingly. Brocach (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have no connection whatever with Finnegas and if The Banner has some problem with him/her, this is not the place to discuss it. Brocach (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the usual modus operandi of mr. Brocach: I am the good guy, I am the victim, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and you guys are all wrong, had been wrong all the times and will be wrong forever more. The Banner talk 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You've said your piece; I would prefer that your proposal, and mine, be decided on the facts. Anyone who wants to know my "usual modus operandi" can look at my thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. Please keep the revised heading above as this section contains a counter-proposal. Brocach (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, please don't change the title as it breaks links to this discussion. File your own request when you want to bring Laurel Lodged to AN/I, don't hijack my filing. The Banner talk 14:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to break links to this discussion, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to respond to a ban proposal by showing that another user is the real problem and should be topic-banned. For me to repeat all of that in a separate posting would be a waste of everyone's time, particularly when Laurel Lodged is aware of this discussion (since you notified him of it within four minutes of proposing that I be banned). I have therefore placed a subheading for my counter-proposal immediately below your heading, and have verified that links still work. Brocach (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now you only made a mess of my filing, making it appear that I filed the request. Do you mind the sub-header to below this edits and file your counter-request there? Although they are related, it would be confusing to have two requests in one thread as people will have difficulties responding to the right request. The Banner talk 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to cause any confusion and don't think I've done so. I think that the difference in heading level will make that clear. But for the benefit of anyone who has been interested enough to read down this far, can I make it 100% clear that The Banner wants to ban me, and I want to topic-ban Laurel Lodged? Brocach (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did file a request for a topic ban, but that will not say that I will pursue it for the full 100%. I believe in Good Faith, so I still hope that you are willing to change your behaviour regarding the GAA voluntarily. The Banner talk 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Really excellent news there. Of course I intend to continue, as I always have, operating in good faith. Can I ask you to review the points you made against me above, and my replies; delete any exchanges above that relate to points that have been answered to your satisfaction, and set out which (if any) grounds you still believe justify a topic ban? If there are none, I would ask you to withdraw this request, so that I can reframe my ban request for Laurel Lodge and pursue it without involving you. Brocach (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It means as much: show me (and prove of a reasonable time) that you really stop with this nonsense, revert all your actions yourself and start behaving like an adult. If not, sorry. Your combative behaviour has disrupted Wikipedia long enough. The Banner talk 10:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighter's souls, but made their bodies carrion feats for the dogs and birds and the will of Zeus was moving towards its end."

What is the cause of all the warring? Rage. The final straw for Brocach was when a decision at WP:CFD went against him here. This touched on the area of (GAA) and involved a decision to change the name from "Tipperary hurlers" to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers.

I took the rather unusal step of saying in my block appeal that "Perhaps the purpose would be best achieved by simply imposing a topic ban on all GAA related articles on both of us until a decision one way or the other had been reached at a neutral forum like WikiProject:Gaelic games or WikiProject:Ireland". Only a few hours of the unblock had expired that my hopes that the block would have a sobering effect on Brocach were in vain. Reluctantly, I must now request that my suggestion be actioned. I am prepared to go into voluntary exile if the same temporary sentance will be passed on Brocach (and his inept sidekick Finnegas) so that a holy peace may descend upon the GAA articles and categories.

He has gone around numerous article writing the same whiney thing on the talk page. This essentially bemoans the injustice of the decision that went against him at WP:CFD. By the time that I saw this entry Colm Bonnar whining, I was getting a mite tetchy in my responses. And so to Noel Lane where Brocach's rationale was "a player for GAA county of Tipperary". This is not in dispute, but it's beside the point. What is most definitely in dispute is that he is not "from County Tipperary", which no longer exists as a unit of local government, but from North Tipperary. The two entities are different. Brocach likes to pretend that the two are essentially identical. He refuses to listen to all arguments to the contrary. This explains why I peppered a lot of my reversions with the epitheth WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In Patrick Maher, the difference between the two entities was again explained in my reversion rationale: "As a county hurer he is listed with Tipp GAA. Geographically, he is from NT. A horse of a different colour". Further examples are Aidan Butler and Sportspeople from County Tipperary.

I will copy the text from my appeal for the second major point of contention. I realised that the cat "Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers" should not even be in the cat "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary". This moment of clarity came to me when I reviewed the article on Tony Reddin who was born in County Galway (i.e. he is from Galway) but who played hurling for his club Lorrha-Dorrha GAA which is governed by Tipperary GAA. So while it is right and proper that he be a member of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, it is not right that he be a member of "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary"; instead he is correctly listed as a member of "Sportspeopple from County Galway". Moving from the particular to the general, I deduced that one may not assume that just because a person is a member of a GAA club that happens to be in Tipperary that all members of of that club must necessarily be from Tipperary. I wrote this in the edit commentary as "a club is not a person". Again Brocach refused to acknowedge this logic and continued to revert. See Category:Lorrha-Dorrha hurlers, where the rationale provided was "Tony Reddin is from Galway. So not all members of Tipp GAA are automatically from County Tipp. A club is not a person". See also Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers, where the rationale provided was "a CLUB IS NOT A PERSON". Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From everything that I have said above, you will understand that I profoundly disagree with Laurel Lodged about how people who play on Tipperary GAA teams should be listed (by the county that they play or played for, Tipperary, or by the current local government district that they were born in, or would have been born in had it existed when they were born). No point going into all the details of that issue again. This discussion is not about whether this or that category should be used; but the changes made by Laurel Lodged at Tipperary categories have put it out of sync with every other county in Ireland, and he has made scores if not hundreds of other changes, all undiscussed, that moved articles and categories (dealing with Gaelic games away from their former and proper locations.

What this is about, is (1) whether a user (Laurel Lodged) should be free to move dozens of long-settled articles and refuse to engage on the respective talk pages when that turns out to be controversial; (2) whether that user should be topic-banned for a while until he learns to respect the views of other editors; (3) whether an editor (me) who moves articles back to their original and long-established names, after controversial moves that weren't discussed, should be regarded as a vandal and banned.

Check out (if you have some hours to spare) every instance where a Gaelic Athletic Association sporting competition has been renamed. I believe that in every instance, you will find that any moves away from the original title that were made without discussion were made by one single obsessive editor, Laurel Lodged, for reasons that cannot easily be aligned to the interests of readers or the notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. In most instances, I moved the article back to its settled title, only to be reverted again without discussion. In most such cases, I opened a discussion topic on the talk page, and Laurel Lodged did not engage. Here are a few examples, and you will see the pattern: [29], [30], [31], [32]... I could go on and on. As noted above, I canvassed views on this wholesale moving and the most recent discussion is here, where you will see that my reverts had consensus on their side.

If you want Wikipedia to be the preserve of those who have a really strong point of view about what things should be called (but aren't, in real life), and for which they really need to control Wikipedia as a platform to impose their view on the stupid masses, please vote to ban me. If you want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, give people who care about accurate coverage of the GAA a break, and send Laurel Lodged off to annoy someone else for a few months. Whatever way you vote, the Leinster Senior Football Championship will continue, in real life, to be the Leinster Senior Football Championship, rather that whatever User:Laurel Lodged wants to call it today. Brocach (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would remind everyone in this thread of WP:TLDR. If you want to attract the attention of other editors, walls of text are unlikly to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• When I see the words "POV-pushing" and "topic ban" in a section heading I expect the proposer to have a particularly strong case. When I see something like "Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong" I think the proposer is most unlikely to have a strong case. And sure enough, that is the case here. I think the most intelligent sentence in the proposal is "What on earth are you fighting over?" This is a content dispute, essentially between three editors: the proposer agrees with Laurel Lodged and disagrees with Brocach. It should be dealt with on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have been observing this dispute from a distance, and agree with the previous contributor (Scolaire). There is more heat than light being generated by these interminable arguments. However, there are two main protagonists putting their cases forward, and I don't think that Brocach should be the only person facing censure. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having read The Banner's response to my suggestion on his talk page, I have to wonder if WP:BOOMERANG doesn't come into play here? Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have disappointed you by not being convinced that there is a solution possible by mediation. More drama, more words typed, but I see no evidence from Brocach and your side that a compromise is possible. Sorry. The Banner talk 14:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a side. I don't edit-war. Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute that has spiralled out of control over a long period of time. How long has this been going on? A year? More> It revolves around a tiny point - the definition and use of the term "county" in Ireland. I suggest that a ban is put on any more moves, renames, relinks and discussions, and that the matter is discussed at WikiProject Ireland until consensus is reached. That's actually the best and correct place for this. --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A year? July 2011 was when we apparently resolved the problem of counties! At that point it had been going on non-stop since at least June 2010. --Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with most of what has been written in the last few postings. And I would again remind you all that it was I who I took the rather unusal step of suggesting that I topic ban myself. This must surely be a record for ANI. As it is obvious that even a 48 ban cannot produce the required level of contrition or even meditation in Brocach, nothing other solution will give us all the breathing space - free of vandalism - that we all need. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While I strongly commend LL's volunteering for a topic ban, well deserved and hopefully long-lasting, I'm not taking the same line. The innuendo above that I was involved in "vandalism" needs to be fleshed out here and now. If one instance of vandalism by me is shown, in relation to GAA topics or anything else, I still won't volunteer for a ban but I will accept one. Brocach (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

At your service: [33], [34] and [35]. Deliberately damaging an article by removing a correct link and replace is by a redirect is in my opinion vandalism. (issue: "Drom, County Tipperary" redirects to "Drom, North Tipperary") It can be a mistake ONCE, but not multiple times and certainly not when deliberately removing the mention of North Tipperary at all. The Banner talk 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Even if it was a mistake – which is only your opinion – it is not vandalism. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. That a good faith edit is "in your opinion vandalism" doesn't make it vandalism. Scolaire (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a more general topic-ban for a month at least just to encourage Brocach to engage more and stop consistently reverting and pushing when they are in the wrong. Take for example their recent 48-hour block for breaking 3RR. This and this from BrownHairedGirl shows Brocach's poor attitude when it comes to editing and discussion quite well. Obviously these are not the only instances, but I'd cite this one as the main one.

Blocks and topic-bans are meant to deter editors from bad behaviour, not to punish them. As such I back a topic-ban of at least a month from editing articles in regards to GAA and Londonderry topics seeing as this is where his attitude is at it's worse. Whilst they are incredibly stubborn and unwilling to budge from their opinion, disregarding compromises, I'd suggest that if blocked from editing, they should still be allowed to partake in discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If the "main" evidence against me is from September 2012 and October 2012, in relation to matters long since settled, we must hope and pray that Mabuska has never, ever made any mistake that might be resurrected by someone to argue for a topic ban. Note that in the instances selected, the editor who disagreed with me did not, then or thereafter, propose a topic ban. Brocach (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys Finnegas here, It appears that The Banner has a problem with my edits " And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]and [90]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)" Well the Banner was welcome to discuss the whole Sportspeople from Tippp Vs Tipp N or Tipp South at Talk:Patrick Maher (hurler) if he so desired. I maintain that the use of administrative counties for Sporspeole from county ? should never replace the 32 counties In addition I would like to declare contary to The Banner I am not User brocach or anyone elses sidekick. It just so happens that I agree with him on this issue.Finnegas (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Your reply here comes remarkably quick after Broacach advise to have your say here on your [User_talk:Finnegas#Similar_Requested_Move|talkpage]. About 9 minutes later... The Banner talk 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks more like 23 hours to me! Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I question your powers of observation Banner!. There was a full day between Broacach's advice and me acting upon it. [36]Anyway what do you expect me to do? Remain silent will you and Laurel Lodged demonise me. Not a notion.Finnegas (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC) BTW love the fact you did not reply to the part about you ignoring the part about you failing to engage in discussion on a talk page.

No what do you do? Banner take a cheap shot at me. You could be described as Laurel Lodged lapdog Finnegas (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it was just a few minutes after you had acknowledged Brocach's call to arms. You are right that the original WP:Canvassing was much earlier. The Banner talk 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I am will not consent to a topic ban. I did nothing wrong.

I think the above has shown that Finnegas is (a) a creature of Brocach, (b) has nothing to contribute to our understanding other than "because I say so", (c) engages in insulting behaviour. Given that he has continued the destructive path of Brocach on GAA related articles and is dangerously close to a 3RR situation with Banner, all of this leads me to conclude that GAA peace will be impossible until he too joins Brocach & I in our topic ban. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to (c)If I am guilty of "insulting behaviour" then so are you Laurel Lodged. You continue to describe me as Brocach's sidekick which I find quite insulting. I repeat I am nobodys sidekick.I am not engaging in an editwar with The Banner.

Reply to (b)I attempted to engage in a debate on Talk: Patrick Maher (hurler). (a)Does not merit a responseFinnegas (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked at the mess created by Laurel Lodged at the GAA in Cork article where the nonsense on differences between administrative and traditional counties was fudged into the opening paragraph. This type of nonsense has to stop immediately. I certainly Support the topic ban for Laurel Lodged until this type of editing comes to an immediate halt and the damage reversed. I dread the thoughts of what has been done in other articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, interesting that you are showing up here, mr. HighKing. Always good to respond on the canvassing] of Brocach. The Banner talk 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the diff posted by HighKing proves the opposite of what he was saying. It proves that the bits which he deleted showed that there is a difference between the two entities. The only reason to delete those bits is to create a fudge. It is HK's tendentious editing that was the problem there. Perhaps he too should be topic banned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

One topic ban here would be enough. It isn't HighKing, it isn't Finnegas and it isn't me. And it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, particularly those who have taken part in related discussions. Brocach (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

By now, the only thing we have is a massive smoke screen of words, so lets break up this discussion for convenience The Banner talk 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for Brocach

The original proposal of this discussion filed by me. The Banner talk 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as set out above. Brocach (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question: What topic? Gaelic Athletic Association, Counties of Ireland or both (both being the most obvious)? Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My proposal was a topic ban for all Gaelic Athletic Association related articles. The Banner talk 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for Laurel Lodged

The counter proposal filed by Brocach The Banner talk 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as set out above. Brocach (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question: What topic? Gaelic Athletic Association, Counties of Ireland or both (both being the most obvious)? Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for both Gaelic Athletic Association and Counties of Ireland: per Brocach below, LL is continuing to perform disruptive edits and moves without prior discussion, even as good faith attempts are ongoing to resolve this dispute. Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3

First off, this is a content dispute. Looking back at the edits, I also believe everyone tried to act in good faith. The biggest problem as far as I can see is that Laurel Lodged didn't give enough weight or merit to the many objections raised with the renaming, and therefore didn't really attempt to take on board the concerns or accept that perhaps being wrong. Sure, we could go down the Topic Ban route, but I don't believe it is necessary at this point. I believe the most sensible approach is that everyone involved agrees not to continue with any more renaming until this matter has been resolved at WikiProject Ireland. If everyone agrees, we can close this off and get the discussion started over there. --HighKing (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm afraid I don't agree with simply moving this discussion to WT:IE. There are many people on the Wikiproject who don't want to see their talk page hijacked by a couple of bickering editors posting reams of angry exchanges over a period of thirty months or more. Plus, you might notice here, merely discussing things on WT:IE doesn't stop participants from moving pages or creating cats at the same time. There needs to be a formal dispute resolution procedure at an appropriate page (not a Wikiproject talk page). But I absolutely agree it is essential that everyone involved agrees not to continue with any more renaming until this matter has been resolved. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I hear you - my reasoning for suggesting WT:IE was that this ultimately may make it's way into the IMOS so we'll need more than dispute resolution. --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Step 1: resolve; Step 2: work out the details; Step 3: worry about IMOS. Scolaire (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Laurel Lodged is unlikely to stop; yet more moves have just been made, this time to Armagh Intermediate Football Championship, along with various edits to lede texts to insert "GAA" into the names of competitions in Derry and Dublin. His supporter, The Banner, has done so repeatedly at London. I am no longer able to assume good faith on their part; these look to me like obsessives who are determined to move GAA articles and categories away from their actual names. If I try to revert these changes I am accused of edit-warring and nominated for bans; this behaviour is damaging Wikipedia and it is exhausting to try to challenge it constantly with limited help from others. Brocach (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given what Brocach has said, this is disruption pure and simple, and won't be resolved by talk. Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose You need willingness to compromise, something I absolutely don't see with Brocach. That makes any dispute resolution attempt straight away useless. The Banner talk 22:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@ The Banner, consider just for a moment that your associate may be in the wrong. I think that his behaviour in the last few hours says it all. Rather than continue advocating in this discussion for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged, which has never had the same prominence as the campaign against me because my efforts to amend the heading or insert subheads have repeatedly been deleted, I am going to make the case for that in a wholly separate discussion. The matter of stopping what Laurel Lodged is doing is too urgent to await the outcome of a discussion of baseless complaints against me. Brocach (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh? You already forgot the discussion Talk:London GAA Intermediate Football Championship earlier this evening where you refused to allow the word GAA in the title mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, conform the name of the title of the article? The Banner talk 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, haven't forgotten that; I answered fully on that article's talk page. Brocach (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• FYI You may wish to consider the proposal for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged here. Brocach (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not big into forum-shopping. Doesn't tend to make a great impression with admins either. But let's see how it goes. Scolaire (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not forum shopping, I just wanted to separate out this increasingly urgent proposal to ban further Laurel Lodged moves; I put it on AN because I was advised that that is where ban proposals normally go, but as it was moved to this page (and hidden) I have now placed it as a separate item at the bottom of this page. I am keen as many others are to bring this discussion to one place, it is Laurel Lodged who continues to open multiple fronts. Brocach (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I was just saying. And looking at it where it is now, I have the impression that the admin's weren't impressed. But we'll see. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I have moved the section referred to up here, immediately below. Please don't split discussions like this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for Laurel Lodged

Topic proposing ban moved from WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I request an immediate and permanent topic ban on Laurel Lodged in respect of any edits relating to the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA - the largest sporting organisation in Ireland), and agreement to revert all the changes that have been made by him since late 2012 without discussion or consensus. I additionally request a six-month topic ban on the same editor in respect of edits relating to Irish counties, where he displays a similar behaviour of making multiple and radical edits without seeking consensus, and then ignoring or deriding any opposition.

Laurel Lodged has a very extensive history of making controversial moves of GAA articles and categories away from their long-established and accurate names to new locations when there is no need to do so. He then edits the lede to echo the unilaterally changed name. He usually makes these changes without any prior discussion, reverts any moves back to the actual names of the competitions, refuses to engage on the talk page, and displays condescension, hostility and sarcasm towards any editor who challenges his behaviour.

Laurel Lodged has been pulled up on multiple occasions for making these changes, and has at times gone through the motions of requesting discussion, while making it difficult for other editors to keep up by maintaining conversations at multiple locations, e.g. here, here, here, here and, meanwhile, continuing to make changes elsewhere without even the pretence of consultation.

The following lists are certainly not exhaustive – I will add others below - and other instances may have arisen by the time you finish reading this:

• (1) Instances where Laurel Lodged moved GAA articles or categories without any prior discussion or consensus, knowing that such moves had attracted controversy: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

• (2) Instances where Laurel Lodged reverted moves of GAA articles or categories back to their original titles, again without any prior discussion or consensus: [53] [54] [55]

• (3) Instances where Laurel Lodged changed ledes, without discussion or consensus, to reflect the moves that he made without consensus: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

• (4) Instances where Laurel Lodged reverted changes back to the original text of ledes: [69]

Instances where Laurel Lodged treated those who criticised his edits with disrespect, hostility or sarcasm: [70]

Believe me, this is the tip of the iceberg. It is exhausting keeping up with this behaviour. I will post below under the same category numbers other instances of similar behaviour by Laurel Lodged - but because there are so many I would also invite other concerned editors to do so. Brocach (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a revenge topic ban proposal and forumhopping from AN/I where his attempts to get Laurel Lodged a topic ban get not much support. The Banner talk 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach is no stranger to cancassing. But he is now so desperate for support that he has actually tried to canvass me!!! Hilarious! Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice that you appreciate irony. If only you appreciated the opinions of other editors. Brocach (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have a good sense of humour. Like suddenly inventing OK, 9 days since proposal, looks to me like 4-1 for reverting those undiscussed moves. while the proposal was still under discussion (there was even a vote after your misplaced interference). It seems a bit strange to complain about Laurel Lodged timing when you just plain ignore discussions! (The 4-1 was also incorrect). The Banner talk 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't this the same thing as this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, if you look at the history here, you'll see I moved it to the earlier section at ANI from WP:AN and then collapsed it. Then, Brocach, in his infinite wisdom, moved it down here. I'm tempted to just delete it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have moved this section up to rejoin the main discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Act of good faith proposal

I'd say both have been as bad as each other, though with varying degrees of disruptiveness. Maybe a topic-ban for all involved editors here might be a better idea to allow everyone time away from each other and to deter them from the above mess of comments. Though that would mean possibly a resumption of hostilities once it expired. Maybe instead we should all do a big act of good faith and put all of the above to the dustbin and start the discussions afresh with no hostility - just logic and reasoning.

If hostilities start again then we'd be better placed to see who started it and what sanctioning should be done. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request from uninvolved admin

I have quickly read the above sections in their entirety, although I have not followed up every blue link and diff that has been posted. I am not willing or able to do the detective work necessary to form an opinion on this, so poorly have the arguments been made. Nor is it clear what admin action is being requested, or would be appropriate here. The protagonists must be aware from the few uninvolved responses that the discussion so far is not convincing from any side. May I make a request?

Would each person involved in this in any way make a statement of no more than 250 words setting out what is wrong and asking for a specific admin decision/action, backed up by diffs. If no kind of clear and urgent argument appears from any side, I suggest closing this discussion and treating it as a particularly ill-mannered and pointless content dispute, to be managed on article talk pages.. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no time at the moment to present the diffs requested, but basicly it is a conflict around the use of the name "GAA", the abbreviation of the Gaelic Athletic Association. As far as I have noticed, the trouble began with the introduction of a "County Derry" into the articles about GAA-clubs in Northern-Ireland. "County Derry" is a bit of a hot apple, with its own article about the name conflict: Derry/Londonderry name dispute. To avoid that problem, it was agreed to rename "County Derry" to "County Derry GAA", to make clear that this was not a geographical county but a provincial organisation belonging to the island-wide GAA. Shortly after that, it was proposed to change the names of the other GAA-counties along the same line. From there, the discussion went bananas and ended up in a heap of move wars, edit war and people with personal grudges. As far as I can see, people have been digging in and the viewpoints are more entrenched than a World War I-battlefield. Canvassing, side-kicks, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, ignoring of ongoing discussions is all going on. The Banner talk 12:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you The Banner. What (if any) action (eg block, page protection) or decision (eg ban) are you requesting? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact in desperation: a commission consisting of highly respected uninvolved editors (arbiters?) to resolve this mess once and for all, including penalties for breaches. This commission should do its own research, without external interference. To give the commission the time and peace to resolve the case: a topic ban for GAA-related articles for everybody involved in moves of GAA-relates articles in the past six months (and that will include me too). The duration of this topic ban should be just as long as the time the commission needs to reach a decision. The Banner talk 20:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from HighKing I haven't been involved in these GAA discussions although I do participate in many Ireland related topics such as this. From what I can see, Laurel Lodged is engaged in tendentious behaviour and either refuses, or is unable to accept, that many editors disagree with the many moves of articles and categories that have occurred or have been proposed. I believe many of the points made, on both sides, are pretty good and valid. I made a proposal above that all moves or requests cease until this is resolved, but this did not attract an agreement. So I'm now requesting a Topic Ban for Laurel Lodged from all "County"-related articles, broadly construed. --HighKing (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• In a nutshell, Laurel Lodged has a history going back nearly three years of making page moves, category moves, creations, deletions and controversial edits to article leads at a prodigious rate. He has a bee in his bonnet about the counties of Ireland, believing that all articles should deal with current administrative divisions rather than the "counties" that are referred to in normal parlance, despite being virtually alone in that belief. Lately he has turned his attention to the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA), who operate in "counties" that are effectively, but not altogether, coterminous with traditional counties. He is currently involved in discussions on this page, CfD here, CfD here, Wikiproject Ireland here and here, and possibly others, but he still goes on making his moves and edits regardless of consensus. Over the last few weeks he has acquired some supporters, such as The Banner and Mabuska. This ought to strengthen his hand in negotiations, but he still seems to believe that actions speak louder than words. To get an impression of the scale of his activity, look at his contributions 500 at a time and see how many edits you can count before your mouse hand goes numb. His current talk page has numerous incidences of complaints about tendentious editing, notices of deletion of cats and templates he has created, one recent block, and a number of heartfelt pleas to stop his activity while the current multiple discussions are ongoing. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, an admin and a well-respected Irish Wikipedian of many years standing, suggested a topic-ban on LL at Wikiproject Ireland back in October. BrownHairedGirl, another much-respected admin and Irish Wikipedian recently commented that LL's "attempt to raise the distinction between a GAA county and an adminstrative county is a red herring" and that his opening of yet another CfD was "an abuse of process". In the last few weeks, Brocach has gone head-to-head with LL, with perhaps more zeal than wisdom, which has allowed The Banner to turn this long-standing problem into a campaign against Brocach instead. Like HighKing above, I believe that only a ban on LL from all counties of Ireland and GAA topics can resolve the problem in the short term. Scolaire (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • • • I have much more respect for the arguments of Laurel Lodged than those of Brocach. And yes, I despised the warrior-like behaviour of Brocach and wanted his disrespectful edits stopped. And that is still the case. But in fact, due to the recent move-campaign of Laurel Lodged, he too has lost my respect. When topic bans are being discussed, you should not continue with controversial moves. That Brocach kept doing that, is not an excuse for Laurel Lodged to do the same. Summarized: I have changed stance due to progressive insight and support action between the two of them (and if necessary, against more people, see my proposal further up). The Banner talk 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Now, now, we shouldn't make misleading comments: Laurel Lodged has not acquired me as a supporter. Both Laurel Lodged and Brocach are equally guilty and deserving of topic-bans for their behaviour. Some editors here might like to focus on one more than the other and suggest only one deserves a topic-ban but in reality, both deserve to be if any is given out. There is a lot of political postering going on here from editors who are hoping to gain an upper-hand by having a troublesome objector removed from the scene. As I recently suggested above, maybe all editors involved should be topic-banned or maybe they should all start again afresh with a clean-slate in a new discussion on the issue with all the previous baggage in the dustbin, focusing on proper reasons for this and that. Any trouble from there on can be easily traced and sanctions given if merited. Would be the best solution to avoid the grand-standing political postering from some editors here. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I am impressed with Scolaire's summary and endorse all of it, including the line about my excess of zeal. I did indeed go head-to-head with LL over the scores upon scores of unnecessary changes made to GAA articles, and despite Mabuska's allegation that I am "equally guilty" anyone looking at my contributions will find that every edit I have ever made to a GAA article has been a good-faith attempt to improve content, or a revert to LL's changes. I'll leave it at that: those who are so critical of me will surely be able to come up with instances where that doesn't apply. Brocach (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • (...) every edit I have ever made to a GAA article has been a good-faith attempt to improve content, or a revert to LL's changes. In fact you are saying here that your reverts of LL were not good-faith attempt to improve content! And I can believe that, seeing that silly editwar at Paudie Butler: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. The Banner talk 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your attempts to come up with brief, diff-supported statements and clear requests for admin action. Unfortunately the contributions have again morphed into the same dialogue of the deaf that was seen earlier in this thread. I'm afraid I'm none the wiser, and still have no idea who (if anyone) is in the right and what (if anything) should be done to those in the wrong. My strong suspicion however is that folks on both sides are making fools of themselves. Unles a miracle of clarity happens, I will not be taking any admin action myself. But I do urge, in the strongest possible terms, everyone who has contributed above to stop seeing the other person's behaviour (about which you can do nothing) as the problem here. The solution is in your own behaviour. Please STOP any further renaming or recategorising until you can agree amongst yourselves what is the right way forward. Allow any renames or altered categories to stay, even if they are currebtly the 'wrong' version. I will go so far as to promise to briefly block anyone who tries to change, or change back, the categorisation of any GAA player, team or county before a clear agreement is reached. I suggest that you use this page for your discussions. I'm done here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Kim, I think the miracle of clarity has happened, and you missed it. HighKing says that Laurel Lodged is engaged in tendentious behaviour and should be topic-banned. Scolaire says that Laurel Lodged has a long history of tendentious editing, moving, deleting and creating and should be topic-banned. The Banner says that he has changed his stance and that "due to the recent move-campaign of Laurel Lodged, he too has lost my respect." Mabuska says that he is no supporter of Laurel Lodged, and that he deserves a topic-ban (albeit he thinks Brocach equally deserves one). Laurel Lodged is the only editor to continue making controversial edits and moves during this process. Can you show me how my analysis is flawed? Because it seems very straightforward to me. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You skip the fact that I don't withdraw my topic ban proposal for Brocach. The Banner talk 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, with respect Kim, this isn't about "right" and "wrong" in terms of edits. This is about long-term disruptive and tendentious behaviour and one editor ignoring all others and continuing. You asked for editors to submit summaries with a call to action, and they were duly submitted. You say "stop seeing the other person's behaviour (about which you can do nothing) as the problem here". Eh ... what? That's why we're here at AN/I and why we've asked for a Topic Ban. At least you've threatened a block if any more renaming goes on before agreement is reached - which is what I suggested in "Proposal Three" above, but nobody agreed to.... --HighKing (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this latest comment from Laurel Lodged illustrated the problem on a number of levels. --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I must also point out that I recently gave (now shown just above this section), some 30 diff links to samples of disruptive editing by Laurel Lodged (talk). I could have given dozens more, but I find it a rather depressing task to assemble the evidence that is so readily available for anyone who looks at his contributions history, which contains little else; however I will provide at least 50 more if asked by any admin. I have also tried repeatedly to engage, as Kim suggested, on WT:GAA but Laurel Lodged responds to me any others who want to discuss there with derision and sarcasm: see [71], [72], [73], [74], [75].

Against that, no-one has offered a single example of a GAA-related edit by me that is not either a revert of something done without consensus by Laurel Lodged, the creation of a new (useful and good-quality) article, or a normal Wikipedia-improving good-faith edit. Unlike Laurel Lodged, I also create many GAA (and other) articles. As far as I can see, Laurel Lodged has not created a single new article on anything under the sun apart, curiously, from Lochlann Quinn. Instead he devotes his time to moving stuff around without consensus, fiddling controversially with the text of existing articles, or fighting with anyone who questions anything that he does.

Why the real issue, his behaviour, is still being discussed under a heading that proposes a ban on me is, frankly, beyond me, but there is surely enough evidence here for Kim or any admin to step in and do the right thing. Looking at Laurel Lodged's contribs history I don't think a narrow ban on GAA or county topics is enough: this person should be shown the door. Brocach (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Creating articles is not an issue here, Brocach.The Banner talk 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)::::Then it should be the same door you are leaving through. The Banner talk 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. In not, let this case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It didn't take long for my peace offer to be thrown back in my face. See here. This considerably narrows the range of options before us. As chaotic war now lies before us, and everybody is fed up with the antics of the 3 of us, I must plead for an official ban on all 3 of us if there is to be any hope of peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Do follow that link if you have time to spare, but it doesn't add anything to what is above. I have not volunteered, as Laurel Lodged repeatedly has ([76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]), for an edit ban, nor do I have any complaint against Finnegas, nor am I threatening "chaotic war". I am here to contribute constructively to Wikipedia across the modest range of my expertise, which includes the GAA. Again: if anyone discerns a case for imposing a ban on me, point to one GAA-related edit by me that is not a revert of something done without consensus by Laurel Lodged, the creation of a new (useful and good-quality) article, or a normal Wikipedia-improving good-faith edit. If not, let's get this closed down by permanently blocking LL, who if only shut out of GAA/county edits will quickly find some other arena for disruption. Brocach (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Latest posting from Kim Dent-Brown requests that discussion be confined to here and identify instances where an editor has defied structures on editing. I am, frankly, deeply disappointed that after 30+ diffs linked above Kim cannot see the case for a block on a consistently disruptive editor. I hope that an admin who knows a bit about the subject matter will take an interest. In the meantime, I suppose that I might as well advise you (and Kim) of at least some of the changes made by Laurel Lodged since Kim's statement at 16:36, 30 January 2013: try [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]. Is that enough? If not, what would be enough? (Changes made by me = 0.) Permanent ban on Laurel Lodged now, please, unless anyone can think of a reason why that would not be a good idea.Brocach (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Kim has done more to research the issues on this than I have (which is almost not at all). My instinctive reaction is to support Laurel Lodged's proposal to topic ban him, Brocach, and Finnegas (although Finnegas hasn't contributed as much to this discussion and it's not clear to me how large their role is in all this). I'm a little concerned about the supporters of each side and haven't looked at their roles in the content itself to determine whether the topic ban would be sufficiently effective to prevent further disruption. I also don't know who would take part in actually resolving the content dispute while the most partisan editors are banned. Someone, I believe, suggested a "commission"; I doubt that's feasible. I'll defer to Kim on this because he's taken more trouble than anyone else, but I thought I'd throw in some comments (for what they're worth) so he won't be the only admin commenting (forgive me if another admin commented and I missed it - this thing goes on forever).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Topic bans for those editors who can't stop edit/move warring even during ANI discussion [103] and [104] should be quite no brainer.--Staberinde (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks Bbb23 and Staberinde, it's good to get some input from people not already deeply involved. Picking up on the diffs identified by Staberinde I have given personal final warnings to Laurel Lodged and Finnegas. Each had made several edits of the sort I had explicitly warned against. The only reason I did not immediately block is that by the time I saw the message above the edits were many hours old and the two of them had ceased editing. Apologies, but even admins have to sleep. I've made it clear in my warnings to these two (and this applies to anyone else reading this) that in future I will block indefinitely, even if the offending edits are some hours old. This has gone on quite long enough. That's all I can do as a solo admin, I can't topic ban anyone on my own. If others reading this who have been uninvolved thus far could comment on a topic ban, to arrive at a community consensus, that would be very helpful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Topic bans seems to be a good solution to me but for a more immediate action I'm wondering if this case could be sanctioned under a WP:TROUBLES arbitration enforcement. De728631 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be hard to come up with any but the most tenuous link to the Troubles (the GAA has sometimes been described as having a republican outlook, Derry is one of the counties involved). I think it would set a dangerous precedent TBH. Scolaire (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I'd agree that this dispute is only tangentially related to the Troubles. It centres on the naming of counties throughout Ireland and the fact that one of them has a disputed name which is a WP:TROUBLES tinderbox is peripheral. The Tipp/North Tipp dispute here is much more heated and in no way Troubles related. Bringing in enforcements on the basis of Arbcom decisions on the Troubles would be counterproductive at best, and an abuse of process at worst, imho. (Disclaimer: I'm an Englishman with only limited knowledge and experience of GAA and Ireland-related topics.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree with Kim Dent-Brown that this has nothing to do with the Troubles. This is about the obsessive behaviour of one editor, Laurel Lodged, with a long history of changing dozens of article and category names without discussion, and the response of another editor (me) who reverted some of those those changes and sought again and again to get the other to engage on the issues. Scolaire above gives an excellent summary. This sort of thing could have happened on any topic, and if the troublesome editor receives only a topic ban, it probably will migrate to some other field within LL's imagined areas of expertise. I have diff-linked, above, my comments about LL and am still waiting for one - just one - example of a GAA-related edit by me that was not a revert of a contested change, adding a new article to Wikipedia, or a regular content-improving edit; but in the absence of any such evidence, I am still discussed here by some as if I were the problem and as if I were the one who deserved a ban. I am trying to prepare myself for a debate at WT:GAA but am worn down by the stupid and unnecessary battles to date, and have seen nothing from the other editor to indicate that he respects that as a venue: "only tumbleweed here" was his sarcastic response when I tried to engage there. There seems to me to be no possibility of reconciling; I regard LL as a vandal and can't work with him. I would prefer that one or other of us just be told to get lost, forever, and would be delighted to comply if the majority prefer to work with Laurel Lodged. Brocach (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have as proposed by Kim Dent-Brown opened a discussion on the substantive issues at WT:GAA. I would still welcome here any posts from anybody that identifies even one instance of a GAA edit by me - ever - that was not a revert of a contested LL change, adding a new article to Wikipedia, or a regular content-improving edit. I would also suggest that any editors who want to withdraw and apologise for suggestions to the contrary do so here rather than distract from the substantive discussion at WT:GAA; I will accept of course such apologies as I am very keen to move past this ridiculous episode and get back to improving the content of Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I still remember Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?, That was not content improving, that was editwarring. The Banner talk 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for closure

While most everyone who has commented above is in favour of topic bans for one or more of the participants here, few !voters are uninvolved and even if they are right the total numbers seem too low to me to be taken as a strong enough community consensus. I don't think any ban is going to get sufficient clear cut support to be enforceable right now. I have explicitly made clear on a number of editors' talk pages my willingness to block anyone who makes further out-of-consensus edits to county GAA articles, and I repeat myself here. I would close this up myself but as I've been involved in the discussion I think it's better form to propose that we leave this topic now with the proviso that folks receiving blocks from me are very likely to be back here looking at more straightforward ban discussions. If anyone feels moved to close this up, be my guest. If you oppose closure, please give a reasoned argument for what might be achieved by prolonging this discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that no-one has objected I will close this myself once twelve hours have elapsed since my closure proposal above. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Short term block proposal: User:Danjel

There's arguing to make a point, there's arguing for the sake of arguing, and then there's just plain arguing with everyone whether or not they agree with you. Such is the disruptive and boggling behavior of User:Danjel.

See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche various users have commented on Danjel's behavior:

• Epeefleche - "wikihounding" diff
• bobrayner - took exception to refactoring and edit-warring over his comments first revert second revert third revert bobraynor takes exception
• TP - 'Borderline WP:IDHT' [105]
• Starblind - "Well past WP:IDHT" [106]
• Kww - "disruptive" [107]

I first came into contact with the user at the article All Hallows' School where I was attempting to create a resilient content solution which would satisfy all the concerns of inclusionists and deletionists and thus remove all boilerplates for sourcing with an absolute minimum of loss of information. I met with procedural objections diff], a behavioral warning based on my interpretation of content policy,[108] further argumentation past the point where I've indicated a desire to disengage,diff a warning of impending problems for me in the future in the context of Epeefleche's AN/I and RfC/U, which I construed as a threat,diff and various modifications of responding editors at the RfC/U in addition to responding to views on the title page instead of the talk page which seems to indicate the user thinks they WP:OWN the discussion. It seems like there is a building consensus that this user is being disruptive and cannot be talked with constructively. I thought I would provide diffs of my own aggravation with the user and provide other editors with an opportunity to do the same. Recommend a brief block to chill out and let the RfC/U on Epeefleche focus on constructive improvements for that editor without Danjel's behavior being the focus of it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-admin) I think it's rather nice of you to propose a short term block, ClaudeReigns. Looking at Danjel's behavior and past comments, I'm inclined to agree with Starblind from Epeefleche's RFC - Well past WP:IDHT; and in my opinion, borderline on WP:STROLLER, and a considerably longer block. He needs to become a honey badger, settle down, and let it go. Essays do make sense sometimes. Fish^Barking? 22:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Since TP disagreed with Danjel on the RfC/U, Danjel tried to get TP recalled; that's a classy move. I'm trying to avoid getting sucked into another lengthy discussion with danjel, which is not something that I enjoy and it doesn't seem that danjel enjoyed it either, so I won't reopen the disagreement between Danjel and I; the comments are out there on a couple of pages for all to see, hopefully it's over now. I think many RfC/Us tend to start out noisy and then become calmer; maybe in a few days that RfC/U will calm down somewhat. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You take your opponent in a discussion to ANI. Then, as evidence of his problematic behaviour, you point to the subjective comments of an individual defending himself at RFC/U and people who are strongly defending that person, their friend. You then selectively WP:CANVAS those individuals who have opposed my position at the RFC/U to come to this thread (diff, diff and diff) presumably to sway this discussion in your direction also.

As additional evidence, you provide things like this [diff, where you felt "threatened", because I told you (fairly politely, I have to say, because you were rambling) that you can't ask for scanned copies of references. Besides that you set a weird WP:DEADLINE of 24 hours (diff, instead of just removing content that you were challenging, per WP:BRD, as I suggested at diff), and that you were being a bit WP:POINTy ("if you can" at diff), your work at All Hallows' School was good (and I acknowledged so at User_talk:ClaudeReigns#The Citation Barnstar). Even so, you then argued first with User:Bilby, and then with me about whether a source is valid if you can't see it (see the diff at the beginning). In fact, that whole discussion (at User_talk:ClaudeReigns#Fran Bailey) is an exercise in bizarre.

And it appears that, despite your claim to consensus, there is a movement away from such edits. There is now a footnote at WP:V ([Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-3]]), although it was edited in after the beginning of the RFC/U, so I have chosen not to raise it at the RFC/U until it's clear that the behaviour is still ongoing. The footnote states:

When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified.

...In this case, the deletion is large scale, there's no other efforts to improve the material, there seems to be a concentration on particular material (regarding Middle Eastern subjects), there are frequently already acceptable citations in the text, there was little to no attempt to communicate any concerns (besides "d per tag" and so on). I am one of those "some editors" who object to such practices. Therefore the RFC/U is completely legitimate.

In regards to recalling TParis, I note that you've decided to only link to part of the discussion. I actually assumed that Kudpung was a friend and could therefore mediate between us. I later stated that I wasn't looking to recall (diff). In any case, I wasn't aware that questioning an admin's actions and exploring recall (even if I were) was against any policy?

No evidence has been supplied of any policy or behavioural issue, except that I am in opposition to ClaudeReigns' friend. So, besides that I'm an opponent, and a healthy dose of delusional paranoia (threats?), there's not much more to respond to here. This is an attempt to silence an opponent and nothing more. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I later stated that I wasn't looking to recall And yet you brought up fact that TParis can be recalled in your very first sentence. Recall has to do with mediation how, exactly? --Calton | Talk 01:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I presumed that Kudpung was friends with TParis because he is listed on TParis' recall page. Don't you think that if I were interested in recall, I would have approached any of the other admins also? Even so, would you like to direct me to the policy or guideline that forbids anything relating to admin recall? I've asked ClaudeReigns, but s/he's not forthcoming either. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The point which you are missing -- or avoiding -- is that you mentioned recall in your very first sentence, and yet we're expected to believe that it's irrelevant. That fact that you didn't -- or haven't -- approached other admins is irrelevant.

..would you like to direct me to the policy or guideline that forbids anything relating to admin recall? Would you like to point me where I made, suggested, hinted, or waved vaguely in the direction of that suggestion? Take your time. But still, that bit of Wikilawyering tells me that yes, you are thinking of recall. --Calton | Talk 08:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"delusional paranoia" - careful with those personal attacks there, tiger. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what should I call it when a user interprets threats on the basis of, for example [diff]? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that. Do not speculate on the mental states or motivations of other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In Danjel's world, we are with few exceptions insane. And I have a furry white cat in my lap. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can the user state in a non-sarcastic and utterly serious tone that my work will continue unimpeded by he or his high school students at the conclusion of this affair? I would find it highly assuring and a welcome departure in tone. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a single instance that your work was impeded by me or any of my high school students? Didn't think so. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, a clear olive branch is rejected in favor of contention. The user refuses to offer the assurance. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am accused of WP:CANVAS violation in this discussion by the responding user, Danjel. WP:CANVAS states that supplying notification is appropriate "On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior)." I have interpreted this to mean that in mentioning those users and requesting the diffs for their statements, I am right to attempt to ascertain if their statements were appropriate. If those deciding this matter deem my action in doing so inappropriate, it should be explained to me. If however my actions are appropriate, it should be explained to you. Beyond that, I have no need to argue the point. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support block, and provide additional evidence: You've mentioned several other editors who Danjel has locked horns with. I'd like to add my name to that list. As a result of an AfD of Middle Harbour Public Schools, he not only went after Epeefleche, but me as well, accusing me of incompetence because I didn't see eye to eye with him. Not willing to let sleeping dogs lie, he went ballistic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chili burger, calling it a "clusterfuck", accusing other editors of being Cabals and Meatpuppets, and turning it into some sort of personal indictment against me, while repeatedly referencing Middle Harbour, even though Middle Harbour and chili burgers have about as little in common with each other as any two articles on this Wiki. After Chili burger was closed as keep due to overwhelming consensus to do so, he almost immediately started a pair of ill-conceived merge discussions, then continued mudslinging against me and others so quickly that the merge discussion had to be speedily closed to prevent WWIII. All the while, I tried telling him to cool off; his response was to delete my overtures as vandalism. It's blatantly clear that Danjel has problems with accepting consensus, and with those who disagree with him, with this ridiculous action against TParis being the last in a long line of examples pbp 01:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PBP's comments above should be taken with exactly one grain of salt. He has previously dragged me here on no less than three occasions for much drama here at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#User:Danjel, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel and [[109]]). No diffs of any policy violations, certainly no diffs of his telling me to "cool off" (noting, as is discussed in one of the archived threads above, that he has previously been told to stay off my talkpage ad doesn't). No evidence nor policy issues brought up, so essentially a worthless post. In fact, the whole post is suggestive of the WP:COMPETENCE issues I (and others) have previously raised in the previous ANI threads. It's not surprising that he has come out in support of Epeefleche though. I had, actually, been pleasantly surprised to see no comments from him (up to now, alas). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is about you. You've just corroborated what I said: that you can't get along with me, and that you not being able to get along with me has resulted in three ANI threads before this one, ones in which only you were advancing incompetence claims. You're making an absolutely wonderful case for your ability to get along with others And as for the "no diffs" argument, I blue-linked a discussion where you commented more than 30 times. That's more than enough diffs pbp 02:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So if this is about me, and discussion should be limited to me (and my actions and so forth), should I now count on you to strikethrough your comments about me at the RFC/U wherein the subject is Epeefleche? Didn't think so. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I do see as legitimate the issues raised by Claude, Starblind, BobRayner, TP, KWW, Fishbarking, Callton, Bushranger, and pbp -- above and in the above diffs.

And the diffs just scratch the surface of the battleground created by Danjel. For example -- one might look at the discussions with AN/I-closing sysop TP here. And the parallel discussion here.

Or one might look at the reverts at the RFC. Until today, I had not looked at the RFC for many days. Now, going through the edit history I see that it has been a battleground littered with squabbles between Danjel and other editors who saw things differently than he did.

And his edit history shows that he is singularly focused on this course of action; it is the bulk of his editing for the past days -- I wonder whether this focus of his is perhaps not in the best interests of the project.

And, as I just added mention of at the RFC/U, his hounding of me has continued even during the RFC. Even after input to him at the AN/I, and from the sysop who closed it, and from others. He does not seem to be inclined to listen to it.

I would appreciate an interaction ban being placed on Danjel, given all the evidence linked to at the RFC and the above, so that he stops following me around the Project. This has gone on for a year, is disruptive, and continues despite all manner of community and sysop input.

As to the block proposal -- I'll, at least at this point, not comment, and leave it for others to decide whether that is appropriate or not.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right! The RFC/U has been quite squabbly! It's good to know that you have friends. Meanwhile, there were 3 other editors, who have also expressed concerns and you haven't even vaguely attempted to address them. Nor will you. Because the purpose of this, just like the purpose of the squabbling over there, is to allow you to evade responsibility. There's not much else to say. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're including me among Epeefleche's "friends", you need to dial back the persecution complex. I'm actually sympathetic to your view -- if you're going to go to the trouble opening the edit window to delete something, why can't you be arsed to do a quick check, at least? -- but you're doing yourself no favors here. --Calton | Talk 09:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not counting you among Epeefleche's "friends". I think that there's a distinction between his "friends" and people who are just commenting from a considered opinion. Compare, for example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by Blueboar and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by Kww (even if he does think I'm re-adding unreferenced material, which is wrong) with virtually every other post on that page. For a further example, see the baying for blood that is occuring down below. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Block (for now)/ Support Interaction Ban I am completely underwhelmed by the arguments that User:Danjel has made at the RfC/U in question. The issues raised are either non-violations or trivial nitpicking, and the proposes remedies are unjustified and unreasonable. Community consensus seems to be that the problem here is Danjel, not EF. I think that in trying to impose his views of how other editors should act, that Danjel has lost sight of what our ultimate purpose is: to build an encyclopedia. All of the rhetoric and piling on of claims and counterclaims by Danjel have only served to waste more and more time. Danjel has not convinced the community, his mind will not be changed and the RfC/U is going nowhere but downhill. Unfortunately, Danjel appears utterly unable to deal with EF in civil fashion. The world of Wikipedia is more than large enough to allow enough editing space for both editors, and an imposition of an interaction ban on Danjel with any of EF's work should be enough to keep the peace here. In the event that an interaction ban does not resolve the issue and Danjel is instigating further conflict, a block might well be justified. Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally get what you're saying, but in light of what pbp is saying about his interactions, and the issue of what I construed as a veiled threat, (now more clearly substantiated by php's observations) it seems likely there will be another user who will have to deal with this. I am not saying an interaction ban isn't a good idea (I actually didn't know that was an option - sounds great) but I would still be concerned if the RfC/U will be closed constructively with Epeefleche receiving helpful advice focused on him alone, (otherwise it truly was a waste of time) and that other users would not fall victim to idle hands. This behavior doesn't just magically stop when Epeefleche isn't around. Epeefleche is not the trigger. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I decided to follow my own logic. A search bears out another warning about wikihounding from two years ago, totally unrelated to Epeefleche. Here's another accusation of wikihounding which danjel took to AN/I last year, also unrelated to Epeefleche. If one person says it, it can possibly be blown off. If two people say it, perhaps cause for concern. If three people say it, perhaps it's true and pattern behavior. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Did you click through to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Jayjg_accusing_me_of_wikihounding? Where is my name mentioned? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another of Epeefleche's supporters, Hasteur, has started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE. I look forward to being mentioned at WP:AN3 and WP:AC by the end of the day. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Block - For what it's worth, while I do personally understand Epeefleche's intentions in removing unsourced content - (I tend to do the same!) - I will not understand nor condone what seems like borderline character assassination against an editor who has had good-faith intentions - although, may have misrepresented them at times. A temporary block against Danjel isn't going to fix the somewhat grey-area that is: preserving unsourced material vs. removing it. Danjel has knocked heads with a number of editors — as has probably everybody else here. Mentioning things such as a supposed violation of WP:NOSHARE and a recall against TParis (which he specifically mentions isn't a recall) are just examples of cherry-picking, and that won't get us anywhere. A block seems punitive at this stage, and frankly, we'd be going back to square one. I would encourage Danjel to take a step back from this, reflect on his behaviour that he has engaged in with other editors, and perhpas think of a possible solution. I also a Support a self-imposed Interaction Ban between Epeefleche and Danjel's contributions - temporarily - until the issue is resolved. I believe that both editors are mature enough to put aside their differences, once the issue has diminished. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block We dont do chill-out blocks, or block an account to reinforce a point. Before blocking is considered it would be worth trying other solutions, and the main suggestion I'd have is for Danjel to step back from the RFC/U about Epeefleche, and accept the outcome when it is done. (Personally, I agree with his basic premise, that removing easily sourced content is less than ideal behaviour, and doesn't really help the project - but in the end it is well within policy). In regard to his interactions with ClaudeReigns, there I think things might be being misrepresented a bit - ClaudeReigns didn't exactly act in the best possible manner in regard to All Hallows' School, either, but all of that seems like a done issue, and not worth pursing on either side. If there does need to be action, an interaction ban between Epeefleche and Danjel doesn't seem like an unworkable idea, and is certainly worth trying before we turn to something more draconian. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block completely. In fact this is a totally unnecessary AN case. "Teacher, teacher, Johny hit me because I pulled his hair!" per this discussion over 15 hours ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I appreciate the support for an interaction ban on Danjel. Not only here, but expressed overwhelmingly at the RFC. The basis for banning him from interacting with me is that, as demonstrated, he has been hounding me. Even after being warned by a sysop not to hound me. As recently as this month. And he has hounded me even this week, during the RFC. There is of course zero basis for placing a ban on the person being hounded. We don't place restraining orders on people who are the victims of inappropriate behavior. But rather on the perpetrator. To do otherwise would be like placing a restraining order on a person stalked by Robert John Bardo. That would simply be bass-ackwards.

Finally, the interaction ban placed on Danjel should be permanent. Danjel's focus on engaging me in this manner has persisted for a full year. Without signs of abating (just the opposite, as seen by the AN/I and RFC just this month, followed by his hounding this very week). And it started on a completely unrelated issue. It's a big project. Let him engage others. There is no need for him to have the ability to come back at a future time to engage me, and what others have referred to as his IDHT approach does not support the view that he should engage me in the future. It's been one year. Enough is enough. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the hounding, there is a current RFC/U on your behaviour, and you cry foul when the initiator of the RFC/U checks and notes that exactly the behaviour that has been called into question at the RFC/U is still continuing? From WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases." Unless you're suggesting that you have, in fact, stopped the behaviour (in which case I'd quite happily shelve the RFC/U), and that this diff (fixed with an easily found source at diff) isn't actually a continuation of that behaviour (i.e., that easily sourced content is indiscriminately deleted without any attempt to source it, as mentioned in the background of the dispute, the first paragraph at the RFC/U, and then, because you continuously ignore that point, restated again later at diff, which you have continued to ignore in your later posts)... Wait. Hmm.

Let's face it: this is an attempt to avoid criticism by silencing an opponent rather than actually responding to the problem at hand. The feeling at WP:V has changed, and this is abundantly evident in discussion (Wikipedia_talk:V#Returning_to_a_possible_footnote_for_the_.22Burden_of_evidence.22_section and Wikipedia_talk:V#Bot). Yet, has your behaviour changed? Nope (diff, fixed with an easily found source at diff, although the article still needs a lot of work from someone who knows more about it than I). Seriously, how hard is google? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Danjel — you've made the point in your prior post as to why an interaction ban is necessary, banning you from interacting with me. Even after all the above-indicated input to you at the AN/I, RFC, and by sysops on talkpages, you continue to hound me this very week. Follow me to a page that you never edited. Where I made an appropriate edit. Revert me. Again disparagingly label my appropriate edit "disruptive." And again leave a misleading edit summary. You, as you have done before, restore it without any refs—though this time you repair that violation of wp:v quickly. And when you discuss it above, you still have an IDHT attitude. A year of this is sufficient.

As to WP:HOUNDING, of course that is what you were doing. And your following me around the project -- still, one year after your perceived slight on a completely different issue -- to revert my appropriate edit, disparagingly and inappropriately term it "disruptive", and leave a misleading edit summary is of course not permitted by wp:HOUNDING. Which says:

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.... The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

Frankly, if one reads the policy, your behavior is strikingly parallel to what the policy seeks to protect editors against. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block — This appears to be an attempt to silence an editor on one side of a dispute, by the other side of the dispute. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal interaction ban proposal

Alright, I've been mostly silent here at ANI, it's time I make my case. I originally became involved as an (uninvolved) admin closing an ANI thread about Epeefleche on 17 Dec 12 22:08. The close said clearly "No evidence of a policy violation...The burden is on Danjel to find a source for the content." However, I also added, because folks mentioned it in the thread, that "On the other hand, Google takes all but a few seconds and is worth the effort." That was a summary of the thread. On 14 Jan, Epeefleche started a thread by Danjel where he was threatened with a block for removing content. Danjel got involved making the same accusations he did at the ANI thread which close out of his favor. I explained that he misunderstands that ANI close if that's what he took from it. He then said that what he took from it is that I place the burden on him to Wikistalk Epeefleche edits (which he also 'rejects'). At the time, and still, I felt it was a serious enough concern to specifically address the Wikistalking. I also tried being sympathetic to his cause and I specifically explained what his misreading of WP:V was here. Finally I recommended he seek change at WP:V which he rejected. That he has managed to get a footnote since then doesn't mean we completely ignore what is actually written doesn't change the course of events up until now nor is a footnote of equal weight to the policy contents itself. After this, I joined in the RFC/U and consider myself involved from this point on out. I at no point have used my tools, the only admin action I have ever taken was closing the ANI thread before I was involved.

Here is my proposal: I don't like one sided bans. I think the disruptive behavior is on Danjel's part. In rejecting the consensus at ANI and opening an RFC/U, Danjel has ignored the community's consensus in favor of his own. He accuses others of being friends with Epeefleche and has been throwing around accusations of canvassing (he retracted the first one quickly but made the others afterwards). He has accused me of violating WP:INVOLVED here. He has redacted others comments at the ANI and ignored RFC/U instructions to make retaliatory threads after viewpoints he disagrees with. Danjel's actions have been completely without policy support, as has been explained to him. His actions have been irrational and frankly annoying. I think Danjel should be under a 6-month interaction ban with Epeefleche. He should no longer be allowed to comment on Epeefleche's enforcement of WP:V. But as I said, I dislike one-sided interaction bans. Let's not leave room for Epeefleche to antagonize him either. I propose that Epeefleche stay out of Danjel's primary topic area of high schools. That should limit the overlap in articles. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 15:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose as this would restrict Epeefleche from an area in which he has done nothing wrong or anything against policy. If person A commits a crime against person B, you don't toss them both in jail just because. That's madness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify, do you support the other direction?--v/r - TP 16:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• I do think this would be ideal if both sides would agree to it. I can't agree with Epeefleche's actions, though they can be justified as being within policy as written (but not as intended IMO), and Danjel is just running way too hot (though I tend to share his views). I do think a one-sided ban would be too easily gamed. As a second choice, an interaction ban (no editing a page the other has edited other than AN, ANI, pump, etc. and there the would avoid the same discussions) would perhaps be another reasonable outcome that shouldn't really bother E. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the part about Epeefleche staying out of high schools, support the rest: Epeefleche shouldn't be banned from school-related articles just because Danjel kicks up drama. pbp 21:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support in part; Very strong oppose in part. The facts are well presented by TParis. But of course, as Starblind points out, there is zero basis for restricting me (in an effort to be even-handed, between the person hounding and the one being hounded) from an area in which I have done nothing wrong or anything against policy. As Starblind says eloquently: "If person A commits a crime against person B, you don't toss them both in jail just because. That's madness."

  What I do support is the ban on Danjel.

  But it should at this point be permanent -- this is not a passing matter. It has gone on for a year. Danjel's activity at the RFC and on assorted talkpages this week shows that the obsessive disruption has only increased, and become an even-greater percentage of Danjel's focus as an editor. And -- and this point cannot be stressed enough -- Danjel's posts even in this string, following all the input that TParis and others have given him on talkpages and at AN/I and at RFC, as well as Danjel's wikihouding me this very week, all militate in favor of the ban being permanent.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hounding again today. And now, again, today. Danjel followed me to a deletion I made of unsourced material that had been tagged both in April 2009 and February 2010. He followed me to an article he had never edited. And hours after my deletion, he restored something close to what was stated in a fraction of the deleted, tagged, unsourced material. While deleting some text himself, without acknowledging it. Though he added a ref, he labeled my removal of the uncited text "disruptive". He misleadingly wrote in his edit summary: "Undid revision 535205260 by Epeefleche (talk) - revert disruptive removal of text)". Just as he had in the above instances.

First, his edit summary was again misleading. His was not a complete undo of my revision. Not even close, if you look at the 2 edits. He added a ref (which of course--in and of itself is excellent), and touched only a small part of my edit. Second, it was again inappropriate for him to label my edit disruptive—in contravention of all the feedback given him. Finally, this is yet another example of him wikihounding me; to this very day. One year after this started. Ignoring all manner of sysop and community feedback. Danjel has today demonstrated once again why an interaction ban on him will be required.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So you suggest that I should have added my ref, and left the rest of the text (which was problematic for other reasons) in place? Because it's either delete everything or keep everything, right? Rubbish. The key difference that is becoming apparent between you and I is that will consider the text, whether it's appropriate and whether it's source-able, and only keep that information that is. On the other hand, you just delete everything, whether it's of encyclopedic value or not, whether it's source-able or not. How can you possibly argue that it is better to remove all information than to keep the information that can and should be kept? THAT is why your edits are disruptive, and why your attempt to silence criticism and discourage (or prevent) repair of your edits is not in the best interests of wikipedia. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How much "consider[ing] the text" did you do when you restored copyrighted content? None. You're the exact opposite of Epeefleche and just as if not more disruptive.--v/r - TP 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified in the above, in italics, that adding a ref in and of itself is excellent. I would have thought that self-apparent.

The problem is Danjel's hounding. Continuing this week. After Danjel was repeatedly warned not to hound. By both sysops and editors.

As well as Danjel's tendentiousness and unfounded accusations that the original edits were disruptive. When they were not. As was pointed out to Danjel at AN/I, and at RFC, and on sundry talkpages by others.

As well as Danjel's misleading edit summaries. Calling his edit "a revert" of my edit, when he was actually adding a ref — confusing editors into thinking that my original deletion was of ref'd text. For example, Danjel successfully misled a sysop here, despite the fact that Danjel was adding a ref to unreferenced text, and my original deletion which Danjel labelled "disruptive" was of unreferenced text tagged since 2009.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that we're now playing semantic games over what "revert" means... Good. In regards to the rest of your post her (i.e., in regards to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, I've replied, pointing out that there is specific allowance for looking at an editor's contributions in regards to an (ongoing) RFC/U, and that I'm fixing your lazy edits by adding the refs which you could have found yourself in 3 seconds. That point has been ignored by you. So... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal as well as addition of material takes judgment, and discussing the possibility of sourcing leads to attempts to source it which may or may not be successful, and whose success of failure usually determines the outcome. Vigorous discussion at challenged material at afd or elsewhere is helpful, not harmful: otherwise it make it all too easy for someone with an agenda. (It is incidentally not true that most or all school articles are deleted at afd--almost none of them are, they are instead redirected; and I think it equally unconstructive to bring them for deletion in the first place as to try to keep them as articles. What we need is these two editors discussing the issues, not each other. Any ban should be addressed to that. It is usually better to discuss the issues at an afd than to directly challenge what some other person has said, and this would go a long way to reducing conflicts between them. The effect of preventing them from working on the same pages would be to give undue preference to the first mover, and in this case, consider the afd and content work, that will almost always be Eppefleche. It's no secret I usually oppose Epeefleche's views at afd , but I often oppose Danjel's also. I'm not sure I can devise anything better than to suggest that they never use each other's names or refer to each other directly or indirectly. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • DGG - A ban of any sort is not usually issued because of valid rational criticism. It is issued because of disruptive behaviors. Have I not adequately illustrated disruptive behaviors by Danjel? If so, he should be under an interaction ban to prevent more disruption. Let the RFC/U continue it's course, it's leaning Epeefleche's favor anyway. But do not allow the disruptive WP:IDHT behavior to continue.--v/r - TP 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The clear partisan nature of this "proposal" is stunning. So, what, Epeefleche has the opportunity to edit every article on a school and the result is a de facto ban from editing the articles in which I have an interest. To say that this is disproportionate is an understatement. That, together with the fact Epeefleche is unwilling to restrict his own editing in any way from the articles that he knows that I edit make it pretty plain that this is just and only an attempt by TParis to silence opposition. WP:V has changed (and Epeefleche's behaviour has continued). There are several more editors posting to the RFC/U. Epeefleche's side has noticed that things aren't going their way so they're getting more shrill. So, we have te fact that several editors have opposed such a one sided ban even before the proposal was put, and the fact this thread originated with a degree of canvassing on ClaudeReigns' part (noting Epeefleche's known history of canvassing discussed above), and the outrageous attempt at harassment by piling on AN and ANI reports (that TParis continued below; by the way, you ARE WP:INVOLVED, the outrageous onesidedness of your interactions here and at the RFC/U is proof positive of that)... Well. There's nothing more to say. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please explain your rationale for pointing out that I am involved. Have I used my tools in any way? I was uninvolved when I close the ANI, you made me involved by your behavior which I've responded to against your favor. You say WP:V has changed. How? The relevant parts that I explained to you are still part of the prose and all you've achieved is a footnote. WP:V hasn't changed, it now includes a minor viewpoint is all.--v/r - TP 02:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you're willing to show that a minor viewpoint (that is now starting to get represented at the RFC/U almost equitably with what you consider to be the "majority" viewpoint of WP:V) is "disruptive", such that their concerns should be completely ande prejudicially ignored (which is inarguably what Epeefleche is doing), then... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Which "inarguably" Epeefleche may have been doing for the week you've had the change, but you've been explicitly doing for two months since the ANI. Do you have any self-awareness at all about your own behavior? The accusations you make are pathetic and have been committed by you 10x worse than Epeefleche and yet you hound him instead of yourself. It's disgusting how you've been behaving.--v/r - TP 13:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Partly per DGG, but also from my familiarity with the attitudes of the concerned editors. Epeefleche is in no way innocent of disruptive editing, and although I collaborate well with Danjel on school articles, I have known him to get hot-headed on occasions. There is no such thing as a 'one-sided' interaction ban, it takes two to tango, and I suggest, per this discussion (for anyone who has still not bothered to follow the link) that they informally concede to stay out of each other's hair. If not, we'll end up loosing one valuable education editor and allowing another to continue to make unchallenged, possibly disruptive edits, and who needs to learn that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Role account used by User:Danjel

I wasn't aware this was already being discussed, my apologies.--v/r - TP 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since Danjel has brought up the matter that he has used his students as an argument against Epeefleche's actions, I feel it's relevant to point out that he is using a role account named User:MrJuddsStudents in violation of WP:ROLE. This account should be blocked.--v/r - TP 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC) That is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE. - Bilby (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed.[110] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Just an unrelated observation: is Rachack (talk · contribs)'s large collection of external links on their user page not somehow a violation of UP#PROMO? I've never seen so many outside links on a single user page before. Doc talk 10:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to close?

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

---

Are there any objections to closing this discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, there's no resolution. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We can linkspam on our user pages, I take it, since no one seems to take an interest to my above question. While links like this have little or nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, I now know that I can promote my favorite companies by linking them to my user page. Awesome! Time to get busy with the linking... Doc talk 11:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you contacted a few friends and asked them to come by and kick up a bit of a fuss? Just a suggestion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Danjel, Currently, there appears to be a proposed short term block on you and interaction ban proposed that involves you. I see a lot of opposes to both. If there is movement towards either one of these actions, then the section would need to be organized to show supports of some kind of action. Otherwise, I think it should be closed. Do you still want to continue with this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• shrug* I have no intention whatsoever of backing down on the RFC/U, nor will I stop criticising other users even where they gather in groups. As such, why not just keep this open for the inevitable response? That way we don't have to keep rehashing over the same bullshit. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block Immediately above, Danjel has unequivocably stated that it is his intent to disrupt WP:CONSENSUS when he stated "nor will I stop criticising other users even where they gather in groups". As this is contrary to the community nature of Wikipedia, and suggests that violations of WP:NPA are their intent, it's time to stop the insanity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm referring to canvassing. Then again, what's the difference? By all means demonstrate that WP:AGF only applies when we want it to. It's definitely better to assume that someone's talking about arguing against consensus rather than arguing against what he's been arguing against (like, well.. all of the above). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to read "nor will I stop criticising other users even where they gather in groups" as "I intend to disrupt consensus". I criticise other users too, whether they gather in groups or not - in fact I do it rather a lot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But... BLOOOOOOOOODDDDD?!? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block - battleground attitude, doesn't seem to be here to work as part of a community, intends to disrupt. GiantSnowman 12:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. Evidence of that is: (1) use of the dispute resolution process to resolve disputes. I think anyone who ever starts an RFC/U should be immediately and indefinitely banned. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"I have no intention whatsoever of backing down on the RFC/U, nor will I stop criticising other users even where they gather in groups"?! GiantSnowman 12:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and what do my posts in the section immediately above this deal with? Pick one of either (a) consensus; (b) canvassing? This isn't a particularly hard one... A hint? It's bolded! ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I SEE what you're saying now! You're saying that the RFC/U has closed with the consensus view that Epeefleche is A-OK! Err... Hmm. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, really displaying a great attitude here, making me want to change my mind... GiantSnowman 12:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Aw. Shucks. Thank you so much. I feel the same about you as you do about me. Wait, did I just breach WP:NPA? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel: You just need to cool it and become somewhat more sanguine about things. Here, the useful and helpful response is to say, 'I am sorry, if I gave the impression I would ignore consensus, that was not my intent. Whatever, the consensus is of any community process I will abide it. I fully intend to work within community policy and process' Unless of course your intent is not to abide community process consensus and than its probably best if you find something else to do. (Also, how you feel about anyone is not what anyone is here to discuss)Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have said things like that repeatedly. And then have had things like the above said back to/about me repeatedly. For example, over at the RFC/U, you might notice that I had to repeatedly say that I was not interesting in wikistalking anyone (because, quite honestly, I've got many better things to do with my time, like, for example, stare out the window), and.. Yet.. As for being cool, I'm actually feeling fantastic! I've really cleared off my wiki todo list in the last couple of hours. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, right but 'fight or flight' is not anyones only choices -- engage and seek to persuade (acknowledging others have some points) and whatever the outcome move on, either on project or otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said above. I am not stepping back from the RFC/U and I am not going to stop criticising people just because of HEAVY CANVASSING (did the emphasis work, or will I have to repeat myself again?) and other bullshit to resist criticism. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, You do not have to repeat anything or bold anything, sometimes you just have to say, 'I am not making myself understood here, so I'll move on to something else.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect to "canvassing" note that that too is open to nuance and judgment[200] like issues of when and how to delete or add content, Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, yep. Good point. I try things like that every now and then, when I have to, for example, go sleep, or work, or whatever. Results vary. I slept a couple of days ago and was staring at an "interaction" ban that was completely onesided (oxymoron much). Went to sleep the other day, woke up and an account that I had used to promote wikipedia to my students had been banned against consensus at AN. So, yeah, my moving on is that everything else for me at wikipedia no longer matters. That energy can go towards something more useful, like learning Morris Dancing. This RFC/U is all that matters now. Sticking it out will, at least, provide comfort to the next person that tries to change something. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean that I can canvas offwiki now too? Because that would significantly alter some things. So long as I don't get caught, or admit anything right? I'll now wait for someone to come in and scream for an indef block on my iprange to prevent any "disruption". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The limitations on everything we do is 'acting in good faith' and whether others understand us to be 'acting in good faith' everyone has responsibilities in that regard, and no User is exempt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel - rather than ranting and possibly saying some things you might regret in the morning, I suggest you go and get some sleep. GiantSnowman 13:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly am I going to regret? Do you mean to say "say something which will be taken out of context and/or twisted into a reason for a spurious block"? Separately, something else that always annoyed me only a little bit, I get that you're trying to be friendly, do me a favour and stop calling me "Dan". My name is "Danjel". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits like this which make little-to-no sense and make me think, with all due respect, that I'm dealing with an editor who is drunk and/or angry and/or incompetent. GiantSnowman 14:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not drunk. Angry, yes, and calling me incompetent will do wonders for that, cheers. So, as for incompetent: fuck you. Too harsh? If you're prepared to strikethrough your's I'll strikethrough mine. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've said nothing that requires striking, whereas you have - and I suggest you do so ASAP. GiantSnowman 14:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We've come to the conclusion that danjel is angry. I don't think there's anything else to do here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Actually you have, WP:NPA. And Danjel, I don't see the point of continuing. You've made your point that you are dissatisfied with the way things have gone. I think every editor has had setbacks at one time or another. An editor can be right and have consensus against him. I don't expect the consensus of anonymous people posting messages in an open editing environment to be always correct. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bob - where? GiantSnowman 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I responded on the editor's talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block I must reluctantly agree that between the RFC/U, this discussion and the SPI, and Danjel's comments in the course of such discussions, I am no longer convinced that they are ultimately concerned with what's best for the project. I really hoped they would let this go at some point. Doniago (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block on the basis of no convincing evidence having been presented as to why one is necessary. "Someone is angry" and "someone has made several foolish comments at ANI" and "someone initiated an RfC/U that seems not to have community support" are not grounds for an indef block. Pressing for a topic ban or an interaction ban might seem more justifiable, but I'm not wholly convinced of that either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from (though behavior during this conversation seems to refute a notion that there is no disruption at all) nonetheless I am rather boggled at the calls for indef block. This discussion seems to have polarized. The spirit of my bringing this was to 1) allow the RfC/U to proceed without various disruptions, viewing an RfC/U as something which can be constructive for that user when not a vehicle for attention for the actioning user 2) give this user cause to think twice and hopefully resume useful contributions. I was amused and not offended by the sockpuppet check request, but I waa not the only user accused. Not commenting on the implications of an interaction ban, I still stick with my initial recommendation of a three day block.

In the future, one hopes that we can point out more resources for each user. For myself, I now know to reach out to WP:RX to doublecheck references I cannot verify for myself; this is not a suggestion given to me by any admin but a solution arrived at through introspection over my own behavior. For danjel, it may be more useful to reach out for third opinions where there is a disagreement over verification policy, for example. There's got to be a line where indefinitely arguing something for oneself can rightly be perceived as bad for our community. No one has commented on another subtext of this incident report. A fair number of personal comments were made on either side with no diffs given in support. I think it's weird that this is not challenged each and every time it occurs. Rather than merely commenting that there is no convincing evidence, a conclusion you are free to draw, we should be concerned when there is no evidence given, each and every time no evidence is given. Is this not bad for the community? Or perhaps is it that you and I disagree as to the threshold of what 'disruptive' is? ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

*Support block of 1-3 months, and a stringent topic/interaction ban thereafter: Danjel has gone off the handle of late and he should receive some reprimand, but not an indeff one just yet. You don't go from zero to indeff instantly. But when he returns from said block, he should return banned from interaction with Epeefleche; interactions with Purplebackpack89, TParis or IZAK aren't fruitful either and should also be forbidden. This includes starting Wikipedia-space threads about them, and participating in AfD or merger discussions they start. It might also be a good idea to ban him from pages were he has expressed excessive vitriol, such as Chili burger and Middle Harbour Public School. And Danjel, if you think this is too harsh, it's better than being indeffed pbp 18:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hey User:Purplebackpack89 you have already supported a block in the discussion up above, and quite frankly I don't consider this to be a separate discussion unless someone presents a very good reason why it should be (numerous people already opposed a block there and gave their reasons, and I imagine many people might now be bored senseless with this entire discussion and not keen to engage in refuting a double jeopardy proposal). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was under the impression that different subheading = different discussion. Anyway, I struck my vote pbp 00:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block, maybe support interaction ban. I consider that handling blocks this way will be punitive, and not preventative. If we want to put an end to this, let's go to ArbCom or get consensus for a IBAN between Danjel and the rest of the users involved. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the insanity of another baseless block by BWilkins or GiantSnowman (or both). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Richard Arthur Norton continuing violating topic bans despite previous blocks

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has again violated topic ban of creating new articles here. Castle Meyenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been discussed many a time at ANI such as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_-_violation_of_topic_ban where he got a 60 hour block.

the ANI topic ban is here for indefinite ban of article creation. this continuing testing of boundaries and community consensus is worrying.

I would love to be mentored to have the ban lifted, creating the English version of the Swedish article violated the spirit of the ban. One year ago I was contributing 4 hours a day to Wikipedia. I was using the time most people would be reading or watching television. Since the ban I may be contributing about 15 minutes a month by adding an image or fixing an error if it is a topic I am reading for my own interest. Since the ban, I am no longer working with the Library of Congress at Flickr Commons to migrate images to Wikipedia, there is now a backlog of over 400 images flagged as missing from Wikipedia for which the LOC identified the person as having a biography in Wikipedia. No one else has taken over that function. Having me watch the entire run of Breaking Bad on Netflix instead of contributing isn't really a punishment, just a disservice to readers and to the long dead people who deserve to be included in Wikipedia. There are thousands of people with full column obituaries in the New York Time archive that meet the Wikipedia notability standards that are just going unwritten. It is sad that they go unrecognized, they deserve better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard, this hardly is a satisfactory explanation acknowledging past infringements and a desire to cooperate. The fact you are watching more tv is not a reason for lifting a topic ban. Or the disservice to dead people is typical of the fake innocence you displayed in the past. No one is falling for it (except alansohn) after your long repeated history of deliberately testing boundaries on WP. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I seek administrator assistance to take appropriate action. thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, he violated his topic ban. It does not appear to be a copyvio (though it's unverified). But it was two weeks ago: a block would be punitive. A block may be right according to the letter, but I'm not feeling the spirit. I'm curious to see what other admins think the "appropriate action" is here. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A block. The policy isn't clear on this point (at least I didn't see anything about it), but I don't see why blocks for violating bans can't be imposed "late". Otherwise, we have the odd paradox that just because a violation escapes immediate scrutiny, the editor gets to violate the ban with impunity (see that? a form of punitive). In all fairness, if you look at Richard's block log, you'll see that an earlier block was shortened by User:Good Olfactory because the violations were "over two weeks ago". Obviously, my view is not necessarily shared by some. The only other remedy I can think of is to delete the article he created (kind of like reverting the edits of a banned user).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I know, and I find it difficult to defend RAN. If someone blocks him he certainly had it coming (and I'm familiar with his block log--I think we go back a couple of years...). I like your fancy semantic footwork, Bbb, and I don't see how I can really oppose a block, but I don't like it. I wish RAN would come by and say "OK I'll abide by the ban", which is why I left the note I did. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• I saw Drmies' comment on Richard's talk page. However, the user has already been blocked twice previously for violation of the topic ban, and also has an impressive block log. This is either IDHT or CIR, but something needs to be done. I think a longer block this time would be appropriate, perhaps one month. This would not be punitive, but preventative from constantly breaching the terms of his ban . It would serve to demonstrate that he needs to understand policies and that the terms of his topic ban may not be flagrantly disregarded - in previous ANI some users advocated an indef site ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • True, Kudpung, true. Then again (spoke the devil's advocate), it's only one small article, not a hundred or thousand of them... Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I had my own run-in with Norton when he inserted too much material in the CBS Records article about an unrelated CBS Records entity. I made that article a DAB page as a result. The talk page is a mile long thanks to what he did. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how that's relevant here. Let's not have all editors air their grievances and past disputes with RAN: there aren't enough blade servers in the world for that. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest a mentor situation may be best here. This editor seems to contribute a great deal and much of the content is perfectly acceptable and sourced. Perhaps if he had a 3-6 month period where a few others reviewed proposed moves/creations before they happened it would be a win/win for all? Insomesia (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", emphasizing in the Purposes and Goals section that "Blocks should not be used: ... as punishment against users" and that "Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." The terrible incident of creating a stub happened two weeks ago. There is no imminent danger, damage or disruption, and nothing is happening at present. Any block here would be punitive and unjustified by the actual damage done to this encyclopedia. A statement of the sort "If someone blocks him he certainly had it coming" is advocating for a block as punishment, in clear violation of policy. Recalibrating the topic ban would be a far better idea. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alansohn, I fail to see why you'd cite me to say what you want to say (unless you missed the part where I didn't block him and obviously don't wish to block him). Rightly or wrongly, he might get blocked, and if he does he should have known it was a distinct possibility. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If Richard wants to change the topic ban then he should approach the community first not sneakily create an article and hope no one finds out. "There is no imminent danger, damage or disruption, and nothing is happening at present" yes for editors without such a ban, but topic bans were agreed and in place, this is like a good behavior bond and misbehaving during the period of it. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

@Alansohn, I think you're missing the point here. Both Drmies and I could have summarily blocked Richard for disobeying a community consensus and it would not have been punitive; but we didn't. It would have been preventative - prevention against disobeying the rules. That the creations may not have been toxic is irrelevant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I get the point 100%. You could have summarily imposed a punitive block. You didn't because you recognize that it's wrong. Probably because there is absolutely no evidence of any imminent harm to Wikipedia, as the terrible incident in question occurred two weeks ago and didn't happen again. Even in Texas they don't send people to prison on a preventative basis, certainly for misdemeanors, as it's both illegal and accomplishes nothing other than to piss the person off and make him more likely to commit further crimes. It doesn't work any better on Wikipedia, even when admins confuse the meanings of "punitive" and "preventative". The proposal to work on mentoring RAN with the goal of weaning him off the block may actually achieve the result of improving the encyclopedia by rehabilitating an effective editor. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Even in Texas they don't send people to prison on a preventative basis, certainly for misdemeanors, as it's both illegal and accomplishes nothing other than to piss the person off and make him more likely to commit further crimes" Laws in Texas is not relevant here. As i said the infraction here is part of a larger pattern of non-compliance with ANI decisions and shows disrespect to the ANI process. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point, Alansohn. He had a topic ban imposed. Violations of topic bans result in blocks. He violated his topic ban. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I get the point 100%. You believe he was bad two weeks ago and he should be punished. The problem is that punitive blocks are explicitly banned by Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which states that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". What part of blocking policy is causing the confusion on your part and the part of so many admins? Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's preventative because not blocking would encourage further ban evasion. Reyk _YO! 02:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy explicitly states that "Blocks should not be used: ... as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern." and that "Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." There is no "imminent or continuing damage". There is no "present, disruptive behavior". There is no evidence that a punitive block of this kind will "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". I understand the vindictiveness behind this and the desire to stick it to the guy, but what's being proposed is punitive, plain and simple. From the same doublespeak that brought us We had to destroy the village to save it, comes the logic that we impose punitive blocks for preventative purposes. The mentoring proposal is infinitely more likely to work to improve the encyclopedia and at the same time to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms", something that a punitive block will never produce. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the unnecessary wartime metaphors, inaccurate appeals to motive and contentless proof by assertion. The fact is that RAN has violated his topic ban several times now, and you seem to be suggesting that if nobody notices for X amount of time that he's done it again, that we can do nothing about it. I disagree. That's all. There's no vindictiveness or doublethink about it, and if you can't handle disagreements without making attacking peoples' character then you shouldn't comment at all. Reyk _YO! 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All I have offered is an appeal to Wikipedia:Blocking Policy, which continues to be ignored. As stated there rather clearly, "For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved." I might have agreed with you three weeks ago, but it's clear that "the actions have ceased". I understand the blood lust to get revenge on the guy for not respecting authoritah, but that would be the absolute definition of the word "punitive". That's what I have repeatedly commented on. Can anyone rebut the repeated references to policy? Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to quibble about the wording of the policy, let me just remind you that the conduct issues have clearly not been resolved and that "may be" is a very different beast to "is". Your belief in "vindictiveness" and "blood lust" is mistaken, and that's all that needs to be said about that. Reyk _YO! 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can see the merit in both sides of the argument. On one hand, blocking now after several weeks seems punitive, especially since the article in question is only a crappy unreferenced microstub and not a copyright violation. On the other hand, what power do bans have if people can ignore them with no consequences? Reyk _YO! 05:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• If an editor breaks their topic ban, and there are no consequences, then what's the point of a topic ban? What's the point of anything? GiantSnowman 09:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• There's no statute of limitations on enforcing topic bans. RAN was banned, in part, from creating pages due to his tendency for them to have been lifted from copyrighted sources. That's disruptive, and actively dangerous to Wikipedia, whether it was yesterday or three months ago (arguably worse the longer it's left, in fact). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A block around the time the ban was violated may have been appropriate. A block 2 weeks later is not. There may not be a "statute of limitations" but blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. And if a preventative block was necessary, it should have been done 2 weeks ago; that would have been an appropriate "consequence." As there were no further violations subsequent to the one 2 weeks ago, a block now can hardly be considered preventative and is no longer an appropriate consequence. Rlendog (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • So essentially you're saying that it's OK to violate a topic ban as long as you get away with it for X amount of time because no one noticed. Do you suggest that we appoint editors to watch each and every edit made by RAN, so that he can be blocked immediately when he violates his ban? No, some would probably call that "harrassment" or something. No, I guess the best thing to do it to rely on topic-banned editors to turn themselves in when they've misbehaved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's extremely preventative - it prevents people from going 'lol what topic ban' because we've proven we'll never enforce them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no reason to think we won't enforce it. It would have been totally appropriate to block 2 weeks ago, when the block would have prevented potential disruption. But nobody saw fit to do so then, and the behavior stopped, so there is no cause for blocking now. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change topic ban to mentoring situation

This editor seems to contribute a great deal and much of the content is perfectly acceptable and sourced. Perhaps if he had a 3-6 month period where a few others reviewed proposed moves/creations before they happened it would be a win/win for all? Insomesia (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's much easier solved by sending them through AfC, for instance. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't all articles go through AfC then? Basket _Feudalist 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Let's see what the user thinks would work as well. I just think they have proven ability and interest and we should try to find a way to make things work for all. Insomesia (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see his response and a willingness to admit a mistake here and move on. he has no expressed no desire to date to being mentored or a desire for the topic ban to be removed. obviously he is welcome to ask for this. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will volunteer as a mentor if y'all want to go this route. Richard has really been run over by a truck for no good reason, he's a highly productive content-creator and a huge net positive to The Project. Having somebody stare over his shoulder a little and bitch about his preferred form of footnoting may or may not be useful. Richard is actually NOT a current copyvio problem, in my estimation, but "trust but verify" is probably the way most people want to play it with his material... Carrite (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This presumes also that Richard is amenable to this and that he agrees to exchange frank emails with me off-list. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

::: good idea, Carrite. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that too - thanks, Carrite, for volunteering. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO is not necessarily the issue but disregard for ANI decisions is. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disobeying authoritah should never be the reason, in itself, for any actions here - we should always be considering the underlying reasons behind any sanctions that might have been imposed, and trying to work out what would be the best overall result for Wikipedia when deciding how to deal with sanctions-busting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

RAN's indicated over and over that he won't abide by any community decision that he doesn't want to. This isn't Cool Hand Luke. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please show us some diffs to support this allegation... Carrite (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

[201] would be a good place to start. Look for "violation of topic ban". Reyk _YO! 03:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If he gets a mentor (and preferably someone who doesn't feel that being topic banned for creating many, many copyright violations is the same as "being run over by a truck for no good reason"), extra care should probably also be taken to inform him of the continuing problems with his file uploads. Note that, before his text-based CCI investigation, he already was the subject of a file-based CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. Looking at his recent file uploads, I notice two files recently uploaded that have been deleted for violating the fair use criteria, and others that are probably going the same way. He e.g. uploaded both File:James iredell ss.png and File:SS James Iredell.gif, both using an incorrect FU template ("To illustrate person at peak of their career", "Subject of image is deceased"? It's a ship!), but with the latter not being used on any pages. Then there is File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg, which was made before 1923, but without any evidence that it was "published" before 1923. If it wasn't, then Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works makes clear that this is a copyright violation. Oh, and note that in addition to the above mentioned page, he also created Mechanics Arts High School, a disambiguation between two things that don't have an article. Fram (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Many many" copyvios, hmmm, maybe, but only a very small (tiny?) percentage of his total output and mostly archaic rather than modern, if you will. I certainly wouldn't argue that Richard didn't bring much of this upon himself in the final analysis, but I think the gargantuan copyvio fishing expedition against his entire output has produced little more than a bucket of mackerel... It's time to normalize the situation with a very, very productive content-creator. I don't mind playing the role of copyright inspector, if that is deemed necessary. I'm sure others would be inspecting the inspection as well, reasonably guessing... Carrite (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Violate topic ban, get it lifted and replaced with handholding from an editor who disagrees with the ban anyway. Yeah. This isn't a remotely serious proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the mentor idea. I do have some concerns about Carrite as that mentor (see bus statement), but I think it would work if RAN is willing and Carrite realizes this is going to be a lot of work and responsibility. For the record I firmly believe there were serious and significant copyright issues with RAN but a large chunk of identified "too close" cases were overreach. I'm unaware of any significant copyright issues from RAN since the those issues were first identified. Assuming that's correct, I think a mentor is a good way to go. Hobit (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• A mentor would be fine after the block he should be receiving right now is over. I don't think that Carrite is the right editor to mentor him, for reasons made clear above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mentoring for the reasons made clear by BMK. We don't reward violations. And frankly I'd block him for the violation myself except I'm not in a mood to deal with the resulting admin abuse that would inevitably occur. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mentoring and support block- the file copyright infringements convince me that RAN just doesn't get it. Reyk _YO! 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why should someone who violated their topic ban get rewarded for it? RNealK (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  To improve the encyclopedia - which is the reason we're all here in the first place -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, good, then let's do away with topic bans, and bans altogether. RNealK (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Block first for violation of the ban. If he wants a mentor after he returns from the block, that's certainly something that should be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the block has been dismissed as somewhat against policy. My interest is to keep someone around who contributes content even if they may be rough around the edges. Insomesia (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Please name the policy that says "if you can evade scrutiny for violating your topic ban for long enough, it's required that you be allowed to get away with it". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I think you need to consider why rules and laws exist. They're there to organize our lives so we can live in relative safety. I don't see punishing this user two weeks after they technically broke a ban as actually helping anything. To me they seem like a generally productive person who may be open to amending their copyright issues with editing. It is in our best interest to find a path forward rather than meting out a pound of flesh. Insomesia (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I think you need to consider what happens when we decide to ignore rules and laws. He had a topic ban imposed. He broke it. If we decide "oh, we can't enforce the topic ban, it would be punitive!" then we need to throw out every topic ban because they are, by that definition, "punitive". Even two weeks later blocking as a result of a topic ban violation is preventitive because it informs the user that the behavior that caused the block is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Block for violation of the ban (also in light of long history of ignoring previous directions regarding bans). If Richard wants mentoring and wants the topic ban removed, he should specifically agree to it here. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above ... and more to the point, this whole business ties in to one of the more insidious syndromes infecting Wikipedia: that if you have enough edits under your belt, you're excused behavior that would indef ban a newbie fifty times over, and you'll always have apologists. Sorry, no; I'm no more moved by RAN's moping that the time he used to spend on Wikipedia he now spends watching TV ... no doubt one could say that of many a blocked or topic banned newbie. A ban is a ban, and any other clear violation of a topic ban would earn its perp a block. That two weeks has passed doesn't impress me, Wikipedia not having a statute of limitations. Ravenswing 22:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to include file uploads in the topic ban

I propose that the topic ban against creating any kind of articles is changed, to disallow RAn the creation of any kind of articles and files. As said above, he was the subject of a CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822, so he should have been aware of the problems with copyright in files by now. But he clearly simply continues uploading files regardless of the copyright status. Looking at his file uploads for January 2013:

• File:Billy-Sunday-Blizzard-March-2-1914.jpg seems allright
• File:James iredell ss.png has a rather incorrect fair use template, but a case for fair use can be made. 100% correct fair use template, I used the word 'dead' instead of 'scrapped' in the rationale and fixed it. Saying that I added the wrong template is absolutely incorrect and deceptive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  "To illustrate person at peak of their career" - Reading through copy-pasted rationales is only for the weak.--Staberinde (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• File:SS James Iredell.gif is a fair use file that is not in use, and will be deleted The thumbnail didn't form properly so I reuploaded it as James iredell ss.png
• File:Sammee Tong.jpg seems to be allright
• File:Dalarö Fortress 2010 by Yvonne Öhrbom.jpg was not compliant at all, but this has been corrected after Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 15#File:Dalarö Fortress 2010 by Yvonne Öhrbom.jpg 100% compliant since upload, calling it otherwise is deceptive --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg is a copyright violation A year published vs year image taken rule which was easily converted to a fair use template. The image was sent by the source listed and is from his family archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• File:Olson-Peder 1896 death.png is allright, but why theis file contains a whole artice on a non notable person is unclear. We are not a genealogical website
• File:Mabelle Gilman Corey.jpg seems allright
• File:Aviator Frank Goldsborough.gif seems allright
• File:Javier Ángel Figueroa.jpg seems allright
• File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png is a copyright violation A year published vs year image taken rule which was easily converted to a fair use template. The image is from my own family archive. Calling it a copyright violation is again unnecessarily alarming, when it is a fair use vs public domain issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So out of 11 file uploads, three will be deleted for copyright problems (two straight copyvios, one usused fair use image), one has an incorrect fair use template, and one was deletable because RAN gave it a CC-by-SA template, but he wasn't the author of the file, and it needed a FFD to rectify this. I don't think this percentage of problematic file uploads is acceptable for an editor who should be more aware than most people here of what our copyright rules are. Fram (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, not factually correct. One will be deleted because it was a duplicate because the thumbnail did not form properly when it was uploaded. Two have been nominated for deletion which is not the same as will be deleted. They are not synonyms and should never be used as synonyms, to use them as synonyms is tendentious. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, in the future, don't insert your comments in my statement, it makes it hard to see who said what. The two former copyvios are now up for review, for having incorrect fair use rationales on multiple levels (plus, again, using the incorrect template, despite your claim that "Saying that I added the wrong template is absolutely incorrect and deceptive.") Fram (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• support if anything this is more problematic than the original text copy violations, and shows no sign of abating despite countless warnings. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. In fairness, I think a lot of people would make a similar mistake on the two "straight copyvios". Certainly I myself may have, since I could easily see myself confusing the American PD1923 with Canadian laws for old images, where it was 50 years after creation. So out of 11 uploads, I see only two that are clearly problematic, and those two are of what could be considered an innocent misake - if the user has not been alerted to this before. On that presumption, I could not support such a topic ban. If RAN has been warned about the distinction between creation and publication and continues to ignore it, then that would change my view. Resolute 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Anybody that has ever uploaded a dozen or more files over the last 5 years has undoubtedly run into the clutches of some of the, ummmm, highly strung and, ummmm, obsessively detail oriented volunteers handling file rights supervision. A couple of the worst actors have been cashiered, so things are better than they were but this remains one of the biggest annoyances at WP... Some of those volunteers are probably wrong nearly as often as they're right in their seat-of-the-pants assessments of copy vio of this or that... That this arises at all in this context is ludicrous. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to say that public domain vs copyright vs fair use issues are clear cut, but if they were we would not need editors, a few lines of computer code would be able to resolve the proper category. In the past 5 years, I have had images of my own face, taken by myself, deleted 3 times. My current image on my user page was flagged for deletion two times as a copyright violation since I added it. The last person to flag it for deletion argued that if I was in the image I could not have taken the image, so I cannot be the copyright holder. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ahhh! Basket _Feudalist 17:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a diversion from the real matter at hand. Stop throwing mud. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was aware from the above section that you consider copyright violations as no problem at all. It's rather clear why you would be a terrible mentor for Richard Arthur Norton. Fram (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask you to retract that little personal attack. I have nowhere said or intimated that I "consider copyright violations as no problem at all." RAN, in the past, has violated copyright rules. That is a problem. He has acknowledged as much. The Norton investigation, however, was something else — putting a Top 90 contributor's entire contribution history under the microscope and creating a massive clusterfuck at CCI that has been going on for nearly 15 months (!!!). All the while, RAN has been placed on ice, unable to start articles legally at WP, despite the fact that no evidence has been presented here that his WP contributions repeat past transgressions. Mountains from molehills... It's a criminal waste of one of Wikipedia's most valuable content creators. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, the logical conclusion of your comments in this discussion. And I have provided plenty of evidence that he still doesn't give a shit abou copyright, as evidenced by his file uploads and even more by his very frequent copyright violations on other pages that he links to from here. The topic ban works, but isn't enough, so why get rid of it? Fram (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) I find it unacceptable that you are permitted to say that I "consider copyright violations no problem at all" at Wikipedia. I do believe they are a problem and you are blackening my name in a manner befitting the old adage "The Ends Justify the Means." I asked you to retract that remark both here and on your talk page and you vigorously did not. I note that exchange between us for the record. (2) The prohibition on Richard Norton is against starting new articles. We all agree on that. Contributor Copyright Investigation (CCI), in their infinite wisdom, instead of making use of scientific sampling of Richard Norton's contributions to determine if in fact there was a massive and ongoing copyright problem with his contributions, decided to launch a full-blown investigation of his every article. They wanted to keep this number of articles finite and put the kibosh on Richard starting new articles until the investigation was completed. That's the REASON for the topic ban. This process has taken nearly 15 months, and counting, and is no closer to resolution than it was 6 months ago. There are open cases a year older than his, and two years from now theirs and his will still be open. CCI's eyes were bigger than their bellies in terms of case load and they have loaded up their plate with so many cases that they have no reasonable chance of ever finishing. CCI is broken, pass it on. (3) This case was about a single stub article ill-advisedly started two weeks before it was detected. It is not a copyright violation and the breathless glee at the prospects of retribution by a couple of those commenting here are rather sickening to me. Richard was in the wrong, clearly, but the punishment should fit the infraction. Instead we have the typical drum beat for a lynch mob, in my estimation... (4) The rush to open a case at ArbCom before this complaint has been resolved one way or the other is not surprising. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So, if during a discussion about one problem, you find other, serious problems in that editor's recent edits, you are not allowed to bring that into consideration? We should just ignore it? Thanks for confirming why it seems clear to me that indeed, this complaint can not be resolved here as long as people like you are so actively obstructing it by pointless wikilawyering. We have an editor who has been creating copyright violations, in his articles, file uploads, and links, for over 6 years now, and it is ongoing. What do you suggest we do about it? Give him a mentor who gives every impression of believing that these copyright violations are not a big deal in this case? No thanks. Fram (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry again, but I never said Richard's violation should be "ignored." I suggest that ASSUME GOOD FAITH might make for instructive reading. In my estimation we have a massively productive editor who presents very little copyright-violation danger to the project, who is locked out of productive participation by a Kafkaesque open-ended-and-never-going-to-end massive "investigation" at CCI. A person who may well have violated, perhaps inadvertently, other unrelated site rules involving linking; and who, like seriously, literally, everyone here has recently run afoul of the arcane file licensing templates and perhaps the erratic interpretation thereof by the file copyright volunteers. All this is seemingly being made into a massive "case for hangin'." I don't think the majority of AN/I participants feel there is any such case, which brought about a blatant case of venue shopping for a more "satisfactory" result at ArbCom. Now please, a little good faith here... Wikipedia is not going to melt down over this stub article, let's all figure out a rational way forward, shall we? Carrite (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Fram, why don't you just cut to the chase and propose the full site ban you appear to be wanting instead of trying for the death of a thousand cuts by imposing little bans everywhere? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Richard Arthur Norton is very good at findign sources, so it would be a loss if he was forced to stop doing that. That doesn't mean that we should ignore his problematic actions in other areas, for which he had been warned sufficiently (if having two CCI's isn't enough to become cautious about copyright, then what ever will?). Note that he has changed the two copyright violations to fair use, but couldn't even be bothered to apply the correct template, getting the nice "Subject of image is deceased" for a beach. Even ignoring that, the images fail fair use miserably. Fram (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to also ban him from linking to his own work on other sites

Richard Arthur Norton had and has the habit of linking biographies on Wikipedia to articles he wrote on other wiki-site. Obviously, these are not reliable sources, and using articles on unreliable sites to support articles you write here is a rather bad habit. E.g. on Osborne Theomun Olsen, I had removed the link to the Familypedia article he wrote during the copyright cleanup (late 2011), and after he reintroduced that link again in March 2012[202] I removed it again. Now, he introduced his articles at geni.com and findagrave.com[203], and again the one from Familypedia[204].

Worse, his links to other sites also include his photographs on Flickr, where he hosts copyright violations (e.g. copies of 1940 articles from NY Times). Such links can be found in e.g. Frank Goldsborough, Edwin Joseph O'Malley or Yankee Squadron. A similar link is used in e.g. Smith Brothers, Pillar of Fire International, Grover Cleveland Bergdoll or Alma Bridwell White, where he links to a site by Richard Arthur Norton that contains excessively long quotes of copyrighted text, the kind that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia and thus shouldn't be accepted as an external link either (e.g. a 445 word quote from a Time magazine article from 1946). Per WP:ELNEVER, these are clearly very problematic.

I would propose that Richard Arthur Norton is forbidden to link to any external page that he has created or contributed to. Fram (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

He's not the son of God. He's a very naughty boy!!! Basket _Feudalist 15:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Findagrave contains information not found in Wikipedia, it is standard practice to link to Findagrave so people can see the information of where someone is buried and see multiple pictures of the tombstone and the associated GPS data and see other family members that are buried there. Not allowing me to create a standard link to Findagrave, just because I also created the Findagrave entry makes no sense. What purpose would it serve? Any Findagrave link that is incorrect should be removed but correct links to the proper grave should stay no matter who created the Findagrave entry. The same caution should be used as when people edit their own Wikipedia entries. We don't stop people from editing their own profile, we just double check to make sure it is correct. We don't stop people from taking a photograph for a Wikipedia article and writing the text for a Wikipedia article because it represents a conflict either. As to linking to a website that contains copyrighted material, we have the doctrine of fair use here at Wikipedia and so do other websites. While Wikipedia limits images of people under fair use that it hosts, other sites have a more liberal view of what constitutes fair use for what is stored on their website. For instance we allow only one fair use image per biography of a dead person. Findagrave has slots for 5 images and can contain 5 copyrighted images. We still link to Findagrave despite that its fair use doctrine differs from ours. In Wikipedia we have hundreds of thousands of copyrighted images stored on our servers under the doctrine of fair use and that potentially can violate the fair use standards of sites that link to Wikipedia. Each site sets their own rules. For instance, the bibliography I created for Alma White, which contains a long quote from a Time magazine article. While I cannot host the long quote at Wikipedia, my subscription to Time magazine and the New York Times allows me to use the material for non commercial purposes. As a counter example, the DVDs I own do not allow me copy them, even for non-commercial use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"It is standard practice to link to findagrave"? No, it is a highly discouraged practice. Like you say, "Findagrave has slots for 5 images and can contain 5 copyrighted images.", is one of the reasons we shouldn't use it (and one of the reasons you use it at e.g. Nancy Hopkins (aviator), which also copies copyrighted texts, e.g. from [205]). Being a wiki is another. Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, despite being an essay, is rather clear about this. Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lobby to get Findagrave blacklisted. You are confusing the concept of a use of a copyrighted image with a copyright violation. Findagrave and Wikipedia both make use of the concept of Fair Use and each have their own guidelines.
• Comment - Any other bans you'd like to add here, Fram? For fuck's sakes... Carrite (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This stupid diversion. Stop throwing mud. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:RS policy is about sourcing, and unreliable sources can't be used as, well, sources for information added to Wikipedia articles. But that doesn't mean that every external link needs to be a reliable source. If that were the case, we'd never have any IMDB external links - but IMDB is fine as an external link, providing it is not used as a reliable source to support article content. This latest proposal really does look to me like nothing more than an attempt to throw mud -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• He uses these sites both as external sources and as references, see below; and the problem with him writing these is that he copiously introduces copyrighted material on them. Linking to copyright violations isn't allowed on Wikipedia (not as reference, but not as an EL either), and this is a user where we have had copyright problems (on-wiki) before. Extending the topic ban to his off-wiki copyright violations seems only natural. Note that I noted such copyright violations in my initial statement above; so I don't see why you would consider this mud-throwing. Would we allow such links from other editors? Then why would we allow it from RAN, who was already warned often enough about copyright problems. Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This doesn't look like a good-faith report for the reasons that Boing and Carrite specify. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If you want a community ban, propose one. Don't propose 10 little bans that add up to essentially the same thing. It's starting to look a little WP:POINTy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's not just external links, it's references as well. So no one cares about policy violations and people linking to copyrighted material they uploaded themselves elsewhere, in violation of WP:ELNEVER? Fine by me, I'll just remove them instead of having him banned, and you can all take me to ArbCom and defend why the removal of copyright violations is a problem and the insertion of it isn't. Have any of you actually looked at the problems cited above instead of just seeing "Oh, Richard Arthur Norton does a lot of work, so let's ignore all the problems?". Note that e.g. at William L. Dickinson High School, he uses an article he wrote for familypedia (a wiki) as a reference (not as an external link). The same happens at e.g. Osborne Theomun Olsen. How is this practice acceptable? Instead of hosting copyright violations here (for which he got two CCIs and a topic ban), he hosts them off-wiki and links them from here, and people don't see that a a problem and considering it "throwing mud"? Well, the mud is of his own making, and why people would want to defend it is beyond me. Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You again are using copyright violation as a synonym for use of copyrighted material and they are not synonyms. My subscription to the New York Times and my subscription to Time magazine both allowed me to use the material for non-commercial uses as does the concept of fair-use. Creating a bibliography of published material using snippets is no different than listing the same snippets here in the reference section. Once again using the the two terms as synonyms is tendentious and incendiary. You are also trying to apply Wikipedia fair-use policy to other websites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not synonyms. But what you are doing is not "fair use" by any stretch of the imagination. You are copying complete, recent articles (in text form or by using a copy of them), not short excerpts. You just reinserted[206] your link to the Familypedia full copy of a Wall Street Journal article. This is clear and unaùbiguous "linking to a copyright violation". Your defense here, and your actions, show very clerly that you either totally don't get it, after nearly seven years of these discussions with you, or that you totally don't care. Either way, this needs to stop. Fram (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Nobody's defending him, per se - it's just that proposing 80 different mini-bans is bordering on disruptive. If he's that big a problem, propose one, comprehensive ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It certainly looks like at least Carrite is defending him, but let's skip that. Do you have any suggestion on what, short of a full ban (which is IMO premature), would be such a comprehensive ban? "Richard Arthur Norton is banned from making or linking to any copyright violations" is a bit ridiculous, since everyone is forbidden to do that. Of course, we could use it in his case with a list of clear block escalations if needed, so that any new violation he makes would be resulting in a block, since he has had all the necessary warnings by now. On the plus side, this would mean that he is again allowed to create pages, but on the other hand any infractions he makes would be dealt with rather severely. Would this be better? Fram (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose How about we also ban all editors from uploading any pictures they took themselves or using any of their images in their own edits? Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If that regularly included copyright violations, and/or was used as a reference? No need to make a caricature of what is actually a real problem filled with policy violations. Take another example from January 2013, one I haven't used before (apparently there is plenty to chose from). He uses as a reference a link to a Familypedia page to the article David Emanuel Wahlberg[207]; that page hosts a copy of a newspaper article from 1949[208]. Without evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that this page is still copyrighted. Neither the Wikipedia article nor the Familypedia article contain any information about where that article comes from. Why would we allow the link to such pages? Fram (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Alansohn has a very good point; I've uploaded some pictures myself, over the years. Should that be disallowed because, well, I don't personally pass WP:RS? No. I agree with the others; if you want RAN banned outright, propose it. Otherwise, let it be. Ravenswing 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No he hasn't. It's not about upoading some pictures: it's about writing whole articles, often filled with massive copyright violations, and using those ase references on Wikipedia, instead of avoiding copyright violations. Fram (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply: I was about to type "I can't imagine that you really believe strident rebuttals of damn near every Oppose helps your case," except that I know better: a lot of folks really do believe that, as well as believe that there genuinely are a lot of editors who will respond to their silvered prose by clapping hands to foreheads and gasping "My god! How horribly wrong I was!" I am, however, not one of them, and you may spare your eloquence for the next half-dozen Opposes. Ravenswing 07:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's find a path forward

Assuming there's no massive sentiment for retribution for RAN ill-advisedly starting a (non-copyright violating) stub around his topic ban on creating new articles, let's figure out how to end this situation, shall we? Richard is #83 on the list of most-active editors, with 143,500 edits, give or take. He is #87 on the list of most articles created, with just shy of 3,000 starts. He is, in short, a massively productive and valuable content-creator.

Richard has screwed up by pumping in copyright violations here and there, particularly in the past, particularly in the form of excessively close paraphrase of sources — as I understand. The copyright violation investigation of his work was massive, bringing under the microscope EVERYTHING. Wouldn't it make sense to have Moodridden Moonridden Girl, etc. stop by offer their opinions about what they have found in terms of their investigation?

Let's hear if those most familiar with Richard's work feel he is an actual threat to the project with ongoing copyright concerns. Does he, in their opinion, "get it" or not?

I would also like to hear Richard's perspective here. What happened, why, and will it happen again?

Once this is cleared up, assuming others closely involved with the cleanup think Richard gets it, assuming Richard indicates himself that he gets it, let's come up with a mechanism to restore his work to a state of normalcy, which will involve, I think, multiple people peering over his shoulder for a while... Carrite (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think some of his copyright problems were much more significant than you imply. But otherwise I'm fully in agreement with you. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• He doesn't get it at all, he is still linking to pages where he uploaded copyright violations, he is still adding problematic pictures much too frequently, he is defending e.g. his links to findagrave because they allow the upload of copyrighted pictures. On January 7 2013, he linked to his own upload of a NYT article (copyrighted) in findagrave (a wiki), and used that as a reference for an article[209]. Other links have the same problem, he e.g. links to [210], which has clearly an excessive use of copyrighted text and can not be considered "fair use" at all. And this is not solely the case with "old" familypedia pages, on 12 January 2013 he linked Paramus High School[211] to [212], a page which he created in January 2013, and which is a full copy of a Wall Street Journal article from 2012. There can hardly be any dispute that this is a pure and blatant copyright violation. So, to reply to the original question, no, he doesn't get it and and is a threat with his ongoing copyright violations. Fram (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the current policy or guideline (links please) that specifically addresses that behavior? It does sound problematic but we need to judge it against current policy and guidelines (please link them again here, if you have already done so). From the User's response above it does not appear he really understands the legal limitations on "educational use" off wiki (eg. you cannot republish on the internet in full or substantial part copyrighted material and call it covered by fair educational use) but what is the policy/guideline here regarding citations to such off-wiki things, or do we need new ones? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER point 1 is the applicable guideline here, "editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:" (emphasis in original)this guideline is directly based on WP:COPYLINK, which is the applicable policy here: it states a.o. "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Linking to such a site or page is not allowed; first creating such a copyright violation and then linking to it is, IMO, even worse. Fram (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Return to normalcy", indeed. The Harding administration draws quite a few parallels to the "protect our content contributors" movement, when you think about it. Anyway, the way forward here is a week-long block in line with our usual practice of escalating blocks upon repeated topic ban violations; there's relatively little support for additional restrictions at this time, though it's pretty obvious to me that RAN knows he's deliberately circumventing the sentiment behind our copyright policies with the external site linking stuff. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that needed a Stub tag. Ugh, what a terrible piece... Harding, to his credit, did see to the release of many of the hundreds of political prisoners that Woodrow Wilson and his regime had imprisoned during the war. The parallel is apt. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• RAN does not seem to have respect for other editors and administrators who repeatedly warn him to clean up his act but continues to thumb his nose at them by his continued actions. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think that Carrite is really interested in a "path forward" when he categorizes the opinions of other editors that a violation of a topic ban ought to result in a block as "retribution". In any case, a block is the only way forward. Give RAN whatever block is appropriate in the circumstances, let him wait it out, and when he returns to editing let's see what he does. If his behavior then warrants changes in the topic ban - one way or the other - that can be dealt with, but in the meantime, the block is the only legitimate path forward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The approach so many seem to advocate -- keep on punishing RAN until he gives in -- is by definition "punitive" and guaranteed to be ineffective; You simply can't punish someone into respecting authority, though the former Soviet Union's gulag system did work in some cases. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here and I still haven't seen how any of RAN's actions interfere with that or where the imminent danger is that Wikipedia:Blocking policy requires before imposing a block. Rather than gathering pitchforks and torches and demanding retribution, I fully support Carrite's approach of trying to figure out how to emphasize the remarkably positive aspects of RAN's contributions and thereby maximize the benefit to this encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Let's spell it out: A topic ban was imposed. He was informed that if he violated it, he would be blocked, no exceptions. He has violated it. If you want to say "don't block" you have completely undermined the entire concept of topic bans. This is not "retribution", this is "enforcement of what he was told would happen", and this is also the "vested contributors are allowed to violate policy scot-free - because, content!" thing rearing its filthy head yet again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Let's spell it out: You have completely undermined Wikipedia:Blocking policy by advocating a punitive block. Shouldn't admins be required to have read Wikipedia:Blocking policy, at least once, before advocating imposing a block for purely punitive purposes? Alansohn (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The block is not punitive when it is imposed as part of a sanction that was put in place by the community. It's preventitive in that it informs the user their conduct was inappropriate and should not be repeated. And your implication that I have not read the policy is disengienous, unappreciated, and, in fact, just plain wrong. Nobody is advocating a punitive or policy-violating block. What is being advocated is a block in accordance with policy. WP:BAN: "Dissuading or preventing banned editors from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban" is part of ban enforcement. A failure to block for the violation does not dissuade. This is, as I said, nothing more and nothing less than the usual contention that as long as they produce "content", an editor can get away with anything, and the enforcement of Wikipeida policy on a "content contributor" is admin abuse, wrong, punitive, etc. I've always anticipated that the ritual flouting of WP:CIVIL along those lines would be the camel's nose for tossing aside other inconvenient policies because "they contribute content!" - and here it is for those who care to see it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Eh, "In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate." We could argue if the risk of present disruption has clearly ended or not, but I don't think "present" in this case would apply to something on the scale of weeks. YMMV. If he breaks his ban again, it's very (very) likely someone will notice quite quickly. Hobit (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

      Alansohn: Punitive! Punitive! Punitive!

      Everyone else: We don't think it's punitive because of reasons X, Y, Z.

      A: Punitive! Blocking policy! Punitive punitive! OMG punitive!

      EE: Again, we disagree because of these reasons...

      A: But punitive! OMFG punitive! Aaaaa! Vindictive! Bloodlust! Puuuuuuuuniiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiive!!1!!!!eleven!!!

      Rinse and repeat. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

      • • I object to being left out of your play (although I think it would work better as an operetta). Could you please give me at least a bit part?  :-) Hobit (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, I did have you in "AfD: the Musical", where you lead off with "I am the very model of a moderate inclusionist" but I can't think of anything that rhymes with that. Reyk _YO! 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Thanks, made my day (night). Hobit (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
              • It would be very G&S to rhyme "inclusionist" with "enthusinist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Bushranger. if it was Alansohn's way, WP would operate with zero blocks and topic bans. Community and admin consensus of rules would be irrelevant. Nor do I agree with this sentiment "he's a prolific editor therefore let's relax any rules and overlook breaking of WP rules. he gets special dispensation to anyone else who breaks the same rules because he's a great guy." LibStar (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Complete and total BS. I'd support a block if there was imminent disruption, i.e., if it was happening now. It's not. Reyk can invoke a pathetic attempt at humor and the two of you can make shameless personal attacks, but the plain truth is that no one has rebutted a very simple reading of Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Zero. Zilch. Nada. User:Hobit has pointed out above "I don't think 'present' in this case would apply to something on the scale of weeks" and he and I are far from the only ones who have pointed out that there is nothing here to justify a preventative block. But if the point is to show that Wikipedia justice is a complete and total joke and that its cast of admins are clueless about policy, then Reyk and his theatre company have succeeded in spades. Bravo! Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Then you agree that if they can successfully evade scruitny to the point where a block becomes "punitive" - whenever that is - then any editor may violate a topic ban with impunity? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Since it's clear that no one's going to block RAN for his violation of his topic ban, because they would have done so by now, it's probably best if this is closed, and a congratulatory basket of fruit sent to RAN for having successfully gotten away with it. I assume from here on out there will be multiple eyes on RAN's edits, and that a block will ensue the next time he violates his ban -- and an immediate block, please, so that no one can do the "punitive" song-and-dance about it. (By the way, when does that block suddenly cease being preventative and start being punitive? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? A hour? A day? A week? Meh, the illogic of this way of thinking simply baffles me. Beyond my ken, indeed.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Thank ___ we're not robots Lets start pretending we're working to build an encyclopedia and RAN is part of that effort. They want to help, have helped, and have made mistakes. Let's move beyond the spite and find a way to welcome their contributions. Insomesia (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Section break

"a congratulatory basket of fruit sent to RAN for having successfully gotten away with it" LOL. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• There are those of us who don't find it grounds for laughter. Ravenswing 07:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

LibStar, you might want to make yourself a party to Fram's ArbCom case, since I am sure the relationship between you and he [Norton] at Articles for Deletion will be something that comes up during the process of their collection of evidence and that your activity here has made you a directly involved party. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Carrite (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that LibStar is quoting and juvenilely LOLing a comment made by Beyond My Ken, who at least provides some context for the sarcasm. Carrite (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom started

Since the community clearly can't find a resolution for this, the copyright problems are continuing, and enough dispute resolution has been attempted, I have started an ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I have only named myself (as filer) and Richard Arthur Norton as parties, I don't believe it makes any sense to list others as parties as well, but if anyone feels that they are a party in this as well, they are free to add themselves of course. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I actually had a proposal this morning that might have passed muster from all parties here. It's not as difficult as you make it. Rendered moot. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have made myself a party to Fram's case and urged ArbCom to decline his request until I have a chance to make my next proposal here. The ball is in ArbCom's court, if they want to proceed, they can proceed and I will make my proposal in that context; if they prefer to let things happen first here I would hope for a speedy temporary declination there and I will proceed. I further add that I find LibStar's flippant mockery above to be thoroughly unhelpful and urge him to stand aside if he can't be productive. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

carrite, a number of editors have been very frustrated with Richard's ongoing long term behavior, despite repeated blocks and warnings. I do wonder why he continues to goad everyone. Also do you accept that consensus here is that you would not make an appropriate mentor for Richard. Despite your good intentions. Also if it goes to arbcom so be it, but there doesn't appear to be consensus yet. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard doesn't need a mentor so much as he needs an advisor, advice which I'm happy to give if he reaches out. Or he might try talking to Malleus or Kiefer Wolfowitz or another feisty, opinionated content-creator — there are several who would be sympatico and excellent in that regard. He knows how to reach me or them. There is a way out, I think, which involves another trip to the woodshed — which he has taken before — and some very real effort on his part to help broker a solution. I presume that any return he is able to make to active content-creation is going to be accompanied by a very large informal "board of oversight," which will include you and Fram and many others. He's going to need to be cognizant of that and I don't think anybody should have a problem with that. And he needs to make it very, very clear that he honestly "gets it." I understand the ongoing copyright concerns; I hope others understand the very great contributions he has made to the project and his inevitable frustration at having been boxed by open-ended restrictions upon him. I will make a very lengthy proposal here shortly, assuming that ArbCom defers taking the case, which I hope will be grudgingly accepted by all parties. Carrite (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, I would be willing to give this a chance in some way if there was any indication that he gets it. But his actions right now flatly contradicts this, both his defense in this discussion[213] and his actions: I listed the article Paramus High School above, where he linked to a familypedia page he wrote that contained nothing but a full copy of a Wall Street Journal article from 2012. This link was removed (not by me), but Richard Arthur Norton just readded it[214]. Still hoping, after nearly seven years, that this will get better, seems hopeless to me. Fram (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Another example, this time from Commons (but linked to from the en Wikipedia article). In January 2013, he uploaded File:David Emanuel Wahlberg 1949 obituary 2.png. His "creative" use of two different, equally unapplicable, public domain licensing templates, doesn't give me any confidence that he can be trusted with file uploads and the determination of whether things are public domain or not. (If explanation is needed nevertheless: the first license is for old Swedish "pictures", not scans of newspaper articles; and the second license is for things published in the US, not things published in Sweden). Fram (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

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

---

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782 § User:Xerographica

I have had consistent difficulties with three other editors who consistently edits topics without first reading relevant reliable sources. I've been blocked for a total of three weeks now for personal attacks...which has helped me to understand that "disruptive" is the politically correct way to say "incompetent"...but it has done absolutely nothing to help the editors in question to understand the importance of reading reliable sources.

If you look at the newest sections on the public choice talk page you'll find some discussion between Thomasmeeks and myself. That is a perfect example of an exchange between two editors who have made an obvious effort to read what the reliable sources have to say about a topic. Such exchanges form the basis of constructive edits. But out of the multitude of exchanges that I've had with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO...not ONCE have we had an informed discussion. If I'm mistaken, then I'm sure that one of the three editors can provide a link to where it's clear that they've reasonably researched a topic that we've both edited.

These editors are wasting massive amounts of my time. They go around undoing my edits, removing entire sections of reliable sourced content and do not make an effort to research the topics that they edit. Their edits have all been in good faith...but they have not reflected what the reliable sources have to say about the topic.

I've tried, numerous times, to convey to these editors the importance of reading the reliable sources. But it has been to no avail. My hope is that there are some admins who can thoroughly review their conduct.

Also, there's no need to notify them that I'm posting this because all three of them watch my contributions. --Xerographica (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. No comment, yet, about your alleged attempts at constructive editing and my alleged non-constructive replies — I quite agree that admins should see for themselves. There's no need to notify me, because I also watch this page, but there is a need to notify the others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• You might also identify the full user names. I know Rich's editor name, and you apparently know Rich's editor name, but it would be wise to include the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The administrators who pay attention will also know the name from the time, just over a week ago, where editor B brought editor A up at this very same noticeboard. ☺ Then of course there are discussions such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Preference revelation, club theory and benefit principle that one could also use. I've just revisited the Xerographica Soapbox Matrix. It's sad to see from that WikiProject Economics discussion that the problem has got worse, not better, since 2010. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I deny any such disruptive editing or intent. My edit comments and remarks speak for themselves -- on the talk page of Xerographica and in the articles and other talk pages where s/he and I have crossed paths. Xerographica has repeatedly expressed frustration with various editors who have tagged or removed her unverified or non-reliably sourced assertions in several articles. Despite repeated encouragement to provide proper sources which would improve the articles, s/he has largely failed to do so. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) amended wording: SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• {{Gender|Xerographica}} indicates that Xerographica a he NE Ent 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is me – S. Rich

I've offered Xerographica advice and encouragement along the way, and a few kicks in the butt. (And some of my kicks bounced back to my regret.) Primarily, IMHO, X misunderstands what RS means. There are lots of people who've written about different topics that X takes an interest in. S/he seems to think that posting such stuff, without weaving it into a topic, is justification to keep it posted. The result has been QUOTEFARMS and COATRACKS that are not worth keeping. E.g., the material gets removed, by me and others. X responds by [paraphrasing] "You haven't provided RS that shows this material is not relevant." (And without basis, contends that other editors haven't read the material posted.) I've seen nothing improper with Rubin's or SPECIFICO's edits and talk page remarks. Alas, I've made my errors WRT the 2RR rule and in jumping the gun when I mistakenly thought X had started up with NPA remarks (for which I apologized). But .... I'll allow others to pass on X's present notice. --S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• In case anybody accidentally missed it...let me repeat...If I'm mistaken, then I'm sure that one of the three editors can provide a link to where it's clear that they've reasonably researched a topic that we've both edited. --Xerographica (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I just reverted an edit by SPECIFICO that had deleted several other user comments, both in this section and others on this board. I also warned SPECIFICO about disruptive editing (refactoring) on his talk page. Other than reverting the refactoring, I am not involved in this case, nor do I care to be. GregJackP Boomer! 01:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The deletion was entirely unintentional and apparently came about when I was trying to do a copy edit on my message of 23:58 above. I will now again try to do that edit of my text. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand accidents, I should have known it wasn't intentional, my apologies. GregJackP Boomer! 02:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Such dumps are not uncommon on ANI; the variety of timing and editors involved with them indicates it is a periodic system glitch. NE Ent 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the original post ... vague general complaints, especially against multiple editors, just aren't going to be productive. You'd need to assemble a set of diffs showing precisely what the issue is, and, for a ANI request, they should be really significant policy violations, not just harsh words. Wikipedia is a numbers game; if you're unable to convince the other editors as to your position via talk post discussion the best bet is to frame specific rfcs on article and it's possible you'll get the perspective of other editors. NE Ent 02:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it's a significant policy violation that none of the three editors has been able to provide ONE link to where it's clear that they've reasonably researched a topic that we've both edited? --Xerographica (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is vandalism a problem? If so...why? --Xerographica (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is not relevant to this discussion, as it does not involve vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a recent example...1. He removed relevant content based on a reliable source. Do I just ignore it? Do I undo his edit? Do I start an RFC on the talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's called a content dispute. You discuss it on the article's talk page to reach WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How productive could discussing content on the talk page possibly be when the other editors have not read the relevant reliable sources? I've tried discussing content with them countless times and all they bring to the table is their opinions on the subject. And if I'm wrong...if there has been ONE instance where we've had a talk page discussion where they've shared some semblance of research...then I'm sure it would be very easy for these editors to link us to that instance. And now we're back at square one. --Xerographica (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, the consensus is clearly against you, and your edits are not acceptable. Consensus trumps pretty much everything around here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus trumps verifiability?

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

--Xerographica (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The other editors are under no obligation to "prove" to you that they have read sources that you consider suitable in discussions. I find your lack of good faith here disturbing, and suggest you step away from the encyclopedia, drink a glass of greent tea, and consider how things might appear to the other editors instead of your continuing "I'm RIGHT - because I AM" attitude. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If an editor removes relevant and reliably sourced content...then yeah, they should definitely feel obligated to provide some reliable sources to justify their edits. Anything less would be uncivil. Like I said in my first post...I DO assume good faith with these editors. They aren't malicious. They aren't vandals. They are just operating under the belief that they can make constructive content cuts to technical articles without first reading what the reliable sources have to say about the topics. From the perspective of the reader though...there is absolutely no difference between the edits of these editors and vandalism. In fact, blatant vandalism would be far more preferable because at least you, somebody not familiar with the topics, would be able to easily identify it and correct it.

Obviously I value the Wikipedia project...which is why it's worth it for me to try and communicate the harm that these editors are unintentionally causing it. Even though Bwilkins would like you to believe that my problem is with all editors...it really isn't. In my original post I shared an example of an informed discussion and here's another example...Talk:Tax#Ability_to_pay_vs_benefit. Wikipedia can certainly support all types of different levels of expertise. I really understand the value of being inclusive. But it's just as important that editors understand that if they are going to make substantial content edits to an article...that it's absolutely essential for them to have first read, and understood, the relevant reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you obviously do not value the project. The project is based on community and civility - those are far from anything your behaviour suggests that you value. What you appear value is your personal academic standing, which you're trying to impose on a project that honestly doesn't give two shits about any piece of paper you claim to hold. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND, and bear in mind that labeling edits as vandalism, or as "no different from vandalism", that are not, is easily considered a personal attack. . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ACME Boomerang. I just read the OP talk page and it's full of facepalm. Will someone give him a final warning about NPA?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To explain some jargon to X: "OP" = Original poster (you) (see glossary). Facepalm = Facepalm. –S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• *sigh* Xerographica has spent at least a couple of months arguing (unsuccessfully) that Wikipedia should be a haven for Academic thought, and that the weight of the edits (and article subjects) by academics should be greater than peons. Even though be advised otherwise, he has continued down a path of "I've researched this, therefore it's a valid article/edit/concept so you'd better just screw off" (that may be a slight paraphrase). However, because of his Sheldon Cooper-esque beliefs, he also slides easily into insults, NPA's, derogatory statements, and downright talking down to those who are "beneath his academic stature". Probably one of the most heavy-handed editors I've seen. The above complaint is merely an attempt to "call out" some of the editors who refuse to bow down, genuflect, and acquiesce to his "clear and obvious superior brilliance" (again, probably a paraphrase) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at actions speak louder than words and put your money where your mouth is. Those concepts are certainly notable from the economic perspective...but I wasn't able to do anything with the entries because these editors removed all my reliably sourced content...but didn't bother to contribute any of their own. It was almost the same thing with the benefit principle. Take a look at dollar voting...one of the editors removed reliable sourced content and posted a template tag that said, "This now discredited theory". Where are their sources to support that claim? Look on the talk page...a discussion with one of the editors went absolutely nowhere. It was just a huge waste of time. All these editors want to tear down rather than build up. They have not ONCE helped to build up a single article that I've edited. And it's perfectly fine if they dislike these concepts so much...but then why don't they just develop the criticisms sections? If my wording is not neutral...then why don't they change it so that it is more neutral? There is absolutely nothing that is collaborative about their efforts...they are simply disruptive. --Xerographica (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Xerographica's comment, above, asserting that editors have not read material s/he has posted smacks of bad faith. The support offered is that the other editors have not cited RS that might somehow prove that they've read the material. E.g., other editors "didn't bother to contribute any of their own [reliably sourced content]." or "[they haven't] shared some semblance of research...then I'm sure it would be very easy for these editors to link us to that instance." (I'm guessing X means the editors should cite something that counters what X has posted.) But how do X's statements play out? 1. Posting counter-sources does not prove that other editors have read X's contributions or researched the topic. And, 2. posting such counter-sources would likely prompt X to say the editors were wrong in some fashion or another. (X incorrectly assumes that other editors, including me, oppose the views s/he presents.) In any event, X's argument that other editors have not read sources is not well taken or founded. Indeed, it is pernicious. – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Further comment – Again, with this edit [215], Xerographica continues with the pernicious personal remarks. Xerographica says (above): "From the perspective of the reader though...there is absolutely no difference between the edits of these editors and vandalism." The "qualifier" about "the perspective of the reader" is a transparent disguise for Xerographica's own accusation that I and other editors are vandalizing his/her efforts and the project. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - editors can see my contribution to this protracted and multi-pronged content dispute on Xerographica's talk page. I've made my point there and have no real desire to help drag this out much longer. I think X needs to decide if he wants to be a WP editor or not. If he does then he needs to listen to what (pretty much) everyone is telling him about the right and wrong ways to go about content creation. If not, then I think there might be a great opportunity for him to take a step back and spend some time writing a book about his favourite economic theories, concepts, neologisms and idioms. WP is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but editing WP is not for everyone. If that makes sense. Stalwart111 01:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica's had enough of an ANI beating ... can we close the thread now? NE Ent 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No way, I'm a sucker for abuse. It's why I thrived in the infantry. Can you please help me understand this specific edit by Rubin...here? Why did he remove an entire section of reliably sourced content? --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this a POV dispute between Keynesians and Austrians? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Boy I wish! It's certainly not a matter of POV because the content I added covered both principles equally...User:Xerographica/Principles_of_taxation. As I said in my OP...it's a matter of editors whose edits are disruptive because they haven't read enough reliable sources to make constructive edits. --Xerographica (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody please help me understand another edit by Rubin...here? Why did he remove reliably sourced content? And why did he remove relevant See Also items...here? --Xerographica (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know about personal attacks or anything like that (s/he has not made any towards me aside from some vague allusions to my lack of competence/knowledge in a topic area I happen to have a graduate degree in, but this stuff was mild), but Xerographica does have a serious problem understanding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies and when you point out problems with his/her edits, it pretty much quickly degenerates into a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. See the talk page of Foot voting for example. I think that's the essence of the problem other editors are having with her/him as well. Not sure how to address it, since it doesn't appear to be bad faithed, just a bit stubborn and careless.Volunteer Marek 19:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what you removed from the article...

Here's Milton Friedman's perspective on foot voting...

The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations. Capitalism and freedom

Here's Friedrich Hayek's perspective on foot voting (via Alan O. Ebenstein)

He put forward his conception of optimal realizable utopia for humanity as he saw it in Law, Legislation and Liberty - "the transformation of local and even regional governments into quasi-commercial corporations competing for citizens. They would have to offer a combination of advantages and costs which made life within their territory at least as attractive as elsewhere…To re-entrust the management of most service activities of government to smaller units would probably lead to a revival of a communal spirit." He remarked in The Constitution of Liberty on "competition between municipalities," and said in an interview, "I'm inclined to give local authorities power which I would deny to the central government, because people can vote with their feet against what the local governments can do." Friedrich Hayek: a biography

(In the criticism section) Just as dollar voting requires a degree of economic freedom to be effective, foot voting is effective only if people have the freedom to migrate. (I didn't add this prose but it certainly doesn't say anything different than the primary source that follows)

"Is it? I understand you've traveled, Agnes," said Vlad, as she struggled. "So you'll know that so many people lead little lives, always under the whip of some king or ruler or master who won't hesitate to sacrifice them in battle or turn them out when they can't work anymore."

But they can run away, Perdita prompted.

"But they can run away!"

"Really? On foot? With a family? And no money? Mostly they never even try. Most people put up with most things, Agnes." - Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum}}

You say this content is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH...but I'm just not seeing it. The sources are all talking about foot voting. The first two sources are in favor of it while the third source offers a reasonable critique. Like I asked on the talk page...what position am I advancing that is not advanced by these sources? --Xerographica (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we WP:CLOSE this discussion? While I'm one of the subject editors brought up by Xerographica, I see no consensus that I, Rubin, or SPECIFICO have violated policy or guidelines. Instead, many of the comments are about OP's edits – and other subjects. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not close this discussion until we have a consensus on Rubin's edits here, here and here. --Xerographica (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have consensus that you're a tendentious editor and that you're literally steps from being blocked ... now you're making near-ultimatums? We're not going to make any type of !vote on content here - got it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of civility doesn't bother me one bit...neither do your block threats. If you want to block me for civilly voicing my concerns...then go ahead. I'm sure that it will have absolutely nothing to do with this... User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. But thanks for sharing that it's not a personal attack to accuse another editor of being tendentious. --Xerographica (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPADE. If you don't want to be called tendentious - don't be tendentious. When everybody in a discussion holds the opposite viewpoint from you, you should start to consider that you might be wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll start to consider the possibility that I'm wrong...when everybody in the discussion offers a reasonable argument for why it was right for Rubin to remove reliably sourced content here. When none of you are capable of justifying, explaining or defending his conduct, conduct which is standard fair for him, Rubin and SPECIFICO...then it seems pretty clear that I'm right. So if you want to prove I'm wrong...then prove that Rubin's edit was constructive. --Xerographica (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"when everybody" bends to your will? Now every single person has to prostrate themselves at the feet of the great academic? No. Again, you're rather mistaken about this project and whatever dreams of power you seem to believe you have. I'm starting to believe, based on your bizarre logic, that not only are you not an academic, you might have even lost to the kids on that Foxworthy TV show (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't leave me out of this! My edit [216] was the one that removed the material and Rubin was re-removing it. – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not work that way. Xerographica, it's as if you're trying to convince everybody you're not here to improve the encylopedia. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND - and WP:STICK, before WP:INDEF gets applied to you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My last 3 edits to User talk:Xerographica have been requests that he unwrap himself from the axle. To no avail I fear. Perhaps Bwilkins' lastest remark will help. Still, let's close this. Please. – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If none of you are willing to actually address any of the evidence that I've shared...then Rich is right...just close this. --Xerographica (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur – but not on the basis that no one is "willing to address any of the evidence". – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing by Film Fan

Hello. The user Film Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly known as Jsigned) has again been causing disruption at the article Taare Zameen Par. Because the film was released in American cinemas under its foreign title, I and other editors felt that the English title was better referenced later in the lead when the DVD release was specifically mentioned. I even asked about the matter on the naming conventions guideline page here. The article passed FAC with this two years ago. However, six months ago Film Fan began targeting the article and insisting the English name be used for the article despite a unanimous consensus against it. He was blocked several times for his disruptions, with a previous noticeboard discussion here. Now he is back and keeps changing the lead format regarding the English title placement, despite the consensus that was in place for two years. An admin locked the page and told him to discuss it, and not to revert until a consensus on it had been reached. Despite not gaining a consensus for the change, Film Fan ignored the admin's instructions and immediately began reverting to his version once the lock was dropped. I restored the original version and noted the admin's instructions, but Film Fan continues to ignore that. I tried contacting the admin several times, but never got a response. Other editors seem to have given up out of exhaustion of dealing with Film Fan (which seems to be his tactic), and he implied on the talk page that he will continue his pursuit of this no matter what. I do not want to engage in an edit war over this, but this has been happening on-and-off for six months (in the meanwhile which Film Fan has been blocked for edit warring on various other articles). Any help or advice on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks.

Diffs of his reverts after admin's lock:

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Discussion on the talk page here Ωphois 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

For your consideration, may I present to you the 2013 candidate for WP:LAME. This is a discussion that needs to take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and has less to do with editorial behaviors and more to do with how we deal with English titles of foreign films in lead sections. After reviewing the discussion, there appears to have been little compromise by the editors reverting Film Fan over and over again. Now, I'm not saying he is right, but I think a neutral discussion on the Film project talk page should clear this up. If an RfC is needed, then great, but you really need an opinion from someone familiar with guidelines for film-related articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If I disagree with his proposal, I am in no way obligated to compromise. That is what developing a consensus is for, which he has failed to do. I am not bringing this here about content dispute. I am here about his continuing disregard of admin instructions and guidelines for BRD. If you read the link I referenced above regarding the prior admin noticeboard report on him, you will see that this is a constant problem with the editor. Ωphois 01:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussions and saw no attempt to negotiate or compromise with Film Fan, and your statement "I am in no way obligated to compromise" speaks for itself. If you want to actually solve this problem, you should have an advertised RfC preferably on the article talk page or on Film project talk page linked above. Instead, it seems like you are only interested in sanctioning someone who disagrees with you. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, after six months of dealing with his constant disruptions that usually end in his being blocked, I don't feel a need to compromise if I disagree with him. That is what discussions are for, so that multiple people can contribute their opinions. I voiced my opinion, as has he. If he continually violates WP rules, then I have every right to report him. 02:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The page history shows that two people are dancing the tango; you've been reverting as much as him. If you are truly interested in solving problems rather than fighting a grudge match, then you'll discuss this issue with neutral members of the film project, either on their talk page or in an advertised RfC. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reverting the original version per BRD and the admin's instructions. If there is a disagreement over content, then the original version is supposed to stay until a consensus for changing it arises. I will pursue Rfc, but his past history shows that he has no regard for what is established in discussions. His actions remain regardless, and IMO show that he still hasn't learned. Ωphois 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You are the sole arbiter as to whether or not an article evolves? You have superpowers that prevent an article from ever changing? This is a community, you are under 100% obligation to compromise. WP:BRD does not say "don't BUDGE...simply REVERT and DIE protecting the contents" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by your statement, you didn't even bother reading what I linked above, in which you would see that I am not the only one in disagreement about the matter. Until recently, opposition to him has been unanimous, and I have been contacting people previously involved with the article to voice their opinion on the matter either way. I will try to start a discussion on the film group page. As I stated in the linked above discussion, I will follow consensus, something that Film Fan constantly disregards. Besides, this dispute is about something that is either one way or another. Compromise really isn't viable. There are two possible formats, and no in-between that I can see. Also, following your logic, I could go and restructure the Lord of the Rings page, and because this is a community every other editor would have to compromise with me? That's not how it works. It's based on consensus. I gave my opinion, and if other editors disagree with me, then I will follow whatever is decided. But so must Film Fan. Ωphois 13:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My edit is correct, as has been acknowledged. Your questionable reverts scream WP:OWN. Film Fan (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I sound like I'm getting an attitude, but it's that this has been going on for such a long time. As soon as he realizes that he cannot will not be succssefull in some aspect of the title, he moves onto something else and just repeats the same arguments over and over. If you look at the previous ani report, you'll see that he has been doing this on other articles for quite a while. Ωphois 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to change the article title to the title used in English-speaking countries. Now I am making sure that it is at the very least mentioned in the lead, as per Wikipedia policy, and I'm not going to let someone who thinks they own the article stop me. Film Fan (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's as unhelpful a response as the one Ophois gave above. I left you a note on your talk page about edit warring behavior. I move that an editor other than myself close this discussion to de-escalate this conflict. Learn to solve disputes by talking to each other not by coming to the noticeboards to get one or the other blocked. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To make an update, Ophois posted a notice at WT:FILM as seen here. We are continuing the discussion on the film article's talk page here. I've provided my own thoughts. Editors are invited to review the points there and comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Should hit the two of them with a big bucket of fish for being so pig-headed about their stances. Blackmane (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm only standing up to someone who doesn't listen to reason and thinks they own an article. Nothing more to it. Film Fan (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately from an outsiders perspective you've been blocked 5 times in the last six months for the same behaviour. Canterbury Tail talk 17:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Except this is different, it's a different edit, it's undeniably correct, and consensus is with me. Ophois simply dislikes the English-language title so wants to hide it as best he can. That's not happening. Film Fan (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Blackmane, the dispute is over something that is either black or white. I don't see how any compromise can be made. The "compromise" that Film Fan refers to is merely his original proposal for the lead. If you look at the previous ANI on him here and his block log, you will see that he has a long history of disruption and hopefully will understand why I brought this incident here. Ωphois 17:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, what we have here are two editors, both of whom insist they have consensus and both of whom are outrightly declaring "no, I will not compromise, end of story". Which seems to me that it's time to suggest sanctions for both. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Easy to look at it that way if you haven't read much of what's been written. Film Fan (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

For once I agree with you Film Fan, lol. No disrespect to those participating in this discussion, but it does seem like quite a few people post on here without actually reading much into the situation. Ωphois 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd read through your disagreements on the talk page. And I stand by the trouting. Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't bring this here to solve the content dispute, I brought it here to again address Film Fan's continued disregard for policies over the past six months. Film Fan and I are not the only editors involved. A quick look at the discussion will show that multiple editors contributed their opinions. It doesn't matter if he and I disagree, as involving many editors grants a consensus one way or another. An admin simply requesting that he follow policy while the discussion was going on (which you will see by my contributions that before bringing it to the film project page that I had been trying to contact others previously involved with the article to give their opinions on the matter) would at least have helped. But unlike the old days that I fondly remember, admins now seem (based on the responses here) to be more focused on ridiculing those they disagree with. Ωphois 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Having looked at the article, the article talk page, and both user's talk pages (including going through it diff by diff), I don't see this as stopping anytime soon, with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on both sides. The simple solution is to topic ban both editors from the article, and if there continues to be problems, to enact an interaction ban. GregJackP Boomer! 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is everyone purposefully overlooking Erik's statement above that I opened a discussion on the film project to make sure we find a consensus either way? Ωphois 23:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I noticed that. But both of y'all are exhibiting battleground behavior, and while I can certainly understand it, it is better for both of you to walk away from the article and leave it be. I was topic banned from Climate Change about 2 years ago. While that ban has been lifted, I haven't had a desire to get back into it. From what I'm reading, you and Film Fan are in the same position. Sometimes being forced away from an article that brings out that type of reaction in you can give you a new perspective and make editing easier. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that everyone is misinterpreting my intentions due to my frustration with dealing with Film Fan for so long. I am not absolutely set against Film Fan's proposal, I just want the process to follow the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Following other admins' suggestions, I have expanded my attempts to involve the community more. Film Fan on the other hand (as shown by his blocks and the ANI I referenced above) just insists that his version is right, the community be damned. Judging by how discussions are currently going, Film Fan's version will probably prevail. I'm perfectly fine with that, but I just want it to be done properly without his disruptions. It's open to interpretation (and I might be biased based on my past history with him), but if you see my talk page, you will see that he now seems to be acting petty by trying to remove other parts of the lead for unnecessary reasons. He's been editing film articles for quite a while, but claims that he has no idea that a summary of article information in the lead doesn't require citations? ClassicFilms and I spent months getting the article to FA, while Film Fan has no history with Bollywood films at all. Any editor who has dealt with him in the past will agree with me that once he sets his mind on something, he will keep going at it nonstop until he gets his way or an admin interferes. I truly believe he is disagreeing just out of pettiness for everyone disageeing with him in the past on this article. Ωphois 02:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone keeps criticizing Film Fan and I for not compromising, but they are completely ignoring the other editors who also voiced their opinion to the matter. Us making the decision for them would be us taking control of the article. As well, everyone keeps criticizing us for not compromising, but as I have pointed out, I see no room possible for compromise. It's either that the title is included in the first sentence or not, while the English title has always been included later in the lead. Are any of you able to look at the situation and suggest a format that suits both arguments? I've been trying to solve the situation by getting more community involvement since we can't agree. No disrespect intended, but if any of you are not able to think of a compromise, I don't see how you can criticize us on what has happened. Ωphois 02:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, having read the talk page a couple times, I'm not favourable towards Film Fan on what they're doing. However, what I am critical of is that Film Fan is picking the battlefield and you're happily (metaphorically speaking) jaunting off into it. That's what I'm trouting you for. Haven't had the chance to expand on my trouting comments earlier. I'm trouting Film Fan for stubbornly heading down the road to an indef. Blackmane (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

LIKE STARS ON EARTH is an AKA easily signficant enough to be mentioned at the top. It's that simple. That's all I'm pushing. This is about content. Film Fan (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is about behavior and conduct, between and by both of you. Personally, I could care less about the content issue, but I care greatly about the inappropriate conduct by both of you. GregJackP Boomer! 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying my agenda is accurate content. I couldn't care less about sanctions to myself or Ophois or anyone else or any kind of ego issues that some people have. I definitely get too easily frustrated by certain things but whatever. Film Fan (talk)

Dallas Dempster and User:Dallas Dempster

Hello. User:Dallas Dempster keeps repeatedly inserting his own biography into the Dallas Dempster article. [217] I have already reverted twice, and another user has reverted as well, and I have also warned the user, but the user persists in adding the information. I would suggest a COI block of some length (possibly including indefinite), or a 3RR block if this persists, but as I've already reverted twice, and COI issues aren't my thing, I'm seeking outside assistance. --Rschen7754 07:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I live in Western Australia and am familiar with Dempster, from news reports. Please just work with him on the article. He's one of the states most rational and reasonable entrepreneurs, and simple respectful discussion will almost certainly do the trick. Remember, he is entitled to add and delete content on his own biography. He will be perfectly capable of grasping and working within our policies and guidelines once they're clearly explained or pointed out to him. Where he offers undocumented assertions, if they're uncontroversial and not puffery, leave them there (with a citation needed tag if you really must). He is an expert on his history, make the most of this opportunity to work with him, and ideally turn him into a productive Wikipedian. He has a lot to offer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I already have pointed out our guidelines to him, and he continues to persist in reinserting the information. Furthermore, you still have not addressed the violation of WP:COI, and his edition of the article certainly violates WP:NPOV. --Rschen7754 07:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've rung the subject. He's on the road and will ring me back later today. I'll let this board know the results of that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - to clarify, it would be preferable not to block here, but we can't compromise our integrity as a site either. Let's see what happens.--Rschen7754 08:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've spoken with him and heard his concerns. I've asked him to leave the article while I familiarise myself with the background. I'll get back to him and the article talk page with some suggestions once I've done that. It may be a day or so ... there are weird things happening with my internet connection. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Had a quick look at the article. I would try and persuade him to edit another article which he has no involvement in. Newbies create autobiographies chock full of unreferenced puffery, presumably in inexperienced good faith, each and every day here, so I'd go easy on him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AUTOBIO is pretty clear, and I would say that Mr. Dempster should not be editing his own article. By all means, let him provide reliable sources - but allow others to do the actual writing. GiantSnowman 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I am disappointed by Rschen's response here. If I were a new editor and read that, I'd be more likely to say "well **** you then" than bone up on Wikipedia policies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm only seeing 4 edits -- is there another account? NE Ent 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

He could have just been casually editing as an IP, and only creating an account to associate his name with the "right" version of the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a slow-burning content war with a user David Ikin (talk · contribs) claiming to be representing Dempster and an IP 210.87.63.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which may be the same person. Hack (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ikin, who wrote the initial Dempster article back in July, made a comment of "You keep changing my work and I'll simply keep changing it back. The difference is I'm being paid to do this" on his talk page back in October. Ikin works for PPR, a public relations firm that works for Dempsters current company - see http://hyperionenergy.com.au/contact/. It's a clear case of a PR/business man expecting that he can "publish" and control the wikipedia article that suits him. They claim that both our article and the recent newspaper article are "full of errors", but all I see is a difference of opinion on importance of events (WP:UNDUE in their mind, or not in most of ours). It's a COI/Paid Editing/content dispute, but with today's events, Mr Dempster seems to have gotten tired of his PR man failing to do the job and has tried to do it himself. I hope the phone call discussion and not just the standard "you must follow our rules" messages stops this from ending up like another high profile Australian from the same era. And Ritchie333, if you don't like the standard templates, please re-write them to be "nicer". We don't all have time to customise every standard notification. Standard templates should be suitable for use without disappointing others for using them. The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's been some confusion - I'm actually in agreement with you here. If you're referring to my comment re Rschen7754 above, it was a comment about a custom message he wrote, where I felt a standard template message would have been more appropriate, for the exact reasons you've just said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All I have to say in response to this is... !? My response was intended to convey the gravity of the situation - that we cannot accept paid editing or COI material, and that we need to protect the encyclopedia; it also needed to be written quickly before another reversion was made. --Rschen7754 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry about it. There does seem to be something in the air regards paid editing; this is the third incident this week I've come across someone doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: It's misleading to say that "we cannot accept paid editing or COI material". WP:NOPAY is clear that neither paid editing nor editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest are forbidden outright. They are discouraged because historically they have been associated with violations of other policies. Bovlb (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, paid editing is an intristic violation of WP:NPOV; it is impossible, no matter how well the intent, to be neutral when being paid to edit, as if the payer isn't satisfied with the result - and "satisfied" will inevitably mean "favourable coverage only" - the payee doesn't get paid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a paid editor or one with a significant conflict of interest faces serious difficulties in trying to adhere to our NPOV policy, but it's misleading to state an opinion on how our policy should change as if it were the current policy. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Beg pardon? No such thing was done. "As I've said before..." etc. I.E. my opinion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your distinction is merely academic, per The Bushranger: sure, paid editing may be "allowed", but it almost always violates NPOV and thus we cannot accept it. --Rschen7754 21:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clarifications. If a new editor is invited to participate in this thread and sees administrators making remarks like "we cannot accept paid editing or COI material" and "paid editing is an intristic violation of WP:NPOV", they could easily be misled into thinking that these are statements of Wikipedia policy. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

When I see evidence of paid editors' articles spending more time here than here, I might change my mind! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Imagine a Wikipedia consultancy business that guaranteed GA/FA status or your money back.  :) Having said that, I think we have to be careful that our perceptions aren't swayed by seeing only the problems. Do we really know how many current FAs and GAs have major contributions from paid/COI editors? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Since every FA is looked at by several people, I'm not greatly concerned about it. I would urge editors to be welcoming. And in this case, as he is in touch with the subject, to let Anthonyhcole handle it. Does this thread need to remain open? --Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, I do not think any one editor has either a right or obligation to deal with a subject like this and do not think that Anthonyhcole has any particular sanction from any part of the wikipedia process to personally 'deal' with the issue or the subject, it needs further monitoring and oversight and special consideration on the basis of WP:COI - and a clear understanding of WP:OWN and also the potential for review separate from anyone who might or might not be in contact in real life with editors involved with the article. sats 04:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think WP should accept BLP editing that uses the principle that, when the subject of the article or the subject's representative "offers undocumented assertions, if they're uncontroversial and not puffery, leave them there (with a citation needed tag if you really must)" . These edits are typically assertions about the individuals personal and professional development, of the goals the person had in mind at various periods, or of the person's opinions about something. If they appeared in a published autobiography outside WP, we can use such material, although we would still have to say "according to his web page, the subject says that they .... " according to our usual rules for first party sources. Such statements are not necessarily accurate about what the individual did or felt or thinks, but they are accurate (if not taken out of context) about what at a particular time the individual wishes to say about their actions or feelings or opinions. But they still have to be relevant, in appropriate details, and suitable for an encyclopedia. Otherwise they're just the subject expounded about himself, and people are not know for having any sense of importance about what they say about themselves, or about whether something actually belongs in a references book.

This sort of material is common in promotional articles written by PR staff, even more than in autobios. When its from a press agent, it tends to be rather formulaic, and almost always includes a line about the person's first lemonade stand or paper delivery route or school art project or whatever, which was the first signs of their professional success, or the persons family background of childhood experiences that led them to be interested in whatever it was they are noted for as adults. When evaluated by a professional biographer of a famous person, it's relevant content. When a reminiscence by a person of ordinary notability, it belongs in their memoirs perhaps. but not an encyclopedia, because it's misleading: it's what the subject wishes to have said about themselves intended to convince the audience that this is the true significant nature of their experiences. Suitable wording will at least imply this to those who look carefully, but when it comes here directly from the subject or the subjects own works as primary sources, the intent is to aggrandize the subject. It needs evaluation--if not by professional biographers, which we do not have,-- but by neutral uninvolved editors.

It's great that famous people want to provide us with information about themselves. Let them provide it in their own writings or whatever, and let uninvolved people here decide what to include. If they want to work with WP on their bio, let them point us to such sources, let them provide us with photos under free licenses, but let them realize it never looks good for them to try to determine the content of the article. Whenever someone makes such a claim that they ought to be permitted to do so, we are right to be very skeptical about the objectivity.

In this article, as I see it, this is what is happening. I know nothing whatever about the person except what I read there, but it is obvious to me he is trying to promote himself, We have no obligation to let him do it; we rather have a obligation to both him and our readers to prevent it. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

EMr_KnG

EMr_KnG (talk · contribs) is very obviously a "man on a mission", i. e. falsifying Wikipedia articles by trying to "Turkify" everything. He does not have much knowledge of history, has no relevant or reliable sources to present, in fact, he does not even know English but - judging based on his writings - is most likely using some kind of an online translator. Right now, he is putting the (Anatolian) Turkish name of various historical people directly in the first line of the respective article, even though the Turkish language has absoloutely nothing to do with them. On his user page, he claims that various historical people or societies were Turks, even though scholars (and obvious historical and archaelogical evidence) say something different. Admin attention is needed. He has been asked by me and others to stop this, on his own talk page and on my talk page, as well as various other talk-pages. --Lysozym (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This pretty much sums it up, I'm sorry to say. I've been hoping he'll take the hint but he is now quite time-consuming. Advice and help would be welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than dropping the block bomb on them, as they seem to be a relatively new user having only started last year and only editing sporadically, it might be worth dropping by to the Turkish WikiProject to see if anyone there is bilingual in Turkish and english to explain to them what they need to do here.Blackmane (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Adding the Turkish translations of non-Turk-related individuals might be appropriate on say ... a Turkish Wikipedia, but not here. Give him some guidance first, I'd hate to give an "attention-getting" block yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not asking for a block. I would welcome any kind of help. And if this user learns and agrees to contribute in an appropriate manner, he should have all freedom to improve Wikipedia. Currently, however, he is doing exactly the opposite. --Lysozym (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What did I do? I present source. And also my claim adverse does not say anything on the page. Therefore taken back to why you do not understand what I write. EMr KnG (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your editing is that you're adding a lot of unverified information, particularly with respect to adding Turkic to subjects related to the Mughal empire. It looks like you are trying to attribute the Mughal empire to a Turkic ancestry. Without going into the content, you have been reverted each time because you made these changes without an adequate reliable source. Your systematic pursuit in doing so lends a distinctly nationalistic flavour to your editing (which is not meant to be insulting but merely a description). If you can bring up reliable sources, then there is certainly room for discussion on the talk page as to how it would be included into the article. The only sources you have been using are all written in Turkish. Although non-english sources are allowed, they're generally only used if no other sources can be found. Nonetheless, I think we need to find a turkish speaker to make the details clearer. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfamiliarity with the source material is the only reason I haven't already given EMr KnG a couple of days off. Am I right in saying that the basic gist here is that EMr KnG is pushing for various historical figures and peoples to be labelled as Turkish or Turks against scholarly consensus which doesn't agree with this, and edit warring to retain this? And that this has been the sole focus of his edits since he registered? If so, given that he's been at it for nearly a year, my instinct is simply to indef as WP:NOTHERE. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

His contribs seem to suggest that. Although, EMr seems to move from one article to another doing no more than one addition but if it is reverted they don't revert the revert more than once but merely moves onto another figure and repeats. They're not aggressively revert warring about it, so my AGF meter is still on the middle-high level and reckon that this could be turned around with help from native speakers who can help EMr get with the program as it were. However, if they're pushing some nationalistic agenda then my meter is going to go red pretty quick. Blackmane (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is only problem Mughal? Do not have a problem when alterations are related to Hunnic etc. Also How can the reliability of the source determined? EMr KnG (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wtf? "I present source. And also my claim adverse does not say anything on the page. Therefore taken back to why you do not understand what I write. " is not even remotely English. The problem, I think, is that EMr KnG is editing on the en.wikipedia, and not on the tr.wikipedia. Competence of some sort is required, I'm sorry to say, and EMr KnG by his inability to even comprehend the issues has me concerned this disruptive pattern will continue. I suggest an indef block until and unless their English improves to the point that an admin is convinced they A) understand the problems with their editing and B) pledge not to add non-English words, names and phrasing to this Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that nobody else has apparently done so, I've left a note at WT:TURKEY asking for assistance from a Turkish speaker.[218] Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but my personal opinion is that if a translator is needed to comprehend basic instructions on the English Wikipedia, that editor should not be on the Enlgish Wikipedia. Of course, if you are looking for a translator to make sure that message is conveyed, you may have a point, and I concede that ensuring clarity in this may save time and trouble. KillerChihuahua 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd certainly support a block on the WP:COMPETENCE issue, being in complete agreement with KC; if you can't write in coherent, clear English, you shouldn't be making edits on the English Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Most/Majority (or all) of his/her edits are problematic and disruptive. Just verify his/her contributions page. Some of them:

• 1. Changed ethnicity or language (sourced contents) to Turk/Turkic/Turkish several times. See diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4,diff 5, diff 6.
• 2. content blanking and removal of sources plus POV-pushing. See diff 7, diff 8, diff 9 (just see what he/she removed and what added), diff 10 (plus edit summary).
• 3. Added unreliable and unscientific sources. diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14.
• 4. Added words in irrelevant language (Turkish). Those articles are not related to Turkish language or Turkish people. Turkic does not mean Turkish. Turkish is a Turkic language, but using of Turkish in any Turkic-related or Turkic-unrelated article is clearly wrong and false and may lead to further disruptive and unconstructive/false edits. diff 15, diff 16, diff 17, diff 18,diff 19, diff 20, diff 21, diff 22, diff 23, diff 24, Also some of above diffs have this problem too.
• 5. Does not attend to other users and their edit summaries, just reverts and edit war (see user contributions page). Read 1, 2, 3, 4.
• 6. Check user page User:EMr KnG and compare it with user edits. His/Her user page shows what he/she does. I know user pages are personal and we must consider contributions, but in this case that's related to his/her works.
• 7. Only interested in "Turkify the articles".
• 8. As mentioned by the other users the "English language" is very important. We can't call a translator every time. This is the English Wikipedia.

My summary about this user edits/contributions/behavior is WP:NOTHERE. Zheek (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I had hoped that some words from someone bilingual in english and turkish (thanks to Thryduulf for notifying them, I got pulled away before getting round to it then forgot to do so) would make them realise that they're not really suitable to edit here and they could back out gracefully without being booted out as it were. Be that as it may, I wouldn't oppose a competence block. Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nor would I. I warned him in September saying "Please stop changing articles so that they read 'Turkish' instead of something else. This edit changed sourced text. Others have just deleted text with no justification given in edit summaries. Editors who do this persistently usually end up blocked". I don't see any basic changes in his edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The most practical step may be an indef block. It is hard to see a bright side in any of the material given above. He lacks the language ability needed to contribute here, he can't edit neutrally and he won't follow our sourcing rules. If he is blocked here, he still has an account on the Turkish Wikipedia he can use. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Long-term civil POV-pushing at Waldorf Education and related topics

I would like community input on what I view as a very long-term campaign of civil POV pushing at topics related to the works of Rudolph Steiner by User:Hgilbert, and on the conduct of all users involved in editing this area. Waldorf Education has been the subject of an arbitration request which placed all related articles on article probation, and also stated that "except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources." A later review banned a battleground-minded anti-Waldorf editor, Pete K, who continues to occasionally sock at the page, six years later. Hgilbert recently asked for a review of the same case to relax the condition quoted above, which resulted in them being superseded by discretionary sanctions.

Hgilbert is "a teacher in a Waldorf school and a writer regarding the educational theories used at the Waldorf schools" and has edited in this field with "a strong positive bias" according to the original arbitration case, in which he was also found to have used original research and unreliable sources. Since the original case, he has continued to be a prolific editor with nearly 10k edits, the vast majority of which are in this subject area. I feel that his edits continue to show a strong positive bias, the net effect of which is to continually push these articles away from a neutral point of view.

Several diffs illustrating civil pov-pushing

HGilbert at Waldorf Education A selection of diffs made to WE in the past month diff Replaces a sourced statement that "the topic of best teaching practice is controversial" with a paragraph saying that Waldorf kindergartens were granted a exemption from some UK guidelines on reading Restores a paragraph sourced to a Die Welt article, which cherry-picks several positive points from a much more nuanced article, as discussed here. This was previously discussed here diff Broadly changes the characterization of a source diff Adds a broad-reaching statement sourced to a study of three classrooms in a non-reviewed research report as discussed here diff Restores broadly un-encyclopedic language from a book written by an author with close ties to the WE movement, in violation of the arbitration guidelines: "Heiner Ullrich, who visited a number of schools in a long-term study, found that Waldorf schools successfully foster dedication, openness, and a love for other human beings, for nature, and for the inanimate world." diff Removes a rs tag from a non-reviewed book source from someone closely involved with the WE movement (as explicitly disallowed by the arbitration case) diff Removes a self-characterization that might reflect negatively on Steiner, sourced to his book, citing the arbitration guidelines Hgilbert has also made nearly 700 edits to the article talk page, the tone of which is best observed by browsing through the archives. Hgilbert at Biodynamic Agriculture diff Removes this article with edit summary of "an ex-professor's newspaper editorial is not a reputable source", although the source is a full-length investigative article diff Removes a characterization of "pseudoscience" and broadly pushes a more positive tone. diff Changes "Biodynamic agriculture has been characterized as pseudoscience by scholars" to "Biodynamic agriculture has been the subject of serious scientific study" diff Removes pseudoscience cat with misleading edit summary diff Cherrypicks random facts from a study, discussed here diff Removes pseudoscience from the lead diff Claims that appearing in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience does not pseudoscience make, discussion here Prior to many of these removals, HGilbert had agreed on the label in this discussion In response to other editors concerns about non-reviewed technical publications, he attempts to make a WP:POINT by suggesting the removal of several RS publications as sources here Other edits by Hglibert diff Removes Biodynamic Agriculture from List of topics characterized as pseudoscience with the edit summary "not termed pseudoscientific by any quoted source", quotes from the sources used are detailed here Similarly worked to remove AM from the same list and then soften language of the entry

Around the time of the first arbitration case, there were also several anti-Waldorf SPA editors, but they have either stopped editing the article, or were banned due to obvious user-conduct issues. Several experienced users have also tried to push for a neutral POV, but many have since stopped editing the article. In my case at least, I have tried to avoid the area due to the immense amount of effort required to advocate for a more neutral tone. Hgilbert is not the only user to push a POV in these articles, but over the past eight years he has done so consistently, and cost the community countless editor-hours on the article talk pages, WP:NPOV/N, WP:RS/N, and WP:FRINGE/N. I am sure he could contribute positively to wikipedia in other areas, but I feel that his edits to these controversial areas have not helped build a better encyclopedia. Thanks for any on the actions of this editor, myself or any other editor in this field, or the issues related to this article in general. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that Hgilbert has been a disruptive problem, bringing a too-positive bias to Steiner and Waldorf articles. I first encountered Hgilbert in November 2011 after following a Fringe noticeboard thread to the biodynamic agriculture article. Hgilbert's first response to my well sourced addition was to remove the negative word "pseudoscience" twice. The interaction has continued in this vein ever since. When this thread advances to the point of discussing solutions, I will be interested in determining what sort of topic ban is most appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree there is a problem here. I have been editing the Waldorf education article for two months now, trying to make it more neutral mainly by adding critical content that was conspicuously absent before, sorting-out sourcing and improving the article structure. As a13ean implies, an issue here is the "immense amount of effort" required to push for neutrality; a glance at the voluminous talk page will confirm that. I have also been looking at content that has been in this article in the longer term, and found some misleading claims that WP has been relaying for years; inevitably it seems the editor who originally added it was Hgilbert. It is as if WP:COIU and WP:BESTCOI simply don't exist. I include some diffs below ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

More diffs illustrating civil pov-pushing

diff removing text that bears on the crucial question of whether Waldorf education is religious (crucial, from a COI perspective, because American state funding relies on it not being). When challenged Hgilbert stated this had been an error and reinstated this text. diff inserting into the lead a claim of universal fact, that research has found Waldorf education to "to foster a high degree of social competency", ignoring the express caveats and limitations of the sources (discussion here). diff making another claim of fact about the "conclusion" of a research report, ignoring the tentative and caveated nature of the original's (inconclusive) text (discussion here). diff removing a {{rs}} tag from a data analysis claim sourced to the Waldorf Today web site on the grounds that it is a "well-established news outlet". diff inserting (in 2006!) a claim that UNESCO had praised a Waldorf organization as being "of tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid", and sourcing it to a UNESCO document and to a polemical piece in a non-RS publication. The problem: the quotation appears to have been completely fabricated by the non-RS source - it's not in the UNESCO document. diff inserting (in 2007!) a claim of fact that Australian Waldorf students have been found to outperform all others at University (Hgilbert also recently re-inserted this content). On investigation it turns out this brave claim is sourced to an interview with a Masters student on an Australian local radio station who "sounded as if [he] was about to publish his thesis".

• There is a problem with this page and it is not limited to the edits of hgilbert, although I will say he has reported some study findings in a way that has required a considerable amount of revision on the part of other editors. Reporting study findings is a difficult thing to do and unless there is some skill and experience on the part of individual editors usually some level of cooperation is needed in order to get the job done well. I commend Alexbrn for being diligent in this regard and note that when issues have been pointed out by him the appropriate revisions, deletions and alternative sourcing have usually been done with a minimal amount of discussion. This effort is ongoing. This situation stands in contrast to the amount of discussion that has had to occur with citations and texts under the "reception" area of the page. For example, there has been extensive and ongoing discussion related to the use of an unpublished monograph written in 2003, and a caption of an image that is not sourced at all. WIthout a reliable source, I have argued that the caption is WP:OI. There were also lengthy discussions in which Alexbrn and Binksternet supported the use of an unpublished paper of the British Humanist Association for something other than its own views and activities (i.e.., as a source for a third party) as well as lengthy discussion as to whether or not Free Inquiry, the magazine of the Council of Secular Humanism, was a peer-reviewed publication that didn't have any reliable source issues. There has also been much discussion about WP:COI although wikipedia is clear to say that an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian and "any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." This wiki page touches upon many areas in which editors could have a strong personal outside interest: state funding of schools; religion; humanism; views on science or medicine and so on. The state funding of Waldorf schools is currently an ongoing source of controversy in the UK and US. I am not alleging any paid or organizational affiliations on the part of other editors, just noting that these are topics under general public discussion that can make it hard for people to act as Wikipedians first. The level of discussion required in order to make any decision suggests this may be a challenge faced by editors of this page. Perhaps due in some part to the existence of real-life concerns, this page ends up asking editors to devote an excessive amount of time and attention, as a13ean notes. However, I disagree that the situation is stemming entirely from one user. I would request that still more oversight and guidance be offered to all editors of this page. At this point, I think it would be in Wikipedia's interest to do something that would engender an editing community with more room for casual participants something that I had hoped to be myself when I took an interest in this page. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response

I do not believe that the article should have either a positive or a negative bias. Looking at the concrete diffs cited above:

• diff

  The statement that was removed was not directly related to Waldorf education. Neither the material removed, nor the material added had any POV relevance; both were neutral comments.

• Restores a paragraph sourced to a Die Welt

  Die Welt is a RS and it is here reporting the European Union PISA studies of schools, a very high quality source indeed. When I added this, there was an expansive section of critical coverage of the Waldorf science curriculum, but all other material describing the science curriculum -- both objective description and empirical studies showing the high level of competency in science by Waldorf students -- had been removed by other users, primarily Alexbrn, leaving the article extremely biased in its coverage of the Waldorf science curriculum. NPOV requires that various viewpoints be represented; empirical studies certainly qualify.

• diff

  Alexbrn had insisted that while material on pseudoscience belongs in the main Waldorf education article, all other description of the science curriculum should be restricted to the Curriculum of the Waldorf schools article. If objective descriptions and reports of studies are being removed from the main article, why should critiques appear in both articles? Again, NPOV requires equal treatment of POVs.

• diff

  In repeated discussions, other editors had urged that we not use primary studies directly, but rather use secondary and tertiary sources' reports of these. The source I cited stated, "Reports of research such as that by Rivers and Soutter (1996) implicitly suggest that Steiner students learn better because there are relatively low levels of harassment and bullying and good relationships amongst students....Its findings suggest that there may be lower levels of bullying in Steiner schools." The term "Reports of research such as that of..." implies that there is more than just this one study on which the author is basing his conclusions.

• diff

  This is a citation from an author who is a prominent pedagogue and who has studied the Waldorf schools for several decades. He is known for his critical objectivity; he critiques many sides of the education, especially its philosophical/anthroposophical underpinnings, both in the volume quoted and elsewhere. It is valid to cite his description of the schools' accomplishments here.

• diff

  The volume cited is v. 27 of the Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte, a distinguished series on the history of religion published by Böhlau Verlag, an academic press. The author is professor of Waldorf education at the Donau-Universität Krems.

  To clarify: The original arbitration proceeding stated that books published by the anthroposophical movement, especially when written by those close to WE, were not RSs. This does not apply to non-anthroposophical publishers; indeed, it would be a gross violation of NPOV to say that anyone who had had anything to do with Waldorf education was not a RS for the education, even if his or her work appeared in a peer-reviewed journal or academic press!

• diff

  As noted above, the arbitration proceedings stated that anthroposophically-published sources should not be used when the content was controversial, and emphasized that this was true of Steiner's own writings, but that peer-reviewed sources should instead be used to characterize Steiner's ideas. hgilbert (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors involved

Just to be clear, three of the editors commenting on this page, Alexbrn, A13ean, and Zad68, collaborated in putting together this filing: see their discussion here. I'd be interested in hearing from objective, outside parties.

Biodynamics

WP:Categories states that "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view." Categorizing Biodynamic agriculture as pseudoscience clearly does not. There is a International Centre of Biodynamics sponsored by UNESCO and a Biodynamic Research Association at the University of Bern, for example. A Google Scholar search for Biodynamic Agriculture shows more than 8000 scholarly sources discussing the topic seriously. Clearly it has attained considerable academic recognition.

It is one thing to indicate that certain critics have called a thing pseudoscience, and another thing simply to define it as pseudoscience. hgilbert (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet complains above that I removed the term "pseudoscience" in this edit. I removed the term for a very good reason: the source cited does not say that biodynamic agriculture was pseudoscientific, or anything remotely similar to this. It says, rather, that "effects of the preparations have been verified scientifically." This was an exceptionally egregious case of completely distorting, and even reversing, the content of a source. hgilbert (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I believe in adhering strictly to the guidelines for reliable sources, and have not been advocating for adding anything other than these. Zad68 mentions Bo Dahlin; he is Professor of Education at Karlstad University, and the partial list of publications on his WP page are convincing; see also his 52 publications in peer-reviewed journals. His monographs appear to clearly qualify as RSs.

As a standard of comparison, editors of the article are making extensive use of criticism from a comparable monograph published by Jelinek and Sun. Either monographs published by established educationalists are acceptable RSs, or they are not. I don't see why there should be different standards applied in the two cases. hgilbert (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Community Discussion

Didn't ArbCom recently modify the sanctions around this topic? Rather than these nebulous assertions, can we get a concise pointer to what has been violated and a demonstration of the riot act being previously read over the owner? Hasteur (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As Hasteur points out, the article was just switched over from article probation to discretionary sanctions 2 days ago, and this ANI was filed immediately afterward. Discretionary sanctions are pretty clear in that they require clear due warnings first, that hasn't happened yet, right? So the outcome of this discussion really can't be a sanction, but we can argue here for consensus that a warning is warranted. Zad68 19:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that such long-term violations of WP:SOAP represent a violation of the previously existing article probation, but now that it has been superseded by discretionary sanctions, this would be a good time for a formal warning. a13ean (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The standard discretionary sanctions allow for sanctions to be applied to an editor who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Failing to adhere to the WP:RS guideline for WP:V and failing to adhere to WP:NPOV should be things a warning might be considered for. Zad68 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I pick up a WP:RSN question every few days or so, and I am coming to this discussion after seeing this listing from a week ago. Regarding hgilbert's response here, I have two things I am concerned about:

• I am concerned by hgilbert's responses as they relate to WP:NPOV. hgilbert's statements "I do not believe that the article should have either a positive or a negative bias", "NPOV requires that various viewpoints be represented; empirical studies certainly qualify", and "NPOV requires equal treatment of POVs" are not exactly right. Per Wikipedia policy, "NPOV" means that the Wikipedia content gives emphasis to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence as found in reliable sources. If 10 unreliable sources say "air is 10% nitrogen" and only one reliable source says "air is 78% nitrogen", then the Wikipedia article will say "air is 78% nitrogen" and will not mention what's found in the non-WP:RS sources at all. What hgilbert expresses would result in content with WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL problems. What appears to be happening is that hgilbert is arguing for the use of non-WP:RS sources and citing the viewpoints found in them.
• I am concerned by hgilbert's responses as they relate to problematic WP:IDHT editing. In the RSN discussion, arguing for the use of a source by Bo Dahlin, hgilbert stated "Dahlin is reporting the results of an empirical study he conducted." I wrote a detailed response to hgilbert, noting that (s)he was 'saying it's an "empirical study", but to that Wikipedia says, "So what? That's not enough."' and going on to explain the necessity of a reputation for fact-checking in reliable sources. However, here is hgilbert again, restating "empirical study" several times.

I have not checked the editor's complete history, but if these sorts of fundamental mistakes are continuing after multiple previous attempts at explanations, I would support issuing an "official AE discretionary sanction warning." Zad68 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and notice above here that even after that long thread on WP:RSN, which ended with a solid consensus, Hgilbert is reopening the debate by restating the Dahlin source (not mentioning the author's Waldorf affiliations) and asserting "his monographs appear to clearly qualify as RSs" - totally missing the point that the source was agreed to be biased and that its use (to report supposed facts) would be in violation of the Arbcom prohibition on Waldorf sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A point of clarification: If you go back and look at the discussion, the first or primary rationale for the paper not being used is because it had not been peer-reviewed and peer-review ought to be considered merely a first-step in identifying a RS because some peer-review processes can be weak and so on. As an unpublished manuscript, this paper was considered "at the bottom of the heap" because it hadn't even gotten as far as that first step. Secondary sources, and specifically review articles or metanalyses in good peer-reviewed journals, are the preferable pieces to work with because they give wiki editors some sense of the state of scholarly consensus for various topics or papers. The fact that this author has two appointments - one that might have introduced bias - merely clinched the deal so that the paper shouldn't be brought in through an expert source approach either. (The arbitration ruling does not exclude peer-reviewed papers by individuals with a connection to Waldorf education.) Perhaps your viewing the RS/N resolution for this unpublished manuscript as stemming from the author's academic affiliations primarily, and not from the lack of evidence of meaningful external review, is causing you to believe that unpublished sources are ok if the author has no possible COI in their credentials. While the author as a source can be a problem, approaching the issue this way inappropriately downplays the vital and complimentary role that external peer-review plays in our work as editors, especially in how it can help us to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR and in maintaining WP:NPOV. External peer-review is a wiki editor's best ally. Although I see no point in discussing the Dahlin paper any longer - the appropriate decision has been made - hgilbert does raise a valid point in that unpublished, non-peer reviewed manuscripts from university professors should be viewed as either RS or not and him raising the question to get clarification ought not be considered a mark against him somehow. Jellypear (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• These issues are a problem throughout the page. In fact, there is no way to even constructively discuss WP:UNDUE on this page in my opinion. If one followed the example of tertiary sources on this topic to evaluate WP:UNDUE, the page would be considerably shorter. You will also notice that a difficult structure has been imposed throughout such that sources are not being reported as closely as they should be. In the case of newspapers for example, usually there is a So-and-So says X & So-and-So says Y approach taken by the reporter. But because of structure headings on this page it often doesn't make sense to include one side or the other of the issue - an outcome that encourages POV rather than accurately reflecting the more balanced nature of the source itself. Being new, I am not going to weigh in on whether sanctions are warranted for any one editor. However I do wish to point out that there are numerous challenges related to this page which I believe do not stem from one editor alone. Jellypear (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

topic banned

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

---

I have been repeatedly topic banned from Aspartame controversy. For the following reasons I believe this ban should be removed.

1) I have made very real contributions to this article as shown here[[219]]

2) Much of the advice I have been given by administrators (like i would not be banned if i was polite) was wrong.

3) The abuse that has been heaped upon me.

4) The ongoing spirit of wikipedia where you push editors to be bold.

5) I have never edited article pages with out assistance from other editors. 99 percent of my actions have been on the talk page.

6) You have a very difficult learning process. After being abused there is no way a person can tell if what he is being told is from an abusive member of from an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 02:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. You were topic-banned less than a week ago. I suggest you go do something else more constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Given that your only non-user-talk edit since your topic ban was imposed was to violate it, the odds of the topic ban being overturned are slim. To address your points, (1) those contributions were deemed to be WP:POV and disruptive; (2) polite POV pushing is still POV pushing; (3) sorry that you have had to deal with abuse, but that is not a reason to be untopicbanned; (4) WP:BOLD does not excuse or allow for policy violations; (5) still led to POV pushing, and (6) is actually something very easy to tell - if the person commenting isn't an administrator, it's not coming from an administrator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Arydberg: I warned you that you should not come to AN/I before making valuable contributions. You are very clearly WP:NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia, and that's clear to me and others now more than ever. Unless you are going to prove to us that you can edit constructively by editing in many other areas first, this topic ban will not be lifted. You were banned, you haven't done anything after being banned except violate it, and now you ask for it to be removed? Not smart. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Erf. You haven't made ANY edits in articlespace since your topic ban, and indeed, you've made less than sixty edits in articlespace in five years, and only three such edits in over a year. Given that you've boldly stated, and repeatedly, that your interest in aspartame-related articles is to push your partisan POV, I don't see any prospect of your topic ban being lifted ... or, if so, any prospect of you staying unbanned for long. That being said, the way to prove yourself a productive contributor isn't to ask for your ban to be lifted a week from now, but six months from now, and not after zero productive edits, but after several hundred. Ravenswing 07:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to hear the exact same words again, it doesn't change them at all
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will say it again. 1) I made real contributions to the Aspartame controversy article which resulted in positive changes being made to the article. (See above link) 2) I have put up my own article see "chopmist hill listening post" 3) I would like to put up more articles/ edits but i view the actions of wikipedia in aspartame controversy as not meeting up to your own standards. 4) I see errors from time to time and try to correct them. 5) I believe that some type of free discussion should be permitted. Arydberg (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No. You were topic-banned a mere week ago. I'm even starting to consider the above as a violation of said topic ban. Ignore anything to do with Aspartame for at least 6 months before tryign to request removal of the ban. Stop being ridiculous (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Arydberg, drop the stick. You just got topic banned, the community is not going to lift it after only a week. GregJackP Boomer! 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Arydberg was topic banned a little over a year ago. He, on multiple occasions, violated the topic ban, and was blocked. Arydberg is only here to push his point of view on the aspartame controversy. He is not here to edit anything else. We've told him he has been topic banned, and now can't do the only thing he came here to do, and so now he's crying to AN/I trying to claim "lies", "deciet", "i've made valuable contributions" when this is the first edit after his most recent block expired. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Last week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Fartusr

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

---

I apologize because although I've been around Wikipedia for a while, I am not very familiar with the proper place to report this. Fartusr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made only one edit under that username so far, and although the edit is itself OK the edit summary is disturbing. The username also gives pause. Quale (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's his first edit, you could leave a nice note explaining to him directly what you found disturbing. In general, it is best to approach users with your concerns before reporting them for action by administrators, who will generally only use their tools when other methods have failed to bring a disruptive user into line. --Jayron32 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

it's more than a little over the line for a nice note. The edit summary is hate speech and need immediate admin. attention. Add the user name, and you've got a problem editor. --Drmargi (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

They have been blocked indefinitely. Ent? Closing time... Doc talk 09:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally, for a user's first edit, I would agree with Jayron32, and just post a note on the user's talk page explaining that the edit was unacceptable. However, we have a combination of several things. There is the offensive username. There is the edit summary which was not only offensive but also totally gratuitous and unrelated to the content of the edit. Also, there is the fact the edit was completely trivial, and although it was not in itself offensive, in the context it looks rather as though it was intended to be just a sort of null-edit to be a medium for the offensive edit summary. My conclusion is that this looks very much like a trolling-only account, so I have blocked it indefinitely. However, I have compromised by customising the to be more encouraging about the possibility of an unblock than the standard vau (vandalism and username) block notice that I would normally use in such a case. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have also revision-deleted the user's edit, so that neither the offensive edit summary nor the offensive username is visible in the article's history. Since making them visible was no doubt the whole purpose, the trolling has been thwarted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Someone may want to look into this...

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

---

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fiesta_Inn, User:Larry Grossman an infrequent (but long-term) editor (479 edits since 2004) indicated he was going to close the discussion after five minutes. He did not, but in my view, that statement indicates that either the user needs to be mentored because he does not know policies, or the account was compromised during one of its dormant periods. MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Before reporting this user here did you take the time to reach out to them and discuss your concerns? Did you even attempt the most basic of respectful discourse and conversation before declaring this an incident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.251 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of feeding the trolls (having looked at the IP's contribs), a problem cannot be handled in a timely fashion if the user isn't logging in to deal with it (this IP is a case in point, considering he's static). Secondly, if this is a compromised account, I can't prove it through discourse because the other party could simply lie, but there are tools that other people have access to to show that. Lastly, don't comment on what you clearly don't understand based on some faux indignation that you don't even have the time in the community to claim. MSJapan (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but 134.241.58.251 is right. You should generally try to resolve problems with editors by approaching them directly before coming here. Where's the evidence that you've done this? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about, Japan, but it appears to me that you're smarting over being called out for not talking to the editor directly and are trying to deflect. Here's a hint on how to gain respect: admit you should have talked to the editor first and archive this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.251 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No deflection whatsoever, actually, just pointing out that a static IP that was blocked, filed three spurious unblock requests, can't sign a post properly, and has made less than 100 edits in six and a half years is probably not the best person to look to as arbiter of best practices. It becomes even more true if you are hiding behind an IP for some other reason. In short, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

As to the rest of it, an infrequent contributor who has never used his talk page is not going to suddenly start now because I ask a question (especially given the behavior pattern shown in the above-stated AfD), and waiting three weeks or a month or 3 months for a response which may or may not occur is not going to solve the underlying problem either. There's no reason to jump through hoops when it benefits no one. MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

MSJapan, I think I'll give you a a few minutes to re-read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:BLOCK ... the reconsider your post immediately above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• While MSJapan rethinks how he interacts with people on Wikipedia, I'll address the original issue: the IP address contributor is 100% correct that MSJapan was required to try and resolve the issue directly with the user before coming to ANI. Admin intervention is the last resort, not first. It takes very little looking at the AFD in question to see that the editor actually seems to be "ok" with the concept of merging. Yes, he's been loud, but he's not a regular contributor. Does he need mentoring? Maybe - but nothing needs to be forced - yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

He is "required"? It is his duty to solve every problem he sees instead of asking someone else if they're interested? He is not allowed to say anything to anyone before investing his time and effort into something he may not want any part of that perhaps someone else is better equipped or willing to do? Strange, I though this was a volunteer project, not a draft.

Oh, and in the alphabet soup you flung up, did you miss the part in AGF in assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of which evidence he has provided? And perhaps, since no block was mentioned by anyone, you could explain why invoking WP:BLOCK was anything than a coy -- and dare I say it, uncivil? -- threat? --Calton | Talk 21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Calton - yes, he is required to try other forms of dispute resolution before ANI. Bwilkins - this is a bad block. AGF blocks are controversial at best, the user was not properly warned with progressive levels of severity, and you gave them an arbitrary 5 minutes to change their post during which time they did not edit and did not demonstrate receipt of your warning. You should undo your block.--v/r - TP 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not an "AGF block" (what's that?), it's NPA ... however, if consensus is that it should be removed, I'll do so. As much as I prefer people to have accounts, lobbing insults on IP's gets this project nowhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm right there with you. ABF just because a user is an IP is not a good thing. But I don't think his comment rise to the level of NPA. The only non-fact in his comment is describing the unblock requests as "spurious." Suggesting that these facts add up to someone that doesn't fit the description of the "arbiter of best practices" is exactly what we do an Arbcom elections and RFA every week/year. This is an AGF problem, not NPA. Civility maybe.--v/r - TP 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with TParis. This was a bad block. The static IP from an educational institution is probably used by lots of different editors, although the comments in project space are quite likely to have been made by just one person. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci ... you're aware it was MSJapan I blocked (and now unblocked), not the IP...right? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, of course. Otherwise my comments would have been pointless, wouldn't they? I was explaining that the static IP is not necessarily one person but a whole series of users, some of whom made absurd requests for unblocking. As I say your block was a very poor one. MSJapan might have assumed the edits from the IP were by just one user, I cannot tell. (I also noticed your unblock before I posted this.) Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually no ... if you read your comments as if you thought I had blocked the IP, they still make perfect sense ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Having been told explicitly what I meant, it was impolite of you subsequently to misread them. Please go and read WP:AGF. A checkuser (Risker) identified the IP as being used by a user previously blocked by Elen of the Roads. [220] The IP was demanding that EotR be blocked for one year. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I have attempted to get Mathsci to re-read his original post from a different perspective but have failed, I'm simply going to go on-record that the above was possibly the snottiest response to his brutal misreading that I've seen in ages. Well done Mathsci. Sorry if someone pissed on your Corn Flakes this morning, but it wasn't me. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

...this isn't going in a productive direction. Mathsci, do you intend to have action taken against the IP user, or are you just gossiping? (Oh, and for the record, I support neither MSJapan's behavior nor Bwilkins's block, but it looks like things have mostly been resolved...) —Rutebega (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Suspicious IP

24.4.87.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for a day in December as a Runtshit sock, after several abusive edits on Amiram Goldblum. Since returning from the block, the IP has continued to breach BLP policy on the same article.^{[221][222][223][224]}

This IP is now editing another BLP (Anna Baltzer), again displaying all the characteristics of Runtshit: unsourced abusive edits about Jewish critics of Israel,^[225][226] misleading^[227] and abusive^[228] edit summaries, reliance on unreliable and highly POV sources, such as Frontpage Magazine,^[229] Isracampus,^[230] Gatestone Institute^[231]).

The IP has also been editing an article about a critic of Baltzer, Lee Kaplan (journalist). In two edit summaries,^[232][233] the IP claims to be Kaplan.

This editor appears to be here for purely disruptive and abusive purposes, and should be blocked accordingly. It is also extremely likely that, whether or not this really is Kaplan, it is a Runtshit sock. There are several recently blocked accounts, so a check user should be possible to determine whether this is the case, and if necessary to block sleeper accounts. RolandR (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat?

A post on the help desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#Warren Kinsella appears dangerously close to legal threat. Яehevkor ✉ 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but don't overlook legal threats. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I know this. Яehevkor ✉ 17:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just checkin'. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I get

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

---

A 12 hour block please[234] I am afraid my patience has run very thin Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You could simply go for a walk... No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's always Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer if you feel you're for some reason unable to stay away, but need to. - SudoGhost 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as your May 2012 block for WP:NPA violations was a week, the escalation process means ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Block me then. I was told I can request a block. so block me. Like I actually give a fuck for how long it is, you know what you want to do B Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I "unarchived" this attempt to close it by DS. Something does need to be done - civility is not optional, but the correct balance between PROTECTING the project and the non-PUNISH concept is....? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional Note: I have blocked for a week ... not proper for the normal escalation process, but as per the block log, this length of time may change based on this discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous close indicates that Darkness Shines is likely editing under the influence. (#26)--Auric talk 19:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that a valid excuse for disruption? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, and this isn't a one-time thing. - SudoGhost 19:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Does he really still need talk page access? He's only going to get himself in more trouble. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• One week seems lenient given the history. One month seems more appropriate. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Issue of tool misuse

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

---

I am concerned that Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) may have protected an article in situation where his is intimately involved. WP:TOOLMISUSE is clear that where admins are involved they are not permitted to use their tools. Resolute is fully involved in a content dispute on WikiProject Ice Hockey talk ([235],[236],[237],[238],[239],[240],[241],[242]) regarding the article Leo Komarov appears to to have misused his admin bit in protecting that article[243] seven minutes after the edit of his Wikiproject Ice Hockey collegue GoodDay (talk · contribs) [244] and notification[245] in apparent support of his preferred version previously articulated by himself: "I agree on the necessity to include the USSR."

Note that the previous version[246] of the article was stable for two years prior to when members of WikiProject Ice Hockey (of whom Resolute is a member[247]) started edit warring this change on 13 January this year. Given his demonstrated partisan support for a particular editorial position and involvement in this content dispute, he should have reported any issue to the relevant notice board. Instead he took action which has severely damaged attempts to resolve this dispute since this action undermines the community's trust and what ever good faith was left to resolve this content dispute. Either Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should resign his admin bit or remove himself from further involvement in this dispute. Could an uninvolved admin please review the situation and help resolve it? --Nug (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This forum doesn't remove admin bits; why are you jumping to that extreme step? The title you put on this thread also reflects grandstanding and agitation, rather than a sincere attempt at dispute resolution. Why don't you start over with something like this: "I am concerned that Resolute may have protected an article in situation where his actions are not objective. {List the reasons you gave above.} Could an uninvolved admin please review the situation and help resolve it?" Coming here to solve a dispute is good. Coming her to get a pound of flesh is bad. Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that it's really boring to edit war over the names of places in Eastern Europe. I believe we've had at least one or two arbitration cases about that, and there are still active remedies available. A quick scan of the edit history of the article mentioned above reveals a number of editors acting foolishly, possibly including Resolute. If some admin wants to check carefully and dish out arbitration enforcement warnings or sanctions as appropriate, that might be a good next step. Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is, in fact, the exact step I was seeking to avoid with my action. I have been involved in the debate at WT:HOCKEY, but hadn't touched the Komarov article (wasn't even aware of the parallel debate there until alerted, I mistakenly thought the talk was at the project page). I am aware that I straddled the line of WP:INVOLVED, but given I had only a few options: RFPP (where the same outcome would have happened) and 3RR warnings/ reports, or simply protect the page myself and try to deescalate the situation without the need for arb-enforcement blocks. One editor has crossed 3RR by a mile, and a couple others aren't far behind. I figured this was the preferred alternative to a bunch of blocks being thrown around. Evidently Nug does not. That is fine, but I stand by my actions. Resolute 02:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, if you went to RFPP, a different outcome would have happened -- a squeaky clean uninvolved admin could've protected it and you wouldn't have to spend time responding to an ANI thread. NE Ent 03:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A different personal outcome, sure. But your response suggests that you agree protection was inevitable. If you (or anyone) wish to act as the squeeky clean uninvolved admin, I will happy undo my protection so that you may apply the outcome of your choice. Resolute 03:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just curious. Would it be acceptable to have the article-in-question protected with just Narva in the infobox, until things are settled? Afterall, whatever's decided at that article, will effect other Soviet-born NHL players from Estonia, Lithuania & Latvia - example: Darius Kasparitis. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the merits of your complaint for the moment, have you approached Resolute with your concerns before coming here?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It hurts nobody to freeze the article in the current status until a consensus is developed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolute did the correct thing in protecting the article. Nug's only complainng because it was protected in a version he disputes. Had the article been protected as Narva, Estonia? Nug wouldn't have made this report, which is quite telling. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect GoodDay, answering a charge of bad faith with your own charge of bad faith won't improve things. My goal was deescalation, please don't undermine it. Resolute 02:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that Resolute acted in good faith, but he really shouldn't have taken admin action while he was involved. If for no other reason, then for appearances. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It would allow a quicker end to this thread if Resolute would go ahead and unprotect the article. If he does so it is likely that a different admin will be persuaded to restore the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, done. With luck, those involved in the reverting will ensure that is unnecessary. Resolute 04:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Catperson 12

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

---

Catperson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at his same old antics. There is another report in archive 769 under the same title and he has been blocked for a month since that report. User makes a bunch of pain in the butt edits, most notably changing the title of town to city and city to town, changing official names of cites prefacing "town of" or "city of" when that isn't part of the official name. His most recent edit was changing something significant in the Death of Caylee Anthony article[248]. Absolutely, positively no clue. He does not respond to messages at his talk page and he has been messaged by another user about this round of garbage. I will notify of this immediately. Asking for a long-term block, due to long history of not responding to requests to cease the problematic edits. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dinged him for 3 months. I see another ANI discussion and two blocks since the ANI discussion you note above, and he seems to be involved in the same sort of contentious editing (the town/city issue: [249] for the latest, but there's dozens more in January). Clearly, he's been made aware that his editing is causing problems, and he's done nothing to deal with it. I'd not run into this person before responding to this report, but investigating his editing history and the prior attempts at communication, it is quite telling that he has precisely one edit to a page in the Talk: namespace (from 2011) and zero to any other discussion anywhere. Refusal to communicate with others is grounds enough for a block. Maybe after three months off he'll figure it out. --Jayron32 05:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ye of great faith! Thanks for your prompt attention to this, and no offence, but, See you in May. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Fry1989

Fry1989's unblock conditions state that he must not comment on individual editors. "contradicting yourself", "you're blind", "you imply ... a dishonest stretch", "your question is completely facetious", [DrKiernan's comments are] "the most preposterous thing I have ever seen" and an admission that he holds me in contempt are all essentially comments on an editor. Instead of trying to wriggle out of his civility restrictions by saying these are comments on arguments rather than people,[250] shouldn't he be making an effort to avoid any comment that can be construed or misread as a breach? If these are not breaches, may I suggest an extension of the remaining unblock condition for a further 6 months? I am not aware of any breaches of the two expired unblock conditions (on edit summaries and reverts) and so assume that these conditions have been met. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Clear break of the civility restriction, and then flat-out lying when confronted with it. Re-block and extend WP:OFFER (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Concur.  Sandstein  13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree (sigh). The first diff says a source is contradicting you. The second one is subjective and certainly battleground mentality but I think it falls short of a personal attack. "You must think Emma Stone is hot, unless your blind." It's more of a "how could you miss that" rather than "your an idiot." Third one, I think you're being dishonest by using ellipsis instead of the comma. It changes the context completely. Four diff, he is talking about your question and not you. Fifth diff, same opinion as fourth. Last diff, big whoop. I hold several people in contempt.

  All that said, he's displaying a battleground mentality that is clearly against the spirit of the unblock conditions and I'd support a block.--v/r - TP 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to talk about lying (simply pointing out a fact here), I have never actually called anybody "blind" (read the link), or any sort of attack that has been interpreted as such. I already acknowledged to another user how my words could be seen in that manner of being attacks, but that was not my intent. Yes I commented on other users, but in the context of replying to their replies in what is a very difficult and heated discussion. Anyhow, I'm not gonna keep fighting an uphill battle, do as you wish. Block me for a while, don't block me for a while, make me stay away from certain things, it doesn't matter at this point cause I give up. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:DGAF to ANI approach, eh? You'd be better off just apologizing and offering to try harder. I already made your arguments for you.--v/r - TP 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No it's not the DGAF approach, it's a capitulation because I've tried very hard to follow my restrictions, and while yes I break them some times it's not intentional. I'm sorry, is that what you want to hear? That I'm sorry for insulting people when that wasn't my intent? I have a flair for hyperbole, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone at sight. Yes I'm sorry that I broke the spirit of my restrictions, and I said block me or don't, cause it's hardly my choice, but I have no interest in fighting this AN/I because there's no point. I made a mistake and should have been more restrained, what happens because of that is my fault. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as you acknowledge (which you just did), redact, and try to stifle the hyperbole a bit (I do it too, so don't think you're alone) then I think we can shake hands and move on. Can't we, Dr Kiernan?--v/r - TP 15:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But I do think it wise to extend the remaining unblock condition for a further period because the other two unblock conditions appear to have worked, and so I feel it likely that the third condition might work if it is given more time. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in the unblock conditions. Fry1989 has significant control problems, as he himself acknowledges here and has acknowledged in the past. His latest comments may or may not be a breach of civility, but they do more than violate the "spirit" of the civility condition. As Dr.Kiernan pointed out in the beginining, they breach the second bullet point of the civility condition, "commenting on individual editors". I agree with Dr.Kiernan that the remaining block condition should be extended; that certainly beats an indefinite block, which is what a violation of the condition provides.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That seems fair and reasonable.--v/r - TP 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair, yes. However, Fry cannot expect this to happen again. This is not a 3-strikes situation. Reset the 6 months. The NEXT one is it; period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, Bwilkins, but a lot of discussion and effort went into these condtions by User:Amatulic (the lion's share), Fry, me, and by Dr.Kiernan, who, as I recall, was the most aggrieved by some of Fry's conduct. As Dr.Kiernan says above, progress has been made, and the principal goal should be to foster improvement. My sense - then and now - is that Fry is an honest person who sincerely wants to improve his conduct. Strictly speaking, a lapse should result in an indefinite block, but if being a bit more flexible resolves the problem and retains a useful editor, I think we should be open to that. I'm waiting to hear what Fry has to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're arguing the same point here ... aren't we? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but if you do, I'm good. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I asked a direct question? I'm doing a training thing today so I'm in and out. Now this is obviously not the only reason I'm here today, I have troubles with other users at time too, but DrKiernan is the elephant in my situation. He and I are like cats and dogs, and I've made it no secret I don't want to be involved with him, and I've put in every effort recently to avoid it. I don't watch his talk page and I don't edit things he's active on. He however followed me on to that discussion uninvited by myself or the others involved. He has also followed me around on other things I'm involved with, and on Commons. I suggested some time ago an interaction ban between the two of us and that was called premature. Now is any of this an excuse for things I have said? Absolutely not, but it is the reality that he and I can not work together collegially, and I hold resentment about it because every time we do interact, our butting heads blows up and then I have to deal with this. It's happened three times, and I'm as tired of it as anybody else. This is not an attempt to skew the issue and change the subject, it is a part of this problem that we don't get along, and I've put in all my effort to avoid him. Can he say the same? I said what I said, it was wrong, it broke the spirit of my restrictions, I take accountability for it, but it never would have gotten that far if he and I didn't fight every time we encounter each other. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

All in all, Fry, I don't think your comments are helpful. I haven't looked at the recent history, so I can't comment on DrKiernan's involvement, but what you call following you around may simply be that some of your interests intersect, and there's no reason that DrKiernan should not be able to express their opinion on a particular topic if they do it in a reasonable manner. More important, if you know that you have problems interacting with DrKiernan, then you should either pay more attention when you do so you don't violate your unblock conditions or you should walk away from it if you can't behave. Despite your disclaimer, I think you're looking at this a bit backwards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

92.26.60.215

• 92.26.60.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Talk page abuse by blocked user. See contribs. – Wdchk (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've extended the block, rev/deled the comment, and revoked talk page access. It may be necessary to semi-protect as well, but I held off on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:NickCochrane

NickCochrane appears to have a serious COI issue with promoting old-school film over digital photography. Despite several editors reverting his biased edits, he carries on making them, either removing whole swathes of text from articles, or adding in biased comments.

• POV-pushing edits/AfD diffs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film look

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmlook

[251]

[252]

[253]

[254]

[255]

(there are lots more)

• POV-pushing major deletions (without consensus)*

[256]

[257]

[258]

[259]

He is currently under a SPI at present with another user who does exactly the same things (this SPI is on hold pending further investigation). See here.

Due to the constant POV-pushing, I feel that Nick should be permanently topic-banned from editing anything to do with digital photography and digital video, even if the SPI ends up taking a lenient action against him. If you want me to present more diffs here, then I will - there are dozens and dozens of them. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

These are not POV edits, they are all sourced with reliable sources. NickCochrane (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh really? "You are violating NPOV if you think VIDEO can be matched to look like FILM" is not a POV-pushing edit summary in itself? Let alone the fact that particular edit [260] itself did not contain a single source, regardless of reliableness. Several people have pointed out that your sources are not reliable, due to them being insufficiently independent, or, often, being blogs. Regardless OF the sourcing, your edits are constantly anti-digital and heavily pro-film, adding in mentions to film's "strengths" that are totally irrelevant to the article in question. Frequently. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• They are not "Anti-digital" edits, they are balanced conclusions from actual sources. If something is higher quality, than it is. End of statement. It's not opinion, it's fact. NickCochrane (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Except, it's not neutral, balanced or even approaching that. You're adding mentions to standard film to articles where it has absolutely no place whatsoever - like at High Frame Rate. That's POV pushing, and inexcusable. Your sources exist, yes, but not one has been a reliable one. They're all connected to film-making companies (e.g. your Kodak sources), blogs, forum posts or some tabloidy things. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And you know full well I'm not the only editor who has questioned your COI and/or edits - Oakshade, Edokter, etc. Also, I've detected a change you made to try and get Film look deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, I DID NOT move the name to get it deleted. I moved it to the more common name and then on second thought nominated the article. Give it a rest, every edit I do you think I'm doing something wrong. What's next? I created an article today about a photographer - is that some CONSPIRACY? Jeez, I can't get a break from over-zealous editors like you and Oakshade this week. NickCochrane (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones' attitude

I have a bit of a problem with the attitude of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones. Since I came across him about a week ago, I've sensed nothing but aggression and even a hint of bullying. The edit summary on this revision is evidence of that, in my opinion. He has also been quite aggressive towards me when I attempted to make changes he didn't like on the recent Six Nations Championship articles. I made this same point to Gareth earlier today, but he just deleted the message from his talk page; this is, of course, his wont, but I feel that it would have helped his position if he'd shown at least a little remorse for his conduct. Because of that lack of remorse, it seemed appropriate to bring the issue here, since any further attempts at direct communication would no doubt have been met with the same silence as just now. – PeeJay 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Note As expected, the notice of this report was deleted within a minute of me posting it on his talk page. Clearly there is an attitude problem here and a lack of respect for Wikipedia and its users. – PeeJay 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this. You are involved in a content dispute over at Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship. Gareth has attempted to support a compromise in that discussion while you and others have not. Although that doesn't lend any validity to either position, your attempt at starting this incident report confuses the content issue with one of conduct. I looked at your diffs and your interaction with the reported user and find nothing out of the ordinary. In other words, the conduct of the user is well within the normal range. As a result, I recommend the closure of this thread. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:202.134.144.65

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

---

Several times over the past few days, User:202.134.144.65 has been vandalizing Dolph Ziggler, evident from his/her contributions page. He/she has already been warned multiple times, and has still continued in vandalism. An editing block seems appropriate, as the user has already received a final warning. Thank you. FrigidNinja (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind - it seems the user has already been blocked. FrigidNinja (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In the future, WP:AIV is a better venue for reporting vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Question about naming religious leaders convicted of sexually abusing kids

I'd like to ask the community's indulgence to raise an issue here that could arguably also be posted to BLPN: Under what circumstances do we, and do we not, name convicted child abuse perpetrators? More specifically, suppose ...

1. A sexual abuse scandal with an attempted cover-up arises in a particular religious community;
2. All of the perpetrators are convicted, albeit in separate cases;
3. All perpetrators have some kind of "official" status or role in the affected community;
4. No perpetrator is independently notable, i.e. per BLP1E none merits an individual biography article.
5. We do have an article about the scandal itself.

The question then, is: In the article about the scandal, do we name each of the perpetrators convicted of sexually abusing a child?

This question arises in the context of changes beginning 28 January 2013 to our article on Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community. Two near-to-Brooklyn IP's repeatedly removed all information about one of the perpetrators, a bar mitzvah tutor and licensed social worker named Yona Weinberg. When those repeated removals were reverted by multiple established editors, myself included, a just-created account showed up on the article's talk page asserting unreferenced claims (apparently based on personal knowledge of the case) that Weinberg was wrongly convicted.

Three editors seemed to agree on talk to let the IP's removal stand, and even seemed amenable to removing the names of *all* perpetrators from the article. I don't have strong feelings about any of this, but my impression is that BLP1E applies only to biographies, and that the "ruling" policy in instances like this one is WP:PERP, which says, in part: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."

I also think we should be consistent in whether we name perps or not across similar articles, and would like to hear what the community has to say about that. For comparison purposes, here are some roughly similar articles that do explicitly name individual persons:

• Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston
• Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Cincinnati
• Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia
• West Texas State School
• Horace Mann School

Btw, I posted here rather than at BLPN because I was hoping for broader input re both our explicit policy about naming perpetrators in such cases, and about what most editors who don't necessarily hang out at BLPN would informally prefer in that regard. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)